Jamesman vs. Hef - Who will die and go to heaven...or will they?

[Jamesman42]

Come on, this has nothing to do with anything in my life in particular (as in, for an agenda of mine). I was giving the assumptions of "what if." I thought you would have understood that. Not looking for excuses, just trying to give reason for what I am saying with examples of the consequences. I have no desire to look for a way to live as a non-Christian.

I mean, really, yes, I PERSONALLY do believe in God and Jesus Christ, but these cases I am making should not be including that so inclusively, because we are talking generally. What of the atheist who you may try to tell of God's existence to? They've no reason to believe if in the end it does not matter.

And saying that I need a Judgment Day and Hell is not the point. The point is that Christianity does not make sense without them.

I don't think atheists are waiting around to see which religion has the best retirement benefits before choosing one.  Just like I doubt that your reason for being a Christian is because you believe in Hell.

No, but if you were to present hef's "theology" to an atheist, I highly doubt they'd have ANY desire to consider becoming a Christian.

And what my brother H said.

[hefdaddy42]

The primary purpose of the cross is the cleansing of our sins. But why should we be cleansed of sin if, when we die,  there is no Hell. Like I've said, if I have choice between Heaven (or some sort of afterlife free of pain and living with God) or just ceasing to exist, does it really matter if I choose to give my life to the Most High? In either case, I will be free from pain in this world and can find "peace" in both, at least in the sense that I will no longer experience pain here on Earth.

And I still do not see a satisfactory reason to follow Jesus if there is only this world to live in. It's not to sound greedy and want a reward, but realistically and technically, if there is no consequence of my actions from an eternal perspective, then why bother trying to live for God? Surely you see this dilemma?

No, I don't see the dilemma.  Don't you experience God as a reality here and now?  Don't you believe in the power of prayer?  Haven't you felt the Spirit of God move in your life, and in the lives of those around you?

I do experience God as a reality here and now, I believe in the power of prayer, and have felt the Spirit move many a time. But we all die, and, like I have said above, if what we do in this life does not matter insomuch as we are not judged on those actions, then who should bother trying to follow God? It would not matter. I could say "Screw you, Lord" and when death comes for me (and probably rather quickly after saying that), I would cease to exist. But what does that matter? As long as there is no more pain to look forward to, then I would live how I would want. But a coming judgment...that's completely different. That is motivating for my wicked soul.

James, it sounds like you are looking for an excuse to live life as a non-Christian.  If you would deny living how God (through the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus) has asked you to live, even though you have admitted that you can experience God as real here and now, that sounds pretty weak.  You go ahead and keep believing in a Judgement Day and a Hell.  It sounds like you need that.  But it seems to me that faith in a loving God shouldn't be based on a fear.

And, again, I never denied the possibility of any afterlife whatsoever.  Just a Hell to which non-believers are consigned.

Come on, this has nothing to do with anything in my life in particular (as in, for an agenda of mine). I was giving the assumptions of "what if." I thought you would have understood that. Not looking for excuses, just trying to give reason for what I am saying with examples of the consequences. I have no desire to look for a way to live as a non-Christian.

I mean, really, yes, I PERSONALLY do believe in God and Jesus Christ, but these cases I am making should not be including that so inclusively, because we are talking generally. What of the atheist who you may try to tell of God's existence to? They've no reason to believe if in the end it does not matter.

And saying that I need a Judgment Day and Hell is not the point. The point is that Christianity does not make sense without them.

James, I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying.  I didn't mean to cause any negative feelings.

But I think Christianity makes plenty of sense without Hell or Judgement Day.

[j]

Isn't the idea to follow Jesus out of love of God?  It seems like (and I think this goes for most Christians) the *primary* motivators are promises of eternal rewards, which seems...contrary to what Jesus preached.  Like, "sure, I love God and everything, but if I'm damned for eternity if I don't, I'm bound to take it a little more seriously."

-J

[Jamesman42]

Isn't the idea to follow Jesus out of love of God?

Yes, precisely.

It seems like (and I think this goes for most Christians) the *primary* motivators are promises of eternal rewards, which seems...contrary to what Jesus preached.

I'd say that that is in lieu with loving God, though. I think and hope Christians realize that. Without loving God, everything else is worthless.

But Jesus did teach about storing up for yourselves "treasures in Heaven."

[Philawallafox]

Yeah, Sorry Hef. I got sidetracked.

On the note of Mt 21 it looks to me like he was sitting on the disciple's garments.

You're right, I haven't done any reseach on critical scholarship about Zechariah. However, when you separate the "two" Zechariah's at the point where it swithces from prophetic to apocalyptic I'm going to assume people separate it becase of the form of language.

On the note of hell. Your heart's in the right place. I think you've butchered theology but I can understand what you believe better now. i'm not gonna send you to hell, so I'll see you...when I see you...in heaven?

[hefdaddy42]

No, but if you were to present hef's "theology" to an atheist, I highly doubt they'd have ANY desire to consider becoming a Christian.

