Question for Christian theologians

GREEK mindset? You, a CHRISTIAN are accusing ME of having a GREEK mindset!!??!!

Well I NEVER!!

You are not entirely wrong, now that you have said it. But you are also not entirely right.

There have been since ancient times two approaches to Jewish thought. One is, and has been, legal and rational. If yo think about it, legal and rational are the SOUL of Torah.

But during much (most?) of Jewish history there HAS also been a mystical stream. This stream manifested itself as early as the Roman era for sure in monastic communities that you know more about than I do. If art and poetry are signs of mystical experience, not to mention the heavy acid trips of certain unnamed prophets, then the mystical stream is much older even than that.

The strain between these groups rises at times to levels that are hard to believe. You have heard of the Chasidim of course? They follow the EXTREMELY mystical, and in my view, extremely SUPERSTITIOUS teachings of Baal Shem Tov. When average Americans think of Orthodox Jews with side curls and tzit tzit, these are the people that come to mind.

But there was, and is, another equally significant and, I think, much more powerful stream in Judaism that most people know nothing of. Pre Shoah, it centered around the Vilna Goan and is dedicated to scholarship, understanding, justice, and the Jewish idea of the Will of God.

Things got so tense between them that the two groups issued mutual excommunications which means mostly that each side could not marry into the other side.

The rational, logical side eventually produced Freud, Marx, and Einstein as well as certain Rabbis whom I admire. It also produced, as you may have guessed, Reform.

The mystical side has produced nothing of value beyond some fairly decent music.

And, I suppose, though I grit my teeth to suggest it...MAYBE contributed a TINY bit to Christianity BUT DON'T QUOTE ME!!

 

To L.F.: I'm not your brother.

To my good friend Nosborne: G-a-o-n

Random comments:

I should be almost as appalled to see Orthodox Judaism represented by pietistic wackos as to see Lutheran Christianity represented by pietistic wackos.

I cannot see anyone purporting to be some sort of Jew using the pejorative term "ritualistic" to describe the lighting candles on Shabbes. That's as incoherent as a Lutheran saying he or she disliked "liturgicalistic" (sic) worship.

My cursory reading of Orthodox Jewish writings suggests that there might be a bit more dogma (remember, by me that's a good thing) in Orthodox Judaism than Nosborne's eloquent philippic suggests is present anywhere among Jews.

Now, please resume your fight as soon as the Queen departs. I got my beer. I got my popcorn. This sure beats cable.

 

Part 1 of 3

As applies to my take on "Rapture," yes. As applies to my take on end times theology, generally, that's an oversimplification.

Now, that would certainly be nice!

But seriously... the Left Behind series, as a novel, is no different from any other novel. Since I don't believe in censorship or burning books, how could I possibly denounce the Left Behind series as a book? What it encourages its readers to believe, on the other hand, I can (and do) denounce. I'm not sure it requires "integrity" just to do that.

At bottom, I certainly hope we agree that those books are grotesque distortions biblical truth. And, yes, in light thereof, letting slide that reality in the name of converting, by hook or by crook, a few hapless "dupes," as you called them, probably is outrageous; most certainly disingenuous; but I'm not so sure I see the cynicism in it... unless it's the cynicism of believing that without being tricked into it, we mere mortals would never have faith on our own.

The cynicism to which I was very specifically referring when I criticized you was the kind that could cause one to characterize Dr. Rossing's having responded to the danger of the Left Behind series as a "racket" of her own in which she was merely riding on the coattails of the popularity of said Left Behind series to promote her own book. It was that kind of cynicism in which I saw no integrity... and for the very reasons that I earlier wrote, and which you quoted in your message to which I'm now responding. I felt you had the cause and effect of that all wrong. But thanks for misreading it as something larger. It gives us a chance to toss that around a bit, too.

You mean there's just one?

I see "end times" theology and the "Rapture" trash as two different things. It's categorically incorrect that I see end times theology as "bunk." I see "Rapture" theolog... strike that... mythology as bunk. I see end times theology, as you've described it, as flawed or, at least, misinterpreted. I'm particularly troubled by the whole "shudder with fear" perspective, upon which I'll expand momentarily.

