How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[TennesseeJed]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.

oki doki

If that is your response to a pretty straightforward observation, I am not sure you want to have a serious conversation with anyone that does not share your beliefs exactly.

I have already said I believe in god.

I also don't believe the the bible. I don't find those views to be contradictory.

And when you say the "scripture is breathed by god" as proof (or evidence if you will) that the bible is either divine, or divinely inspired - but then overlook that when that statement was given, "Scripture" would not have included any of the stories of Jesus - and respond with a rather flippant remark, well lets just say, it comes across as not-christ-like.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Well, we shouldn't have done that thing that God knowingly created us to do but doesn't want us to do.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean but I think it's less that God created us to do a thing as if we had no choice. And more He created us with free will having the choice to do a thing.

Right. But if we make the wrong choice, even if that choice was made in good faith, we go to Hell for eternity.

That sounds objectively unfair to me.

Are both you guys saying we will go to Heaven because we made good choices? Or we will not go to hell because of bad choices?

Are we saying eternity is based on how well you followed the rules? Do we believe it’s a matter of scales of justice, if we have more on the good scale then the bad scale, we get a golden ticket.

That’s not the gospel of Jesus.

 

[Terminalxylem]

It's part of why it always bums me out to see people mock "thoughts and prayers". There is value in thinking of others and praying for others I think. It kind of goes with the whole "selfless" thing. Anything that takes the focus off myself and spreads the focus to others is a good thing I think.

While everyone acknowledges it’s helpful to have a support network, I’ve usually seen mocking t&p in specific political settings, where some believe the gesture is hollow/avoidant of addressing the issue at hand.

I don’t think sincere t&p end up getting mocked often, though the intent is not always obvious.

ETA As per my usual, I’m just restating what others have said <-deserves mockery

 

[TennesseeJed]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.

What do you mean by “out of favor”?

The message of the Old Testament is more about a vengeful god - who is keen to divide and conquer his enemies. Eye-for-an-Eye.

The message of the New Testament is more about a forgiving god, who wants everyone to join together. Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek.


The various books in the bible were written by men, curated by men*, and with a purpose to satisfy men. I don't believe god sat down and inspired a few folks to write these books. I am pretty certain Jesus did not sit down and write anything out, nor even ask his disciples to take notes, and publish them once he had risen.


*I use the term men as a collective, but its probably also literal.

 

[dgreen]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.

What do you mean by “out of favor”?

The message of the Old Testament is more about a vengeful god - who is keen to divide and conquer his enemies. Eye-for-an-Eye.

The message of the New Testament is more about a forgiving god, who wants everyone to join together. Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek.


The various books in the bible were written by men, curated by men*, and with a purpose to satisfy men. I don't believe god sat down and inspired a few folks to write these books. I am pretty certain Jesus did not sit down and write anything out, nor even ask his disciples to take notes, and publish them once he had risen.


*I use the term men as a collective, but its probably also literal.

Thanks. This is a topic I want to understand better, especially as it relates to some of the harsher passages in the OT. My bias is to see the OT still being in favor. For example, it’s interesting that you use love your neighbor as an example of the NT message when it’s also an OT message. Hillel, a rabbi who predated Jesus, and Akiva, who was just after Jesus, also saw the OT as primarily being about loving others so it wasn’t a new NT, or specifically a Christian, thing. It was part of the Jewish interpretation of their scriptures.

 

[BobbyLayne]

So much of these conversations are, IMO, arguing against a false narrative. People are, correctly, arguing against what they've been taught, but I don't think they are arguments against the story God told nor who God is. For anyone interested and willing to spend 30 minutes (or less if you watch on a higher speed!), Tim Mackie takes on the conventional idea of Heaven and Hell in this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykH8E9wTCcQ&t=28s

I had this on in the background while I was working on something trivial. It was good, and I agree that Mackie (who I don't know otherwise) does a good job of explaining the general gist of the Biblical narrative.

But, in an effort to be fair to our non-believing friends, I'm not sure how many Christians actually think about their faith the way Mackie describes. I mean, sure, I think about Christianity that way, and so do you. But let's be honest. A lot of the people who we are sharing a pew with on Sunday are actually thinking "I should be a good person so I'll go to heaven when I die." And we're having this conversation in a thread started by a Christian titled "How to Get to Heaven When You Die." If non-believers got the impression that we're laser-focused on some kind of after-death reward or punishment, it shouldn't be too hard to see how they got that idea. They probably see this as a No True Scotsman move on our part, and they're not totally wrong.

MT used to talk about this back when we did more religion threads. There's a high-level version of Christianity that tends to be embraced by highly-educated people who spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. That's the flavor of Christianity that one encounters in CS Lewis. It's not lost on me that Mackie referenced The Great Divorce -- of course he's thinking along those lines. But that's not most people. The majority of actual, real-world Christians hold the same "Sunday school" version of their faith that they held when they were in 3rd grade. They remember about as much from confirmation as they remember algebra. That's not intended as an insult -- it's just how average people are.

But yeah, that video is actually a pretty good (but very, very broad) overview of what I understand to be the Biblical view of this stuff.

I think one of Mackie's points is that Christians don’t actually think about their faith the way he describes. I think he's saying "this is what people think you believe" because he knows many do believe that and he's trying to nicely tell them they are wrong by basically saying those other people are wrong. His message is for Christians, not non-believers.

Mackie is the creator of The Bible Project which produces excellent content. They have some very, very broad stuff (like the video he showed) and more in-depth stuff (podcasts series that are many hours long). He, and his co-creator, have a great talent of bringing this high-level version to the masses.

Just getting back online, been out the last 25 days dealing with some family medical stuff. Apologies in advance because I’m reverse Hippling - I’ve missed 75% of the discussion & will probably

*************

I have a lot of issues with Mackie. I don’t know that my nuance is going to land with most folks reading this.

Knowing my own bias, I’ll defer to someone who is aligned with my Reformed theology & appreciates his contributions more than I.

The Bible Project describes itself this way: “The Bible Project is a non-profit animation studio that produces short-form, fully animated videos to make the biblical story accessible to everyone, everywhere. We create videos, podcast, and study guides that explore the Bible’s unified story by focusing on its overarching themes and each book’s literary design. We are committed to understanding the Bible in its historical context and communicating its wisdom for the modern world. Ultimately, we want to change how people read and use the Bible” (https://thebibleproject.com/brand/).

