Posted by Helen on: 08.15.2008 /
This is a copy of a post I guest-posted at Friendly Christian today
Bill [Cecchini, host of Friendly Christian] asked me this question:
If you were to die and find out that God DOES exist, do you think you’d go to heaven or hell?
A few years ago I came to the conclusion that if such a thing as hell existed in the universe of an all-powerful all-knowing Being who is all-good and all-compassionate, that all-powerful Being would do something to prevent any human going there. Because even the thought of any human being tortured forever would literally be hell to that all-powerful all-knowing all-good and all-compassionate Being. Even when I’m frustrated with my kids I don’t wish eternal torture on them. And obviously I’m not all-good and all-compassionate although I try not to be a complete jerk.
If the universe is being run by a sadistic monster, maybe a lot of people including me will find themselves in hell.
Actually I don’t think there’s anything I can do about it either way. I have no control over who runs the universe.
If I knew there was a God running the universe who said “I’ve sorted things out so you don’t have to go to hell, but there is one small thing required I can’t do – you have to do that yourself”, would I do it? That is in fact what I was taught over 20 years ago and I did do it then. Maybe I could pull out that card if it turns out that God exists and what I was taught then is true. But I can’t imagine God being that superficial and legalistic that a decision I made over 20 years ago matters more than the rest of my life. And for the last seven years I’ve been making no conscious effort to please God.
Why? Because I came to the conclusion there’s no way for me to know who God is or what God wants even if God does exist. Yes, people say I can know. Some people say it’s all in the Bible. But they don’t agree with each other on what the Bible says about who God is and what God wants. I could throw my lot in with one group and decide “I think these people have it right”, but it would simply be a guess, wouldn’t it? Unless I were all-knowing it would be presumptuous of me to assume I have the ‘right’ answer when lots of other people disagree.
The Bible doesn’t even agree with itself (imo). In the Old Testament it says
What does God require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
I was taught God requires me to pray a prayer (with sincerety) and I’m “in”, all set to go to heaven. Which is a lot different from what I just quoted. If the quote can be relied on, I do try to act justly, I do love mercy (mostly) and I do my best to be humble. So I’d be on fairly safe ground if God exists.
However, since, as I mentioned, people disagree with each other about what the Bible means and it doesn’t even seem to agree with itself, I’m not going to pin my hopes on that or any other verse or teaching. It seems like a waste of time pursuing something as uncertain as what an unknown entity may or may not want.
If I’d like to know what some other human wants from me I can just ask them and they’ll tell me. I don’t have to do it but at least it’s easy to find out. With God I have not found any reliable way or knowing what God wants or even if God exists. So rather than waste any more time on that I’m going to do my best to live the sort of life I think is worth living. Which I admit is subjective and arbitrary, but that’s the best I know how to do. If I am going to find myself before God one day I want to be there saying “I did the best I could” not “I let other people tell me what to do”. At least if I got it wrong it won’t be because I set aside my own mind and heart and didn’t dare listen to them.
And if God does exist and is even halfway decent then I think God will be pleased that I did my best and not consider that grounds for eternal torture.
And if God isn’t even halfway decent I’m not sure I’d want to be in heaven with God anyway.
Bill, I’m not sure whether that’s the sort of answer you were looking for. I guess I’ll find out next time you’re online!
Comment by: Pseudonym
1 08/15/08 8:42 AM | Comment Link |Rowland Croucher (who is a friend of mine) has a nice answer to the first question: “I’m not a universalist, but I wouldn’t be surprised if God is.”
Comment by: Rebecca
2 08/15/08 1:25 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
Thank you for laying all of that out there. I have always heard you describe yourself as an “almost atheist” but I never knew why. It’s always nice to know more about your friends. :-)
Comment by: Helen
3 08/15/08 3:11 PM | Comment Link |Pseudonym, I hadn’t heard that quote. I’d be more surprised if God isn’t a universalist than if God is.
Thanks Rebecca - it’s nice to have my friends reading and being interested! :)
Comment by: no offense
4 08/15/08 4:02 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
I’ve heard it said that most atheist’s have a better theology than most Christians…
A favorite author of mine likes to ask atheists about the God they don’t believe in and respond, “Oh, I don’t believe in that God either…”
However, I would imagine you can’t really mean this:
Comment by: Bob
5 08/15/08 5:39 PM | Comment Link |Helen - That is some heavy stuff. I think alot of people share some of your sentiments. If only we could seperate God from religion and people and self serving interpretations we might have a chance. However, just because things don’t agree with my sensibilities of fairness doesn’t mean they’re incorrect.
Heaven and hell don’t make sense when we try to weigh them with our own standards. They aren’t fair, and that’s a lucky thing for us. If I can’t meet a standard of perfection then I don’t deserve to go in, but I get to go in anyway (by accepting Christ as my substitution) if I acknowledge that I can’t meet that standard on my own. I know this is not everyones belief here and I’m not trying to force it on you, just telling you where I’m coming from.
It doesn’t make sense, but neither does mercy, or unselfishness, or unconditional love. We choose these things — heaven and hell, love and hate, compassion and cruelty, obedience and defiance, light and darkness. We embrace one and reject the other. We embrace God or we reject him.
I think hell is seperation from God, the absence of all things good and just. And I don’t think God wants anyone to go there but in order for heaven to exist there must be an opposite of hell. And if there’s only two states we’ve got to wind up in one or the other. Unless we don’t think opposites and absolutes have to exist but I kind of think they have to. What do you think? Maybe hell is so awful and heaven is so wonderful because they can’t be anything but or they wouldn’t be at all.
So after a really long rambling answer to a short question — I think I would go to heaven because I accept the gift, not because I deserve it or don’t deserve it. No one deserves hell either (although we like to think some do). It’s too atrocious to comprehend and heaven is too wonderful to comprehend. I accept I can’t. I don’t understand the wonderful things in this life or the truly awful things either but I accept them and think one might not be without the other. Does that make any sense to anyone out there or am I on my own planet? Thanks.
Comment by: Helen
6 08/15/08 6:19 PM | Comment Link |No offense, I really did mean that - if God is good and compassionate and impartial I’d be less surprised at him saving everyone from hell (i.e. being a universalist) than him saving some from hell and letting others go there (i.e. not being a universalist).
Comment by: Helen
7 08/15/08 6:34 PM | Comment Link |Bob, I’m familiar with what you believe: those were my beliefs too for several years.
I was considering bringing the ‘entitlement’ issue up because it does come up a lot but I forgot.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence; I know that on the Christian side of the fence, the “It’s a gift, I don’t deserve it” side, people on the other side sound arrogant and as if they have an inappropriate sense of entitlement to heaven. But now I’m on the other side I know that’s not really how it is. We’re just trying to achieve a balanced view of humanity. It feels very unbalanced to think of humans as ‘deserving’ eternal torment. The evidence before my eyes tells me people aren’t that bad. Even the Bible says people are made in the image of God, implying there is good in them.
Bob I appreciate you expressing your beliefs politely. I just can’t buy them anymore - they don’t fit my experience of humanity. I know lots of people who believe as you do - if you’re on a planet you’re certainly not alone! But it’s not one that I can ever see myself living on again, unless some proof comes along that I haven’t been able to find up till now.
Comment by: Bob
8 08/15/08 8:51 PM | Comment Link |Helen - I know that’s not your cup of tea anymore — I’m not selling and there’s no pressure to buy. I just don’t want to have to sugar coat or hide my views to participate in the dialogue. So thank you for your tolerance of my views and I’ll do my very best not to aggravate you with them.
