Quote:
But what if your chance to move on the next level is determined by what you do in this one? To use the Werewolf analogy, if this is all we get, then at the end of Day 1, we all die- good or evil- it doesn't matter. All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over. If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife". Quote:
The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible. If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not. And that, as I see it, the great difference between Christianity and other faiths: Christianity has a "Great Proof": the Resurrection. Scholars, historians, and others deny that Christ was ever raised, because to admit it undermines everything they say about Christianity in general. Rightly or wrongly, they HAVE to hold to that position if Christianity is to be disproved. No other faith has a singular "Great Proof" of the same nature. |
I was wrong earlier about the deaths in the Flood being a mystery. It's clear in the Bible why the people were killed. God judged them and found them wanting. This answer raises heated objections amongst some of us here, as in, "What right did God have to judge them and find them wanting, and then go and kill them? Wasn't the whole thing a set-up anyway? Isn't God to blame for the Fall in the first place, since He knew what was going to happen the whole time?"
God's foreknowledge is not a rational reason to blame him. Foreknowledge leads one to a choice whether to halt the direction something is going, or not. In this case he would have had to halt the free choices of Adam. To do so would have turned Adam into slaves to God, which is not what God wanted. I've outlined this in a previous post. So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made. Belief is a choice. |
Quote:
To your final point, I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules. If killing en masse, holocausts, 'ethnic cleansing' are wrong they are wrong - whoever does them. If those rules, that moral code, has been laid down by God He cannot simply ignore it when it suits. Jesus exhorts his followers to 'be like their Father in Heaven'. God cannot simply start over by mass slaughter of sentient beings. Giving free will to his children places a responsibility on Him. I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical. Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the Hebrews had inherited the tale of the Flood & attempted to account for it by involving God in it. Unfortunately, it makes God look bad. Or rather, it required them to make the victims look bad, so that they 'deserved' what they got. In other words, we are not 'setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims', we are simply requiring God to abide by the standards He Himself gave us. What we come back to is the question of whether whatever God does is 'Good' simply because He does it, or whether there is an objective standard of morality which God also is bound - ie, not 'whatever God does is Good', but 'God only does Good because He acts within the moral code'. But what if He doesn't act within the Moral code - can His actions still be considered 'good'? The problem I have with your argument is that we can never know where we stand with God, or what constitutes 'Good' at all. It makes God an amoral, arbitrary figure, who just does whatever the hell He wants & declares it 'Good'. Quote:
|
Quote:
My point is that those drowned people, like the other others that are seen in the Old Testament, are beyond redemption (or at least that's how I read it). It's not until later that Paul tells us that the 'Tetragrammaton' is not only the God of Abraham but of all humans. It's just confusing. And even more disturbing is that after all of that death, we still have sin (Gen 9:20), so what really was the point? Genesis 10 lets us know where each tribe came from, all from Noah. Later in the Old Testament we will have kinslaying, as all of these tribes are family. If God intended on wiping out the 'dark angel' seed, then He might have chosen a different vehicle, as apparently Noah's children still had the taint. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional. :) |
Quote:
So. Why do we always contemplate on the acting subject? It was Adam's (or Eve's) decision, or the murderer's decision, Hitler's or Stalin's decision etc. which we analyze. When do we look at the "innocent" victims: those raped, killed, tortured? The children of Babylon, whose heads should be broken towards the stairs? Those under 10-year-old moslim girls raped and killed in ex-Jugoslavia, The children and women in Ruanda, the gypsies and mentally handicapped in Nazi-Germany... You can continue the list almost indefinitively. When do we ask about their choices, and their deeds? What wrong choice had made the 3-year old, her head crushed on the cement by drunken christian serbs? And we can't say, that the culprits will have to pay later with Gods wrath landing on them: how will that bring that child back? All this wrong and evil. And HE knew it already with HIS foresight? So was it good and loving FATHER'S move to give people free will? Just to test the individualistic actors (mostly self-centered males) with the murder, rape and anything you can come up with, acted against equally precarious souls of others??? I just can't see the point... not to speak of love. |
I have to say I go along with Nogrod here - where's the freedom & freewill of the victims? If so-&-so is merely acting with his God-given freewill when he punches me on the nose, where is my freedom not to be punched?
