DescentBB

The following quoteâ?¦

Matthew, quoting Jesus, wrote:anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

â?¦is from This thread.


I have a question regarding that. Why is it such a bad thing to call someone a fool? Is it because only God can judge? Is calling someone a fool considered a sin or is it something short of that?

My guess is that it's related to the fact that "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" (from the Bible) or something.

Not to insult anybody who attaches more importance to it, but that is nothing more than folklore.

I don't see a point in quoting the bible. I had to do a fair bit of bible-reading at school, but I've grown out of it. I prefer Harry Potter now

Tricord wrote:I prefer Harry Potter now

Heathen!

Because the lemmings were told so, so it must be?

The passage is about the danger associated with unresolved anger ("first be reconciled . . .", "agree with your adversary quickly") In the specific verse you mention, three levels of anger are mentioned: being (continually) angry, calling someone "Raka", and calling someone a fool. Presumably, these are three levels of increasing intensity. I suppose that the use of such language had a much stronger meaning to Jesus' hearers than it has to us.

But as I said, I take the moral of the story to be about unresolved anger.

Unresolved anger is what's left over after you were unable to road-rage the fool that cut you off.

De Rigueur has it right. That particular verse comes from a famous passage called "The Sermon On The Mount," found in Matthew 5-7. In narrow context, the quote about calling someone a fool is about unresolved anger. It isn't something magical about the words, "you fool," it's something bad about anger.

To answer Dedman's questions, the harsh punishment makes more sense in the broader context of the larger passage, which sets some very high moral standards, and it makes even more sense in the context of Christian theology.

To give a feel for the passage first, here are some of the more famous bits of it:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies.

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

If the teaching seems harsh and radical, that's because it was meant to be. Jesus is setting some impossibly high moral standards. The verse in question is another example of that:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The religious elite in Jesus' time thought that being good was a matter of being "good enough." They followed the law found in the old testament, and thought that made them moral. Jesus' sermon here is meant to shock the people into realizing that their moral standards are set far too low. They think following the rules makes them good people. He's telling them that in reality, they're still guilty.

In the repeated "you have heard it said" / "but I say to you" refrain, the first clause always refers to an old testament law, and the second always gives a stronger command. To paraphrase the verses in question, Jesus is saying "You think you're righteous because you follow the law that says 'don't murder.' That's a righteous thing, but you need to do more: you shouldn't get angry in the first place."

Popular culture has a misunderstanding of Christian teaching when it comes to man's guilt before God. Most people seem to think that if you're a "decent person" or you're "good enough," God approves of you. So you have people who half-heartedly believe in heaven--and they mean the Christian idea of it--and they just sort of hope that they're "good enough to get in."

The reality is that man is hopelessly guilty before God. Not because God is overly harsh, but because he is so much more moral than we are. There is a theme of moral improvement throughout human history--people several centuries ago approved of all sorts of things (imperialistic conquest, slavery, women's social inferiority) that we find abhorrent these days. If we were to come face to face with a man who lived near the end of the middle ages, it's very possible that he could consider himself an extremely moral man, and we would be repulsed by some of the things he believed and did.

Likewise, God's morals are higher than ours--much, much more so than 21st century morals are higher than 14th century morals. It is almost certain that there are things I do daily and unconsciously that God finds morally abhorrent--and if it were properly explained to me, I would find them abhorrent too.

In The Sermon On The Mount, Jesus gives us a peek at God's morality. In doing so, he sets some impossibly high standards. Who could live a life without ever getting wrongly angry, without ever entertaining wrong sexual fantasies, without so much as shouting a word of angry rebuke? Asking people to consistently love their enemies is asking impossibly much!

So when he says you're in danger of going to hell for something as minor as shouting "you fool!" in a moment of anger, I don't think he's exaggerating. And it isn't because there's something particularly bad about the words "you fool" as Viralphrame seemed to guess earlier in the thread. Rather it's because God is so moral that even a little bit of raw anger is abhorrent to him--perhaps the same way that even a little bit of raw racism is abhorrent to us (even though people centuries ago didn't mind it).

Traditionally, this idea has been called "Total Depravity." My Systematic Theology textbook defines the teaching this way: "In our natures we totally lack spiritual good before God, and in our actions we are totally unable to do spiritual good before God." In essence, God is so much more moral than we are that we don't even properly know what moral *is*, let alone are we able to behave acceptably in his eyes.

The quoted verse is one of the more morally shocking ones in the passage, to be sure. It's shocking from a Christian perspective, too. There isn't some weird Christian doctrine about the words "you fool" being evil--when Lothar quoted the verse in that other thread, he was just being playful. But the surface impression apart from that is correct enough. The Christian God is a God who thinks people deserve hell for such a minor outburst as "you fool!"? Yeah. He is. If that's shocking to you, or makes you think "Geez, I'm glad he isn't real," then you understand things far better than pop culture does.

