Posted by Helen on: 02.11.2007 /
Laura M. posted the following excellent, thoughtful questions on “Jesus’ way to heaven”:
Is it possible that “receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord’ and “all things through faith in him’ simply means in modern English…You must become a follower of Jesus, there is no other way to save yourselves?
In other words, that you must try live your life by the principles that he preached, having faith that this is the way that God wants man to behave? That he is Lord because he is the Master, and we are his followers, his students, dependent upon his word? Wouldn’t this mean that a simple prayer isn’t sufficient? Couldn’t it also mean that belief in Jesus’ divinity isn’t really necessary? What is necessary is following his humanitarian teachings?
Can’t “Ask, in my name, and you shall receive’ simply mean keep Jesus’ words and teachings in mind when you ask of God and of yourself what you want out of life?
Can’t “In Jesus’ name ” simply mean belief in the sayings attributed to Jesus’? In other words, “In the name of Jesus’ could mean “by the teachings of Jesus’, or in modern English… those sayings (quotes) have Jesus’ name all over them.
Could terms like ’shall not perish’ and “ever lasting life’ refer to the future of humanity as a whole, rather than the individual?
Could “the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand’ mean it is here within your grasp?
There is frequent talk about preparing for heaven. Could this mean that followers of Jesus are obliged to prepare Earth and their fellow humans in a manner so as to create an environment similar to what is expected to be there for them in heaven?
Now here’s a real stretch… Could “He died for your sins’ mean Jesus’ death was a result of the sinfulness of those around him who did not speak out against the injustice of his execution? The result being, he died because of their sins. He paid the ultimate price, loss of his life, because of the sins of man (the men and women who didn’t stop it)? Perhaps the purpose of his death to teach mankind the horror of injustice which is not condemned?
Comment by: Helen
1 02/11/07 9:50 AM | Comment Link |Laura I love this question:
That this seems so far away from, and so antithetical to, conservative evangelical Christianity, indicates to me that CEC has got quite messed up somehow.
Comment by: ncxian
2 02/11/07 3:08 PM | Comment Link |These are certainly very good questions.
The answers, it seem to me, depend on who you are asking, and to what end. If you are asking a conservative evangelical Christian, will I get into heaven if I hold this set of beliefs, I am thinking the answer will likely be “no”. I think, if nothing else, this view of the divinity of Jesus won’t pass muster.
For non-evangelicals, deciding who is in and who is out is not quite such a huge deal, because we don’t feel like our primary role as disciples of Jesus is to get everybody in (although this varies from person to person). So if you asked me the same question (can I hold this set of beliefs and get into heaven) I would say, “Good gracious, I have no idea, but your questions sound useful to me. It seem to me that they can potentially lead you in the direction of God”.
So I guess my question to Laura is “who are you asking and, more importantly, why?” If you ask because you need to know “The Answer”, then you are kind of stuck addressing your questions to Christians who know “The Answer”, in which case the answer is likely “no”. If you would be satisfied hanging with Christians who are more comfortable with just having some good questions–welcome aboard!
Comment by: joe
3 02/12/07 2:03 AM | Comment Link |I think you’re describing sounds more like my relationship with Gandhiji - he is just a dead guy who said and did some pretty amazing things. Someone I wish I’d been alive to know.
But the deity of Jesus Christ means that he is something more than that. I don’t know how to explain in a way that doesn’t sound really corny and silly.
Comment by: Helen
4 02/12/07 4:25 AM | Comment Link |Joe, I understand what you’re saying.
What do you think Jesus thinks about people who have a relationship with him like yours with Gandhi?
Comment by: joe
5 02/12/07 4:35 AM | Comment Link |First apologies for my poor syntax in the previous post.
Helen, your post has an obvious problem at it’s centre - if Jesus is just a dead guy, he has no feelings about people on account of being dead. And anyway, far be it for me to attempt to speak for anyone else, least of all God!
I don’t really go along with the old CS Lewis argument that Christ was either a) who he said he was b) mad or c) evil. He could have just been honest but mistaken.
But then, if he was mistaken or mad, there is no reason to take any notice of what he said. Here is a guy who touched everyone he met and showed the most excellent way of love. If he wasn’t divine, then there is no hope in the universe, IMO, and reading the bible is as worthwhile as reading the National Enquirer or the Sun for spiritual insight.