It seems that God has specifically arranged things so that the offenders have all the freedom & the good have none. As to punishment after death it seems merely vindictive. The only value in punishment is as a deterent - either of the perpetrator or of others who may be considering similar bad behaviour, but punishment after death in Hell can achieve neither of these things as for the perpetrator its too late to be deterred & no-one in this world can be deterred, because they don't witness the punishment. If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good. If He's only going to intervene when its too late He should just forget it & find something useful to do. |
Quote:
I suspect I'm going to be told that this is "subjective" or "personal"... Quote:
Furthermore, though raised, Lazarus and all those others who were restored to life must still face death again. In the case of Jesus, that is not so. It is an eternal Resurrection. Quote:
Holocaust deniers are an excellent example. They are denying that something actually happened, explaining it away using means that, we who accept it as historical fact, would find rather... silly. What's more, I'd be more than a little curious to see/read any of these "simpler explanations". Quote:
|
Quote:
I hope, it's the questions that do the "battle" here (I haven't yet have time to read all of the correspondence here - not to talk of you people discussing earlier about these topics - which you surely have done, I just "hunch" it) - for my part it is just that way. And even if we never know, how other people take different inquiries and questionings, I still think, that honest questions are worth more than multiple muddied or unthought of answers... |
Quote:
Quote:
I find Meister Eckhart's thought to be too divorced from reality. It doesn't present God the way the Bible presents God. The Bible's God is more real, more emotional, more personal. Quote:
As to the existence of a Satan, the gospels record Jesus as having spoken of a real being whom he called Satan. Quote:
Science deals in the natural world, that which is repeatably provable in terms of controlled tests verified by the five senses. It cannot prove anything in terms of Christianity. Nor need the Church bother itself with railing against the theories currently in vogue in Science. The two realms do not overlap. I read in my newspaper how a scientific experiment was done to determine the benefit of prayer for surgery patients, with a control group and all. The experiment showed that those who knew they were being prayed for had more problems than those who didn't know. Does this prove that prayer doesn't work? It doesn't prove that it doesn't work, nor that it does, because prayer is a thing directly connected with God. God cannot be made the subject of scientific experiments. It just doesn't work that way. I have a lot more to catch up on, it seems. I shall return. (up to 113) |
interpretation and faith
nice discussions here. this violates my general social rule of never discussing politics or religion, but..
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not sure non-existence isn't preferable... |
Quote:
Can one define heaven? It seems to me that by taking the definition that you described of an afterlife, I would agree with your initial conclusion: going on forever and ever drifting on a cloud, sitting at the mead table of my forefathers, perpetually out hunting in Elysium for the Divine Kine, even the 34 virgins.... would get a little stale after a while. Joining with departed loved ones and the body/spirit of God for Christians is what I expect most would define as heaven. But then (IMO) creation is of the body of God, all its dimensions and realities. Yet I feel I still have meaning in the midst of that. Quote:
:) |
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that God may be The Light unto the World, but that light is made up of photons, and that light will bend due to gravitational forces. You have no idea, as does anyone else, how all of that supernatural stuff works, and I wonder if we've even heard its description right, as things could have been garbled in the translation. The other problem is how all of that non quantum stuff works. You see why scientists don't spend much time looking for invisible odorless fireless dragons in your garage. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
However, the church seems always to have opposed this idea, mortifying the flesh with fasting, hair shirts, flagelation & the like. Williams taught the 'Affirmation of the Images' - seeing the creation as a means to God, rather than as an obstacle. The creation reveals God, rather than hiding Him. However, the Church has never been truly comfortable with this approach. Lewis makes an interesting comment in his introduction to The Great Divorce: Quote:
The problem for Christianity is that it essentially fears the Creation as something which will seduce humanity away from God, & as something which must be held at arm's length. My own feeling is that 'this' is me, this limited, confused, struggling, insignificant human being. If some aspect of my being continues after physical death it will not be me, therefore 'I' will not continue after my body dies. This is all 'I' get, though there may be some 'being' which has my existence as part of its memories. From that perspective it is irreleevant whether that being/consciousness is a separate entity from God, or merely a collection of images/memories in the mind of God - it won't be 'me'. Even if I did experience bodily resurrection that being would not be 'me' either - it may be 'me'+' but it will not be me as I am, as I recognise myself to be. Of course, it could be argued that the Frog is the tadpole, the Butterfly is the caterpillar, the Oak tree is the acorn, so maybe in a sense that 'me'+' will still be 'me' but at a different stage of growth. Then again it may not. All I can actually know is what I am now, because this is me - the only me I can conceive or know. & this me ends when I die. |
great post davem! I admire your writing and thinking abilities.
