Of another world

[davem]

First, Nogrod's statement that Islam is 'merely' an updated version of Christianity. It isn't. If anything its an updated version of Judaism which completely by-passes Christianity. Both Judaism & Islam emphasise the 'separateness' of Creator & creation, of God & man. The creation in both is seen as fallen & apart from the Creator.

Christianity teaches that the Creation has been redeemed, the split healed:

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" was written by Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, in De inc., 54, 3: PG, 192B, in his refutation of Arius during the First Ecumenical Council
Some people think that St. Irenaeus of Lyons may have said it before Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria.

The image: Christ hangs on the cross - he is 'transfixed', uniting in himself in that moment all the broken parts of Creation: God & Man, life & death, heaven & earth. Day & night are joined at that moment as the sky darkens. Christ becomes the central point of the new Creation & the Fall is healed. Without this act the Fall still operates, the Universe is still broken & the creation is still sick.

Islam denies this act because it denies that Jesus was God & merely a Prophet (who would be 'superceded' by Muhammed, who goes on to bring fire & the sword to most of the known world - & marrying a six year old girl btw- though it must be acknowledged that the marriage was not consummated till she was nine). Yet this is an act which only the Creator of the Universe could accomplish, because it would require the active participation of God to bring it about.

Now, I'm not changing my spots here - if Christianity is true that act would be vitally necessary, but I don't see any evidence that it is true - in a literal sense. It is a myth which is internally self consistent - like all good secondary world should be if they are to convince & move the reader & produce a sense of Eucatastrophe.

But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff. If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least. If I was to go around punishing everyone who failed to acknowledge me - not saying thank you when I hold a door open for them, or barging past me in a queue, I'd pretty soon get a reputation for being an overly sensitive so-&-so who ought to lighten up & get a life. I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out. If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff.

Ah. Thanks for your persistence. God has put something in place to stop the really bad stuff, or at least when it happens, to be right there and fix or heal it. However, this 'something' has done by and large a deplorable job. No excuse. It's called the Church. That means us folks who say we follow Jesus. We've failed God and our fellow humans a lot over the last 2,000 years, and it's something we ought to be very remoresful about.

If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least.

but he doesn't. He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.

I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out.

That's one way of thinking about why he sent Jesus.

If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.

But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?

[quote=Nogrod]Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D.

davem's concerns about power are apt. However, the Church should not seek earthly power. It's not what Jesus put it here for.

I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God

must run......

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D.

Thanks. I think I deserved this one, for being quite hasty in this discussion (well you all write so much and I only seem to be able to pop-in/pop-out occasionally). But then again, I'm not sure, whether you have just pinpointed the only two mentionings in the Bible that could be in any way interpreted as something like a Hell anyway (and of these the Revelation-stuff is just so sick - and most of the exegetics seem to be at wonder with it: why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).

The Jews were quite low-toned about any afterlife to begin with. It was the charismatic movements all around the Mediterranean & Middle-Eastern world during the centuries surrounding the beginning of our year 1, that really brought this idea of an eternal afterlife to the fore. And these movenets were mainly from Persia (could be lendings from Indian thought-world, as they had this notion of eternall bliss in Nirvana?) - lending all those early agricultural myths of a God sacrifying himself for the new life to be born on springtime.

But back to the bussiness. What I meant, was that the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The Jews were quite low-toned about any afterlife to begin with.

Just popping in briefly...

There is an afterlife in Judaism (although details are somewhat open to interpretation and it really isn't the main focus). But I'm far from a religious scholar, so I don't know the historical timeline that well.

Click here for a pretty good explanation.

Popping back out again. Carry on.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.

If the act took place in both time & eternity (uniting both in effect) this would be a valid interpretation - in fact it would be a necessary consequence. But that doesn't make it true, merely 'logical' within the 'Secondary World'. But this is the point - it doesn't prove it actually happened in the Primary World. Its also 'logical' that the destruction of the One Ring cause the fall of Sauron within that Secondary World. It seems that you inhabit a 'world' that I don't. Actually, I like your world a lot. There's something in me that responds strongly to the world of little country churches, the language of the King James Bible & the Prayer book, of evensong, of tradition stretching back into the mists of time, of the same hymns sung & prayers said in the same words. Part of me would love to enter into it & live there. But there's also a part of me that would love to go live in the world of Ealing comedy & Launder & Gilliat, with Alistair Sim & Margaret Rutherford, Terry-Thomas & St Trinians, when the world was in black & white & safe & comfortable. Or Middle-earth. Only problem is that world never really existed - its nice to go & visit though.

But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?

Well, I don't believe that He did. I do love the story, though. I'm reminded of that line from 'The Man who Shot Liberty Valance': 'When the Legend becomes fact, print the Legend.'

I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God

Oh, but that's the problem: One God, One Story, Many Gods, Many Stories. The Elves made many rings, Sauron made One. I just like stories so much that I want as many as possible.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Thanks. I think I deserved this one, for being quite hasty in this discussion (well you all write so much and I only seem to be able to pop-in/pop-out occasionally). But then again, I'm not sure, whether you have just pinpointed the only two mentionings in the Bible that could be in any way interpreted as something like a Hell anyway...

...But back to the bussiness. What I meant, was that the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!

AS

Although I do not recall the word "Hell" being used, nor of it having the same connotations as that term does for us, there are definitely Biblical, indeed New Testament, references to it.

As LMP demonstrated with his reference to Matthew 25, in which Jesus -so yes, this is a teaching of Jesus- speaks of seperating the goats from the sheep, and condemning the former, on the basis of their lack of Christian service (not, interestingly enough, on the basis of their acknowledgement of Christ), there are definitely New Testament references to punishment for those who DON'T welcome the Kingdom of God.

Only a few chapters earlier, in Matthew 22, is another parable referring to the punishment of those who disobey God. This parable, the parable in which the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a wedding feast, has one of the unworthy (poor) guests attend garbed improperly (and disrespectfully). The king has this unworthy guest "bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" ( Matthew 22:13)

Or, to jump to a different Gospel, Luke, there is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which both die, and Lazarus the poor man goes to Heaven and is with Abraham, but the rich man is seperated permanently from them:

"The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." (Luke 16: 22b-34)

There are other references, but this is enough to be going on... and the last reference even had fire in it.