I was not suggesting anyone deserves eternal torment. No one deserves eternal bliss either. My line of thought is that by their very nature heaven and hell must be absolute and diametric opposites. And since no one is truly qualified (that bad or that good) for either a means should exist to allow each person entry to either place. Then following up with the parallels to our current existence and the necessity of good and evil and our right to choose either. How we can choose heaven or hell in a sense each day by embracing kindness or cruelty, love and hate etc. And how that doesn’t make sense either sometimes but it’s part of life and a necessary one at that.
So my planet wasn’t planet “annoying evangelical guy” but simply referring to my line of thought regarding opposites, absolutes, and the necessity of them as they apply to heaven and hell. Because if they aren’t necessary or don’t exist that changes the game a great deal. There is no absolute truth and there are no absolutes. And we don’t need heaven and hell in that case so why are we worried about them? Do you see what I mean?
I’m not interested in a God as partial and flawed as I am. I want to believe there are absolutes and God is absolute because if God isn’t and there aren’t everything is completely relative. I want a God beyond my comprehension because anything less is a dissapointment. A God that I can completely understand isn’t God. To me, the absolute heaven and hell are an uncomfortable necessity, that I believe must be if such absolutes exist.
To re-answer your question (heaven or hell) with my Christian worldview on the shelf: It would depend on which day you asked me, and even then I wouldn’t be too sure. As you said, I’m doing the best I can. I have no idea if it’s good enough by the standards of a non-christian god.
Comment by: Helen
9 08/16/08 7:04 AM | Comment Link |Thanks and for the record, I’m not aggravated.
And I wasn’t thinking of the planet being “annoying evangelical guy” planet by the way :) Rather it’s a planet of people who believe differently from me. Some of whom are my friends.
I strongly question whether absolutes do exist. That’s part of my problem with heaven and hell. In life things tend to lie on a continuum so why would heaven and hell be a simplistic dichotomy of polar opposites? I can’t relate to that at all.
Why would a non-christian god have impossibly high standards? Maybe he/she wouldn’t. After all the only God I was ever told required absolute (impossible) perfection is the Christian God. I don’t think anyone outside Christianity who believes in a god/God has that as part of their theology do they?
According to what I was taught, Jesus died because humans couldn’t meet [the Christian] God’s standard of absolute perfection. Not meeting God’s standard was presented as a human problem but it seems to me that God created this problem by setting an impossible standard.
I was taught that [the Christian] God demands absolute perfection which humans cannot meet, so Jesus died to resolve that. If I create a problem it’s my responsibility to fix it isn’t it? Rather than me fixing it being a wonderful praiseworthy act.
This is why I don’t relate to that theology. There are other stories told about God and Jesus and why Jesus came that make more sense to me, but the ‘penal substitution one’ was the core of what I was taught when I was a Christian.
Comment by: Bob
10 08/16/08 12:55 PM | Comment Link |Helen — I’m glad I’m not officially aggravating :)
In terms of the absolutes, maybe this life is infinite shades of grey but the next has to be black or white. If we reduce everything to ones and zeroes we’re either on or off. No middle ground. I still think we need them, even if I don’t like them sometimes. I’m saying perhaps they have to be polar opposites and absolute in nature because they wouldn’t be heaven and hell if they weren’t. They’d be almost heaven and almost hell. Kind of like that Albert Brooks movie “defending your life” when the people die and one has a room at the redroof and another gets to stay at the hilton. Or Dante’s inferno.
However from a strict atheistic evolutionary approach there is no need for absolutes whatsoever. NOTE - What follows is not what I believe or am endorsing in any way, just pursuing a line of thought –From an evolutionary standpoint — morality, good and evil, are just perceptions or temporary necessities honed over millions of years to enable the survival of the species. One could argue that when we become aware of that process we gain the right to seize it and define it by our own terms. Everything is completely relative at that point. Not without consequence within the boundaries of society but up for debate internally. That’s a pretty frightening proposition to me, although some might find it invigorating. That’s not what I believe or the world I want to live in but I know some people that do.
You hit on one of the hardest and least discussed questions relative to being a Christian. Why did God, knowing we would choose sin, allow this inherent predicament. Is this life a test? Is it because living without choice isn’t really living at all, so it had to be this way? I don’t know the answer to that one. But I do think without the ability to make good and bad choices our life would be pointless.
Comment by: Bob
11 08/16/08 7:59 PM | Comment Link |Hey Helen — You made me think of something else. Isn’t it just as frustrating to have an arbitrary standard that no one can determine (one day I’m good enough, then next I may not be and I can never be sure) than it is to have a standard you dislike? The crux of Christianity being substitutionary atonement is actually infinitely more generous than a legalistic measurement of our sufficient goodness. Especially when we can’t be certain where good enough is.
The only appealing thing about it to us as humans is that we earn it and it appeals to our worldly sense of fairness. Of course what we’d really like is to set the standard ourselves and then decide we’ve earned it.
Seems to me if there’s a God and there’s a standard God ought to be the one to set it. I don’t think we get to choose. Unless of course you take God out of the equation and you can choose whatever you want. That’s the real appeal of a Godless theology. You get to be God in a sense.
Comment by: Helen
12 08/17/08 8:02 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your responses, Bob.
I don’t know how to think about the next life; all I know is that black and white doesn’t fit anything in my experience and I don’t really see how any sort of justice can be done if the only options are eternal bliss or eternal torment. How can that cater to the spectrum of humanity and human experience? I don’t see how it can.
The answer I lean towards, which you didn’t include, is “He didn’t. The belief that God created such a predicament is in error.” I lean that way because it makes no sense to me that a compassionate God would
Actually that is my frustration about Christianity. Christians disagree over what The Standard is and I have no idea how to determine who is right.
You don’t really get to be God - rather, you work together with other people, pooling your resources and coming up with the best answers you can.
I don’t see why people can’t be involved in setting ’standards’ unless they are believed to be too stupid or evil to have any role. That seems to be what some forms of Christianity imply. I reject that view of humanity.
Comment by: Bob
13 08/17/08 12:21 PM | Comment Link |Hey Helen - I don’t think things are necessarily wrong just because they don’t agree with our sensibilities about how things should work. Not saying we shouldn’t examine it, just not sure that’s the vital criteria. Besides your sensibilities and someone elses may be very different. If God must cater to our sensibilities for him to be fair and just that’s not going too work well. It works fine for one person but not the next.
Maybe the point isn’t for it to cater to our experience, but for us to cater to God’s intentions. I don’t think it is as us centric as we would like it to be.
Admittedly too many chiefs and tribes when it comes to interpretation so I keep mine pretty simple. To me, either you accept Christ as your atoning sacrifice and admit your need or you don’t. All the other stuff is secondary to me. People will let legalism and works justification creep into their faith, I just choose not to because I don’t think that’s what the gospel is saying. What do you take it to mean? If you feel clear about what it means, who cares what other people think?
Really that kind of sidesteps my question though. A system that is strictly based on how good we are is much less clear than one that gives instruction on the single step that is essential. One offers a certain and attainable means and the other leaves no guarantees. I really think that doesn’t appeal to us because we want to think we earn it and are worthy of it.
People can and do (set standards)all the time. I’m just saying when you eliminate a higher power you eliminate absolute standards and you are left with relative humans standards. And those shift and change. I don’t think I’m stupid or evil most of the time but I’m certainly capable of being both. There’s too much of evidence of both in human behaviour to deny it. But there is also great goodness that is undeniable as well. We’re saint and sinner and that’s okay.
And I do understand your frustration with how our self perception is presented in Christian circles. We are not so bad, we just need help reconciling something not so bad with something entirely perfect. That isn’t a bad thing, it’s good news because it means we will be even better. Isn’t that one of the things you’re striving for?