But, accompanying that, the "Rapture" -- or, absent that, a Rapture-like, fear-mongering admonition that one should be trembling at the thought of it -- is not sound Christian eschatology. Valid, perhaps... precisely because of what we find in said prima facie reading; but not sound... especially if it's based on the Left Behind series (which, gratefully, you seem to be saying it shouldn't be... while at the same time being willing to leave it to do its job if that's the only way its job can be done), while an interesting exercise in how things might work out if the prophecies are combined and incarnated in a fundamentalist way. Yet, curiously, in the Left Behind series, Jesus does not come to save. God is not loving and forgiving, or even flexible in a loving and forgiving way, in the misguided world view of the authors.

"Apocalypse" is not a cosmic cataclysm in which God destroys the ruling powers of evil. Rather, it is transliteration of "apocalypsis" meaning "un-hide;" it is from the Greek word for "revelation," or the "unveiling" of something hidden. It literally means, "that which is revealed." It is not synonymous with the great battle of
Armageddon.

"Prophesy" is not fortune telling. Rather, it is to speak by Divine Inspiration in the name of God; to deliver a prophetic message of God to the people. Even the prophets who are often cited by fear mongering end times theologists do not actually claim to tell the future. Rather, they claim to speak God's words for God's people at the moment, and of the consequences for their actions.

The Book of Revelation calls itself apocalypse, and not prophesy. Its author, John the Devine, conveys a hopeful message of salvation for all, not damnation for wicked, revealed in vivid, highly symbolic, and imaginative terms.

Embracing the notion of salvation by grace (whether or not conditioned upon faith as well) while simultaneously urging those who have not bothered to save themselves to shudder with fear at the inevitable "great destruction" of end times theology is oxymoronic.

• "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1:19-20)

Lutheran theologian Joseph Sittler, in his 1952 address to the New Delhi assembly of the World Council of Churches, said, "It is now excruciatingly clear that Christ cannot be a light that lighteth everyone coming into the world, if he is not also the light that falls upon the world into which everyone comes."

Christ, the principal of creation, is also the principal of the new life initiated by his resurrection for all creation. St. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:19, "...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us." Being "entrusted" with this precious message of reconciliation, we are to proclaim this salvation intended for all humankind, this redemption of the whole world, this resurrection to new life. And because it is in the "hands" of the faithful, righteous God who raised Jesus as the firstborn of the dead, we give God thanks for that.

The answers to all theological questions -- including who will be saved and who will, allegedly not in end times -- must always be pondered in light of our understanding of God’s grace... God’s action in Christ. Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten wrote:

• "The Christian hope for salvation, whether for the believing few or the unbelieving many, is grounded in the person and meaning of Christ alone, not in the potential of the world’s religions to save... There is a universalist thrust in the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s theology. How else can we read passages such as 'for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ' (1 Cor 15:22)?
  
  "Salvation in the New Testament is what God has done to death in the resurrection of Jesus. Salvation is what God has in store for you and me and the whole world in spite of death, solely on account of the living risen Christ. ... The universal scope of salvation in Christ includes the destiny of our bodies together with the whole earth and the whole of creation. This cosmic hope is based on the promise of eternal life sealed by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Through raising Jesus from the dead, God put death to death, overcoming the deadliest enemy of life at loose in the world. This hope for the final salvation of humanity and the eternal universal restitution of all things in heaven and on earth ... is drawn from the unlimited promise of the Gospel and the magnitude of God’s grace made known to the world through Christ.
  
  "To say we are saved by faith alone means we let God-in-Christ do all the saving that needs to be done, apart from any works we can perform. ... If I confess that God has saved me, a lost and condemned sinner, whom else can he not save? Faith is precisely awareness that God’s accepting love reaches out to all sinners, even to me. Faith is the opening of heart and mind to the universal grace and goodness of God."
  
  What God has done in Christ is done for all; God’s act in Christ is the way that all come to God. This Good News we are compelled to joyously share with all people: "God has acted in Christ, and you are the recipient of this loving act."
  
  Continued in next post...

 

Part 2 of 3

...continued from previous post.

Those who often passionately argue that "while God offers grace and salvation to all, humans must accept it with deep repentance and a change of life," should be cautioned against making salvation into a work that we accomplish by our response to God’s offer. Rather, in our telling the Good News we pray that those who hear "will present" themselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present their (bodies) to God as instruments of righteousness" (Romans 6:13).

Again, Carl Braaten writes: "(God) has let us know in advance ... that he will judge the world according to the measure of his grace and love made known in Jesus Christ, which is ultimately greater than the fierceness of his wrath or the hideousness of our sin."

By your kind of clarity, salvation by grace and punishment in end times are not mutually exclusive. That can't possibly be right. In order for your understanding of end times brutality to be accurate, you must give-up the only message of the Gospels that actually means anything; either that, or, to keep your grip on salvation by grace, you must trust that God's love through Christ's resurrection will include you at the end times. Go ahead... choose.

Funny... that's exactly what I was going to say to you.

Let's try to give that a bit more context. From Jeremiah, the fifth chapter, both verse 21 and the somewhat more intimidating verse 22 (KJV):

• 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
  5:22 Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

So that's where you're getting the whole "tremble" thing, eh? And the "fear" thing? How can you not possibly see the conflict between that and the clear and unambiguous message of love and salvation through grace that is God's gift to us all through his Son Jesus? It has always been, and remains, a mystery to me why some people actually choose the fear mongering, whip-everyone-into-shape-as-they-believe-everyone-should-be-whipped, winning-through-intimidation view and interpretation of things when the superseding message God intended through the death and resurrection of Christ could just not be more clear.

It is sometimes necessary to know where a man sits in order to correctly interpret his declarations regarding where he stands. I never said you shouldn't be able to write your opinions about this subject here. I'm just suggesting it should come with an EPA warning label. (Oh, c'mon little fauss... I'm just screwin' around!)

Based on what and whose recommendation... the least two, I mean? If any part of the scripture that you're letting guide you in such endeavors happens to be the same part that I'm reading, then you're forgetting one important thing that, if you remembered it and embraced it might make your journey easier: The gift of Jesus death and resurrection is the Lord your God telling you that he loves you with all his heart, soul, mind and strength... even if you don't love your neighbor as yourself. That's the very essence of grace. It requires of you nothing. Nothing. Grace through faith is better, and helps you live out the promise of forgiveness in your everyday life... which is clearly one of the desired side effects that Jesus had in mind. But your ticket to salvation has already been punched, regardless.

Whew! That's a relief. I was starting to worry. (Again... just screwin' around.)

Hmm. Are you trying to convince us, or you?

Understood. And I mean to be clear about my respect for that notion. I wish only to point out that understanding Trinity can help to take the edge off that a bit. Just sayin'

Agreed. (Surprised?)

Oh, yeah? Tell that to BillDayson!

Well.... (kidding)

Yes! Agreed. Er... well... "then" for context; "today" for relevance.

See? Now we're gettin' somewhere.

Continued in next post...

 

Part 3 of 3

...continued from previous post.

Though Catholic "purgatory" -- a newer concept, of course and, therefore little applicable to the old testament point your making... but I'm just sayin' -- comes close.

Agreed.

Yes. There it is, exactly... right there. You're dead-on, Nos.

A common practice of biblical literalists and/or those who fear God and see loving him as their obligation instead of his love as his gift.

See? Right there. That's what I meant when I suggested that your commentary here should come with a disclaimer. But I didn't mean it pejoratively... or as a "warning," like on the side of a pack of cigarettes. It isn't that I don't want you to be able to make your usually excellent points. After everything you've read around here of my words, you could not possibly believe that a civil rights activist like me would want your words censored. I'm only saying that the reader should know that your way of coming at this controversial subject is informed by a sensibility that, just look at it -- is neither, really, mainstream Christianity, nor mainstream Judaism; and is, therefore, enigmatic to some. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Not one thing! I'm just saying that the average reader might be scratching his/her head right about now. But, anyway, it's a non-issue now for purposes of this thread. Your messianic underpinnings have been called to the reader's attention, and that's really all I was trying to accomplish by even mentioning it in the first place. I didn't mean to offend you by it. Believe me. I want the reader to read your stuff -- it's terribly interesting, by the way, and I respect the depth of your convictions -- but I just want them to have the context of from whence it comes... just like they should know from where nosnorne48's coming, and Janko, and me, etc. Anyway... don't get too frustrated with us hammerin' at ya'. Lots of really interesting stuff -- for me at least -- is coming out of this. Someone once wrote to me in a PM that you were a gifted and effective debater. Indeed you are, sir... indeed you are; and I cannot begin to tell you how much respect I have for that. Keep up the good work... howsoever misguided it may be. (Okay, okay... that last remark was uncalled for. I just wrote it for comic relief, anyway. Just kiddin' around.)

