Tell Me If This Is Oh So Radical Christianity.....

Originally posted by knightmeister
On the issue of repentance: I believe repentance is important to Christianity, but I believe it serves more of a purpose to humans...it strengthens our relationship with God because it is reassuring, but God's "unconditional" love cannot have degrees, so He loves those who repent and don't repent equally. WITTY

I think this could be a mistake. The p ...[text shortened]... then becomes our choice , he has left it open to us to resist this process if we choose.

I have loved at least two people in my life that certainly did not want it, seems a shame God can't accomplish the same feat. Furthermore, just because those people did not love me back I did not condemn them to anything...much less hell.

Originally posted by wittywonka
This response will most likely be sloppy, but I will attempt to supplement it tomorrow...

The mere fact that God sent his son to save the world demonstrates his "unconditional" love for humans. So, under "no condition whatsoever" would God ever condemn any human, no matter what their circumstance (or religion) might be. I should probably ammend my ea ...[text shortened]... k was written, it was simply another flood epic comparable to Gilgamesh, etc.

Actually, I agree with everything you've said. I'll take it further though. Although I don't have personal experience in the matter, I've seen many loving parents. I've even seen my share of so-so parents, and those who've done the best they can under the circumstances but fell a bit short of the mark.

Now, let's say the teen of any of these parents is angry and hormonal and having a tantrum and breaks something. The child is grounded and expected to pay for the repairs or replacement and does so. The item is restored. The teen, thankfully enough, gets past this stage, grows up, etc. The teen is now thirty -- and the parents suddenly decide that for the next ten years they are not going to speak to this offspring of theirs because of the broken item -- an item that the child already replaced and was punished for. Now how stupid is that??? And even if the scenario were different and the child got away with it and the parents never knew who broke the whatever, to ostracise a person decades later would be inexcusible, no matter how non-functioning the parent.

So if God is really the image of perfection, and ostricizes by sending to hell or banning from heaven any of us, then every single statement made on God's behalf about forgiveness is a lie. Perfection then means carrying a grudge instead.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I'm using deductive thinking...God gave us brains for a reason...

If you disagree with what I said, I'm open to debate...

So, let me get this straight. You do not accept the Bible as the literal word of god?

You pick and choose those bits that appeal to your 'common sense' or philosophical viewpoint.

For example, do you accept that homosexuality is a sin or is that ok in your book?

Originally posted by Tyto
So, let me get this straight. You do not accept the Bible as the literal word of god?

You pick and choose those bits that appeal to your 'common sense' or philosophical viewpoint.

For example, do you accept that homosexuality is a sin or is that ok in your book?

The Bible is not a terribly definitive collection of books (just ask the Jews!) so therefore we all "pick and choose" from it. *Some* people just refuse to admit they are doing so because their pastor told them this or that is the only correct meaning they can get from a particulrar passage when in reality it is up for debate. Pastors, can be wrong and often are.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
we all "pick and choose" from it.

I'll wait for the OP to respond too, but I'll follow my question with this supplementary one.

If you all pick and choose, how do you know which bits god intended to be taken literally and which bit's were metaphorical? It seems to me that the evidence for most parts of the bible's authenticity are equally poor. So, what are the criteria? How do you know that you are getting it right?

Originally posted by Tyto
I'll wait for the OP to respond too, but I'll follow my question with this supplementary one.

If you all pick and choose, how do you know which bits god intended to be taken literally and which bit's were metaphorical? It seems to me that the evidence for most parts of the bible's authenticity are equally poor. So, what are the criteria? How do you know that you are getting it right?

As far as I know none of them *know* they are getting it right, they just think they do, which makes them feel a whole lot better and makes the rest of us nauseous. It is a club of mutual delusion, I suppose.

Originally posted by Tyto
I'll wait for the OP to respond too, but I'll follow my question with this supplementary one.

If you all pick and choose, how do you know which bits god intended to be taken literally and which bit's were metaphorical? It seems to me that the evidence for most parts of the bible's authenticity are equally poor. So, what are the criteria? How do you know that you are getting it right?

How do we know that God intended any of it to be taken literally? Some scripture scholars firmly believe that the Pentateuch, for example, was written by four persons/groups, and these strands are designated by the names Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic. These four strands are not in perfect agreement about every detail and are written for different purposes, hence the two creation accounts in Genesis. Seems like an odd way to do things if God had intended there to be one version to be taken literally by everyone.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Although it may be considered radical in Christianity, I sincerely believe that...

-Hell doesn't exist, and that God's unconditional love will result in everyone going to heaven even if they don't repent.

-The story of Adam and Eve, as well as many others in the Old Testament, are metaphoric and not literal.

I'll post other i ...[text shortened]... omething...as I say in my profile, I'm strongly opinionated but willing to debate...

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me [Jesus Christ]" (John 14:6).

...Only those who believe in Christ are saved, even though He died for all men.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:33).

...Hell does exist. Both of these authoritative statements came from the very mouth of Christ. If you don't believe what He says, you are not even Christian, let alone a 'radical' Christian.

I doubt you are 'genuinely missing something', either. I think you are purposefully missing something. Otherwise, why would you be willing to debate a matter of faith?

Sorry, it doesn't add up.

Originally posted by Tyto
So, let me get this straight. You do not accept the Bible as the literal word of god?

You pick and choose those bits that appeal to your 'common sense' or philosophical viewpoint.

For example, do you accept that homosexuality is a sin or is that ok in your book?

Let me say it more simply for you...

I don't always accept the word of humans. At no point in the bible does Jesus condemn homsexuality.

For example, homosexuality is frowned upon by Paul in Romans Chapter 1. I will never agree with Paul (on this issue) because he 1) did not speak on God's behalf as far as anyone knows and 2) lived in Roman society, which held traditional marriage very high in priority...THANKFULLY, we do not live in Roman society. 😕

Originally posted by ballsofsteel
Why would you be willing to debate a matter of faith?...Hell does exist...

The only way we can learn from our faith and develop it more strongly is to question it. If we accept all that we are given, we begin following blindly and thinking as a community, not as individuals...

In addition, I want to specify that I respect your opinions and your quotations make sense, but let me offer one of my own after clarifying that for all I know, both Satan and hell exist, but they would be absolutely pointless because:

"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." -John 3:17

Originally posted by wittywonka
The only way we can learn from our faith and develop it more strongly is to question it. If we accept all that we are given, we begin following blindly and thinking as a community, not as individuals...

In addition, I want to specify that I respect your opinions and your quotations make sense, but let me offer a few of my own:

"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." -John 3:17

We're not to question the authority of the bible, we are to question our own understanding of the bible. As a necessity of faith one must accept what one is given by way of revealed truth, as being Truth, yet we must not assume that our understanding is complete. For instance, we cannot foist our own ideas upon the bible and conclude that any inconsistencies are automatically due to a flawed bible. The fault will lie with us.

Christianity is more about community than individualism, but I disagree that faith means following blindly the herd. I've never experienced that. My experience has always been dictated by my own personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, never a herd-mentality.

I appreciate your bible quote, but the gospel of John is referring here to the first coming of Christ. That is, Christ as servant and savior. But there is the second coming of Christ, better known as judgement day, where all who have been disobedient to and have forsaken the Good News of the gospel (Jesus Christ) will in fact be condemned to everlasting fire.

Originally posted by ballsofsteel
We're not to question the authority of the bible, we are to question our own understanding of the bible. As a necessity of faith one must accept what one is given by way of revealed truth, as being Truth, yet we must not assume that our understanding is complete. For instance, we cannot foist our own ideas upon the bible and conclude that any inconsis aken the Good News of the gospel (Jesus Christ) will in fact be condemned to everlasting fire.

Your point makes sense, but I must ask how do we explain (the numerous) contradictions already found in the bible? It is impossible to accept contradictory messages, accounts, and philosophies as a whole...

Originally posted by wittywonka
Your point makes sense, but I must ask how do we explain (the numerous) contradictions already found in the bible? It is impossible to accept contradictory messages, accounts, and philosophies as a whole...

Must we understand God before we believe in Him? Isn't it enough that He is a God of promises and prophecies? Faith doesn't need to understand God before it trusts in Him.

The truth is we will never understand Him as He is this side of heaven, and it is really no wonder we encounter seemingly irreconcilable contradictions as we consider the words and deeds of an ineffable God.

However, faith, with the help of the Holy Spirit, does penetrate deeply into the understanding of God and His ways. The things of God can only be grasped with the eyes of faith:

"But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Originally posted by wittywonka
Although it may be considered radical in Christianity, I sincerely believe that...

-Hell doesn't exist, and that God's unconditional love will result in everyone going to heaven even if they don't repent.

-The story of Adam and Eve, as well as many others in the Old Testament, are metaphoric and not literal.

I'll post other i ...[text shortened]... omething...as I say in my profile, I'm strongly opinionated but willing to debate...

Not so radical. Universal salvation is still maintained as a possibility in the Eastern Orthodox churches, whose soteriology is one of healing (based on the underlying meaning of the Greek word soterias, “salvation,” as cure or healing). In this non-juridical view of salvation, many Orthodox view “hell” as a curing “purgation,” rather than as punishment; and thus one’s “stay in hell” (all of this can be read metaphorically!) is not eternal.

