Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

(Nurvi's question on redemption, con't)

So really to even ASK that question sincerely, one needs to see that, first, one is a sinner, and second, that it is RIGHT that God requires a consequence for sin. And I hope that I've explained how that is logically observable and cohesive.

SO - given that God loves us, and given that God is perfectly holy - What's a God to do?! Just like you wouldn't like to be married to a pedophile, God cannot be in fellowship with sinners - and this is RIGHT.

What follows is "deep magic", as Aslan would say ...

God spoke to a guy named Abraham one day ...

No, let's go back further ... when Adam and Eve sinned (called the "fall" - because their very nature had become damaged and they now, thru their own choices, had a sin nature) - what did they do? They covered themselves with leaves ... And what did God do? He provided another covering - one of animal skin - which means there had to be a death to pay for their choice to sin , because sin requires a consequence. Now this is a PICTURE of how God will provide redemption for people in the future by giving His Son, Jesus (called the Lamb of God), for the sins of people.

So on to Abraham - God calls him out of his country and gives him a promise that He will make a great nation of him, and in him all the families of the earth will be blessed. And so Abraham packs up and leaves - quite a man of faith! And the promise doesn't come ... and years pass ... until finally his wife Sarah is past the time of childbearing, and it's IMPOSSIBLE (from man's POV) for them to have children. So they decide that they gotta help ol' God out, and go with a custom of the time, and give Sarah's maid to Abraham, and she bears a child to him (Ishmael). But God says, "No, that's not my plan - you and Sarah will bear a child." Sarah actually laughs at this - yet ... it comes true, and they have a son thru miraculous intervention (and IIRC, his name, Isaac, means "laughter"!)

So the years pass, and Isaac becomes a young man, and God calls Abraham to make a journey and take Isaac with him, so Abraham can offer a sacrifice to God (a common practice in the region, and one Abraham would be familiar with). And they get there - and God tells Abraham to take his son, Isaac, and sacrifice him ... And Abraham, who is also familiar with this practice, starts to do this (btw, Isaac is a man, so he must have cooperated in faith) - because he believed that God could raise people from the dead. The knife is actually raised to strike - and God calls him to stop! And God Himself provides the sacrifice - there is a ram caught in the bushes which is sacrificed instead. The picture again - a holy God rightly requires sacrifice for sin - and yet this time the picture goes one step further - a person is the one to be killed, yet God provides a substitution. And they enter into another covenant that Abraham will be a father of nations and people will be blessed thru him - and God Himself takes on the full responsibility for it - usually both parties pass thru the sacrifice, but this time, ONLY GOD does.

(OMGoodness, this is getting sooo long! Sorry! But it's such a great story!)

So to summarize the next hundreds of years - the nation of Israel comes from Isaac, and God continues the picture of sacrifice for sin, over and over. The animal must be umblemished and perfect - the BEST of the flock. And the sacrifice carries away the sin for the year.

Then captivity, freedom, captivity again - and finally, 400 years of silence.

Then a baby is born in Bethlehem ... and the Lamb of God fulfills the picture that God has been showing us all this time. The perfect, sinless Son of God willingly comes to bear the penalty of our sins, and to reconcile us to a God that loves us with all his heart.

So we can't reconcile ourselves - only a sinless person can willingly take on the penalty - and Jesus DID it. This is the beautiful picture that has been around since the beginning of the world, and was fulfilled in Jesus. And we can be reconciled to God almighty, who loves us, by accepting what Jesus did on the cross and taking Him as rightful Lord of our lives - for He has taken our sins upon him and paid the penalty. But this is a choice - we can also deny our need, or deny His payment of the penalty. And IMO, Hell is basically the highest compliment God can give to humans - that of acknowledging their free will choice to deny Him. But more on Hell later - I've blabbed enough for now! (but these are complex questions!)

[Rían]

(and the next installment in the story of the sea lion...)

There was a time, many years back, when the sea lion knew he was lost. In those days, he would stop every traveler he met to see if he might help him find his way back to the sea.

But no one seemed to know the way.

