Heaven Not For Christians Only

[Holsety]

The rejection of the doctrine of sin is quite modern. Indeed, if you take those words, 'that nothing is unnatural or evil' to their logical conclusion, then we may justify pedophelia, the crimes of September 11th and other heinous acts in any way you like.

I said I liked it; I mean, I find the argument interesting. But like I said I don't agree with it. You don't need to convince me. I never said wrongness and evil didn't exist so there's no point in arguing it does (with me). To me, the idea of an absolutely infinitely powerful and good god is what is hard to believe.

But you didn't offer any evidence to address

If you have a force which has a complete capability to stop all evil things and doesn't, isn't it culpable for not acting?

Which is a doubt I actually hold about christianity. Even with our free will, god would be culpable because he can alter our free will and stop us from doing evil at any time. Can one be infinitely good while allowing wrong to occur?

Basically, you proved the part I take for granted and Spinoza doesn't; Spinoza takes the existence of a perfect creator and then concludes that wrong does not really exist. I take the existence of wrong and conclude that a perfect creator doesn't exist.

Some hold to the idea that god somehow "lessened" him/itself. And I've never understood why judaism (and maybe christians use it too) use th
is argument because it undermines god's existence and, after all, does a perfect infinite being somehow being able to make itself flawed make any sense?

On a side note I don't think christianity can be completely proved w/ reason to anyone's satisfaction on earth. If humans could have a full and certain knowledge of god our sins would be unredeemable like lucifer's. The difference between a sinner on earth and a sinner on hell is that the sinner on earth doesn't KNOW heaven exists, and so his decision to follow the rules set out by god aren't governed by a fear of hell.
EDIT-I don't have an objection to reading stuff but there are a number of books I actually posses which I need to read, so I probably won't get around to it in the next coupla months. I don't believe I asked any questions anyway in the earlier post

[Xar]

But altering our free will to prevent evil from occurring would make free will ultimately pointless, not to mention prevent spiritual and moral growth in human beings. The paraphrase of St. Augustine I reported before suggests that one should not measure evil or good on an individual scale, but on a cosmic one:

A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn't be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal.

What good comes out of a drive-by killing, someone might ask, or the death of a teenager through overdose, or a daughter's rape, or child abuse? The answer is that a commensurate good doesn't always come out of those individual situations, though God is certainly capable of redeeming any tragedy. Rather, the greater good results from having a world in which there is moral freedom, and moral freedom makes moral tragedies like these possible.

[Holsety]

A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn't be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal.

Best of all possible =/= perfect. My contention is that god which is all powerful and omnipresent would not be able to be perfect in a universe where evil existed even momentarily.

Our world is better than a world without evil having ever touched it, but it is also worse.

[Xar]

Best of all possible =/= perfect. My contention is that god which is all powerful and omnipresent would not be able to be perfect in a universe where evil existed even momentarily.

But nobody ever said that the world is (or should be) perfect; after all, humans are flawed, and this alone would be enough to make the world imperfect, wouldn't it?

Our world is better than a world without evil having ever touched it, but it is also worse.

From another point of view, evil might be a necessity. If we assume, like St. Augustine, that evil is the absence of good (or the choice of a lesser over a greater good), and therefore not a thing per se, it follows that a world without evil - i.e. a world where all things are perfect - would not allow any spiritual development. It would not only make free will a moot point (if you have free will, but can only choose good, what's the point?), it would also prevent any thinking, ensouled being from progressing from a moral and spiritual standpoint.

Consider, as an example, a family who has an only child and who pampers that child, giving him everything he wants, shielding him from any harm and from the bad consequences of his own actions. From the child's perspective, everything is "good" (in the sense that no choice he makes has bad consequences that he can see, and all he wants is given to him). Would that child evolve from a moral standpoint? Or would he instead simply become spoiled, and - once an adult - possibly lack a moral compass to understand what is right and what is wrong? Without talking about extremes, consider how such a child could harm other people's feelings simply because he does not realize that he has that power.

So my argument is that by preventing evil, mankind would be totally innocent - and totally unable to grow spiritually. We would be forever like little children, unable to exercise our free will in any meaningful way and, in essence, "forced" to live in a certain way. One could therefore contend that, yes, God could intervene to "purge" the world from evil, but in so doing, all we would become would be a mass of puppets who are no longer truly free. In order for us to truly be free, to truly exercise our free will and to be able to struggle and grow closer to God (or, if you prefer, to a higher state of morality and spirituality), we cannot be shielded from the consequences of our actions, and since we do not live in a vacuum, sometimes those consequences affect others as well. To prevent this - for example, to limit the consequences of your evil to yourself, not affecting others - would deny others the possibility to grow in reaction to your evil; while some people are crushed by the evil they suffer, others use it as a catalyst to grow greater than they were.

