A Prayer Of Salvation (3 Viewers)

[Captain Cranks]

If your philosophy of mind (i.e., the software/ hardware model of the materialists) is correct, then, yes, I agree that determinism follows. Also, I concede that I can’t prove you wrong. You may very well be right that free will is an illusion.

As I’m sure you already know, I’m a dualist. So, I don’t think that the mind is identical to the brain and its coding, and thus I see your model as only partially right. While the mind and brain are inextricably linked in our current reality, I believe that the mind (which is composed of the intellect and will) acts somewhat separately from the brain (or as the mover of the brain) in certain operations. In particular, I think that we can abstract away from concrete objects and participate in pure reason and free choice (via the mind). When we do this, we can grasp the true nature of things, including the essence of the female human and how she should be treated. Moreover, we can choose to behave according to this latter, morally correct rule vs. the one determined by our programming.

If I failed to do this when interacting with the barista (say, because I’m ignorant and/ or I lack temperance), then my thoughts and corresponding actions wouldn’t be truly free. But, it still stands that I have the capacity for freedom, even if unexercised.

Note: I’m a hylemorphic dualist; that is, I believe that everything in the natural world is composed of form and matter as metaphysical parts. In the case of humans, form = rational soul = mind and matter = body.

Would you agree that impulse control, moral judgment, and reasoning track changes in the physical brain?

Yes, I think that mental phenomena track changes in the brain. But, I suppose it depends on what you mean. The difference between us is that, for you, the mind is like software or code, whereas, for me, the mind corresponds with the rational soul. So, I believe that we have a will and can control brain activity.

To clarify my previous post, we are still exercising our will when we practice instrumental reasoning (i.e., the type of reasoning we engage in when we’re choosing how to satisfy a desire that was determined for us by our biology and/ or conditioned by environmental factors). For example, if I give in to my animalistic inclinations and decide that I’m gonna try to bed the barista, I’m still reasoning through the ways to make that happen and presumably I’ll choose the best one. So, instrumental reasoning is not completely deterministic.

I would contrast the above with pure or abstract reason, which is the kind of reasoning we use when we’re apprehending the laws of logic, mathematical principles, the forms and essences of things, and moral truths. The process of abstraction allows us to move beyond concrete things, not just external objects, but ourselves, our instincts and desires, etc. So, we’re able to act according to principles that we’ve freely chosen.

Thanks for the explanation. I won't bog the thread down anymore by digging deeper as I imagine most are bored by the topic, but I appreciate your perspective.

 

[bolzano]

Are you guys saying God’s design flaw is that he didn’t make man to be morally perfect? If so, I think you may be asking too much of God. Indeed, I think it’s impossible. To be morally good, you have to freely will the good; that is, free will is a necessary condition. But, if God programmed you to only choose the good, then you wouldn’t be truly free.

So I understand your point about free will and evil, and I think it’s a valid argument. So I got a question for you, if God is all knowing and all powerful, he created us and wants nothing more than for us to be in his grace, why did he make it so complicated to understand?

One would think God, knowing that thousands of years and dozens and dozens of generations would exist after Jesus that he could very easily just program us when we were born with an innate knowledge or even a universal language of the rules. Free will could still exist under this where we would still have the choice to follow said rules, but instead things need to be interpreted and understood thousands of years later across multiple different languages. I mean, just look at this thread for example, there’s multiple wide interpretations just within the six or seven people interacting here. It. Makes. No. Sense.

In fact, I could easily argue that it even seems like it’s set up for us to fail. None of this seems like something that was set up by an all knowing all loving all powerful God. In fact because of its inconsistencies and massive flaws, it seems completely set up by a clueless, lost and searching human construct.

@bolzano I know you’re involved in multiple conversations so you might’ve missed this. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the question I posed above. Thanks.

Why doesn’t God just reveal himself? If he did, surely all people would believe, repent their sins, and worship him. Then, everyone would be saved. So, this is what God would do if he truly loved all of us. Right?

I think a lot of Christian philosophers/ theologians would answer you by saying that he’s already done this, many times and in multiple ways. They will say that God is evident from observing the natural order of things. They will reference the rational proofs of his existence that were provided by Aristotle, Aquinas et al. They will point to Christ (i.e., the incarnation of God) and the theophanies from the Old Testament. They will tell you that God continues to reveal himself directly through miracles as well as indirectly via works of the faithful. And so on.

To be honest, I don’t really buy this argument. If God really wanted to make it easy, he would’ve figured out a way to get through to us. So, my conclusion is that God intends for this life to be very difficult, with its purpose being our intellectual, spiritual, and moral development. Perhaps an apt, albeit imperfect, analogy is to see God as a father with a laissez-faire parenting style. He loves us, and he provides us with the resources to succeed. But, he’s not going to spoon feed us the answers to all of life’s questions, nor is he gonna hold our hands and walk us to our destination. He’s going to allow us to figure out what’s right and wrong, make our own choices, and determine the path we want to follow. And, he’s gonna let us fail, consistently and completely. However, he’s always gonna be there if we call to him and ask for help.

I believe we are on a long journey towards theosis/ enlightenment/ salvation that doesn’t end with natural death. I don’t think any of us will be damned to eternal torture if we fail to self-actualize here and now. IMO, the vast majority of us are destined to purgatory, which likely has many layers, and, in fact, this life may be one of them. If there is a hell, it’s just the lowest levels of purgatory. That, or it’s the cessation of your existence because you’ve totally separated yourself from God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Appreciate it.

Your perspective and interpretation is fascinating, with many concepts about how to conduct ourselves in life. I agree with. Though I would like to add that I never claimed God should make it easy/easier, just that the reality of the path is more clear.

Where I get stuck with your pov is in the same place I do with @dgreen and his thoughtful interpretations, how this squares with Christianity as I understand it (and with, in my opinion, how most understand it. Though dgreen disagrees with my opinions on this). If you (the theoretical you not necessarily the literal you) were to remove the requirement to believe in Jesus as our lord and savior as the barrier to entry into the next plain of existence then I’d say your interpretations make far more sense to me (I’m not sure I’d still agree, but I could get behind your thought process at least).

But how those two things, your interpretation and the Jesus requirement, blend together fails to connect with me.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think you need to believe in Jesus to progress through the stages of theosis and become like God. But, you would have to be Christian in spirit. So, you need live in union with God, his word, and his will, which means adopting a Christian-like paradigm and practicing Christian ethics.

Simply put, you should be striving to unconditionally, selflessly, and self-sacrificially love all things. Of course, this is an incredibly hard thing to do.

You cannot live in Union with God without Christ.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
[6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 8:5-8 KJV
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, the Catholic Church says you don’t need to be a believer to go to heaven.

Regarding the reading from Hebrews, I think we need to be mindful of the context in which it was written. It was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Israel. So, if they didn’t believe, it wasn’t because they were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, the writer is emphasizing that salvation comes from faith, not from being Jewish and practicing their laws (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions).

Below are some thoughts on this topic that I posted a month ago.

My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their own.

Regarding any person, I believe that what faith requires is the total transformation of oneself at the deepest of levels (i.e., your mind/ soul). When I say good works are necessary, that’s because actions follow being and reflect who you are at your core. But, you still need to be doing good for the right reasons. So, it’s not sufficient to just say you believe in something, nor does it even suffice to do good. Indeed, you have to embody the good, which means the reorientation of your paradigm away from that of original sin (i.e., pride/ vanity/ self-love/ selfishness) towards one of true love (unconditional, selfless, and self-sacrificial love).

Note: If we go back to the first paragraph, that’s why I say it’s ideal to be a Christian because it’s certainly easier to attain this level of good if you’ve been graced with the forgiveness of your sins, the Holy Spirit, an understanding of God’s word, and Jesus as your example.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BTW, did you see Ehrman gave his last lecture at UNC? He'll still continue to write and do his blog, but sad to see him retire from teaching.

Yep, a week ago today. I've seen some of his course outlines from the blog. I don't think I could do the reading required. I take too long reading this kind of stuff. Well not the time reading, the pondering what I am reading.

Oh, and to the rest of your post I agree that being selfless can be selfish. And maybe it should be.

