Will There Be Jews In Heaven?

[MacQuarrie]

My own position is shunism; "Shun all isms." It's not about a formula or a ritual or checking off all the right boxes or saying the right magic words. It's about allowing God to establish a relationship with you.

[singoalla]

Now as to the notion of hell being a place where God is absent, that's just a highly controversial theology. It has traces of the same logic we employ here everyday, which may or may not apply. Bottom line is no one really knows... or at least the ones that do aren't doing much talking anymore. :)

Fair enough, and I may be wrong, but didn't one of the popes actually state that Hell is a place where god is absent? I'll have to google..


Disbelief in eternal consequence is the true "opium of the masses" for modern man. It is comforting to believe that our actions here play no roll in eternal destiny.

Comfort? Only if you look at it like a get out of jail free card, but most atheists I've met don't, including me.

Let's imagine we're all football players (american, european, whichever) and you have one single chance to make a good play. In your way are people trying to prevent you from striking that goal.
You shoot, and you either hit or miss. That's it. No more play. And you don't know if you're going to hit or miss ahead of time. No one will be there to help you make the goal, you're alone.

I don't look at it like there are no consequences at all, and I can just live willy-nilly, but rather that no matter what I do, I won't go to another place and get a second chance. I won't get a second chance to make it up to people I've hurt either, unless I try very hard here and now. If I fuck up, that's it, no more chances. It ends when I die and I'm not coming back.
Think about it: if you hurt someone or do something terrible, there's no one but the victim to forgive you, and they're not usually so lenient.

Honestly, if I could believe in god I would, since that seems infinitely more comforting, what with the all loving father figure and divine forgiveness.

[singoalla]

My own position is shunism; "Shun all isms." It's not about a formula or a ritual or checking off all the right boxes or saying the right magic words. It's about allowing God to establish a relationship with you.

I always liked Do unto others myself :smile: Nice, clean simple. If you hurt someone, ask forgiveness. Ok, not so simple, but it could be.

[MacQuarrie]

I always liked Do unto others myself :smile: Nice, clean simple. If you hurt someone, ask forgiveness. Ok, not so simple, but it could be.
Oh, I agree. But the nice thing about Christianity is that you get to be nice to people because it's good and right and pleasant to do so, and not just because you're trying to impress God or living in terror that he might smack you if you don't.

[beetlebum]

There is a surprisingly large majority of American Christians who believe this. Not just Bri. I've met them frequently and discussed this at length, and they simply will not budge from their conviction: If you do not believe in god and Jesus you will go to hell and hell is a place of torment (actual real torment).

If you do believe in god and Jesus you will go to heaven no matter what you've done.

Not really discussing it (although we certainly can! :smile: ) it's just that a lot of people in the US believes this. Especially the one's living in the center.

I should have added an 's' at the end of the word "denominations" and made it plural (see what happens when you don't proof read before you post?!)

There is no doubt that there are a large number of Christians who believe that. And I strongly disagree with them, as I believe exegesis into the Bible and hermeneutics state otherwise.

I should further expand on my original post and say while a lot of Evangelicals (not all) may believe that, most of the major ecumenical/ecclesiastical bodies do not endorse those beliefs.

Example: Although The Catholic Church still promotes the belief that 'there is no salvation outside of the church'; the "Catholic-Lutheran agreement" states that justification comes through faith alone, but that good works are an essential sign of true faith.

There is also the belief in the doctrine of purgatory, where souls are refined before getting into heaven. I presume the doctrine encompasses those outside of the Church as well ( I haven't read anything in the Catechism stating otherwise.)

Which goes back to the concept of orthopraxy, which I mentioned earlier.

And when I say orthopraxy, I don't just mean saying the right words, or just trying to win points with someone.

1 Samuel 16:7, “The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

A person's actions will reflect who they are, inwardly. So it's not just the act, but the motivations as well.

Also--as MaQ said--I don't really adhere to any "isms" as well. I do know a lot about theology, as I draw aspects from them to form my own beliefs; but ultimately, I try to stay away from anything that can be too inhibiting (in terms of beliefs).