This is why I laugh when some atheists suggest that Christians believe in God out of fear--fear that the universe doesn't care for them, that life has no purpose, that there is nobody looking out for them. Perhaps this statement makes sense, if we're talking about wishful thinking, casual Christianity--the sort that believes in a chummy God who gives his approval to any person who's decent and doesn't do anything really terrible.

But to someone who actually studies Christian doctrine and has an idea of what God is actually supposed to be like, this idea doesn't hold much water at all. The possibility that there is a God who is supremely moral is only comforting if you don't think about it very hard. If you do think about how a perfectly moral and truly superior god would relate to humanity, the idea isn't anything close to comforting. It's terrifying.

Drakona wrote:...The reality is that man is hopelessly guilty before God. Not because God is overly harsh, but because he is so much more moral than we are. There is a theme of moral improvement throughout human history--...

...Likewise, God's morals are higher than ours--much, much more so than 21st century morals are higher than 14th century morals. It is almost certain that there are things I do daily and unconsciously that God finds morally abhorrent--and if it were properly explained to me, I would find them abhorrent too. ...

...So when he says you're in danger of going to hell for something as minor as shouting "you fool!" in a moment of anger, I don't think he's exaggerating....

...In essence, God is so much more moral than we are that we don't even properly know what moral *is*, let alone are we able to behave acceptably in his eyes.....

The Christian God is a God who thinks people deserve hell for such a minor outburst as "you fool!"? Yeah. He is. If that's shocking to you, or makes you think "Geez, I'm glad he isn't real," then you understand things far better than pop culture does.....

....The possibility that there is a God who is supremely moral is only comforting if you don't think about it very hard. If you do think about how a perfectly moral and truly superior god would relate to humanity, the idea isn't anything close to comforting. It's terrifying.

Very interesting, I'd never had that explained to me before.

Am I right in assuming then that it is unlikely that anyone has made it into heaven yet and we are a work in progress...eventually we will develop into a people that will make the grade?

Beyond spooky if you ask me.

Which leads me to a few questions I have often pondered.

Did god make heaven and hell? If so, why?
And if we are so far from worthy of entrance to heaven did he create us to be so flawed on purpose, as some kind of experiment maybe?

I'm not trying to be gratuitously blasphemous here but...
If I could ask him one question it would be 'WTF's up with that?!?'

De Rigueur wrote:The passage is about the danger associated with unresolved anger ("first be reconciled . . .", "agree with your adversary quickly")

Interestingly, agreeing with your adversary quickly doesn't resolve anger, but builds it.

Thanks Drakona for that explanation.

Drakona wrote:There isn't some weird Christian doctrine about the words "you fool" being evil--when Lothar quoted the verse in that other thread, he was just being playful.

I didn't think Lothar was playing the fire and brimstone card so to speak. It is just that I had a childhood friend that was Catholic who used to say that calling someone a fool is a sin. I had totally forgotten about it until Lothar's post. I was just curious as to the origins and the meaning of the passage.

Drakona wrote:when Lothar quoted the verse in that other thread, he was just being playful.

Actually, I was putting forth a challenge to someone who had continually talked about "higher standards" but did not seem interested in following them himself, and who has made certain religious statements in the past that make me think a Biblical quote would be an appropriate response to him. It wasn't really "playful", but on the other hand, as Dedman said, it wasn't the "fire and brimstone" card. I was simply calling him out on his hypocrisy, and including an extra quote to make it clear he'd fallen far short of "higher standards".

With respect to the actual theology of the statement, Drakona was right on. Simply put, our own morality -- even as advanced as we sometimes are -- still falls far, far short of perfection. I have no doubt that in a thousand years, people will look back on us as barbaric, just as we look back on people from a thousand years ago who were doing the best they possibly could as barbaric.

Mehyam wrote:Interestingly, agreeing with your adversary quickly doesn't resolve anger, but builds it.

That depends on what you mean by "agree" -- if you mean "pretend to agree and drop the issue but stew over it" then yes, that does build anger. But that's not what the Bible passage is getting at -- it's suggesting that you actually settle matters (not simply pretend to agree), and that you make it a priority to do so. This doesn't build anger, but rather, builds trust and friendship. If you realize your brother has something against you, make it a priority to be reconciled -- make it a priority to repair the relationship. That's what the passage is getting at, and it's wonderful advice.

Will Robinson wrote:Am I right in assuming then that (1) it is unlikely that anyone has made it into heaven yet and (2) we are a work in progress... (3) eventually we will develop into a people that will make the grade?

(1) is a matter of doctrinal controversy, thought not for the reasons you suppose. Some people believe that for a true Christian or Jew (what makes one "true" is itself a matter of controversy), when that person dies, they are instantly transported to heaven. Others (mostly Mormons and JW's) believe that when such a person dies, they sit in some sort of stasis until the end of the earth and the final judgement. (The Catholic idea of purgatory is sort of a mix between the two.) Both sides have Biblical passages that support their beliefs, though the first is more mainstream and I find it much more compelling (I can give more details if you're interested.)

