s/o of my other Christian content thread - salvation ??s

[StaceyinLA]

Okay, I know this will probably be a very large debate, but I am just curious; what are your basic beliefs about salvation? Like exactly what, in your mind/heart, does it take to be considered "saved."

Edited January 1, 2017 by StaceyinLA

[Jean in Newcastle]

Believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute for me, taking the punishment for my sins in my stead.  This includes believing that this was only possible because He is the sinless God-Man with true deity and true humanity who is able to act as a mediator between God and Man. 

[Amy in NH]

Are you looking for only a Christian perspective?

[StaceyinLA]

Are you looking for only a Christian perspective?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I guess I was assuming (perhaps very wrongly) that only Christians would have a belief in salvation through Christ.

[FaithManor]

Stacey, there are several world religions that have a salvation belief. Some by keeping certain tenets, some requiring belief in a specific prophet or writings of that prophet/philosopher, big variety. Even ancient nordic faiths had an idea of immortality, afterlife and beliefs that went with being "saved" in order to attain the afterlife.

 

So the term salvation as a stand alone idea is not unique to Christianity. So qhile you mention in the title that this is s/o of your other Christian thread, it doea not specify only a Christ centered salvation topic. Maybe you should add CC only to the title if you are not wishing to discuss salvation within other religions.

Edited January 1, 2017 by FaithManor

[J-rap]

My beliefs are that there is a God behind everything, and God is love, and He revealed that through Christ.  I believe people can have salvation whether they know Christ or not, because the reality is, many people will never know Him and it's through no fault of their own.     And I think God is fair.  I think as long as you try and live a good and decent life based on what you do know and have an understanding of what love is, then you know God in your own way, whether you think you do or not.

 

Then at some point (death?) you'll learn that love = Christ = God.  

 

I know, kind of non-traditional.

 

ETA:  To be clear, I do believe absolutely that salvation only comes through Christ, and that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection were absolutely crucial.  But I also believe God can extend Christ's salvation to others who do not know Him.

Edited January 2, 2017 by J-rap

[Guest]

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved."

 

That's all it takes. It's all about what Jesus did for YOU, not what you do for Jesus. Once you are in his clutches, you will never be let go.

[Terabith]

Honestly? I believe that in the fullness of time, all people will be saved. "Just believe" is hardly easy for many of us, and how does one define believe anyway? I don't think the loving God of grace I know will leave anyone out of the circle but used all of eternity reaching out and inviting, pulling His creations back toward Him.

 

But I'm told I'm a heretic. I'm ok with that.

[bolt.]

In my opinion, our ability to explain and correctly word these sorts of beliefs is a huge barrier to good communication.

 

Salvation means a variety of things, even in the Bible, even in Greek. Then there are interpretations, and theology, and creeds (often in Latin) -- and more casual forms of thought and speech in English (for English speakers like us).

 

What I mean is that it is truly extremely hard to explain this stuff!

 

I believe that those who hear about Jesus Christ (presuming a reasonably true presentation about him) and "entrust themselves to him" with a response of surrender (consent) and the intention of loyalty will be included (will have been included?) in his saving actions (death and ressurection) which results in purification from sin, new-and-eternal life, through reconciliation / renewal of a "son like" relationship with God (Father, Son and HS) who is the only source of life (of any kind), and the indwelling presence of God within them... among other things.

 

This belief does not imply that God (Father, Son and HS) isn't allowed to do anything else to any other set of humans, or any other created things. He is God, and his rescue plan may extend to much greater width or depth than the above "salvation" -- but the above "method of salvation" is very clearly revealed, 100% reliable, and totally awesome. I don't advise anyone to skip it in hopes that some undisclosed plan just might be almost as good.

 

The "Jesus rescue plan" was incredibly costly to God-self. I think if there were other plans that would 'do' well enough (in God's eyes) -- why bother with incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, or indwelling? It strukes me as the sort of thing God would only do if it matters.

Edited January 1, 2017 by bolt.

[MercyA]

Based on my understanding of Scripture, I have rejected the idea that a one-time recitation of a "Sinner's Prayer" or a mere intellectual assent to the truths of Scripture is sufficient for salvation. Instead, I believe:

 

Salvation is only through Christ:

 

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.†John 14:6

 

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12

 

Salvation comes through faith in Christ and His sacrifice:

 

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith... Romans 3:21-25A

 

Repentance and new birth are necessary:

 

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.†Luke 13:2-5

 

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.†John 3:3

 

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

 

Faith without works is dead and shows itself to be false:

 

You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:19-20

 

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,†and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.†1 John 2:3-4

 

Only those who persevere in faith will be saved:

 

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,†says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.†It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.†Hebrews 10:26-30

 

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:20-21

 

There is hope for people like me, who struggled with my faith and with sin: 

 

Jesus said to him, â€œIf you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.†Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!†Mark 9:23-24

 

...If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:7-9

 

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. John 6:37

Edited January 2, 2017 by MercyA

[abba12]

Based on my understanding of Scripture, I have rejected the idea that a one-time recitation of a "Sinner's Prayer" or a mere intellectual assent to the truths of Scripture is sufficient for salvation. Instead, I believe:

 

Salvation is only through Christ:

 

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.†John 14:6

 

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12

 

Salvation comes through faith in Christ and His sacrifice:

 

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith... Romans 3:21-25A

 

Faith alone, without works, is dead:

 

You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:19-20

 

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,†and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.†1 John 2:3-4

 

Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord... Hebrews 12:14

 

Repentance and new birth are necessary:

 

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.†Luke 13:2-5

 

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.†John 3:3

 

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

 

Only those who persevere in faith will be saved:

 

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,†says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.†It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.†Hebrews 10:26-30

 

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:20-21

 

There is hope for people like me, who struggled with my faith and with sin: 

 

Jesus said to him, â€œIf you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.†Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!†Mark 9:23-24

 

...If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:7-9

 

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. John 6:37

 

Wow, can I copy this for future use? This is pretty much exactly as I believe with one exception, but I've never seen it laid out so clearly for someone asking questions

[MercyA]

Wow, can I copy this for future use? This is pretty much exactly as I believe with one exception, but I've never seen it laid out so clearly for someone asking questions

 

LOL, yes. And you know I'm curious about your one exception. Could you let me know either here or via PM?

 

So good to see you here on the chat board! :) Happy New Year! 

[StaceyinLA]

Stacey, there are several world religions that have a salvation belief. Some by keeping certain tenets, some requiring belief in a specific prophet or writings of that prophet/philosopher, big variety. Even ancient nordic faiths had an idea of immortality, afterlife and beliefs that went with being "saved" in order to attain the afterlife.

 

So the term salvation as a stand alone idea is not unique to Christianity. So qhile you mention in the title that this is s/o of your other Christian thread, it doea not specify only a Christ centered salvation topic. Maybe you should add CC only to the title if you are not wishing to discuss salvation within other religions.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm not really an idiot; I just play one on TV (and the WTM boards).

;-p

 

I'd certainly be open to hearing of others' beliefs about salvation. I'm curious about the Christian aspect because I believe one thing, yet I think there are denominations that may believe something different and I'd like to understand that reasoning.

 

I'm very interested in knowing more about other religions that have differing salvation beliefs and what those are.

[StaceyinLA]

I can't get back on until later tonight - I'll be babysitting my grandchildren for a few hours. I WILL get back on though, and read all the comments.

[abba12]

LOL, yes. And you know I'm curious about your one exception. Could you let me know either here or via PM?

 

So good to see you here on the chat board! :) Happy New Year! 

 

Actually it's not so much a difference of opinion as it is that I would more clearly define something.

 

The line 'faith alone, without works, is dead', I understand you're pulling from James, but I think it is easily misunderstood and commonly misused, and even here I'm not sure exactly what you define it as. I don't believe we need to actively pursue good works in addition to faith. Not that we shouldn't, but we don't need to for salvation. However, I believe true faith will result in good works by it's very nature. You cannot have faith and still lack goodness, the two go together. So the idea 'you will know them by their fruits', I believe those fruits are a natural manifestation and logical end of faith. But phrased the way you have, in my church experiences that would be easily taken to mean believers must 'prove' their faith by doing 'enough' good works and Christians begin to doubt themselves as Christians because they don't feel 'good' enough, and others begin to judge that person who didn't help out with the bake sale as having dead faith. I guess it's the difference between a natural manifestation or an active goal and proof. We should actively work towards good things as well but that is above and beyond our salvation, not part of it. The part that relates to our salvation will come forth from our faith whether or not we're aware of it because true faith will by it's nature result in believing in 'good' and turning toward it, and because the fruits of the spirit are just that, the result of the Holy Spirit within us, not our goals to achieve to prove our faith is not dead. Someone who claims faith but lacks the fruits and lacks good works does not have faith, they cannot, it is mutually exclusive. Part of actually having faith is genuinely believing they should turn to goodness, the very root of what God is, and at least some of that will inevitably show itself in their actions somewhere. Faith without a desire and some inevitable action toward goodness is impossible because God is Goodness and faith in him requires it. So, I suppose, to me, it's not that faith alone is not sufficient, it's that true faith will never be alone, and 'faith' without an outward manifestation of some kind is false. 

 

I'm not saying you meant it that way at all, btw. I suspect you probably agree with what I've said. But for new Christians or questioning Christians, that is such a loaded phrase and the verses afterwards slightly ambiguous without context, so I would want to define that a little more clearly if I sent it on to someone, that it's not something they have to do for salvation, but that it's something which will come naturally from faith and 'proves' faith but does not require active attention. 

[Guest]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm not really an idiot; I just play one on TV (and the WTM boards).

;-p

 

I'd certainly be open to hearing of others' beliefs about salvation. I'm curious about the Christian aspect because I believe one thing, yet I think there are denominations that may believe something different and I'd like to understand that reasoning.

 

I'm very interested in knowing more about other religions that have differing salvation beliefs and what those are.

You might like looking around at religioustolerance. Org. I found it very interesting to read what different faiths and denominations believe and why (as far as scriptural support) they believe that.

[Guest]

Orthodox Christians have a layered meaning of the word "salvation."  It's not a point in time ONLY but sort of three-fold...I have been saved, I am being saved, and please God, I will be saved.  Salvation itself is summed up in the word "theosis"--being united with Christ.  

 

Some Christian traditions separate out the words "salvation" and "sanctification" and "justification" but we see them all as part of a process-word, a continuing action that starts and continues as we cooperate with the Holy Spirit.  I can go into it more if you are interested but that's the net-net.  

 

My signature here has a phrase that sort of sums it up:  Christ didn't come to make bad men good but to make dead men live.  Salvation is about being enlivened by the Holy Spirit and united with Christ.  

[FaithManor]

I ike the Orthodox concept of an action continuing through time. I believe that ultimatey faith in god is a journey not a single point in time event.

[MercyA]

Actually it's not so much a difference of opinion as it is that I would more clearly define something.

 

The line 'faith alone, without works, is dead', I understand you're pulling from James, but I think it is easily misunderstood and commonly misused, and even here I'm not sure exactly what you define it as. I don't believe we need to actively pursue good works in addition to faith. Not that we shouldn't, but we don't need to for salvation. However, I believe true faith will result in good works by its very nature. You cannot have faith and still lack goodness, the two go together. So the idea 'you will know them by their fruits', I believe those fruits are a natural manifestation and logical end of faith. But phrased the way you have, in my church experiences that would be easily taken to mean believers must 'prove' their faith by doing 'enough' good works and Christians begin to doubt themselves as Christians because they don't feel 'good' enough, and others begin to judge that person who didn't help out with the bake sale as having dead faith. I guess it's the difference between a natural manifestation or an active goal and proof. We should actively work towards good things as well but that is above and beyond our salvation, not part of it. The part that relates to our salvation will come forth from our faith whether or not we're aware of it because true faith will by its nature result in believing in 'good' and turning toward it, and because the fruits of the spirit are just that, the result of the Holy Spirit within us, not our goals to achieve to prove our faith is not dead. Someone who claims faith but lacks the fruits and lacks good works does not have faith, they cannot, it is mutually exclusive. Part of actually having faith is genuinely believing they should turn to goodness, the very root of what God is, and at least some of that will inevitably show itself in their actions somewhere. Faith without a desire and some inevitable action toward goodness is impossible because God is Goodness and faith in him requires it. So, I suppose, to me, it's not that faith alone is not sufficient, it's that true faith will never be alone, and 'faith' without an outward manifestation of some kind is false. 

 

I'm not saying you meant it that way at all, btw. I suspect you probably agree with what I've said. But for new Christians or questioning Christians, that is such a loaded phrase and the verses afterwards slightly ambiguous without context, so I would want to define that a little more clearly if I sent it on to someone, that it's not something they have to do for salvation, but that it's something which will come naturally from faith and 'proves' faith but does not require active attention. 

 

Thank you, abba12! Yes, I do agree with at least 95% of what you wrote here. I believe someone can be totally unable to do "good works" and still be saved by faith, as the thief on the cross was. Thank you for your added clarifications. I had initially written, "Faith without works is dead and is not true faith at all," and I think I will go back and edit my post for clarity.

Edited January 2, 2017 by MercyA

[73349]

Honestly? I believe that in the fullness of time, all people will be saved. "Just believe" is hardly easy for many of us, and how does one define believe anyway? I don't think the loving God of grace I know will leave anyone out of the circle but used all of eternity reaching out and inviting, pulling His creations back toward Him.

 

But I'm told I'm a heretic. I'm ok with that.

 

You're a Universalist. Heresy is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

[Onceuponatime]

The "Jesus rescue plan" was incredibly costly to God-self. I think if there were other plans that would 'do' well enough (in God's eyes) -- why bother with incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, or indwelling? It strukes me as the sort of thing God would only do if it matters.

Caveat: I am a former christian/ atheist.

 

This kind of thinking has become incomprehensible to me. A supernatural, eternal, omnicient, omnipresent God, living a short human life and spending a few hours in pain, only to go back to being eternal, omnicient, and omnipresent, hardly seems costly at all. And one wonders why it would matter, if he made all the rules to begin with and could have decided to do "it" any way he wanted. Or not.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Onceuponatime

[bolt.]

Caveat: I am an former christian/ atheist.

 

This kind of thinking has become incomprehensible to me. A supernatural, eternal, omnicient, omnipresent God, living a short human life and spending a few hours in pain, only to go back to being eternal, omnicient, and omnipresent, hardly seems costly at all. And one wonders why it would matter, if he made all the rules to begin with and could have decided to do "it" any way he wanted. Or not.

As a deity 'you' kinda limit your own choices if ( a ) you actually are the only source of life for all beings, and ( b ) you are interested in having a relationship that is based on informed consent.

 

It makes it optional for your creations to choose 'no relationship thanks' but, clearly, such a choice would kill them. Then you have to deal with their mortality issues in a way that still doesn't violate consent issues... At least, you would want to make it possible for them to be restored, should they want to be.

 

By dying and rising, Jesus deals with the death issue through incarnation and indwelling.

 

Your perception is that such actions would have a sense of triviality (bring brief) in the scheme of God-life. My perception is that the 'brief' aspect isn't really relevant to a timeless deity -- but would be significant is the totally different type of being he was becoming, and the dark paradox of the author of life being killed (by the people created by him, who live by his mercy) experiencing death, and overcoming it... Which changes both the nature of humanity and its potemtial. This is a reality-shaking change. However brief, it's intense and meaningful for a deity to choose such experiences for our sake. The idea that it was only a short phase do it shouldn't be a big deal to him is s very human time-centric perspective.

[Bluegoat]

My church teaches that we all have salvation through CHrist, and this is a kind of self-giving on God's part. In the Fall, there was a kind of break in the link between ourselves and God which, because of the interconnectedness of all people and the physical world, meant that we all live in a less than fully realized way.  It's like a bit f program code went wrong.  The Word is the template for all creation, and the INcarnation is how that template was repaired - a concrete unity remade.

 

As human beings we have free will, and as CHristians our job is to more and more fully realize that unity by allowing CHrist to more fully live in us, until we are entirely God-filled.  So while we are all saved, from Gods perspective, in terms of relative time we need to choose to allow that to be real for ourselves, and we can choose not to do that. 

 

ETA: I would also say that the difference between doing and believing is pretty thin, here.  We choose at each moment what we believe, and part of that is choosing what we do.  When we choose to do what is not of God, that is a kind of belief - to think and do aren't in fact separate to that degree.  And further, which what we believe may shape what we do, the opposite can be true as well, what we do habitually will shape what we think.  So I would never say that just by believing in CHrist we are saved.  Salvation on that level doesn't depend on anything we do, be it intellectual or physical or emotional.  That is God's work, not ours.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Onceuponatime]

As a deity 'you' kinda limit your own choices if ( a ) you actually are the only source of life for all beings, and ( b ) you are interested in having a relationship that is based on informed consent.

 

It makes it optional for your creations to choose 'no relationship thanks' but, clearly, such a choice would kill them. Then you have to deal with their mortality issues in a way that still doesn't violate consent issues... At least, you would want to make it possible for them to be restored, should they want to be.

 

By dying and rising, Jesus deals with the death issue through incarnation and indwelling.

 

Your perception is that such actions would have a sense of triviality (bring brief) in the scheme of God-life. My perception is that the 'brief' aspect isn't really relevant to a timeless deity -- but would be significant is the totally different type of being he was becoming, and the dark paradox of the author of life being killed (by the people created by him, who live by his mercy) experiencing death, and overcoming it... Which changes both the nature of humanity and its potemtial. This is a reality-shaking change. However brief, it's intense and meaningful for a deity to choose such experiences for our sake. The idea that it was only a short phase do it shouldn't be a big deal to him is s very human time-centric perspective.

To me the whole thing is already human-centric, with an anthropomorphized deity signified by the word "relationship." If such a being existed and desired a relationship with his own created beings, knowing that there would be those that rejected it, or simply didn't accept that such a thing existed; and he knew exactly who they would be (see: omniscience) he would ultimately be responsible for their deaths (and eternal torture according to some), because he brought them into existence. For what end? To gather a bunch of souls around him to love, worship, and adore him for eternity? Sounds extraordinarily self centered and rather creepy.

[Frances]

Caveat: I am a former christian/ atheist.

 

This kind of thinking has become incomprehensible to me. A supernatural, eternal, omnicient, omnipresent God, living a short human life and spending a few hours in pain, only to go back to being eternal, omnicient, and omnipresent, hardly seems costly at all. And one wonders why it would matter, if he made all the rules to begin with and could have decided to do "it" any way he wanted. Or not.

I've been wondering about this for a long time, but you phrased the question much better than I could have. Thank you!

[Frances]

As a deity 'you' kinda limit your own choices if ( a ) you actually are the only source of life for all beings, and ( b ) you are interested in having a relationship that is based on informed consent.

 

It makes it optional for your creations to choose 'no relationship thanks' but, clearly, such a choice would kill them. Then you have to deal with their mortality issues in a way that still doesn't violate consent issues... At least, you would want to make it possible for them to be restored, should they want to be.

 

By dying and rising, Jesus deals with the death issue through incarnation and indwelling.

 

Your perception is that such actions would have a sense of triviality (bring brief) in the scheme of God-life. My perception is that the 'brief' aspect isn't really relevant to a timeless deity -- but would be significant is the totally different type of being he was becoming, and the dark paradox of the author of life being killed (by the people created by him, who live by his mercy) experiencing death, and overcoming it... Which changes both the nature of humanity and its potemtial. This is a reality-shaking change. However brief, it's intense and meaningful for a deity to choose such experiences for our sake. The idea that it was only a short phase do it shouldn't be a big deal to him is s very human time-centric perspective.

I'm really struggling to understand your last paragraph. I'm going to have to ponder it for awhile. By changing the nature of humanity and its potential, do you mean humans having eternal life? I'm also not quite getting the intensity and meaning of a deity choosing to very briefly live and die as a human. Experiencing what we do, even briefly, would seem like a very appropriate thing for a loving deity to do. I also don't get the overcoming death. Again, that seems like something that would naturally be part of being a deity and not at all surprising.

[Charlie]

As a deity 'you' kinda limit your own choices if ( a ) you actually are the only source of life for all beings, and ( b ) you are interested in having a relationship that is based on informed consent.

 

It makes it optional for your creations to choose 'no relationship thanks' but, clearly, such a choice would kill them. Then you have to deal with their mortality issues in a way that still doesn't violate consent issues... At least, you would want to make it possible for them to be restored, should they want to be.

 

By dying and rising, Jesus deals with the death issue through incarnation and indwelling.

 

Your perception is that such actions would have a sense of triviality (bring brief) in the scheme of God-life. My perception is that the 'brief' aspect isn't really relevant to a timeless deity -- but would be significant is the totally different type of being he was becoming, and the dark paradox of the author of life being killed (by the people created by him, who live by his mercy) experiencing death, and overcoming it... Which changes both the nature of humanity and its potemtial. This is a reality-shaking change. However brief, it's intense and meaningful for a deity to choose such experiences for our sake. The idea that it was only a short phase do it shouldn't be a big deal to him is s very human time-centric perspective.

 

I'm unclear on the idea of consent. The act of death and resurrection, and the consequences that affect us, were made without prior knowledge or consent of the second party (humanity). For example, I didn't give any consent for someone to die for me, even if the death was temporary, immortality was never really sacrificed, or the finished product is really fantastic. So it makes me wonder, why should I be held to these standards, namely, eternal punishment / loss of reward, if this deal was made on my behalf without my consent or the consent of an agent working on my behalf?

[gardenmom5]

I'm going  to give  a very simplified answer.

 

it greatly depends upon the type of person we are. being the best person we can be.  if we've had the opportunity to learn about Jesus Christ, and the opportunity to follow those teachings, then we do so.

many people in the history of the world have never even heard His name, let alone what were His teaching.  God is aware of them, and loves them too.

 

I believe God will give us as much as we are capable of receiving.  some are capable of receiving much, others, not so much.  and still others, nothing.  that capacity is based upon what kind of person we freely chose to be.

[Bluegoat]

I'm unclear on the idea of consent. The act of death and resurrection, and the consequences that affect us, were made without prior knowledge or consent of the second party (humanity). For example, I didn't give any consent for someone to die for me, even if the death was temporary, immortality was never really sacrificed, or the finished product is really fantastic. So it makes me wonder, why should I be held to these standards, namely, eternal punishment / loss of reward, if this deal was made on my behalf without my consent or the consent of an agent working on my behalf?

 

 

I think it's much more helpful to get out of thinking of it in terms of punishment. 

 

To think of God as giving out a kind of arbitrary reward or punishment is to think of him as somehow standing outside of or seperate from reality, like a sort of police officer.  A more accurate understanding of the theology is that God is the ground of reality - it's much more like the Platonic or Aristotelian view of god, which is a sort or self-existent and potent mathematical structure.  Christians added to this the idea that this structure is a kind of person with a will, knowledge of his own self and creation, and that this is all love.  But talking about punishment or reward in relation to this is really a way of trying to relate it to human experience, make it understandable to even the simplest people.  It's like the idea that we find in the bible that God changes his mind - its useful as it describes how reality seems to us as creatures in time, but it doesn't really describe God's reality on his own terms.

 

The way I'd prefer to describe this idea of punishment though to an adult is that our experience of the Divine Truth after death (or even before) depends on our attitude to it.  In as much as we have embraced untruth, that part of ourselves will have to be let go in order to achieve union with God - and letting go is hard and often painful.  And if we insist on holding on to those things, existing eternally in the contradiction that we have created might seem very uncomfortable indeed.

 

This wouldn't be a sort of arbitrary punishment though - God doesn't change who he is or what reality is, and won't make us change if we don't will it.  Consent then is only a matter of whether, when faced with it, you choose to conform to the nature of reality or not.  It's a bit like a Taoist saying that if you conform yourself to the Tao you will succeed, and if you don't you will always be in a struggle.  In the Christian context, we say that although we often struggle to do that because of concupiscence and the effects of the Fall, God is willing to heal those particular problems if we in fact want him to. (Which requires a will on God's part, it wouldn't make much sense with a Platonic sort of god who doesn't care or even know what we want - if you fail, in that scenario, you are just out of luck.  Which gives some perspective on why many people in the ancient world found that idea so hopeful.)

[Lady Florida.]

Caveat: I am a former christian/ atheist.

 

This kind of thinking has become incomprehensible to me. A supernatural, eternal, omnicient, omnipresent God, living a short human life and spending a few hours in pain, only to go back to being eternal, omnicient, and omnipresent, hardly seems costly at all. And one wonders why it would matter, if he made all the rules to begin with and could have decided to do "it" any way he wanted. Or not.

 

 

To me the whole thing is already human-centric, with an anthropomorphized deity signified by the word "relationship." If such a being existed and desired a relationship with his own created beings, knowing that there would be those that rejected it, or simply didn't accept that such a thing existed; and he knew exactly who they would be (see: omniscience) he would ultimately be responsible for their deaths (and eternal torture according to some), because he brought them into existence. For what end? To gather a bunch of souls around him to love, worship, and adore him for eternity? Sounds extraordinarily self centered and rather creepy.

 

It looks very different and rather odd (okay, weird and creepy) once you're on the outside. I don't know what Christianity looks like to those of other religions or those who were always atheist, but as a former Christian I sometimes scratch my head and wonder how I once swallowed it all. 

[Charlie]

Thank you for the replies. I don't know how to respond without sounding like I'm arguing, but I feel like those didn't address the consent issue. Instead, they justified this non-consensual deal. The first one made it sound like God is nice and wants to invite everyone to the party, so he'll make the deal easy to take. The second one sounds like God is giving us the opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime spiritually metamorphic experience if we want it. In essence, God is making humanity "an offer he can't refuse." I know it's not arbitrary, but consent requires the full knowledge and willing participation of both parties, in this case, God and people. Only, people weren't given full knowledge or consent of this plan, or given any opportunity to contribute to the plan. We're just given the opportunity to accept or reject it after it's been put in place.

[StaceyinLA]

I need to go back and look at your original question, although I know I didn't offer an answer to it anyway. I just don't think I really understand what you are asking. Obviously no one can force you to believe in God. You are given the opportunity to accept or reject Him. I'm not sure why there needs to be consent in the beginning if it isn't something you are forced to accept.

Edited January 2, 2017 by StaceyinLA

[FaithManor]

And to speak to Charlie's issue of consent, this is one reason many question the theology of hell. If God's plan is "follow me or torment for eternity" then following is not consent but coercion. Many have followed dictators in fear for their lives or their family's lives which is a relationship of captor/victim, warden/prisoner, torturer/tortured. It is not by any meausure of the definitions of love or grace, a gentle, loving, merciful relationship. It really isn't a relationship in and of itself but simply fear based oppression.

 

So if hell is real, if people go there for eternity, then the "relationship" is not consentual.

[Carol in Cal.]

Caveat: I am a former christian/ atheist.

 

This kind of thinking has become incomprehensible to me. A supernatural, eternal, omnicient, omnipresent God, living a short human life and spending a few hours in pain, only to go back to being eternal, omnicient, and omnipresent, hardly seems costly at all. And one wonders why it would matter, if he made all the rules to begin with and could have decided to do "it" any way he wanted. Or not.

Holy Week is indeed the high point of history, but it's not the only time that God involves Himself with the created.  It's just the point at which the clash between He and Satan is definitively won, so it is rightly celebrated and emphasized.  The continuing struggle between good and evil is properly viewed as more mopping up operations, crucial and intense though they may be.  When God becomes human and saves us from the inside, it is a great victory made visible--enfleshed, as it were.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Charlie]

And to speak to Charlie's issue of consent, this is one reason many question the theology of hell. If God's plan is "follow me or torment for eternity" then following is not consent but coercion. Many have followed dictators in fear for their lives or their family's lives which is a relationship of captor/victim, warden/prisoner, torturer/tortured. It is not by any meausure of the definitions of love or grace, a gentle, loving, merciful relationship. It really isn't a relationship in and of itself but simply fear based oppression.

 

So if hell is real, if people go there for eternity, then the "relationship" is not consentual.

 

That's how it looks to me, yeah. But your post makes me wonder, if there's no concept of hell what is a Christians "saved" from?

[Onceuponatime]

That's how it looks to me, yeah. But your post makes me wonder, if there's no concept of hell what is a Christians "saved" from?

Presumably death or extinction of the soul.

[PeachyDoodle]

Thank you for the replies. I don't know how to respond without sounding like I'm arguing, but I feel like those didn't address the consent issue. Instead, they justified this non-consensual deal. The first one made it sound like God is nice and wants to invite everyone to the party, so he'll make the deal easy to take. The second one sounds like God is giving us the opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime spiritually metamorphic experience if we want it. In essence, God is making humanity "an offer he can't refuse." I know it's not arbitrary, but consent requires the full knowledge and willing participation of both parties, in this case, God and people. Only, people weren't given full knowledge or consent of this plan, or given any opportunity to contribute to the plan. We're just given the opportunity to accept or reject it after it's been put in place.

 

I'm not sure this will clarify anything for you, but FWIW, not all Christian traditions teach that human consent is even part of the bargain in the first place. Mine teaches that the human will, while free in regards to things on this earth (whom to marry, what job to have, etc.), is bound in regards to God. In other words, humans do not have the capacity either to choose or reject salvation. Rather, faith is a gift of God, created in a person by the preaching of God's Word and sustained by the Word and sacraments. Faith, once given, can be actively rejected, but the person in whom faith does not exist is dead in trespasses and sins and has no capacity to choose God.

[eternalsummer]

I'm not sure this will clarify anything for you, but FWIW, not all Christian traditions teach that human consent is even part of the bargain in the first place. Mine teaches that the human will, while free in regards to things on this earth (whom to marry, what job to have, etc.), is bound in regards to God. In other words, humans do not have the capacity either to choose or reject salvation. Rather, faith is a gift of God, created in a person by the preaching of God's Word and sustained by the Word and sacraments. Faith, once given, can be actively rejected, but the person in whom faith does not exist is dead in trespasses and sins and has no capacity to choose God.

 

I think I am a little unclear because I was raised without religion so I don't fully understand some of the vocab.  But what I think you are saying is that your denomination believes that humans can't choose or not choose to believe in god (this makes sense to me to a point - you probably couldn't just choose to believe in Zeus, however much you wanted to) and that the only way someone believes in god is by hearing preaching and reading the bible.  

 

But clearly not all people who hear preaching and read the bible are believers, so there are some people whom god just says, "not you, not you, not you," right?  

 

And then are those people condemned to eternal torture/hell or is there no hell in your tradition or is it ambiguous?

[PeachyDoodle]

I think I am a little unclear because I was raised without religion so I don't fully understand some of the vocab.  But what I think you are saying is that your denomination believes that humans can't choose or not choose to believe in god (this makes sense to me to a point - you probably couldn't just choose to believe in Zeus, however much you wanted to) and that the only way someone believes in god is by hearing preaching and reading the bible.  

 

But clearly not all people who hear preaching and read the bible are believers, so there are some people whom god just says, "not you, not you, not you," right?  

 

And then are those people condemned to eternal torture/hell or is there no hell in your tradition or is it ambiguous?

 

Not exactly. And to be fair, I'm just beginning to understand some of these things myself. So forgive me if I don't explain well.

 

To your first point: Yes. We are born dead in our trespasses and sins, without capacity to believe. God creates ex nihilo (out of nothing) by the means of his Word. Even going back to the beginning, he created the heavens and the earth by speaking them into existence. He creates faith in the same way, through his Word, written or preached or even through making his Word flesh, as in Jesus (but don't ask me to explain that one -- it's above my pay grade!!). "Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the Word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

 

However, to the second point: No. The Word is efficacious -- it accomplishes what it sets out to do. It creates faith. However, that faith can be actively rejected, or it can be allowed to die through lack of attention. This is why it is important to nurture faith through the gifts God has given in his Word and sacraments.

 

I think of it like this: The proclamation of the gospel (the good news that Christ has died for our sins and we are forgiven and reconciled to God) is the proclamation of the truth. It is a matter of fact. Once that truth is proclaimed to me, I have it. I can't unknow it. It's been given to me, put into me through my ears and eyes from an outside source, as a gift. I can, however, reject it. And if I reject it, either passively or actively, then yes, I'll go to hell.

 

Does that make it any more clear?

[eternalsummer]

Yes, that makes more sense. I think I thought you were saying humans had no free will in the matter (to choose to believe or not believe, whatever that choosing entails) but instead you are saying we have complete free will - it is entirely up to us to choose to believe in Christianity or not and if we don't we're condemned to hell.

 

What is interesting to me is that your tradition sees belief as a choice, claims that the result of choosing not to believe is eternal damnation, and then somehow concludes that there are people who are choosing eternal damnation instead of heaven.  I mean - crazy people, maybe?  but surely no one sane is choosing eternal damnation.

[FaithManor]

That's how it looks to me, yeah. But your post makes me wonder, if there's no concept of hell what is a Christians "saved" from?

I do not presume to know the conclusion that all people who reject hell but remain Christian believe. But of the ones I know it is not a matter of being saved from per se but saved for something. Relationship with God, better relationship with fellow man by trying to live a more Jesus like life (Red Letter Christians comes to mind), for the afterlife and not extinction of the soul.

 

But I have not discussed this with a significant number of people who have rejected the traditional concept of hell and how that plays out in salvation theology for them so definitely not an expert.

[PeachyDoodle]

Yes, that makes more sense. I think I thought you were saying humans had no free will in the matter (to choose to believe or not believe, whatever that choosing entails) but instead you are saying we have complete free will - it is entirely up to us to choose to believe in Christianity or not and if we don't we're condemned to hell.

 

What is interesting to me is that your tradition sees belief as a choice, claims that the result of choosing not to believe is eternal damnation, and then somehow concludes that there are people who are choosing eternal damnation instead of heaven.  I mean - crazy people, maybe?  but surely no one sane is choosing eternal damnation.

 

It's less choosing hell and more a rejection of faith -- as in, "No, I don't believe it to be true that Christ died for my sins and I'm forgiven and made right with God." That can take a lot of different forms -- some people do not believe they have a need to be forgiven, others don't believe in the existence of God at all, etc.

 

And I am saying that humans have no free will in regards to God, at least in the sense that we can't choose to believe. We can choose unbelief. I realize that doesn't make complete sense logically. We're okay with not knowing exactly how it all works. :)

 

[eternalsummer]

I don't understand how you can't choose to believe, but you can choose to not believe.  Is there a third option besides belief and unbelief?  What is that option?  What would choosing that option mean in terms of eternity?