I think the difficulty is inherent in the fact that we can view the problem of evil from two points of view: the microcosm and the macrocosm. In the former, we are concerned with individual people (why does God allow X to murder Y?); in the latter, we are concerned with the "big picture" (why does God allow evil in His creation?). As far as I understand (and maybe Lina can explain this better, since she said St. Augustine was a favorite of hers), St. Augustine looks at the problem of evil from the macrocosm point of view; in the cosmic order of things, evil cannot be prevented without preventing the spiritual and moral growth of human beings, and denying them their free will. And since free will is a gift of God, it would make no sense for Him to give you a gift which you cannot use, would it?

[The Laughing Man]

I have some questions to add to this topic: What if there was an "undeniable" God who made His presence known to everyone, and he did punish us for "doing wrong"? How would that affect our approach to "doing good"?

[rusmeister]

The rejection of the doctrine of sin is quite modern. Indeed, if you take those words, 'that nothing is unnatural or evil' to their logical conclusion, then we may justify pedophelia, the crimes of September 11th and other heinous acts in any way you like.

I said I liked it; I mean, I find the argument interesting. But like I said I don't agree with it. You don't need to convince me. I never said wrongness and evil didn't exist so there's no point in arguing it does (with me). To me, the idea of an absolutely infinitely powerful and good god is what is hard to believe.

But you didn't offer any evidence to address

Fair enough and true - all of this posting is exhausting me! (wife, 3 kids, 3 jobs...)
The best work dealing with that question that I have read is Lewis's "The Problem of Pain"
www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969
The first customer review is brilliant, so here it is:

A quick warning to those who have been pointed to this book but are not Christian: you are not the audience Lewis is speaking to. This book cannot be fully grasped in its original context without some degree of belief or acceptance of Christian doctrine. It is apologetics at its best, but cannot be considered in the "self-help" category like many contemporary titles are.
That said, this must be the finest treatise on the apparent contradiction between the existence of pain and the existence of a supposedly loving God that has been written.

Succint, well-organized, thorough, yet "The Problem of Pain" still reads like it was written by a human being rather than a scholar. Some chapters bring conviction. The chapter on Hell brings fear and dread, and respect for Him who can "destroy both body and soul in Hell". The chapter on Heaven, which Lewis admits is his own philosophical foray, no one else's -- brings hope and reassurance that Heaven is your true calling, your one True Home.

This is not light reading, at least not at first. This may not be a book to recommend to someone at the height of a crisis; Lewis taxes your attention and does not take any short cuts. A "Cliff Notes" version of this book would miss the point. Pain is one of the toughest theological problems a Christian can face, either in their lives or the life of another person they know -- and Lewis does not want you going in armed with half an argument or some "Precious Moments" sentiment.

From a non-Christian POV, I would be surprised if this book made much sense -- so many of the pillars are set on Christian theology, philosophy, and tradition. If you cannot (or will not) accept the possibility of the existence of Heaven, Hell, or God, this book will be just so much incomprehensible babble.

But, as I said, it is not written for that segment of the market. This book is best read by the thinking Christian who has reservations about aspects of Christianity that seem to gloss over, avoid, or ignore the issue of human suffering.

On a side note I don't think christianity can be completely proved w/ reason to anyone's satisfaction on earth. If humans could have a full and certain knowledge of god our sins would be unredeemable like lucifer's. The difference between a sinner on earth and a sinner on hell is that the sinner on earth doesn't KNOW heaven exists, and so his decision to follow the rules set out by god aren't governed by a fear of hell.

Agreed. But 'proof' of the kind you may be seeking would exclude faith, one of the three Christian virtues (relative to paganism).

EDIT-I don't have an objection to reading stuff but there are a number of books I actually posses which I need to read, so I probably won't get around to it in the next coupla months. I don't believe I asked any questions anyway in the earlier post

I totally understand. I'm in the same boat. But the answers are out there, and so it would be unreasonable to be satisfied that you have refuted Christian doctrine when in fact you simply haven't discovered either what it is or what the reasoning behind it may be.
Coupla? Is that a new contraction?