With respect to the issue at hand, though -- the question of "is anybody good enough yet?" or "has anyone in history ever been good enough?" -- the answer is, nobody ever will be. It's not a question of being good enough, as my answer to (3) and your next question will highlight.

(2) is entirely true, but then, it's also not certain whether or not we stop becoming a "work in progress" when we reach heaven. I personally don't think we do. We may lose our sinful nature at that time, but we still have a long way to grow. (Again, I can explain more details if you're interested.)

(3) is, I believe, based on a false premise -- that is, it's based on the idea that the grade can eventually be made by our own development, that eventually we can get good enough. I don't think it can be -- it's like trying to reach infinity by starting at 1 and adding +1 over and over again. You never get there; you never really even get close. The only way to reach that level is to give up control of yourself, and to allow God to bring you to that level on His terms -- to allow Him to completely transform you. Not everyone will get there, and society as a whole won't ever get there, either -- even if everyone *knew* God existed and everyone *knew* what was needed in order to end up in heaven, people would still decide that they weren't willing to give up control of their lives. (Following God because you want into heaven is, itself, a bad way to get there -- He does not desire people to follow Him out of selfish motives, but out of love. Also see my answer to the next question.)

The end result of this is... yes, some people have already entered heaven. No, they didn't do it by getting good enough, and no, we as a society and as individuals will never do it by getting good enough either.

Will Robinson wrote:Did god make heaven and hell? If so, why?

That, too, is not very well established. My own theory (which is at least as much philosophy as theology) is that heaven and hell are simply names for "with God" and "not with God" (that's slightly inaccurate, but close enough for the purposes of this thread.) It's not as though God went out and created a place called "heaven" and one called "hell"; rather, the concept of "heaven" and "hell" are necessary consequences of the existance of God -- being with Him is necessarily very, very good, and being apart from Him is necessarily very, very bad. It just so happens that it's more convenient to speak of these as places than speaking of them as permanent relational states.

This is why you don't get into heaven by being good enough -- because heaven is, by its very nature, dwelling in relationship with God. You only get there by being in a relationship with Him. You don't earn your way into living with God by selling enough girl scout cookies, obeying enough doctrines, killing enough infidels, handing out enough Bibles, becoming righteous enough, or any of the other acts that various religions say you need to do to get to heaven. You get there one and only way -- by being in relationship with God. God often describes His chosen people (Israel, and later the church) as if they were preparing to be married to Him (and not as an arranged marriage, but as a marriage of choice by both parties) -- implying that the relationship and the development of intimacy are the deciding factors. Relationship and intimacy are the true goals, and the truly important things to have.

One might then ask, why all the doctrines in the Bible about the way you should behave? Those sort of make it seem as though you're trying to earn your way into heaven by being good enough, right? Well, you don't do them because you're trying to earn anything -- you do them because you know they make God happy, and if you're intimate with someone, making them happy is a thing you'll naturally desire and work toward. (As an aside... imagine if more people treated marriage like that!) The perception that you're earning your way by becoming good enough is, simply put, a misperception. You become good *because* you have a relationship with God, not the other way around.

And if we are so far from worthy of entrance to heaven (1) did he create us to be so flawed on purpose, (2) as some kind of experiment maybe?

This is, again, a matter of some controversy. It's a really deep question -- I think I can sort of answer it, but it's a question that people have struggled with for thousands of years, and there's a lot of depth to a proper answer. It's a question I probably will never be able to fully answer. All I can really give is a sort of "baby answer" to the question; even if you were an expert on theology and a long-time Christian all I could do is sort of guide you in the right general direction, because that's the best I can do for myself.

I do know that (2) is false -- there certainly isn't anything experimental, either in the playful sense or in the cruel mad-scientist sense, in anything I know about God's purposes for creation.

With respect to (1), He created us (as we are) on purpose. The ability to become flawed (which we all exercise) is innate in that -- we would not be who we are if we were not able to become flawed. So why did He create flawed beings? What made Him interested in beings like us, rather than beings that started perfect? Well, the baby-answer is because He wanted to redeem us and He wanted us to desire Him -- He wanted to take beings from a flawed state into a perfect state, and He wanted us to have a say in it. That is, I think He wanted to have a relationship with beings who *chose* to be with Him and to be transformed by Him even though they had a real alternative. (And, as with several other points, I could explain more if you want more details.)

0_o , wow.. do you folks do anything but type?

what a good read. Thanks all!

in short, it's a riling accusation brought forth from a condition of heart. In this case hatred.

"A man speaks from the treasures of his heart."
can't remember which passage this is.

"For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34, and similarly in Luke 6:45)

If you have a hard time remembering, you can always go to the Bible gateway and search for relevant keywords.

And if we are so far from worthy of entrance to heaven (1) did he create us to be so flawed on purpose, (2) as some kind of experiment maybe?

one quick comment.

Worthyness was lost because of a choice. By Adam. It was by is decentant son, Jesus, that worthyness was regained as a gift. .. kinda like posting bail only you have been excused from the sentencing.

that is why Jesus is called the son of Man. This refers to Adam.