The Bible Project was founded in 2014 by friends Jonathan Collins and Timothy Mackie. The men wanted to help people read through Scripture and understand it without falling into the common trap of seeing the Bible as a rule book or as a “devotional grab bag”; rather, they desired to present the Bible as a “unified story that leads to Jesus.” They started with two videos and have rapidly expanded—the team, the amount of content, and the type of content—from there.

The Bible Project’s team, as an organization, has no denominational ties. Collins and Mackie both attended Multnomah University; Mackie teaches at Western Seminary as does one of their board members, Gerry Breshears. The team includes those with backgrounds in biblical studies, animation, and technology, among other fields.

The Bible Project’s videos are high quality and engaging. The combination of the audio and the visual helps aid understanding. The videos also include study notes, related blogs and podcasts, suggested books, and even suggested classes. The Bible Project encourages broad use of its content, with appropriate citations. Their aim is genuinely to help “everyone, everywhere” have access to the Bible. They know “the Bible speaks God’s word to his people” and believe it will lead people to Jesus, “who has the power to change individuals and whole communities when we let the biblical story speak for itself.” The projects are crowdfunded, or supported through donations.

The Bible Project has received some criticism regarding their portrayals of the atonement and hell. They do not present the atonement as substitutionary, but rather seem to emphasize some of the other theories of the atonement. At times, they seem to deny that hell is a place of eternal suffering. Combined, it would appear that they do not sufficiently emphasize God’s wrath toward sin. As with any teaching, users are wise to evaluate what they see and hear against what the Bible actually says. Overall, The Bible Project’s mission is biblically sound, and it seems the content they produce is genuinely helpful in furthering people’s understanding of and engagement with God’s Word. Please visit their website to check out their videos and other resources for yourself: https://thebibleproject.com.

There ya go.

Don’t like the idea of eternal damnation, fire & brimstone? Then just find a theologian who agrees with your misinterpretation. Problem solved, eh.

---

Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Now If you don’t think the Bible is authoritative, no worries. That’s a choice, so we’re good here.

If you are a Jesus follower & believe the Bible in this sense

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

but then want to deny penal substitutionary atonement or hell as a real place for all eternity? Then you’ll need to go outside of scripture for your justification. That is not what the Bible teaches.

*

Spoiler: citations

2 Timothy 3:16

Cross-references

Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21

Why is PSA such a big deal for reformers? It seems like it’s used as a litmus test?

Also, I’m curious what you mean by “outside of scripture”. For example, do? (I’m not asking this specifically about PS and Mackie. I have no idea what his views are on atonement, although one can get some idea from the sermon I posted. And, obviously, anyone can go to the BP and find videos and podcasts where he discusses it.)

1) The cross is central to the gospel. No getting around that.

2) Let’s start by saying, emphatically, the Bible Project is amazing. I recommend it all the time. It’s flawed but so is every other human endeavor.

Their videos as are beautiful to watch and bring together words and images really well. They also provide lots of good background to books and ideas that would be unfamiliar to most of us. It’s also great how they bring every book and theme back to Jesus. As they say on their homepage: “Our mission is to show how the Bible is a unified story that leads to Jesus”.

---

“Outside of scripture”

We can evaluate anything spoken or written by comparing it to what Scripture says. You can look at my posts & examine if they’re in alignment with what the Bible says.

If I start saying “This is what I believe because it makes sense to me”, well then I’m not telling you what scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit has to say. That would be outside of scripture.

Not sure I’m following what you asking here:

you consider when an interpreter looks at culture to be “outside of scripture”

but maybe you could say it another way. Then again things are getting hectic here at the hospital so maybe I’m having trouble concentrating.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The message of the Old Testament is more about a vengeful god - who is keen to divide and conquer his enemies. Eye-for-an-Eye.

The message of the New Testament is more about a forgiving god, who wants everyone to join together. Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek.

The God of the Old Testament is loving and forgiving, The God of the New Testament is holy and just. I don’t think any of the attributes you cite are exclusive to either the OT or the NT.

The nature and character of God did not - cannot - change over time. The system of atonement changed. But it’s the same one true God.

 

[BobbyLayne]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.

oki doki

If that is your response to a pretty straightforward observation, I am not sure you want to have a serious conversation with anyone that does not share your beliefs exactly.

I have already said I believe in god.

I also don't believe the the bible. I don't find those views to be contradictory.

And when you say the "scripture is breathed by god" as proof (or evidence if you will) that the bible is either divine, or divinely inspired - but then overlook that when that statement was given, "Scripture" would not have included any of the stories of Jesus - and respond with a rather flippant remark, well lets just say, it comes across as not-christ-like.

I don’t know who you are, what you believe, what you have posted in this thread. I gather you would say the same about me.

These threads attract a lot of unholy, irreverent and disrespectful commenters. I don’t suffer fools. My “flippant response” had one clear message - sorry if you missed it.

I don’t play badminton. I don’t cast pearls before swine.

Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

If you are a believer, then we’ll be friends forever. Your call on how you want to behave toward me today knowing we’ll be sharing real estate in 10,000 years.

Edit: Never mind, not applicable.

 

[Paddington]

Why did Jesus Himself quote Scripture as authoritative from God? The OT Scriptures were already known to be authoritative by the Jews. The Gospel writers were inspired by God Himself. Peter affirms Paul's writings as Scripture and Authoritative from God. The Bible is the Word of God.

 

[dgreen]

“Outside of scripture”

We can evaluate anything spoken or written by comparing it to what Scripture says. You can look at my posts & examine if they’re in alignment with what the Bible says.

If I start saying “This is what I believe because it makes sense to me”, well then I’m not telling you what scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit has to say. That would be outside of scripture.

Not sure I’m following what you asking here:

you consider when an interpreter looks at culture to be “outside of scripture”

but maybe you could say it another way. Then again things are getting hectic here at the hospital so maybe I’m having trouble concentrating.

Thanks. I hope everything is ok. Not that you need me to say this, but don’t feel the need to reply. This discussion can wait.

Taken to an extreme, I’d think “outside of scripture” would exclude us from using anything other than the actual text to interpret. So, things we learn from studying their culture from non-biblical sources (other Jewish writings, archeological discoveries of the ANE, Roman culture) would have to be left out of our interpretation because they are “outside of scripture”. I have even heard people say a focus on the meaning of Hebrew or Greek words to be poor interpretation if it provides a different view than an English translation.

Ultimately, this conversation goes back to what seemed like an accusation of Mackie that I’d guess isn’t very fair. But I also don’t want this to be about me serving as his defense attorney in this thread. That’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand what’s in bounds and out of bounds in your hermeneutic.

 

[TennesseeJed]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.

oki doki

If that is your response to a pretty straightforward observation, I am not sure you want to have a serious conversation with anyone that does not share your beliefs exactly.

I have already said I believe in god.

I also don't believe the the bible. I don't find those views to be contradictory.

And when you say the "scripture is breathed by god" as proof (or evidence if you will) that the bible is either divine, or divinely inspired - but then overlook that when that statement was given, "Scripture" would not have included any of the stories of Jesus - and respond with a rather flippant remark, well lets just say, it comes across as not-christ-like.

I don’t know who you are, what you believe, what you have posted in this thread. I gather you would say the same about me.

These threads attract a lot of unholy, irreverent and disrespectful commenters. I don’t suffer fools. My “flippant response” had one clear message - sorry if you missed it.

I don’t play badminton. I don’t cast pearls before swine.

Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

If you are a believer, then we’ll be friends forever. Your call on how you want to behave toward me today knowing we’ll be sharing real estate in 10,000 years.

Edit: Never mind, not applicable.

I can tell that you are not a nice person, nor one I would want to be friends with now, nor in 10,000 years.


I believe that belief in god comes from within, not from a book. There is no rule book, nor written guidelines to define your relationship with god and the greater spiritual world. You build that relationship on your own.

I do wish you good fortune, and I hope that you find the grace and humility that you seek from god - I do believe that is a worthwhile journey.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I can tell that you are not a nice person

cheers

 

[BobbyLayne]

“Outside of scripture”

We can evaluate anything spoken or written by comparing it to what Scripture says. You can look at my posts & examine if they’re in alignment with what the Bible says.

If I start saying “This is what I believe because it makes sense to me”, well then I’m not telling you what scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit has to say. That would be outside of scripture.

Not sure I’m following what you asking here:

you consider when an interpreter looks at culture to be “outside of scripture”

but maybe you could say it another way. Then again things are getting hectic here at the hospital so maybe I’m having trouble concentrating.

Thanks. I hope everything is ok. Not that you need me to say this, but don’t feel the need to reply. This discussion can wait.

Taken to an extreme, I’d think “outside of scripture” would exclude us from using anything other than the actual text to interpret. So, things we learn from studying their culture from non-biblical sources (other Jewish writings, archeological discoveries of the ANE, Roman culture) would have to be left out of our interpretation because they are “outside of scripture”. I have even heard people say a focus on the meaning of Hebrew or Greek words to be poor interpretation if it provides a different view than an English translation.

Ultimately, this conversation goes back to what seemed like an accusation of Mackie that I’d guess isn’t very fair. But I also don’t want this to be about me serving as his defense attorney in this thread. That’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand what’s in bounds and out of bounds in your hermeneutic.

D, I’m not here to play gotcha. I don’t have any special insight.

Like Baldinger says

“Hey, we’re just talking ball here….so, ya know, everybody calm down.”

What is history? It’s studying events in the past of human affairs.

What is theology? It is studying the study of the nature of God and religious belief.

I’m gonna share what I think is meant by correctly handling the Word of Truth, the inspired Word of God. What anyone does with that is not on me. That’s between you and your creator.

---

 

[BobbyLayne]

Ultimately, this conversation goes back to what seemed like an accusation of Mackie that I’d guess isn’t very fair. But I also don’t want this to be about me serving as his defense attorney in this thread. That’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand what’s in bounds and out of bounds in your hermeneutic.

Let’s start here. What is a good hermeneutic to utilize when studying / reading the Bible.

But first, let’s understand why me fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestant belief systems. I think that’s an important distinction to point out because a lot of folks posting in here grew up Catholic, drafted easy as an adult, and haven’t given it much thought in years / decades.

@Joe Bryant or any other “good Catholics” - please check me & see if my view is correct.

---

Catholic FBGs - tell me if you think this is true.

In order for a Protestant to understand Catholic theology - I suspect most don't care to know - it's probably good to understand a fundamental difference in Biblical authority. The bedrock tenet of the Reformation is the Five Solas:

• sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
• solus Christus (Christ alone)
• sola fide (faith alone)
• sola gratia (grace alone)
• soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)

The first one speaks to the preeminence of the Bible. Our understanding of what we believe begins and ends with what scripture has to say. It is the all sufficient inspired Word, and when we handle it correctly, able to provide us with an understanding on the nature and character of God, and how we should live our lives.

Any theological discussion starts with "Did God say that? Where can I find it?"

Our Catholic brethren have a different view.

Catholicism teaches that the doctrines contained in Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the Church) are authoritative because God's revelation is the source of both. The Catechism puts it this way: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God.”

Just pointing this out so we can understand one another better. We come at any subject with a distinctly different hermeneutic.

Did I represent the basic Catholic belief system correctly?

 

[Zow]

Well, we shouldn't have done that thing that God knowingly created us to do but doesn't want us to do.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean but I think it's less that God created us to do a thing as if we had no choice. And more He created us with free will having the choice to do a thing.

Right. But if we make the wrong choice, even if that choice was made in good faith, we go to Hell for eternity.

That sounds objectively unfair to me.

Are both you guys saying we will go to Heaven because we made good choices? Or we will not go to hell because of bad choices?

Are we saying eternity is based on how well you followed the rules? Do we believe it’s a matter of scales of justice, if we have more on the good scale then the bad scale, we get a golden ticket.

That’s not the gospel of Jesus.

The initial premise of this thread is, down and dirty, if you believe in Jesus as the "Savior" then you go to H/heaven. If you don't, you go to H/hell. So, I believe that's the general dogmatic framework that we're all working in.

My point is that God created humans with free will and with the ability to reason/critically think. Therefore, since he created this way, it seems patently unreasonable and unfair for him to then send those who apply their free will and critical thinking skills in good faith to deduce that God/Jesus isn't real (since there is objectively a rational basis to reach such a conclusion) to H/hell for eternity.

Please feel free to nonetheless tell us the gospel of Jesus if you interpret it differently than our friendly bear OP.

 

[Zow]

---

Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Copied and pasted from your "good resource" with bold added to stress my point: The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

Per this passage, my point I've probably beaten to death myself at this point remains. Somebody who simply deduces through critical thinking and reflection in good faith to not believe (again, by using the tools God chose to give us) is treated the same as the "wicked" and gets the same punishment. Not somebody who significantly harmed another person, not somebody who made the world a worse place, but merely somebody who just objectively and critically considered the religious resources available to him and thought, "nah, probably isn't real, but I'm going to keep living a good life because that's just the right thing to do."

The God that imposes this sort of punishment on the "unbelieving" is blatantly unreasonable. I keep going back to thinking this is some satirical ******** Jeff Goldblum's character on Netflix would pull, not some benevolent God who truly loves us. This is some teen-aged level jealous tyrant and if he truly exists this way well that really sucks.

 

[dgreen]

Ultimately, this conversation goes back to what seemed like an accusation of Mackie that I’d guess isn’t very fair. But I also don’t want this to be about me serving as his defense attorney in this thread. That’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand what’s in bounds and out of bounds in your hermeneutic.

Let’s start here. What is a good hermeneutic to utilize when studying / reading the Bible.

But first, let’s understand why me fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestant belief systems. I think that’s an important distinction to point out because a lot of folks posting in here grew up Catholic, drafted easy as an adult, and haven’t given it much thought in years / decades.

@Joe Bryant or any other “good Catholics” - please check me & see if my view is correct.

---

Catholic FBGs - tell me if you think this is true.

In order for a Protestant to understand Catholic theology - I suspect most don't care to know - it's probably good to understand a fundamental difference in Biblical authority. The bedrock tenet of the Reformation is the Five Solas:

• sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
• solus Christus (Christ alone)
• sola fide (faith alone)
• sola gratia (grace alone)
• soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)

The first one speaks to the preeminence of the Bible. Our understanding of what we believe begins and ends with what scripture has to say. It is the all sufficient inspired Word, and when we handle it correctly, able to provide us with an understanding on the nature and character of God, and how we should live our lives.

Any theological discussion starts with "Did God say that? Where can I find it?"

Our Catholic brethren have a different view.

Catholicism teaches that the doctrines contained in Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the Church) are authoritative because God's revelation is the source of both. The Catechism puts it this way: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God.”

Just pointing this out so we can understand one another better. We come at any subject with a distinctly different hermeneutic.

Did I represent the basic Catholic belief system correctly?

Thanks. So, "outside of scripture" is another way of talking about sola scriptura. My understanding of sola scriptura is exactly as you posted. It was the Reformers answer to their 16th century question of whether or not Church Tradition was also authoritative. I really don't know what's all included in this Church Tradition, but I'm fine with the idea that it wasn't God's revelation and isn't on the same level as scripture.

I think, though, that various people can approach the scriptures with the same sola scriptura presupposition and reach different interpretations on something like atonement. I'm sure many reject PSA without much study at all and care more about how the theory makes them feel rather than whether or not the evidence supports it or not. But, I also assume that many reached that same conclusion through deep study and an honest, faithful approach. I assume a similar spectrum exists on the side of those who accept PSA.

I'm wondering if we might differ in our beliefs regarding our ability to determine what scripture has to say. I think much of scripture is probably difficult for us to understand the intended meaning due to the gaps of language, time, and culture. I'm thankful for all the hard work our translators do, but I think of an English translation to be an imperfect starting point that introduces difficulties. So, while I think it's very important to focus on what scripture has to say, I don't think it's always clear to us what it is saying. "What does the Bible say?" isn't always straight forward, IMO. I don't want to give off the impression that I think Biblical interpretation is a lost cause. I'm not going to try to put a percentage on it, but I think we know A LOT about what scripture says and we are learning more and more. We should strive to understand as much as we can and move that conversation forward if we truly believe it's the Word of God and I'm glad we have a lot of really smart people doing that who can debate with each other and present their interpretations to the larger community for consideration.

 

[BobbyLayne]

---

Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Copied and pasted from your "good resource" with bold added to stress my point: The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

Per this passage, my point I've probably beaten to death myself at this point remains. Somebody who simply deduces through critical thinking and reflection in good faith to not believe (again, by using the tools God chose to give us) is treated the same as the "wicked" and gets the same punishment. Not somebody who significantly harmed another person, not somebody who made the world a worse place, but merely somebody who just objectively and critically considered the religious resources available to him and thought, "nah, probably isn't real, but I'm going to keep living a good life because that's just the right thing to do."

The God that imposes this sort of punishment on the "unbelieving" is blatantly unreasonable. I keep going back to thinking this is some satirical ******** Jeff Goldblum's character on Netflix would pull, not some benevolent God who truly loves us. This is some teen-aged level jealous tyrant and if he truly exists this way well that really sucks.

It’s all good, Woz. My personal belief is each person answers the same universal set of questions. Why am I here? What is the purpose of my life? What is the point of life? Is there something greater than myself that exists outside of time and space.

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA. Everyone is free to do and think what they want. If you want to rob a bank or murder your neighbor, you have the freedom to do that. Society will give you a significant penalty in the event you are caught & convicted. Free will does not mean freedom from consequences.

 

[Zow]

---

Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Copied and pasted from your "good resource" with bold added to stress my point: The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

Per this passage, my point I've probably beaten to death myself at this point remains. Somebody who simply deduces through critical thinking and reflection in good faith to not believe (again, by using the tools God chose to give us) is treated the same as the "wicked" and gets the same punishment. Not somebody who significantly harmed another person, not somebody who made the world a worse place, but merely somebody who just objectively and critically considered the religious resources available to him and thought, "nah, probably isn't real, but I'm going to keep living a good life because that's just the right thing to do."

The God that imposes this sort of punishment on the "unbelieving" is blatantly unreasonable. I keep going back to thinking this is some satirical ******** Jeff Goldblum's character on Netflix would pull, not some benevolent God who truly loves us. This is some teen-aged level jealous tyrant and if he truly exists this way well that really sucks.

It’s all good, Woz. My personal belief is each person answers the same universal set of questions. Why am I here? What is the purpose of my life? What is the point of life? Is there something greater than myself that exists outside of time and space.

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA. Everyone is free to do and think what they want. If you want to rob a bank or murder your neighbor, you have the freedom to do that. Society will give you a significant penalty in the event you are caught & convicted. Free will does not mean freedom from consequences.

I appreciate those words but, to clarify, and for sake of this good faith discussion, would you agree that I interpreted your "good resource" correctly that the unbeliever goes to Hell for eternity? I just want to ensure we agree on the same premise before we agree to disagree and claim "it's all good."

As I typed the above, I do admit I'm slightly offended that you seem to be insinuating that my position is one of nihilism when I took the time to read what you linked, consider and think about it, and provide constructive criticism to it that you then chose not to reply to. In other words, seems like a bad faith cop out by you to just brush off someone who, again, read what you told him to and responded with critical analysis by suggesting it's nihilism then comparing the freed to think critically with murder or robbing (though I suppose such is in line with your dogmatic beliefs).

 

[BobbyLayne]

Free Will & the Choice of God

This is my friend Cliffe. He pastors a church in New Canaan, Connecticut. His passion is to go onto college campuses and discuss the gospel, religion and whatever people want answers for in an open air forum.

Not sure how much that will move the needle for you but the answers you’re looking for are out there if you are sincerely seeking truth.

Most folks want just enough to rationalize living their life how ever they want, freed from having to follow any biblical guidance.

That’s a conscious choice. One day you’ll have to give an account of the choices you made in this life. How you live your life now will determine where you spend eternity.

But for many, y’all already knew that. You’re good with making the bet you are correct. No worries. We all have free will, and that is your God given right.

 

[Zow]

Free Will & the Choice of God

This is my friend Cliffe. He pastors a church in New Canaan, Connecticut. His passion is to go onto college campuses and discuss the gospel, religion and whatever people want answers for in an open air forum.

Not sure how much that will move the needle for you but the answers you’re looking for are out there if you are sincerely seeking truth.

Most folks want just enough to rationalize living their life how ever they want, freed from having to follow any biblical guidance.

That’s a conscious choice. One day you’ll have to give an account of the choices you made in this life. How you live your life now will determine where you spend eternity.

But for many, y’all already knew that. You’re good with making the bet you are correct. No worries. We all have free will, and that is your God given right.

You're still not answering my question.

If a person deduces over time in good faith that God doesn't exist and doesn't believe, but otherwise lives a "good" life with no significant sins, does he go to Hell forever based on your understanding of God's/Jesus's teachings?

 

[BobbyLayne]

---

Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Copied and pasted from your "good resource" with bold added to stress my point: The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

Per this passage, my point I've probably beaten to death myself at this point remains. Somebody who simply deduces through critical thinking and reflection in good faith to not believe (again, by using the tools God chose to give us) is treated the same as the "wicked" and gets the same punishment. Not somebody who significantly harmed another person, not somebody who made the world a worse place, but merely somebody who just objectively and critically considered the religious resources available to him and thought, "nah, probably isn't real, but I'm going to keep living a good life because that's just the right thing to do."

The God that imposes this sort of punishment on the "unbelieving" is blatantly unreasonable. I keep going back to thinking this is some satirical ******** Jeff Goldblum's character on Netflix would pull, not some benevolent God who truly loves us. This is some teen-aged level jealous tyrant and if he truly exists this way well that really sucks.

It’s all good, Woz. My personal belief is each person answers the same universal set of questions. Why am I here? What is the purpose of my life? What is the point of life? Is there something greater than myself that exists outside of time and space.

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA. Everyone is free to do and think what they want. If you want to rob a bank or murder your neighbor, you have the freedom to do that. Society will give you a significant penalty in the event you are caught & convicted. Free will does not mean freedom from consequences.

I appreciate those words but, to clarify, and for sake of this good faith discussion, would you agree that I interpreted your "good resource" correctly that the unbeliever goes to Hell for eternity? I just want to ensure we agree on the same premise before we agree to disagree and claim "it's all good."

As I typed the above, I do admit I'm slightly offended that you seem to be insinuating that my position is one of nihilism when I took the time to read what you linked, consider and think about it, and provide constructive criticism to it that you then chose not to reply to. In other words, seems like a bad faith cop out by you to just brush off someone who, again, read what you told him to and responded with critical analysis by suggesting it's nihilism then comparing the freed to think critically with murder or robbing (though I suppose such is in line with your dogmatic beliefs).

I just don’t think anyone really listens.



I have led many to a saving faith in Jesus. But I’ve never argued anyone into the faith. I am finite and have limitations. It’s just not who I am; being argumentative or debating things I have great emotional attachment to is difficult.

I’m happy to share my knowledge. I understand systematic theology, I can help people understand the Bible better.

But if someone has already made their choice, that’s been them and YHWH.

Free Will & the Choice of God

This is my friend Cliffe. He pastors a church in New Canaan, Connecticut. His passion is to go onto college campuses and discuss the gospel, religion and whatever people want answers for in an open air forum.

Not sure how much that will move the needle for you but the answers you’re looking for are out there if you are sincerely seeking truth.

Most folks want just enough to rationalize living their life how ever they want, freed from having to follow any biblical guidance.

That’s a conscious choice. One day you’ll have to give an account of the choices you made in this life. How you live your life now will determine where you spend eternity.

But for many, y’all already knew that. You’re good with making the bet you are correct. No worries. We all have free will, and that is your God given right.

You're still not answering my question.

If a person deduces over time in good faith that God doesn't exist and doesn't believe, but otherwise lives a "good" life with no significant sins, does he go to Hell forever based on your understanding of God's/Jesus's teachings?

Apart from Jesus, no one has right standing with God.

In the great exchange, Jesus bore our sins. We received the righteousness of Christ. When God sees a believer he sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

All have sinned, all have fallen short. 100% of every human ever born strikes out. Even the mostly good or better than 99%ers. God is holy, and God is just.

The gospel (“good news”) is God has made a way. You don’t have to guess if you were good enough. Everyone who has saving faith has the same standing. There is no distinction.

A faith that doesn’t change you doesn’t save you.

@Zow I’m sorry I don’t play by what you think the rules of discourse should be. Man I’m just a beggar who found food trying to show other beggars where they can get some (for free.)

 

[Zow]

Rules of discourse? Respectfully, I asked a pretty straightforward yes or no question simply to confirm a pretty significant dogmatic principle. I ask this in good faith to make sure we are on the same page as to the interpretation of what the Bible says about how to get to heaven. I'm not even challenging the interpretation - I just want to make sure we are interpreting it the same way (that if one doesn't believe, one must go to Hell under God's rules).

I think you're saying "yes" to my question when you state that "God has made a way" I just genuinely don't understand why you can't say that - especially on the heels of you you are "happy to share your knowledge." It's perfectly fine for us two rational people to then disagree as to whether the dogmatic belief is then one of love or one of childish jealousy.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Ultimately, this conversation goes back to what seemed like an accusation of Mackie that I’d guess isn’t very fair. But I also don’t want this to be about me serving as his defense attorney in this thread. That’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand what’s in bounds and out of bounds in your hermeneutic.

Let’s start here. What is a good hermeneutic to utilize when studying / reading the Bible.

But first, let’s understand why me fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestant belief systems. I think that’s an important distinction to point out because a lot of folks posting in here grew up Catholic, drafted easy as an adult, and haven’t given it much thought in years / decades.

@Joe Bryant or any other “good Catholics” - please check me & see if my view is correct.

---

Catholic FBGs - tell me if you think this is true.

In order for a Protestant to understand Catholic theology - I suspect most don't care to know - it's probably good to understand a fundamental difference in Biblical authority. The bedrock tenet of the Reformation is the Five Solas:

• sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
• solus Christus (Christ alone)
• sola fide (faith alone)
• sola gratia (grace alone)
• soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)

The first one speaks to the preeminence of the Bible. Our understanding of what we believe begins and ends with what scripture has to say. It is the all sufficient inspired Word, and when we handle it correctly, able to provide us with an understanding on the nature and character of God, and how we should live our lives.

Any theological discussion starts with "Did God say that? Where can I find it?"

Our Catholic brethren have a different view.

Catholicism teaches that the doctrines contained in Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the Church) are authoritative because God's revelation is the source of both. The Catechism puts it this way: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God.”

Just pointing this out so we can understand one another better. We come at any subject with a distinctly different hermeneutic.

Did I represent the basic Catholic belief system correctly?

Thanks. So, "outside of scripture" is another way of talking about sola scriptura. My understanding of sola scriptura is exactly as you posted. It was the Reformers answer to their 16th century question of whether or not Church Tradition was also authoritative. I really don't know what's all included in this Church Tradition, but I'm fine with the idea that it wasn't God's revelation and isn't on the same level as scripture.

I think, though, that various people can approach the scriptures with the same sola scriptura presupposition and reach different interpretations on something like atonement. I'm sure many reject PSA without much study at all and care more about how the theory makes them feel rather than whether or not the evidence supports it or not. But, I also assume that many reached that same conclusion through deep study and an honest, faithful approach. I assume a similar spectrum exists on the side of those who accept PSA.

I'm wondering if we might differ in our beliefs regarding our ability to determine what scripture has to say. I think much of scripture is probably difficult for us to understand the intended meaning due to the gaps of language, time, and culture. I'm thankful for all the hard work our translators do, but I think of an English translation to be an imperfect starting point that introduces difficulties. So, while I think it's very important to focus on what scripture has to say, I don't think it's always clear to us what it is saying. "What does the Bible say?" isn't always straight forward, IMO. I don't want to give off the impression that I think Biblical interpretation is a lost cause. I'm not going to try to put a percentage on it, but I think we know A LOT about what scripture says and we are learning more and more. We should strive to understand as much as we can and move that conversation forward if we truly believe it's the Word of God and I'm glad we have a lot of really smart people doing that who can debate with each other and present their interpretations to the larger community for consideration.

I have often wondered if there would be interest in having a FBGs Bible Study thread.

I always thought it would be be hard to do, though. There is a lot of vitriolic reaction to most discussions about Christianity or the Bible.

Lot of wounded folks out there, ya know.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Rules of discourse? Respectfully, I asked a pretty straightforward yes or no question simply to confirm a pretty significant dogmatic principle. I ask this in good faith to make sure we are on the same page as to the interpretation of what the Bible says about how to get to heaven. I'm not even challenging the interpretation - I just want to make sure we are interpreting it the same way (that if one doesn't believe, one must go to Hell under God's rules).

I think you're saying "yes" to my question when you state that "God has made a way" I just genuinely don't understand why you can't say that - especially on the heels of you you are "happy to share your knowledge." It's perfectly fine for us two rational people to then disagree as to whether the dogmatic belief is then one of love or one of childish jealousy.

I gather this aggressive tone serves you well in your profession.

 

[Zow]

Rules of discourse? Respectfully, I asked a pretty straightforward yes or no question simply to confirm a pretty significant dogmatic principle. I ask this in good faith to make sure we are on the same page as to the interpretation of what the Bible says about how to get to heaven. I'm not even challenging the interpretation - I just want to make sure we are interpreting it the same way (that if one doesn't believe, one must go to Hell under God's rules).

I think you're saying "yes" to my question when you state that "God has made a way" I just genuinely don't understand why you can't say that - especially on the heels of you you are "happy to share your knowledge." It's perfectly fine for us two rational people to then disagree as to whether the dogmatic belief is then one of love or one of childish jealousy.

I gather this aggressive tone serves you well in your profession.

I'm not at all being aggressive (I understand the written word can be difficult to infer tone but I'm genuinely not - I'm literally just asking you a yes or no question) and in my profession I would have been able to object to your answer as nonresponsive and request that you, under oath (having sworn to God to tell the truth assuming you chose that particular admonition), be directed to actually answer the question.

 

[Zow]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

 

[BobbyLayne]

Who will go to hell?

 

[fatness]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA. Everyone is free to do and think what they want.

Well I think you are making an ***waves arms all around*** overly broad statement. Or possibly you're just making flippant remarks.
Are you OK?

 

[Mister CIA]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

yo, Solomon was right

Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

English Standard Version
​

2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens[b] to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,[c]
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.

*my friend once upon a time was a submariner; me, I preferred being on the surface

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA. Everyone is free to do and think what they want.

Well I think you are making an ***waves arms all around*** overly broad statement. Or possibly you're just making flippant remarks.
Are you OK?

you have a great sense of humor fatness. no snark, I've always admired that quality in you. not sure that we've been much more than two ships passing each other in the night the last 17 years or so, but you are low key one of my favorite posters.

respect

you are correct in your assessment.

been having these types of conversations for roughly 51 years, the last 47 as a professing (deeply flawed) believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ. they all kind of end up in the same place, and I confess it is difficult for me to engage....it's so tedious. to my mind. others enjoy the back and forth.

not sure I move things forward in a positive way so I'll try to stay out of the way going forward.

as you were, folks....

 

[BobbyLayne]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

WELL.....WE'RE WAITING (@Paddington)

---

Woz,

quick aside - what's your handicap these days? still playing a lot, or has the career and being a good dad been getting in the way?

---

***breathes out***

day 22 of wifey in the hospital....got home at 1:30 a.m. last night.

wasn't at my best last night, and I am poorly equipped to begin with. I claim to be Christ's Ambassador 24/7/365....the truth is I am often not up to the challenge.

sorry you found my cryptic, meandering diatribes frustrating.

you can take some solace in knowing you're trying to talk to someone with several comorbidities....not an excuse, just stating facts.