I don’t think God sees us as just sinners, although it’s a big part of who we are. I think, even though we are imperfect, we are beautiful and interesting and beloved to Him. Max Lucado said something like if God had a wallet your picture would be in it. I always thought that was a pretty cool notion. I think we as Christians dwell on the bad alot more than God does. I like to think God looks at us and sees the very best version of us that we could be. He made a way for us so he wouldn’t lose us — because we are dear to Him. Why would you make a way for someone you think is wretched that you can’t stand? So it makes me sad when I hear you talk about God as if He doesn’t care for you.
Comment by: benjdm
14 08/17/08 12:52 PM | Comment Link |Would this author say the same for my definition? Who is this author?
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2826552
Comment by: Helen
15 08/17/08 3:42 PM | Comment Link |I care because maybe I’m wrong and they’re right. What’s the use of being clear if you’re wrong? Being sure about something doesn’t make it any more true.
Maybe that’s how it is for you but it really isn’t the issue for me. As far as I’m concerned, there are no guarantees in life. I could equally well say that I suspect your system appeals to many people emotionally because it provides the guarantees they long for. Which has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not, but has a lot to do with whether people are drawn to it.
I don’t know whether God exists or whether he/she cares for me. If he/she has tried to communicate care for me it is not in a way that has succeeded in reaching me with clarity. I’m not going to rely on hearsay or fuzzy feelings or a book people whose meaning people can’t agree on. Human beings who want to show me they care have no trouble communicating that to me. I don’t understand why it is easy for them but evidently not possible for an all-powerful Being.
Go to any site where ex-Christians hang out and you’ll read story after story about people who pleaded with God, longed for God and waited for God to somehow show them he/she was real and cared about them. It never happened and they eventually gave up waiting. I am not alone by any means in saying “I cannot identify any reasonably reliable and reasonably unambiguous communication from God that shows me God exists and cares about me.”
Thanks for caring, anyway. I can tell that you care :)
Comment by: Helen
16 08/17/08 3:52 PM | Comment Link |Benjdm who were you quoting here?
When I hear things like this I always wish I could hear the atheists’ side of it and find out if the conversation was helpful for them. Maybe it was. It’s hard to tell without hearing from the atheists as well as the Christian.
Comment by: benjdm
17 08/17/08 6:02 PM | Comment Link |Comment 4 by ‘no offense.’
Comment by: Bob
18 08/17/08 8:02 PM | Comment Link |Helen - There is nothing wrong with analyzing something and making a decision, there is always a possibility our minds will be changed but there’s not point in living in fear of it.
It doesn’t make it any less true either. Maybe you’re right, maybe your not, but at least you’ve made a decision. There are tons of things we can’t know for sure but we make decisions so we can make progress. What ifs will kill you. If someone tells you they love you, you’ve got two choices, believe them or don’t. Either choice or belief can bring you great joy or great harm depending on whether or not it’s true. Only the person who said it can truly know for sure. So do you avoid making a decision entirely, or do you risk the hurt and reap the benefit?
Quite possibly true. If that’s true it’s also fair to say that you long for the guarantee that christianity isn’t true so you can have peace about living apart from any notion of God. It’s a similar need. We all want peace and comfort in our views. The disheartening thing about that as a Christian is it tends to reduce our faith into a get out of jail card instead of a grateful desire to serve God’s kingdom. That doesn’t really feel right so I’ve never been a fan of motivating people out of fear of hell.
Fuzzy feelings — you’re not calling me sentimental are you :) Maybe God is trying to communicate to you through the people that express care for you. I’ll be the first to admit, I’d love a phone call from God that explains it all. I’ve certainly felt God’s presence in prayer, fellowship, and worship. But there are times I’d like a direct line on a specific issue and it’s frustrating. If knew the answer on that one I’d be selling books by the truckload.
I do care. Try to remember that when I get aggravating again :)
Comment by: Jason Horton
19 08/17/08 11:02 PM | Comment Link |I’ve heard the idea of hell as a separation from God before but I have a few problems with it.
If it were true then wouldn’t I (who’ve never had any contact with gods) be living in hell right now? Wouldn’t people (myself included) simply carry on living apart from god and make the best of the situation?
What sort of punishment is it where we cannot even tell if we’re being punished because life is the same as it was before?
How would a separation from God matter if we have no conception of what contact with God was like. Someone who has always been starving is not suffering the deprivation of food, they are suffering the privation of food. To them hunger is a normal state that they live with and cope with. It is not until they have enough to eat that they can understand what it is to be well fed and so feel deprived of food when it is taken away. Wouldn’t it be the same with God?
If that is the case then wouldn’t even a brief contact with God be enough to sustain us?
It may ease your feelings to think that hell is just a separation from God and not a place of hellfire and pitchfork toting demons but neither really make sense. At least not to me.
Comment by: Helen
20 08/18/08 6:08 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
I do make decisions and my current decision about God is “Not enough evidence to base anything in my life on God’s existence”. That could change if God in his/her all-powerfulness decides to give me more evidence. It’s up to him/her.
Btw in what I wrote I said ‘many people’ not ‘you’ because I didn’t want to presume what your own needs are.
Anyway what you wrote may be true of some or many people, but speaking for myself I have relinquished my need for that type of guarantee so it doesn’t apply to me.
I doubt it, because, being God, he/she would know that when people express care for me I assume that means they care. I don’t guess that it means some invisible being is trying to convey something to me. So God would know that wouldn’t work with me. He/she would know that I’m waiting for some direct, not delegated, proof that he/she exists and cares.
Christians give God the benefit of the doubt all the time in ways like this, attributing anything good (like people caring) to him/her.
I’m not interested in giving someone the benefit of the doubt who supposedly is all-powerful yet hasn’t seen fit to show me in a reasonably unambiguous way that he/she exists and cares.
The more you defend God the more I wonder why he/she doesn’t show up and defend himself/herself. Because he/she knows that’s what it would take for me to believe.
I used to think I felt God’s presence but when I look back now I have no idea whether those ‘fuzzy feelings’ actually had anything to do with God. (That’s what I meant by fuzzy feelings :))
I will :)
Comment by: Helen
21 08/18/08 6:08 AM | Comment Link |Jason wrote:
Jason, good point!
Comment by: Leo
22 08/18/08 8:05 AM | Comment Link |Jason,
You might like “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis, where he writes of the eternal separation from God. Is a quick read.
Helen & Bob - thanks for the discussion and civility - I find myself more and more ignoring blogs because they degenerate into personal attacks rather than honest sharing and discussion.
If I might add a short thought, probably way off base…
God’s perfection is not a requirement, but an attribute of God. Simply put - it is not just who He is…it IS Him.
Leo
Comment by: Helen
23 08/18/08 10:43 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Leo. I much prefer it when conversations can stay civil and I very much appreciate Bob’s politeness and civility throughout this conversation.
Comment by: Bob
24 08/18/08 12:53 PM | Comment Link |Hey Everybody — Good Stuff! Leo I like your quote, sums it up more eloquently that I could have. God doesn’t have to be anything He just IS.
Helen my apologies for attributing my “neediness” to you. However you did express a need not to be be wrong with your decision, which on my part I took for a need to be right and the desire to know that you’re right.
My point being we’d all like to know if we’re on the right path if we could. Isn’t that the whole point of wanting direct, unambiguous communication from God? And to be clear, I don’t want the truth just for the sake of avoiding hell, I want the truth so I can life life to the fullest, in harmony with God’s intentions. I will work on my I, you, and we usage in future posts though. It wasn’t meant to be inflammatory.
Also, I wasn’t implying you don’t make decisions, just that fear of being wrong isn’t a good motivation for avoiding them.