Edit: Great link!, an on-line condorinance. I was trying to post this btw, but I couldn't get back onto the site. That happens sometimes ... dunno why.

Good post Drak, interesting. And i'm a heathen to boot...go figure.

Thanks Lothar. I never expected the answers to be encouraging but they were.
I'm no less a stray but not as wrong as I thought I might be.

Thanks, Will...

Duper, another good site is http://bible.crosswalk.com/ -- has bibles and plenty of tools (including Hebrew and Greek lexicons)

MehYam wrote:

De Rigueur wrote:The passage is about the danger associated with unresolved anger ("first be reconciled . . .", "agree with your adversary quickly")

Interestingly, agreeing with your adversary quickly doesn't resolve anger, but builds it.

I think if you actually read it in full context, you'll see it doesn't say what you think it does. Read it:

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

The cases are both more specific than the general point you seem to be arguing with.

Lothar wrote:

Drakona wrote:when Lothar quoted the verse in that other thread, he was just being playful.

Actually...

My bad. I thought you were misquoting intentionally to make a funny serious point.

More seriously...

Will, you ask a lot of big questions all right in a row. I feel sort of like when a little kid comes up and goes, "Why is the sky blue? Where do babies come from? What makes cars work? Why does it rain? When do fish sleep?" I know most of the answers, but a lot of them take a lot of time to explain. And some are riddles of the ages.

Am I right in assuming then that it is unlikely that anyone has made it into heaven yet and we are a work in progress...eventually we will develop into a people that will make the grade?

To the first, it really depends on what you mean by "anyone has made it into heaven yet." If you're asking whether there are people in heaven right now looking down on us... the Bible doesn't give any indication that way, but it doesn't rule it out either. Catholics certainly think there are people in heaven. Some non-Catholics I've talked to also think so. I tend to think not, but that we'll all arrive at the same time. In my estimation, it's largely speculation, and not a very important point, and it certainly hasn't been a large doctrinal issue in church history.

But if you mean, rather, has anyone made it in, in the sense that they've finally become worthy? I can't really answer because the question is based on a faulty assumption: that getting into heaven is about making the grade. Going to heaven isn't something you earn, or something you eventually become good enough to deserve. First, living morally is hard to achieve. Even if you could hold to the high demands made in the Sermon on the Mount, there's no guarantee that that's all that's required to be truly moral. Even if you could hold to every command in all of scripture, and uphold every moral virtue society and others espouse, there's no guarantee you wouldn't have missed something.

At a more fundamental level, though, that's not what heaven's about. Heaven is not a reward for a well-lived life, or a society of moral people. Some people view God as a cosmic umpire for humanity, who has created heaven and hell as just rewards for earthly life. God does function as a judge and will repay people justly for what has happened on earth, but that is not what heaven is about. Heaven is not about you living in paradise, it's not about a reward for earthly deeds, it's not about you at all. It's about being with God.

All of the driving force of Christianity is a love affair with God--God's love for man, and man's love for God. If the idea of going away to pray excites you, if the very suggestion that you can see God fills you with delight the way you're delighted seeing someone you're in love with, if God's presence makes your heart leap up with joy, you'd like heaven, and God would like to have you there. If the idea of being with God just doesn't interest you--or worse, if it sounds like something you'd actively dislike and possibly find painful I imagine you probably wouldn't like heaven even if you could get there.

Heaven is not a cloudy mansion, a reward for earthly good deeds. It is a honeymoon between God and people who love him. I mean, there is a mansion involved--there is in most marriages where one party is exceedingly rich--but that is not the point, and should not be the point. The marriage analogy is just an analogy, but it does come from the Bible, and illustrates the point very well. Heaven is not about the mansion. Heaven is about God.

All of mankind is guilty before God, as I said in my first post. Very guilty, and the things we do are offensive and vile, even when we're trying to do right. The evil we do hurts God, it offends him, it makes him sad, and it destroys any chance we have of happily spending time with God (as much as offending a friend shuts the relationship down). And it works just like a friendhip--if we apologize, say we won't do it again, and ask God to forgive us... he's like a good friend that always does. And then we go back to spending time with him.

Those that are going to heaven are going because they know God, and love him, and he knows them. They've sinned hundreds of times, and they continue doing it, continue apologizing, and God continuously forgives them and loves them in spite of what they do. That's the Christian life--living with God, growing up morally educated by him, and spending time just enjoying being with him. And that's what heaven's for--for people who like doing that to just keep on doing it. Only more so.

Christians aren't necessarily any morally superior to others. From the moment they turn to God and say, "I'm sorry," it's not like God makes them perfect or anything. The difference is that God *declares* them innocent on the basis of their apology--that's forgiveness. The theological name for that is grace. (That's not to say behaving morally doesn't matter. Of course it *matters*, for all the same reasons it matters to people who don't believe in God, and then some. It just won't get you into heaven.)