 

[Paddington]

Are you guys saying God’s design flaw is that he didn’t make man to be morally perfect? If so, I think you may be asking too much of God. Indeed, I think it’s impossible. To be morally good, you have to freely will the good; that is, free will is a necessary condition. But, if God programmed you to only choose the good, then you wouldn’t be truly free.

So I understand your point about free will and evil, and I think it’s a valid argument. So I got a question for you, if God is all knowing and all powerful, he created us and wants nothing more than for us to be in his grace, why did he make it so complicated to understand?

One would think God, knowing that thousands of years and dozens and dozens of generations would exist after Jesus that he could very easily just program us when we were born with an innate knowledge or even a universal language of the rules. Free will could still exist under this where we would still have the choice to follow said rules, but instead things need to be interpreted and understood thousands of years later across multiple different languages. I mean, just look at this thread for example, there’s multiple wide interpretations just within the six or seven people interacting here. It. Makes. No. Sense.

In fact, I could easily argue that it even seems like it’s set up for us to fail. None of this seems like something that was set up by an all knowing all loving all powerful God. In fact because of its inconsistencies and massive flaws, it seems completely set up by a clueless, lost and searching human construct.

@bolzano I know you’re involved in multiple conversations so you might’ve missed this. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the question I posed above. Thanks.

Why doesn’t God just reveal himself? If he did, surely all people would believe, repent their sins, and worship him. Then, everyone would be saved. So, this is what God would do if he truly loved all of us. Right?

I think a lot of Christian philosophers/ theologians would answer you by saying that he’s already done this, many times and in multiple ways. They will say that God is evident from observing the natural order of things. They will reference the rational proofs of his existence that were provided by Aristotle, Aquinas et al. They will point to Christ (i.e., the incarnation of God) and the theophanies from the Old Testament. They will tell you that God continues to reveal himself directly through miracles as well as indirectly via works of the faithful. And so on.

To be honest, I don’t really buy this argument. If God really wanted to make it easy, he would’ve figured out a way to get through to us. So, my conclusion is that God intends for this life to be very difficult, with its purpose being our intellectual, spiritual, and moral development. Perhaps an apt, albeit imperfect, analogy is to see God as a father with a laissez-faire parenting style. He loves us, and he provides us with the resources to succeed. But, he’s not going to spoon feed us the answers to all of life’s questions, nor is he gonna hold our hands and walk us to our destination. He’s going to allow us to figure out what’s right and wrong, make our own choices, and determine the path we want to follow. And, he’s gonna let us fail, consistently and completely. However, he’s always gonna be there if we call to him and ask for help.

I believe we are on a long journey towards theosis/ enlightenment/ salvation that doesn’t end with natural death. I don’t think any of us will be damned to eternal torture if we fail to self-actualize here and now. IMO, the vast majority of us are destined to purgatory, which likely has many layers, and, in fact, this life may be one of them. If there is a hell, it’s just the lowest levels of purgatory. That, or it’s the cessation of your existence because you’ve totally separated yourself from God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Appreciate it.

Your perspective and interpretation is fascinating, with many concepts about how to conduct ourselves in life. I agree with. Though I would like to add that I never claimed God should make it easy/easier, just that the reality of the path is more clear.

Where I get stuck with your pov is in the same place I do with @dgreen and his thoughtful interpretations, how this squares with Christianity as I understand it (and with, in my opinion, how most understand it. Though dgreen disagrees with my opinions on this). If you (the theoretical you not necessarily the literal you) were to remove the requirement to believe in Jesus as our lord and savior as the barrier to entry into the next plain of existence then I’d say your interpretations make far more sense to me (I’m not sure I’d still agree, but I could get behind your thought process at least).

But how those two things, your interpretation and the Jesus requirement, blend together fails to connect with me.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think you need to believe in Jesus to progress through the stages of theosis and become like God. But, you would have to be Christian in spirit. So, you need live in union with God, his word, and his will, which means adopting a Christian-like paradigm and practicing Christian ethics.

Simply put, you should be striving to unconditionally, selflessly, and self-sacrificially love all things. Of course, this is an incredibly hard thing to do.

You cannot live in Union with God without Christ.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
[6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 8:5-8 KJV
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, the Catholic Church says you don’t need to be a believer to go to heaven.

Regarding the reading from Hebrews, I think we need to be mindful of the context in which it was written. It was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Israel. So, if they didn’t believe, it wasn’t because they were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, the writer is emphasizing that salvation comes from faith, not from being Jewish and practicing their laws (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions).

Below are some thoughts on this topic that I posted a month ago.

My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their own.

Regarding any person, I believe that what faith requires is the total transformation of oneself at the deepest of levels (i.e., your mind/ soul). When I say good works are necessary, that’s because actions follow being and reflect who you are at your core. But, you still need to be doing good for the right reasons. So, it’s not sufficient to just say you believe in something, nor does it even suffice to do good. Indeed, you have to embody the good, which means the reorientation of your paradigm away from that of original sin (i.e., pride/ vanity/ self-love/ selfishness) towards one of true love (unconditional, selfless, and self-sacrificial love).

Note: If we go back to the first paragraph, that’s why I say it’s ideal to be a Christian because it’s certainly easier to attain this level of good if you’ve been graced with the forgiveness of your sins, the Holy Spirit, an understanding of God’s word, and Jesus as your example.

Any church that tells a person that they don't need to be a believer in Christ to go to heaven is a false church. It is completely contrary to Christ's teaching in the Bible's teaching. Not all Catholics believe this way though. According to the Hebrews Passage, you cannot please God without faith. That is a continual theme throughout the Bible that cannot be explained away through mere context. You must follow scripture, not a church, not a pope, not a man, not a denomination. Jesus himself quoted scripture as authoritative from God and expected us to believe it. We need to follow jesus.

 

[bolzano]

Are you guys saying God’s design flaw is that he didn’t make man to be morally perfect? If so, I think you may be asking too much of God. Indeed, I think it’s impossible. To be morally good, you have to freely will the good; that is, free will is a necessary condition. But, if God programmed you to only choose the good, then you wouldn’t be truly free.

So I understand your point about free will and evil, and I think it’s a valid argument. So I got a question for you, if God is all knowing and all powerful, he created us and wants nothing more than for us to be in his grace, why did he make it so complicated to understand?

One would think God, knowing that thousands of years and dozens and dozens of generations would exist after Jesus that he could very easily just program us when we were born with an innate knowledge or even a universal language of the rules. Free will could still exist under this where we would still have the choice to follow said rules, but instead things need to be interpreted and understood thousands of years later across multiple different languages. I mean, just look at this thread for example, there’s multiple wide interpretations just within the six or seven people interacting here. It. Makes. No. Sense.

In fact, I could easily argue that it even seems like it’s set up for us to fail. None of this seems like something that was set up by an all knowing all loving all powerful God. In fact because of its inconsistencies and massive flaws, it seems completely set up by a clueless, lost and searching human construct.

@bolzano I know you’re involved in multiple conversations so you might’ve missed this. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the question I posed above. Thanks.

Why doesn’t God just reveal himself? If he did, surely all people would believe, repent their sins, and worship him. Then, everyone would be saved. So, this is what God would do if he truly loved all of us. Right?

I think a lot of Christian philosophers/ theologians would answer you by saying that he’s already done this, many times and in multiple ways. They will say that God is evident from observing the natural order of things. They will reference the rational proofs of his existence that were provided by Aristotle, Aquinas et al. They will point to Christ (i.e., the incarnation of God) and the theophanies from the Old Testament. They will tell you that God continues to reveal himself directly through miracles as well as indirectly via works of the faithful. And so on.

To be honest, I don’t really buy this argument. If God really wanted to make it easy, he would’ve figured out a way to get through to us. So, my conclusion is that God intends for this life to be very difficult, with its purpose being our intellectual, spiritual, and moral development. Perhaps an apt, albeit imperfect, analogy is to see God as a father with a laissez-faire parenting style. He loves us, and he provides us with the resources to succeed. But, he’s not going to spoon feed us the answers to all of life’s questions, nor is he gonna hold our hands and walk us to our destination. He’s going to allow us to figure out what’s right and wrong, make our own choices, and determine the path we want to follow. And, he’s gonna let us fail, consistently and completely. However, he’s always gonna be there if we call to him and ask for help.