As to your statement, "[y]ou cannot reason your way to G-d or ultimate truth," you cannot anything your way to God... or ultimate truth, for that matter. The way to him is his gift to you. You wrote, earlier in this very thread:

• "...again, it's not an easy part of the Bible upon which one can get a firm grasp, such as the doctrine of salvation by grace rather than good works -- that's pretty clear-cut..."

You say you understand that, but the vital -- ne, pivotal -- role it plays in end times theology seems lost on you.

Well, I certainly am the latter, as you and I have discussed. I do not have your kind of connection to Judiasm that I would need to feel as passionately about the former. But I certainly get it... and agree.

Agreed, again... strongly.

That's my take, as well... but I'm a mere bystander to your and Nosborne's impressive expertise.

Boy, ain't that the truth! And satellite, too!

 

I stand behind my accusations, though I agree with you that I'm part right, part wrong--I think you've got more Greek in your mindset than Jew (I struggle with this also, while my wife does not, she's thoroughly Hebraic in thought). But you've also got some spark in there that comes out from time-to-time that makes me think that the former is more an accoutrement of membership in the intellectual class of a thoroughly Western culture, while the latter is the heart of Mr. Osborne, something put there by the One behind it all that not even a Bachelors, Doctorate and soon-to-be Masters can put out.

I don't know a lot about the mystical side of Judaism beyond knowing that it's there and produced the Kabbalah and biblical code study and such.

I do not think that Jewish mysticism had an influence on Christianity per se. I see it more simply--I believe Jeshua was Messiah and not only that, but also the L-rd G-d. He's the One who made it all and the One behind it all. He's the influence, He's the One who made His people not only a "royal priesthood" but a "peculiar people"--different, mystical, in many respects like the One who made them.

And BTW, I do not believe in three G-ds--I cannot believe in three G-ds; I believe in one and one alone: "Hear o Israel..." (you know the rest). But of course, my G-d (and yours, I believe) has different aspects to His being. Light has different properties: both wave and particle. You have different properties: a brain/mind that runs the body, the body itself, and a spirit or soul. In fact, it's a pet theory of mine--I think Acquinas said it first--that that's one of the primary ways in which we're made in His image: one, yet possessing three different aspects in our being.

You're accusing the wrong guy here.

I absolutely do not do that--or at least, if I do, I want someone to point it out so I can stamp on it and grind it underfoot--my whole religious experience over the last 10 years has been one rebellion after another against that!

In a sense, of course, the scriptures are complete--they are inspired of G-d--but in another sense, they mean little without understanding the context. Who can deny that? What do you think is my primary motivation in rejecting Christian practice? Because I did precisely what you say I don't do: I looked at the context and ending up rejecting the tradition. I would ask you and Mr. Des Elms to look at the real context of the Word of G-d--rather than recent Jewish Reform history or the modern cultural understanding of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America--and see what was really going on when the texts were written, what these things meant to the people to whom they were addressed. I can assure you that G-d was not some deistic clock starter--the G-d I often hear coming from the lips of mainstream "Christians"--He was considered startlingly real and terrible and wonderful. And a G-d of love, absurdly longsuffering, patient to a fault (if such can be said).

 

Janko:

I'll take a lot here from people, and I have taken a lot--as well as dished it out--over the months I've spent posting here. But some things are pure ad hominem or invective. And you've crossed that line.

I don't think that "wacko" properly describes me: neither the way I treat people nor the way I believe. But if you want to call me "pietistic", fine, go ahead--that does describe me, or at least my aspirations.