One thing that frustrates me to no end is that people--even Christains!--upon hearing this, immediately say, "Oh, I get it... the thing I have to do to deserve going to heaven is to apologize to God." And then people begin to argue about how it's unfair to all the people that never heard about God in the first place, and others begin to talk about how God is being unfair to them by not proving his existence, and so forth.

That all misses the point entirely. The apology doesn't make you deserve heaven--the question is a total non-sequiter, because heaven is not something that is deserved, it's something that is given. The apology doesn't secure rights to property, it patches the relationship, so that it continues to blossom and ultimately blooms into heaven. None of us *deserves* anything other than hell--it's totally God's initiative that any of us get anything else. It's a free gift to people he loves and who love him.

Will Robinson wrote:Did god make heaven and hell? If so, why?

Did God make them? I think that might have some hidden assumptions about what they are. I think a safer answer is, God and man made them together. I do think hell is almost entirely manmade, and the pain therein is entirely self-inflicted--but here I am running off into philosophy (and conjecture!), and away from scripture, and my fellow Christians are most likely going o_0 Why are they made, what are they there for? That's a deep question. Regaurding hell, I honestly don't really know. Regaurding heaven, I know at least that it's for being with God, and I suspect he's got deeper purposes in mind, though I could only guess.

Will Robinson wrote:And if we are so far from worthy of entrance to heaven did he create us to be so flawed on purpose, as some kind of experiment maybe?

Not as an experiment, but he did make us the way we are on purpose. That's sound (though deep) theology. I have my own guesses as to why, but they are only guesses. The ultimate answer, I know, is "for his pleasure," it's just the how and why of that that are tough. Duper's got it right in saying that man's flaws are man's fault. If you ask whether God made us knowing that we would mess up, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is, he made us such that we would mess up and so that he would save us. If it sounds like I'm being vague and evasive, it's because I'm trying to gloss over some really deep and complicated ideas in a paragraph.

Will Robinson wrote:'WTF's up with that?!?'

LOL. I love your honesty. Hopefully I helped answer that a little. Between my two posts, you've heard the gospel--sin and grace are the two halves. It's the very heart of Christianity, and most other things should make sense in light of that.

-Drak

I guess I am excused then. I did not call the other guy a fool because I was so mad at him, but because he talked like a fool.

It looks like the Descent community has an atypically large faction of Christians to it, right?

MehYam wrote:

De Rigueur wrote:The passage is about the danger associated with unresolved anger ("first be reconciled . . .", "agree with your adversary quickly")

Interestingly, agreeing with your adversary quickly doesn't resolve anger, but builds it.

Sorry. I was trying to be brief, but it seems I created confusion. (Thanks, MehYam, for pointing this out.)

In this passage Jesus extends the application of the Jewish law -- applying it not only to overt actions (murder), but to an individual's internal attitudes (anger). He then extends the scope of his teaching not only to 'you', but to 'your brother'. That is, of course you are responsible for your own attidtudes -- but you should also try to help your brothers with theirs. The general idea is to be proactive when it comes to preserving community harmony.

Will Robinson wrote: And if we are so far from worthy of entrance to heaven did he create us to be so flawed on purpose, as some kind of experiment maybe?

I'd like to take a crack at this. I don't think we need to say that humans were created as flawed, rather they were created with two potentialities: either being God-oriented or self-oriented. I agree with Drakona that God's purpose in creating humans was so that he could love them and they could love him (NB - it is not so that humans can attain some level moral perfection). What does it mean to love God? At least partly it means being God-oriented when you could be self-oriented if you wanted to be. My point is that being created with these two potentialities is essential for fulfilling God's purpose for humanity (it doesn't make sense to say that you love God unless you have some alternative to love.)

It could be said that the preceding point doesn't really matter because God knew that humanity would fall, ie, they would come to know their self-orientation (which is also an anti-God-orientation) not only abstractly, but experientially. However, this development can be seen as an opportunity for humanity to come to know the redemptive aspect of God's nature -- thus being able to love God in a new way. Such redemption is expressed in the above-mentioned teaching of Jesus: if you know your brother has something against you, first be reconciled with your brother. Fallen humanity has something against God, so God makes an attempt at reconciliation. St Paul says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. (It may be useful to reflect on the scenes from the movie, "The Passion of the Christ").

it doesn't make sense to say that you love God unless you have some alternative to love.

That's a dualistic approach, which I believe does not apply here. You can love God w/o having an alternative imo. Having no alternative doesn't mean you have no choice. You can decide not to love God.

Otherwise: Good point.

Diedel wrote: You can love God w/o having an alternative imo.

Maybe so. Maybe for some people or for angels or unfallen races (if there are any).

But in practical human reality, there are many actual alternatives that can displace our love for God. The Bible speaks of those who love pleasure rather than God, those who love the world rather than the Father, lovers of money, you either serve God or money, etc. These different alternatives I collapse into the single idea of self-love. To prefer God to these other things is at least part of what it means to love God, imo.

Thank you for your partial support.