Remember, (we ARE Donaldson fans, right?), a paradox is not an actual contradiction, but only an apparent one! Find the eye of the paradox! (Chesterton was a master of this.)

[Avatar]

All wrongs are subjective, and I suspect evil is too. Really depends on how we use and define the term. I have trouble with the word simply because of its religious connotations.

Oh, and Rus, I though the angels didn't have free will?

--A

[rusmeister]

All wrongs are subjective, and I suspect evil is too. Really depends on how we use and define the term. I have trouble with the word simply because of its religious connotations.

Oh, and Rus, I though the angels didn't have free will?

--A

When significant evil is practiced on you, you will know it. If your child is raped and murdered, finding rationalizations for the perpetrators will go out the window.
That said, I think there is truth in what you say, that many things from our standpoint can only be considered evil subjectively.
Having trouble with the word can indicate an emotional (automatic) reaction rather than one arrived at by reason. What I said earlier about indoctrination could be one explanation or factor of how this came to be.

As far as angels, I don't know. There are limits on what Orthodox Christianity claims to know - unlike Catholicism, for example, we allow more room for mystery - for what we don't understand, so we don't speak of transubstantiation - a Roman Catholic doctrine which explains what goes on with the Eucharist. Using my reason, it doesn't seem logical to assume that angels don't have free will (assuming that you're taking Christian teaching seriously for a second). After all, Lucifer and many angels that followed him came to be what we know as demons, evidently through their free choice to rebel against God. It is possible that there have been other rebellions and there are other Fallen beings that we don't know about. We only know that humans, the odd hybrid of spirit being and animal being, Fell and came in need of what is termed 'salvation'. Various denominations have various understandings of what exactly that is, but in Orthodoxy I would say it means being saved from ourselves and the consequences of our foolishly selfish choices more than anything else (the foremost of which is Death).

[Holsety]

Haha I actually need to get to work soon so I think I'm going to save a lengthier reply tomorrow. But,

I have some questions to add to this topic: What if there was an "undeniable" God who made His presence known to everyone, and he did punish us for "doing wrong"? How would that affect our approach to "doing good"?

Ha - from my own perspective, it matters a lot on what "doing wrong" was for that god. If most of the important stuff (don't kill, help other people) was consistent between god and me, I'd probably be willing to concede on the "minor" stuff (stop eating pork, ) for the sake of getting into heaven. I mean, I'm not going to make a moral stand about pork for heaven's sake!!! (in both the literal and figurative meaning)

But if god was like "ok you have to join X religion and kill all nonbelievers" I think that I would be all heroic and cool like "I'd rather live in your hell than be chained in your heaven" or something a little more epic. Still, who really knows what I'd decide when confronted with eternal damnation and suffering? I dunno that I can trust myself that much.
((On a side note jews and christians do have to worry about being faced with such a choice - King David was punished for not killing the amaleks, or however it's spelled))

The only thing I can say about angels is that Milton said somewhere (through the devils) that man had even more potential for wrongdoing than the fallen angels. Ya, I realize that's not exactly canon but I thought it was worth mentioning.

[Avatar]

Well, Milton appears to be canon as far as the fall goes. IIRC, "the fall" is not mentioned in the bible as such. (Anybody who's got chapter and verse to contradict that, please go ahead. )

I'm also pretty sure that according to canon, all divine beings are bereft of free will, being "tools" of god. If that's true, then the so-called "rebellion" wasn't exactly that.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Well, Milton appears to be canon as far as the fall goes. IIRC, "the fall" is not mentioned in the bible as such. (Anybody who's got chapter and verse to contradict that, please go ahead. )

I'm also pretty sure that according to canon, all divine beings are bereft of free will, being "tools" of god. If that's true, then the so-called "rebellion" wasn't exactly that.

--A

So, you make a claim about the Bible not saying something, when it actually does, then make another claim that the Bible says, but I'm not sure it does. Shoddy research Av.

1Cor 15: 20-22 is one example of the idea of a fall. Not sure where the Bible mentions something about divine beings bereft of free will.

[Holsety]

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep

Do you mean this? That's what google turned up as the verse...I admit I'm not sure it's talking about the fall of the angels...? But I've only read part of the NT so I'm not claiming to be an expert.

As far as angels, the idea that they had no free will is one I've heard before. I've never heard a biblical passage to back it up though. However, I'm pretty sure it IS canon that angels are unable to be redeemed because they have knowledge of god; their sins are not committed in ignorance.