It's all a very personal subject, and I don't expect anyone else to make sense of my perspective. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
:) |
I know what you mean - the 'Light' behind the world - I don't dismiss mystical perception, the sense that there is more to 'reality', whether that one means an experience of a 'deeper', underlying reality, or simply a deeper experience of this reality.
But there's a difference between that kind of experience & simply 'believing' something you've been told or read. Experience is true, what we are told may or may not be. The other problem with organised belief systems is that they exclude those who do not, or cannot simply believe what they are told. In other words by their nature they exclude & denigrate those who do not experience what they are told they should experience. So, you can have experiences where you may forget your everyday self for a time & feel like you've 'awakened' from a 'dream', yet both the awakened one & the 'dreamer' are you, so in that sense I can see where you're coming from. However, it is the 'dreamer' who is the real us in a sense (despite what the mystics say) because the 'dream' is what we live most of the time - the 'dream' is 'home'. ('We Tooks & Brandybucks cannot live too long on the heights.' - & we probably aren't meant to - Chesterton said 'One sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak.' The great value of this 'dream' is that it teaches us humility.) |
Exquisitely put, good sir!
Quote:
Quote:
:) |
Quote:
Or maybe I'm just getting too old for 'Adventures' ;) |
Quote:
The reason for uncleanness laws in the Old Testament was so that the people of Israel could have kept before them tangibly that humans (and therefore they themselves) were fallen. It's not a matter of value or worth, being clean or unclean, but a matter of condition before God. Maybe everybody here understands that, but I just wanted to be sure. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But regarding my seeming cop-out. I was using short-hand. I am not an anti-intellectual. I was referring to certain scholars who refuse to accept the historicity of pretty much any of the old testament writings. That seems like a benighted point of view, and the one to which I was referring. There are plenty of scholars who make no such refusal. By the way, there are a few scholars who have written about how the resurrection is the best answer to fit the facts. One is Malcom McDowell; but a more insightful and thoroughgoing writer on this topic is N.T. Wright. He's really worth a look. He's Church of England, and I believe he's with Oxford or another of the major British Universities. But I digress..... I think you mean not simple belief, but belief based on an authority found in a text as opposed to the authority of experience by means of evidence and proven experiment. But you should know that the more we learn through our experience, and through evidence of experiment, the more we realize how much there is we don't know ... and can't know through these means. One must choose one's beliefs, because science and mere experience can't take you where the questions we can't help asking ourselves, takes us. ..... and at this point I finally come full circle to Tolkien. It is story and poetry that can take us there. Tolkien's story does take us there, and it's a great part of what draws us to LotR and The Silmarillion. Tolkien wrote about real things and we are rewarded by entering into Middle Earth in ways that we can't even write about successfully, and we are rewarded with riches we can't even explain. Tolkien's stories do this for us. The stories in the bible also do this, but not for everyone; not for those for whom the bible feels alien because it has become tied to negative correlations in our own lives that we don't even understand. (up to 116) :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Your attitude towards the afterlife really reminds me of being about age 8. Not with regards to the afterlife- I don't think that ever bothered me one way or antother- but with regards to "growing up". When I was young, say anytime before I was "grown up" (yes, that sounds just a LITTLE funny coming from a 19-year-old), whenever I seriously pondered "what's it going to be like as adult?" I was scared stiff. I didn't WANT to grow up. I was scared of having to drive, having to pay bills, having to live on my own. For that matter, having to go up the till and pay for groceries on my own scared me. But, now that I am grown up, does any of that scare me? None of that stuff does. And for good reason too, for I am no longer a child (geezer though I have yet to become). The things that a child cannot do or would fine hard and strange to do are natural now. The thought of living on my own, so terrifying to a child, is now liberating. And I am inclined to believe that the Afterlife shall be the same. Of course it can scare us right now. We are not "old" enough yet (ie. we aren't dead). Until such time as we pass from this life, it is natural for us to consider the Earth home, and to not want to move out. But the time will come for each of us, at a time that is right for each of us, to "move out". And just as I no longer wish to go back to being a child, not seriously, having experienced life as an adult- not wanting to go back to the immaturity, weakness, and inexperience of a child- I do not think that, when we are in Heaven, we shall find it less than, or worse than, the Earth. It shall be different-- and yet better and the same. As an example, when I was little, I was a big LEGO fan. I dreaded the day that would come when I would no longer enjoy it, when all those hours of "meaningful" play would no longer interest me at all. Well, guess what? I've grown up, and my LEGO is still my favourite hobby. In the same way, I think we'll find a lot more of what we have here will be there- we just may not see it the same way. |