 

If the only options are belief and unbelief, and you can choose unbelief but can't choose belief, does that mean that you don't have free will with regards to belief?  So it is somehow decided beforehand that you will believe or not?

 

Ugh, I am not understanding the logic of it, I'm sorry.

 

With regards to not choosing hell - if it is something you have the free will to do (to reject god) and that rejection means hell, and you know it means hell, then again I suggest only insane people could possibly make that choice.

 

Now on the other hand if it is *not* a choice (which I suggest belief basically is not, at heart) then that's something else entirely.  

 

For me, at least, The Will to Believe makes a lot of sense - within a set of live hypotheses, you can choose belief or unbelief.  For me, though, the literal story of Christianity is as dead a hypothesis as say a literal belief in Zeus and Hera (and I suspect Zeus and Hera are dead hypotheses for you too).  Do you see yourself as consciously rejecting belief in Zeus and Hera, or do you see it as something that is impossible for you to believe?

[Bluegoat]

Thank you for the replies. I don't know how to respond without sounding like I'm arguing, but I feel like those didn't address the consent issue. Instead, they justified this non-consensual deal. The first one made it sound like God is nice and wants to invite everyone to the party, so he'll make the deal easy to take. The second one sounds like God is giving us the opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime spiritually metamorphic experience if we want it. In essence, God is making humanity "an offer he can't refuse." I know it's not arbitrary, but consent requires the full knowledge and willing participation of both parties, in this case, God and people. Only, people weren't given full knowledge or consent of this plan, or given any opportunity to contribute to the plan. We're just given the opportunity to accept or reject it after it's been put in place.

 

I've never really considered this in terms of the word "consent" which to me is an almost legal conceptualization.  It doesn't really seem to mesh well for me, it seems a bit like saying I should need to consent to gravity before I feel its effects.  Reality is what it is, we can't escape gravity because we would prefer a different sort of universe.

 

Is that the perspective you're coming from? - I haven't really considered how that might work before. Maybe in that scenario beings ought to have been asked about things like that how the laws that shape the universe will operate?  From a theological perspective that could be tricky in the sense that a set of laws that contradicted god's nature, the primary reality, simply couldn't exist - it would violate the law of non-contradiction.  A universe like that - say, without gravity - might not even be viable.  Also, we would then be setting up the laws that determine our own nature, and our answer to the question of how we would shape the universe, which also seems like a logical problem, some sort of Dr Who feedback loop.  And what if different people wanted different things - would each of us live in a different reality?

 

The question of full knowledge is interesting - I think it relates in part at least to the idea of the Fall, though that gives a literary sort of answer.  It would see that situation, of lack of full knowledge and will, as a problem that wasn't version A of the plan.  In that story, we do in fact know precisely what to do and not do, though not necessarily why, and are able to do what we want (aren't subject to weakness of will, like when we go off a diet and then are mad at our inability to do what we want.)  A traditional interpretation of that story is that humans were too immature for the knowledge from the tree - they did not yet have the wisdom and experience to understand and use it, and that is why it was temporarily forbidden.  So - we become creatures with dangerous knowledge and dangerous wills, and are blocked from the Tree of life to protect us from becoming fixed in that state. 

 

In the Christian understanding, the Incarnation is seen as the medicine that heals that wound, so in the end people do have the knowledge to make a real choice, and the will to do so as well. The limits that dogged them will be overcome, but there choices will really form who they are. 

 

I think that making of choices on a daily basis would be seen as our contribution to reality, while we don't always have full knowledge, we do very often have enough, and it isn't like we are always making the positive ones even then. Often we do a lot of damage, to ourselves, other people, and the natural world. 

[Charlie]

I do not presume to know the conclusion that all people who reject hell but remain Christian believe. But of the ones I know it is not a matter of being saved from per se but saved for something. Relationship with God, better relationship with fellow man by trying to live a more Jesus like life (Red Letter Christians comes to mind), for the afterlife and not extinction of the soul.

 

But I have not discussed this with a significant number of people who have rejected the traditional concept of hell and how that plays out in salvation theology for them so definitely not an expert.

 

Oh no, you lost me! I mean, I think I can understand why you would say that, but it doesn't change the reality in this scenario. Let me put it this way, without what I would consider the sugarcoat on the explanation. Let's say I give my child a birthday gift, and it's the gift they've been talking about all year. I mean, this gift is the thing that everybody wants, it's super popular because it's really fun, you'd never tire of it, and everyone you've ever wanted could join in. The fun would be epic. Everyone's been talking about it for the whole year, making arrangements to get together, getting excited in anticipation of all the great things to come. No way any kid is going to say no under those conditions, right? I mean, he'd have to be a fool, or more likely, he'd have to be making a judgement that's so far removed from his character that I might worry something serious is going on.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, he chooses not to keep it for some reason. In making that choice, he knows that now his father is going to take his hand and hold it over an open flame for 45 min. The child can scream and kick and plead all he wants, but his father is stronger and his father warned him all through the year that this would happen. Is the child's acceptance of the gift really separated from his knowing he would otherwise have avoided the flame? Let's say his father doesn't hold his hand over the flame but instead kills him peacefully in his sleep. No more child. He never knows. He simply... ceases to exist. Would you still say he only failed to make the choice for something? Would it not be the reality that he also failed to avoid a very bad something? Would you describe that as a relationship free from coercion?

[Bluegoat]

That's how it looks to me, yeah. But your post makes me wonder, if there's no concept of hell what is a Christians "saved" from?

 

It might be easier to change the language.  I would tend to say healed rather than saved, and that the state of being in Hell or Heaven have nothing to do with a location but simply reflect the way the individual experiences God.  Healed means to become more fully oneself, more fully human.

[Bluegoat]

I don't understand how you can't choose to believe, but you can choose to not believe.  Is there a third option besides belief and unbelief?  What is that option?  What would choosing that option mean in terms of eternity?

