|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 8, 2014 9:20:51 GMT -5
The Scriptures don't say anything of the kind. The Western mind likes to divide everything in two, and tend to kill or destroy what is not familiar to them. That has been the course of human history, so it's no surprise that religion follows the same formula. We have a false notion of God that exists purely to justify our destructive ways. The Master's Son is jealous of the Prodigal being allowed back into the Master's house, but God has said that all flesh shall see salvation. Luk 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. they do SEE salvation that is Jesus Christ that doesn't mean that they RECIEVE salvation... Surprisingly, Snow as agnostic gets the interpretation correctly on that scripture! IMO....I also had thought for a brief time that it meant every human that had been born on the earth would "see salvation" as in "having" that said salvation. Another example of that is the scripture that says "Every eye shall see him and every knee shall bow." This does not mean that every person that has been on earth or is on earth is going to be worshipping Jesus "willingly" or with "love" but that the day of our Lord and Saviour has come and he will "reign" surpreme over the earth. And those who are resurrected fromt het ime that they crucified him will also "see" just where they were so wrong in treating the Son of God so horribly! We've had discussions before about every person knowing life eternal....but that is not what the scripture says....and IF that were so there would be no need for the bible to speak of a lost eternity or the pit of fire, etc now would it? Those things would be no more even as a thought in our heads because there would be NO need for them...some may say well but Satan and the false prophets would still need it....I'd have to say, wait a minute, just who are the false prophets? They are humans, so in the light of all humans knowing life eternal they would not be pitched into the pit of fire. The only one who likely would have to be tossed in is Satan and his minions....so again that wouldn't be something humans would have tow orry about, now would it? Yes, people will "see" salvation, but it will be for some as in the "day of our Lord and Saviour". The day star arising in the hearts of those who are washed whiter then fuller's soap in the blood of the Lamb!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 9:37:36 GMT -5
you still can't escape these verses: Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. and its not a "parable" when jesus tells us he speaking a parable(32+15 times in the NT)he calls it a "parable" before he speaks not once is the story above called a "parable"... I am not trying to escape these verses, but truly understand their meaning. I never argued they were metaphoric or a parable, ClearDay did. It's not a bad argument, but not one I'm pursuing here. Perhaps you (or anyone) can answer a few questions about the story. 1) Where does it say that the "rich man" is to endure hell and torments for eternity? 2) Please describe to me the crime of the "rich man" that merited the punishment of eternal torment. 3) Abraham said, "They have Moses" et cetera. What does Moses say about Hell? Book, chapter and verse are appreciated. 4) Why did Abraham reference Moses instead of saying "They have the Son of God, Jesus"? (I know the reason on this one).
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 9:42:09 GMT -5
they do SEE salvation that is Jesus Christ that doesn't mean that they RECIEVE salvation... Surprisingly, Snow as agnostic gets the interpretation correctly on that scripture! IMO....I also had thought for a brief time that it meant every human that had been born on the earth would "see salvation" as in "having" that said salvation. Another example of that is the scripture that says "Every eye shall see him and every knee shall bow." This does not mean that every person that has been on earth or is on earth is going to be worshipping Jesus "willingly" or with "love" but that the day of our Lord and Saviour has come and he will "reign" surpreme over the earth. And those who are resurrected fromt het ime that they crucified him will also "see" just where they were so wrong in treating the Son of God so horribly! We've had discussions before about every person knowing life eternal....but that is not what the scripture says....and IF that were so there would be no need for the bible to speak of a lost eternity or the pit of fire, etc now would it? Those things would be no more even as a thought in our heads because there would be NO need for them...some may say well but Satan and the false prophets would still need it....I'd have to say, wait a minute, just who are the false prophets? They are humans, so in the light of all humans knowing life eternal they would not be pitched into the pit of fire. The only one who likely would have to be tossed in is Satan and his minions....so again that wouldn't be something humans would have tow orry about, now would it? Yes, people will "see" salvation, but it will be for some as in the "day of our Lord and Saviour". The day star arising in the hearts of those who are washed whiter then fuller's soap in the blood of the Lamb! I think you have to look at the collective effect of all the verses that refer to Jesus sacrifice and ALL humanity, all mankind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 9:52:06 GMT -5
Presuming the account to be accurate, according to it, the great gulf is "fixed and cannot be crossed." Not just "for a while" but "fixed and cannot be crossed."
The controversial views regarding the "gehenna" which Yahu'shuah is reported to to have given warning not with standing, I simply accept that teaching as indicating for me that "hell" consists of the torment of individuals for what they remember that leaves them in such a condition. Further, according to the understanding I enjoy, that wondrous "grace" given those who believe in Yahu'shuah and its covering mercy, is promised to allow any sin that would otherwise torment, to die upon natural death. Good enough answer for me, but then, I'm one of those very stupid theists according to some who post here.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 8, 2014 9:53:29 GMT -5
No it would be murder. However, there is no hell so we don't have to go there after all. If anyone thinks they are right and will be saved and the other religion is wrong and will not be saved then it is their imagination that is damning people to hell, not God. I suppose one could argue that assigning someone to eternal hell is not murder but capital punishment. However, even humans in many countries are better than that and do not allow such heinous acts of killing. I wonder if God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better? Actually I think you have already seen a trend in that direction as more and more people let go of the eternal hell concept. There are still some fundamentalists that believe in hell, but for the most part people realize that if they wouldn't sentence their children to an eternity of torment, then how can their God do such a thing? When people start to realize they have a higher morality than the God they were taught to worship we will see more and more changes in how God really is. I think it's interesting how those who believe in the Trinity say Jesus is divine and the ones that do not say he was a man that had divinity but wasn't God. In a way both are right just haven't taken it the next step. I think more people will begin to understand that we are all like Jesus (the divine man concept) and we are all divine (the divine God concept). The difference lies in our awareness of who we are. Jesus knew which made him appear to be more enlightened or divine than us who have forgotten our true state. We are not less than, we are just not fully awakened to our potential. Who we are, what we are. If we think we aren't divine, if we think we can go to hell, then we've missed the point and are in a hell of our own making right now. At least if you believe Jesus when he said 'have I not said Ye are all Gods'? Most Christians try to explain this verse away because they just can't conceive ever being as awakened as Jesus. But lots were, Buddha being one, Krishna another. They all tried to tell us it was attainable.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 8, 2014 10:20:13 GMT -5
Yes, I would agree with that (apart from the question mark in my mind as to whether it is a parable at all). But one point that strikes home to me is the permanant separation in the afterlife between the redeemed (if you like) and those who are not. It seems clear to me that this was a point Jesus wished to make and He knew what he was talking about. Such separations do always occur in a specific context. We like to create more or less enduring divisions of classes of people in our minds, like those who are born again and those who are not, but generally Jesus is categorizing specific behaviors. In this case, it's the rich man ignoring the plight of the needy. And if Jesus is always pointing to specific behaviours, what then does it really mean to be "born again"? I think we put things into the wrong order when we say it's "born again" leads to "heaven" leads to "behaviour on Earth". I believe that "born again" leads to "behaviour on Earth" leads to "heaven". Jesus never said that if you ignore the plight of the needy, but are "born again", that he would just let that go. God will bring every work into judgement. What Hat ~ I share in the opinion you expressed above along with Clearday's previously. In the afterlife experiences of two men in Luke 16, I think Jesus may be giving an authoritative account of life beyond the grave compared to his parables in which people were not generally named? Since Jesus did use real names for his characters, it possibly could be a real story describing a real situation?
However, a book I'm reading, entitled, "Why Believe" by Greg Laurie, brings out some insights on this story found in Luke 16. Here's an excerpt from Chapter 5 in his book: "It's the story of two men ~ one owned everything, yet possessed nothing; the other owned nothing, yet inherited everything." This author brings out that Jesus told this story in this context presented while addressing people who were obsessed with greed and materialism, like Clearday pointed out before. Jesus was basically talking about "people being possessed by their possessions." The author continues:
In the end, Jesus told the people that it wouldn't even matter if somebody rose from the dead, because they still wouldn't have believed. However, that still brings up the interesting point about the different between this afterlife experience in Hades and the final judgment in which the unbelieving, the devil and his angels are thrown into the "lake of fire," in Revelation 20, which seemingly indicates annihilation of all the wicked and unbelieving? By the content of this chapter, it appears that all the dead are in a state of sleep or slumber until the final judgment day when their works would be judged by God and their final destination would become apparent? Just check out vs. 5 and vs. 11-19 at the end of this chapter for what I'm thinking may resemble Jesus' account found in Luke 16?
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 10:20:08 GMT -5
Personally, I think many Christians, not only Irvine Grey, are in severe cognitive dissonance, if they play the friend, while thinking privately that a Muslim acquaintance is going to Hell for not accepting Jesus Christ. The only way I can reconcile Jesus to a commitment to redemption, or being a propitiation for sin, is that there is no such thing as Hell as we tend to conceive it. Your statement shows how little you know and understand believers who are truly born again of the Spirit of God. Show me someone who claims to be a Christian and has no passion and concern for the lost and I would suggest that their profession is mere lip service but not from a heart that is strangely warmed by the grace of God. Every born again believer should have a concern for the eternal destiny of their fellow man and that does not mean developing friendships that are insincere. God chose us to win others for His Kingdom: [16] You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. [17] These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:16-17 ESV) The born again believer is an ambassador for Christ: [17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. [20] Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. [21] For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-21 ESV) There is no place in the New Testament Church for a silent witness and we too are constrained by the love of Christ to share the message of reconciliation with those who do not know Christ as Saviour – we IMPLORE you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God. The challenge to every Christian is well expressed by the Scottish preacher, Robert Murray McCheyne: When this passing world is done, When has sunk yon glaring sun, When we stand with Christ in glory, Looking o’er life’s finished story, Then, Lord, shall I fully know— Not till then—how much I owe.
If this to you is ‘severe cognitive dissonance’ then I praise the Lord and say give me more of it because ‘ I have only one life, It will soon be past, Only what is done for Christ will last.'
The fact that you display 'cognitive dissonance' does not mean you're not loving or concerned. For example, there is no better example of 'cognitive dissonance' and 'love' than the mother of a convicted murder, who refuses to accept what her son has done. It would be far better for her to love her son in spite of what he has done, but parents often display cognitive dissonance when it comes to the deeds of their children. It's actually the desire to maintain a loving attitude and a high opinion of their children in the face of a reality that can't be accepted that causes cognitive dissonance. And to me, your genuine concern for those who are Hell-bound, in your view, is genuine. In fact, it is that desire that helps to create the cognitive dissonance. Unless you tell your friends that the consequence of not being reconciled to God is eternal damnation, as you believe, you are being less than honest, to them, and what I typically see in evangelical Christians, dishonest to yourself. Because for Christians who accept eternal damnation, fear is a significant motivator, in many cases, moreso than the love of God, which they falsely protest.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 10:25:35 GMT -5
Presuming the account to be accurate, according to it, the great gulf is "fixed and cannot be crossed." Not just "for a while" but "fixed and cannot be crossed."
The controversial views regarding the "gehenna" which Yahu'shuah is reported to to have given warning not with standing, I simply accept that teaching as indicating for me that "hell" consists of the torment of individuals for what they remember that leaves them in such a condition. Further, according to the understanding I enjoy, that wondrous "grace" given those who believe in Yahu'shuah and its covering mercy, is promised to allow any sin that would otherwise torment, to die upon natural death. Good enough answer for me, but then, I'm one of those very stupid theists according to some who post here. Would you argue that God was or is not powerful enough to take the "rich man" out of Hell? If the gulf exists only because of God's Will, we have lots of examples of that Will changing.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 8, 2014 10:50:09 GMT -5
you still can't escape these verses: Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. and its not a "parable" when jesus tells us he speaking a parable(32+15 times in the NT)he calls it a "parable" before he speaks not once is the story above called a "parable"... I am not trying to escape these verses, but truly understand their meaning. I never argued they were metaphoric or a parable, ClearDay did. It's not a bad argument, but not one I'm pursuing here. Perhaps you (or anyone) can answer a few questions about the story. 1) Where does it say that the "rich man" is to endure hell and torments for eternity? 2) Please describe to me the crime of the "rich man" that merited the punishment of eternal torment. 3) Abraham said, "They have Moses" et cetera. What does Moses say about Hell? Book, chapter and verse are appreciated. 4) Why did Abraham reference Moses instead of saying "They have the Son of God, Jesus"? (I know the reason on this one). What Hat ~ Great points! It may be implied, according to some, but it's still not clear in this story found in Luke 16. Also, why does Revelation 20:5, 11-15 speak of the dead not being restored to life again until after Jesus' Second Coming and the 1,000 year millennial reign of Christ, when this final Great White Throne Judgment occurs in Heaven. If people are already in torment in Hades or Hell for their sins, what's the purpose of the final judgment anyway? Luke 16 seemingly implies they were immediately judged by God after their death and not on the final Judgment Day, which Jesus also speaks about in the gospels? That's why I find it hard to visual Luke 16 in any other light other than as a parable spoken by Jesus to make a point, as Clearday mentioned earlier?
These two different accounts of the Judgment Day found in Luke 16 and Revelation 20 just don't agree in content. There's a major discrepancy here because Luke 16 implies immediate judgment after death and Revelation 20 implies final judgment at the end of this world, as we know it. Then, Heaven becomes the permanent home of the spared believers; whereas, the unbelievers are destroyed along with the devil and his fallen angels and Hades and death itself are thrown in the "lake of fire" to be destroyed. That's the part which doesn't make sense to me ~ more like cognitive dissonance sitting in whenever I try to fathom it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 10:51:50 GMT -5
I suppose one could argue that assigning someone to eternal hell is not murder but capital punishment. However, even humans in many countries are better than that and do not allow such heinous acts of killing. I wonder if God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better? Actually I think you have already seen a trend in that direction as more and more people let go of the eternal hell concept. There are still some fundamentalists that believe in hell, but for the most part people realize that if they wouldn't sentence their children to an eternity of torment, then how can their God do such a thing? When people start to realize they have a higher morality than the God they were taught to worship we will see more and more changes in how God really is. I think it's interesting how those who believe in the Trinity say Jesus is divine and the ones that do not say he was a man that had divinity but wasn't God. In a way both are right just haven't taken it the next step. I think more people will begin to understand that we are all like Jesus (the divine man concept) and we are all divine (the divine God concept). The difference lies in our awareness of who we are. Jesus knew which made him appear to be more enlightened or divine than us who have forgotten our true state. We are not less than, we are just not fully awakened to our potential. Who we are, what we are. If we think we aren't divine, if we think we can go to hell, then we've missed the point and are in a hell of our own making right now. At least if you believe Jesus when he said 'have I not said Ye are all Gods'? Most Christians try to explain this verse away because they just can't conceive ever being as awakened as Jesus. But lots were, Buddha being one, Krishna another. They all tried to tell us it was attainable. Definitely, I see it that way. The divine is within us all and we need to unlock it. Conventional Christianity has its process for that but, unbeknownst to them, they don't have the exclusive franchise on it.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 8, 2014 13:45:38 GMT -5
Definitely, I see it that way. The divine is within us all and we need to unlock it. Conventional Christianity has its process for that but, unbeknownst to them, they don't have the exclusive franchise on it. Sometimes conventional Christianity is an impediment, depending on the individual and the context. This is not unique to Christianity. I have Buddhist and Hindu friends where the traditions they were raised in are in impediment to them too, and they work very hard to get past it. In my home, I have a statue of St Francis of Assisi, the Buddha and a Dancing Shiva. These are all deeply meaningful to me. (For example, I rarely walk past the St Francis figurine without recalling the immortal words "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.." The statue of the Buddha oversees my workspace, and even now, as I stop and notice, it brings me a sense of peace and of grounding. I rarely notice my Dancing Shiva, without taking particular notice of the God of Creation dancing on the back of unconscious man. And I usually smile when I recall the words of Kabir "I laughed when they told me that the fish in the ocean is thirsty.") But I am under no illusions that they mean the same thing to me (nor carry the baggage) that they do for people raised in these traditions.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 8, 2014 13:48:45 GMT -5
Definitely, I see it that way. The divine is within us all and we need to unlock it. Conventional Christianity has its process for that but, unbeknownst to them, they don't have the exclusive franchise on it. Sometimes conventional Christianity is an impediment, depending on the individual and the context. This is not unique to Christianity. I have Buddhist and Hindu friends where the traditions they were raised in are in impediment to them too, and they work very hard to get past it. In my home, I have a statue of St Francis of Assisi, the Buddha and a Dancing Shiva. These are all deeply meaningful to me. (For example, I rarely walk past the St Francis figurine without recalling the immortal words "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.." The statue of the Buddha oversees my workspace, and even now, as I stop and notice, it brings me a sense of peace and of grounding. I rarely notice my dancing shiva, without taking particular notice of the God of Creation dancing on the back of unconscious man. And I usually smile when I recall the words of Kabir "I laughed when they told me that the fish in the ocean is thirsty." But I am under no illusions that they mean the same thing to me (nor carry the baggage) that they do for people raised in these traditions. I am not sure if this is syncretism at its worst or pluralism at its most extreme!
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 8, 2014 13:56:41 GMT -5
I am not sure if this is syncretism at its worst or pluralism at its most extreme! I had to look up both these terms. It's probably both. But, I personally would tend to describe it as simply recognizing Truth where it exists. There isn't much of an intellectual component to it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 8, 2014 14:30:33 GMT -5
I am not sure if this is syncretism at its worst or pluralism at its most extreme! I had to look up both these terms. It's probably both. But, I personally would tend to describe it as simply recognizing Truth where it exists. There isn't much of an intellectual component to it. I agree with this because I see the truth is so many different paths. Each has their own way of defining the way to peace and love. None is superior to the other but some work better for some than others. That's why so many paths to love and peace are so important imo. I feel though when we limit ourselves to only one path being true, then we limit our potential for accomplishing these goals. That is why I wish the doctrine of having to be saved from hellfire was never introduced because it locks people into the one way instead of letting them explore many ways.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 8, 2014 14:40:36 GMT -5
I can't answer all your questions because, frankly, I don't know. How it appeals to me (and I accept that this is just my personal view) is that in Luke 16, Jesus is talking about what happens after death but before the judgement. Rev 20 is dealing with what happens immediately before and after the final judgement (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet). What is crystal clear to me is that I am responsible now for living in such a way that I reach my desired haven. When I die, I believe that my destiny is settled and cannot be changed. I link the rich man to "hell" purely on the words of Jesus. Certainly Jesus links the rich man to Hell, but what is Hell exactly? "If Hell is real, then why ...."What Hat ~ To adequate answer this question, I believe we have to consider the meaning the word "soul" as it's used in the Bible. Just recently I stumbled across an article that puts this in a whole new perspective and perhaps makes this concept of Hell more understandable. Here's the link to this article which I also just posted on my new thread concerning "Glimpses of Eternity."
professing.proboards.com/thread/21966/glimpses-eternity-dr-ramond-moody?page=1&scrollTo=583100
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 17:37:21 GMT -5
I am not trying to escape these verses, but truly understand their meaning. I never argued they were metaphoric or a parable, ClearDay did. It's not a bad argument, but not one I'm pursuing here. Perhaps you (or anyone) can answer a few questions about the story. 1) Where does it say that the "rich man" is to endure hell and torments for eternity? 2) Please describe to me the crime of the "rich man" that merited the punishment of eternal torment. 3) Abraham said, "They have Moses" et cetera. What does Moses say about Hell? Book, chapter and verse are appreciated. 4) Why did Abraham reference Moses instead of saying "They have the Son of God, Jesus"? (I know the reason on this one). What Hat ~ Great points! It may be implied, according to some, but it's still not clear in this story found in Luke 16. Also, why does Revelation 20:5, 11-15 speak of the dead not being restored to life again until after Jesus' Second Coming and the 1,000 year millennial reign of Christ, when this final Great White Throne Judgment occurs in Heaven. If people are already in torment in Hades or Hell for their sins, what's the purpose of the final judgment anyway? Luke 16 seemingly implies they were immediately judged by God after their death and not on the final Judgment Day, which Jesus also speaks about in the gospels? That's why I find it hard to visual Luke 16 in any other light other than as a parable spoken by Jesus to make a point, as Clearday mentioned earlier?
These two different accounts of the Judgment Day found in Luke 16 and Revelation 20 just don't agree in content. There's a major discrepancy here because Luke 16 implies immediate judgment after death and Revelation 20 implies final judgment at the end of this world, as we know it. Then, Heaven becomes the permanent home of the spared believers; whereas, the unbelievers are destroyed along with the devil and his fallen angels and Hades and death itself are thrown in the "lake of fire" to be destroyed. That's the part which doesn't make sense to me ~ more like cognitive dissonance sitting in whenever I try to fathom it?