On he searched, but never finding. After years without success, the sea lion took refuge beneath a solitary tree beside a very small water hole. The tree provided refuge from the burning rays of the sun, which was very fierce in that place. And the water hole, though small and muddy, was wet, in its own way. Here he settled down and got on as best he could.

[Rían]

(BTW, nice to see you, Wayfarer! I hope you'll stick around. And I think what you explained is a VERY important aspect! And I hope to explain another aspect shortly.)

[Elfhelm]

replying to Wayfarer:

I gotcha. And it's because of grace, right? A person living in a state of grace will be inclined to charitable acts. The Hare Krishna people said the same thing when I asked them. The Buddhists I asked also said that a person who is enlightened is inclined to help alleviate suffering in the world.

But I'm persistent...

What about people having to "reap what they have sown" according to Jeremiah, and the Hindu and Buddhist concept of karma? Don't those ideas mean that there really IS a direct correlation between charity or morality, and salvation?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

replying to Wayfarer:

I gotcha. And it's because of grace, right? A person living in a state of grace will be inclined to charitable acts. The Hare Krishna people said the same thing when I asked them. The Buddhists I asked also said that a person who is enlightened is inclined to help alleviate suffering in the world.

But I'm persistent...

What about people having to "reap what they have sown" according to Jeremiah, and the Hindu and Buddhist concept of karma? Don't those ideas mean that there really IS a direct correlation between charity or morality, and salvation?

Yes. And No.

There tends to be a temptation to mix up and confuse similar-sounding concepts. It's really easy to confuse things that superficially look alike (some day you should let me regale you with the sillyness that has arisen from this sort of thing, Feathers==Scales being my favorite example.)

Anyway, I think there's quite an important distinction between the two statements "People reap what they have sown" (or 'what goes around comes around), and "Salvation is a reward for doing good works."

The former is simply a recognition of the Law of Causality. Whatever you choose to do, there will be reprecussions, and those will generally reflect the actions you choose to take - doing good things will generally have good results, doing bad things will generally have bad results.

The latter is first of allmuch more specific, and second it implies several assumptions. It pretends to know that there is a reward for good work, that you know what 'good work', entails, and most dangerous of all it assumes that you are actually capable of doing what is required.

Christian theology actually does say something like this - a 'good' person, one who is without Sin, is... either capable of achieving salvation themselves or without need of it. The caveat, however, is that no human (except one!) is capable of doing that.

The Hindi/Buddist concept of Karma (as I understand it) says that each good thing you do moves you closer to god - that doing good really does move you closer to salvation. Christianity, as I said, holds almost the opposite. However, biblical Christianity makes clear on numerous occassions that even under the state of grace, humans must bear the results of any actions they choose to undertake - quite contrary to another common (and mistaken) belief, that "Once I have salvation, I can get away with anything."

Again, trying to summarize: There are really two common misperceptions about Christianity. The first is that Salvation is something that can be earned by doing Good Things. (which has been sufficiently addressed for now). The second is that Salvation frees us from having to bear responsibility for our own actions. In reality, what salvation does is begin a process which ultimately makes a person more inclined to do good than to do evil, while still paying the price for any evil they do.

Does that at all help clear things up? I'm quite sure I might be mistaken, but see the disclaimer in my last post.

[Elfhelm]

Yes, it does answer those questions and helps me understand the Christian perspective on these things. Thanks.

[Rían]

Elfhelm - And now I have a few minutes to add another angle to Wayfarer's excellent posts on your question.

Here's your question again : "Wouldn't an act of charity without expectation of eternal reward be more pure? "

I think your question hinges on the definition of "reward". I think there are "proper" or "natural" rewards, and "improper" rewards.

No one blames a man that marries a woman that he loves. People DO look down upon (and rightly) a man that marries a woman for her money. Now a man that marries for love will be happy about it, yet we don't chide him and say, "You knew you'd be happy about being married to this woman, so you shouldn't have married her - it was selfish!" It is not selfish to marry someone that you love and that loves you - marriage is the proper "reward", or consumation, of that love. In fact, it's a part of love itself, not just some randomly assigned "reward". Now gaining money is NOT a proper reward of love - altho one might gain money by marrying, it is not the GOAL of two people that love each other. And if it IS, then we call them mercenary and look down on their action, for it makes a mockery of REAL love.

Another example - a man in the army, fighting for a cause he thinks is just. He works hard, overcomes fear, puts himself in the line of fire to save a comrade - BECAUSE he thinks it's the right thing for him to do. Now because of this, he gets a promotion. A promotion is the "proper" reward for his service. He didn't do those things because of the chance of getting a promotion; he did them because he thought it was right. Now a man who only does things with the goal in mind of getting a promotion will be looked down upon by his fellow soldiers.

When I met my husband for the first time, I admired his politeness (as well as his 6'2" frame and dark hair ). There were also 2 other tall dark guys that asked me out (I tell ya - it's feast or famine! ), but after a few dates with each, I only wanted to be with my husband, because I loved his heart. I didn't keep going out with one of the other guys, who made major bucks, because heart is important in love, NOT money. Now we got engaged, and as the wedding day got closer, we would say, "I can't wait for our wedding night!" Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so - sex in marriage is a proper reward of love; it is an expression of the love that is there, and there's nothing wrong with looking forward to it, or enjoying it! Now it WOULD be wrong if after the wedding night, my husband said, "Boy, that was sure fun! I want sex every day, at least once, but I'm gonna treat you like dirt in the meantime, now that I got ya here!" In that case, I hope people would look down on that attitude! SO - even tho in both cases, my husband would be enjoying sex, yet in the first case, no one would think it's wrong, even tho he is enjoying it, yet in the second case, I would hope everyone would think it's wrong, even tho he is enjoying it.

See, it's not like a reward like feeling good for doing good things is a random type reward. If the rule was, do a good thing, then you get to pick from 3 prizes, it would be a selfish thing. However, feeling good from doing good things is a proper reward of doing good! It is part of the very act of doing good. It is the consumation of the act of doing good, just like sex in marriage is the consumation of love.

I don't do good things because I want a reward (well, sometimes I do, but not in general). I do good things because I love God and people, and I know doing right is best for everyone. And frankly, doing good is beautiful - and it can and SHOULD make people feel good - it is a proper reward, and a natural consumation of doing good.

(and btw, Jesus says that people that do good deeds in order to get recognition from men will NOT get a reward from God )

[Rían]

I'm gonna try to finish off Nurvi's questions, because I usually can't post much on weekends. Here's the last 3 : "What happens to a sinner (if they haven't redeemed themselves) when they die? Do you believe in Hell? What do you think it's like, if so?" They all kinda go together, so I"ll answer them together.

As I finished with in the last post to you, I think a very accurate way to look at Hell is that it is the ultimate compliment, if you will, that God pays to mankind's free will.

See, some people talk like Heaven is a place where everyone's happy, and Hell is where God throws the bad people, and they don't bother to think thru the implications of that thought.

Again, I believe that there IS an actual, real state of the universe. Now for reasons which I have touched on a little, but not fully, I believe that Christianity is the true state of the universe (and beyond the universe, too, btw - I always laugh when people say I need to get out of my narrow religious worldview - they only think they have the universe; I have the universe and MORE! ) And Christianity states that God is holy and righteous and loving and lots of other good things, and that no sin can dwell with Him (which we can understand, as I explained earlier - it's the same thing as us not liking to be around a pedophile that is getting away with his crime). And because He loves us, Jesus willingly came to pay the penalty of our sins, and those who accept this are made righteous and are reconciled to God. And one side effect of this (a rather big one!) is that we will be in Heaven with God for all eternity.

Now for a person who does NOT love God (not believing will not be an option on the day a person comes before God!) and does NOT want to acknowledge his rightful lordship, even being in Heaven (and perhaps especially being in Heaven) would be Hell. As Milton says in Paradise Lost of Satan, "Horror and doubt distract his troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir the Hell within him, for within him Hell he brings, and round about him, nor from Hell one step, no more than from himself, can fly by change of place." Do you see what I'm saying? If Heaven is an actual place, where God rules in power and majesty and love, it is Heaven for those who love Him (as I do) - and it would be Hell for those who don't. There IS no heaven for those who deny the reality of the universe. So it's not like people in Hell would be happy in Heaven, and God's just being a spiteful meanie to keep them out. I think C.S. Lewis sums it up well - those who are in Heaven are the ones who say (to God), "Thy will be done"; those in Hell are the ones to whom God says, sadly, "Thy will be done. Everyone will worship God when this world is ended - but some will worship in love and adoration and awe, and others in hate and anger.

And btw, the Bible is VERY clear that God desires everyone to be reconciled to Him, and that no one has an excuse - we ALL know enough to make the decision that will lead to salvation. And that's one of the things that I see in Christianity that other worldviews do NOT have - its fairness, and its honor of free-will choice. See, God knows (as do we) that compelled love is worthless. He will compel NO ONE to go to Heaven. And the only alternative to Heaven is Hell.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

You got it exactly right in your post, DUDE!

Just thought you'd like to know that !

[Wayfarer]

Okay.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And that's one of the things that I see in Christianity that other worldviews do NOT have - its fairness, and its honor of free-will choice. See, God knows (as do we) that compelled love is worthless. He will compel NO ONE to go to Heaven. And the only alternative to Heaven is Hell.

Very eloquent, and it really makes a lot of sense. This is the only part that I didn't understand... Why do you see other worldviews as not having fairness or free-will choice?

[Rían]

Let me clarify - what I meant is that no other worldview, IMO, has as much fairness and free-will choice as Christianity does (they "do not have" it at the same level). I'll get into details by Monday - I never know how much I can Moot on weekends!

[Ñólendil]

Hi Rian.

I've found a lot in a your posts that I kind of want to respond to, but I really feel if I went ahead with a lot of it, I would just be saying "well here's what I think, see how this makes more sense?". So I don't want to do that. I hope I am not doing that with this post.

I do want to address this quote:

And btw, the Bible is VERY clear that God desires everyone to be reconciled to Him, and that no one has an excuse - we ALL know enough to make the decision that will lead to salvation. And that's one of the things that I see in Christianity that other worldviews do NOT have - its fairness, and its honor of free-will choice. See, God knows (as do we) that compelled love is worthless. He will compel NO ONE to go to Heaven. And the only alternative to Heaven is Hell.

Granted, in this view God does not force his will on people to go to Heaven directly. But it seems like God does this indirectly. God is giving Mankind a choice, but with no disrespect intended, looking at it philosophically, it's not much of a choice.

God is honoring our free-will by allowing us to choose not to accept salvation, and go to Hell instead. God's motivation in this is to deliver justice, and God is providing us with the consequences--Heaven or Hell. God has created these consequences. In itself, this makes sense. But to speak of this model in light of Human perceptions--I think a major problem people have with it is that God does not seem to love the damned. A different model whereby murderers and rapists are accepted into Heaven would not please the same people either. But that's the rub: what's the answer? How does one go beyond the problem of loving damnation, or hateful or vengeful damnation from a loving God?

It reminds me of an analogy a good friend of mine told me once. To paraphrase, "I live in a beautiful, white, clean house. My children are playing outside in the mud. I love those children, but I'm not going to let them inside and dirty up the house." He was explaining the reason why only Mormons who have been Mormons for a certain amount of time may enter the temples, and why no one else is allowed in. Prostitutes, and atheists for example, he said, did not belong.

The analogy offended me. No one likes being compared to dirty children that muddy up God's home. But I think the analogy applies here, and raises the same difficulties.

God does not seem loving to a lot of people, including myself, when he damns people to Hell for eternity, however grievious and horrible the crimes and sins. And if God does not do it out of love, then it may bring to light the question of how good and just God is at all.

You could say that God is good, and there is no questioning that, and you could say that God is also mysterious. But the thing about that in terms of discussion is, you cannot share deepfelt convictions with others. I mean, no one can feel exactly what you feel. There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what I believe, and that's how it is," or "This is what it says in scripture, and if I feel I don't agree I will pray to God and wait for Him to reveal the truth to me." But there's not much practical discussion that can stem from that, and the statements aren't designed to encourage practical discussion. So you have to speak with the mind, even if you feel with the heart.