That would certainly be nice but it isn’t a prerequisite for me. Even if I didn’t have christian beliefs I’m pretty sure I would believe there’s something beyond us that is resonsible for this universe and this life. To me there are way too many coincidences for any other explanation. I see evidence of God all around me. We can argue about who that god is and what their roll in the modern world is but if I never heard an audible peep I’d still think there was something.
Sometimes it seems like it’s not so much that people don’t believe in God but that they’re really mad at God for not being that way they expect. Do you know what I mean? If someones really doesn’t believe why give so much time and consideration to something you don’t believe in? I know we can say it’s about defending our positions but sometimes I think it’s about answering our own questions.
Same thing with christians, you can always say you’re defending the faith out of the desire to spread the gospel, but it’s not always true. I don’t think people are ever changed one way or the other in a defensive argument. That’s why it’s great that we can get together like this and throw out questions and possibilities and listen to each other.
Comment by: Bob
25 08/18/08 1:37 PM | Comment Link |Jason that’s interesting. You can’t miss what you never knew. I would argue that we are all touched by God through the revelation of nature, and the highs and lows of the human experience, and the good in the world. If we don’t know God, we do know that good things that come from him. (I know we may or may not agree that they come from him, that’s my opinion) I wasn’t meaning to soft peddle hell, just boil it down a bit. Pure evil the absence of anything positive or good. If hell is not only the absence of the knowledge of God but also that absence of any of the good things that come from God that makes sense. Because you would miss what you do not have, even if you don’t miss what you do not know. So I think people could still recognize the change and loss of existence in hell.
Comment by: Jason Horton
26 08/18/08 3:25 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Bob, I’d argue that we’re sometimes touched by nature or human experience and misinterpret that as God. You know what though, whatever works for you. For me the idea of any sort of god raises far more problems to life than it solves.
Comment by: Bob
27 08/18/08 4:03 PM | Comment Link |Jason — I know what you’re saying. I’m not really referring to a religious experience. I’m thinking the way your touched by the artist when you view his painting. Or a carpenter when you use the furniture he made for you. If God made all these things we can’t help but be touched by some of them. Of course that’s predicated on the idea that someone made everything and I know we see that differently. If no one intentionally made them I guessed we’re not really touched by anything but our own perceptions.
It’s funny because the absence of God creates problems for me and the presence of God does for you. But we would likely want to know answers to alot of the same questions. Just seeking them from different perspectives. I wonder it their are many commonalities in the issues we ponder.
Comment by: Pseudonym
28 08/18/08 7:59 PM | Comment Link |Incidentally, one more thing:
The question assumes that there is such a thing as hell. I’m a Christian, and I’m not convinced that there is such a place, or if there is, that it involves some kind of eternal existence for humans.
Yes, I’ve checked all of the relevant bits of the Bible. After that, I’m even more convinced that the popular idea of “hell” is not even remotely connected to anything that the Bible talks about.
Comment by: Jason Horton
29 08/18/08 10:52 PM | Comment Link |Bob said:
Considering that we are human before we consider our theistic views I’d suggest that this was a certainty.
Pseudonym said:I’m even more convinced that the popular idea of “hell” is not even remotely connected to anything that the Bible talks about.Do you think we’re taking our idea of hell (and heaven too) from Dante or from subsequent fictions? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Comment by: Helen
30 08/19/08 7:16 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
I wouldn’t describe it as a ‘need’ exactly.
Here’s an analogy - if I plan to buy something I look up stores on the Internet to see if they actually sell it before I drive out there to purchase it. Why make the drive for nothing?
Similarly, I’d like sufficient evidence that God exists before putting time and effort into living as if he/she does.
I agree and it’s not about fear - hopefully my analogy I just wrote conveys that. I don’t look stores up on the internet because I’m afraid to go there without doing so. Rather, I want to minimize the possibility of spending time and achieving nothing worthwhile.
Evidently we’re different in that respect then. :) To me a coincidence is a coincidence unless I have specific evidence of it being more than random.
I know what you mean from a conceptual point of view but people who genuinely don’t believe in God can’t be mad at God. They might be upset about various things and with various people - for example, they might feel betrayed by people who told them God does exist and they might be upset at the amount of time they spent trying to please someone they no longer believe exists. But if they don’t believe in God then they aren’t mad at God.
Feeling betrayed and being upset about wasted time are things people might need to work through. Those feelings don’t generally vanish overnight. Many ex-Christians may be working through things (as are many other people who have been through various life experiences). It doesn’t mean that they still believe and are in denial of it. It simply means they’re still processing what they’ve been through and coming to terms with it.
I think there’s a lot of truth in that - that people who strongly defend a position are at the same time trying to convince themselves. People who aren’t Christians tend to see Christian apologetics books as ineffective for them but helpful for Christians because they help Christians feel better about their own beliefs.
I spent quite a lot of time trying to resolve my own questions. When I couldn’t, I put them aside. I’m trying to walk the line of giving people a fair hearing who claim to have answers even though I don’t expect to hear anything new at this point because I think I’ve pretty much covered the bases of what Christians say. As a Christian I studied apologetics; then the time came when those arguments stopped working for me. Other Christians tend to present the same arguments, so, I’ve heard them before. They don’t work more when someone else says them than when I thought through them myself.
Exactly.
Comment by: Helen
31 08/19/08 8:02 AM | Comment Link |Pseudonym wrote:
Interesting.
I don’t have time to look these all up and quote them in detail, but, what do you do with the rich man in the unquenchable fire in Luke; the people thrown into outer darkness, the people told to depart into eternal fire in Matthew, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the worm that won’t die, the people thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation?
Comment by: Bob
32 08/19/08 9:41 AM | Comment Link |Helen - I see your analogy, but the difference there is you can get a definite answer. You can’t get a guarantee God doesn’t exist and you can’t get one God does exist. (I know —we can argue about the burden of proof later) The GodMart website can tell you, here’s the evidence that we may have stock, here’s the evidence we don’t. But it still may or may not be there when you drive to the store. For that matter you can check stock online and be told there is nothing there, only to call the store and find there is one left or a new shipment arrived. It’s still subject to human error. We didn’t know what air molecules looked like until we had a microscope, but they were still there and we had access to them. We couldn’t see distant galaxies until we had better telescopes, but they were still there. Maybe we’re still honing or improving our radar.
All that being said, I can appreciate your pragmatism and desire not to waste time. But I do think it’s a fear of getting mislead or burned for some and that is as emotional as it is logical.
This is interesting and useful information. I bet we could also say that althought its’ somewhat illogical we could be mad at god for not existing (if that’s what they believe). Where are you? Why are things unfair? You could make this better. And the presence of people claiming and touting God just aggravates their dissatisfaction with the human condition. Although I see things differently, this helps me understand others’ feelings in a new way. Thank you.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss, some of us may have an original thought or two swimming around in our noggins :)
Comment by: Bob
33 08/19/08 9:55 AM | Comment Link |Jason - Thinking about the commonalities. Is interesting.
This is another thing that we see differently but just so you understand my line of thinking I’ll put it out there. I think a spark of the creator, a rudimentary blueprint, is embedded in us all. Others will just call it evovlution honing our survival instincts, but it seems like we know, regardless of what were taught, that certain things are right or wrong etc. I think it’s part of us to want to answer the questions we’re exploring. For me, God puts that desire within us, for others its an evolutionary need we have.
So I think while we are human before our views, we are also innately divine before our humanity. It’s the one thing that seems to seperate us from every other species on earth. This self awareness and desire to look beyond ourselves. Whether we think it’s from God or not, I think we all agree we have the desire to know more.