And, Janko, referencing your chastisement of me earlier for my disingenuous nature, you know the New Testament scriptures quite well, don't you? Let us assume a priori that my "Messianic thing" were just something that I used around the proper company to try to reach out--it's not, by the way--there would still be a scripture dead on point in my favor. It came from the pen of one Paul of Tarsus. And I'll bet without even mentioning it, you know exactly the reference.

Finally, even though you have misanthropic tendencies, you're good for one thing: you make me do the online dictionary thing with every post of yours I read; you expand my vocabulary.

BTW: How do you know we're not brothers? I hope we are!

 

Of course it's enigmatic to some. Jeshua was enigmatic to some (to most!). The truth is enigmatic to some (to most!). Not that you'd necessarily disagree.

I'm just trying to look at what I believe are the words of G-d in their historical context and come to a conclusion that's not informed by modern culture but rather by the words as they were spoken to the people to whom they were spoken. Then, working from that starting point, we can extrapolate meaning to modern culture. I believe the reason that many modern mainstream churchgoers have gotten it wrong is because their starting point is modern culture: they ask themselves, how can we fit these ancient texts into what we already do or what we'd like to do, then work backwards from there. I very much believe that mainstream Judaism and Christianity has missed the boat utterly. I believe the former group rejected their Messiah, while the latter group has heaped so much of manmade culture upon the Scriptures that there's little left undefiled of the latter.

Take, for example, a rather peripheral issue, one not at all central to salvation--the so-called L-rd's Supper, Communion. I want you to look honestly at the context of the L-rd's Supper. What event they were celebrating, what was actually going on. Were they eating a meal? What was that meal about? Were they drinking wine? Why? What were the meanings of the four cups? What was the meaning of the leaven in the bread? Why did they leave it out? Why didn't Jeshua drink some of the cups? What was the significance of this vis-a-vis what was about to occur? Why did they celebrate their Pesach one day early? And after you've looked into all these--you could start by asking Janko or Osborne about the Pesach--what was the significance of the Pesach to messiah? Messiah to Pesach? Do you see parallels? Contrasts?

And after you've done all that, take a look at that wafer you eat and that watered down plastic cup of grape juice and tell me if that modern ELCA practice bears any resemblance to the meaning--the true meaning--of the L-rd's Supper. And then ask yourself who's really decontextualizing here.

 

Re: Part 3 of 3

I truly agree with you here--can't deny a word of it. The ELCA has certain things dead right--like salvation being a gift from G-d. You can't earn it, you don't deserve it and even if you were to give your body to the fire to burned as a martyr for the sake of G-d and the church and all the snuggly babies in the world, that wouldn't be enough (I think I've read something like that somewhere).

I just don't know what bearing it has on End Times theology. In other words, why would G-d's very right and proper judgment upon the world someday preclude Him granting the gift of salvation? What's mutually exclusive about those two concepts?

Don't sweat any of it. I may get my back up sometimes at you or Osborne or Janko or Abner or Mr. Engineer, but it's all in good fun, and you all are teaching me a great deal. Kind of like the lawyers who joust and call down curses upon each other and their clients in court, then go out and laugh about the whole thing over a beer at the bar around the corner. Sometimes I get riled up with the fingers shaking as I clatter out a snappy--I hope--little comeback, but no lasting offense is ever taken. Honest, Gregg. Don't hold back, none of you, even if I bellyache about people "crossing the line", as I did a couple posts back with Janko.

 

Goyishe kop! Fauss, I wasn't even talking about you. Are you an Orthodox Jew? No. Are you a Lutheran Christian? No. So "pietistic wackos" was not directed at you.
Your hermeneutical wizardry makes me, uh, gasp.

I rarely rise to the defence of the ELCA (Gregg does that quite well, multumesc foarte mult), but your last paragraph was inaccurate as to the facts and offensive in its intent. But do put that hyphen in "God" while you make Blutwurst out of the eighth commandment.

You are, of, course, entitled to your opinions. But I guarantee you that no one who derides the Mass or considers the Lord's Supper "peripheral" is my brother.

I have simply never heard this kind of animus against sacramental Christianity from ANY actual Jew. Rejection of it, yes, of course, but not your derision. It sounds a lot more like Chick Publications than it does like any Jews I know.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do not consider the L-rd's Supper peripheral in any sense except as peripheral to salvation--no one is saved by downing a thin wafer and a cup of wine (if Catholic) or juice (for the most part, if Protestant).