Of course belief is necessary we believe lots of things all the time. When I go to cross the street at a pedestrian crossing I wait till the traffic stops & step into the road, believing that all the drivers will wait for the lights to change before they start off. When I get into a lift I believe that the cables will hold & I won't go plummeting 18 floors to my death. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
But this approach is necessary to function in the world & is entirely different to simply believing a text to be the word of God. Belief, in other words, serves an evolutionary function, it is a survival tool. Unfortunately, it has become divorced from its practical & wholly necessary purpose, & combined with the human capacity for creative fantasy has come to produce all kinds of odd ideas & attitudes. Experience of the transcendent, on the other hand, is a different thing, & has nothing to do with belief. Of course, books (whether novels or sacred' texts) may open us up to an experience of higher/deeper aspects/levels of 'reality'. This is the Eucatastrophic experience. But just as the fact that we can experience this through Tolkien's works but this does not prove that they are literally true history I would say the same about the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. I'm not arguing that you don't experience 'transcendence' through the words of the Bible, I'm just arguing that that doesn't prove its historical veracity. Formendacil I suppose the difference between becoming an adult & the afterlife is that we know (barring accidents) that we will grow up it has nothing to do with 'belief'. The afterlife is precisely a matter of belief, & hence is 'optional' from the point of view of whether we accept it or not. Its not about a 'fear' of entering into a 'higher' state of being, its whether the idea appeals. |
Quote:
Formendacil speaks of apprehension of becoming an adult, and many of us have been there. Getting married, having children (I'm a goof! yet now have four little ones dependent on me - how screwed up is that?), experiencing the loss of a parent (you can't go home anymore) - it's all about dealing with change. But his analogy, like many (and by no fault of his), falls short. We have seen others grow to adulthood and experience all that that offers and entails. Some of us have even seen people die, and so know what that looks like. But who has seen what happens after? No one. We all face the unknown when we die. No one has come back and said what the ride was like. Even Jesus and those that were brought back did not describe how it works, what it felt like, and so we have no idea what to expect. As humans we abhor holes in what we know, and extrapolate (or fantasize) to fill in the gaps. By the by, near death experiences (nde) are just physiological - like dreams in a way. Note that no nde'er ever comes back stating that he/she was in a very hot place. Quote:
And, like davem states, this hardwiring can get used and abused in all sorts of ways. Think that the whole advertising industry takes advantage of this inherited trait. Hope that that makes some sense. |
Quote:
The afterlife is no more optional than adulthood- it's going to happen eventually. Just like the body inevitably matures, we all inevitably die. However, just as actually growing up- with regards to one's brain or maturity- isn't an automatic process, since people often tend to remain immature and childless past the time they OUGHT to become mature adults, I suppose it's possible for you to "refuse to grow up" or "refuse to have an afterlife"- but quite frankly, I don't think it's optional. You had to grow up, like it or not, and you have to go somewhere after death. Now, it should be clear that I'm convinced there is an afterlife. But even if I were to say "no, there is no afterlife", I'd still have problems with your statement. What you seem to be saying is that the afterlife is optional. It isn't. If it exists, we're all going to go SOMEWHERE. If it doesn't, we're all losers, from the Pope on down. But either way, it isn't something that is optional. |
Quote:
Personally, it all seems a lot of hassle. If it happens it happens, if it doesn't, fine. I can't help feeling that if people were less obsessed with the idea we'd all be a lot better off - it would probably get rid of suicide bombers at a stroke, as they all seem to be obsessed with getting to heaven & collecting their Houris at the gate.. |
Quote:
As one gets older, the elf-appeal is less as is the adrenaline addiction. You think more about the day. Will have to let you know sometime later if one's thoughts return again to 'afterlife.' We could have a poll :eek: that could correlate age with 'afterlife thinkingness'. Quote:
|
Quote:
I think the whole escape thing is what younger people are drawn towards with the works. It did for me anyways. I just think elves have far more interesting lives :smokin: |
Quote:
But my basic point- with regards to that- is that it doesn't matter if you believe in an afterlife or not. Either way, either everyone gets it or everyone doesn't. As regards the new- and intriguing- "Teenagers Are Attracted to Youth", I think there may be a good deal of truth in the suggestion that the immortality is what attracts the Young to the Elves. Now, while it may sound rather silly for me- as a 19 year old- to go putting myself in the Elderly Camp, I've found that, as I age, and as I realize the inevitability of death (attending funerals on a regular basis will do this even to the Young), I've also come to realise what a GIFT it is. Christian Theology being in agreement or not, life as we live it in this Fallen state, Death is a release, an end to the weariness of this fallen world... ... and so the Elves still intrigue me. But not because they live for ever, but because I'm beginning to sympathise with their envy of the Gift of Men. I think my choice would have been the Choice of Elros. |
I'm not denying the 'transcendent' experience. I've personally experienced things, met beings, inhabitants of other 'realities' - which I've mentioned before. I've had moments where, for want of a better term, I've glimpsed 'eternity'.
