The Christian Missionary and the Inuit Man

[Thana]

Are you suggesting that I perform mental gymnastics?

Do you believe in a figurative hell or no hell at all?

If so, Then tell me how you reached this conclusion and I will give you my honest opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm forty now, and I have wasted most of my life. I think going to hell or heaven refers to the type of death that you die and whether the things you do in life will matter. There are many arguments I could make from scripture for this, but medical reasons are also very important. When people die they don't die all at once. They die in pieces. I've seen people die. The spirit of a person is subject to their brains. You can actually make someone behave good or evil by altering their brains. Damage one area, and they become awesome people. Damage another area, and they become psychotic. Death becomes the end. This is compatible with how I think the writers of the NT saw death. I think they saw death as final and heaven as a new age, a better age. Whether they believed in a form of reincarnation I cannot say. Death is certainly compatible with a loving God, much more so than one who burns people eternally for mortal mistakes. Perhaps the subject of what I believe and my conclusions is one best left out of this thread, however.

 

[Thana]

I'm forty now, and I have wasted most of my life. I think going to hell or heaven refers to the type of death that you die and whether the things you do in life will matter.

Right.
So you're saying nothing matters?

Are you actually Christian? I'm not sure. If you're not Christian, I don't know why you'd debate this with me.

There are many arguments I could make from scripture for this, but medical reasons are also very important. The spirit of a person is subject to their brains. You can actually make someone behave good or evil by altering their brains. Damage one area, and they become awesome people. Damage another area, and they become psychotic.

You're saying this like it's fact, I'd definitely like sources to back this up.

Death becomes the end. This is compatible with how I think the writers of the NT saw death. I think they saw death as final and heaven as a new age, a better age. Whether they believed in a form of reincarnation I cannot say. Death is certainly compatible with a loving God, much more so than one who burns people eternally for mortal mistakes.

This is not scripture, Not Christian faith, This is projection.

Perhaps the subject of what I believe and my conclusions is one best left out of this thread, however.

You asked if I thought you did mental gymnastics.
I'm not going to answer that without knowing if I really think that, And to do that, I need to know what you believe.

But if you don't want to share for whatever reason, That's fine.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You asked if I thought you did mental gymnastics.
I'm not going to answer that without knowing if I really think that, And to do that, I need to know what you believe.

But if you don't want to share for whatever reason, That's fine.

I laid out what I believe in a nutshell, but I don't want to derail the thread or subject you to overbearing lectures. I can also suggest a few scriptures that indicate death as a finality. People debate it though.

Right.
So you're saying nothing matters?

No, and even if death is final everything still matters. I still care about the future of people, and I still hate the sufferings of other people. What I believe doesn't change that you are important. Love is still the most important thing, even more important than what you believe.

Are you actually Christian? I'm not sure. If you're not Christian, I don't know why you'd debate this with me.

My family are all charismatics, and I am a Bible-head who has been baptized. I was charismatic for a long time. I'm a little introverted and am here on the forum for interaction with other human beings. I'm not on any mission, and I spend most of my posts in the jokes and games area. I also follow some of the geeky Christianity vs. Judaism arguments that pop up.

This is not scripture, Not Christian faith, This is projection.

Its medical. Right, its not scripture, but I can provide some scriptures in another thread. Also I can explain why I think the NT writers thought of hell and heaven in the context of a final death. Even if I'm wrong, it still doesn't make sense for God who 'Is love' to punish someone forever for a sin that doesn't last forever.

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't really believe in Christian theology as some kind of fixed 'thing'. I've known Christians (at least people who asserted their Christianity) who have held such variant beliefs that about the only thing common to them were the words 'Jesus' and 'Bible'.

If someone says Jesus is an Alien from LV-426 while claiming to be Christian, it doesn't include that belief in Christian thought or theology.

The argument, not the number of Christians who might embrace such beliefs.

You've created an argument that doesn't exist though.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand. What is the difference in meaning between those two statements?

We're getting somewhere.

The first statement is the understanding that God's mercy is great and that His salvation, however it may be accomplished, can reach out to even those who did not have the earthly ability to accept Him and present an opportunity of salvation.