Of course others, including Gandhiji, disagree. But then he held scripture in a far higher regard than I can ever hope to.
Comment by: Helen
6 02/12/07 5:17 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Joe.
I was asking you from your point of view though, which is that Jesus IS alive. What do you think Jesus, who(m?) you believe is alive, thinks of people who follow his teachings/example even though they don’t think he is divine?
Comment by: Laura M.
7 02/12/07 5:37 AM | Comment Link |Why? If there is no god, there is no hope in the universe, or just if Jesus isn’t/wasn’t? Why assume there is no hope without God? How do you know that, why would you think that? I see plenty of hope, plenty of evidence of the basic goodness of humankind. Don’t you?
If there is a God, couldn’t he still manage to care about us, have plans and/or good intentions for us, even if Jesus wasn’t a physical manifistation of the divine? How do we not know that Jesus, a completely human non-divine Jesus, was part of God’s plan?
Why couldn’t Jesus, if he were just a man, still be a great spiritual leader? There is all the evidence in the world that Jesus was a great spiritual leader; I don’t know of anyone who would win a debate trying to argue that he wasn’t. Evidence of his divinity, on the other hand… Evidence of the first doesn’t automatically prove the latter.
Since you mentioned it, as far as Jesus being ‘mad’, there’s no reason to believe that just because a person may be mentally ill it also follows that they can’t be - at the very same time- intelligent, perceptive, wise and knowledgeable about many things, loving, caring, and possessing leadership qualities/skills. And yes, at the same time be suffering from mental illness.Here is a guy who touched everyone he met and showed the most excellent way of love.
I find this statement truly ironic. Just think about it for a minute.
Wait for it…wait for it…
So you’re saying if a mere human could be that kind, there is no hope for the universe?
Huh?
Anyhoo, with that said, my question in my original post was:
The key word here being ‘belief’. Not saying Jesus wasn’t divine, just asking is it really important to God/Jesus that we believe this. If so, why? How do we know this? That is why I offered some possible alternatives to what Jesus might have meant when he said ‘ask in my name’. Couldn’t Jesus have meant, when he said ‘believe in me’ that we should believe in his humanitarian teachings and practice them in order to be ’saved’, not necessarily that we must believe in his divinity?
Comment by: JG
8 02/12/07 6:41 AM | Comment Link |Whenever this sort of issue comes up, it appears to me there are really two separate issues combined into one.
1) What is necessary to “be saved” or be accepted by God or have “eternal life” etc etc?
2) How does “God” want us to live? What is the ideal?
If I encourage my child to work hard in order to get good exam results that doesn’t mean I will only accept him if he achieves a certain grade. I’ll accept him whatever results he gets. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about his education.
Is God concerned about how we relate to him or how we live? I’d say both. Again, with your own child, which would bring more pain/pleasure? Either:
1) your child living a good life and behaving in a “good” way but having nothing to do with you and refusing to even acknowledge you as their parent or
2) your child relating well to you but not living in a way you feel comfortable with?
Comment by: joe
9 02/12/07 6:47 AM | Comment Link |OK, it appears that I’ve dug myself into a hole of my own creation. Laura - apologies in advance for my inability to answer your questions as intelligently as you put them.
You ask why I believe there is no hope in the universe if Christ is not divine. Basically, I believe that any universe without a beign and loving God is meaningless. I look at christ and see God - if Jesus is not what God is like, then I want nothing to do with him.
Unlike Gandhiji - who I revere as a great spiritual and moral leader - who I would not want to imagine God to be like for a number of important reasons.
Unless one was divine, I do not believe it would be possible to be that perfect image of God - ie the God of love.
You are right, of course, mentally ill people are not incapable of having other important qualities. On the other hand, if they were to tell me that the meaning of life was to deny myself, to worship them and sell all I had, I might legitimately decide that it was the illness not the human talking.
In answer to your other question, no mere human could have been like christ. I know little of God, but I know a fair amount about humans, even religious superstars like Gandhiji.
And finally, it is important because if you believe Jesus was just human, then all that he did is achievable by any human. I simply do not believe it is.
