Post-death forgiveness

[Tricky]

Something in the suicide thread got me thinking. Christians are always saying that you have to ask forgiveness before you die. My question is, why? If your soul survives after death, as Christians and others believe, then why cannot that soul ask forgiveness even when not attached to your body? What is it about death that closes the betting windows? Does this imply that a soul is not capable of thought and reasoning, and is just a "snapshot" of whatever you were when you died?

What if you are a believer at some point in your life, but have lost belief by the time of death? Is it only the exact time of death belief that counts? Many believe that if you convert before you die, then you are saved. What if you die in mid-conversion? Does your soul get to finish the "Amen"?

This brings up all sorts of questions about the nature of the soul. If it cannot reason or make decisions, then how does it differ from a chunk of rock floating in space? If it can reason and make decisions, then why worry about the afterlife? You can always change your mind later. Or is God so petty that he forces you to make decisions on incomplete evidence?

 

[toddjh]

Something in the suicide thread got me thinking. Christians are always saying that you have to ask forgiveness before you die. My question is, why?

I've never gotten a straight answer to this one, either.

Me: Why do you have to repent/convert/etc. before you die?

Them: Well, God has to draw the line somewhere.

Me: Why?

Them: ...

Jeremy

 

[Zombified]

The church has not been consistent on the question of just how eternal damnation is:

Apocatastasis

 

[Radrook]

Something in the suicide thread got me thinking. Christians are always saying that you have to ask forgiveness before you die. My question is, why? If your soul survives after death, as Christians and others believe, then why cannot that soul ask forgiveness even when not attached to your body?

Very good question since there evidently would be a serious contradiction in restricting such a thing as an immortal soul from continuing to have the ability to petition its God for mercy.

So God is mercuful and forgiving as long as you don't croak?
Once you croak God goes into the mindlessly berserk mode?
YIKES!


First, not all Christians accept the immortal soul concept.
Such Christians do not run into that kind of hypothetical difficulty since the termination of life is the termination of life and not a transition from one form of life to another.

It is also important to keep in mind that the Bible tells us that only the righteous are imediately ressurectred as spirits in order to reign with Christ. Such a transformation is described as a reward, a free gift given only those counted worthy. So these cannot be used as examples of petitioning God for forgiveness since forgiveness has already been granted.

That being said, let's consder the issue from a
hypothetical standpoint. Let us suppose that a person really has this invisible part called a soul. Let us suppose that he dies before he has a chance to finish his prayer of contrition.

Would he be able or allowed to continue his petition after death?
If indeed this hypothetical soul is the person, one is scripturally justified in assuming that the person still can request forgiveness based of Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2 And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


There is no scripural basis to believe that death followed by transition to a spirit life would transform a loving forgiving God into a relentless, vindictive, non-forgiving machine of destruction who forgets the sacrifice for sins that he himselfg assures us that he provided specifically for cases of this nature.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Tricky]

Thank you, Radrook, for the detailed and thoughtful response.

First, not all Christians accept the immortal soul concept.
Such Christians do not run into that kind of hypothetical difficulty since the termination of life is the termination of life and not a transition from one form of life to another.

Of all of the Christians I have known, and they are multitude, not one has ever admitted to absolute death. Each has some concept that some of the characteristics of life, such as cognizance, go on beyond death. It may not be life as we know it, but is certainly not total loss of self. Even that famous John 3:16 refers to it as "everlasting life". If you know of Christians who deny this verse, I would like to meet them. If you are one, I'd like to meet you.

It is also important to keep in mind that the Bible tells us that only the righteous are immediately resurrectred as spirits in order to reign with Christ. Such a transformation is described as a reward, a free gift given only those counted worthy. So these cannot be used as examples of petitioning God for forgiveness since forgiveness has already been granted.

I dunno. Some claim that no one is resurrected until Judgment Day. And I have also heard contradicting beliefs as to whether acceptance of Jesus or good works is the most important thing. What exactly makes one "worthy"?

That being said, let's consder the issue from a
hypothetical standpoint. Let us suppose that a person really has this invisible part called a soul. Let us suppose that he dies before he has a chance to finish his prayer of contrition.

Would he be able or allowed to continue his petition after death?
If indeed this hypothetical soul is the person, one is scripturally justified in assuming that the person still can request forgiveness based of Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2 And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I've read that several times now, but I cannot see how it supports post-death supplication. That seems to be a rather major and unsubstantiated assumption. Certainly one might interpret that way, but just as easily one could interpret it the opposite way: that you have to be forgiven while still capable of sin (i.e. alive).

There is no scriptural basis to believe that death followed by transition to a spirit life would transform a loving forgiving God into a relentless, vindictive, non-forgiving machine of destruction who forgets the sacrifice for sins that he himself assures us that he provided specifically for cases of this nature.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Nope. Catch 22. If you die without believing, you perish. If you survive after death to have the chance to be forgiven, then you don't perish even if you don't believe. You can't perish and not perish. This suggests a sort of "grace period" in which you are allowed to stay alive long enough to ask for forgiveness.

Well, duh. Only a crazy person would see the truth of God and everlasting life and still refuse to believe. Every single one of them would "see the evil of their ways" post haste! I know I would.

So what can souls in Limbo and Purgatory do to climb out? If it is just to admit they were wrong, then L & P would be empty in no time flat. Or do they have to stay there a while and be punished for the sin of "not believing soon enough"?

 

[Radrook]

Thank you, Radrook, for the detailed and thoughtful response.

Of all of the Christians I have known, and they are multitude, not one has ever admitted to absolute death. Each has some concept that some of the characteristics of life, such as cognizance, go on beyond death. It may not be life as we know it, but is certainly not total loss of self. Even that famous John 3:16 refers to it as "everlasting life". If you know of Christians who deny this verse, I would like to meet them. If you are one, I'd like to meet you.

Very interesting.
I agree, everlasting life is a life that is gained via the resurrection.
That is undenied.
What is denied is the inherent immortality of man.

Actually, when I responded I tried to skim over this issue and concentrate on the matter at hand which is God's mercifulness.
I did so in order not to deviate the thread away from the main subject and into a theological discussion in which I assert and you or someone else denies and finally winds up saying that neither I nor anyone who denies the immortality of the human soul has a right to call himself Christian.

To which I would simply discontinue the discussion with a loss of time. But since you have brought the matter into prominence I will give you the reasons why some Christians conclude that the immortality of the human soul doctrine is not biblical.

First, in Genesis we are not told that man is inherently immortal. We are clearly told that if man sins man would die. In fact, it was the serpent who claimed that man was indestructible and would not die. So the immortal soul concept seems to be on the wrong side of the controversy.


Furthermore, Adam is not said to have been given a soul.
Additionally, God does not infuse a soul into Adam or give Adam a soul.
The Bible tells us that Adam himself becomes a living soul after the breath of life is applied. Prior to that Adam was a dead soul.

(Genesis 2:7)

7. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [soul].