I am mentally ill. literally, certifiably. live with this stuff every day. some days are better than others.

anxiety, depression, PTSD - the trinity for most of us who suffered a moral injury while serving

dealing with the after affects of having seen combat ****s ya up pretty good. it's just flat out hard for me to be patient and kind with others.

anyway, yep, they're all going to hell if they have not found Jesus

John 14:6 says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". It is part of a conversation between Jesus and his disciples during the Last Supper.

the implications of that are obvious, right?

tough one to get around.

but I am not sure there is any other way to interpret the text. John 14:6 isn't obscure theology - red letter text, the words of Jesus the Christ.

seems unambiguous to me.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Ultimately, this conversation goes back to what seemed like an accusation of Mackie that I’d guess isn’t very fair. But I also don’t want this to be about me serving as his defense attorney in this thread. That’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand what’s in bounds and out of bounds in your hermeneutic.

Let’s start here. What is a good hermeneutic to utilize when studying / reading the Bible.

But first, let’s understand why me fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestant belief systems. I think that’s an important distinction to point out because a lot of folks posting in here grew up Catholic, drafted easy as an adult, and haven’t given it much thought in years / decades.

@Joe Bryant or any other “good Catholics” - please check me & see if my view is correct.

---

Catholic FBGs - tell me if you think this is true.

In order for a Protestant to understand Catholic theology - I suspect most don't care to know - it's probably good to understand a fundamental difference in Biblical authority. The bedrock tenet of the Reformation is the Five Solas:

• sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
• solus Christus (Christ alone)
• sola fide (faith alone)
• sola gratia (grace alone)
• soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)

The first one speaks to the preeminence of the Bible. Our understanding of what we believe begins and ends with what scripture has to say. It is the all sufficient inspired Word, and when we handle it correctly, able to provide us with an understanding on the nature and character of God, and how we should live our lives.

Any theological discussion starts with "Did God say that? Where can I find it?"

Our Catholic brethren have a different view.

Catholicism teaches that the doctrines contained in Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (the Church) are authoritative because God's revelation is the source of both. The Catechism puts it this way: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God.”

Just pointing this out so we can understand one another better. We come at any subject with a distinctly different hermeneutic.

Did I represent the basic Catholic belief system correctly?

Thanks. So, "outside of scripture" is another way of talking about sola scriptura. My understanding of sola scriptura is exactly as you posted. It was the Reformers answer to their 16th century question of whether or not Church Tradition was also authoritative. I really don't know what's all included in this Church Tradition, but I'm fine with the idea that it wasn't God's revelation and isn't on the same level as scripture.

I think, though, that various people can approach the scriptures with the same sola scriptura presupposition and reach different interpretations on something like atonement. I'm sure many reject PSA without much study at all and care more about how the theory makes them feel rather than whether or not the evidence supports it or not. But, I also assume that many reached that same conclusion through deep study and an honest, faithful approach. I assume a similar spectrum exists on the side of those who accept PSA.

I'm wondering if we might differ in our beliefs regarding our ability to determine what scripture has to say. I think much of scripture is probably difficult for us to understand the intended meaning due to the gaps of language, time, and culture. I'm thankful for all the hard work our translators do, but I think of an English translation to be an imperfect starting point that introduces difficulties. So, while I think it's very important to focus on what scripture has to say, I don't think it's always clear to us what it is saying. "What does the Bible say?" isn't always straight forward, IMO. I don't want to give off the impression that I think Biblical interpretation is a lost cause. I'm not going to try to put a percentage on it, but I think we know A LOT about what scripture says and we are learning more and more. We should strive to understand as much as we can and move that conversation forward if we truly believe it's the Word of God and I'm glad we have a lot of really smart people doing that who can debate with each other and present their interpretations to the larger community for consideration.

WRT the bolded (your last paragraph)

there are definitely unanswerable mysteries to the faith. over the years I have grown increasingly comfortable with simply saying "I don't know."

that doesn't impede me from diving as deeply as I can to discern what the answers might be.

but....I love to nerd out on the text, but it's also amazingly simple. anyone can read the gospels and understand it. the gospel is not hidden.

I will say that for the first three years of my own journey.....roughly 1974-1977....I read the Bible without understanding it fully. I gained a lot of knowledge - I wore out my first Bible, a hard cover The Living Bible translation that was in vogue around then....it was falling apart after three years. our local librarian repaired the binding for me so I could keep using it.

In April 1977 (towards the end of my freshman year of h.s.), I made a decision for Christ. I did not grow up in the church, I didn't adopt my parents faith and then later came to make it personal for myself later. I was on an existential quest for almost three years, and in some ways still am.

after I became a believer, after I made a public profession of faith, it was as if scales fell off my eyes. for the first time the Bible starting making sense on a deeper, more spiritual level. I wasn't just adding to my knowledge base. I was beginning to understand the nature and character of the Triune God.

we know the nature and character of God primarily through two things: the Bible, and through the life of God incarnate, Jesus. Everything is filtered through what the Bible says. hope that makes sense but let me know if I am being obtuse.

I don't think it's always clear to us what it is saying. "What does the Bible say?" isn't always straight forward, IMO.

I think everything we need for life and Godliness is contained in the 66 books found in the Bible.

I'd like to do a series of posts on how to read and interpret the Bible, why historical context is crucial to our understanding, how the Bible is trustworthy as an authoritative source.

not sure if I should do that here or start another thread?

or...not do it at all?

I find It hard to express myself freely if I am being made to feel defensive because I believe in God and believe the Bible is God's message to us.

that's my weakness, y'all, I gotta work through that on my own. just trying to be open and vulnerable and honest here.

 

[TennesseeJed]

I'd like to do a series of posts on how to read and interpret the Bible, why historical context is crucial to our understanding, how the Bible is trustworthy as an authoritative source.

A few thoughts - if you think there is a singular way for everyone to read and interpret the bible, I think you are doing yourself a great disservice.

If you truly put the bible into historical context and consider the authors, their world views, and motivations for writing specific books/chapters, I think you would find that it casts far more doubt on its authenticity as the singular source of understanding god, godliness, and how we fit into the bigger picture. In addition to the authors you should consider the context and motivations of the men who ultimately decided on what books were included in the bible - and how to tell a story.

The concept of god is complex, and probably still beyond our comprehension - and it takes a bit of hubris to think that anyone of us (all of humanity) has identified the key - or even that there is a singular key or answer.

My suggestion is that you follow your beliefs with an open heart and an open mind - allow that there are things you don't understand, things that maybe you have gotten wrong, and things that are still out there to learn - by listening to god speak through others.