[Tages]

There is a debate in the Catholic Church over extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the saying of Saint Cyprian of Carthage reiterated a millenium later by Pope Boniface VIII in the bull Unam Sanctum. The conservative wing interprets it as "Outside the Church there is no salvation," i.e. to be saved one must be a Catholic in full communion and in a state of grace. The other side, OTOH, interprets it as "Without the Church there is no salvation," that the existence of the Church itself is necessary for salvation to exist, but that salvation is possible (if less likely) outside of it.

Incidentally, Unam Sanctum is also the bull that stated "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Written at the height of the Church's temporal power, it pissed off one King Philip IV of France, and set off a chain of events that would send the Vatican's political power into a tailspin from which it never fully recovered.

[Buzz Dixon]

This strikes me as one of those loaded questions, like "How often do you beat your wife?"Depends on which game we're playing. She does better at go than she does at uno.

[Buzz Dixon]

If you do believe in god and Jesus you will go to heaven no matter what you've done.No, because Satan believes in God and Jesus, he just doesn't want to obey them.

To become a Christian means acknowledging one's sinful nature, desiring to avoid succumbing to that nature in thought, word, and deed, asking for forgiveness, and trying to live as righteously as possible after that. If one sins after becoming a Christian, one still needs to acknowledge that sin publicly and to atone for it as much as possible.

Case in point: There are a couple of death row prisoners whom I think may have had genuine Christian conversions. Once becoming Christians they dropped their appeals and let the execution process proceed without further interference on their parts. They accepted their executions with calm and grace, acknowledging their crimes and being willing to atone for those crimes by dying.

That is what we Christians are supposed to do when we sin, not use Jesus as a "Get out of Hell free" card.

[Buzz Dixon]

There may not be an "I" in TEAM......but there is a meta meat team mate!

[Alex Scott]

If one sins after becoming a Christian, one still needs to acknowledge that sin publicly and to atone for it as much as possible.I'm not sure about that publicly in there, because the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches all practice private confession to varying degrees, and while it's far from my favorite sacrament, I'd rather have that than a public one.

[Alex Scott]

By the way, is anyone else kinda iffy about attributing a personality and motivations to Satan? Given that we're dealing with an entity that's really not dealt with that much in the Bible as a whole, and whose traits are probably based more on popular works like Paradise Lost and Faust than anything else. I think we kinda risk doing the same thing with the Devil that we do with God, paying more attention to the finger than the object to which it points.

(in Satan's case, it's the simple fact that there are things all around us -- and within us -- that can lead us astray. I think that's a large part of why God includes grace in the package: because he knows better than anybody -- even ourselves -- what drove us to make our mistakes, and knows how easy it is for us to make them. Then he gets up on the cross, participates in our suffering even as he kind of takes responsibility for it, and then shows that sin and death don't have the last word)

[Buzz Dixon]

I'm not sure about that publicly in there, because the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches all practice private confession to varying degrees, and while it's far from my favorite sacrament, I'd rather have that than a public one."Public" insofar as one acknowledges and corrects the wrong. If one has shortchanged somebody, f'r instance, one doesn't have to do an elaborate public mea culpa, just find the person who was short changed and give them their money.

For serious crimes such as murder, rape, etc., part of the proof of how genuine one's repentance is in gauged by one's willingness to accept the temporal rap for the crime. A quest for forgiveness not accompanied by an equal desire to make right the wrong would be judged as evidence of a lack of sincerity on the supplicant's part.

And while we humans may not be able to judge the heart of another, He sure can!

[Alex Scott]

That makes a lot more sense.

[stealthwise]

By the way, is anyone else kinda iffy about attributing a personality and motivations to Satan? Given that we're dealing with an entity that's really not dealt with that much in the Bible as a whole, and whose traits are probably based more on popular works like Paradise Lost and Faust than anything else.

That's because Paradise Lost and Faust are better written the Bible, often make more sense, appeal to the public consciousness more, and are pretty much as relevant.