Furthermore, the Hebrew word "nephesh" which is translated as "soul" is described in the Hebrew scriptures as being mortal. It is said to be destroyable via the sword, fearing death, experiencing hunger, and having blood. If indeed a soul is an incorporial thing, then it would not need blood, not need to eat, nor could anyone harm it with a mere sword.


Nephesh is also used as a reference to a person's past, present, or future life. In fact, even brute animals are referred to as being souls. Here are some scriptures relevant to this:

Leviticus 21:1 for the dead = soul

Leviticus 21:11 dead body = soul

Leviticus 24:18 beast = soul

Numbers 5:2 dead = soul

Numbers 9.6 dead body of = soul

Numbers 31:40 persons = soul

Deuteronomy 19:11 mortally = soul

Deuteronomy 18:6 his mind = soul

Haggai 2:13 a dead body = soul


This is a far cry from that invisible entity that Christians influenced by the Platonic idea of immortality subscribe to.

BTW
I have done extensive research on this word via Hebrew Lexicons and it definitely is not referring to an invisible entity.

I dunno. Some claim that no one is resurrected until Judgment Day. And I have also heard contradicting beliefs as to whether acceptance of Jesus or good works is the most important thing. What exactly makes one "worthy"?

Worthiness is not and cannot be based on our efforts. It is based on our faith in the Ransom Sacrifice provided by God via his Son Jesus Christ.

I've read that several times now, but I cannot see how it supports post-death supplication. That seems to be a rather major and unsubstantiated assumption. Certainly one might interpret that way, but just as easily one could interpret it the opposite way: that you have to be forgiven while still capable of sin (i.e. alive).

It was merely a hypothetical since I am not a believer in the immortal soul doctrine. Also, to assume that spirits are incapable of sin is not scripturally sound. The angels are spirits and they rebelled against God. Spirits who had seen the creation of the earth!

Nope. Catch 22. If you die without believing, you perish. If you survive after death to have the chance to be forgiven, then you don't perish even if you don't believe. You can't perish and not perish. This suggests a sort of "grace period" in which you are allowed to stay alive long enough to ask for forgiveness.

If that is your concept of a loving God then that is your concept.
I personally cannot conceive of God as being governed by such inflexible rule-thinking.

Well, duh. Only a crazy person would see the truth of God and everlasting life and still refuse to believe. Every single one of them would "see the evil of their ways" post haste! I know I would.

There is no "duh" applicable here except to the assumption that everyone must think as one thinks because one thinks that way so there cannot be any other way to think.

That is a conclusion based on insufficient evidence--yourself. In my years as a spiritual disciplinarian I have spoken with many individuals who have said that they prefer death to living in a world where they cannot sin.

So what can souls in Limbo and Purgatory do to climb out? If it is just to admit they were wrong, then L & P would be empty in no time flat. Or do they have to stay there a while and be punished for the sin of "not believing soon enough"? [/B]

I am a Christian who does not believe in limbo or purgatory.


BTW

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is...nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture...The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato its principle exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended" (The Jewish Encyclopedia, article, "Immortality of the Soul").

 

[Tricky]

Very interesting.
I agree, everlasting life is a life that is gained via the resurrection.
That is undenied.
What is denied is the inherent immortality of man.. [/B]

Some are capable of being immortal and some are not. I see that, but I'm fuzzy on the details. How long after death does a sinner have the ability to repent?

Actually, when I responded I tried to skim over this issue and concentrate on the matter at hand which is God's mercifulness.
I did so in order not to deviate the thread away from the main subject and into a theological discussion in which I assert and you or someone else denies and finally winds up saying that neither I nor anyone who denies the immortality of the human soul has a right to call himself Christian.

Such was not my intent, but I did intend to point out one of the conundrums of Christianity.

Unless I am mistaking you (and correct me if I am) you believe that some souls are immortal. How then can one be assured of immortality? If you believe no souls are immortal, then that sort of takes the bang out of John 3:16.

Very interesting.
I agree, everlasting life is a life that is gained via the resurrection.
That is undenied.
What is denied is the inherent immortality of man.

Actually, when I responded I tried to skim over this issue and concentrate on the matter at hand which is God's mercifulness.
I did so in order not to deviate the thread away from the main subject and into a theological discussion in which I assert and you or someone else denies and finally winds up saying that neither I nor anyone who denies the immortality of the human soul has a right to call himself Christian.

To which I would simply discontinue the discussion with a loss of time. But since you have brought the matter into prominence I will give you the reasons why some Christians conclude that the immortality of the human soul doctrine is not biblical.

First, in Genesis we are not told that man is inherently immortal. We are clearly told that if man sins man would die. In fact, it was the serpent who claimed that man was indestructible and would not die. So the immortal soul concept seems to be on the wrong side of the controversy.

Okay, we've established then that souls can die. As an interesting aside, does that mean that Adam and Eve's souls are no longer alive? They sinned, so they did not achieve everlasting life (being pre-Jesus). In fact, is it possible that there was a single person prior to Jesus who didn't sin in some way? With no path to forgiveness, they're all dead, are they not?

Furthermore, Adam is not said to have been given a soul.
Additionally, God does not infuse a soul into Adam or give Adam a soul.
The Bible tells us that Adam himself becomes a living soul after the breath of life is applied. Prior to that Adam was a dead soul.

(Genesis 2:7)

7. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [soul].

I always thought that meant he was just a lump of clay until God gave him life (a soul). The term "dead soul" has no meaning. If it is dead, it is not a soul. And you contradict yourself. If God does not infuse a soul into Adam, then what is that business about breathing into his nostrils?

Furthermore, the Hebrew word "nephesh" which is translated as "soul" is described in the Hebrew scriptures as being mortal. It is said to be destroyable via the sword, fearing death, experiencing hunger, and having blood. If indeed a soul is an incorporial thing, then it would not need blood, not need to eat, nor could anyone harm it with a mere sword.

Indeed, this is more evidence that theologists have no general agreement as to what constitutes a soul. They use the word in a hodge-podge of meanings, from "immortal" to "destroyable". There simply is no unambiguous meaning of "soul", so it seems you can define it any way you like, depending on context.

Nephesh is also used as a reference to a person's past, present, or future life. In fact, even brute animals are referred to as being souls. Here are some scriptures relevant to this:

Leviticus 21:1 for the dead = soul

Leviticus 21:11 dead body = soul

Leviticus 24:18 beast = soul

Numbers 5:2 dead = soul

Numbers 9.6 dead body of = soul

Numbers 31:40 persons = soul

Deuteronomy 19:11 mortally = soul

Deuteronomy 18:6 his mind = soul

Haggai 2:13 a dead body = soul


This is a far cry from that invisible entity that Christians influenced by the Platonic idea of immortality subscribe to.

Indeed. Yet Christianity demands that each person must potentially have an immortal soul.

Mark 8:36
For what should it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

And of course, John 3:16 again. "Whosoever" means anybody. Unless Jesus was lying.

So all humans are capable of having an immortal soul, are they not? The idea that some may not be mortal only reinforces my original question. At what point does a soul become immortal?

I have done extensive research on this word via Hebrew Lexicons and it definitely is not referring to an invisible entity.

That would suggest that souls are visible. Are dead souls visible? Are they "ghosts"? Many of the "ghosts" I have heard of are the ghosts of murderers or worse. I don't believe in them either, but if you agree with the Hebrew Lexicons that souls are visable, then what would you say they look like?

Worthiness is not and cannot be based on our efforts. It is based on our faith in the Ransom Sacrifice provided by God via his Son Jesus Christ.

Then a person can become worthy on his death bed. What if it's interrupted by death?

Personally, I have a problem with a God that would call a lifelong murderer "worthy" and an atheist who did good things all his life "unworthy", but that's just me.

It was merely a hypothetical since I am not a believer in the immortal soul doctrine. Also, to assume that spirits are incapable of sin is not scripturally sound. The angels are spirits and they rebelled against God. Spirits who had seen the creation of the earth!

That does make sense, but it puts John 3:16 to the lie. Suppose you believe in God, but oppose him, like Lucifer? Do you still get everlasting life? Sounds like God's law has a whole lot of loopholes.

If that is your concept of a loving God then that is your concept.
I personally cannot conceive of God as being governed by such inflexible rule-thinking.

Nor can I, which is why I would never worship a God that punished people for not believing in Him. Yet, that is what the majority of Christians believe. You are the rare exception.

There is no "duh" applicable here except to the assumption that everyone must think as one thinks because one thinks that way so there cannot be any other way to think.

That is not what I was saying. I was saying that if you had a chance to repent (and gain immortality) after death and you saw that God existed, then you would most certainly repent. The only scenario I can envision that this would not be true would be for a person who wanted to die. Not repenting would be suicide, in essence.

That is a conclusion based on insufficient evidence--yourself. In my years as a spiritual disciplinarian I have spoken with many individuals who have said that they prefer death to living in a world where they cannot sin.

I believe you have equated sin with free will. If you had no opportunity to choose between what you though was right or wrong, would you want to live that way? Would you happily be a mindless drone of God, never having any individuality whatsoever? If you call freedom to choose sin, then I agree with those who would not want to live in a world with no sin. Frankly, I have a hard time believing you would either.

I am a Christian who does not believe in limbo or purgatory.

What about hell? Is it all or nothing, or are there various degrees of heaven and hell?

BTW

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is...nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture...The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato its principle exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended" (The Jewish Encyclopedia, article, "Immortality of the Soul").

I believe John 3:16 directly and emphatically contradicts you on this point. If it is just a metaphor, then can we pick any part of the Bible and call it a metaphor? That sure would make believing a lot easier.

 

[Bubbles]

I would say this. The invitation to share in God's life is always open. It is simply there. I do not claim to know at what point one would cease to be able to accept that invitation, but I do believe that it is possible that one would sink to the point where that was the case.

My personal belief in the matter is that (I'm going to use imagery that isn't accurate because I don't know a better way to say it) the 'judgement' is a coming before God with the opportunity to finally say an absolute 'yes'. Of course, that 'yes' means that hatred, envy, pride and all the rest of that stuff has to go. Given how strongly I cling to those things, I can imagine that I wouldn't want to leave them there for good. That 'yes' would be hard to give. The 'no' would be easier in some ways. I could keep my pride, my sense of self-importance, by greed, and all those things. But in keeping those things I would be rejecting love.

In the end, yes and no are the only possible answers. Heaven and Hell are the only possible results. 'Purgatory' would be the preparation for that choice.

I think that, for those who chose 'yes', it would be transforming in a way that they would never say 'no'. For those who chose 'no', it would be transforming in that they would no longer be able to say 'yes'. They would have lost their capacity for heaven.

I do not say that death is the point of no return, but I do not think it unreasonable that there would be such a point.

 

[Tricky]

I would say this. The invitation to share in God's life is always open. It is simply there. I do not claim to know at what point one would cease to be able to accept that invitation, but I do believe that it is possible that one would sink to the point where that was the case.

But if it becomes impossible to accet that invatation, then it is not "always open". It is only open to a point, as you indicate. I realize that you are open-minded about where that point is. I think that is a good attitude to take.

My personal belief in the matter is that (I'm going to use imagery that isn't accurate because I don't know a better way to say it) the 'judgement' is a coming before God with the opportunity to finally say an absolute 'yes'. Of course, that 'yes' means that hatred, envy, pride and all the rest of that stuff has to go. Given how strongly I cling to those things, I can imagine that I wouldn't want to leave them there for good. That 'yes' would be hard to give. The 'no' would be easier in some ways. I could keep my pride, my sense of self-importance, by greed, and all those things. But in keeping those things I would be rejecting love.

So you can't keep any human qualities except "love"? Why do we get a pass on love? Is greed not a kind of love (of wealth)? Jealousy? Pride? Can I not be proud of my children in the afterlife? All the human foibles you have listed have an element of love. Perhaps you mean some kind of "higher love" that is apart from the mundane ones we see here on Earth. I suspect that you would have a hard time defining this love in specific terms. I would submit that if all those other human traits have to go, then human love has to go too. Maybe it is replaced by a "divine love", but that would be a thing that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding.

In the end, yes and no are the only possible answers. Heaven and Hell are the only possible results. 'Purgatory' would be the preparation for that choice.

I would reject such a system. Is there no better reward for people who were better than just good? If not, why strive to be anything more than just average? And is an atheist confined to the same pits of hell as a mass murderer? Sorry, I cannot buy into a system that has such unfair absolutes. This is part of the reason why I do not accept Christianity.

I think that, for those who chose 'yes', it would be transforming in a way that they would never say 'no'. For those who chose 'no', it would be transforming in that they would no longer be able to say 'yes'. They would have lost their capacity for heaven.

Sounds very much as if the "heavenizing" process removes everything which makes me "me". No free will? How can that be good?

I do not say that death is the point of no return, but I do not think it unreasonable that there would be such a point.

Fair enough. I am glad you have answered this question so honestly. I am enjoying our discussion.
---
edited to say:
I'd send you a private message to confirm my respect for you, but you have that option turned off.

 

[Radrook]

Some are capable of being immortal and some are not. I see that, but I'm fuzzy on the details. How long after death does a sinner have the ability to repent?

I am a Christian who does not believe that every Christian is going to heaven. For some death is a sleep until a resurrection to life on a paradise earth. For others, the minority, it is an instantaneous is resurrection to heaven to rule with Christ in his kingdom. For those resurrected to heaven they have been absolved of sins via the sacrifice of Jesus. So there is no need for further repentance. For those resurrected to an earthly paradise
the situation require an effort to either learn about Jesus, since the majority of mankind died without truly being told about him. Or else to continue in the path of righteousness as one had done prior to having died.

Unless I am mistaking you (and correct me if I am) you believe that some souls are immortal. How then can one be assured of immortality? If you believe no souls are immortal, then that sort of takes the bang out of John 3:16.

I do not believe in the inherent immortality of the soul.
As I explained in the prior answer, the word soul has been given a meaning it did not originally have. Also, the idea was borrowed from Greek Philosophy ad made part of Church doctrine.