So my thinking is, maybe sometime we should make a list of the questions we are trying to answer. What are our commonalities and why God does or doesn’t work for us within our personal contexts. And what answers their may be apart from our personal contexts. Sounds like a lot of work but it would be interesting.
Comment by: Helen
34 08/19/08 10:28 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Actually this is a good analogy, because I favor reliable stores over unreliable ones and part of my reticence about Christianity is that the information seems profoundly unreliable. The lack of agreement among Christians and the lack of internal consistency I find in the Bible indicates unreliability to me.
When stores can’t keep track of inventory I wonder why and I similarly wonder why an all-powerful God has chosen to communicate what supposedly is of great importance in such an unreliable way.
Maybe so, although the main issue for people like me, in my experience, is lack of sufficient reliable evidence.
No, I respectfully disagree here: you don’t ask someone questions who doesn’t exist. These are the questions of frustrated believers, like David in the Psalms, even, who asks why God hasn’t shown up - not the questions of people who don’t believe in God.
I’m glad it was helpful.
I’m sure you’re delightfully unique and have original ideas, Bob, but I’m simply saying based on experience that when believers talk to me about God I feel like it’s a road I’ve already been down since I recognize the major landmarks.
Comment by: Bob
35 08/19/08 1:48 PM | Comment Link |Helen - I still thinks it’s more about the people interpeting it and less about definitive content. People of all ideologies disagree about certain aspects. Doesn’t mean the ideology is unreliable. I don’t find the bible unreliable, just the people that interpret it in unsupportable ways unreliable.
You’re right a true aetheist wouldn’t think of it that way. My mistake. A searching one might, but they’d use the “if there is a god why doesn’t he” structure.
I recognize some too –but if we’re looking too hard for landmarks to avoid we might miss some of the trip. There might be good stuff in between them, even if it looks like familiar territory.
Comment by: Jason Horton
36 08/19/08 2:36 PM | Comment Link |Bob said:
Well I’d argue that many other animals demostrate self awareness. There’s even a mirror test to assess which animals are able to recognise themselves by their reflection. We humans may have more advanced brains than our cousins in the animal kingdom but we are not seperate from them.
I do not see a divine spark in a rat or a human but I can see decision making and cognitive function is both.
Comment by: Helen
37 08/19/08 4:34 PM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
But to identify the underlying ideology you have to decide which of the people who disagree with each other are interpreting it correctly. I don’t understand how you can make that decision with confidence. Aren’t you just assuming the ones who ’seem’ to have the correct interpretation in your opinion are correct? Which means your own opinion is what your beliefs are based on?
Yes, that’s what they’d say. And they might not be searching - they might just be trying to illustrate some of the problems they have with someone else’s beliefs about God.
But if it is familiar territory, and if I was paying attention the other times I passed that way, I’ve already seen what there is to see.
Comment by: Pseudonym
38 08/19/08 5:36 PM | Comment Link |Jason:
Yes, I do. Dante, of course, is highly allegorical, much like Revelation, as we’ll see in a moment…
Helen:
Obviously, a full discussion would take some time, so I’ll give a quick couple of factoids. We can discuss this at more length some other time if you want.
The first thing to note is that the understanding of “the afterlife” changes over the course of the Bible being written. In the Wisdom of Ben Sira (also known as “Ecclesiasticus”) from the Apocrypha, for example, the writer thought that wicked people would be confronted with their evilness before they die. Suggesting that it was common thinking at the time that there was no post-death judgement.
Even today, most of Judaism (like liberal Christianity) spends pretty much no time thinking about what happens after you die. It’s much more centred on what’s happening here and now.
Second thing: The word “hell” appears nowhere in the Bible. It’s actually a translation of at least four different words, and is also commonly identified with a few distinct symbols, like the “lake of fire” that you mentioned. This confuses things considerably, because to a post-Dante reader, it looks like they’re all talking about the same thing, when they actually are not.
The word that Jesus used which is most commonly translated as “hell”, for example, was “Gehenna”. This refers to a physical location which everyone he spoke to new about: the Hinnom Gulch just outside of Jerusalem. In Jesus’ day it was a perpetually burning rubbish dump.
It’s instructive to look up every use of a word like this to see how it’s used. In some places where it appears, there’s context, such as rhetorical parallelism, which expands on what the word means. In other places, there’s no context, and the word just appears; Jesus probably just assumed that those he was talking to knew what he meant.
In a nutshell, where the context explains the term, it always indicates that it refers to destruction, not eternal existence.
Here’s a typical example, Matt 10:28:
Do you see what I mean by the context here? Bear in mind that Gehenna is a rubbish dump, and see if you can spin this as referring to some kind of eternal existence.
(And yes, Jesus was also engaging in rhetorical hyperbole. Rabbis do that.)
The “lake of fire” in Revelation is also a classic example of an allegory taken too far. Fire is a symbol of purification and destruction. “Fire and sulphur” (or “brimstone”) is a common Biblical symbol, first appearing in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Always, it refers to purifying by destroying some kind of evil.
In Revelation, the phrase “lake of fire” appears four times, and the things thrown into it are “the beast” and “the false prophet (Rev 19:20), the deceiving devil (Rev 20:10), Death and Hades, and “anyone whose name was not written in the book of life” (Rev 20:14-15).
Even if you think you understand Revelation (almost nobody does; I certainly don’t), I don’t see how you could make a case for some kind of eternal existence from these descriptions. If anything, annihilationism or “conditional immortality” seem like more accurate interpretations to me.
Of course, this all assumes a certain amount of Biblical literalism. (My higher criticism is higher than many.) My point is that the Biblical support for eternal punishment is far weaker than most people seem to realise.
Comment by: Helen
39 08/19/08 6:41 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Pseudonym - those seem like reasonable arguments to me.
Comment by: Bob
40 08/19/08 9:24 PM | Comment Link |Helen - My beliefs are my own, based on my examination of the evidence. So are yours. That’s a fairly safe assumption for an atheist, hindu, or anybody that holds a belief. It is your opinion God does not exist, it’s also your belief. Does that make it any less valid? At one point in your life it was your opinion God did exist, you changed your opinion and eventually your belief. Having an opinion that your belief is correct doesn’t validate or invalidate it. It’s one of the step you go through to get to the belief. Having others concur or not doesn’t make it more true or less true, it’s merely consensus.
As for the journey, you may have been there already, but some of us may not have. Perhaps we’d like to see it through your eyes or try to have you get a sense of what it looks like through ours. That’s what I’m here for, so I can understand the perspective of others and hopefully be understood as well.
Comment by: Bob
41 08/19/08 9:34 PM | Comment Link |Jason wrote:
I’d say there’s a big difference between recognizing yourself in a mirror and pondering the origins of the universe. Rats don’t build temples or wrack their brains with the kinds of questions we discuss here. There are some amazing things in species on all levels, but I still think we are unique in our ability to consider the unanswerable.
We share some functionality but I think our process is different beyond expanded functionality. Call it an evolutionary mechanism if you have to but we are alone in our abilities relative to the other species.
Comment by: Bob
42 08/19/08 9:40 PM | Comment Link |Pseudonym — Interesting stuff. The Jehovah’s witnesses’ teaching on hell has some similarities to what you mentioned regarding Gehenna. They also don’t believe in eternal torment but annhilation. Their view of resurrection is different as well.
Comment by: Jason Horton
43 08/19/08 10:58 PM | Comment Link |Bob said
Very true, they are more concerned with finding food, building a nest, finding a mate and caring for their offspring. Concerns that are shared with all mammals including humans.
As a species we are unique but then as a species the dolphin is unique or the ostrich. We have our own niche, our own abilities and defining characteristics. Of course we are different but we are also far closer than sometimes we’d like to believe.