[kitty_tc_69]

To become a Christian means acknowledging one's sinful nature, desiring to avoid succumbing to that nature in thought, word, and deed, asking for forgiveness, and trying to live as righteously as possible after that. If one sins after becoming a Christian, one still needs to acknowledge that sin publicly and to atone for it as much as possible.

You've pretty much described a major reason I cannot and will not ever be christian again. Your religion demonizes "the flesh", calls natural instinct and desire "sinful", and postulates that we should feel guilt and desire forgiveness and have to make atonement for being human. You venerate a sky-god who will reward you with an antiseptic spiritual existence up in his "heaven" after you die if you are "pure" enough in life. I find that entire philosophy nothing short of abominable.

My faith venerates an earth mother goddess, and focuses on attuning oneself to nature, living according to our nature as humans in accordance with the natural physical world. There is no guilt in human pleasure, no sin in enjoying sex, no salvation needed because there's nothing fundamentally wrong with us. No one's keeping a cosmic scorecard based on how well you jump through endless obscure hoops. No punishment awaits us after death, we're merely recycled into a new beginning like everything else is in the natural cycle.

I'm not insulting you for holding your religion, but if you're going to talk about tenets of your faith I presume you're open to discussion and debate regarding them. I respect your rights to believe and practice anyhow you like, and if you don't want to have this debate just say so and I'll drop it.

Still, that's my opinion. To me, Christianity is a culture of death. You worship a gory image of a murdered god, proclaiming the need to self-deny the trappings of physical life to receive a non-living spirit existence in the sky after you die. Life to your faith is a test to see how well you can deny your human nature until you can get to the real goal, a post-life existence free of the biological and natural trappings you so despise. And if you ask me, it's sick. Being human isn't a "sin", having desires and instincts is how nature teaches us good from bad. We're meant to follow them, not deny them. Pain and misery aren't virtues, poverty and silence and celibacy and fasting and every other form of self-denial the church practices and promotes are nothing more than self-destructive masochism. The guilt and fear and shame your church instills in people is nothing less than psychological warfare designed to break people to servitude. Is it any coincidence the first thing an abuser does is break the self-esteem of their victims? People wracked with guilt and shame and self-loathing don't stand up for themselves and they don't fight back. Especially not when you indoctrinate them from the time they're children. Who better to serve than those who have never breathed free air? And like most abuse victims, more of them than not will identify with their abusers and repeat the cycle. It's called Stockholm Syndrome, though I think it might be more accurately named after the church.

And it angers me. It outrages me. I didn't mean to get quite as... brutally honest as I did, but I can't bring myself to erase what I wrote either. It's how I feel. I don't expect you to change what you believe in, it's not my right to dictate to you what faith to hold. No matter how despicable I find your beliefs, my commitment to freedom demands that I would fight to defend your right to hold them.

Which means I guess I don't really have a point, just something I needed to get off my chest. I don't expect you to change. I don't have the right to expect anything of you. I would, however, like if you think about how others view your "truths". I know you are taught to view your ways as absolute good and anything else as wrong... I guess I just wanted you to hear what someone else thinks about it. Beliefs don't mean much if they're never examined, never challenged. And sometimes things that seem like the most normal things in the world when you're on the inside, familiar with them your whole life, take on a different look from an outsider's perspective.

Feel free to think I'm going to hell. I don't think it exists, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I can't be wrong. I'm ready to roll those dice though. You're also free to think I have a lot of bitterness about this subject, and I don't think you'd be far off. I'll probably carry those scars with me to my grave.

Again, I don't really have a point. Your words struck an old chord with me, though, and not a pretty one. Is pouring out your soul on a sensitive topic like religion to near-total strangers on a forum all that good an idea? Probably not. Judge me as you will. My words are my thoughts and feelings, and they are what they are.

[Charles RB]

In the selfish Gospel, my salvation does not depend upon the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it depends on me. Even though the Bible I profess to believe says over and over that it's all him, not me, that while I was a sinner he died for me, that salvation comes from faith, not works, and that faith isn't effort on my part but a free gift of God, even though the Bible says all that, I will ignore it and declare that it is MY choosing to trust Jesus tha tis the key point.