Okay, we've established then that souls can die. As an interesting aside, does that mean that Adam and Eve's souls are no longer alive? They sinned, so they did not achieve everlasting life (being pre-Jesus). In fact, is it possible that there was a single person prior to Jesus who didn't sin in some way? With no path to forgiveness, they're all dead, are they not?

Adam and Eve were living souls.
When they perished they perished as living souls.
Being pre Jesus does not deprive a person of attaining everlasting life. That is what the resurrection is for.

I always thought that meant he was just a lump of clay until God gave him life (a soul). The term "dead soul" has no meaning. If it is dead, it is not a soul. And you contradict yourself. If God does not infuse a soul into Adam, then what is that business about breathing into his nostrils?

The term has no meaning because the word nephesh was given a meaning it did not originally have. But in its original sense of being the person himself, it makes plenty of sense.

The breath of life that was used is not the soul.
The breath of life or Hebrew "ruah" animates the soul or person just like the electricity in a battery brings things into motion when the ignition is turned. But "ruah" has no self awareness or intelligence. It is just a force.

Indeed, this is more evidence that theologists have no general agreement as to what constitutes a soul. They use the word in a hodgepodge of meanings, from "immortal" to "destroyable". There simply is no unambiguous meaning of "soul", so it seems you can define it any way you like, depending on context.

If there were no unambiguous meaning of the word nephesh then it could never be accurately translated. Yet we have Hebrew Lexicons which tell us what the various meaning of the word nephesh are.

Indeed. Yet Christianity demands that each person must potentially have an immortal soul.

Christianity began demanding that AFTER it adopted the idea from Plato's philosophy.

And of course, John 3:16 again. "Whosoever" means anybody. Unless Jesus was lying.

Never said he was.

So all humans are capable of having an immortal soul, are they not? The idea that some may not be mortal only reinforces my original question. At what point does a soul become immortal?

The person himself becomes immortal.
The concept of something being invisible inside of us that is inherently immortal was Plato's.

At what point does a person become immortal?
At the moment of death when the person I transformed in a twinkling of an eye. Notice also the immortality must be put on. It did not exist prior to death.

1 Corinthians 15:53
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

That would suggest that souls are visible. Are dead souls visible? Are they "ghosts"? Many of the "ghosts" I have heard of are the ghosts of murderers or worse. I don't believe in them either, but if you agree with the Hebrew Lexicons that souls are visible, then what would you say they look like?

The word soul is used both as a concrete noun and abstract noun.
When it is used as a concrete noun then the things it refers to look like animals and people.

Things seen as ghosts if not hallucinations are probably evil spirits mimicking the dead in order to propagate the lie Satan told in Eden that man doesn't really die. That is God strictly forbids spiritism or efforts at contacting the dead.

Leviticus 19:31
" 'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.

Because he knows who is behind such manifestations.

Then a person can become worthy on his death bed. What if it's interrupted by death?

Personally, I have a problem with a God that would call a lifelong murderer "worthy" and an atheist who did good things all his life "unworthy", but that's just me.

I agree.
Such a desperate plea for forgiveness might just be a stop-gap tactic based on fear of the unknown or else fear of retribution.

That does make sense, but it puts John 3:16 to the lie.
Suppose you believe in God, but oppose him, like Lucifer? Do you still get everlasting life? Sounds like God's law has a whole lot of loopholes.

God's law has loopholes that man himself imagines exist.

That is not what I was saying. I was saying that if you had a chance to repent (and gain immortality) after death and you saw that God existed, then you would most certainly repent. The only scenario I can envision that this would not be true would be for a person who wanted to die. Not repenting would be suicide, in essence.

Some persons consider the obligation of having to live a sinless life as slavery. As an affront to their freedom to choose what they feel is best. Adam and Eve did it when goaded by Satan. The rebel angels saw the creation of the universe and yet they rebelled--right? They knew the consequences would be eternal destruction, yet they chose to die rather than live a sinless life.

I believe you have equated sin with free will. If you had no opportunity to choose between what you though was right or wrong, would you want to live that way? Would you happily be a mindless drone of God, never having any individuality whatsoever? If you call freedom to choose sin, then I agree with those who would not want to live in a world with no sin. Frankly, I have a hard time believing you would either.

Living under God's regulations is no different from living under any other government. Each government prohibits certain behavior and punishes it by law. So does God's Kigndom.

What about hell? Is it all or nothing, or are there various degrees of heaven and hell?

I do not believe in hell.
Heaven is where spirit creatures live.

I believe John 3:16 directly and emphatically contradicts you on this point. If it is just a metaphor, then can we pick any part of the Bible and call it a metaphor? That sure would make believing a lot easier. [/B]

I did not invent that idea.
It is written in the Encyclopedia quoted and in many other publications.

 

[Bubbles]

But if it becomes impossible to accet that invatation, then it is not "always open". It is only open to a point, as you indicate. I realize that you are open-minded about where that point is. I think that is a good attitude to take.


So you can't keep any human qualities except "love"? Why do we get a pass on love? Is greed not a kind of love (of wealth)? Jealousy? Pride? Can I not be proud of my children in the afterlife? All the human foibles you have listed have an element of love. Perhaps you mean some kind of "higher love" that is apart from the mundane ones we see here on Earth. I suspect that you would have a hard time defining this love in specific terms. I would submit that if all those other human traits have to go, then human love has to go too. Maybe it is replaced by a "divine love", but that would be a thing that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding.


I would reject such a system. Is there no better reward for people who were better than just good? If not, why strive to be anything more than just average? And is an atheist confined to the same pits of hell as a mass murderer? Sorry, I cannot buy into a system that has such unfair absolutes. This is part of the reason why I do not accept Christianity.


Sounds very much as if the "heavenizing" process removes everything which makes me "me". No free will? How can that be good?


Fair enough. I am glad you have answered this question so honestly. I am enjoying our discussion.
---
edited to say:
I'd send you a private message to confirm my respect for you, but you have that option turned off.

I'll try to touch on everything you said:

I don't see why, if I cannot accept an invitation, the invitation is not there. If the store is open, it is open whether or not I am going shopping. It is open, even if I am a dead on the sofa. IT may be said, of course, that the shop-keeper (or God) could do more than simply be open. Still, you reach a point where all that can be done has been done.

I should be more careful with the terms I used. I will agree that greed, jealousy, greed, et al are forms of love. All loves, I will argue, are not the same. They differ in degree and type. What is called greed is, I would say, the application of a certain type of love to an object for which it is innapropriate. I do not say that a greedy man loves money too much (I do not believe that anything can be loved too much), but rather that he loves money in the wrong way.

Being 'proud' of one's children may be right and it may be wrong. it depends on how you mean the term. If you mean that you are happy with the part you have played in their life and that they have played in your life, then it is a good and right thing. When Christianity talks of the sinfullness of pride, it doesn't mean this. It means something more like the desire to exalt oneself at the expense of others. If you were trying to live vicariously through them and saw them as nothing more than things to serve you, that would be pride in a more technical sense.