I personally don't offer or try to offer a replacement theology for the various narratives incorporating the concept of "eternal Hell". I believe Jesus often spoke in hyperbolic fashion using Jewish constructs to show his anger about certain subjects. Therefore the reference to Moses instead of to himself in the Lazarus story. It would appear that there is punishment for a time after death, and after that time God will render judgement. Why this happens after a period in Hell or Purgatory or whatever it is called isn't clear to me, but in addition to the descriptions you mention we also have 1 Cor 3:11 - 15, so there could well be some kind of purification involved before the judgement. I believe in being born again to the Spirit, and that may start the purification process here instead of in the afterlife, but I don't believe being "born again" is a "Road to Damascus" event that leads to certain salvation. But regarding Hell and what it is like and what it is for, it's all conjecture. I don't think anyone who hasn't been there and back can speak with any authority on the subject, although some believe they can. We're given to know a little about the subject, and that is all. Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 17:46:49 GMT -5
Definitely, I see it that way. The divine is within us all and we need to unlock it. Conventional Christianity has its process for that but, unbeknownst to them, they don't have the exclusive franchise on it. Sometimes conventional Christianity is an impediment, depending on the individual and the context. This is not unique to Christianity. I have Buddhist and Hindu friends where the traditions they were raised in are in impediment to them too, and they work very hard to get past it. In my home, I have a statue of St Francis of Assisi, the Buddha and a Dancing Shiva. These are all deeply meaningful to me. (For example, I rarely walk past the St Francis figurine without recalling the immortal words "Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.." The statue of the Buddha oversees my workspace, and even now, as I stop and notice, it brings me a sense of peace and of grounding. I rarely notice my Dancing Shiva, without taking particular notice of the God of Creation dancing on the back of unconscious man. And I usually smile when I recall the words of Kabir "I laughed when they told me that the fish in the ocean is thirsty.") But I am under no illusions that they mean the same thing to me (nor carry the baggage) that they do for people raised in these traditions. You're like Pi in the Life of Pi. He joins all three religions, and his father tells him he can't do that. In the book, not the movie, the holy men start fighting over Pi, each thinking they have him exclusively. My working assumption is that religions attract adherents on great and worthwhile principles, but then these are often co-opted in various ways by an opportunistic hierarchy. Although there are good leaders as well.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 17:51:35 GMT -5
I am not sure if this is syncretism at its worst or pluralism at its most extreme! I had to look up both these terms. It's probably both. But, I personally would tend to describe it as simply recognizing Truth where it exists. There isn't much of an intellectual component to it. My personal approach, compared to yours, is that I stick to my Christian roots, but am universalist in outlook. Your approach is more Unitarian in nature, finding the best or underlying principles in multiple religions. Many decades ago the Universalist Christians and Unitarian believers merged into one congregation known as Universalist-Unitarian. I could never really understand that merger as the approaches seem fundamentally different to me, even if some of the overarching ideas are the same.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 17:57:40 GMT -5
I had to look up both these terms. It's probably both. But, I personally would tend to describe it as simply recognizing Truth where it exists. There isn't much of an intellectual component to it. I agree with this because I see the truth is so many different paths. Each has their own way of defining the way to peace and love. None is superior to the other but some work better for some than others. That's why so many paths to love and peace are so important imo. I feel though when we limit ourselves to only one path being true, then we limit our potential for accomplishing these goals. That is why I wish the doctrine of having to be saved from hellfire was never introduced because it locks people into the one way instead of letting them explore many ways. On the other side of it, I think at the existential level, that is, in terms of the meaning to be found in rites, ceremonies and observances, and aspects of religious culture such as music and stories, it's difficult to merge religions. Sure, you can find common principles between them intellectually, but I believe you should stick to one and do it up right. That's my working assumption for my approach, although I know individuals trying the syncretist route and obtaining some satisfaction from it. So I emphasize that it's just a working assumption; at least I feel that it is appropriate for me.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 8, 2014 18:02:19 GMT -5
What Hat ~ To adequate answer this question, I believe we have to consider the meaning the word "soul" as it's used in the Bible. Just recently I stumbled across an article that puts this in a whole new perspective and perhaps makes this concept of Hell more understandable. Here's the link to this article which I also just posted on my new thread concerning "Glimpses of Eternity."