Part of scriptural hermeneutics lies in deciding which texts/verses can be used to “con-textualize” others, and which cannot. No one can escape making such decisions (or accepting those made by others). Biblical literalism/historicism is a relatively latter-day phenomenon in Christianity: not much known before the Protestant Reformation and Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura, certainly not in the early church. Not that there isn’t any history in the Biblical texts, but that it is interwoven with myth, metaphor, allegory, powerful theological symbolism, etc., in such a way as to make it difficult for Biblical exegetes to sort out—even prominent textual scholars disagree.

Here is some commentary from the Orthodox viewpoint, that seems relevant to your inquiry...

_______________________________________

“Christ is the first-born of God, his Logos, in whom all people share. That is what we have learned and what we bear witness to ... All who have lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even if they have been reckoned atheists, as among the Greeks Socrates, Heraclitus and the like.” (Justin Martyr; d. 165 C.E.; an early church father indeed!)

Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement’s commentary: “For the early church salvation is not at all reserved to the baptized ... The Word [logos] has never ceased and never will cease to be present to humanity in all cultures, all religions, and all irreligions. The incarnation and resurrection are not exclusive but inclusive of the manifold forms of his presence.”*

And: “For the highest spirituality (and theology) of the first centuries, God will be ‘all in all.’ Certain fathers granted that God would turn away from those who turned away from him.** This is what Western Scholasticism was to term poena damni, the penalty of damnation. Such a fundamentalist [sic] reading of the Gospels (which leads to speculation on the nature of the ‘worm’ and the ‘fire’ that will torment the damned) was denounced not only as external but as ‘absurd’ by the greatest representatives of early Christianity, for example by St Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian in the West, and in the East, quite apart from strict Origenism, by Gregory of Nyssa, John Climacus, Maximus the Confessor, and Isaac of Nineveh.

“For this last author, whose development of the doctrine of hell is undoubtedly the most important contribution to this subject in the whole of Christian theology, it is unthinkable and contrary to the very spirit of the Christian revelation that God should abandon anyone.”

And: “But it is not impossible that all should be saved and reconciled to God.” (John Climacus, 7th century)

And: “As a copious spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the Creator’s compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of creatures.” (Isaac of Nineveh; 7th century) Isaac views whatever torment there is in hell as being caused by “the invasion of love,” which is a healing force; hell is not, then, separation from God. Clement comments as follows—

“We must pray, however, that the fire of judgment—which is the fire of God’s love—will not consume the wicked, but only that part in each one which is evil. The division into ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ of which the Last Judgment scene speaks would thus be made, not between Two crowds of human beings, but between two kinds of character within each individual. In practice, other parables of a similar kind like that of the ‘good seed’ and the ‘tares’ cannot be interpreted in any other way. Jesus explains that the ‘good seed means the sons of the Kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one’, and that at the end these latter will be cast into the blazing furnace (Matthew 13:36). Only Gnostics and Manicheans can hold that it is a question here of people. All human beings are creatures of God. What is ‘sown by the devil’ is destructive suggestions, the seeds of idolatry and folly. Good seeds and tares are human dispositions. To destroy the thoughts sown by the evil one is not to destroy the person but to cauterize him. What Gregory of Nyssa suggests is precisely this divine surgery.

“‘The body is subject to various forms of illness. Some are easy to treat, others are not, and for the latter recourse is had to incisions, cauterizations, bitter medicine... We are told something of the same sort about the judgment in the next world, the healing of the soul’s infirmities. If we are superficial people, that amounts to a threat and a process of severe correction... But the faith of deeper minds regards it as a process of healing and therapy applied by God in such a way as to bring back the being he created to its original grace.’ (Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Oration)”

St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) referred to the apokatastasis, the return of all things to God as “the final restoration which is expected to take place later in the kingdom of heaven of those who have suffered condemnation in Gehenna.” (The Life of Moses, II-82-4.)

________________________________________

* This and other quotes from Clement’s The Roots of Christian Mysticism, unless otherwise noted.

** And Orthodoxy does not limit the possibilities to this existence.

Originally posted by vistesd
Not so radical. Universal salvation is still maintained as a possibility in the Eastern Orthodox churches, whose soteriology is one of healing (based on the underlying meaning of the Greek word soterias, “salvation,” as cure or healing). In this non-juridical view of salvation, many Orthodox view “hell” as a curing “purgation,” rather than as punish ...[text shortened]... unless otherwise noted.

** And Orthodoxy does not limit the possibilities to this existence.

These scholars make it more difficult than it really is. There is no gray area or confusion in the gospel. Christ says plainly, "you are either with me or against me," and, "no one comes to the Father except through Me." It's either heaven or hell, mercy or condemnation; no half-ways or inbetweens. If these scholars were filled with the Spirit they would not feel compelled to compromise God's word. Beware of anyone who does so.