The second says that not hearing about God is an automatic pass into heaven.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The first statement is the understanding that God's mercy is great and that His salvation, however it may be accomplished, can reach out to even those who did not have the earthly ability to accept Him and present an opportunity of salvation.

The second says that not hearing about God is an automatic pass into heaven.

So the first claim says that God can send the non-hearers to heaven, while the second one says that God will send them to heaven.

That's the difference in your mind?

 

[viole]

How can Hell be deemed cultural?

Sure, It can be up for interpretation. But to dismiss the concept entirely? I cannot even begin to fathom the mental gymnastics one would have to undertake to completely dismiss a literal hell.

Those examples you gave are easily thrown into the cultural basket, And to some Jews, The interpretation basket.

Well, I can say that it served a certain purpose for the time it has been written.
But now we know better.

A bit like slavery. And let's not forget that the hero of Christianity never said a word against slavery, while making a fuss about some merchants in the temple's outer court and cursing fig trees in winter.

After all Universalists reject hell while still calling themselves Christians. And more theologians identify eternal separation with soul termination, which is not very hellish, either.

Of course, that raises questions about the alleged Jesus's visit to hell during His death.

Alas, free interpretations seem to be the only game in town. Everything goes, basically.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nash8]

If someone says Jesus is an Alien from LV-426 while claiming to be Christian, it doesn't include that belief in Christian thought or theology.

Why not? Who makes the final decision on what is or is not considered Christian thought or theology? A large group of pagan Roman authorities?

The Pope? If so which one, as many of them have professed largely differing opinion on various "Christian" thoughts and/or theology.

Is Gnostic Christianity included in Christian thought? If so, many of those sects believe that the entire Jesus story as a figurative story meant to imply "gnosis" to it's adherents.

Or is Christianity the consensus of what the largest majority of "Christians" believe. If so, how would it be possible to ever determine what the "majority" of Christians believe?

So who decides what Christian thought/theology is, and why do they hold the authority to do so?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why not? Who makes the final decision on what is or is not considered Christian thought or theology? A large group of pagan Roman authorities?

The Pope? If so which one, as many of them have professed largely differing opinion on various "Christian" thoughts and/or theology.

Is Gnostic Christianity included in Christian thought? If so, many of those sects believe that the entire Jesus story as a figurative story meant to imply "gnosis" to it's adherents.

Or is Christianity the consensus of what the largest majority of "Christians" believe. If so, how would it be possible to ever determine what the "majority" of Christians believe?

So who decides what Christian thought/theology is, and why do they hold the authority to do so?

The Spanish Inquisitors used to decide. Because the Pope gave them police powers.

But nowadays, anyone can decide the nature of true Christian theology. Especially if he has a Bible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, I can say that it served a certain purpose for the time it has been written.
But now we know better.

A bit like slavery. And let's not forget that the hero of Christianity never said a word against slavery, while making a fuss about some merchants in the temple's outer court and cursing fig trees in winter.

After all Universalists reject hell while still calling themselves Christians. And more theologians identify eternal separation with soul termination, which is not very hellish, either.

Of course, that raises questions about the alleged Jesus's visit to hell during His death.

Alas, free interpretations seem to be the only game in town. Everything goes, basically.

Ciao

- viole

Well of course a gnostic atheist is going to say that! Perhaps you're only saying that, because you're a gnostic atheist (as it says in your 'Religion' entry on your profile). I will pose the same challenge to you that Thana posed to me but more directly: Are you Christian?

 

[Mister Emu]

Why not?

Because it doesn't inform or influence any significant amount of Christians.

Who makes the final decision on what is or is not considered Christian thought or theology?

Christians.

But nowadays, anyone can decide the nature of true Christian theology. Especially if he has a Bible.

No, they can't; that is an inane understanding.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, they can't; that is an inane understanding.

OK. So can you answer the question then?

Who decides what Christian thought/theology is, and why do they hold the authority to do so?