I don’t think he left us the option of just believing his ‘humanitarian’ teachings. The challenge he leaves is for us to give up all rights and privileges and to live like a slave in service of others, without expectation of reward. That is not a humanitarian teaching - if he was just human - it is an unrealistic and perverted teaching.
Helen, if Jesus accepted a dying murderer on the cross who had done precious little to deserve even a word of grace, I am sure he has many good things to say about those who follow without the benefits of belief.
Comment by: Helen
10 02/12/07 7:04 AM | Comment Link |Joe wrote:
Thanks Joe - I’m glad to hear that!
Wow, it is so much the reverse of what I’ve usually heard, that you said “people who follow without the benefits of belief” - making that sounds like something admirable. Usually I hear people disparaged for their arrogance in thinking it’s ok to follow and yet not believe Jesus is God.
Comment by: Helen
11 02/12/07 7:11 AM | Comment Link |JG for me it doesn’t matter how much you nuance it - for me the point is:
1) everyone from an early age intuitively gets ‘behave well and that will be rewarded’ (even though we don’t all agree on exactly what ‘behave well’ means);
2) No-one intuitively gets ‘believe certain things + atrocious behavior’ is better rewarded than ‘don’t believe them and behave well’.
(Some) Christians have been trying to explain why 2) does in fact make sense ever since someone first thought of it.
I’m still not convinced it does.
Comment by: JG
12 02/12/07 8:12 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
I fully accept your point when expressed in that way but I was referring to “relating” rather than “believing” and the whole concept of “reward” refers to the first issue rather than the second.
For me, the whole essence of the Christian gospel is that it is not about “reward”, you can’t “earn” a reward either by behaving in a certain way or believing the right things.
Comment by: Laura M.
13 02/12/07 9:11 AM | Comment Link |JG,
My questions weren’t merely about what is necessary to be ’saved’or have ‘eternal life’, but also about what these terms themselves mean. What did Jesus mean when he talked about salvation, Heaven, and eternal life?
Now while you’re thinking about the answer to that, my real question is -How do you know?
A lot of what we know, or think we know, is based on what a group of people (who got together a long, long time ago) decided we should think and so that was all they would teach and all anyone would be allowed to believe.When I read the bible, those phrases and terms seemed to imply a very different meaning than I’ve heard of being taught in any Christian churches.
I don’t really remember writing anything about being accepted by God as I never concern myself with that. I suppose you’re referring to my asking if God would require belief in Jesus’ divinity?
Not sure what your analogy about grades and hard work means,in terms of acceptance, as it doesn’t relate to requiring a specific belief (or prayer for forgiveness-or saying specific words) but rather to expecting the child to behave ethically and do his best. I do know that according to Christian theology, God forgives all sins as long as you repent and ask forgiveness.
Now, if my child refused to work hard or study, but instead cheated , got caught, felt bad about it- there would still be a punishment. As for forgiveness, have you ever heard the expression cheaters never win, or ‘you’re only cheating yourself’? I wouldn’t forgive my child for cheating because I don’t think that would be up to me. The ‘crime’ commited would have been against himself, as well as against the school, not against me. I think my forgiveness in that situation would be meaningless. If he got poor grades from laziness and lack of sudying or because that was sincerely the best he could do- again, nothing for me to forgive.
I’m really not understanding how that analogy relates to my questions.
Comment by: Laura M.
14 02/12/07 9:46 AM | Comment Link |To JG’s second set of questions,
I can honestly say I would care more (be happier, more content) to see my child live a ‘good’ life while never acknowledging my existance than to live a poorer (immoral,degrading, inhumane ?) life while relating well with me. As you put it, a life I’m not comfortable with.
I gave birth as an unwed teenager to a child I gave up for adoption. although I see and speak with this child from time to time, and although the child knows who I am, I am not acknowledged by this child as parent. I do know the child is healthy,loved and well cared for and doing well in school and all respects.
I have a (close relative) just a few years older that I care a great deal for. I have at times been told I am like a mother to this young person. This person is not doing so well socially, emotionally, or physically due to very poor choices this person has made and continues to make in their life. Choices that affect other young innocent lives.
The relationship which brings me pain is not with the child I created who does not acknowledge me.
Comment by: JG
15 02/12/07 10:04 AM | Comment Link |Laura M,
Many thanks for this. I appreciate this is a potentially sensitive area.
But can I ask, in practice, do you care more about your child you gave up for adoption or the close relative?
Whatever the answer, you acknowledge you do care a great deal for this close relative. Would you reject this close relative because of the poor choices made etc?
The picture you have given of your relationship with this close relative strikes me as a very good picture of how God relates to us.
Comment by: Laura M.
16 02/12/07 10:24 AM | Comment Link |Joe, I’m also glad to hear that you think that Jesus would have good things to say about his ‘faithless’ followers. =)
Comment by: Laura M.
17 02/12/07 12:38 PM | Comment Link |JG,
In reading your words, my understanding is that you’re getting at the idea of how God relates to us. I hear you saying that you do not believe that God rewards us for behaving a certain way or for believing certain things. It seems you’re also saying that your understanding is that God is concerned about how we live, but would not reject us for failing to live up to his standards.
You asked earlier,
“How does God want us to live? What is the ideal?” I think that most of us, as we grow older, instinctively know right from wrong and intuitively, as Helen said, know that we “need to behave well”. I agree we shouldn’t do this with the expectation of a ‘reward’, earthly or ‘eternal’. We should do it because it is the right thing to do.
As far as rejecting my young relative, there is a certain line that if crossed, yes I would reject this person. That is true of anyone close to me, including my children. I would never reject anyone because of their beliefs or because they couldn’t express themselves to me or relate to me in just the particular way that I wanted or expected them to.
I would reject them if they deliberately or carelessly caused serious harm , injury or death to another person. I would want them to stay away from me, and be kept away from other people because I would consider them dangerous. I would never be able to put their behavior ‘in the past’ as though it were done and over with simply because they expressed remorse and wanted to be forgiven. Forgiveness would not be for me to give because their behavior would have affected many other people besides myself, as everyone has an extended family of relatives, freinds, neighbors and acquaintances who would also be affected.
Comment by: Helen
18 02/12/07 2:43 PM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
JG, the bottom line for me is, no matter how you explain your beliefs, if you believe some people will be eternally tormented or annihilated I have a problem with your belief system. Imo that system doesn’t have enough grace in it.
Comment by: Laura M.
19 02/12/07 3:50 PM | Comment Link |Thank you ncxian for your response to my questions (better late than never, huh?).
I’m asking because these are questions I’ve often thought about (thank you for saying that my questions were thoughtful, Helen- don’t know about excellent though =)
I’m asking anyone else who wants to listen and ask themselves, or consider asking themselves the same questions. I’m not really asking to find anyone who knows the answers because I don’t think anyone could possibly ‘know’ the answers.
I would definitely be
thanks for the warm welcome !
Comment by: Pete S
20 02/13/07 9:59 PM | Comment Link |At the end of Matthew’s Gospel Jesus said, “Go and make disciples…” not merely believers. While Jesus was alive there was only a couple of his disciples that seemed to acknowledge that He was the Christ (a statement of belief). Peter did so once, and was commended, but soon after blew it by trying to correct Jesus’s own self-concept of what His Messiahship meant: He was to go to Jerusalem, and He would die there at the hand of the authorities. Jesus admonished Peter (actually said, “Get behind me Satan”).
What was primarily important to Jesus was discipleship: following Him, taking up one’s own cross, doing the will of His Father in Heaven… Secondarily important was belief—intellectual assent and proclamation. At times he very explicitly told people to keep their mouths shut as to Who He was or what He did. But He never told people not to follow: Only that the following might cost them something.
Comment by: Helen
21 02/14/07 5:44 AM | Comment Link |Pete, thanks - this is what I’ve noticed too - that Jesus seemed primarily concerned about discipleship, not belief. At least in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). In John’s gospel Jesus does place emphasis on believing in him.
In practice, unfortunately, the approach often seems to be “As long as a verse or two in John’s gospel backs up my theories about ’salvation’ I’m fine” - whereas I think it would be more appropriate to deal honestly with the reality that Jesus’ emphasis in all the other gospels is not primarily on belief.