So that's why I think these philosophical problems I am bringing up are valid to discuss. If you follow through the issues, though, you may wonder, "Are these questions even practical to discuss intellectually?" Is God's justice real justice? I mean, look at where this question is coming from and what it is really asking. Of course if God has justice, then it must be real, and probably the only real justice. But what is God's justice, and how do we reconcile the Heaven/Hell model with the loving God idea? For many there is no contradiction here, but what about those people for whom the contradiction exists? Can damnation be a reality, can God love even those who he damns to hell?

These are the problems I am interested in.

______

You mentioned in one of your posts that disbelief in God is not an option, when you come face to face with Him. On a personal note, however futile my attempt, I think I would try with all of my might to disbelieve, given the circumstances. And given the choice, I would choose Hell. I know these are extreme statements. But I really sympathized with Lucifer from Milton's Paradise Lost, and I thought Lucifer came up with some really good points in that story, when he spoke of the injustices of God. I could see myself taking a similar route of rebellion. There is an analogy in that book about someone rather being a beggar in Heaven than a king of Hell. I don't agree, when I think about it more deeply. Somehow I think if there is a Heaven and Hell, and a Judgement concerning the destination of souls to these places, a lot of my friends are in Hell, in the wrong. I say I would choose damnation because I feel I would choose it as a protest against the injustice of God in this matter, and the injustice of such a choice. When given the choice, I think I would realize that right and wrong transcend even God, or else I am very much in the wrong, and dedicated to it.

[Nurvingiel]

Wow, some amazing posts up to this point! I have read and enjoyed them all.

I also think I "get it" when it comes to your views on sin (and the Christian nature of sin) except I got a bit lost with Abraham and Isaac.

You did shed a whole new light on the "Lamb of God" for me though, and for that I thank you.

About the answer to my very first question; I didn't have any pre-conceived notions as to what you might say, but I thought your answer was great. (Okay, I did kind of expect you do say that something was missing from Buddhist RÃ*an's life. )

I have only two comments (and of course more questions...)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Again, I believe that there IS an actual, real state of the universe. Now for reasons which I have touched on a little, but not fully, I believe that Christianity is the true state of the universe (and beyond the universe, too, btw - I always laugh when people say I need to get out of my narrow religious worldview - they only think they have the universe; I have the universe and MORE! )

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you just outlining that your world view is not narrow?
What do you have beyond the universe? I always thought of God and Heaven being part of the universe. Do you not think that, or is there something else beyond the universe?

You said earlier that you cannot redeem yourself from sin. I understood this as; if I lie, then to make up for it I give some money to someone in need, that good action doesn't erase the fact that I lied.

About the muddy children analogy, I think God will let them into the house, if only they wipe their feet first. But if you can't redeem yourself from sin, (there is no mat) how do you wipe your feet?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I finished with in the last post to you, I think a very accurate way to look at Hell is that it is the ultimate compliment, if you will, that God pays to mankind's free will.

What is Hell? Is Hell part of God? Are Heaven and Hell two sides of the same coin? If you go to Hell, can you "get out"?

Is Hell the way we redeem ourselves of sin? If so, what's Purgatory then?

About sin, if a baby dies 1 second after it's born, (and committed no sins in that second), wouldn't it be sinless?

What denomination are you? (I'm just curious, you don't have to answer. )

What did you study in University, and does it affect your worldview? (I'm studying forestry, and that has had a deep affect on my worldview, I was just wondering if you experienced a similar thing.)

I realize that the answer to some of my questions on Hell might make others redundant, so no need to answer them all.

I really enjoyed your posts RÃ*an! And I also really enjoyed your responses Wayfarer, Elfhelm and Ñólendil!

EDIT: I had way more than two comments, what was I thinking?