I believe we are on a long journey towards theosis/ enlightenment/ salvation that doesn’t end with natural death. I don’t think any of us will be damned to eternal torture if we fail to self-actualize here and now. IMO, the vast majority of us are destined to purgatory, which likely has many layers, and, in fact, this life may be one of them. If there is a hell, it’s just the lowest levels of purgatory. That, or it’s the cessation of your existence because you’ve totally separated yourself from God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Appreciate it.

Your perspective and interpretation is fascinating, with many concepts about how to conduct ourselves in life. I agree with. Though I would like to add that I never claimed God should make it easy/easier, just that the reality of the path is more clear.

Where I get stuck with your pov is in the same place I do with @dgreen and his thoughtful interpretations, how this squares with Christianity as I understand it (and with, in my opinion, how most understand it. Though dgreen disagrees with my opinions on this). If you (the theoretical you not necessarily the literal you) were to remove the requirement to believe in Jesus as our lord and savior as the barrier to entry into the next plain of existence then I’d say your interpretations make far more sense to me (I’m not sure I’d still agree, but I could get behind your thought process at least).

But how those two things, your interpretation and the Jesus requirement, blend together fails to connect with me.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think you need to believe in Jesus to progress through the stages of theosis and become like God. But, you would have to be Christian in spirit. So, you need live in union with God, his word, and his will, which means adopting a Christian-like paradigm and practicing Christian ethics.

Simply put, you should be striving to unconditionally, selflessly, and self-sacrificially love all things. Of course, this is an incredibly hard thing to do.

You cannot live in Union with God without Christ.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
[6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 8:5-8 KJV
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, the Catholic Church says you don’t need to be a believer to go to heaven.

Regarding the reading from Hebrews, I think we need to be mindful of the context in which it was written. It was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Israel. So, if they didn’t believe, it wasn’t because they were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, the writer is emphasizing that salvation comes from faith, not from being Jewish and practicing their laws (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions).

Below are some thoughts on this topic that I posted a month ago.

My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their own.

Regarding any person, I believe that what faith requires is the total transformation of oneself at the deepest of levels (i.e., your mind/ soul). When I say good works are necessary, that’s because actions follow being and reflect who you are at your core. But, you still need to be doing good for the right reasons. So, it’s not sufficient to just say you believe in something, nor does it even suffice to do good. Indeed, you have to embody the good, which means the reorientation of your paradigm away from that of original sin (i.e., pride/ vanity/ self-love/ selfishness) towards one of true love (unconditional, selfless, and self-sacrificial love).

Note: If we go back to the first paragraph, that’s why I say it’s ideal to be a Christian because it’s certainly easier to attain this level of good if you’ve been graced with the forgiveness of your sins, the Holy Spirit, an understanding of God’s word, and Jesus as your example.

Any church that tells a person that they don't need to be a believer in Christ to go to heaven is a false church. It is completely contrary to Christ's teaching in the Bible's teaching. Not all Catholics believe this way though. According to the Hebrews Passage, you cannot please God without faith. That is a continual theme throughout the Bible that cannot be explained away through mere context. You must follow scripture, not a church, not a pope, not a man, not a denomination. Jesus himself quoted scripture as authoritative from God and expected us to believe it. We need to follow jesus.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

 

[Zow]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Appreciate it.

Your perspective and interpretation is fascinating, with many concepts about how to conduct ourselves in life. I agree with. Though I would like to add that I never claimed God should make it easy/easier, just that the reality of the path is more clear.

Where I get stuck with your pov is in the same place I do with @dgreen and his thoughtful interpretations, how this squares with Christianity as I understand it (and with, in my opinion, how most understand it. Though dgreen disagrees with my opinions on this). If you (the theoretical you not necessarily the literal you) were to remove the requirement to believe in Jesus as our lord and savior as the barrier to entry into the next plain of existence then I’d say your interpretations make far more sense to me (I’m not sure I’d still agree, but I could get behind your thought process at least).

But how those two things, your interpretation and the Jesus requirement, blend together fails to connect with me.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think you need to believe in Jesus to progress through the stages of theosis and become like God. But, you would have to be Christian in spirit. So, you need live in union with God, his word, and his will, which means adopting a Christian-like paradigm and practicing Christian ethics.

Simply put, you should be striving to unconditionally, selflessly, and self-sacrificially love all things. Of course, this is an incredibly hard thing to do.

You cannot live in Union with God without Christ.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
[6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 8:5-8 KJV
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, the Catholic Church says you don’t need to be a believer to go to heaven.

Regarding the reading from Hebrews, I think we need to be mindful of the context in which it was written. It was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Israel. So, if they didn’t believe, it wasn’t because they were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, the writer is emphasizing that salvation comes from faith, not from being Jewish and practicing their laws (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions).

Below are some thoughts on this topic that I posted a month ago.

My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their

Any church that tells a person that they don't need to be a believer in Christ to go to heaven is a false church. It is completely contrary to Christ's teaching in the Bible's teaching. Not all Catholics believe this way though. According to the Hebrews Passage, you cannot please God without faith. That is a continual theme throughout the Bible that cannot be explained away through mere context. You must follow scripture, not a church, not a pope, not a man, not a denomination. Jesus himself quoted scripture as authoritative from God and expected us to believe it. We need to follow jesus.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

This sounds in line with the different constructive baptism theories I recall being taught.

If it helps Paddington or others reconcile this with the retort that the Bible says faith is nonetheless required, my understanding of this Catholic doctrine that it is how the Catholic Church addresses the situation where an individual through life circumstances outside of his control can nonetheless get to heaven (since in the Catholic faith baptism is still generally required). For examples, the infant who died at childbirth, the person who lives a good life but does so in a remote part of the world where by he is never exposed to the Catholic/Christian god but if he has would have chosen to believe, etc. Obviously, in the circumstances, it would be pretty cruel or at least nonsensical to effectively punish somebody in these circumstances who didn't get baptized or had a chance to believe through no fault of his own.

I don’t interpret this Catholic doctrine as providing a path to salvation for somebody like me who, despite probably living a life consistent with the latter half of the Ten Commandments, nonetheless consciously chooses to reject God’s existence after being exposed to the Bible, apologetics, etc.

In short, I view yours and Paddington's interpretation as a distinction without a difference.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You know that narcissism post from over the weekend. Think I missed that "If you believe what I do, you will have eternal bliss. If not, eternal torment."

 

[bolzano]

Here’s an interesting article from a Franciscan friar, which has some quotes that fall more in line with my beliefs…

All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all people of goodwill in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for everyone, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection are the basis of salvation for those in heaven. It doesn’t necessarily require explicit faith in Jesus before death. God’s judgment on individual souls, believers or not, is ultimately God’s to decide.

God’s judgment is based on His infinite wisdom and love. The Church teaches that grace is active invisibly in people of goodwill, regardless of their explicit faith, as all are invited to divine destiny.

The Bible encourages Christians to live in kindness, sharing Christ’s love and truth. Vatican II emphasized respect for the truth and holiness found in other religions, acknowledging that all people may seek to live righteously.

While Christianity proclaims salvation through Jesus, the Church teaches that God’s mercy may reach non-believers, as salvation can be offered in ways only God understands.

The Bible speaks of final judgment but does not detail how God judges non-believers. The Church entrusts God’s judgment and mercy, understanding that human perspectives cannot fully determine the eternal state of souls.

The Church believes God’s grace works in mysterious ways, often reaching those who may not know Him explicitly. This grace may be present in those who act with goodwill and openness to truth.

Catholic teaching allows for hope that God may offer salvation to those who lived righteous lives, as grace could work invisibly in all people, calling them toward divine fulfillment.

What Happens to Non Believers According to the Bible? | Franciscan Media

Explore what the Bible says about non-believers and salvation. Can only Christians go to heaven? Is there hope for others? Learn about theological discussion.

www.franciscanmedia.org

 

[Zow]

Here’s an interesting article from a Franciscan friar, which has some quotes that fall more in line with my beliefs…

All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all people of goodwill in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for everyone, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection are the basis of salvation for those in heaven. It doesn’t necessarily require explicit faith in Jesus before death. God’s judgment on individual souls, believers or not, is ultimately God’s to decide.