You gave one answer -- Christians -- which is the same as my answer. Anyone with or without a Bible who calls himself a Christians can decide what Christian thought/theology is.

Why is that answer incorrect? Who decides what Christian theology is?

 

[Mister Emu]

You gave one answer -- Christians -- which is the same as my answer.

No, no it isn't.

Christians, the community, not each and every individual, decide, because Christians choose whether or not to accept ideas posited into the stream of Christian thought and theology.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, no it isn't.

Christians, the community, not each and every individual, decide, because Christians choose whether or not to accept ideas posited into the stream of Christian thought and theology.

OK. I guess I see it differently. I think everyone has the right to interact with God according to his own journey. But I tend to have an attitude toward authority. The Catholic Church isn't going to tell me how to think about God. I thumb my nose at the Pope and all other church authorities.

In my view, there's no such thing as 'Christian theology' or Jewish or Muslim or atheist theology.

 

[Mister Emu]

I think everyone has the right to interact with God according to his own journey. But I tend to have an attitude toward authority. The Catholic Church isn't going to tell me how to think about God.

That is not what I'm saying...

In my view, there's no such thing as 'Christian theology' or Jewish or Muslim or atheist theology.

I guess we'll have to disagree, because I think we can take the, for lack of a better term, accepted thoughts of a group and also identify outliers. I'm not trying to act in the spirit of no true scotsman, but I think that a thought needs to have some significance or impact for it to be considered part of a group ideology.

For instance, John Shelby Spong, calling himself Christian, has claimed we need to abandon theism and a literal understanding of Christ's divinity, or the Westboro Baptist Church which claims that God hates homosexuals. Both are claims of avowed Christians, neither of which should be considered part of Christian understanding, because they do not reflect, in any meaningful manner, the thoughts of Christians in any meaningful number.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess we'll have to disagree, because I think we can take the, for lack of a better term, accepted thoughts of a group and also identify outliers. I'm not trying to act in the spirit of no true scotsman, but I think that a thought needs to have some significance or impact for it to be considered part of a group ideology.

For instance, John Shelby Spong, calling himself Christian, has claimed we need to abandon theism and a literal understanding of Christ's divinity, or the Westboro Baptist Church which claims that God hates homosexuals. Both are claims of avowed Christians, neither of which should be considered part of Christian understanding, because they do not reflect, in any meaningful manner, the thoughts of Christians in any meaningful number.

I understand what you're saying. I guess it's just not an interest of mine -- the effort to identify or describe 'standard Christian theology.'

 

[Desert Snake]

No, no it isn't.

Christians, the community, not each and every individual, decide, because Christians choose whether or not to accept ideas posited into the stream of Christian thought and theology.

This is a tad disturbing. We have to use our reasoning, not follow church theology like sheep if we think it is wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I understand what you're saying. I guess it's just not an interest of mine -- the effort to identify or describe 'standard Christian theology.'

I think this relates to the opening post, because people use arguments to control one another. NT authors hate that. It isn't only the specific teaching about 'Hell' that is troubling but the control of others through arguments. NT authors consider the tongue itself to be evil (and arguments and all rivalries), and argument or silver-tongued rivalry is something that NT authors taught against. The argument that that 'Mainstream' is representative of Christianity, well its just an argument that mainstream people use to try to get others to conform. We aren't talking about Physics here, but spiritual things in which anyone can ask God for wisdom and expect to get it.

 

[Mister Emu]

I understand what you're saying. I guess it's just not an interest of mine -- the effort to identify or describe 'standard Christian theology.'

I have to be honest and say I would rather it be unnecessary to do so... but I've found it entirely necessary because of threads like this where Christianity/Christian theology is misrepresented and then maligned.

This is a tad disturbing. We have to use our reasoning, not follow church theology like sheep if we think it is wrong.

Oh yay, misunderstanding.

 

[ZooGirl02]

In the Catholic Church we have a teaching about invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is when someone does not know about Jesus Christ and the Gospel and never had a chance to learn about Him either. It does not cover those who remain willfully ignorant. I can't explain the teaching very well so I will leave you with a link which explains it better than I can.

What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers