|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,197
Points: 3,275
Location: United Kingdom
|
Jacob, I think you have misunderstood my question and I am prepared to accept that maybe I have phrased it incorrectly.
It might be clearer for me if you could tell me what, in your belief, the possible states are, that might exist after a person dies. Such things heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory etc. and how one might qualify for each?
"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 973
Points: 2,765
Location: United Kingdom
|
intelfam wrote:Jacob, I think you have misunderstood my question and I am prepared to accept that maybe I have phrased it incorrectly.
It might be clearer for me if you could tell me what, in your belief, the possible states are, that might exist after a person dies. Such things heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory etc. and how one might qualify for each?
Hmm. Reading your last ten posts I feel sure you are well acquainted with the meanings of the above states and that there is nothing I can say to you that will be edifying. However, I am a sucker for a challenge so here is what I think about them: Heaven is shorthand for the Kingdom of Heaven. It really should be referred to as the Kingdom of God, as in the Gospels of Mark Luke and John, but when Matthew wrote his Gospel he was writing to traditional Jews who don't use the name 'God' if they can help it, lest the name is devalued by over-use. So Matthew called it the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is where the authority of God is acknowledged, respected and obeyed. It exists in the here and now and its citizens are called Christians. Heaven also exists in the hereafter and its citizens will live there in their resurrection bodies, forever. To live in the Kingdom of Heaven you must genuinely accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Hell is for all who reject Jesus as Saviour and Lord. It is that state where one will be painfully aware that they are separated from God forever. I have no idea what Hell looks like nor how the suffering will manifest itself in the undying souls of those who live there. I know from Scripture, however, that those in Hell will be able to look across a great gulf to see who is in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you want chapter and verse just let me know. I don't believe in Limbo or Purgatory. If you want to expand on the 'et ceteras' you refer to I will have a go.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,197
Points: 3,275
Location: United Kingdom
|
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Hmm. Reading your last ten posts I feel sure you are well acquainted with the meanings of the above states and that there is nothing I can say to you that will be edifying. However, I am a sucker for a challenge so here is what I think about them:
..............
I don't believe in Limbo or Purgatory. If you want to expand on the 'et ceteras' you refer to I will have a go.
Thanks jacobus No, I wasn't issuing a challenge, just seeking what you felt happened when one dies; the purgatory, limbo, were included as they are "possible" states within "mainstream" christian thought and I wondered if you had an alternate view, hence the "etc"
"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 1,105
Points: 3,057
Location: Japan
|
So great many people (including a lot of innocent people) have to go to hell and
only jacobusmaximus kind of Christians (including ex-molesters) can go to heaven.
Well, I'm ready to go to hell or whatever, God only knows.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 973
Points: 2,765
Location: United Kingdom
|
almostfreebird wrote:
So great many people (including a lot of innocent people) have to go to hell and
only jacobusmaximus kind of Christians (including ex-molesters) can go to heaven.
Well, I'm ready to go to hell or whatever, God only knows.
I think your comments are unfair, almostfreebird. I have not suggested that 'my kind of Christian' is any more correct than any others. My point is that there is only one kind of Christian. He or she is a member of the community of believers - that is, those who have accepted Christ as Saviour and Lord, whichever denomination they are in (or none). I cannot help wondering what you mean by 'innocent' people. The Church universaly accepts that we are all sinners. Christians, however (as defined by me if you like)have their sins (past, present and future)forgiven and are therefore 'innocent'. They are the only innocent ones, and they will go to Heaven, not Hell.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 1,105
Points: 3,057
Location: Japan
|
jacobusmaximus wrote: I cannot help wondering what you mean by 'innocent' people.
innocent [ˈɪnəsənt] adj 1. not corrupted or tainted with evil or unpleasant emotion; sinless; pure 2. (Law) not guilty of a particular crime; blameless 3. (postpositive; foll by of) free (of); lacking innocent of all knowledge of history 4. a. harmless or innocuous an innocent game b. not cancerous an innocent tumour 5. credulous, naive, or artless 6. simple-minded; slow-witted n 1. an innocent person, esp a young child or an ingenuous adult 2. a simple-minded person; simpleton innocently adv Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 973
Points: 2,765
Location: United Kingdom
|
almostfreebird wrote:jacobusmaximus wrote: I cannot help wondering what you mean by 'innocent' people.
innocent [ˈɪnəsənt] adj 1. not corrupted or tainted with evil or unpleasant emotion; sinless; pure 2. (Law) not guilty of a particular crime; blameless 3. (postpositive; foll by of) free (of); lacking innocent of all knowledge of history 4. a. harmless or innocuous an innocent game b. not cancerous an innocent tumour 5. credulous, naive, or artless 6. simple-minded; slow-witted n 1. an innocent person, esp a young child or an ingenuous adult 2. a simple-minded person; simpleton innocently adv Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 Thank you for that almostfreebird. Adjectives 1 and 2 accurately describe the person whose sins have been washed away by the work of Christ on the Cross. But note 'blameless', not 'faultless'. Our human nature always lets us down.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/12/2010
Posts: 864
Points: 2,549
Location: Tuscany, Italy
|
Nobody except a very young child (as in n1 of almostfreebird's post) is innocent. We're all sinners by nature and through our genes and because of the fact we've got free will. The first people abused it yet and we're not better nor worse than them even the simple ones as in n2 are sinners in my opinion.
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime - Chinese proverb
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/18/2010
Posts: 1,197
Points: 3,275
Location: United Kingdom
|
ClubFavolosa wrote:Nobody except a very young child (as in n1 of almostfreebird's post) is innocent. We're all sinners by nature and through our genes and because of the fact we've got free will. The first people abused it yet and we're not better nor worse than them even the simple ones as in n2 are sinners in my opinion. I guess even a young child screaming for its bottle "now!!!" is displaying rage and egotism. It was certainly the view, until quite recently in most churches, that a child who died un-baptised was not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground, as they still carried original sin. Musing, this seems a diverging point in modern society. Christians believe we are fundamentally "faulted" from birth and we can chose to behave unselfishly. Humanism believes we are fundamentally biased to chose the right and only break this "mould" because of lack of knowledge or previous bad experience. This latter stance has informed the majority of schools of psychotherapy, particularly Carl Rogers nand his descendants. I tend to think that, as we descend from animals, and are not too far from them in evolutionary terms, we are, at bottom, faulted - if we use the standard of "being able to live together peacefully". Our basic design is not for living as we do today. This is one failure, in my opinion, of the "pure" humanist thread in psychology and sociology. It may, I repeat may, be a reason for the continued appeal of christianity. Most of us (I hope) realise that, in the face of high population and scarce resources, we are more likely to behave selfishly than altruistically - and humanist psychology (imho) seems to ignore this trait - but christianity tries to address this innate selfishness. It may be a delusion but, if I am right, it has enormous face validity.
"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 12/16/2011
Posts: 10
Points: 30
Location: Chicago, IL
|
pedro wrote:The reason most nominal Christians choose to no longer be called such is, I suspect, because they had no choice in the tag. Catholics traditionally assign an age of reason (hence choice) at around seven years whilst most Catholics are baptised at a couple of months old. You can count adult conversions as the real McCoy but I suggest, Dreamy, that there are far fewer genuine believers than you suppose. Most people give up the 'faith' because they never had it in the first place. It was imposed upon them. "choice", lol. at seven i did not have a choice, i was brain washed into being baptised. i had no idea what religion was. i'm an ex-christian as well.
|
|
|
Guest |