One of the arguments I make with Calvinists is that I believe that their doctrines produce the result that you described, where salvation is simply a process of negation. The thing that ends up saved isn't me. I certainly agree that there is some negation involved in the process (there is some negation involved in simply trying to be a better person), but that, first, the things being torn away aren't 'me'. Now, that isn't to say that the pride I have is something external to me for which I can have no blame. It is to say that the pride is a corruption, like a disease. It is a thing that prevents me from being me. Second, that after all has been torn away, there is still something left. Whatever crap covers the surface, there is a painting underneath.

Christianity would not say that those in heaven do not have free will. It would say that they finally do have a fully free will. To put it in a rather crude analogy, imagine a glass of water (heaven) and a glass of poison (hell). It is not that they are no longer allowed to drink the poison, it is that they are finally free not to drink the poison. This is not to say that, up to then, God made them take the poison, but rather that they always chose a little poison (doctrine of original sin).


As far as there being nothing better for the really good, I would answer that in two ways. First, that there is nothing better, period. I mean, to 'stand' 'inside' the trinity and to have that life, love, beauty, etc. flowing into you and through you. I mean, how could you top that. Second, Christianity does not understand us as 'earning' heaven. We don't merit the invitation. It is simply there. It is a gift. If we received that gift, wouldn't we be overjoyed for all who received it. Wouldn't we rejoice at those who deserved it more than we did? Wouldn't we rejoice for those who deserved it less? Having said that, there is some support for degrees of heaven. The idea is that all are filled with divine love, but some are 12 oz cups, and others a big gulps. . .

Personally, I don't think that all atheists are going to hell. Of course, I don't think all anything is going to hell. I do not say, even, that anyone is going to hell. I believe that the possibility of hell is required by heaven (if heaven means freely saying 'yes', then there must be the possibility of saying 'no'), but that is all (it isn't required that anyone actually say 'no'). I believe that, like no one earns heaven, no one deserves hell. Those in hell (if there are any) have freely chosen it. Now, I would say it is a bad choice (that I hope I do not ultimately make), but I certianly have enough experience with people (me included) making bad choices.

 

[Tricky]

I am a Christian who does not believe that every Christian is going to heaven. For some death is a sleep until a resurrection to life on a paradise earth. For others, the minority, it is an instantaneous is resurrection to heaven to rule with Christ in his kingdom. For those resurrected to heaven they have been absolved of sins via the sacrifice of Jesus. So there is no need for further repentance. For those resurrected to an earthly paradise
the situation require an effort to either learn about Jesus, since the majority of mankind died without truly being told about him. Or else to continue in the path of righteousness as one had done prior to having died.

I'm not sure how a disembodied soul would go about learning of Jesus. Can they read? Can they hear? Is there a "Jesus for Dummies" workshop in the afterlife?

This scenario relies on specific abilities of the soul, such as learning and being righteous. I don't see how you can account for your belief in these post-death abilities.

I do not believe in the inherent immortality of the soul.
As I explained in the prior answer, the word soul has been given a meaning it did not originally have. Also, the idea was borrowed from Greek Philosophy and made part of Church doctrine.

But you certainly agree that some souls can become immortal, do you not? And it appears that you believe that all, or most of them survive sometime after death in order to get their Jesus certification and make it to the big time.

Adam and Eve were living souls.
When they perished they perished as living souls.
Being pre Jesus does not deprive a person of attaining everlasting life. That is what the resurrection is for.

That is very confusing. You can have everlasting life without being a living soul? Dead souls live forever? This would require quite an adjustment in what we mean when we say "living" and "dead".

The term has no meaning because the word nephesh was given a meaning it did not originally have. But in its original sense of being the person himself, it makes plenty of sense.

The breath of life that was used is not the soul.
The breath of life or Hebrew "ruah" animates the soul or person just like the electricity in a battery brings things into motion when the ignition is turned. But "ruah" has no self awareness or intelligence. It is just a force.

If there were no unambiguous meaning of the word nephesh then it could never be accurately translated. Yet we have Hebrew Lexicons which tell us what the various meaning of the word nephesh are.

I don't speak Hebrew, so perhaps you could elaborate a little on the various meanings of "nepesh".

But you know, the word "soul" has a myriad of meanings too.

So does "the person himself" survive death? All of him, or just part of him? If the latter, which parts?

Christianity began demanding that AFTER it adopted the idea from Plato's philosophy.

Unless that "whosoever believeth" stuff was added to Christianity later, it appears that the notion that everybody has a potential everlasting life, was there from the earliest days. Do you believe that passage is incorrect? Just John's wishful thinking?

The person himself becomes immortal.
The concept of something being invisible inside of us that is inherently immortal was Plato's.

You're arguing semantics. What exactly is the "person himself". If Plato gave that concept an image to make it more understandible to his students, it doesn't really change the fact that you both believe that something become immortal. I'm trying to find out what that "something" is.

At what point does a person become immortal?
At the moment of death when the person I transformed in a twinkling of an eye. Notice also the immortality must be put on. It did not exist prior to death.

Is that your final answer? If it is, that means that you can not become immortal after the moment of death. Yet, this contradicts what you said earlier about being resurrected to an "earthly paradise".

The word soul is used both as a concrete noun and abstract noun.
When it is used as a concrete noun then the things it refers to look like animals and people.

Yes, it has many meanings. It can also refer to a kind of blues music.

I agree.
Such a desperate plea for forgiveness might just be a stop-gap tactic based on fear of the unknown or else fear of retribution.

You said earlier that resurrection depended on faith (in the Ransom Sacrifice), not works. Must it be a lifelong faith? If not, how long do you have to have it? Does imminent death rule out sincerity? In any case, I still want no part of a egotistical, tyrannical God that relies only on "loyalty oaths" for admission to his eternal playground. I would rather be around good people than holy people.

God's law has loopholes that man himself imagines exist.

Try as I might, I cannot make sense out of that sentence.

Some persons consider the obligation of having to live a sinless life as slavery. As an affront to their freedom to choose what they feel is best. Adam and Eve did it when goaded by Satan. The rebel angels saw the creation of the universe and yet they rebelled--right? They knew the consequences would be eternal destruction, yet they chose to die rather than live a sinless life.

From what I can gather from that parable (do you actually believe it is literally true?) they were given incomplete information. They were then punished for being misled by another creature that they did not even know existed! I blame God for their fall. He should have given them more details. A simple "Don't believe anything the serpent says," would have sufficed.

Living under God's regulations is no different from living under any other government. Each government prohibits certain behavior and punishes it by law. So does God's Kingdom.

Then he'd better provide a detailed list of what is prohibited. Otherwise, it is entrapment. Of course, if you are incapable of sin in God's Kingdom, then you have lost free will, which IMO is the most important thing that makes us human. Go to heaven and live in a police state, or surrender your right to think for yourself? I'll pass, thank you.

I do not believe in hell.
Heaven is where spirit creatures live.