Comment by: Paul
22 02/14/07 7:51 AM | Comment Link |wow what great honest Qs, thank you so much for asking them!!! sorry its taken me awhile to respond, you’ve been making me think… i don’t think i have ansers per se but happy to share my thoughts that have formed so far…
yes i think a simple prayer is a reflection of the process, if the way into the kingdom of God is to admit that we choose to not be independent kings/queens of our own kingdom and choose God’s kingdom then that prayer is a step of faith into something different, like crossing over the border, or saying a pledge of allegiance etc…but i don’t think that should be the stopping point either, it should be the beginning of a lifetime of searching, honesty and humility - not just entering the kingdom of God but learning to live/be/act like one of its citizens.
As for Jesus divinity i think that is part of the searching humble hopeful attitude that we are committing too - in that it is not just about cherry picking what Jesus said but applying it, doing it, as much as we understand where we are in the journey. That doesn’t mean we should not ask hard Qs, wrestle with things we find hard to believe and stop being honest about these matters - i think more than that it is part of the life of faith Jesus calls us too - not just believe things about Jesus but more to believe in him and to put his teachings into practice…
Yes I think it does mean something of that - about blending belief into practice but i wonder if this again is not part of that faith growing/shaping process - taking the focus away from me taking or achieving and therefore relying on my own strength or power and instead asking for help, practicing humility, learning to detox from consumer filled culture where it is all all about me getting what I want when i want it…
Yes i like the image this gives me of certain ways of being/doing steeped in Jesus, looking like Jesus, smelling like Jesus, smiling like Jesus, accepting like Jesus, partying like Jesus, serving like Jesus…etc
I’m not sure what the full context you were thinking in terms of the phrase ‘in the name of Jesus’ but i like that family name idea - this is the trademark/calling card etc of God…
I’m sure the context is a key to understanding the reference of such texts but then since they were undoubtedly addressed to people rather than to outer space there must, in my mind, be a dimension of them applying/being applicable to all of humanity.
I love this picture of the kingdom of god, i think the literal word used for heaven is atmos which is where we get atmosphere so Jesus is saying the kingdom of heaven is here, it’s all around us and we can be part of it now - i find that most hopeful, that life can be transformed, impacted, encountered for the better, here and now - not just waiting to ship out to heaven.
More than that I like the invitation that Jesus gives is not to say a prayer containing a certain number of correct points - it’s do you want to join my kingdom then step on in, you are now part of it, go and make your family, your community, your country a better place - go and be like me and more than than I’ll go with you and send some more of my friends to join with you - so you can be catalysts - yeast, seeds etc.
I think this is a valuable insight that people like Brian Mclaren and others have expressed over recent yrs. Whilst there is the hope of heaven there is also a call, as Jesus phrased it in his prayer, for God’s will to be done on earth as in heaven - God’s wish being carried out and his primary agents/ambassadors/activists for participating in making these dreams come true, i would say, should be the followers of Jesus.
The fact that we often fail is because we are not perfect and another reminder to me for an ongoing need for humility and as part of the weaing process of trying to achieve God’s wish through building our own kingdoms up again by using methods/systems/structues that resort to power, manipulation, bullying, conquest, exclusion, hate, fear etc…
I do not think this is such a stretch, there are several traditionally recognised views of the death of Jesus [which go some way to helping us understand part of what happened] and the suffering servant/perfect penitent ideas echo much of your own thinking - in Jesus death we see the evil, compromised, man made power structures as they truly are - selfish, petty, hatefilled, vengeful and ready to sell out the threat to such power even if it means compromising beliefs/practices/moralites - it’s the ultimate moment of hypocrasy.
It is also the moment as well, where for me, Jesus demonstrated radical love, reconciliation and redemption is possible - in the darkest of moments of so many personal failures was born a hope through his death and resurection that things can be different, that the cross is about commitment, forgiveness, suffering and love and becomes the way for the followers of Jesus to follow him in embracing a world of hurt, shame and injustice by literally laying down our lives if necesary and our rights almost certainly. For instance when it comes to environmental chaos it is the poorest who are least responsible that will suffer most - those of us who are rich need to look at our current rights to carbon based high consumption lifestyle…
Thank you so muh Laura for asking these Qs… thank you for making me exercise faith thinking and for encouraging me to search on and reach further rather than to rest comfortably on a soapbox…
Comment by: JG
23 02/17/07 12:58 AM | Comment Link |Apologies for delay in responding, I have very little spare time at present with work pressures etc.
I have some issues with this.
1) Belief systems. I think you are wrong to assume I have a “belief system” with all that implies. And on what basis can we decide whether we are comfortable with a belief system? Let me explain. What matters is the truth, not what I believe. Whilst it may appear to give some comfort to some people, I see no point in constructing belief systems that we feel comfortable with - if they are not based on truth.
2) I’ve mentioned before the possibility that God might not be a God we would want to know. I don’t believe that to be true but I believe the principle is an important one. What if God was capricious and cruel? What if when we die, we are entered into a lottery and only those that by pure chance, get a winning ticket go to heaven? If that was the truth, whether I am comfortable with that is largely immaterial. It is more important to focus on the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be that do enter to make believe such to give me comfort. So if when we die that is it, nothing more then if that is the truth then let’s acknowledge that than deceive ourselves with make believe stories about heaven. I have no time whatsoever for belief systems.
2) As Laura says, how can we know? How can we possibbly know enough to feel qualified to judge what is fair in terms of what happens after we die?
3)I said to Laura:
How does the idea that God does not reject us even if we have completely screwed up suggest to you a lack of grace?
It seems to me that people do want God to exclude certain people, those guilty of “vile crimes” and my question there is, where do you draw the line? How vile does the crime have to be to result in you being rejected? And the question Jesus asked the pharisees comes to mind, in today’s English, let him who has never done anything wrong and never let anyone down cast the first stone.
I feel uncomfortable with that belief system!
Comment by: Helen
24 02/17/07 6:04 AM | Comment Link |Paul, thanks for your detailed response to Laura.
Thanks for your answer, JG.
There was an ‘if’ in what I wrote - I said that imo your belief system doesn’t have enough grace in it if if you believe some people will be eternally tormented or annihilated.
I didn’t say it had no grace in it - just that it doesn’t have enought.
If you’d rather not say you have a belief system I’m ok with that, but I’m still unclear whether you believe some people will be eternally tortured or annihilated.
Maybe some people think this way, but I don’t, because I don’t evaluate people based on the sum total of bad things they ever did. I believe people can change and sometimes do. If there is a God who changes people then I believe that even more and I don’t understand why there would be anyone beyond his changing power, who therefore is too irrevocably, eternally vile to be allowed into heaven.
If people have trouble accepting this about certain people who have done evil things, then I see that as their problem and not a reason for God to consign the certain people to hell or annihilate them.
Comment by: JG
25 02/17/07 12:52 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
My honest answer is that I simply don’t know. I’m not at all sure what the concepts of heaven and hell really mean in practice nor do I know how any division is made or if any real division does take place.
I do believe there is a God and that he wants us to relate to him. I believe that if we want to really help others and make a difference in our community then that best happens when it flows out of who we are rather than be things we do to “earn” God’s approval or to bolster of our own sense of self worth.
I believe who we are can change. That for me lies at the heart of the gospel message.
If our focus is on “getting to heaven” or on who gets there and who doesn’t then I feel we are missing the point.
Comment by: Helen
26 02/17/07 4:21 PM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
I hope so.
I agree.
Thanks for clarifying what you believe about heaven and hell. I must have misunderstood you previously because I thought you believed some people were definitely going to miss out on heaven, i.e. be tormented or annihilated. annihilation.
Comment by: Pete S.
27 02/21/07 5:52 PM | Comment Link |Hmm. I know that you are quoting someone else, but let me respond to this with some thoughts.
1) It is possible (given an actual hell, for this argument)–that some people might or could be tormented. Tormented is different than annihilated. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in annihilation, I believe.
2) It does NOT necessarily mean that God forces such torment on them, but in essence they force it upon themselves by the worship or serving of themselves. Make no mistake: it will be torment if all you are left with for eternity , or for that matter ten years, is just YOURSELF, even given no other physically inflicted pain.
3) Hell is a lack of relationship with God, and an overly focused relationship with yourself. That is a corollary of # 2 above.