The chimpanzee, for instance shares 96% of it’s DNA with human beings. We’re physically similar in shape and our societies have many identical characteristics. Many hunter\gatherer societies are even closer to chimp society. A chimp child clings to it’s mother just as a human child does, it displays the same curiosity and empathy for others. A chimp develops faster and has a shorter childhood and lifespan and less developed higher brain functions but we can see clear similarities that show kinship.
Do chimps consider the stars? Do they imagine a heaven or gods? Do they ponder the idea of hell? I don’t know. I doubt it. They do act sad when faced with the loss of a relative so it is possible that they mourn. This might simply be an emotional attachment to another being. Another trait not unique to humans. My rats do the same when one of their number dies.
Does that mean their is a ratty heaven or a chimp heaven? You might scoff at the idea but why, when humans are not that far removed, do we get heaven and hell when rats and chimps get oblivion? It makes me wonder if we’re simply using our higher brain functions to imagine what we would like there to be. We mitigate our fear of death by inventing an “after-death” place where death is temporary and the fear is dispelled.
Religions may well have taken this imaginary place and used the idea to comfort those exposed to injustice. A murdered person’s family might seek justice in the afterlife where it is denied them in life. A life of drudgery and suffering might see the cause of that suffering punished in the next life where no punishment could be made in this one. Comforting thoughts for some that could have been readily adopted by religions seeking to appeal to the common man.
It’s plausible but, honestly, I just made it up. I’d need evidence, good independent evidence, before accepting it as fact. The same goes for the hell and heaven or Valhalla and nifelheim or the happy hunting grounds or any of the after death places that our human myths tell us about.
Comment by: Helen
44 08/20/08 5:53 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Bob, is it evidence which led you to decide which interpretation of the Bible is right? If so, how does evidence tell you whether salvation is by grace or works, for example?
I was mostly trying to explain why my expectations of seeing something new are low; I’m not trying to put anyone else off the journey.
On the contrary, I hope people will investigate for themselves and make their own decisions about what is true and what to live their lives by. I don’t want anyone to assume anything I say is true or right just because I said it. (Hopefully they also won’t assume it’s wrong just because I said it :))
Comment by: Bob
45 08/20/08 10:27 AM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Yes, I believe so. It’s the same thing for someone interpreting the evidence of atheism or the evidence in a jury trial. You may not like the evidence you have, but you still have to render a verdict. Form an opinion of the evidence and decide if you believe it to be true. No one can make up your mind for you. Although people will try.
When it’s comes to grace or works, my belief based on the evidence (biblical text) is that grace is more dominantly and prominently presented throughout the bulk of the new testament. IE “No man is good enough” “it is by grace you are saved and not by works” This also seems to be more in sync with the actions of Christ and the way he lived his life. I would say James is probably the book that gives some berth to a works based interpretation, but I don’t really think it was the intention of the book. There are plenty of phrases you can pull out of context to try to build a case, but I think in their complete context it’s not what they’re saying. I see works indentified as a fruit of the spirit, not a precursor. That’s what I believe based on the evidence I have. What do/did you think about this? Did you feel it was a mixed message and frustrating?
I do understand what you mean and I wasn’t trying to pick on you. I was a little concerned that making a generalization about christian arguments could give an illusion of bias toward the input of the individual (as a christian) rather than the specific arguments. It’s way too easy to read only the stuff we agree with so any excuse to dismiss something is a danger in my mind. I don’t want to meet your lowered expectations — I want to give you something worth pondering :)
Comment by: Bob
46 08/20/08 10:39 AM | Comment Link |Jason — Richard Dawkins has some very similar theories regarding the evolutionary development of the human need for God. That fact that monkeys share 99% of our DNA but are different only reinforces the differences to me. At 99% you’d think they’d be almost exactly like us. Yet they lack the capacity to do so many things we do.
Do monkeys feel emotions? Is my dog really glad when I get home? If we’re just evolved monkeys then do we really feel anything either? Or is it just a more advanced instictive reaction? These are the things I wonder in this line of thought. Because if I’m just a mass of pre-programmed instinctive biological reactions, perhaps we’re not so high functioning as we think. What do you think?
Comment by: Jason Horton
47 08/20/08 1:47 PM | Comment Link |I’d say that animals do feel genuine emotions within the limitations of their biology just as human beings do. Similarly the intellectual thoughts of animals (of which humanity is one example) are similarly limited to biology. You’re really talking about free will and how we can know if our thoughts and feelings are genuine or “programmed” by biology.
It’s interesting in relation to the question of atheists and potential divine punishment. If free will does not exist and our biology dictates our thoughts then how could we deserve punishment? If our biology does not limit our thoughts and actions then why are we so tied to things like frustration, anger, lust, hunger, and even love that can be observed on a biochemical level?
I prefer a middle ground with a lesser form of free will as opposed to a determinist absence of free will or a unrestrained freedom of will that fails to match our experiences with our decisions. This lesser free will allows us to act within the bounds of our biology and experiences. We have actions available to us but they are not unlimited.
How do you think this form of free will marries up to divine reward and punishment? Could a just and merciful God punish a person who reacts violently as a result of long term abuse? Could a God punish a schizophrenic or someone with a mental illness? Would a kleptomaniac be guilty of breaking the commandment to not steal and so suffer eternity in hell or eternity separated from God, depending on your interpretation.
Similarly would a person raised in comfort in North America within a Christian family. Taught from birth to be dutiful and kind and helped in every way to live up to those expectations. Would such a person deserve the reward of heaven even though they had done nothing beyond their privileged upbringing to warrant the reward?
An absolutist deity with strict and unbending rules would reward the comfortable American and punish the ill or abused. The prospect of such a god is horrible and not just because I fall apart from that lucky definition. Many atheists will tell you that they did not choose to be atheists. We simply failed to believe or stopped believing. Not through a conscious choice but an inevitable combination of circumstances or thoughts. Are we to be punished for our honesty and inquiry?
As Helen has already indicated this interpretation of God isn’t everyones. Some Christians take a different stance and even assume a reward system based on “works” that does not pre-suppose religious belief. For me though the idea of reward and punishment after death are irrelevant. I believe that there is no “me” after my body dies so there is no after life to look forward to or fear. No reward or punishment means that I must make the best of this life because it is the only chance I have.
I’ve wittered on enough but I could easily expand on any of these points.
Comment by: Helen
48 08/20/08 4:18 PM | Comment Link |Bob wrote;
Basically, yes. In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus talks about works all the time. In his story of the sheep and goats, Matthew 25:31-46, which directly addresses who gets to heaven, there’s no mention of faith. The decisions about heaven or hell are made entirely based on works.
Well…good luck :)
Comment by: Bob
49 08/20/08 4:25 PM | Comment Link |Hey Jason — This is very interesting. Let me first say, in an attempt to be less long winded than I usually am, heaven and hell (from my understanding) are dependent on the single issue of choosing to accept or reject Christ as your atoning sacrifice. No one deserves it on their own merit. So I don’t think the people you mentioned would be punished for being the way they are. I think God allows the opportunity of revelation to every person in some way at one time or the other regardless of their circumstance or capabilities.
I find this very interesting. You could parallel this with the question of the sinful nature and how it seems unfair that we are born into this predicament. One point of view says the devil made me do it, another says my genetics made me do it. Either way I still did it. Sometimes those situations are a result of decisions we make and other times we have no control over them.
I’ve never really thought about partial free will before. Always just assumed it was an all or nothing type of thing. What regulates the amount of free will we get? Obviously we have congnitive limitations and physical limitations. But it seems like there is no limit to our capacity for good or evil. I think we agree good and evil exist? Or are they stricly relative standards imposed by our evolutionary mechanisms?