"Spirit creatures" is another term that would need some serious defining. Would they include Satan?

I did not invent that idea.
It is written in the Encyclopedia quoted and in many other publications.

The question isn't whether you invented it or not. The question is, whether you believe it.

 

[Blue Monk]

I’ve always assumed that this was based on the need for faith.

The point being that once you die, then presumably you now ‘know’ you have ever-lasting life and are going straight to hell. Sure it’s easy to ask forgiveness after you know the truth and if those were the rules everyone would do it and Hell would be out of business.

Therefore asking for forgiveness is of itself an act of faith. They only way you can prove it is true faith is to do it before the ‘truth’ becomes apparent.

Face it, if the rules said you could do it after you died then many would just shrug their shoulders and take a wait and see attitude.

To do it before is a true act of faith.

Edited to add:

Besides, I believe that a lot of religion is about getting the other guy to behave so it would be important to affect that change in the here and now when it will do you some good.

 

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

If anyone could get salvation by just being a good guy, what would be the point of the religious warfare, fire, and brimstone?

Much of the Synoptics and Jn involve in polemic against other viewpoints--such as whatever was represented by the disciples . . . leaving aside the whole historical problem of "who" is "whom."

Jn forces you to have been saved before you were born--born "from above." Of course, his audience/group just so happened to consist of those "born from above."

Mk's exclusivity comes from Junior stating that those who do certain things--like behave like the disciples--"Hey, what type of chair do we get in Heaven, boss?"--do not "get it." Furthermore, Junior's secrets to salvation are given to Mk's group/audience--but not others.

It is about convincing people to believe the way you do.

Why is that important? Clearly not "everyone" feels the need to convert/deconvert others to their viewpoints. Certainly, some of the motivations are "less than holy"--power, money, chicks--but I think there is a sincere desire to share what one thinks is "the Truth." It feeds itself--convincing others of the Truth seems a noble thing and having others agree the Truth is the Truth reenforces its "truthfulness."

--J.D.

 

[Tricky]

I'll try to touch on everything you said:

Thanks. Sorry about my tardiness in getting back to you. My response to Radrook took some time.

I don't see why, if I cannot accept an invitation, the invitation is not there. If the store is open, it is open whether or not I am going shopping. It is open, even if I am a dead on the sofa. IT may be said, of course, that the shop-keeper (or God) could do more than simply be open. Still, you reach a point where all that can be done has been done.

I dont' agree. Though it may not be explicitly stated, it is obvious that the store will only do business with people who are actually there. Well, unless it has a website. In any case, the store does not count on much revenue from sales to dead people. But in the afterlife, the situation is different. God decides when you are "completely dead" so He is the one who effectively prohibits you from accepting the offer. The earthly parallel would be a store owner who kills people he doesn't want to do business with.

I should be more careful with the terms I used. I will agree that greed, jealousy, greed, et al are forms of love. All loves, I will argue, are not the same. They differ in degree and type. What is called greed is, I would say, the application of a certain type of love to an object for which it is innapropriate. I do not say that a greedy man loves money too much (I do not believe that anything can be loved too much), but rather that he loves money in the wrong way.

Hmm... "The Wrong Way To Love". Sounds like a good song title. Maybe I'll work on that.

You would certainly agree that certain kinds of romantic love are bad too, like codependance. Even parental love can be wrong "I'm (WHACK) doing this (WHACK) because I (WHACK) love you." What you are suggesting is a perfect sort of love, completely free from the possibility misapplication. An "ideal love". Don't get me started about "ideals".

Being 'proud' of one's children may be right and it may be wrong. it depends on how you mean the term. If you mean that you are happy with the part you have played in their life and that they have played in your life, then it is a good and right thing. When Christianity talks of the sinfullness of pride, it doesn't mean this. It means something more like the desire to exalt oneself at the expense of others. If you were trying to live vicariously through them and saw them as nothing more than things to serve you, that would be pride in a more technical sense.

Yes, I'd been discussing the various meanings of "pride" with Csense over in the God kills kids... thread, including the idea that the opposite of pride is shame. But it does sound like the boundaries are fuzzy. At what point does your happiness with the part you have played in their lives become exalting yourself for the part you have played in their lives?

I've been annoyed by some folks who, IMO, brag on their kids too much, but is it a sin? If so, I'd say it is equivalent to getting a parking ticket from God.

One of the arguments I make with Calvinists is that I believe that their doctrines produce the result that you described, where salvation is simply a process of negation. The thing that ends up saved isn't me. I certainly agree that there is some negation involved in the process (there is some negation involved in simply trying to be a better person), but that, first, the things being torn away aren't 'me'.

Here we disagree. I think anything that gets torn away changes me from being "me" to something else. And yes, this process can happen in life too. Have you ever heard the expression, "You aren't the person I married"? I am not a believer in the "essential self", because it cannot be defined.

Now, that isn't to say that the pride I have is something external to me for which I can have no blame. It is to say that the pride is a corruption, like a disease. It is a thing that prevents me from being me.

I disagree again. Whatever faults and foibles I have, they are all me. Some of the things I am proud of about myself (there's that word again) are things that others find distateful. If you took away my ability for creative farting, I would be lessened.

Second, that after all has been torn away, there is still something left. Whatever crap covers the surface, there is a painting underneath.

Nope. If all is torn away, what you have is a blank canvas. Artists are known to paint over their own mistakes.

Christianity would not say that those in heaven do not have free will. It would say that they finally do have a fully free will. To put it in a rather crude analogy, imagine a glass of water (heaven) and a glass of poison (hell). It is not that they are no longer allowed to drink the poison, it is that they are finally free not to drink the poison. This is not to say that, up to then, God made them take the poison, but rather that they always chose a little poison (doctrine of original sin).

It sounds as if your idea of "fully free will" means that the choices become black and white. Yes or no. Good or evil. Water or poison. That doesn't sound like a fully free will to me. It sounds like a restriction of free will that precludes me from choosing any middle ground. I don't know about you, but I am not fond of extremists of any flavor, and I have no wish to be forced to become one.

As far as there being nothing better for the really good, I would answer that in two ways. First, that there is nothing better, period. I mean, to 'stand' 'inside' the trinity and to have that life, love, beauty, etc. flowing into you and through you. I mean, how could you top that.

How about to stand closer to the center of the trinity and have more life, love, beauty, etc. flowing through you?

Second, Christianity does not understand us as 'earning' heaven. We don't merit the invitation. It is simply there. It is a gift. If we received that gift, wouldn't we be overjoyed for all who received it. Wouldn't we rejoice at those who deserved it more than we did? Wouldn't we rejoice for those who deserved it less?

I beg to differ.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

So "works" are an important consideration to the Father, depending, of course, on what part of the Bible you choose to believe.

Having said that, there is some support for degrees of heaven. The idea is that all are filled with divine love, but some are 12 oz cups, and others a big gulps. . .

I knew you were a reasonable person.