[Holsety]

But nobody ever said that the world is (or should be) perfect; after all, humans are flawed, and this alone would be enough to make the world imperfect, wouldn't it?

And, while I hate to ask this because I'm sure you're expecting it, it's a stock question, but...is a completely perfect being able to create flaws?

Xar, I basically have no problems with what you said, except that I still see god allowing evil to take place as a flawed action. When we humans choose the best possible good choice which still allows evil - or when we permit such an action to take place - that doesn't mean we are making a perfect decision. Similarly while I agree that god may be the best possible god, I can't accept god as being perfect. I don't even know how an all powerful always everywhere god CAN somehow be separated from evil actions. Why do some people need to be hurt more than others for them to grow spiritually? Is a child who dies of starvation before learning to talk experiencing "spiritual growth?" Aren't all humans equal? Yet it seems that there is a disparity in evil - what a surprise - and many people's lives on earth have already ended.

Would I rather live in this world than a world where everything was already perfect...well, from my current perspective, yes. But could I in good conscience let pain go forward for the sake of greater good "down the road?"

Agreed. But 'proof' of the kind you may be seeking would exclude faith, one of the three Christian virtues (relative to paganism).

EDIT-I don't have an objection to reading stuff but there are a number of books I actually posses which I need to read, so I probably won't get around to it in the next coupla months. I don't believe I asked any questions anyway in the earlier post

I totally understand. I'm in the same boat. But the answers are out there, and so it would be unreasonable to be satisfied that you have refuted Christian doctrine when in fact you simply haven't discovered either what it is or what the reasoning behind it may be.
Coupla? Is that a new contraction?

Remember, (we ARE Donaldson fans, right?), a paradox is not an actual contradiction, but only an apparent one! Find the eye of the paradox! (Chesterton was a master of this.)

Haha, I don't see myself as "refuting the christian doctrine" as pointing out why I can't simply read a list of proofs and say "well ok then I believe." I do think about the existence of god but I can't completely resolve it to my own satisfaction, I'm sure the same is true for believers in god as well. The thing is, I don't have faith - there isn't some feeling kicking around in my head/heart that while I don't really know for sure, it FEELS like god exists (or that god doesn't exist).

The fact that existence...is, that's pretty much the big surprise to me. Whether a divine being has always existed and created everything else, or suddenly there was something where there usesd to be nothing...either is pretty impossible to grasp with the human mind XD

I certainly will get to the chesteron and lewis books at some point (undetermined but I think the summer of next year is the absolute latest ); I am always open to others' ideas.

Also in terms of posting taking up time I completely understand, recently I've had more leisure time but in the past I often found myself getting involved in a debate for a day or two and then getting too distracted to be able to get back t o it.

Oh simply because the topic of wrong and evil came up...I am quite sure they exist. Now, defining them perfectly is another thing.

[Avatar]

1Cor 15: 20-22 is one example of the idea of a fall. Not sure where the Bible mentions something about divine beings bereft of free will.

15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Sorry, I fail to see how this refers to the story of Lucifer's fall or in any way gives rise to it. *shrug*

2 Peter 2 does however mention god casting sinning angels down into hell, and there are a couple of references to evil angels.

However, I don't find anything in the bible that suggests that they do have free will, apart from their claimed ability to sin / be evil.

That said, I can only find 2 instances where it appears that humans have free will, (Dt.30:19 & Joshua 24:15) and 7 claims therein that we do not. (Acts 13:48, Rom.8:29-30, Rom.9:11-22, Eph.1:4-5, 2 Th.2:11-12, 2 Tim.1:9 & Jude 4.)

Ah, Luke 10:18 says god was watching satan fall from heaven like lightning. And that's about as close as it gets. Of course, those verse quoted above which claim that everything is predestined for everybody sorta cast doubt on the free will...

*shrug*

--A

[The Laughing Man]

The Book of Enoch, one of my personal favorites....

Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah, Resurrection, a Final Judgement, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Interspersed with this material are quasi-scientific digressions on calendrical systems, geography, cosmology, astronomy, and meteorology.

CHAPTER VI.
1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' 4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' 5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens.

[Avatar]

Gnostic gospels count?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

you can certainly argue the point, however:

The Book of Enoch, written during the second century B.C.E., is one of the most important non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian, particularly Gnostic, beliefs.