I don't get that at all.  My "theology" (although we can probably both agree that isn't the best word for my viewpoint  ) displays living in a relationship with God devoted to love, grace, and acceptance, instead of scaring the hell into them.

But, whatever.
*power chord*

[Adami]

I agree with hef. To me, a faith based around simply saving ones self from a potential punishment is a weak faith.

[hefdaddy42]

On the note of Mt 21 it looks to me like he was sitting on the disciple's garments.

Yes, which were draped over both animals.  Phil, this one isn't a matter of theology or interpretation.  I don't know how you read Matthew's account and don't see two animals there.
[/quote]

You're right, I haven't done any reseach on critical scholarship about Zechariah. However, when you separate the "two" Zechariah's at the point where it swithces from prophetic to apocalyptic I'm going to assume people separate it becase of the form of language.

Not exactly.  It may behoove you to read up on it.  At the very least, a little learning about something new never hurt anyone.  (Well, maybe.)

On the note of hell. Your heart's in the right place. I think you've butchered theology but I can understand what you believe better now. i'm not gonna send you to hell, so I'll see you...when I see you...in heaven?

Sounds good to me, Phil. *shakes*

[hefdaddy42]

I agree with hef. To me, a faith based around simply saving ones self from a potential punishment is a weak faith.

*kisses*

[Jamesman42]

Blargh. We're debating existence and its consequences, not believers' motivations. Related yes, but not the same thing.

[Adami]

Blargh. We're debating existence and its consequences, not believers' motivations. Related yes, but not the same thing.

Would you be faithful if there were no consequences? I believe you said yourself "What's the point?".

[hefdaddy42]

James, is salvation given freely by God's grace?  Or is Christianity a religion of works and requirements?

[Ħ]

I said that.  In this life, we have choices that produce effects.  We make our choices based on forseeable effects.  Why should the so-called "afterlife" be any different?

[Jamesman42]

@Adami: I don't know, honestly.

Like, the concept of death and its consequences has always scared me. Even when I was 5, I thought about that junk (I remember crying to my mom when I realized that death is permanent lol).

Would I be faithful? That's a good question. I suppose NOW I would be, since I have seen the Spirit move in my life and have felt God's presence. But before? God satisfies the whole "existence is actually meaningful" theory by way of eternal life (John 3:16).

Here is a verse from Ecclesiastes that really drives it home for me:

"He has also set eternity in the hearts of men." Ecclesiastes 3:11

So I don't know. To me, I just don't see God creating us, then as we all die one by one, generation by generation, that's it. After a while, this universe will experience heat death, and then what? God will create the universe again? Just hang around forever? If that's all there is to life, then that is bleak imho.

Edit:

James, is salvation given freely by God's grace?  Or is Christianity a religion of works and requirements?

Yes; no. But what good is salvation? We are saved from sins, but so what if there is nothing more? Life eventually ends anyway. I know I keep repeating that point, but that is my point.

[Fiery Winds]

Just to expand on Jamesman's point on the benefit of being faithful if there is no reward, there are plenty of people who live long and fulfilling lives doing much good in the world, probably far more than many Christians today. 

Hef: While I understand you have done a lot of study on this through serious examination, study, and prayer, I'm just not understanding how God sends his Son into the world to live a life of ridicule, die a gruesome death in order to open a path to receiving grace, for nothing more than a closer relationship with him in this life.  While the OT does not have much in the way of explicitly mentioning the afterlife, it is full of judgment language, where the righteous will be exalted and the wicked punished.  That theme runs throughout the entire book.

[hefdaddy42]

What is it about this topic that people keep getting my overall thrust confused?  I'm NOT saying that I definitely think there is no afterlife whatsoever.  I AM saying that I don't believe in a Hell to which non-believers will be consigned. 

[Ħ]

Ok.  What happens to nonbelievers?

[Perpetual Change]

No, but if you were to present hef's "theology" to an atheist, I highly doubt they'd have ANY desire to consider becoming a Christian.

Part of the reason I decided to take a look at Christianity again is because of reading unorthodox posts from posters like Hef. Now, thanks to the guidance that was provided by him, bosk, some other posters here, some real life friends, and my own personal reading, I consider myself a Christian again. Though my feelings about Christianity are probably less orthodox even than Hef's. Does that make me a 'fake' Christian? I don't really care, honestly. I've got no interested in talking about Christianity with people who approach the religion like Manowar approach their fanbase.

[Jamesman42]

I'm not saying you're fake, or hef is, or anything like that. But it wasn't his "theology" (pardon the term hef ) that really enticed you, it was the unorthodoxy it showed you.

How do Manowar approach their fan base (serious question)? If you mean "overbearingly," then I hope I am not coming off like that to others here. I'm just trying to understand hef's side and how I could be wrong (want the Truth, not just my preconceived notions).

[GuineaPig]

I'd agree with PC and Adami that I'd be far more likely to ascribe to a point of view like Hef's if I was to ever become religious.  I'd never abandon the knowledge I have for the sake of orthodox belief. 