God’s judgment is based on His infinite wisdom and love. The Church teaches that grace is active invisibly in people of goodwill, regardless of their explicit faith, as all are invited to divine destiny.

The Bible encourages Christians to live in kindness, sharing Christ’s love and truth. Vatican II emphasized respect for the truth and holiness found in other religions, acknowledging that all people may seek to live righteously.

While Christianity proclaims salvation through Jesus, the Church teaches that God’s mercy may reach non-believers, as salvation can be offered in ways only God understands.

The Bible speaks of final judgment but does not detail how God judges non-believers. The Church entrusts God’s judgment and mercy, understanding that human perspectives cannot fully determine the eternal state of souls.

The Church believes God’s grace works in mysterious ways, often reaching those who may not know Him explicitly. This grace may be present in those who act with goodwill and openness to truth.

Catholic teaching allows for hope that God may offer salvation to those who lived righteous lives, as grace could work invisibly in all people, calling them toward divine fulfillment.

What Happens to Non Believers According to the Bible? | Franciscan Media

Explore what the Bible says about non-believers and salvation. Can only Christians go to heaven? Is there hope for others? Learn about theological discussion.

www.franciscanmedia.org

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Paddington]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I really am confused that Christians see it any different than this. Ofcourse we're free to believe whatever we want, but why does anyone need to interpret Jesus/God's literal words? I've read the thread and understand all the different perspectives people have and I'm not being critical of anyone's beliefs, but the ability to interpret would require an understanding of God that nobody could possibly have the qualifications to do. Imo they're making assumptions and guessing at best. The all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God said what he said, claimed what he claimed and as @Paddington demonstrates there's no need or deep enough understanding of the enigma that is the Christian God for a mere mortal to say "no no no, what he actually meant was X", or that X is merely allegory. There's some pretty fantastic claims, but to be a Christian those claims are part of the deal.

I guess if I'm a participant in a religion and a believer in a religion I would need to accept it for what it is. If i need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality I'd probably think long and hard if it's really for me.

While I agree more with a lot of the other perspectives offered that attempt to explain away some of the truly fantastic claims Paddington's brand of Christianity feels authentic to how Christianity was intended before much of it was explained away by a better understanding of the world around us.

Just a personal observation after reading a few of these threads and many posts. No claims, interpretation, or critiques of anyone.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I really am confused that Christians see it any different than this. Ofcourse we're free to believe whatever we want, but why does anyone need to interpret Jesus/God's literal words? I've read the thread and understand all the different perspectives people have and I'm not being critical of anyone's beliefs, but the ability to interpret would require an understanding of God that nobody could possibly have the qualifications to do. Imo they're making assumptions and guessing at best. The all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God said what he said, claimed what he claimed and as @Paddington demonstrates there's no need or deep enough understanding of the enigma that is the Christian God for a mere mortal to say "no no no, what he actually meant was X", or that X is merely allegory. There's some pretty fantastic claims, but to be a Christian those claims are part of the deal.

I guess if I'm a participant in a religion and a believer in a religion I would need to accept it for what it is. If i need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality I'd probably think long and hard if it's really for me.

While I agree more with a lot of the other perspectives offered that attempt to explain away some of the truly fantastic claims Paddington's brand of Christianity feels authentic to how Christianity was intended before much of it was explained away by a better understanding of the world around us.

Just a personal observation after reading a few of these threads and many posts. No claims, interpretation, or critiques of anyone.

I'm not sure what's confusing. People have different opinions.

Some Christians believe the only way to God is through Jesus and Jesus only. The verses listed by @Paddington support that.

Others follow Jesus but are not as certain.

As I said before, I remember asking my pastor friend if there would be other religions in heaven and he said, "We'll see".

I don't know if that's the "need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality" (but no critique ), but I know that's how some / many folks see it.

I'm of the opinion this is one of the topics where not everyone will agree.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I really am confused that Christians see it any different than this. Ofcourse we're free to believe whatever we want, but why does anyone need to interpret Jesus/God's literal words? I've read the thread and understand all the different perspectives people have and I'm not being critical of anyone's beliefs, but the ability to interpret would require an understanding of God that nobody could possibly have the qualifications to do. Imo they're making assumptions and guessing at best. The all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God said what he said, claimed what he claimed and as @Paddington demonstrates there's no need or deep enough understanding of the enigma that is the Christian God for a mere mortal to say "no no no, what he actually meant was X", or that X is merely allegory. There's some pretty fantastic claims, but to be a Christian those claims are part of the deal.

I guess if I'm a participant in a religion and a believer in a religion I would need to accept it for what it is. If i need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality I'd probably think long and hard if it's really for me.

While I agree more with a lot of the other perspectives offered that attempt to explain away some of the truly fantastic claims Paddington's brand of Christianity feels authentic to how Christianity was intended before much of it was explained away by a better understanding of the world around us.

Just a personal observation after reading a few of these threads and many posts. No claims, interpretation, or critiques of anyone.

I'm not sure what's confusing. People have different opinions.

Some Christians believe the only way to God is through Jesus and Jesus only. The verses listed by @Paddington support that.

Others follow Jesus but are not as certain.

As I said before, I remember asking my pastor friend if there would be other religions in heaven and he said, "We'll see".

I don't know if that's the "need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality" (but no critique ), but I know that's how some / many folks see it.

I'm of the opinion this is one of the topics where not everyone will agree.

Yeah, i agree we all have different opinions. This was mine and mine only (also Paddington's i think). And mine is that it's confusing to try and make God's words something different than what he said or interpret it into man's words.

I'm really not critiquing, just offering my perspective from the outside looking in. It appears there's a bit of mental gymnastics to make it all fit together when interpreting vs taking God's actual words, but that's my opinion based on my understanding, but however people make it work is their business. No fault or judgment even if it might appear that way.

Nobody agrees which is why this topic keeps on keeping on. I've read the thread, the one before, the one before, you get the idea and this is my conclusion. Everyone sells their own ideas and honestly I think Paddington makes the most sense imo. Just an observation from the outside.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I really am confused that Christians see it any different than this. Ofcourse we're free to believe whatever we want, but why does anyone need to interpret Jesus/God's literal words? I've read the thread and understand all the different perspectives people have and I'm not being critical of anyone's beliefs, but the ability to interpret would require an understanding of God that nobody could possibly have the qualifications to do. Imo they're making assumptions and guessing at best. The all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God said what he said, claimed what he claimed and as @Paddington demonstrates there's no need or deep enough understanding of the enigma that is the Christian God for a mere mortal to say "no no no, what he actually meant was X", or that X is merely allegory. There's some pretty fantastic claims, but to be a Christian those claims are part of the deal.

I guess if I'm a participant in a religion and a believer in a religion I would need to accept it for what it is. If i need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality I'd probably think long and hard if it's really for me.

While I agree more with a lot of the other perspectives offered that attempt to explain away some of the truly fantastic claims Paddington's brand of Christianity feels authentic to how Christianity was intended before much of it was explained away by a better understanding of the world around us.

Just a personal observation after reading a few of these threads and many posts. No claims, interpretation, or critiques of anyone.

You're confused because the Bible is seemingly contradictory and therefore followers are leading themselves to different conclusions.

Matthew 19:16-17: Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

We just need to "keep the commandments".

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

We have to believe that God sent Jesus to save us from our sins?

Matthew 7:21: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father.

We need to be doing the will of God.

James 2:24: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So faith alone isn't sufficient.

Romans 10:9: If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart… you will be saved.

So faith alone is sufficient.

Thankfully there's not a lot on the line if we reach the wrong conclusion.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I really am confused that Christians see it any different than this. Ofcourse we're free to believe whatever we want, but why does anyone need to interpret Jesus/God's literal words? I've read the thread and understand all the different perspectives people have and I'm not being critical of anyone's beliefs, but the ability to interpret would require an understanding of God that nobody could possibly have the qualifications to do. Imo they're making assumptions and guessing at best. The all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God said what he said, claimed what he claimed and as @Paddington demonstrates there's no need or deep enough understanding of the enigma that is the Christian God for a mere mortal to say "no no no, what he actually meant was X", or that X is merely allegory. There's some pretty fantastic claims, but to be a Christian those claims are part of the deal.