But that's not the argument here. My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it, of constructing complex theories & fantasies about what happens after we die. From the perspective of eternity there is only 'now' & there will only ever be 'now'. This idea that something wholly 'other' will happen to us after our bodies die, that we have to take account of what we will be or not be after that happens, that we have to do certain things now in order to attain something 'good' then, or that we have to live now in fear of some terrible fate that may await us then, is simply running away from 'now'. In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now. Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes. Hence, with a belief system as dualistic as Christianity (or Islam), which effectively has only two pigeon-holes: 'Good' & 'Evil' you end up trying to force everything into one or the other, & if something will not fit easily into the 'Good' pigeon-hole then it is forced into the 'Evil' one - hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'. As to the 'Choice of Elros' - I think I'd choose mortality too - even if I knew that there was nothing after death. Anyway... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As far as classifying and quantifying the universe goes, religion and science are more alike than either sometimes wishes to think in this matter. It's really only a difference of systems. |
The Kierkegaardian "leap of faith", while perhaps helpful to many who find themselves at reason's dead-end, has also been detrimental in terms of a clear understanding of belief and faith - at least in terms of God. The idea that faith must be the 'tight-rope' one uses to cover those last hundred feet to God because the 'bridge of reason' can't get you there, is flawed because it misconstrues what faith is. Faith in God is no different in its nature than faith in a stranger, friend, or spouse. (This is one more example of unnecessary obstacles getting placed in the way of knowing God.) Everyone trusts even strangers to behave in a certain manner on the merits of past experience with strangers. We trust our friends to behave in certain ways based on our knowledge of them. We trust our spouses to behave in predictable ways because we've spent so much time with them. Now as to God: suddenly we have a special problem as there is only one God compared to many strangers; so how can we predict how God behaves? Well, if there is a God, God will "behave" in a manner consistent with how the world shows that God has behaved in the past. This is not just about human suffering and evil in the world, but about the consistency of all natural materials and phenomena to continue to operate as they have in the past. We trust this. If we do believe there's a God, why do we trust this? Because we implicitly believe that God is a consistent God; so, if we know this about the basic phenomena, why do we suddenly doubt it when we start thinking about human history? It's not God who suddenly weirds out; the only other possibility is that humans are causing the problems.
However, if we do not believe there's a God, but we want to give the possibility an honest chance to prove itself, how do we go about that if we refuse the tight-rope of the 'leap of faith'? There are precisely two ways that I know of: (1) Do a thorough study of the case for and against the resurrection of Jesus, as Formendacil has indicated. (2) Risk this one little thing: Ask this God that you don't believe in, to give you the deepest desire of your heart. It does not matter if you don't believe in God. If there is no God, you've lost nothing. If there is a God, then this God, who has revealed himself in the bible, has said to us that this is one prayer he will always answer, because He is a God of love. It doesn't matter whether you know what this deepest desire is. The fact is, you probably don't know, even if you think you do. If there is no God, you still have lost nothing. If there is a God, He will honor this request and make himself known to you beyond any doubt. This is a highly personal "test", and the only one that I know of that God honors. This is so because God is a highly personal Being. This is different from the leap of faith because in the leap of faith, the human has to do all the work. In this test that I have described, you simply make a request, with or without any faith at all, asking God to be true to his promise. Whether you believe he will or not, doesn't matter. It's up to him to show you that he exists and loves you. Or there's no such being and you're merely disappointed and move on with your life. Quote:
Quote:
davem, in your reply to my statement that belief and unbelief are a choice, you set up a paper tiger then knock it down. Not much effort involved in that. I did not say that the choice to believe is trivial as choosing a drink, you have put those words in my mouth. Ptooey! ;) The choice to believe or not is most certainly NOT trivial, but it is most certainly a matter of volition; the most serious there is, as it involves one's ultimate destiny. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Part of God's foreknowledge was that He would suffer all the wrong ever committed by humans so that He could heal all the wounds of the victimized, and take them all - yes ALL - to be with Him in joy forever. That's why Paul can say (wherever he says it) that he considers the sufferings of this world as nothing compared to the absolutely incredible joy of eternal life in Christ. Quote:
Quote:
My take on the afterlife is that we will be fully physical and fully spiritual, and that God will completely sustain us so that we feel no fear, no terror, no sorrow, but joy and love and more of both. There will be, according to the Scriptures, a new heaven and a new earth. That sounds pretty physical to me. Non-existence is most definitely not preferable to this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As to what is "you" and what is "not you", because of that bloody Fall, your perception is limited and that which FEELS like you may only be a very persuasive "shadow" (metaphorically) as compared to the spirit which can be made alive in Christ. As COMPARED. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not contradicting myself and turning into a platonist, but speaking metaphorically about something that is hard to find words for. Here, maybe this will help: When Christ, for love of splintered light, of fallen flesh and rotted tree, of emptied day and fear-filled night, stooped eagerly from deity into the blessed Virgin's womb (enholied by that sacred Leaven), He gloried hollow atom's tomb with weight and depth of solid heaven. Our flesh, now gloried, lucent shines, as moving streams reflect the sun; we bodied beings, in Him divine, now dance and sing, our glory won. Incarnate Dream! Word in flesh! Let human words in music, laced with gloried tongue and throat, express all praise to Him who flesh has graced! © 1993, littlemanpoet Quote:
|
Quote:
One thing I see in Tolkien's work as a metaphor which works for me is the Straight Road. At the downfall of Numenor the open and free way of getting to Valinor (for purposes of the metaphor read this as Heaven/Nirvana/Valhalla, what you will...) was lost. The Elves know how to find this way, and it seems that mortals do not, however it is not always lost, some find it open who need to find it open. To me, that works as a metaphor - in that if we need God we will find a way, but looking in one place might mean that we entirely miss the way. Quote:
|
Quote:
This is a fallacious view. If this were the case, then all those people who have never heard of Jesus, or who lived before Jesus, would be automatically excluded- which would be quite unjust indeed. No, the proper Christian (or at least, the proper Catholic view) is not that the Church is ONLY way to Heaven and God, but that it is the BEST way to Heaven and God. Christians have the benefit of various aids and assistances that non-Christians do not have, and so have a greater range of help to draw from, such as the joined prayer of the community, the rules of Christ which outline the path to Heaven, as well as other things of a similar nature. I would also go so far as to say that the Catholics are one up on the rest of the Christians for a "help plan", so to speak, in that they have the full complement of seven sacraments. However, just as you can get from Point A. to Point B. without the benefit of equipment, you can get from Earth to Heaven without the benefit of the Church. Conversely, just as people can get lost on the way, even if they have a map, a compass, and supplies, people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven. The Church, therefore, is the BEST way to get to Heaven: it equips you for the journey, gives you help to lean on, and shows you the way. But it is not NECESSARY to get there. |