I never thought of it being down to that before, but it does make sense.

[beetlebum]

Re: Free will, do we have it, as traditionally defined?

To contradict what was posted earlier, a study published in New Scientist magazine conducted by Björn Brembs, a neurobiologist at the Free University of Berlin, Germany found that fruit flies display (rudimentary) free will. Brembs put fruit flies into a sensory deprivation chamber; a drum with a white interior, that offered the flies no visual cues to orient themselves.

The flies were glued to a torque meter that measured their zigs and zags as they attempted to fly.

Brembs and colleagues analysed the resulting flight records using increasingly sophisticated models of random behaviour. Were the flies' decisions random, like the result of coin flip? No. Did they fit a coin flip model in which the probability of "heads varied" randomly? Again, no.

Nor could they be explained by a series of random inputs, or a series of random inputs combined in non random ways.

Instead, the researchers found that the flies' behaviour bears the hallmark of chaos – a non-random process that is nevertheless unpredictable, like the weather. No one has yet been able to adequately explain how chaos arises.

Bremb's went on to call it a rudimentary sort of free will, and added that "A more sophisticated version of chaotic control could help human will break free of simple, robotic cause and effect."

The random behaviour exhibited by the fruit flies would seem to indicate that is indeed the case. However; it could just be that the fruit flies were acting on what has been evolutionarily ingrained in them. According to Brembs, "It makes a lot of sense to assume that what we experience is based on components that have cropped up in evolution long before."

The Compatibilist view of free will states that man is affected by human nature, and and cannot choose what is contrary to his nature (and desires.) This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices, but due to the effects of the "fall" (Total Depravity) man's nature has been corrupted that he cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith, aside from 'divine intervention.'

Contrast that with the Libertarian view of free will, which states that free will is affected by human nature, but man retains the ability to choose what is contrary to his nature and desires. Man has the moral ability to turn to God and believe, apart from "special divine enablement". Open Theism states that God is anxiously awaiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what decisions we will make.

I fall in neither the Compatibilist, nor Libertarian camp, as they seem to be encapsulated in absolutes. I do however, harbour sympathy for the Compatibilist view (minus the doctrine of Total Depravity.)

As Christine Jewell noted in an essay on Kierkegaard and volitionalism; "'Absolute' willing does not preclude relative willing, but the absolute relation can require renunciation of all relative ends. The subjectively existing individual experiences continual temptation to relate absolutely to the world must continually renew, and resolve. They are relative ends, not willed absolutely."

Saint John Climacus (525–606 A.D) supposes that we can--or should-- will faith; but emphasizes that the transformed person absolutely wills the absolute, to the exclusion of all else (a bit of a contradiction, now innit?) This kind of "absolute" relationship precludes actions that control, or transform one's own belief state (for the purposes of conversion.)

This sort of attempt to control one's own belief state for the purpose of producing faith is analogous to a situation where someone attempts to create a life and frame of mine which; in all appearances; is 'close' to God. As Climacus declares: "True inwardness does not demand any sign at all in externals". The "absolute" relation to the highest good does not follow from external actions. Cultivation of the outward appearance of Godliness can become the end in itself, resulting in the loss of the "absoluteness" of the relation to the "absolute" teleological goal. Climacus remarks "Renunciation of everything is nothing, if it is supposed to merit the highest good."

According to Climacus, a criterion of the type of relationship one has with God is: "The specific sign that one relates oneself to the 'absolute' is, there is no reward expected." (I'd say that's darn near impossible, as we all expect something in return for good behaviour.)

However--he does have a point in that doing things out of a purely selfish motive may be harmful. Willing to believe, directly or indirectly, is a relative willing, and hence a movement away from inwardness, and the "absolute" relationship. To will a belief state; is willing something for the consequences of it, as well.

The "willing" of this type of relationship is the qualitative leap; the will is involved in the process of conversion. The thing is--although "willing" things does play its part-- one does not attempt to "will" the "absolute" in its entirety; for then the "absolute" isn't being willed for its own sake.