The current contention is that Gnosticism is (or was) Christianity, albeit in the beginning. It is likely by all accounts that this is what Jesus himself may have been taught. Personally speaking, I've found more evidence of God in the scriptures they left out of the current Bible, which has also fostered an intense skepticism of the currently accepted and expressed tradition of Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas is another favorite of mine, and these works also reflect a much more robust and adept representation of Mary, Jesus mother. Joseph and Mary were very wise and spiritually powerful people, and it is here that we also find more evidence that the other Mary of Magdalene was in fact no damned whore! I'll never placate myself with the Church for what they've done to her.....

[rusmeister]

Neither Enoch nor Gnostic gospels count according to Christianity. Since the OP is presumably examining Christian teaching, they are irrelevant.

The concept of the Fall, for you Philadelphia lawyers out there, is understood from the context of Scripture as a whole. The events described in Scripture all add up to a Fall, whether it is so labeled or not.

In any event, it certainly explains the strangeness of the fact that we die, coupled with a strong feeling that death is wrong and ought not to BE. (Rationalizing this feeling by saying "Who wants to live forever?" does not rationalize this feeling that death is really NOT natural; not something intended by the Creator.

Again, the God of the Christians did not create flaws. He allowed for the possibility that His creations could freely choose to Fall and be flawed.

Holsety, I think your questions are good ones, but again, they've already been answered. I would once again point out Lewis's "The Problem of Pain". (And if you have time to read these forums, you surely could find time to go through a few chapters of a book like that if you wanted to.)

Avatar, FYI, Orthodox Tradition does not draw its theology from Scripture in a vacuum. Scripture is part of the overall Tradition - some of the Tradition is not written but oral, and yet has been passed from generation to generation. We can accept the idea (in fiction at least) that Nassic was passing down a tradition faithfully held - why can we not allow the same possibility for a genuine Christian Church? So not finding a teaching in Scripture doesn't mean that it's not a part of valid Tradition - although Scriptural backing can be found for the non-written parts of the Tradition.

Finally, we only know what has been revealed, so many questions remain mysteries, and some questions make no sense at all from a Christian standpoint, like, "Is the color 'red' circular?"

[rusmeister]

you can certainly argue the point, however:

The Book of Enoch, written during the second century B.C.E., is one of the most important non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian, particularly Gnostic, beliefs.

The current contention is that Gnosticism is (or was) Christianity, albeit in the beginning. Personally speaking, I've found more evidence of God in the scriptures they left out of the current Bible, which has also fostered an intense skepticism of the currently accepted and expressed tradition of Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas is another favorite of mine, and these works also reflect a much more robust and adept representation of Mary, Jesus mother. Joseph and Mary were very wise and spiritually powerful people, and it is here that we also find more evidence that the other Mary of Magdalene was in fact no damned whore! I'll never placate myself with the Church for what they've done to her.....

The current contention is that Gnosticism is a heresy, ultimately put down by the Church.
The Gnostic 'gospels' were left out for a REASON, Esmer - they didn't square with everything else in the Tradition - they were tabloid 'gospels'; fakes. It took hundreds of scholars and priests a few couple of hundred years to hammer out in council which ones were genuine and which were not. In general, it would be amusing if it weren't so sad that people 'suddenly' discovered these tabloid gospels and people like Dan Brown making $$$ off of people's ignorance, when the Church knew about them 1,800 years ago. Mistakes long forgotten being rediscovered and given a new lease on life. Therte is a reason to take canonicity seriously and the word 'heresy', long laughed at as something not serious at all, does present a real danger, one so great that people were willing to die for orthodoxy of faith - this was what made Christianity so wildly popular in a weary Pagan Rome in the first place.
The Church venerates Mary Magdalene as well as Mary the mother of Jesus (The Theotokos), so I don't know what you're talking about there.

[The Laughing Man]

I'd hardly call Enoch a fake, nor would any Christian scholar familiar with it's contents. And you can hardly be so dismissive of it's influence on Christianity. It long held a revered place amongst early scriptures, and was part of the very foundation upon Christianity itself was built. I'd hardly call that heretical my friend. We can agree to disagree, because I'm patently against the hardline official church of Christ as it stands today, and express my own well researched opinions and beliefs.

The book is referred to, and quoted, in Jude 14-15:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

The early Christian father Tertullian wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ

The Greek language text was known to, and quoted by nearly all, Church Fathers. A number of the Church Fathers thought it to be an inspired work, particularly Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian[citation needed], based on its quotation in Jude.

However, some later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work (Cf. Gerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. 4.). By the fourth century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon, and it was omitted from the canon by most of the Christian church (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being an exception).