LMP On reading your last post I found myself with the odd feeling of almost wishing it was true. Yet on stepping back from it I found myself thinking, 'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?' Its almoost like you've created a secondary world there, completely internally self-consistent & logical, but I just don't see how it integrates with the primary world.
Of course, it may all be true just as maybe in some ancient historical epoch the events of LotR may have really happened. But where's the evidence that they did? Some things you said did puzzle me, though: Quote:
Secondly, the point about the Resurrection of Jesus. That's interesting. Personally, even if I accepted the 'evidence' that Jesus came back to life (though one could argue that he 'died' suspiciously quickly, taking only 6 hours when many victims would take days & days. There clearly was a story among the soldiers guarding the tomb that his followers had taken his body which the Gospel writers felt a need to counter by saying they were bribed to say that - logically the former is most likely. Anyway.) that would not necessarily make the event relevant to me. What am I supposed to do about it? What should my response be - simply singing hymns & saying prayers seems a rather pointless response. My own feeling is that Christianity has had little to do with what Jesus said & did & more to do with what the Church has decided Jesus meant by all that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Could it be that as people evolved, becoming more civilized that either their view of God or relationship with God changed? That I can easily accept, but it's still not evident that God is unchanging. I was just reading quotes from some of Frank Herbert's books, and one was "the bigger the God, the bigger the Devil." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And by the way, there's still those Flood people that got the wrath (am I whipping a dead horse?). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Great conversation, great posts (liked the poem, lmp! and in my dreams I post like davem and have the fire of Formendacil) and hope that no toes have been stepped upon. |
Quote:
No, what I mean is that ANYONE can get into Heaven, can receive Salvation, be they Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist... atheist. For all that WE on earth know, Hitler and Stalin made it into Heaven! I'm a little skeptical about either of those, but my point is that God sees our hearts, and allows us into Heaven based on what He sees there- not on what we do or profess. What we do or profess, however, generally shows what's in our Hearts... A Christian wanting to get to Heaven, who is living his/her life as best as he/she can, is generally distinguishable from someone who claims to care, but doesn't give a rat's whisker. Likewise, there are many non-Christians who are more likely to get into Heaven than some of those not-so-Christian Christians. Faith in Jesus, belief in Jesus, is a tremendous asset to getting there, to be sure, as is the following of His teachings. A failure to do so, if one knows about those teachings, will likely count against you. But it is a merciful God who judges us, and EVERYTHING will be laid in the scales. |
Form I'm not sure that what you are saying is the accepted view of the Church. I'm pretty sure the general idea is that you have to believe in Jesus to get into Heaven. Therefore, you could have lived your life as a Jew, but could only go to Heaven if by the end of it you had accepted Jesus as being the son of God who sacrificed himself for mankind. Otherwise you get nothing.