professing.proboards.com/thread/21966/glimpses-eternity-dr-ramond-moody?page=1&scrollTo=583100
An interesting post with interesting implications, esp as far as the Second Death is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 8, 2014 21:14:18 GMT -5
I agree with this because I see the truth is so many different paths. Each has their own way of defining the way to peace and love. None is superior to the other but some work better for some than others. That's why so many paths to love and peace are so important imo. I feel though when we limit ourselves to only one path being true, then we limit our potential for accomplishing these goals. That is why I wish the doctrine of having to be saved from hellfire was never introduced because it locks people into the one way instead of letting them explore many ways. On the other side of it, I think at the existential level, that is, in terms of the meaning to be found in rites, ceremonies and observances, and aspects of religious culture such as music and stories, it's difficult to merge religions. Sure, you can find common principles between them intellectually, but I believe you should stick to one and do it up right. That's my working assumption for my approach, although I know individuals trying the syncretist route and obtaining some satisfaction from it. So I emphasize that it's just a working assumption; at least I feel that it is appropriate for me. You might be interested in a book written by Huston Smith called the Huston Smith Reader. He was a theology professor, but his claim to fame is that he has immersed himself in three religions throughout his long life. Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. He also spent some time in a Shinto monastery and a Tibetan Monastery studying Buddhism. I really think you would find his thoughts interesting. I just finished the book and although I don't agree with his philosophy about spirituality, I did enjoy it and found it intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 9, 2014 10:06:32 GMT -5
On the other side of it, I think at the existential level, that is, in terms of the meaning to be found in rites, ceremonies and observances, and aspects of religious culture such as music and stories, it's difficult to merge religions. Sure, you can find common principles between them intellectually, but I believe you shouldmy own working approach has been to stick to one and do it up right. That's my working assumption for my approach, although But I do know individuals trying the syncretist route and obtaining some satisfaction from it. So I emphasize that it's just a working assumption; at least I feel that it is appropriate for me.
His books look quite interesting. My wife also read a couple of books by a famous Vietnamese Buddhist monk writing about his exposure to Christianity. I think napalm was part of the experience, but my recollection is a bit hazy. Does that ring a bell for you?
Another crossover between Eastern mysticism and Christianity is Thomas Merton, although I did get bogged down. I'll have to try him again.
Note I adjusted my comments on syncretism slightly.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 9, 2014 11:26:20 GMT -5
On the other side of it, I think at the existential level, that is, in terms of the meaning to be found in rites, ceremonies and observances, and aspects of religious culture such as music and stories, it's difficult to merge religions. Sure, you can find common principles between them intellectually, but I believe you shouldmy own working approach has been to stick to one and do it up right. That's my working assumption for my approach, although But I do know individuals trying the syncretist route and obtaining some satisfaction from it. So I emphasize that it's just a working assumption; at least I feel that it is appropriate for me. His books look quite interesting. My wife also read a couple of books by a famous Vietnamese Buddhist monk writing about his exposure to Christianity. I think napalm was part of the experience, but my recollection is a bit hazy. Does that ring a bell for you? Another crossover between Eastern mysticism and Christianity is Thomas Merton, although I did get bogged down. I'll have to try him again. Note I adjusted my comments on syncretism slightly. I think you know what's best for you and it's good to do that. Do you mean Thich Nhat Hanh? The monk your wife read? I've read one of his books but it didn't grab me and draw me in. Not sure about napalm, it wasn't in the one I read and I can't even remember the title anymore.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 9, 2014 11:43:16 GMT -5
On the other side of it, I think at the existential level, that is, in terms of the meaning to be found in rites, ceremonies and observances, and aspects of religious culture such as music and stories, it's difficult to merge religions. Sure, you can find common principles between them intellectually, but I believe you shouldmy own working approach has been to stick to one and do it up right. That's my working assumption for my approach, although But I do know individuals trying the syncretist route and obtaining some satisfaction from it. So I emphasize that it's just a working assumption; at least I feel that it is appropriate for me. His books look quite interesting. My wife also read a couple of books by a famous Vietnamese Buddhist monk writing about his exposure to Christianity. I think napalm was part of the experience, but my recollection is a bit hazy. Does that ring a bell for you? Another crossover between Eastern mysticism and Christianity is Thomas Merton, although I did get bogged down. I'll have to try him again. Note I adjusted my comments on syncretism slightly. I think you know what's best for you and it's good to do that. And the same to you. That's it! Possibly because the insights were pointed toward the Christian they may not have been relevant to you. If I remember to ask when I get home I may post up a point or two.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 9, 2014 11:56:16 GMT -5