Comment by: Bob
50 08/20/08 5:12 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
At first it looks that way but I think it doesn’t have much to do with the specific works, it has to do with the condition of their hearts. I look at the passage and see them being rejected for not really seeing and knowing Jesus. If they had, they would have done the right things. Kind of like the passage where Jesus rejects the people that did miracles in his name because they didn’t really know him. Like the pharisees, they had religion but didn’t really know God. Speaks to what’s in your heart as opposed to on your lips. I’d probably say the same thing for the rich young ruler. Selling all your posessions isn’t an entry requirement, it’s having God first in your heart before all those things that you love.
Still we can wrestle with whether or not Christ is really first in our lives. It can seem like an impossibly tall order if we start examining our works as evidence of our devotion. I don’t think we’re supposed to dwell on that. I think they’re supposed to be an outpouring of our faith, we don’t feed our faith with works our faith feeds the works. Just my opinion of course:)
Comment by: Helen
51 08/20/08 7:07 PM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
But the people who did the right things didn’t seem to know Jesus any more than those who didn’t do the right things. They are equally surprised by what he says.
…but that’s not what Jesus said.
I’ve heard other Christians interpret these passages the way you do, but I don’t see where they get the authority to move from what the passage literally says to a meaning which is different from what it literally says. What can have higher authority than Jesus’ literal words?
I’m not trying to change your interpretation; I’m just saying I don’t feel comfortable taking Jesus’ literal words and saying that he meant something different.
Comment by: Jason Horton
52 08/20/08 10:13 PM | Comment Link |Bob said:
Not in absolute terms that many people see good and evil. I prefer the terms benefit and harm because they relate better to our actions. A “good” act may be considered “evil” by some people and vise versa so it cannot have an absolute value. Even truly vile acts are only “evil” because of a consensus of opinion. I think we can agree on many such acts that they “evil” and on many others that they are “good” but it is only our opinion that make them so.
Also I’d have to say on the issue of personal growth that any event, whether perceived of as good or evil, shapes those who survive it. I am the man I am today because of the things that I have experienced. My life has been filled with luxury and comfort compared with many people in the world, I’ve never been starving, I’ve never suffered from a disease that couldn’t be cured, I’ve had a roof over my head for most of my life, I’ve only been cold and alone for a few moments. Yet I have experienced bad things, we all have. These bad things, along with the good, are experiences where I have learned something and gained an appreciation for life.
Given that I am happy and live a fulfilling life I must say that no experience has been “evil” because something “good” has come from it. Perhaps “good and evil” are simply states of mind. Lamenting the wrongs in life is wasteful when we can take them and turn them to our benefit.
Comment by: Bob
53 08/21/08 11:10 AM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
They may have not have been complicit in their understanding of why they did the things they did, but they did them out of love for Christ. Whether they recognized him in the people they helped or not, they recognized him in their hearts by doing it.
Jesus spoke in ways that forced interpretation all the time. I’m not saying I’m anymore qualified than the next guy, but I don’t really have a choice. We could argue he meant every parable literally if we wanted to. That the lost coin is really a story about managing your money. In that case the literal words are not the best choice.
I would say Jesus’ intended message. Why did he make it occasionaly hard to discern, I have no idea. It is with out a doubt challenging, and I too get frustrated from time to time. Did he literally want us to pluck out our eye or chop off our hand?
A couple of thoughts about that:
It’s interesting that the verse begins “Jesus looked at him and loved him” Do you look at strangers and love them? Love implies an intimacy and understanding of someone. Jesus looks at him and loves him, and says you lack one thing, sell all your posessions and then come and follow me. Which action do you think Jesus was saying would grant him eternal life? Selling his posessions or following Jesus? Clearly Jesus saw that his possesions we’re a big part of his identity and for this particular fellow, giving them up would be the only way that he could really follow Jesus. The story doesn’t end there either, Jesus points out that this is an obstacle for many rich people. And the disciples ask him “Who then can be saved?” Jesus’ response “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” Not our actions but the sanctification of God. So not I do not feel that Jesus was literally saying that we should all sell our possesions. I believe he was say we should get rid of the things that keep us from following him and go follow him. For some people that’s money, or fame, or pride, or lust, or any number of things. That of course is my opinion again, but I think a pretty reasonable one.
Do you really feel that he meant that by selling off his possessions, this young man would get a pass to eternal life? What is the literal interpretation of this passage and how would we apply it?
Comment by: Bob
54 08/21/08 11:28 AM | Comment Link |Jason — Yes, I can appreciate your thinking on this. A lot of the bad experiences in my life have been necessary to shape me as a person. Without the presence of both we’d be pretty shallow.
Relativism creeps into everyones morals whether they want to admit it or not. But is anything absolutely wrong or absolutely right? I think it’s wrong to take a life, even though the result can be beneficial to society. No matter how worthy we deem that persons existence it’s not our right to judge if they’re worthy to live or not. I can like the result but still feel it’s absolutely wrong. Am I kidding myself?
From an evolutionary standpoint, since someone recognizes that process as having created our current standard, is it okay for that person to break from what’s engrained and decide their morality will be different because it best suits their benefit and survival? Are we really bound to current moral codes of behaviour out of an obligation to society, or since we recognize that obligation as merely an evolutionary byproduct to ensure survival for some, can we choose to reject it?
Comment by: Helen
55 08/21/08 11:33 AM | Comment Link |…which only Jesus knows for sure. Everyone else is guessing and I don’t know whose guess is right.
You raise a good point about ‘follow me’. It makes sense that selling his stuff was how to remove what would otherwise stop him following Jesus.
Hey since we’re on this passage: I think it’s amazing how many people say the man refused Jesus advice. Jesus said “GO sell your stuff…” and the man left. Maybe he left to go do what Jesus said and maybe he was sad because it would be difficult. I think the text gives as much support for the idea the man took Jesus’ advice as for him refusing to take it.
I disagree with ‘clearly’ - none of this is clear to me.
I don’t know - I stopped trying to apply it when I got totally confused.
I agree in general with the principle that being too attached to possessions will hold us back from the life we could have. I agree not because it’s possibly implied by Jesus here, or is said in other Bible passages, but because in my experience of myself and others it seems to be true.
Comment by: Bob
56 08/21/08 1:30 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Yes, but you must concede (now I know you won’t because I said “must” ;) there are times, especially in the telling of parables, where Christ’s intended message is most assuredly not literal and other times where it’s more up for debate. I imagine he’s got to laugh (or cry) sometimes when he sees how we miss the point.
I don’t think of it as guessing though — at a minimum we’re falling somewhere in between a hypothesis and a theory :) I think in this case, my suppositions are supportable from the text. Can’t guarantee they’re right but I’m pretty certain this is the message being spoken to me in this passage. Maybe that’s all we can be. I wish I had more guarantees for you but I don’t. It doesn’t bother me the same way it does you, but I understand why it bothers you.
I think you’re giving me a hard time on that one :) It is pretty fair to say that Jesus saw the man’s possessions as issue in his ability to follow Jesus, in both a literal and non-literal interpretation of the text. If Jesus is the only way to the kingdom and told the fellow to follow him, it’s a fair extrapolation. If the sentence had stopped at “sell all your posessions and give them to the poor” it would be a different story.
That’s interesting. I always assumed he went away, because it says he was sad. But he quite possibly could have stayed or come back. I guess we always need to guard against our assumptions and read with fresh eyes. I think the wrong moral has been drawn and touted from many bible stories. Or perhaps there are several to draw from within the story. In some ways that could make it richer assuming they do not conflict. Discoveries like that can be quite refreshing.
Well we both agree on that. (release the tickertape and balloons!) I just happen to think it was what Jesus was saying as well — specific to life with him.