One of the things I have really enjoyed about this thread is the interactions from @dgreen This is pretty clearly a topic that is near and dear to his heart, and by my observations, he is eager to find a deeper understanding. When I see his responses, I see someone asking questions and offering his own perspective. He is not drawing conclusions, or telling people what they must do or not do - but taking on board information from many different sources and adding/subtracting to his own views based on new information. Some things may cause him to re-think ideas, while other information might confirm an existing belief.

I think people in general should take this approach with everything - not just religion. We should be in a constant state of learning, taking on board new information and assimilating that with our existing knowledge base. Learn to put yourselves in different shoes to see things from different perspectives. When we are certain we have the answers, we stop learning, and growing.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I'd like to do a series of posts on how to read and interpret the Bible, why historical context is crucial to our understanding, how the Bible is trustworthy as an authoritative source.

A few thoughts - if you think there is a singular way for everyone to read and interpret the bible, I think you are doing yourself a great disservice.

If you truly put the bible into historical context and consider the authors, their world views, and motivations for writing specific books/chapters, I think you would find that it casts far more doubt on its authenticity as the singular source of understanding god, godliness, and how we fit into the bigger picture. In addition to the authors you should consider the context and motivations of the men who ultimately decided on what books were included in the bible - and how to tell a story.

The concept of god is complex, and probably still beyond our comprehension - and it takes a bit of hubris to think that anyone of us (all of humanity) has identified the key - or even that there is a singular key or answer.

My suggestion is that you follow your beliefs with an open heart and an open mind - allow that there are things you don't understand, things that maybe you have gotten wrong, and things that are still out there to learn - by listening to god speak through others.


One of the things I have really enjoyed about this thread is the interactions from @dgreen This is pretty clearly a topic that is near and dear to his heart, and by my observations, he is eager to find a deeper understanding. When I see his responses, I see someone asking questions and offering his own perspective. He is not drawing conclusions, or telling people what they must do or not do - but taking on board information from many different sources and adding/subtracting to his own views based on new information. Some things may cause him to re-think ideas, while other information might confirm an existing belief.

I think people in general should take this approach with everything - not just religion. We should be in a constant state of learning, taking on board new information and assimilating that with our existing knowledge base. Learn to put yourselves in different shoes to see things from different perspectives. When we are certain we have the answers, we stop learning, and growing.

That’s a nice post. Thanks man. Great post, actually.

You make quite a few wrong presumptions about me along the way of making some solid points, but that’s cool. We don’t know each other and misses are to be expected.

Have a an awesome day, Jed.

 

[BobbyLayne]

One aspect I loved about @TennesseeJed’s post (2 up) is how we should always be curious. We have a lot we can learn from each other if we keep that thirst alive.

Always being curious is a great approach to life.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On the topic of how the Bible was composed and what that says about its authority, I actually watched another one's of Mackie's videos last night that got into this topic. I have fairly well-developed opinions on this issue already, and it turns out that Mackie seems to more or less exactly share my view on this one. I've never understood why I'm supposed to be bothered by the fact that the Bible is made up of a bunch of books written by different people at different points in time. You're reading reading primary documents written by a community of believers, not just one random person. That's pretty cool IMO.

 

[Mister CIA]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

yo, Solomon was right

Ecclesiastes 1:2-11​

​

English Standard Version​

​

2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens[b] to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow
8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,[c]
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.

*my friend once upon a time was a submariner; me, I preferred being on the surface

He who knocks shall be let in. Welcome aboard, my surface puke* amigo.

Spoiler alert: It's just a ride

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

youtu.be

 

[dgreen]

On the topic of how the Bible was composed and what that says about its authority, I actually watched another one's of Mackie's videos last night that got into this topic. I have fairly well-developed opinions on this issue already, and it turns out that Mackie seems to more or less exactly share my view on this one. I've never understood why I'm supposed to be bothered by the fact that the Bible is made up of a bunch of books written by different people at different points in time. You're reading reading primary documents written by a community of believers, not just one random person. That's pretty cool IMO.

Yep. The idea that something "divine" can also be "human" was a major shift for me a few years ago. Well, ok, obviously I had that understanding of Jesus but I hadn't considered it for the Bible (or anything else). It's helped me even see Jesus differently. I've spent most of my life focusing on the divine aspect of Jesus and less on his humanity. When it came to the Bible, I really didn't consider it's humanity at all until recently. Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns was my first exposure to that idea.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Thoughts on Peter Enns (r/Reformed discussion)

I have read most (all?) of his early books.

• Poetry and Wisdom
• Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt
• Exodus: from biblical text

The last book of his that I tried to read was Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.

Two observations and then I'll leave this alone, I am not qualified to offer strong opinions one way or another.

1. His first four books were published by Baker or Zondervan, publishing houses that have long held significant portions of my theology bookshelves. Over the last 15+ years all of his published works have been published by more theologically liberal printers or outright secular firms.
   
   ASIDE - Inspiration and Incarnation was poorly received in Reformed circles and led to his dismissal from Westminster Theological Seminary (northwest Philadelphia school which trained the majority of the men I have sat under in my 25 years of living in NYC; my current pastor went there.)
   
   
2. I have lost dozens of friends in the faith to deconstruction over the past decade. Enns is a big favorite with folks who deconstruct themselves out of the faith.

---

I think I have a better sense of where this thread has gone in the time I was away (wifey is taking a turn for the better, thank you.)

It would be in everyone's best interest if I don't post here anymore. When i posted the Monday night I did so having only read the previous page (pg 10) of posts. Having caught up now, I know this vibe and where it's headed. I have nothing of value to contribute here.

Wish you guys all the best in your respective spiritual journeys. There are a lot of voices out there; let he who has ears, listen so…

… m15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

See ya in The Shark Pool.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Almost forgot

this kid gets it

He was part of the Playoff record crowd 0f 44,885 at Comerica Park yesterday. Tigers have a shot at closing it out today. On August 10, they had a 0.2% chance of making the playoffs; they finished 30-13 (.698), swept the Astos 2-0 in the Wild Card, and are up 2-1 in the ALDS.

Eat 'em up Tigers!

 

[dgreen]

(wifey is taking a turn for the better, thank you.)

 

[-fish-]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It would be in everyone's best interest if I don't post here anymore.

Hard disagree, but you're not new here (obvs) and you should post as you feel comfortable. I'll see you in gameday threads regardless.

 

[Zow]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

 

[Scoresman]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

 

[Zow]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

?

@BobbyLayne provided some source materials above on this very issue.

 

[TennesseeJed]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.