I think you know what's best for you and it's good to do that. And the same to you. That's it! Possibly because the insights were pointed toward the Christian they may not have been relevant to you. If I remember to ask when I get home I may post up a point or two. Sounds good on the points later. I know that quite a few people do like his books. Not sure why I wasn't drawn in because I think most people are.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 9, 2014 15:20:18 GMT -5
Surprisingly, Snow as agnostic gets the interpretation correctly on that scripture! IMO....I also had thought for a brief time that it meant every human that had been born on the earth would "see salvation" as in "having" that said salvation. Another example of that is the scripture that says "Every eye shall see him and every knee shall bow." This does not mean that every person that has been on earth or is on earth is going to be worshipping Jesus "willingly" or with "love" but that the day of our Lord and Saviour has come and he will "reign" surpreme over the earth. And those who are resurrected fromt het ime that they crucified him will also "see" just where they were so wrong in treating the Son of God so horribly! We've had discussions before about every person knowing life eternal....but that is not what the scripture says....and IF that were so there would be no need for the bible to speak of a lost eternity or the pit of fire, etc now would it? Those things would be no more even as a thought in our heads because there would be NO need for them...some may say well but Satan and the false prophets would still need it....I'd have to say, wait a minute, just who are the false prophets? They are humans, so in the light of all humans knowing life eternal they would not be pitched into the pit of fire. The only one who likely would have to be tossed in is Satan and his minions....so again that wouldn't be something humans would have tow orry about, now would it? Yes, people will "see" salvation, but it will be for some as in the "day of our Lord and Saviour". The day star arising in the hearts of those who are washed whiter then fuller's soap in the blood of the Lamb! I think you have to look at the collective effect of all the verses that refer to Jesus sacrifice and ALL humanity, all mankind. I think to go into this type of considerations of who and why, etc we'd likely have to get into the predestination issues fairly well explained in Romans....I think that Romans are really about the Jews that were Romans...so this predestination still goes into the "remnant" that God says He has reserved! Some of the gospels say Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, but there are a couple of verses that bring in the word "many" instead of "all.... •Jesus died for 'many.' ◦Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." •Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); There are other scriptures that support not "all" will know salvation. This website seems to argue both sides of the coin. carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/did-jesus-die-everyone-my-calvinist-friends-say-no
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 9, 2014 17:35:41 GMT -5
I think you have to look at the collective effect of all the verses that refer to Jesus sacrifice and ALL humanity, all mankind. I think to go into this type of considerations of who and why, etc we'd likely have to get into the predestination issues fairly well explained in Romans....I think that Romans are really about the Jews that were Romans...so this predestination still goes into the "remnant" that God says He has reserved! Some of the gospels say Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, but there are a couple of verses that bring in the word "many" instead of "all.... •Jesus died for 'many.' ◦Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." •Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); There are other scriptures that support not "all" will know salvation. This website seems to argue both sides of the coin. carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/did-jesus-die-everyone-my-calvinist-friends-say-noIn the passage you mention, the sheep are those that have a heart for the poor, and the goats are those that have a heart only for themselves. It's very simple. Some interpreters like to synthesize various verses together. So they combine sheep and goats with those who are born again and those who are not. But Jesus isn't talking here about those who are born again. We make these sharp black and white divisions: born again, sheep, wheat, fruit, faith, saved versus worldly, goats, tares, no fruit, lost heart, not saved. You are in column A or in column B. I think that's an unrealistic way to look at things. You might be "born again", but you might back slide, and if you're not doing anything for the poor, however defined, being born again has come to naught. Often Jesus' warnings applied to the Jews who thought they were God's anointed, and in the same way these verses (Matthew 25) really apply to Christians, who have an entitlement complex concerning heaven. Incidentally, predestined = entitlement complex regarding heaven. It's funny that you should link to CARM, as I ran across the following the other day. If half of what this man claims is true about CARM, it's not too good. www.tentmaker.org/articles/matt_slick_doubletalk.html
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 9, 2014 18:13:49 GMT -5
And the same to you. That's it! Possibly because the insights were pointed toward the Christian they may not have been relevant to you. If I remember to ask when I get home I may post up a point or two. Sounds good on the points later. I know that quite a few people do like his books. Not sure why I wasn't drawn in because I think most people are. I have a couple of his books, and although I love the titles (e.g. "Peace is Every Step"), they have never made a lot of impact on me (yet). But.. this guy has presence...you might be more impressed if you watch some of his stuff on youtube (particularly if there are subtitles).
|
|