Comment by: Jason Horton
57 08/21/08 10:53 PM | Comment Link |Bob said:
We form a society that creates rules to the benefit of all and not merely the individual. There may be circumstances where an individual feels justified in breaking these rules but the larger society will frown on such anti-social behaviour.
Comment by: Helen
58 08/22/08 6:53 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
I do agree that the parables aren’t meant to be true. But I think you’ll agree that Jesus wasn’t telling the rich young man a parable.
I also agree [assuming Jesus said what the Bible says he said] that Jesus used hyperbole (exaggeration).
I don’t see how you can go non-literal with this passage any more than you can if Jesus had said “It’s three o clock” (or rather, “it’s the third hour” - or whatever he would have said)
To do so is to claim Jesus didn’t mean what he said.
Jesus explained to the disciples that it’s hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God - so we know that’s why he told the man to sell his possessions. He didn’t say why, so our thoughts about that are speculative (or based on other Bible passages, knowledge of human nature, etc)
In all this I think you are bringing a whole host of things to bear as you interpret Bible passages. Maybe you’re appropriately bringing them in but my point is, you are bringing them in. And everyone does. And then they say “Hey I’m just going with what the text says!” And that frustrates me, since they aren’t - they went through an interpretation process involving their other knowledge, life experience, judgement, beliefs, etc.
The text does say “he went away sad” but what it doesn’t comment on is whether he returned. And commentators seem to overlook the fact that if he was following Jesus’ instructions, then that would mean he’d go away - and probably look sad.
Anyway I’m glad it was a new interesting idea to you that maybe he was obeying Jesus and he came back later.
I don’t mind discussing ideas; what bugs me is when people claim their ideas are The Truth, or The Right Answer. When I don’t have sufficient reason to be sure their ideas are better or more true than other peoples’ ideas.
Comment by: Bob
59 08/22/08 8:22 AM | Comment Link |Jason wrote:
We have to this point, by why do we have to? We didn’t do it by choice but instinct, so now that we have the choice are we bound to instinct?
Agreed, but is that okay? Are we obligated to act in a way that’s beneficial to society or not? Our morality becomes a lot more flexible if it’s generated on the fly, by evolutionary processes. This is one of my quandarys with an existence void of any higher power. If morality isn’t destined by a higher power but simply a by product of our evolutionary process, is it truly relative? If that’s the case, what are my obligations to our societal moral codes? Or maybe it this world view it matters less, nothing is really okay or not okay, it just is as long as we can make peace with it?
Comment by: Bob
60 08/22/08 9:11 AM | Comment Link |Helen — I didn’t say I don’t think the parables aren’t meant to be true, just that they aren’t literally about the subject matter (coin sheep) but a metaphor for something else.(us)
Hyperbole is a good word –thanks, we can add metaphor and simile. Jesus uses a lot of mechanisms that require thought beyond the initial hearing of the words. And sometimes the things he says that could be taken completely literally may require the same type of examination. For example Jesus told Peter “get behind me Satan” Are we to assume that Satan snuck into the room and took Peter’s place? Or is it safe to assume Jesus was angry with Peter and expressing his displeasure? Am I claiming Jesus didn’t mean what he said by choosing an interpretation based on the context of their conversation? Hardly, I’m simply trying to understand what was said and why. The non-literal context makes more sense here in my opinion, if it doesn’t for someone else so be it.
In the case of our dialogue about the rich young ruler, I’m not even sure that non-literal is the right choice of words. We’re talking about what he meant in the context of this conversation. This is a requirement in any communication. And by the way, I never said my opinion was infallible or my ideas are any better than anyone elses, just that I thought it was probable. I go out of my way to say this is just my opinion so please don’t lump me in with fundamentalist preachers and the other people that anger you so.
Also, one other thing worth mentioning to me, is that personal revelation is personal and I think it’s a good thing. I do not feel we all have to interpret every passage the same way for it to have meaning to us. I do think, as a follower of Christ, that we have to have the commonality of recognizing him, but the same scripture may strike a person differently from another and that’s not a bad thing. I’m not looking for an army of synchronized Bobble-Heads. Just people willing to share their thoughts in a genuine way.
BTW — I noticed in my translation is does not say he went away at all, just that he became sad. Maybe he stuck around after all.
Comment by: Helen
61 08/22/08 10:21 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Probably not :)
Well, the reference to Satan is deliberate - I think Jesus is identifying Satan as the source of Peter’s attempt to dissuade him from the cross.
I understand - some of Jesus’ words seem like they are not meant to be taken literally.
I just don’t happen to think there’s indication that ’sell all your possessions’ falls into the ‘not meant to be taken literally’ category.
No, I won’t. I’m just trying to explain that a lot goes into interpretation; that people aren’t really ‘just going with what the text says’ - even after taking simile, metaphor, parable and simile into account.
When a person reads anything - maybe the Bible, maybe something else - it can have a personal effect on them which is different from the personal effect it would have on someone else. I understand that. If you want you can call that personal revelation/application inspired by what was read - or whatever you want to call it. I would separate that from ‘what this passage was intended to mean’. The former is very individual. The latter doesn’t vary by reader.
Interesting…what version are you reading? In Mark’s account it says he went away (sad) in the NIV and KJV in Mark 10:22. It’s the next verse after saying his face fell. Interestingly it says he went away sad ‘because he had great wealth’. That could mean he was sad because he was about to part with it in response to Jesus’ request, or it could mean he was sad because it was too hard and he was not going to. Who knows…
Comment by: Bob
62 08/22/08 10:58 AM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Actually I don’t either, I just think it was specific advice for a specific individual, likely for the reasons we discussed. Not literal in the sense that Jesus was commanding all of us to do that in order to have eternal life.
Yes — I should have phrased that differently. More along the lines of getting more than one or a new idea or benefit from the story or text. The meaning and the effect it has on us are different things too. Sometimes a friend will point out something I just never noticed or thought about in a scripture passage I’ve read many many times and I’ll realize I may have been focused on the wrong aspect. Or this additional aspect will teach me something new. Sometimes in those cases the main theme remains the same but there are sub themes or issues brought to my attention. This is especially true when making assumptions about the people in the bible.
I was reading out of NIV Luke 18. Didn’t think to check Mark.
Comment by: Helen
63 08/22/08 11:12 AM | Comment Link |Bob wrote:
Fair enough.
Although we’re all rich by global standards which means Jesus (if he exists) might say that to us…
Bob, I looked in Matthew and Mark and they both said the man went away. I didn’t get as far as Luke :)
Comment by: Bob
64 08/22/08 2:31 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Then we’d all looking sad — we love our posessions here in the U.S. I don’t know what kind of music you like but Derek Webb has a good song called Rich Young Ruler that speaks to those concerns from a modern viewpoint. Check it out if you have time, or just do a lyrics search. Kind of nails the comfortable life and our reluctance. :)
Comment by: Pseudonym
65 08/23/08 12:59 AM | Comment Link |Helen:
“Satan” is just the Hebrew and Aramaic word for “adversary”, or “to be hostile”. Assuming it’s an accurate quote, Jesus may have just been calling Peter an adversary.
Comment by: Helen
66 08/23/08 4:35 AM | Comment Link |Pseudonym, I suppose so, but Satan already seems to be identified as a particular adversary in the Old Testament.
Anyway I like how you think about the meaning of passages rather than just accepting what other people say.
Same with you Bob - I like your comments on the rich young ruler even if I don’t agree with all of them. And yes, I think many people in the US would be looking sad.
Comment by: Pseudonym
67 08/23/08 5:18 AM | Comment Link |Sure, I was just throwing it out the