Also, any conversion I underwent would have to be the result of some personal experience.  I doubt that Hell is a significant motivator for non-believers; who's scared of something you don't believe in?  It'd be like Jehovah's Witnesses invoking fear of Chtuhlu.

[Jamesman42]

What knowledge do you think you're abandoning?

GP, to me, that's the point, and maybe I am wrong...but Christianity is about salvation from sins. But I am sure you think some things are not a sin whereas the Bible does?

If an unbeliever doesn't view sin as bad, then why be a Christian? And why are sins "bad" if they have no eternal form of judgment on them?

I know, hef's POV is appealing, because it's not what people are used to. Hey, it's what caught the eye of PC and that's great. But yeah, this thread.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm not saying you're fake, or hef is, or anything like that. But it wasn't his "theology" (pardon the term hef ) that really enticed you, it was the unorthodoxy it showed you.

How do Manowar approach their fan base (serious question)? If you mean "overbearingly," then I hope I am not coming off like that to others here. I'm just trying to understand hef's side and how I could be wrong (want the Truth, not just my preconceived notions).

Oh, don't worry, I'm not applying this to you specifically. Just anyone coming to me under the conditions of "If you want to be saved this is what you have to do" would have not been received well by the agnostic me at all. Manowar approach their fans like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhMnYVr0RuY

[GuineaPig]

What knowledge do you think you're abandoning?

GP, to me, that's the point, and maybe I am wrong...but Christianity is about salvation from sins. But I am sure you think some things are not a sin whereas the Bible does?

If an unbeliever doesn't view sin as bad, then why be a Christian? And why are sins "bad" if they have no eternal form of judgment on them?

I know, hef's POV is appealing, because it's not what people are used to. Hey, it's what caught the eye of PC and that's great. But yeah, this thread.

Well, I just can't see myself ever believing (literally) in souls (or, at least human exclusivity) given what I know about evolution.  Nor would I believe, considering what we know about its prevalence in the natural world, that homosexuality is in any way a sin.  I can't see myself believing an arbitrary day of the week to be holy.  

I don't think I could believe in Hell either.  Or a lot of other aspects of Christian theology.  I wouldn't take the Bible as divinely inspired, or necessarily factual.  The most I could see myself coming to would be more or less Christian-flavoured Deism.  Even then, I don't even know why I would pick that flavour other than familiarity.

It's all hypothetical though, because I can't imagine what would cause me to become religious.

[Jamesman42]

“Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, will be repaid many times over in this life, and will have eternal life in the world to come.”

In the very least, Jesus advocated an afterlife with believers.

[ack44]

Didn't other Mesopotamian religions have ideas of afterlives? Even though it's not abundant in the OT it's hard to believe that they wouldn't have these beliefs.

[Philawallafox]

On the note of Mt 21 it looks to me like he was sitting on the disciple's garments.

Yes, which were draped over both animals.  Phil, this one isn't a matter of theology or interpretation.  I don't know how you read Matthew's account and don't see two animals there.

Oh no I agree, the mother probably walked beside orsomething. i haven't exactly read up on Biblical discordances...

You're right, I haven't done any reseach on critical scholarship about Zechariah. However, when you separate the "two" Zechariah's at the point where it swithces from prophetic to apocalyptic I'm going to assume people separate it becase of the form of language.

Not exactly.  It may behoove you to read up on it.  At the very least, a little learning about something new never hurt anyone.  (Well, maybe.)

I might, i'll ask my lecturer about it. but that wont be for a little while. In the meantime I'll stick to studying the book itself.

On the note of hell. Your heart's in the right place. I think you've butchered theology but I can understand what you believe better now. i'm not gonna send you to hell, so I'll see you...when I see you...in heaven?

Sounds good to me, Phil. *shakes*
[/quote]

hands? *shakes Hef's hand*

[contest_sanity]

The person I have found most helpful in addressing many of these matters is biblical scholar N.T. Wright.  I think anyone with interest in these topics, or the Bible in general, would benefit from reading him.  His insights really changed how I view a lot of things.  Anyway, on the scholarly side, his book The Resurrection of the Son of God traces concepts of afterlife/resurrection from the ancient Greeks through Judaism all the way to the NT and beyond.  And at over 700 pages, very few stones are left unturned:

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1291831029&sr=8-4

On a more popular level, his book Surprised By Hope takes the results of his earlier scholarship and applies them more practically to the lives of Christians and to the church (complete with entire chapters on "salvation" and "hell").

https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Hope-Rethinking-Resurrection-Mission/dp/0061551821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291831029&sr=8-1

I would love to comment more on this debate, but I still have at least 3 big projects for grad school that are due within a couple of days.  I'll say in brief that I believe the NT concept of the new creation as discussed in places like Romans 8 and Revelation 21 (among others) is far more important than "heaven" or "hell."  Or, as N.T. Wright likes to say, "Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world."

[hefdaddy42]

I've read some of Wright's stuff. I don't agree with him on everything, but he definitely has his stuff together.

[The Texas Pirate!]

whosoever beleiveth in me shall have everlasting life~ Jesus