4) Concerning annihilation: This does not mean torment or pain, it just means ceasing to be. Would this be more merciful or less? Would you rather be tormented for a season, until you repented and came to your senses, or be annihilated, without torment or pain?
These are just some thoughts. Certainly not the last on heaven or hell. I make them, not endorsing any of the comments above to express my belief, but I think that we often don’t think about hell quite right. We jump to conclusions that it MUST mean just one thing. If anyone would like to read an alternative view concerning the eternity of Hell, I commend to you the author George MacDonald. His thoughts may help.
Comment by: Helen
28 02/21/07 6:31 PM | Comment Link |Pete S. wrote:
Pete, whatever you say, if God set the system up and God knew some people would end up in eternal torment then I still see God as ultimately responsible for that.
Comment by: JG
29 02/22/07 6:33 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
When anyone considers whether or not to have children, it is obviously a fact that in this world, there is no guarantee of happiness. Even if brought up in a loving home, a child may be involved in a car accident, contract a deadly disease, be raped or murdered.
We may not have control over such things but we do have control over whether or not we allow further children to be born into a world whether such dreadful things can and do happen.
So are the parents responsible for what happens to their children, simply because they allowed them to be born and run the risk that such a thing could happen to them?
Comment by: Helen
30 02/22/07 7:01 AM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
If they were all-knowing and all-powerful then I would say they were responsible, yes.
Since they are only human, they are only partly responsible, because many things are out of their control.
Comment by: JG
31 02/22/07 12:18 PM | Comment Link |So do you think it is okay to bring a child into the world despite all the risks that they will face?
Comment by: Helen
32 02/22/07 3:40 PM | Comment Link |Sure.
It’s not like I invented hell and know some of my children are going there (supposedly by their own ‘choice’, perhaps).
On the other hand, maybe I never thought about whether it was ok - I was just being selfish because I wanted children.
Comment by: Pete S.
33 02/22/07 10:53 PM | Comment Link |This is what I’m saying: God created a system wherein we may accept or reject Him. If we accept or reject Him it is a case of OUR choosing, not His dictating. This is what is meant by Free Will. And yes, God has designed a system in which we are free to forever resist His will and live by ourselves in our own self-imposed isolation. I call this Hell. Other Christians do as well. You may place the responsibility on God. I place the responsibility on each one of us.
Comment by: Helen
34 02/23/07 6:14 AM | Comment Link |Pete, so will it be correct to say this of everyone who ends up in hell? “It’s entirely your fault that you’re being eternally tormented - God did everything he could to prevent this, including giving you sufficient evidence that you were able to believe in him if you had wanted to”
And if so how come there are people who say they can’t believe in God because they don’t have enough evidence? Are they all lying?
Comment by: Paul
35 02/23/07 6:44 PM | Comment Link |Helen, you said:
that of course pre-supposes that hell is a place of eternal torment. If it is i don’t think it is the torment that Dante painted of an eternal torture chamber…
maybe it is more to do with our choice to continue to experience the continual decay of our humanity? Perhaps it is about losing our status as spiritul beings?
maybe death is just a lonely stumble into silence…
Maybe hell is precisely the point not for people who don’t know God but those who do - maybe it is God’s way of reminding those of us who claim to follow him of the consequences of our actions and a reminder that the humility needed to start following is not just a one off event but a lifetimes practice..?
Comment by: Helen
36 02/23/07 8:23 PM | Comment Link |Paul, maybe indeed…
I don’t have any answers. All I know is that from now one if something doesn’t make sense or seems wrong/unfair/cruel I’m going to say so rather than trying to defend God.
Comment by: Pete S.
37 02/24/07 9:31 PM | Comment Link |The question of hell membership (if I may be allowed to be somewhat flippant so you don’t suppose I have anything definitive or authoritative to say on the matter—these are just my theological musings): The question of hell membership seems to continue to return to the question of belief. Will God sentence someone to hell if that person simply did not perceive enough evidence for the existence of God?
In my responses I have been trying to show the inadequacies of having a belief-based criterion. I think people are in hell or end up in hell when they worship and serve themselves. It has to do with ACTIONS and DEEDS and INTENTIONS OF THE HEART, not intellectual belief or conviction or understanding. Whether there’s sufficient proof for God’s existence seems to vary widely. People like Richard Dawkins are avid atheist evolutionists, and they are extremely adamant to declare that religion is madness and stupid, and that evolution categorically dismisses the very notion of diety. Then there are others who look at the same evidence, even affirm every minutiae of evolutionary theory (as a scientific theory devoid of philosophical trimmings and assumptions), yet are dedicated Christians and thorough-going theists, such as Francis S. Collins.
Evidence is rather arbitrary. Some people demand miracles, revelations, proof and audible conversations with God. Others settle for periodical sunsets, the smile of a child, and the evidence of a moral law that pervades every human culture. But then visits to and long-term residence in hell, I believe, has less to do with belief and far more to do with who we are and whose we are. Just because we don’t feel God’s grip doesn’t necessarily mean that He’s let go. It may just mean that we’ve grown numb.
Yeah, let me repeat that.
Just because we don’t feel God’s grip doesn’t necessarily mean that He’s let go. It may just mean that we’ve grown numb.
I don’t think God has let go of you, Helen, or of anyone else for that matter. But there are things in life that leave us numbed, and so we don’t feel God’s presence. Hell doesn’t have to do with our ability to feel God’s presence or acknowledge intellectually this thing or that thing about Him. That’s what makes sense to me.
Comment by: Helen
38 02/27/07 10:57 AM | Comment Link |Pete S wrote:
Pete, in the contexts I’ve been in I’ve been told that everyone who doesn’t worship God worships themself. Is that what you mean or do you mean something else by ‘worship themselves’?
Comment by: Pete S.
39 03/1/07 5:34 PM | Comment Link |I don’t think people by default worship themselves if they aren’t worshipping God.
What I’m going to say may be untrue. I don’t believe it is at all heretical. In other words, BICBW: But I Could Be Wrong. With that disclaimer, let me give an example from C. S. Lewis’s book, The Last Battle.
In this story there is a character, Emeth, who belongs to the land of the Calormene, enemies of Narnia. Emeth is a true, honorable nobleman, who served their god, Tash, all his life. He goes to Narnia to fight, but is ordered to be deceptive, something he finds beneath his dignity, something dishonest. The very name of Aslan (the creator of Narnia, who is Lewis’s stories represents the Christ) is hateful to Emeth. Yet later in the story he meets Aslan and is prepared to die…. There is this exchange at their meeting in Aslan’s Country:
(
This brief excerpt points out that when all is said and done, God may very well honor the good deeds, love practiced, and intentions of the heart for multitudes that have not owned the name of Jesus, either because the name was falsely presented to theme by odious deeds, or perhaps there are millions who haven’t truly had a chance to know about or choose God.
Whether one worships oneself or one worships God, though they don’t know it, is a matter of the heart. God will be able to judge justly that matter, or else He truly can’t be God. Mercy and Justice meet and kiss within God. One might say, dispensing that fairly and truly and redemptively is, after all, his job.
Comment by: Helen
40 03/1/07 8:35 PM | Comment Link |Pete S. wrote:
This makes sense to me.
Comment by: JG
41 03/2/07 6:49 AM | Comment Link |This sums up my position quite well.
For me, it is not our intellectual response that counts but our heart response.
The Bible says God looks on the heart not the outward appearance.
None of us are qualified to judge the state of someone else’s heart response.
Outward appearance for me covers both what someone says or claims AND what they do.
The smallest act, unnoticed by most such as the widow giving her two coppers can be more significant in God’s eyes than other things we are more aware of.
Comment by: Helen
42 03/2/07 7:41 AM | Comment Link |JG, see, I’m fine with this.
What I’m not fine with - and now I expect I’m getting repetitive, sorry - is that hell is going to be full of widows who gave their two coppers, because they failed to agree with some preacher’s ‘this is what you have to agree with to get to heaven’ spiel.
It’s as if conservative evangelicals give out a card which says “Isn’t it great - you don’t have to do anything to get to heaven: God has done it all!” but then if I turn it over, the back of the same card says “Isn’t it awful that most people are going to end up in hell no matter what great things they did?”
If that’s true then I find myself agreeing with the author of Ecclesiastes that everything is meaningless!
Comment by: JG
43 03/2/07 6:16 PM | Comment Link |I agree with you! I don’t see it that way.