I guess if I'm a participant in a religion and a believer in a religion I would need to accept it for what it is. If i need to bend over backwards with all kinds of mental gymnastics to make it fit into reality I'd probably think long and hard if it's really for me.

While I agree more with a lot of the other perspectives offered that attempt to explain away some of the truly fantastic claims Paddington's brand of Christianity feels authentic to how Christianity was intended before much of it was explained away by a better understanding of the world around us.

Just a personal observation after reading a few of these threads and many posts. No claims, interpretation, or critiques of anyone.

You're confused because the Bible is seemingly contradictory and therefore followers are leading themselves to different conclusions.

Matthew 19:16-17: Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

We just need to "keep the commandments".

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

We have to believe that God sent Jesus to save us from our sins?

Matthew 7:21: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father.

We need to be doing the will of God.

James 2:24: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So faith alone isn't sufficient.

Romans 10:9: If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart… you will be saved.

So faith alone is sufficient.

Thankfully there's not a lot on the line if we reach the wrong conclusion.

Quite confusing, even more so laid out like this. There is contradiction, but does it have to be either or? To accept the commandments while also needing to act in accordance AND have faith still works in compliance to the religion doesn't it? Just want to be sure I'm understanding where you're coming from.

I'm very impressed with the knowledge you and others have on the topic. I do lean Paddington when thinking how I might practice if i were a believer, but the insights offered here certainly have expanded my thinking.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Quite confusing, even more so laid out like this. There is contradiction, but does it have to be either or? To accept the commandments while also needing to act in accordance AND have faith still works in compliance to the religion doesn't it? Just want to be sure I'm understanding where you're coming from.

I'm very impressed with the knowledge you and others have on the topic. I do lean Paddington when thinking how I might practice if i were a believer, but the insights offered here certainly have expanded my thinking.

Sure, and I imagine there's a lot of people who interpret things that way, but should they argue that others seeing it differently are wrong? I don't think so. What I see happening are followers taking what works for their own sensibilities and, because everyone is different, are leading themselves to different conclusions. From my perspective as someone who doesn't assign any divinity to the Bible, that's fine. Whatever works for them. I just don't think anyone should be exhibiting an "I'm right, your wrong" posture. The Bible was written by many people with different perspectives and varying agendas. I think tying them together into a singular, non-contradictory message is a mistake.

 

[dgreen]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

 

[Zow]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Let me run two hypothetical scenarios by you:

1. An infant is born breech and dies within mere seconds after birth due to umbilical cord prolapse. As the infant lived only a mere few seconds and his brain likely formed no rational thoughts as he was overcome by the sensation of asphyxiation, the infant never knows of God and therefore never places belief in God/Jesus.
2. Sani is a Sentinelese tribal member who lives his entire life on the small island in the Bay of Bengal off the India coast closed off from outsiders. His only exposure to religion is to the local tribal religion - a loose polytheist religion with fallible gods - and he never learns of the Christian God. As such, we never know if Sani would have placed his faith in Jesus because he never had the opportunity to make that choice. He nonetheless lives a life consistent with Commandments 4-10 and makes the lives of his neighbors better throughout his life time. But he never places his faith in Jesus.

Under the Bible, are both of these individuals who never placed their faith in Jesus condemned to fire and brimstone for eternity?

 

[Joe Bryant]

This may not be the thread for this anymore as it's turned into a different direction.

I lean way more to practical expressions of how we operate and live. Less academic debate and more life stuff.

Thought this was a good reminder for us at church and a good example of how we can best operate as a church and as Christians.

From a guy who was a pastor at our church a while back.

https://x.com/TullianT/status/2000640409374982256?s=20

An alcoholic friend of Philip Yancey once said to him:

“When I'm late to church, people turn around and stare at me with frowns of disapproval. I get the clear message that I'm not as responsible as they are. When I'm late to AA, the meeting comes to a halt and everyone jumps up to hug and welcome me. They realize that my lateness may be a sign that I almost didn't make it. When I show up, it proves that my desperate need for them won out over my desperate need for alcohol."

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

Excellent points. This is not a slight on Paddington and again i speak for myself, but perhaps I'm being lazy expecting written words to be literal across generations. I'll think on what you're saying. Every answer (interpretation) creates two more questions.

Fun to think about. I'm happy to challenging myself to think beyond my biases and appreciate those that entertain my ignorance and offer thoughts.

 

[Zow]

An alcoholic friend of Philip Yancey once said to him:

“When I'm late to church, people turn around and stare at me with frowns of disapproval. I get the clear message that I'm not as responsible as they are. When I'm late to AA, the meeting comes to a halt and everyone jumps up to hug and welcome me. They realize that my lateness may be a sign that I almost didn't make it. When I show up, it proves that my desperate need for them won out over my desperate need for alcohol."

This is a pretty awesome quote. Well said by that alcoholic friend. Similar example would be applauding the overweight person from doing his best in the gym instead of

Your story reminds me of a pretty stark memory of mine where I went to church with my mom who was a Catholic school teacher at the time. I was probably in my early teens and had started to dip into apologetics and always paid complete attention during mass, especially during the homily (Catholic sermon). I recall walking out of church and asking my mom about one of the technical issues the priest discussed during his homily which she promptly ignored (because she clearly didn't pay any attention to the homily) and said something like, "Did you see that [insert name of classmate] was wearing shorts? I can't believe his mom let him wear shorts to mass. It's not even summer."

That was my first realization that many people, apparently including my mom - a Catholic teacher and otherwise good person - go to church to make themselves feel better than or superior to others. I suppose this is in the similar vein to the "I have all the answers and you are wrong" sentiment that a lot of Christian evangelists espouse that is similarly off-putting and childishly self-aggrandizing. Instead, be kind and understanding like the alcoholic friend and recognize somebody who is trying rather than, for example, calling the person who is trying heretical. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[dgreen]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

Excellent points. This is not a slight on Paddington and again i speak for myself, but perhaps I'm being lazy expecting written words to be literal across generations. I'll think on what you're saying. Every answer (interpretation) creates two more questions.

Fun to think about. I'm happy to challenging myself to think beyond my biases and appreciate those that entertain my ignorance and offer thoughts.

A lot of things started to click for me when I became more aware of cultural differences, specifically between modern, Western Americans and ancient Israelits/jews. At first it was pretty freeing for me. It opened up so much. But, as some things started clicking, it also "creates two more questions" as you say. At times, for me, the questions weren't all that fun to think about. It was kind of scary because it threatened to bring down the whole house of cards as someone who has been a life-long believer. But, overall, I would agree that it's been fun to learn more. Thanks for your interaction here. It's helpful for me to hear how others view things.

I don't recall if you've shared your background. I know a few of us Christians have shared some of our background and I know Zow has shared some of his movement away from Christianity, but I'd love to hear about yours and anyone else who is willing to share.

 

[sho nuff]

Are you guys saying God’s design flaw is that he didn’t make man to be morally perfect? If so, I think you may be asking too much of God. Indeed, I think it’s impossible. To be morally good, you have to freely will the good; that is, free will is a necessary condition. But, if God programmed you to only choose the good, then you wouldn’t be truly free.

So I understand your point about free will and evil, and I think it’s a valid argument. So I got a question for you, if God is all knowing and all powerful, he created us and wants nothing more than for us to be in his grace, why did he make it so complicated to understand?

One would think God, knowing that thousands of years and dozens and dozens of generations would exist after Jesus that he could very easily just program us when we were born with an innate knowledge or even a universal language of the rules. Free will could still exist under this where we would still have the choice to follow said rules, but instead things need to be interpreted and understood thousands of years later across multiple different languages. I mean, just look at this thread for example, there’s multiple wide interpretations just within the six or seven people interacting here. It. Makes. No. Sense.

In fact, I could easily argue that it even seems like it’s set up for us to fail. None of this seems like something that was set up by an all knowing all loving all powerful God. In fact because of its inconsistencies and massive flaws, it seems completely set up by a clueless, lost and searching human construct.

@bolzano I know you’re involved in multiple conversations so you might’ve missed this. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the question I posed above. Thanks.

Why doesn’t God just reveal himself? If he did, surely all people would believe, repent their sins, and worship him. Then, everyone would be saved. So, this is what God would do if he truly loved all of us. Right?