In other words? There are some things you just can't control. They just happen. Certain aspects of relationships would be one of them.

And to delve into physics; we are limited by accuracy of measurement, since every measurement will consist of probable values, rather than a consistent one.

LaPlace theorized that if one would have knowledge of every single entity in the entire universe, one could determine the next sequence of events, thus predicting the future (and thus, you have the concept of LaPlace's Demon).

The thing is though; as many in the field of physics have noted; the more accurately you know the momentum of a particle, the less accurately you'd be able to measure its position (and vice versa). This is more than just a practical limitation: it is a theoretical principle. It appeals to ideal measurements as well.

So even if you had a totally deterministic model of the universe, you cannot predict the current state based on a previous state (or a set of measurements) with total accuracy. Thus, any prediction of the state of the universe at a certain time is a probabilistic measure.

Making a segue way; I'd say in place of 'pure' free will; probabilistic causation seems more plausible. An example: A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B.

And given that an agent who possesses a virtue is a person who possess it, along with all of the complexities of the human mind, and may even be subjected to a multi track disposition (as opposed to an occurrent belief); than that makes it hard for there to ever be pure free will, or pure determinism.

That's a bit controversial, because probabilistically is usually associated with Quantum Mechanics; and the notion of the 'singularity' disappearing is controversial amongst Christians.

In terms of the view that some beliefs arise directly from basic acts of the will, I fall in neither the direct or indirect volitionalist camp. I feel the same way about prescriptive and descriptive volitionalism, though I do assert that normative elements used in consideration with the necessary steps to acquire beliefs based on non-epistemic considerations seem to be the most plausible.

So in other words; when presented with what we know, we are free to choose; but just how much remains yet to be determined.

[beetlebum]

I should add that the "absolute" that Jewell's and Climacus refer to is (presumably) God and the relationship with him, and they use "absolute" in terms of an ideal relationship, as opposed to stating something objectively.

[DavidAllred]

I'm not insulting you for holding your religion, but if you're going to talk about tenets of your faith I presume you're open to discussion and debate regarding them. I respect your rights to believe and practice anyhow you like, and if you don't want to have this debate just say so and I'll drop it.

Kit,

Your post was well thought out and I don't think anyone could really read it as an insult. I'd love to discuss a few things in it, but really the whole internet debate thing is over-rated and counter-productive.

Maybe if we ever meet at a con we can go out for a few beers. :smile:

[kitty_tc_69]

Kit,

Your post was well thought out and I don't think anyone could really read it as an insult. I'd love to discuss a few things in it, but really the whole internet debate thing is over-rated and counter-productive.

Maybe if we ever meet at a con we can go out for a few beers. :smile:

I appreciate the kind words. Everything I said is how I truly feel, but that doesn't change the fact that in the morning after posting I began to worry that I'd opened a real can of worms. I'm usually a little better at keeping my religious opinions to myself, and I know I said some harsh things. I'm glad it's not as offensive as I feared it would be, despite the disclaimers I made about respecting people's right to believe as they choose.

[beetlebum]

I've got to agree with Stamen here.

Although I disagree with the "your church"--as there is no single church, but various denominations amongst the overall ecclesiastical body--and the "culture of death" statement. I feel the opposite, as I feel that Christ has given me something to live for, and I don't mind denying myself certain things (like drugs).

But overall, I didn't find your post insulting, as you were just expressing how you feel. And I respect that. :smile:

[DavidAllred]

I appreciate the kind words. Everything I said is how I truly feel, but that doesn't change the fact that in the morning after posting I began to worry that I'd opened a real can of worms.

I hate it when folks feel that way, but seriously, Christians haven't created enough really open spaces for genuine dialogue. We're to quick to shut people down mid-sentence or redirect the conversation where we want it go... we've created a Christian sub-culture in America that doesn't understand why no one wants to listen... so what do we do? We just talk louder. And we're at risk of becoming a giant institutionalized mouth.

Check this out:

http://faithvisuals.com/content/article_print.html?id=37293

Funny stuff... :)