Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
What do you mean? Being warned to be ready then coast on yesterday's forgiveness? Are you saying that because someone was warned to be ready they can just sit back and wait?
Christian afterlife
- Thread starter Lohrenswald
- Start date
What do you mean? Being warned to be ready then coast on yesterday's forgiveness? Are you saying that because someone was warned to be ready they can just sit back and wait?
No, the opposite of that. This is mostly about Salvation and whether it's in the past or on-going. Jesus doesn't say "make sure you're saved before it happens". He says "always be ready to be judged".
IF Salvation is something that happens and then stays, the admonishment doesn't really make sense. What is the point of being 'ready to be judged' if you're already forgiven?
I edited my post above: this is the same Jesus that asks for forgiveness as you have forgiven (not for 'slightly more'). He's much more stern than many denominations believe. If you haven't forgiven others today, then don't expect to be forgiven for today. And accepting forgiveness for your sins is an ongoing process, not something that happened in the past. And, obviously, someone can confuse hubris for acceptance ... that's on them, and will end badly. This hubris (imo) can be the same hubris as to what leads people believe that they're prophesying, when they think they recognize the signs of the 2nd coming, when God has reasons for not answering a prayer other than their own lack of faith, etc.
Again, imo. I don't believe it, but I like the belief.
Interesting point. Can one lose salvation after one has been "saved"? If you can, then your not really "saved". If you have to keep being saved through XYZ behavior for maintenance, waiting to be saved makes sense. Is the time between one's "last save event" and judgement significant? Is a deathbed "I am saved" event valid?
I have no underlying theory about how save-points work. There's a part of me that thinks we trigger a save-point when we open the fridge, which is why we do it so often, pointlessly and randomly.
My actual reading is that it's much harder than the average denomination believes, but is also more bless-ed than we seem to realize too. We're not ready to realize the scope of the forgiveness, though we might be made aware after we're transformed (as I said, there's either no Free Will in Heaven or else the revelation of Heaven effects some significant change in our desire to Sin). Or maybe there's cyclical Sin in Heaven, and some of use will choose Sin again. Who knows.
The adulteress (or lady merely accused of adultery, this part is actually unclear) wasn't forgiven by Jesus until right after she was about to be stoned*. The thieves on the cross got a last minute reprieve as well.
Death bed forgiveness doesn't work entirely with our intuitions about Justice, I will grant. A few people turn away from Christianity because the version of it that they were taught doesn't jive with their intuitions. I'd have to say that its insufficient morality is what started me on my questioning, though obviously my thirst for science also bumped up against the fact that I was raised by literalists.
My actual reading is that it's much harder than the average denomination believes, but is also more bless-ed than we seem to realize too. We're not ready to realize the scope of the forgiveness, though we might be made aware after we're transformed (as I said, there's either no Free Will in Heaven or else the revelation of Heaven effects some significant change in our desire to Sin). Or maybe there's cyclical Sin in Heaven, and some of use will choose Sin again. Who knows.
The adulteress (or lady merely accused of adultery, this part is actually unclear) wasn't forgiven by Jesus until right after she was about to be stoned*. The thieves on the cross got a last minute reprieve as well.
Death bed forgiveness doesn't work entirely with our intuitions about Justice, I will grant. A few people turn away from Christianity because the version of it that they were taught doesn't jive with their intuitions. I'd have to say that its insufficient morality is what started me on my questioning, though obviously my thirst for science also bumped up against the fact that I was raised by literalists.
Spoiler Snide :
Last edited:
There must have been some theologians who would have argued that a human state in heaven will be somewhat diminished mentally, due to (one has to suppose, inevitable) inability to grasp "evil". The discussion is pretty pointless, of course, since there is currently no way to even establish if any human state exists after death, let alone if such would have anything to do with some religion or even individual thoughts and beliefs.
My impression is that an awful lot of things would need to just happen to be so, for any human religion to reflect anything real about the afterlife, so the probability of that is very low, to put it mildly.
Besides, it'd be (from any intellectual, moral or even basic humanistic point of view) really strange if one's "salvation" was based on the degree they believed in an entity which has made next to no effort (at least in the last 2000 years) to show that it exists. Being rewarded for just believing something that is hard to believe, sounds rather more directed to this life, than to any (existent or not) future one.
My impression is that an awful lot of things would need to just happen to be so, for any human religion to reflect anything real about the afterlife, so the probability of that is very low, to put it mildly.
Besides, it'd be (from any intellectual, moral or even basic humanistic point of view) really strange if one's "salvation" was based on the degree they believed in an entity which has made next to no effort (at least in the last 2000 years) to show that it exists. Being rewarded for just believing something that is hard to believe, sounds rather more directed to this life, than to any (existent or not) future one.
It's from Sea of tranquility / Emily St. John Mandel. I'm pretty sure. It was just on one of the pages near the end of the book and impressed me.
I do like you take on Jesus not throwing a stone!
The "Am I saved" question hinges on the assumptions that 1) original sin condemns all to hell 2) that to not go to hell one must act in some fashion. The default option is that everyone goes to hell. Jesus added a new check box, "I am saved", that one not only has to look for, because it is hidden, but then one also has to figure out what it says/means before you can check it. Then we get to the question of how often one has go back and recheck the box. The system may reset at some unknown interval.
Of course this quick look ignores the question of whether all versions of Christianity can even see the Jesus added check box or if it looks just the same regardless of of one's Christian beliefs.
Last edited:
I am not convinced you need Original Sin. All have sinned, according to Paul. Jesus claims that no one is good (doesn't exempt himself, so this and not throwing a stone .... hmmmm). Also, the Universe itself is designed that you cannot live and not hurt others. Opportunity cost of actions is built into the very math of reality.
Yeah, there's definitely some tension between 'accepting' your forgiveness and the requirement to forgive others.
I personally think that both are required in our lives. I can't keep kicking myself for the harms I've done I need to look forward, stop doing them if possible, and live without ever-increasing pain as the harms I've committed mount. But I also do need to let go what others have done to me, or I hold that inside as well. Them seeking forgiveness helps, but it's up to me to accept that they're fallible people. Two ways in which the psyche is being gnawed at, each different. My mortification at what I've done and my resentment at what others have done. But I also think I shouldn't hold myself to lighter standards than I hold others, so accepting forgiveness as I then have forgiven others still seems to work when constructing a moral framework. The best we can do is our best and accepting that everyone is fallible.
We can have another discussion about fetuses and what Paul means when he says "all". The deaths of those we think of as 'innocent' also causes all types of confusion when it comes to the afterlife and the morality of allowing those deaths. It goes against intuition, but I'd not be surprised if dead 'innocent' people end up in Hell. God isn't 'fair' in the same way we think of 'fair' (I think that's obvious). Paul does preach that it's better to be unwed, unless you just can't resist getting your rocks off. Could be that a reasonable fraction of people are in Hell merely because of miscarriage, and we were warned.
Remarkably few modern denominations are dominated by unwed attendees, which can say things about the efficacy of the teachings over time and also the selection-bias time will have on interpretations.
Yeah, there's definitely some tension between 'accepting' your forgiveness and the requirement to forgive others.
I personally think that both are required in our lives. I can't keep kicking myself for the harms I've done I need to look forward, stop doing them if possible, and live without ever-increasing pain as the harms I've committed mount. But I also do need to let go what others have done to me, or I hold that inside as well. Them seeking forgiveness helps, but it's up to me to accept that they're fallible people. Two ways in which the psyche is being gnawed at, each different. My mortification at what I've done and my resentment at what others have done. But I also think I shouldn't hold myself to lighter standards than I hold others, so accepting forgiveness as I then have forgiven others still seems to work when constructing a moral framework. The best we can do is our best and accepting that everyone is fallible.
We can have another discussion about fetuses and what Paul means when he says "all". The deaths of those we think of as 'innocent' also causes all types of confusion when it comes to the afterlife and the morality of allowing those deaths. It goes against intuition, but I'd not be surprised if dead 'innocent' people end up in Hell. God isn't 'fair' in the same way we think of 'fair' (I think that's obvious). Paul does preach that it's better to be unwed, unless you just can't resist getting your rocks off. Could be that a reasonable fraction of people are in Hell merely because of miscarriage, and we were warned.
Remarkably few modern denominations are dominated by unwed attendees, which can say things about the efficacy of the teachings over time and also the selection-bias time will have on interpretations.
Last edited:
idk, "all have sinned" seems pretty tight with original sin. In the OT there is no clear path to escape. Hence the NT.
Modern evangelical teachings seem to ignore forgiveness as an act to be saved. Their focus is on acceptance of Jesus to be saved and be forgiven. I see the idea of forgiveness (of all sorts) as a pathway that one tries to stay on. So how one links human acts of forgiveness to one's salvation does not seem well defined. It gets back to whether or not salvation is a defined point or not. And then how is it connected to Judgement? We may need some Christians to explain that.
The bible has enough verses about so many things that one can select as needed to make a point. As for the use of "all" this is my favorite verse. It skips ahead and throws everything out the window with its ending. Paul wrote it.
All are saved regardless, even the devil. Pantheism rules! If one is looking towards the future, look no further: all are saved.
Modern evangelical teachings seem to ignore forgiveness as an act to be saved. Their focus is on acceptance of Jesus to be saved and be forgiven. I see the idea of forgiveness (of all sorts) as a pathway that one tries to stay on. So how one links human acts of forgiveness to one's salvation does not seem well defined. It gets back to whether or not salvation is a defined point or not. And then how is it connected to Judgement? We may need some Christians to explain that.
The bible has enough verses about so many things that one can select as needed to make a point. As for the use of "all" this is my favorite verse. It skips ahead and throws everything out the window with its ending. Paul wrote it.
Spoiler :
All are saved regardless, even the devil. Pantheism rules! If one is looking towards the future, look no further: all are saved.
Hmmmn, you're mixing "made alive" with "saved", someone has to be alive to be an enemy under the feet afterall. But I can imagine how much you like those last 8 words!
Last edited:
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Funny how now that we “don’t” believe in God, we made this a partial reality, as nuclear arsenals.
If it is all true....
Words are like slippery pigs; their meaning can be hard to catch.
Words are like slippery pigs; their meaning can be hard to catch.
It seems that there are still quite a lot of people who do believe in god in some form. The bigger problem is not that disbelief in god is growing, but that those who do believe cannot agree on what that means.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
As in, it’s funny how we recreate the common conditions of our faiths one way or another.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
I can't prove to you christians believe in christ, what do you want
I'm 99 % sure you've heard the sentiment sometime in your life
also how many times do I have to admit I did it as an underhanded tactic. You've already exposed my devious schemes, why can't you lay it to rest
Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
God didn't need to throw a stone because He's God. He was pointing out to the men who were about to stone the woman for her adultery that none of them are without sin either. God (Jesus) proceeds to then forgive the woman for her sins.
Remember the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus with their question, "This woman has sinned and the law states she must be stoned, what shall we do?" If Jesus said stone her He would be advocating for the law which is not what his mission on earth was about. On the other hand if Jesus said don't stone her he would have been accused of supporting sin. Jesus said, fine, you who are without sin go ahead and stone her. If anyone picked up a stone to stone her they would be committing blasphemy.
Now onto this...
Is salvation something you can lose?
I ask if salvation (belief in Jesus) leads to eternal life and you can lose that salvation, was the life promised eternal? You can't have eternal life if you might lose it.
Remember the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus with their question, "This woman has sinned and the law states she must be stoned, what shall we do?" If Jesus said stone her He would be advocating for the law which is not what his mission on earth was about. On the other hand if Jesus said don't stone her he would have been accused of supporting sin. Jesus said, fine, you who are without sin go ahead and stone her. If anyone picked up a stone to stone her they would be committing blasphemy.
Now onto this...
Is salvation something you can lose?
I ask if salvation (belief in Jesus) leads to eternal life and you can lose that salvation, was the life promised eternal? You can't have eternal life if you might lose it.
With your first sentence, I agree that's a reasonable interpretation. But we cannot do that, we're not God.
The idea of 'losing salvation' is fraught. The promise that you can be saved is not the same as the promise that you are saved. And, obviously, you need to have faith that you're saved in order to be saved - so you have to believe that you're saved already and haven't lost it.
But faith and hubris are very hard to tell apart. The path isn't broad, it's narrow. The warning to be ready is meaningless if being ready doesn't matter. "Being ready" is an ongoing process, not something in the past.
The idea of 'losing salvation' is fraught. The promise that you can be saved is not the same as the promise that you are saved. And, obviously, you need to have faith that you're saved in order to be saved - so you have to believe that you're saved already and haven't lost it.
But faith and hubris are very hard to tell apart. The path isn't broad, it's narrow. The warning to be ready is meaningless if being ready doesn't matter. "Being ready" is an ongoing process, not something in the past.
I never liked religious discussions, and part of the set of reasons why is also the following:
"They all wish to claim whatever they like, and be also all correct. In other words, what they long for isn't philosophy, but religion" F. Nietzsche
"They all wish to claim whatever they like, and be also all correct. In other words, what they long for isn't philosophy, but religion" F. Nietzsche
Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
I agree with your statement regarding the comparison between faith and hubris. We are just men. It's very hard for us to tell those two apart but it's very easy for God to know our hearts. He knows if we're being faithful or just pretending out of hubris.
Moff Jerjerrod
Deity
Yes this is a good answer!
Don't trust what I or anyone else is saying. Instead do your own research and cry out to God and ask Him to help you answer the questions. If you believe, He will answer you.