Personally, I don't think that all atheists are going to hell. Of course, I don't think all anything is going to hell. I do not say, even, that anyone is going to hell. I believe that the possibility of hell is required by heaven (if heaven means freely saying 'yes', then there must be the possibility of saying 'no'), but that is all (it isn't required that anyone actually say 'no'). I believe that, like no one earns heaven, no one deserves hell. Those in hell (if there are any) have freely chosen it. Now, I would say it is a bad choice (that I hope I do not ultimately make), but I certianly have enough experience with people (me included) making bad choices.

It sounds to me like either of them are just awful. I choose not to answer that yes or no question.

 

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Tricky [/i]

I'm not sure how a disembodied soul would go about learning of Jesus. Can they read? Can they hear? Is there a "Jesus for Dummies" workshop in the afterlife?

This scenario relies on specific abilities of the soul, such as learning and being righteous. I don't see how you can account for your belief in these post-death abilities.

First, thank you for asking some very good questions.
The idea that spirits or that the resurrected ones do not have bodies is an idea that has absolutely no scriptural support.
We are told in the Bible that those who are resurrected as spirits do have bodies.

1 Corinthians 15

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[5] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
NIV

But you certainly agree that some souls can become immortal, do you not? And it appears that you believe that all, or most of them survive sometime after death in order to get their Jesus certification and make it to the big time.

Death ends all thought processes.
All sense impressions cease because sense impressions depend on brain activity and at death that brain activity ceases.

That is very confusing. You can have everlasting life without being a living soul? Dead souls live forever? This would require quite an adjustment in what we mean when we say "living" and "dead".


I don't speak Hebrew, so perhaps you could elaborate a little on the various meanings of "nepesh".

But you know, the word "soul" has a myriad of meanings too.

So does "the person himself" survive death? All of him, or just part of him? If the latter, which parts?

Thoughts cease.
Nothing survives unless God resurrects you.


Psalm 146
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
KJV

Ecclesiates 3

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Ecclesiates 9
10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Unless that "whosoever believeth" stuff was added to Christianity later, it appears that the notion that everybody has a potential everlasting life, was there from the earliest days. Do you believe that passage is incorrect? Just John's wishful thinking?

If I considered anything in the Bible just wishful thinking I would not trust it. I agree with what the scripture you cite tells me. We simply differ a little in our understanding of it.

You're arguing semantics. What exactly is the "person himself". If Plato gave that concept an image to make it more understandable to his students, it doesn't really change the fact that you both believe that something become immortal. I'm trying to find out what that "something" is.

No, all references point to Plato as the source of the idea from which the Church borrowed. He is not described as merely a clarifier.

Is that your final answer? If it is, that means that you can not become immortal after the moment of death. Yet, this contradicts what you said earlier about being resurrected to an "earthly paradise"

.

They are only apparent contradictions not real ones.
The difference between can and will is a great one. Simply because some must wait in the sleep of death before resurrection does not mean that they have lost out on lifer. It merely means that there is a waiting period before they are resurrected. Even those living in the first century had to wait in order to be resurrected.

Yes, it has many meanings. It can also refer to a kind of blues music

.

You can consider it blues musdic if you wish to.
That is your choice.
But it has nothing to do with how the Bible uses the word.

Indeed. In fact, He advocates stoning spiritists to death. I'm glad that rule isn't enforced, because when I was a Christian, I often tried to communicate with dead loved ones via prayer.

You are free to continue that practice.
However, if you accept the whole Bible, why would you want to do something that God specifically tells us is wrong? Unless you feel that the OT is drivel, then of course I can understand. However, then you would be in opposition to Jesus who respected the OT law and considered it part of the Holy Scriptures.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So you cannot have it both ways it seems.

You might want to mention this to Sylvia Browne though. She styles herself as a Christian.

?????

You said earlier that resurrection depended on faith (in the Ransom Sacrifice), not works. Must it be a lifelong faith?

If the resurrection depended on faith then those who died without having the opportunity to hear the message of hope and salvation would never be resurrected. Yet we are told that they will be. The people of Sodom who never heard the message requiring faith will be present at the one-thousand year long Judgment Day. How they fare during it depends on them--of course.

Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

[quoteIf not, how long do you have to have it? Does imminent death rule out sincerity? In any case, I still want no part of an egotistical, tyrannical God that relies only on "loyalty oaths" for admission to his eternal playground. I would rather be around good people than holy people.[/quote]

It is commendable that you wish to be among servants of God and that you reject the concept of a tyrannical God. If God wanted forced obedience he would not have given us free will. He would have made us robots.


But please keep in mind that we are not the ones who determine what is good or holy. God determines what is good or holy.

From what I can gather from that parable (do you actually believe it is literally true?)

If it were not literally true then Jesus' reference to it would lack the power he intended it to have. It would be tantamount to saying "The people of Never Never land will do better after the resurrection." That would probably bring laughter in those who heard it. So it has to be literal. additionally, Genesis tells us it was literal and even archeological evidence testifies to a vast sudden destruction it that specific geological area of Sodom.

They were given incomplete information. They were then punished even know existed! I blame God for their fall. He should have given them more details. A simple "Don't believe anything the serpent says," would have sufficed. for being misled by another creature that they did not

Ah!
I confused the above with Jesus' reference to Sodom.
But you were referring to Adam and Eve.
Sorry.

First, they were not given incomplete info.
Where did you get that idea from?
They were clearly told that if they ate they would die.
That seems clear enough to me.
If not--what is it about that statement that is unclear?

Second, Eve was misled.
Adam was not. HE chose death purposefully because he wanted independence from God.

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Of course, if you are incapable of sin in God's Kingdom, then you have lost free will, which IMO is the most important thing that makes us human. Go to heaven and live in a police state, or surrender your right to think for yourself? I'll pass, thank you.

Yet you do not pass in living where you live right now.
Certainly you are not free to do what you please without suffering punishment by law. Yet you would rather live there than die. A lawless government is no government at all. It leads to anarchy, disorder. God is a God of order. So there must be law to prevent disorder.

"Spirit creatures" is another term that would need some serious defining. Would they include Satan?

A spirit creature is an immaterial one.
That would include Satan.


The question isn't whether you invented it or not. The question is, whether you believe it. [/B]

I believe it.

 

[Yahzi]

Face it, if the rules said you could do it after you died then many would just shrug their shoulders and take a wait and see attitude.

Wouldn't that be the reasonable response?

 

[Blue Monk]

Wouldn't that be the reasonable response?

Why yes I suppose it would be, hehe.

That's my strategy anyway.

 

[Bubbles]

Tricky: I wrote a long reply to your post and it got lost when I tried to post it. Doh.

Thank you for your kind words. I wish I merited them more.

It have enjoyed our conversations very much (though I will stop beating the horse when the vultures arive).

On some level the question of identity is one of ideality (we've left enough footprints on that ground). I would say this: an acorn its, in fact, an acorn and, in potential, an oak. In becoming an oak, the acorn is not negating its nature, but rather fulfilling it. I believe that I am. . . whatever I am right now in fact, but a saint in potential. Consequently, to become that saint is not to negate my nature but to fulfill it. Whatever is in me that is incompatible with me becoming Saint Bubbles (who wouldn't enjoy that feast day?) is preventing me from fulfilling my nature, so I lose nothing in losing it.