[Nurvingiel]

And yet another question... if every human being is a sinner, then what's the point of the concept of sin? You said earlier that it doesn't matter how bad your sin was (sorry if I misunderstood). So since we're all in the same boat, what is the purpose of saying we're sinners? Isn't that the same as saying we're human beings?
Can animals sin?

Okay I'll let other people go now...

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Do you believe you only have to ask God for forgivness once or many times?

[Nurvingiel]

Good question Telcontar!

Oh RÃ*an... your kids are at school... you can post now...

This is your conscience speaking... It's Moot time...

[Rían]

OK, I'm baaaaaaaaaack!

Had a great weekend - family and friends over, my dad's 75th bday

But now I'm ready to dive in and answer some questions (or at least try)

*rolls up sleeves*

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Very eloquent, and it really makes a lot of sense. This is the only part that I didn't understand... Why do you see other worldviews as not having fairness or free-will choice?

Thank you, Elemmire! And I think I can best answer your question by combining it with Ñólendil's post, because there's some common ground there, so check out my next post.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Hi Rian.

Hello!

I've found a lot in a your posts that I kind of want to respond to, but I really feel if I went ahead with a lot of it, I would just be saying "well here's what I think, see how this makes more sense?". So I don't want to do that. I hope I am not doing that with this post.

No, I don't think you are at all, and I think there is a LOT of room for discussion beyond just "here's what I think" - that's why I started this thread.

Granted, in this view God does not force his will on people to go to Heaven directly. But it seems like God does this indirectly. God is giving Mankind a choice, but with no disrespect intended, looking at it philosophically, it's not much of a choice.

How is this indirectly forcing? esp. since it seems that people HAVE chosen to go to Hell. I don't quite understand what you're saying, unless it's just the rather simple model of "OK, you can go to Heaven where you'll be happy or Hell where you'll be miserable." But I think that simple model is VERY inaccurate. Remember that Christianity is making a truth claim - it's saying "here is what is actually true in the universe and beyond". And this means Heaven is a specific place, with specific characteristics - it is NOT a place where each person gets to wave a wand and define it how they like (which would hold contradictions, btw, so it is not logically possible). Heaven is a place where a loving and holy God reigns in majesty. And some people would rather be in Hell than this specific, actual Heaven.

To me, another reason why Christianity rings true is that it so strongly deals with reality - a worldview where heaven is whatever anyone wants to make it has logical problems with it - what if YOUR idea of heaven means never having to talk to me again and MY idea of heaven is that I get to chat with you once a day? The two are mututally exclusive, and therefore logically impossible. But Christianity makes no such claims about Heaven. It DOES claim that in Heaven that God reigns in majesty, and there are no tears or death, and there is fulness of joy. And that makes logical sense - for those who are Christians love God.

Another side issue - people (esp. Americans with our strong tradition of freedom) don't like the idea of being under anyone - even God. However, if it is a FACT that we are created by God, as I believe the evidence indicates, then it is a FACT that we will always be under God in an authority sense. It's NOT saying anything against us at ALL! If it is true that there is a God that always existed and always will exist, then it's just a FACT - it's not conceited of God to acknowledge this! Just like it's not conceited for the Queen of England to acknowledge that she is the Queen, if asked in a court of law. And it seems that God has created mankind as high as logically possible - we are made in His image, and made for relationship with Him. Yet it is LOGICALLY impossible for God to make people EQUAL with Him, because a created being CANNOT be its own creator.

Well, I may have misunderstood what you meant - let me know if these things didn't answer what you were saying. I think they are good points to consider, anyway, so I went ahead and posted them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To me, another reason why Christianity rings true is that it so strongly deals with reality - a worldview where heaven is whatever anyone wants to make it has logical problems with it - what if YOUR idea of heaven means never having to talk to me again and MY idea of heaven is that I get to chat with you once a day? The two are mututally exclusive, and therefore logically impossible. But Christianity makes no such claims about Heaven. It DOES claim that in Heaven that God reigns in majesty, and there are no tears or death, and there is fulness of joy. And that makes logical sense - for those who are Christians love God.

of course, it is even more logical to assume that there is no heaven at all... since none of us have had the chance to visit it and bring back a few photos