I'm not a Jew per se, I am a Christian, but not as it's defined by most mainstream Christians. But I believe absolutely in the bulk of Christian doctrine, though I will not apologize for deriding Communion as practiced. I do not believe that what we practice can be rightly squared with what Messiah practiced on that fateful Thursday night about 1970 years ago. That was what He told His disciples to follow, not that which we've made of it. Look it up yourself.

Eighth Commandment?

 

I'm glad to see that Christian Theology still sparks arguments even if Jimmy and I are not the contestants. Ah, Eschatology...as soon as I figure out Christology I'll look into that....unless I'm raptured first

 

Hi Bill,

Here is how I see it:

1. The Anti-Christ appears
Battle of Armageddon
Climax of Battle

2. Jesus visibly returns
First Resurrection--dead in Christ given new bodies
Bodies of those living in Chrsit instantly transformed
Rapture--all saved meet Christ in air on His way to earth
Nation of Israel converted
Anti-Christ and his hosts are destroyed

3. Millennium kingdom is established
1,000 year rule that is universal and literal
Christ rules from Jerusalem
Satan and his angels are bound
Curse removed from nature
Many sinners remain on earth during this time

4. End of Millennium
Satan and his angels are freed leading unconverted into final battle
Jerusalem is attacked
Christ defeats Satan at Battle of Gog and Magog
Second Resurrection--all wicked

5. Final Judgment and Eternal States
All works of all people will be judged according to works
Public separation of lost and saved--degrees of rewards/punishments
Saved to eternal life; lost to eternal damnation into Lake of Fire

 

Hi Bill,

Here is how I see it:

1. The Anti-Christ appears
Battle of Armageddon
Climax of Battle

2. Jesus visibly returns
First Resurrection--dead in Christ given new bodies
Bodies of those living in Chrsit instantly transformed
Rapture--all saved meet Christ in air on His way to earth
Nation of Israel converted
Anti-Christ and his hosts are destroyed

3. Millennium kingdom is established
1,000 year rule that is universal and literal
Christ rules from Jerusalem
Satan and his angels are bound
Curse removed from nature
Many sinners remain on earth during this time

4. End of Millennium
Satan and his angels are freed leading unconverted into final battle
Jerusalem is attacked
Christ defeats Satan at Battle of Gog and Magog
Second Resurrection--all wicked

5. Final Judgment and Eternal States
All works of all people will be judged according to works
Public separation of lost and saved--degrees of rewards/punishments
Saved to eternal life; lost to eternal damnation into Lake of Fire

 

Re: Part 1 of 3

• 
  
  Gregg:
  
  Now that you've hypothised that salvation is automatic, universal and for all--including Hitler, who died utterly unrepentant (I've read excerpts from his last Will and Testament, prepared shortly before he put a gun in his mouth), and who, while living, had his guards throw Jewish children into furnaces alive to die in excruciating agony--I'd like you to also quote for me the many, many passages in the New Testament from the words of Jeshua that state very much the opposite of what you claim.
  
  Then, after you've finished that exercise, I'd like you to quote for me the many, many passages from the pen of Paul of Tarsus--considered by many first century Jews to be the greatest Jewish theologian of his day (that is, before he embraced Jeshua as the Christ)--that also state precisely the opposite of what you say. I'll take those two, as theologians and as trustworthy sources of knowledge and truth, in a rout over Mr. Sittler.
  
  Are you also aware that your theology of universal, automatic salvation is not even mainstream ELCA Lutheran? It's considered heresy in those parts!
  
  Ball's now bouncing into your court.

 

Tipping points & judgment day

Jimmy,
It is most interesting to me to observe the "Christian mind" at work..... hmmm.

Now for a few questions.

1. Is there a "tipping point" at which you are judged sufficiently sinful (and therefore condemned)? Where is that tipping point? One sin? Two sins? A thousand sins? One big sin? Millions of small sins? Etc....