 

If the only options are belief and unbelief, and you can choose unbelief but can't choose belief, does that mean that you don't have free will with regards to belief?  So it is somehow decided beforehand that you will believe or not?

 

Ugh, I am not understanding the logic of it, I'm sorry.

 

With regards to not choosing hell - if it is something you have the free will to do (to reject god) and that rejection means hell, and you know it means hell, then again I suggest only insane people could possibly make that choice.

 

Now on the other hand if it is *not* a choice (which I suggest belief basically is not, at heart) then that's something else entirely.  

 

For me, at least, The Will to Believe makes a lot of sense - within a set of live hypotheses, you can choose belief or unbelief.  For me, though, the literal story of Christianity is as dead a hypothesis as say a literal belief in Zeus and Hera (and I suspect Zeus and Hera are dead hypotheses for you too).  Do you see yourself as consciously rejecting belief in Zeus and Hera, or do you see it as something that is impossible for you to believe?

 

I don't believe this salvation framework, and I understand what you are getting at about choosing to believe as well.

 

That being said, if I think about other aspects of life, it seems that people very often do, in a sense, choose what to believe, and it can be a very difficult thing to root out in oneself because it is generally something that is indirect or we hide from ourselves.  People who are conspiracy theory nuts are an extreme example, but its pretty everyday to see people who choose their basic premises for reasoning because they seem to make sense based on the things that seem real to them.  I suspect its actually more natural for us than doing it on a solid rational basis.

[FaithManor]

Oh no, you lost me! I mean, I think I can understand why you would say that, but it doesn't change the reality in this scenario. Let me put it this way, without what I would consider the sugarcoat on the explanation. Let's say I give my child a birthday gift, and it's the gift they've been talking about all year. I mean, this gift is the thing that everybody wants, it's super popular because it's really fun, you'd never tire of it, and everyone you've ever wanted could join in. The fun would be epic. Everyone's been talking about it for the whole year, making arrangements to get together, getting excited in anticipation of all the great things to come. No way any kid is going to say no under those conditions, right? I mean, he'd have to be a fool, or more likely, he'd have to be making a judgement that's so far removed from his character that I might worry something serious is going on.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, he chooses not to keep it for some reason. In making that choice, he knows that now his father is going to take his hand and hold it over an open flame for 45 min. The child can scream and kick and plead all he wants, but his father is stronger and his father warned him all through the year that this would happen. Is the child's acceptance of the gift really separated from his knowing he would otherwise have avoided the flame? Let's say his father doesn't hold his hand over the flame but instead kills him peacefully in his sleep. No more child. He never knows. He simply... ceases to exist. Would you still say he only failed to make the choice for something? Would it not be the reality that he also failed to avoid a very bad something? Would you describe that as a relationship free from coercion?

Please do not argue with me. I did not say that I believed this. I stated what the few I know personally who have rejected hell but not christianity have expressed to me. I made that clear in my post. I cannot answer these questions you have directed at me since I do not know what their reponses would be.

 

I have been on these forums a lot of years, enough to know how these discussions go down, usually in epic flames with much stone throwing so I choose not to express any more personal philosophy on the subject beyond this point.

[Charlie]

I've never really considered this in terms of the word "consent" which to me is an almost legal conceptualization.  It doesn't really seem to mesh well for me, it seems a bit like saying I should need to consent to gravity before I feel its effects.  Reality is what it is, we can't escape gravity because we would prefer a different sort of universe.

 

Is that the perspective you're coming from? - I haven't really considered how that might work before. Maybe in that scenario beings ought to have been asked about things like that how the laws that shape the universe will operate?  From a theological perspective that could be tricky in the sense that a set of laws that contradicted god's nature, the primary reality, simply couldn't exist - it would violate the law of non-contradiction.  A universe like that - say, without gravity - might not even be viable.  Also, we would then be setting up the laws that determine our own nature, and our answer to the question of how we would shape the universe, which also seems like a logical problem, some sort of Dr Who feedback loop.  And what if different people wanted different things - would each of us live in a different reality?

 

The question of full knowledge is interesting - I think it relates in part at least to the idea of the Fall, though that gives a literary sort of answer.  It would see that situation, of lack of full knowledge and will, as a problem that wasn't version A of the plan.  In that story, we do in fact know precisely what to do and not do, though not necessarily why, and are able to do what we want (aren't subject to weakness of will, like when we go off a diet and then are mad at our inability to do what we want.)  A traditional interpretation of that story is that humans were too immature for the knowledge from the tree - they did not yet have the wisdom and experience to understand and use it, and that is why it was temporarily forbidden.  So - we become creatures with dangerous knowledge and dangerous wills, and are blocked from the Tree of life to protect us from becoming fixed in that state. 

 

In the Christian understanding, the Incarnation is seen as the medicine that heals that wound, so in the end people do have the knowledge to make a real choice, and the will to do so as well. The limits that dogged them will be overcome, but there choices will really form who they are. 

 

I think that making of choices on a daily basis would be seen as our contribution to reality, while we don't always have full knowledge, we do very often have enough, and it isn't like we are always making the positive ones even then. Often we do a lot of damage, to ourselves, other people, and the natural world. 

 

The question about consent came in response to bolt.'s post (#22). With regard to the bold, I'm not sure I understand where you're going with it. Why would people be consulted about the laws of physics? They are what we are, and we exist within them.

[Charlie]

Please do not argue with me. I did not say that I believed this. I stated what the few I know personally who have rejected hell but not christianity have expressed to me. I made that clear in my post. I cannot answer these questions you have directed at me since I do not know what their reponses would be.

 

I have been on these forums a lot of years, enough to know how these discussions go down, usually in epic flames with much stone throwing so I choose not to express any more personal philosophy on the subject beyond this point.

 

FaithManor, please accept my apology. I didn't mean to argue with you. I was confused and thought an illustration would explain why. I didn't mean to put you on the spot to defend anything. I appreciated your answer, by the way, so thank you for that.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Charlie