|
Quote:
After all, are we to believe that a God who willingly accepts even major sinners into Heaven, for a small act of repentance on their deathbeds would turn away a, let's say a Moslem, who had all his life lived according to his religion as best he could, who had followed the promptings of his conscience, done as much Right and as little Wrong as he was able, and had loved, been loved, and done his best to pass on what he knew to the next generation- can we honestly believe that a loving God, who loves ALL his children, would condemn to Hell those who had not chosen to follow His Son? Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has. But it is not a REQUIREMENT to get into Heaven. If I take the position that one HAS to be Christian to get into Heaven, then logically I ought to be saying "well, if you aren't Catholic, then you won't get into Heaven" - and where does that leave our Orthodox and Protestant brethren. To know who Jesus was, to know He existed, and to deliberately reject Him is an entirely different matter than never choosing to become Christian, be it for cultural, personal, or apathetic reasons. Christianity preaches of a merciful God. It is not within our abilities to say that His mercy is limited by anything. Mind you, this is my interpretation of what I know of Church teaching. To try and get to Heaven without the Church- knowing that it is the best way there- is to scorn the Church, and therefore to scorn the Body of Christ. But to not be a member of the Church should not, if a condition born of ignorance, misunderstanding, a lack of reason to join, or failure on the part of the Church, should NOT be an obstacle to Salvation. |
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Quote:
Just think this question carefully. It's a stinger! Sorry to mention it. And anyhow. What are you going to do there - and what is the meaning of your life here? Without a border / end, there is no sense or meaning. Aristotle is the basic philosopher of Thomism - which is the fundamental philosophy of Catholicism. But if you look at Aristotle (Metaphysics, book II), he himself clearly says, that without presuming finity, there are no reasons and no sense in anything... Well, we could delve into these argumets for a while - and in some sense, I would like to do it, as I believe in shared points more than anyone's private revelations or daydreams. But at the same time, I'm a bit ashamed, calling Aristotle to be my witness in this case - as that is not the way, a rational person would go for his/her case. The dogma can't be the decisive factor, the reason could be it? So if Aristotle is something to lean on, it should be not, because his name was Aristotle, but because his arguments make sense even today (and sorry St. Thomas, this nut you never cracked!). With all the love. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I had a moment clear - like a water balloon small as the space between cupped hands - big as day. In and through it I could taste God and touch being see all colors of earth, water, sky smell fresh cut grass and rich loam hear bird song and squirrel chatter. With rational blade I took hold bisected, laid it open to dis- cover what was inside dissected to analyze its parts diced and weighed to evaluate its worth to discern the whole. I lost the moment having never lived it. © 2001, littlemanpoet (You may notice that this was written in an "Emily Dickinson" phase :rolleyes: ) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. :p However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers. Quote:
As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
God can't be unchanging, or else there could not be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. It amazes me how systematic theologians seem to just blithely pass over this little stumbling block in their understanding of God. God did change. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One additional thing: if you want to know what the Christian view of God's character is, it is found in the story of Jesus while he lived on earth. (up to 155, and I gotta quit) I'll be away at St. Gregory's Abbey in Three Rivers, MI from Sat. noon until Sun. evening, so I'll be away from here for a bit.... |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.