As far as the question of restricting choices to clack and white, I would ask whether, in seeing things in grey we are seeing them as we are. Perhaps it is our ignorance that turns black and white into grey, and we will one day really see things in black and white (seeing them as they are) and make a choice. Now, I agree that people who see black and white where they should see grey (being still ignorant, as we all are) are a terrible thing. Perhaps also grey really is a gift from God. Perhaps if we had to choose between heaven and hell NOW, none of us would be able to choose heaven. Perhaps choices of grey are baby steps towards a black and white choice.

The question about degrees of sin is a scriptural one. We should see sin in two ways: what it does to the universe and what it does to the sinner. In that sense, different sins deform both the sinner and the universe in different ways and to different degrees. Some wounds are scratches, and some cut very deep.

I won't say that the question of merit is one where a number of viewpoints cannot be upheld scripturally. Pelagius and Augustine went back and forth on the question, both quoting from the same Bible. I will say that Christianity (especially Western Christianity, which is very Augustinian) has believed in the primacy of grace. I would state it this way: There is no goodness but God's goodness. Whatever goodness we have is God's goodness in us. Consequently, if we can not earn God's love (by being good) unless we already have it. To put it another way, the gift is prior (on a level of being, not just chronologically) to the response.

The final thing I'll talk about here (I'm sorry, I'm not going in order) is the idea of the Trinity. This is the doctrine that destinguishes Christianity from mere monotheism (sadly, I think most Christians are mere monotheists. To a monotheist, 'I' can get close to 'God'. To a pantheist, 'I' can disolve into 'God'.

In the first, no matter how far I can go, there is always something missing. In the second, there ceases to be an 'I' at all. The doctrine of the Trinity claims a third way. God is a relationship. Heaven is to be in that relationship. Because it is a relationship of persons, the 'I' is not lost. Because it is a relationship, I can get 'inside' of it, I am not doomed to merely be near it.

It really doesn't work to think about it spacially.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky: I wrote a long reply to your post and it got lost when I tried to post it. Doh.

DAGNABBIT! The same thing just happened to me. Maybe God is punishing us both. But I am going to try to recreate it as best I can. I wrote some things I want you to see.

On some level the question of identity is one of ideality (we've left enough footprints on that ground). I would say this: an acorn its, in fact, an acorn and, in potential, an oak. In becoming an oak, the acorn is not negating its nature, but rather fulfilling it.

An oak grows many thousands of acorns. Only a few get to be oak trees. But that does not mean that the other acorns are of lesser value. The feed the squirrels which bury the few lucky acorns. Is an acorn that is eaten by a squirrel fulfilling its nature any less than one that becomes a tree?

I believe that I am. . . whatever I am right now in fact, but a saint in potential. Consequently, to become that saint is not to negate my nature but to fulfill it. Whatever is in me that is incompatible with me becoming Saint Bubbles (who wouldn't enjoy that feast day?) is preventing me from fulfilling my nature, so I lose nothing in losing it.

To you, I give the same answer. Is a person who becomes a garbageman fulfilling his nature less than a saint? Without garbagemen we would be buried under our own waste. I think this is sort of what you are saying, but you seem to think that saints are somehow more fulfilled. I disagree.

And by the way, I would gladly attend the feast of Saint Bubbles. I’ll even bring some potato salad and a cooler full of beer. That should satisfy the requirement for bubbles.

As far as the question of restricting choices to black and white, I would ask whether, in seeing things in grey we are seeing them as we are. Perhaps it is our ignorance that turns black and white into grey, and we will one day really see things in black and white (seeing them as they are) and make a choice. Now, I agree that people who see black and white where they should see grey (being still ignorant, as we all are) are a terrible thing. Perhaps also grey really is a gift from God. Perhaps if we had to choose between heaven and hell NOW, none of us would be able to choose heaven. Perhaps choices of grey are baby steps towards a black and white choice.

This seems completely wrong to me. In all my experience, wisdom comes from recognizing balance. I have a hard time believing that the way to ultimate wisdom is to move as closely as possible to one edge of the road. Take, as an extremely annoying example, taxes. The extremes say that there should be no taxes, or that all should go to the government. The wise person says, “tax the right amount and spend it well. We need more wise politicians.

But who among us, being totally honest with themselves, would choose an eternity of total goodness. Your “location” suggests that you wouldn’t. After a few eons, you’d be anxious to drink and womanize and exaggerate. Wouldn’t you?

The question about degrees of sin is a scriptural one. We should see sin in two ways: what it does to the universe and what it does to the sinner. In that sense, different sins deform both the sinner and the universe in different ways and to different degrees. Some wounds are scratches, and some cut very deep.

I don’t see this at all. Some sins, while very evil, cause little damage to the universe, like being extremely greedy, but not able to amass any wealth. Others may be almost trivial but cause great harm, such as being careless and causing an accident that kills many. Which is the greater sin? Which is punished more severely? I don’t believe the scriptures answer this conclusively.

I won't say that the question of merit is one where a number of viewpoints cannot be upheld scripturally. Pelagius and Augustine went back and forth on the question, both quoting from the same Bible. I will say that Christianity (especially Western Christianity, which is very Augustinian) has believed in the primacy of grace. I would state it this way: There is no goodness but God's goodness. Whatever goodness we have is God's goodness in us. Consequently, if we can not earn God's love (by being good) unless we already have it. To put it another way, the gift is prior (on a level of being, not just chronologically) to the response.

What then can we do to lose God’s grace? What can possibly be so bad as to make us irredeemable? Perhaps it is to die while in a state of sin. (You knew I’d get back to the topic eventually, eh?). If that is the case, then I can think of many things worse that ought to send us to hell. The invention of Disco comes to mind.

The final thing I'll talk about here (I'm sorry, I'm not going in order) is the idea of the Trinity. This is the doctrine that distinguishes Christianity from mere monotheism (sadly, I think most Christians are mere monotheists. To a monotheist, 'I' can get close to 'God'. To a pantheist, 'I' can dissolve into 'God'.

In the first, no matter how far I can go, there is always something missing. In the second, there ceases to be an 'I' at all. The doctrine of the Trinity claims a third way. God is a relationship. Heaven is to be in that relationship. Because it is a relationship of persons, the 'I' is not lost. Because it is a relationship, I can get 'inside' of it, I am not doomed to merely be near it.

It really doesn't work to think about it spatially.

You know, if I didn’t know better, I’d say you were taking a middle position between the absolutes of monotheism and pantheism. Why is it that three is the perfect number? Why not four? After all, some varieties of Christianity worship the Virgin Mary too. You can be inside a square too, or a pentagon (the preferred shape of pagans). Yeah, I know you said you said the “spatial” thing didn’t work, but when you use terms like “inside” and “near” then how am I to think otherwise?

But I’d have to say that choosing a trinity over the extremes of monotheism or pantheism is a very gray area. Oops.