Will Robinson wrote:Am I right in assuming then that it is unlikely that anyone has made it into heaven yet and we are a work in progress...eventually we will develop into a people that will make the grade?

Everyone seems to assume that the general morality of mankind is going somewhere. Will, above your assuming that the world is steadily getting better. Someone like one of those preachers that stand in the middle of cities preaching fire and brimstone would tell you that morality is getting worse. I think great improvements have been made over time (E.G. slavery), but also losses have been suffered. (E.G. loss of family structure) So, I think humanity is somewhat running around in circles, and mostly just sitting still with regards to morality, regardless of how short or far from God's standards that is. I think increased culture and modern knowledge has lead to a more humane world, but not necissarily a more moral world. (Just a thought)

De Rigueur wrote:

Diedel wrote: You can love God w/o having an alternative imo.

Maybe so. Maybe for some people or for angels or unfallen races (if there are any).

But in practical human reality, there are many actual alternatives that can displace our love for God. The Bible speaks of those who love pleasure rather than God, those who love the world rather than the Father, lovers of money, you either serve God or money, etc. These different alternatives I collapse into the single idea of self-love. To prefer God to these other things is at least part of what it means to love God, imo.

Thank you for your partial support.

You're welcome.

I don't believe that you love God because you compare him to something. I believe you love him for who he is. That alternatives exist does not mean they're required for loving God. Their existance can however be a proof of the love to God.

As far as human beings being designed "flawed": Everything "running outside of its specs" will seem flawed. Man was "specified" to by guided by God. He refuses to be, so he acts flawed. Above that, turning from God has damaged him, so to speak.

snoopy,

if I look at humanity I cannot see morality rising. Au contraire. I also don't believe that mankind can work out their redemption (that goes to Will).

Drakona wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Did god make heaven and hell? If so, why?

Did God make them? I think that might have some hidden assumptions about what they are. I think a safer answer is, God and man made them together. I do think hell is almost entirely manmade, and the pain therein is entirely self-inflicted--but here I am running off into philosophy (and conjecture!), and away from scripture, and my fellow Christians are most likely going o_0 Why are they made, what are they there for? That's a deep question. Regaurding hell, I honestly don't really know. Regaurding heaven, I know at least that it's for being with God, and I suspect he's got deeper purposes in mind, though I could only guess.

Just ponder on a person dieing and suddenly getting fully aware of who God is - the absolute, total, deepest fullfilment of all his/her desires, true life, and realizing that he/she will lose this forever. The agony of that simple insight cannot be described. It's hell in itself. It will induce the deepest fear and loneliness. I do not intend contradict the Bible in what it says about hell by this though.

Btw, thank you Drakona, for your simple yet deep explanations.

snoopy wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Am I right in assuming then that it is unlikely that anyone has made it into heaven yet and we are a work in progress...eventually we will develop into a people that will make the grade?

Everyone seems to assume that the general morality of mankind is going somewhere. Will, above your assuming that the world is steadily getting better. Someone like one of those preachers that stand in the middle of cities preaching fire and brimstone would tell you that morality is getting worse. I think great improvements have been made over time (E.G. slavery), but also losses have been suffered. (E.G. loss of family structure) So, I think humanity is somewhat running around in circles, and mostly just sitting still with regards to morality, regardless of how short or far from God's standards that is. I think increased culture and modern knowledge has lead to a more humane world, but not necissarily a more moral world. (Just a thought)

Will, understand that "getting into heaven" is NOT done by "doing stuff the right way". All that needs to be done is telling God, that you will follow Him all your life so that you can spend the rest of eternity with Him. It's a gift with a string. that "string" is developing a close relationship with Christ. Jesus tells of the wedding feast where some will say but didn't we do all these things such as heal the sick, raise the dead, etc, and He says "go away, I have never known you." If we do not spend time with Him, we will not know Him. It's like getting married by snail-mail and never once meeting that person, even if you exchange an occational letter.
We are a work in progress in so much as we have relationship with Christ. If you are indeed His, then you are protected from the judgement that will come to those who are not.

From that relationship, you will do good things; but you can not get to heaven by doing good things alone. Scripture tells us that Good works are evidence of faith. That is to say that if you Have faith - living and developing a relationship with Christ - you will naturally do good things. Kinda like when you fall for a girl and you start doing stuff like giving her flowers and doing all sorts of romantic things. If you are an artist, you do works of art. Veiwing things "in an artistic light" does NOT make you an artist.

By saying "yes" when Jesus says "follow Me.." is what causes you to "make the Grade" The ONLY thing.

EDIT: meh...better judgement got the best of me.

MehYam wrote:

De Rigueur wrote:The passage is about the danger associated with unresolved anger ("first be reconciled . . .", "agree with your adversary quickly")

Interestingly, agreeing with your adversary quickly doesn't resolve anger, but builds it.

This is about forgiveness. Not just trying to get outta trouble. Anger is removed for this equation.

Thanks Drakona, Duper, Snoopy etc.
Good stuff to think about.