2. You mentioned "degrees of rewards/punishments". Does that mean that I might only be condemned to a "pond of fire" rather than a "lake of fire" if I'm not as bad as, let's say, Adolf Hitler? Does it mean that I only get a two bedroom condo in heaven if I've only been sort of "good", vs. the mansion that someone like Billy Graham has awaiting him?

I can't wait for the answers to these questions!

Thanks.
- Carl

 

Re: Tipping points & judgment day

As for sin and its consequences, you're mistaking Christian theology with that of Islamic. There is no "tipping point", no great scales in the sky upon which your good deeds and bad are placed. You must read the Bible if you want to know the answer, it's all there in black-and-white.

Have you ever sinned, Carl? Ever done the least little thing wrong? Disobeyed parents? Dipped the pony tails of the little girl in front of you in the ink jar? Needlessly destroyed your brain cells--a gift from G-d--with certain controlled substances? Said an unkind and unwarranted word?

If you've ever done a single thing wrong--just one--whether you be Mother Theresa or Billy Graham or Ghandi, you're condemned to Hell. If you've made a single misstep in anything, you've blown the whole works. You're condemned to the same fate as Charlie Manson--you're as guilty as hell.

Why would I say this? Because if we've ever sinned, we're just as guilty as the next man, we've branded ourselves as sinners, capable of who knows what. Perhaps but for good mental constitution and a decent upbringing, we might be right there with Charlie and his gang of murderers. Perhaps but for growing up in a country that has no Hitler Youth to have poisoned our once-impressionable minds, and loves civil liberties and hates antisemitism, we might have been there with the Storm Troopers herding Jews into cattle cars.

There's a price to be paid for such sin and evil in which you and I and everyone who ever drew breath takes part: it's death. The eternal kind. Separation from the G-d who loves us passionately.

Why? Because G-d is a perfect G-d; He will have no sin in His heaven, in His kingdom to come. And if you have any within you, you're sunk. Lost. In fact, a sinful man would be destroyed merely by looking into the countenance of a perfect G-d. That, too, is right there in the Bible.


Now, that said, there's yet a way out. G-d made a plan for your redemption and the redemption of all who are merely willing to accept it. He didn't consider Himself above descending to our planet, living a life as a blue collar laborer in a dusty, Roman-occupied Middle Eastern villiage, then associating with the dregs of society--the former hookers, thieves, drunks, and blue collar fisherman roughnecks that he called disciples and followers--then finally sacrificing Himself in the place of us for our sins--but of course, not for His own, He had none.

If you're willing to admit that you belong in the same class as the other six billion trodding about the planet--that is, a person with a real sin problem--and then willing to admit that the sacrifice of Jeshua is the answer to that problem, then congratulations, you will have found that way out. Honestly.

But if you think that your sin problems are paltry and a trifling matter--surely no requirement that they be atoned for by a Jewish carpenter, whether he be G-d or not--or you convince yourself that the concept of sin is just a phantasm, a holdover from a more primitive era, the blatherings of the ancients, that really there's no such thing as wrong or right, but even if there is, who cares, might as well eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die--then you will have made the decision to go it on your own, and you will face whatever consequences lie beyond the grave.

It's not a joke. You have a G-d who's absolutely nuts about you, who knows you better than you know yourself, who knows the number of hairs upon your head, who knows what's inside you, which are the same sort of things that are within me: the petty jealousies, the backbiting nature, the peversions, the hatreds. The whole shooting match, those things that you wish you could hide even from yourself.

And yet, He still loves you passionately.

 

Re: Re: Tipping points & judgment day

I'm not Carl, but I'll say that I don't know whether I've sinned or not, because I'm not sure what 'sin' is.

Your God is condemning his own creations to eternal torture because he didn't create them perfect, because humans inevitably fall short of being gods?

That creates problems for your attempt to tie our sense of guilt over our bad behavior with this sin thing. If the behavior of the greatest saint is no different in God's eyes than the behavior of Adolph Hitler, then it appears that our behavior is essentially irrelevant to the matter.

 

Once again:

G-a-n-d-h-i

(Being unable to spell "God" is no excuse.)

 

Re: Re: Tipping points & judgment day

Well, like I didn't know all THAT already!

Thanks for articulating the doctrine of "saved by faith, and faith alone" though so clearly for our Lutheran brethren....