I think a lot of Christian philosophers/ theologians would answer you by saying that he’s already done this, many times and in multiple ways. They will say that God is evident from observing the natural order of things. They will reference the rational proofs of his existence that were provided by Aristotle, Aquinas et al. They will point to Christ (i.e., the incarnation of God) and the theophanies from the Old Testament. They will tell you that God continues to reveal himself directly through miracles as well as indirectly via works of the faithful. And so on.

To be honest, I don’t really buy this argument. If God really wanted to make it easy, he would’ve figured out a way to get through to us. So, my conclusion is that God intends for this life to be very difficult, with its purpose being our intellectual, spiritual, and moral development. Perhaps an apt, albeit imperfect, analogy is to see God as a father with a laissez-faire parenting style. He loves us, and he provides us with the resources to succeed. But, he’s not going to spoon feed us the answers to all of life’s questions, nor is he gonna hold our hands and walk us to our destination. He’s going to allow us to figure out what’s right and wrong, make our own choices, and determine the path we want to follow. And, he’s gonna let us fail, consistently and completely. However, he’s always gonna be there if we call to him and ask for help.

I believe we are on a long journey towards theosis/ enlightenment/ salvation that doesn’t end with natural death. I don’t think any of us will be damned to eternal torture if we fail to self-actualize here and now. IMO, the vast majority of us are destined to purgatory, which likely has many layers, and, in fact, this life may be one of them. If there is a hell, it’s just the lowest levels of purgatory. That, or it’s the cessation of your existence because you’ve totally separated yourself from God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Appreciate it.

Your perspective and interpretation is fascinating, with many concepts about how to conduct ourselves in life. I agree with. Though I would like to add that I never claimed God should make it easy/easier, just that the reality of the path is more clear.

Where I get stuck with your pov is in the same place I do with @dgreen and his thoughtful interpretations, how this squares with Christianity as I understand it (and with, in my opinion, how most understand it. Though dgreen disagrees with my opinions on this). If you (the theoretical you not necessarily the literal you) were to remove the requirement to believe in Jesus as our lord and savior as the barrier to entry into the next plain of existence then I’d say your interpretations make far more sense to me (I’m not sure I’d still agree, but I could get behind your thought process at least).

But how those two things, your interpretation and the Jesus requirement, blend together fails to connect with me.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think you need to believe in Jesus to progress through the stages of theosis and become like God. But, you would have to be Christian in spirit. So, you need live in union with God, his word, and his will, which means adopting a Christian-like paradigm and practicing Christian ethics.

Simply put, you should be striving to unconditionally, selflessly, and self-sacrificially love all things. Of course, this is an incredibly hard thing to do.

You cannot live in Union with God without Christ.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
[6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 8:5-8 KJV
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, the Catholic Church says you don’t need to be a believer to go to heaven.

Regarding the reading from Hebrews, I think we need to be mindful of the context in which it was written. It was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Israel. So, if they didn’t believe, it wasn’t because they were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, the writer is emphasizing that salvation comes from faith, not from being Jewish and practicing their laws (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions).

Below are some thoughts on this topic that I posted a month ago.

My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their own.

Regarding any person, I believe that what faith requires is the total transformation of oneself at the deepest of levels (i.e., your mind/ soul). When I say good works are necessary, that’s because actions follow being and reflect who you are at your core. But, you still need to be doing good for the right reasons. So, it’s not sufficient to just say you believe in something, nor does it even suffice to do good. Indeed, you have to embody the good, which means the reorientation of your paradigm away from that of original sin (i.e., pride/ vanity/ self-love/ selfishness) towards one of true love (unconditional, selfless, and self-sacrificial love).

Note: If we go back to the first paragraph, that’s why I say it’s ideal to be a Christian because it’s certainly easier to attain this level of good if you’ve been graced with the forgiveness of your sins, the Holy Spirit, an understanding of God’s word, and Jesus as your example.

Any church that tells a person that they don't need to be a believer in Christ to go to heaven is a false church. It is completely contrary to Christ's teaching in the Bible's teaching. Not all Catholics believe this way though. According to the Hebrews Passage, you cannot please God without faith. That is a continual theme throughout the Bible that cannot be explained away through mere context. You must follow scripture, not a church, not a pope, not a man, not a denomination. Jesus himself quoted scripture as authoritative from God and expected us to believe it. We need to follow jesus.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

Similar to the Methodists view of “prevenient grace”

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

Excellent points. This is not a slight on Paddington and again i speak for myself, but perhaps I'm being lazy expecting written words to be literal across generations. I'll think on what you're saying. Every answer (interpretation) creates two more questions.

Fun to think about. I'm happy to challenging myself to think beyond my biases and appreciate those that entertain my ignorance and offer thoughts.

A lot of things started to click for me when I became more aware of cultural differences, specifically between modern, Western Americans and ancient Israelits/jews. At first it was pretty freeing for me. It opened up so much. But, as some things started clicking, it also "creates two more questions" as you say. At times, for me, the questions weren't all that fun to think about. It was kind of scary because it threatened to bring down the whole house of cards as someone who has been a life-long believer. But, overall, I would agree that it's been fun to learn more. Thanks for your interaction here. It's helpful for me to hear how others view things.

I don't recall if you've shared your background. I know a few of us Christians have shared some of our background and I know Zow has shared some of his movement away from Christianity, but I'd love to hear about yours and anyone else who is willing to share.

In one of the iterations i kind of gave my background, but things move quickly. Got some actual responsibilities this morning for a change, but I'll get back to that this afternoon.

 

[Joe Bryant]

An alcoholic friend of Philip Yancey once said to him:

“When I'm late to church, people turn around and stare at me with frowns of disapproval. I get the clear message that I'm not as responsible as they are. When I'm late to AA, the meeting comes to a halt and everyone jumps up to hug and welcome me. They realize that my lateness may be a sign that I almost didn't make it. When I show up, it proves that my desperate need for them won out over my desperate need for alcohol."

This is a pretty awesome quote. Well said by that alcoholic friend. Similar example would be applauding the overweight person from doing his best in the gym instead of

Your story reminds me of a pretty stark memory of mine where I went to church with my mom who was a Catholic school teacher at the time. I was probably in my early teens and had started to dip into apologetics and always paid complete attention during mass, especially during the homily (Catholic sermon). I recall walking out of church and asking my mom about one of the technical issues the priest discussed during his homily which she promptly ignored (because she clearly didn't pay any attention to the homily) and said something like, "Did you see that [insert name of classmate] was wearing shorts? I can't believe his mom let him wear shorts to mass. It's not even summer."

That was my first realization that many people, apparently including my mom - a Catholic teacher and otherwise good person - go to church to make themselves feel better than or superior to others. I suppose this is in the similar vein to the "I have all the answers and you are wrong" sentiment that a lot of Christian evangelists espouse that is similarly off-putting and childishly self-aggrandizing. Instead, be kind and understanding like the alcoholic friend and recognize somebody who is trying rather than, for example, calling the person who is trying heretical. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Thanks. And for sure there are people in church who get it wrong. That's a bummer to hear the story criticizing shorts.

It highlights the responsiblity Christians must have representing our faith. I've unfortunately heard lots of stories where people in church did something to make others feel unwelcome.

I see it sort of like the followers of any organization. Even sports. A sports team will be judged by it's fans. It's unfortunate as that's not really fair in many cases as the team can't completely control the fans. But it's life.

What I often will ask folks in this case is please judge our faith not as much by the negative things you see from the "fans". And to also acknowledge the positive things from the "fans". But mostly to judge based on the "team" or the thing itself. Not the "fans". As sometimes we do a poor job.

 

[dkp993]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

 

[dgreen]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

I agree that would be a flaw if one assumes the purpose of the communication is to make sure every person throughout all time perfectly understands what propositions they have to agree with in order to avoid eternal fire.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

These are for the most part the same questions and thoughts I have, but i think I'm giving up on trying to understand God and what he's saying, atleast in this forum. I think trying to understand the believer is more productive for me (which is what these questions do and this is my goal when asking).

If i want to know what God says/thinks in a "literal" sense @Paddington provides that. If i want to know what it "means" (stealing from dgreen) in the modern world @dgreen @Captain Cranks (from the skeptic pov) @bolzano @Bottomfeeder Sports among others do a great job putting practical meaning behind the faith which is what I'm mostly interested in (I did start with a total pooh pooh attitude, but that's evolved with the conversation).

I think when I stick to "what God says" is where I hit a roadblock and the arguments become circular. Trying to understand the intricacies of the believer has been enlightening. Not that I'm a convert, but the subtle shift in perspective from what I'm used to does open new ideas for me.

Apologies for butting in to a question asked to someone else, but since we're all having the same conversation this is where I'm coming from.

 

[dgreen]

These are for the most part the same questions and thoughts I have, but i think I'm giving up on trying to understand God and what he's saying, atleast in this forum. I think trying to understand the believer is more productive for me (which is what these questions do and this is my goal when asking).

I think this is interesting in relation to @Joe Bryant 's previous post. I think, at times, us believers would prefer that you don't look to us because we know how wrong believers can be, both in our thoughts/ideas and our actions. But, we also need to realize that we might be the only exposure other people have to this God we claim to follow, so there's a big responsibility for us to get it as right as we can.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think this is interesting in relation to @Joe Bryant 's previous post. I think, at times, us believers would prefer that you don't look to us because we know how wrong believers can be, both in our thoughts/ideas and our actions. But, we also need to realize that we might be the only exposure other people have to this God we claim to follow, so there's a big responsibility for us to get it as right as we can.

Not only that, I think people have a lot of negative exposure to "Christianity" and what it means to be "Christian", so the examples that people like you set go a long way in counteracting those experiences.

 

[Joe Bryant]

These are for the most part the same questions and thoughts I have, but i think I'm giving up on trying to understand God and what he's saying, atleast in this forum. I think trying to understand the believer is more productive for me (which is what these questions do and this is my goal when asking).

I think this is interesting in relation to @Joe Bryant 's previous post. I think, at times, us believers would prefer that you don't look to us because we know how wrong believers can be, both in our thoughts/ideas and our actions. But, we also need to realize that we might be the only exposure other people have to this God we claim to follow, so there's a big responsibility for us to get it as right as we can.

Absolutely. I hear a heartbreaking number of "I'm not a Christian anymore because someone at church said...." and that's rough.

It can be paraylzing and one can easily get to the idea of it's better to never say anything than to be the reason someone turned away from the faith. Or a punchline in someone's story.

So while it can feel like a big responsibility, I think we still should talk about it.

My pastor talks a good bit about how people in the church are to act as the "hands and feet of Jesus" meaning often times, God uses people to make things happen or to answer prayer.

There might be a mom somewhere praying that her son would find a good friend. God may answer that prayer through the actions of a person. So I think we have to be available to "be in the game" of life there.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

These are for the most part the same questions and thoughts I have, but i think I'm giving up on trying to understand God and what he's saying, atleast in this forum. I think trying to understand the believer is more productive for me (which is what these questions do and this is my goal when asking).

I think this is interesting in relation to @Joe Bryant 's previous post. I think, at times, us believers would prefer that you don't look to us because we know how wrong believers can be, both in our thoughts/ideas and our actions. But, we also need to realize that we might be the only exposure other people have to this God we claim to follow, so there's a big responsibility for us to get it as right as we can.

I think as believers you have to accept the responsibility, or it'll be given to you. I can't ask God questions, get his opinion, try to understand how/why he acts in the way he does and it's becoming clear I can't reasonably expect his followers to answer on his behalf with the answers I'd like to hear (this is a me problem. The answers given have been great, they just don't answer my fundamental question, what's God's problem with a straight explanation). What does that leave me with? I'm left trying to understand the believers thoughts, ideas, motivations. Fair or unfair people like me look to people like you for explanations.

 

[Scoresman]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Let me run two hypothetical scenarios by you:

1. An infant is born breech and dies within mere seconds after birth due to umbilical cord prolapse. As the infant lived only a mere few seconds and his brain likely formed no rational thoughts as he was overcome by the sensation of asphyxiation, the infant never knows of God and therefore never places belief in God/Jesus.
2. Sani is a Sentinelese tribal member who lives his entire life on the small island in the Bay of Bengal off the India coast closed off from outsiders. His only exposure to religion is to the local tribal religion - a loose polytheist religion with fallible gods - and he never learns of the Christian God. As such, we never know if Sani would have placed his faith in Jesus because he never had the opportunity to make that choice. He nonetheless lives a life consistent with Commandments 4-10 and makes the lives of his neighbors better throughout his life time. But he never places his faith in Jesus.

Under the Bible, are both of these individuals who never placed their faith in Jesus condemned to fire and brimstone for eternity?

Curious about this as well. You can add so many other examples to this list. Are people with Down's Syndrome expected to make the rational decision to seek out Jesus? What about the millions with other debilitating mental deficiencies?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

My background in religion is being raised Catholic by my grandparents. Pretty normal Catholic stuff, Church every Sunday, Sunday school, church functions, communion, confirmation, penance. They were devout, but not overly. My exposure to the Bible was similar to the message Paddington tells, if it happened in the Bible it likely really happened.

I never really questioned this as a child, but somewhere in my mid teens I started to wonder how much sense this all makes. Started asking questions and was shut down pretty quick which lead to some teenage angst and more pushback, refusing to go to church ect. I would say i still believed at this time, but cracks were forming.

By the time i was in college and became interested in things like philosophy, other religions, history the narrative in my mind about Christianity collapsed. What i wanted to know and the questions I asked didn't have sufficient answers imo.

I'm ignorant in scripture and far from a scholar on the topic of religion, but what started out as a whisper became a yell. I couldn't make sense of it. If there's all these cultures, religions, philosophies then who says what's right and wrong? Why is Christianity right? What if i were born elsewhere, would I still gravitate to Christianity? The answer for me is probably not.

My family believes. Period. All of it, arcs, plagues, garden of Eden ect. My friends as much as i love them don't have a ton of curiosity when it comes to things like this. Every influential person in my formative years believes without question. It's a bit of a mind bender to be the odd man out when it comes to something so important to people you respect.

Because it's so important to people i respect I've really given it some thought. I've kept my comments here general and plain and focused on asking questions and pondering the answers. These simple shifts in perspective have opened new lines of thinking and I really do appreciate that.

I still struggle with the idea of being created in the image of an all powerful creator, but i have a better understanding of why others do and that's important. I've been critical and harsh in the past and it's unnecessary.

I was in the camp, even though I'm newish to posting here as to why this thread keeps coming back, but I'm glad it did. I think these conversations helped me understand the people in my life that can't articulate quite aswell as those here do.

Kind of rambling, but there's a lot to unpack when you're talking a lifetime forming your ideas.

 

[dkp993]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

I agree that would be a flaw if one assumes the purpose of the communication is to make sure every person throughout all time perfectly understands what propositions they have to agree with in order to avoid eternal fire.

Fair, And that’s certainly my default interpretation. But wouldn’t any communication from God to us about life and our path through it be with the intention to be understood or to teach, especially if its guidance on how he believes this life should be lived. If not then why communicate at all.

 

[dkp993]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

These are for the most part the same questions and thoughts I have, but i think I'm giving up on trying to understand God and what he's saying, atleast in this forum. I think trying to understand the believer is more productive for me (which is what these questions do and this is my goal when asking).

If i want to know what God says/thinks in a "literal" sense @Paddington provides that. If i want to know what it "means" (stealing from dgreen) in the modern world @dgreen @Captain Cranks (from the skeptic pov) @bolzano @Bottomfeeder Sports among others do a great job putting practical meaning behind the faith which is what I'm mostly interested in (I did start with a total pooh pooh attitude, but that's evolved with the conversation).

I think when I stick to "what God says" is where I hit a roadblock and the arguments become circular. Trying to understand the intricacies of the believer has been enlightening. Not that I'm a convert, but the subtle shift in perspective from what I'm used to does open new ideas for me.

Apologies for butting in to a question asked to someone else, but since we're all having the same conversation this is where I'm coming from.

I think we’re on the same path. I’m not trying to understand God, that wouldn’t make sense as I don’t believe in him. What I’m trying to understand is, many thoughtful believers, like those responding here are, have wrestled with the same questions. I’m interested in the answers they’ve come up with.

 

[bolzano]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the Bible was put together by the 5 Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem), where Rome, as the See of Peter, was the senior member and most powerful. Of course, the Bible forms the foundation of Christian doctrine. So, what gave the Church the authority to determine which books were included? Was it divine inspiration? To the non-Catholics, when did the Church lose her power to decide on doctrinal issues (e.g., how to interpret scripture)? The Great Schism? The Reformation?

 

[dgreen]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

I agree that would be a flaw if one assumes the purpose of the communication is to make sure every person throughout all time perfectly understands what propositions they have to agree with in order to avoid eternal fire.

Fair, And that’s certainly my default interpretation. But wouldn’t any communication from God to us about life and our path through it be with the intention to be understood or to teach, especially if its guidance on how he believes this life should be lived. If not then why communicate at all.

Yeah, I'd agree there's a goal of understanding and teaching, but I don't think the aim is for it to necessarily be easy (which I think you've expressed some dissatisfaction with that idea before). Some scholars talk about the Bible as being "meditation" literature. By that, they mean it is designed to be read over and over and over. It's not meant to be just a quick activity where it gives you the answer to your problem. It's more about discovering an answer through exploration than just giving an answer so you can make the right selection on the pop quiz. The literature invites questions and through that questioning the reader is supposed to wrestle their way to the meaning.

There's a reason the Biblical authors say things like "Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived." Because true knowledge of something is the type of knowledge a husband has with his wife. That knowledge is experienced and learned. While I think we are largely a society that values resolving questions as quickly as possible so we can move on, I think we also understand that the things we are the most knowledgeable about are the things we wrestle with the most. There are times I may have the right answer to a question, but I don't really understand why that's the right answer. Going deeper into something is where the true understanding is and what makes the best teachers.

 

[bolzano]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the Bible was put together by the 5 Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem), where Rome, as the See of Peter, was the senior member and most powerful. Of course, the Bible forms the foundation of Christian doctrine. So, what gave the Church the authority to determine which books were included? Was it divine inspiration? To the non-Catholics, when did the Church lose her power to decide on doctrinal issues (e.g., how to interpret scripture)? The Great Schism? The Reformation?

Before anyone responds to this post, I’d note that it was really meant as an answer to Paddington and others who say things like, the Bible says this or that, or the Church has no right to claim that X, Y, and Z are true. The point is that Catholics believe that the Church remains in possession of St. Peter’s Keys and everything that it entails. So, the Church would be empowered to interpret scripture and opine on things like whether non-believers can enter heaven.

 

[dkp993]

"no no no, what he actually meant was X"

This is because that's how communication works. Just because God is communicating, it doesn't change the function of words and language. I don't see any reason to assume that "God's words" must always be literal. We use words to encode a message. We do that with everything we say, whether literal or metaphorical. If God is going to use words to communicate to humans, those words are going to function the same way, not in some new magical way that makes literal sense to all cultures throughout all time. I think you are erroneously pitting "literalism" vs "interpretation" as if a literal reading isn't an interpretation of its own.

If I say, "Hi, how are you?" am I being literal (making a request for information about your physical/emotional well being) or metaphorical (using an accepted social pleasantry to simply recognize that I see you as we cross paths in the hallway)? Context provides the answer. Words only have meaning within a context.

What does it even mean for Jesus' words in John 14:6 to be taken literally? Should I understand God as a literal father or is that metaphorical? So even with a supposed "literal" interpretation of a statement, there is clearly some metaphorical language. Paddington's interpretation could very well be right. His interpretation is going to be right if it matches the intended meaning of Jesus' message that was encoded into words, not just because it's a "literal" interpretation. (Not to mention that Jesus would have encoded his message into either Hebrew or Aramaic words, not modern American English nor even the Greek used by John. The translation into Greek and English are attempts to communicate Jesus' message.)

It used to bother me when preachers and teachers would say things like, "What Paul actually meant here is x." I would think, "If that's what he meant, then why didn't he just say that?" And the answer to that is, "He did. He just did it in a way that fits his language and culture and we are doing our best to understand that in our language and culture so that we can properly apply it to our context." I only speak one language, but I've heard people who speak multiple languages get this concept much easier. This shift has taken me years, but it's one that makes much more sense to me rather than assuming God must communicate in a way that just happens to match the communication preferences of my culture.

While I understand your concept, and there’s logic to it, there’s one major flaw as I see it. We’re speaking about God communicating, a supposedly perfect all knowing being, not flawed human to flawed human. He certainly understands context and how to communicate in a way that we fully understand. And again with the snap of his fingers, he could create a universal language that we all innately know unquestionably. He also is fully aware that this will be interpreted thousands of years later by people that have no knowledge or experience of the original communication and that it will be interpreted through multiple different languages dozens of centuries later. Yet he chooses this flawed system? Seems pretty far from perfect and all knowing to me.

I agree that would be a flaw if one assumes the purpose of the communication is to make sure every person throughout all time perfectly understands what propositions they have to agree with in order to avoid eternal fire.

Fair, And that’s certainly my default interpretation. But wouldn’t any communication from God to us about life and our path through it be with the intention to be understood or to teach, especially if its guidance on how he believes this life should be lived. If not then why communicate at all.

Yeah, I'd agree there's a goal of understanding and teaching, but I don't think the aim is for it to necessarily be easy (which I think you've expressed some dissatisfaction with that idea before). Some scholars talk about the Bible as being "meditation" literature. By that, they mean it is designed to be read over and over and over. It's not meant to be just a quick activity where it gives you the answer to your problem. It's more about discovering an answer through exploration than just giving an answer so you can make the right selection on the pop quiz. The literature invites questions and through that questioning the reader is supposed to wrestle their way to the meaning.

There's a reason the Biblical authors say things like "Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived." Because true knowledge of something is the type of knowledge a husband has with his wife. That knowledge is experienced and learned. While I think we are largely a society that values resolving questions as quickly as possible so we can move on, I think we also understand that the things we are the most knowledgeable about are the things we wrestle with the most. There are times I may have the right answer to a question, but I don't really understand why that's the right answer. Going deeper into something is where the true understanding is and what makes the best teachers.

Thanks for your response, and I fundamentally agree with the concept of easy shouldn’t be a requirement, like most things in life any thing good is often earned.
But imo, and that’s all it is, this “system” as it’s set up goes far beyond hard or something you need to work towards. It feels impossibly flawed and beyond reason or logic. No different than being asked to believe in Scientology or unicorns. But I digress as that brings us full circle back to faith and belief, and round and round we go.

Again thanks, appreciate your thoughts and insights.

 

[Zow]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

That is a heretical teaching and un Biblical. The Bible completely contradicts this and the Bible takes precedents over the Church. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Catholic Church. This is giving people a false sense of security.
The Words of Jesus Himself prove this is a false teaching.

Jesus said:

John 14:6 KJV
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said:

John 3:17-18 KJV
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Let me run two hypothetical scenarios by you:

1. An infant is born breech and dies within mere seconds after birth due to umbilical cord prolapse. As the infant lived only a mere few seconds and his brain likely formed no rational thoughts as he was overcome by the sensation of asphyxiation, the infant never knows of God and therefore never places belief in God/Jesus.
2. Sani is a Sentinelese tribal member who lives his entire life on the small island in the Bay of Bengal off the India coast closed off from outsiders. His only exposure to religion is to the local tribal religion - a loose polytheist religion with fallible gods - and he never learns of the Christian God. As such, we never know if Sani would have placed his faith in Jesus because he never had the opportunity to make that choice. He nonetheless lives a life consistent with Commandments 4-10 and makes the lives of his neighbors better throughout his life time. But he never places his faith in Jesus.

Under the Bible, are both of these individuals who never placed their faith in Jesus condemned to fire and brimstone for eternity?

Curious about this as well. You can add so many other examples to this list. Are people with Down's Syndrome expected to make the rational decision to seek out Jesus? What about the millions with other debilitating mental deficiencies?

I am hopeful @Paddington answers as I'm genuinely interested in his answer(s). I actually gave credit to the Catholic faith for finding sensical "loopholes" for these situations but Paddington has basically called them heresy. Accordingly, I am genuinely interested in how he sees the plight of somebody who didn't put their faith in Christ when they were logistically never given the opportunity to.