I was raised with the fairy tale version of heaven and hell and that probably led to my disbelief. If someone had put it to me like Lothar and Drakona have I might have opened up to it more.
I pray almost daily but it usually goes something like:

"Hey, me again, I know your probably not there but if you are, thanks for the opportunity to be a good Daddy to my kids, they are a true gift and I'm thankful for them and our place on this planet."

I'm not a member of that 'country club' where the members meet sunday mornings under a steeple and do their one hour a week thing. Yet I think I probably live by a higher moral standard than most of them.

I'm drawn to the notion that there is something bigger and more important to our existance than contemporary science can explain...or perhaps that's just a facet of my ego
I see the common threads in most religions and common good in our nature and think there must be something there in the spirituality of man.

That is why I find Lothar and Drakona's explanation of God, Heaven and Hell to be encouraging.
Because it fits with my acceptance and curiosity of the spiritual nature of man and doesn't require the fairy tale scenario of the explanations I had long ago rejected.

And perhaps more important, I have a little better foundation on which to stand when I try to answer questions of faith for my two young daughters.

I am still lost and yet perhaps not nearly so far from home after all.

I once had something occure to me. Actually one of many things besides "ew. I need to brush my teeth..."

I was getting ready for work one day and as usual, my cat, Noel, was badgering me for food. ...at 4:30 AM 0_o .. anyways.. I opened the cupboard and found nothing. I had forgotten it the night before when I was at the store.

I then looked down at her and told her we had no food. ... she kept meowing. I told her again and again this failed to placate here. :\ So I picked her up to show here that there were no cans of food there and that I had no money to buy any because blah blah blah ... ..... then I realized what I was doing. LOL. Noel could have NO idea of the concept of finances or the like. She just looked at me and meowed, excpeting to be fed.
And I wondered if this is what it would be like for God to explain his plan to us. My cat is highly intelligent, but that does not bring her close to a human's level of understanding. Likewise, the same must be true of our relationship to God in that respects.

Just a thought.

Will Robinson wrote:"Hey, me again, I know your probably not there but if you are, thanks for the opportunity to be a good Daddy to my kids, they are a true gift and I'm thankful for them and our place on this planet."

You soppy owd fing you!!

Every now and then i wonder to myself if i'm missing out on somthing because i have no beliefs, usually when the sun sets over Tiberius!! Then i wake up.

Theres a hebrew expression that says i have a "jook be rosh" translated to "cockroach in the head" (sounds funny in english) it means that i can't get my head over the feeling that we're just a big coincidence. No matter how many books i read or people i listen too, including Drak and her epics, i just feel we just get born and we die. The middle bit called life we've unfortunatly developed to the point where we're aware. I wanna be a cat.

FC

Duper wrote:I once had something occure to me. Actually one of many things besides "ew. I need to brush my teeth..."

I was getting ready for work one day and as usual, my cat, Noel, was badgering me for food. ...at 4:30 AM 0_o .. anyways.. I opened the cupboard and found nothing. I had forgotten it the night before when I was at the store.

I then looked down at her and told her we had no food. ... she kept meowing. I told her again and again this failed to placate here. :\ So I picked her up to show here that there were no cans of food there and that I had no money to buy any because blah blah blah ... ..... then I realized what I was doing. LOL. Noel could have NO idea of the concept of finances or the like. She just looked at me and meowed, excpeting to be fed.
And I wondered if this is what it would be like for God to explain his plan to us. My cat is highly intelligent, but that does not bring her close to a human's level of understanding. Likewise, the same must be true of our relationship to God in that respects.

Just a thought.

You understand the concept of love? Good then. No? Sad, but many people do. You know, God knows how to make his plans understandable to us.

Will Robinson wrote: I'm not a member of that 'country club' where the members meet sunday mornings under a steeple and do their one hour a week thing. Yet I think I probably live by a higher moral standard than most of them.

God doesn't care about our moral standards. Yours is probably not as high as you think, if you offer me a fight for my reaction to another guy having insulted me.

You are the one who told him:
"I wish I could give you the opportunity to say that right in my face. It would be the last thing you say for a long time."

You did that simply because he said:
"your a real piece of work"

In another post you mentioned people hiding behind the internet and suggested we wouldn't say those things to you in person.

I think you are a bully and I'd love to tell you that in person so you'd know I meant it...I'm sure I could convince you that I mean it.

Like I said before, come by anytime.




he wouldn't have disagreed with you if he had to do so in person

Drakona wrote:The ultimate answer, I know, is "for his pleasure," ... The longer answer is, he made us such that we would mess up and so that he would save us.

Self-oriented and self-oriented.

You claim self-orientation is what makes us flawed. The same behavior evidenced by God gets labeled differently? Deep theology? Too mysterious for us to comprehend?


The TV show American Idol gives contestants a chance to perform in front of judges. The show knows that a significant number of folks will perform poorly. In fact, it's counting on that. That's what makes the show valuable, interesting: the fact that the eventual winners had to triumph through a real competition. Those folks get a shot at stardom, and the show's producers make a profit. What do the poor performers get? Maybe a small paycheck. What do they have to endure for that? Humiliation, judgement, and usually a pack of insults from Simon.

The show deliberately shows some of the worst performers, to hold them up for humiliation. The system is designed that way on purpose. Why? Well, because that's what the producers feel will profit them the most. And that's their goal. Self-oriented.


Yeah. Self-centeredness has a dark streak. If God's morals are so far above ours that we cannot even comprehend His values, I for one would expect Him to be entirely absent of self-centeredness.

If I can imagine a way to create a system where everyone wins, or to create a system with others foremost in mind, rather than my pleasure and my interests, do you really accept that God would do less? That He would indulge His own pleasure at the expense of others, then lay the responsibility on them and wash His hands of it?


For centuries, the church authorities persecuted, tortured and murdered anyone daring to speak such blasphemy. Asking questions was a dangerous venture. Disagreeing with doctine was, ah, "discouraged" in no uncertain terms. Independent thought wasn't exactly embraced, in general. All part of God's will? His great plan? Perhaps. Yet I find contradiction in the notion that God's purposes are too complex for us to begin to comprehend, yet all He bothers to say to us can be contained entirely within this or that book (pick one, depending on the religion in question).

Does it matter that many were converted at the business end of a sword? If all that matters in the end is making a choice, without regard to how well informed the choice may be, or not be, or what the motivations may be... would it not then make sense to pick up a sword and start to convert people? Sure, you may lose your own soul in the process, but if you save everyone you convert to the One True Way by force, perhaps you would be selfless enough to make the sacrifice. (I bet some Al Qaeda members have ideas along those lines. All for the glory of God, right? God is great!)

A pledge of love and loyalty born of fear of the consequences of not making that pledge isn't much of a treasure in my book. "Love me or else," is a remark I'd expect to hear from a psychopathic male who thinks females are possessions and objects -- a broken soul. A mature, conscientious and moral being can do so much better than that.

There's something inherently evil and distinctly un-divine about conversion at the end of a sword point. And yet how is that different from conversion at the end of a threat of eternal suffering, damnation, isolation, pain, or whatever else?

Part of the reason why God's Great Design remains inexplicable to us might just be that we're looking for the answers in the wrong places.


If Jesus could come along and point out the flaws and shortcomings of existing dogma in his day, who's to say someone cannot come along and do the same today.

Truth is all around us. You don't have to go anywhere specific to find it. Just open your eyes and engage your mind.

My two bits for today.


* Waves hello at any old friends who may read this.


- Sirian

Sirian wrote: If God's morals are so far above ours that we cannot even comprehend His values, I for one would expect Him to be entirely absent of self-centeredness.

There is a common way that this issue is framed. Terms (such as good) that are predicated both of God and of humans are said to be used univocally, equivocally or analogically. These mean, respectively, "used with the same meaning", "used with completedly different meanings", or "used with some meaning in common". I would say that in calling God good, the term is used analogically -- in some respects it means what is meant when a human is called good, and in other respects it does not. A lot of explanation would be required to specify just what those respects are.

But I tend to agree with your inference, that God's morals are something like ours, but taken to an extreme limit so that he is without self-centeredness. CS Lewis addresses this in The Problem of Pain. He points out the difficulties, due to our human limitations, of contemplating divine motives, purposes, etc. He then says that when we consider Christ (whom Lewis takes to be God incarnate), we have the divine will operating under human conditions -- conditions that can be understood by humans. In Christ we do see a being without sefl-centeredness (according to Christian belief).

Sirian wrote:If I can imagine a way to create a system where everyone wins, or to create a system with others foremost in mind, rather than my pleasure and my interests, do you really accept that God would do less?

I think everyone does win -- in that they get exactly what they want. If they want God, they get him; if they don't, then they get their wish.

Sirian wrote: A pledge of love and loyalty born of fear of the consequences of not making that pledge isn't much of a treasure in my book. . . .

There's something inherently evil and distinctly un-divine about conversion at the end of a sword point. And yet how is that different from conversion at the end of a threat of eternal suffering, damnation, isolation, pain, or whatever else?

You have a point, but I think you overlook the fact that God has nothing to gain from "coerced love" (an oxymoron, imo.) Lewis describes the situation this way, "It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose him instead of hell, but even this he accepts."

Sirian wrote: Part of the reason why God's Great Design remains inexplicable to us might just be that we're looking for the answers in the wrong places.

I think the reason is simply human finitude. We lack the resources and experience to think God's thoughts, so they will always remain to some extent inscrutable to us. Still, be careful where you look, I think it's easy to be deceived.

hey Sirian.. where you been?

Diedel wrote:You understand the concept of love? Good then. No? Sad, but many people do. You know, God knows how to make his plans understandable to us.

Dude, huh???

That's a given. The Lord explained His plan to lots of people in the past. The bible is full of them. I was refering to the Thoughts of God. Scripture mentions this in several places. Why the sinical attitude? oh well, n/m

Deleted