View Full Version : would it upset you if,...
someone else close to you had a belief that included you not going to heaven or someplace really good?
I know it has been mostly a joke between bf and I but there are signs and busses around Denver claiming the Rapture on May 21st. So he says he will be gone that day, I get his truck. Yet it bothers me. I can't say exactly why but it does bother me that he readily admits I do a lot of caring and compassionate things for others yet his system may not have a place for people like me (I am waiting for the answer)
He has been very accepting of me being different in some ways, I find that being in the dominant Christian culture can be very tiring at times. I see people encourage each other to be closed off and concerned with themselves first without any consideration to that, meanwhile I get to hear that a bunch of others are going to heaven and of course I am not.
I am home sick and probably shouldn't be thinking that hard about this . I would like to say I know many Christians who have their belief and are good friends but also have room to believe God has a plan for those good people who are not necessarily of the same faith.
I think my husband has admitted in the past that he thinks that towards me. That's what his religion teaches and he seems to believe it. However, he doesn't point it out. We have pretty much agreed to disagree on this topic and don't discuss religion. He doesn't do anything particularly religious - doesn't go to church or anything, so it doesn't come up much.
I think it's more up to you to decide whether his belief in this area is something you can deal with or not.
Why does it matter whether it would upset me if you are the one in the picture?
Probably DH and I have a similar dynamic, not sure really. Don't really care what his religious beliefs call for me to be in the afterlife. He has often hinted at me going to "a warm place" but that is to bug me more than act as a true assessment of my chances in heaven.
my husband and I were conservative Christians when we met in 1980. We have gradually changed together along the way to our present universalism/agnosticism. We often comment to each other how lucky we are that we changed together, as neither of us would have liked the other if only the other had done the changing!
if the spouse who is more traditional christian in their beliefs is not involved in church, then I would say they are reacting more out of habit than belief when any remarks are made, as any christian I know who really believes in the rapture, also believes that one needs to be active in a church in order to really be saved. So its more of a non-point to me if the spouse makes rapture and hell jokes and isn't involved in organized religion himself. maybe they are making jokes in order to avoid a topic they also don't like, but they are not yet ready to admit to themselves they are uncomfortable with their supposed belief system?
well come the end of May it won't upset me at all when we are all still here.
goldensmom
5-14-11, 10:18pm
It is important to me that my husband and I are on the same page concerning issues such as this. As for others, no matter how close the relationship, it doesn't matter to me what they think about my eternal destination.
porcelain
5-14-11, 10:56pm
I honestly could not be in a relationship with someone like that.
It was just more of a conversation starter since I am home sick and going stir crazy. I talked more with him and he doesn't claim to say anything about my personal salvation however I did have to say the joke was wearing thin.
As part of thinking about this idea I realize one thing that bothers me about this considering my personal beliefs. First of all I don't have a black and white idea of salvation, that is bothersome. Also i look to my tradition in buddhism. So Buddha attained what would be considered salvation and had the chance to leave earth. Instead he chose to stay and teach as long as his body lasted. So I do not see leaving the earth as some sort of proof of faith or salvation, I believe that salvation/enlightenment is possible in this life and on earth. That means there is no judgement involved in staying on earth or taking the quick train on Rapture day. Still being fleshed out,....
I would find it difficult to be in an intimate relationship with someone who had such a different view on life. And I also find the entire Rapture thing pretty incredulous.
It would definitely upset me. Comments like that are disrespectful. And even if he didn't make such explicit comments, I don't think people of such different faiths can ultimately make it work together. Religion for people who are religious is just too much of a big issue to ignore.
But if you're interested in making it work with this guy, come May 22 I wouldn't rub his nose in it too much. :)
LOL, I know he says seriuosly that if it does happen it will NOT be may 21st, that conflicts with the idea that no one knows when their time is coming after all.
In further conversations he did say that h** will be filled with all sorts of people including church going types so I think we can agree on the idea that it is not up to other humans to decide where we are ending up. I don't actually believe in h** but I have my own ideas, I just know I can't fully tell where someone else is.
I don't have a good answer.
The best I can say to any rapture judgement talk is that there is a reason why judgement is reserved for the Lord only. We humans are all too likely to misinterpret what we think we hear and that does include the precise definition and applicability of Christianity.
happystuff
5-15-11, 2:25pm
It wouldn't upset me, per se, but it would definitely piss me off enough to remove them from my life. I cannot see how harboring such an attitude as that on a subject of faith isn't indicative of other negative and/or other holier-than-thou attitudes. But I would not hesitate to tell the individual that it is pretty arrogant and presumptuous of THEM to decide the fate of others when it is truly God's decision. I want someone who is my "partner" in life, not someone who thinks they are my judge and who thinks they are better than I am in any way.
It wouldn't upset me, per se, but it would definitely piss me off enough to remove them from my life. I cannot see how harboring such an attitude as that on a subject of faith isn't indicative of other negative and/or other holier-than-thou attitudes. But I would not hesitate to tell the individual that it is pretty arrogant and presumptuous of THEM to decide the fate of others when it is truly God's decision. I want someone who is my "partner" in life, not someone who thinks they are my judge and who thinks they are better than I am in any way.
I think it really depends on how they say it, what their overall attitude is, and the relationship as a whole. Although my husband may think that way, he has never said that it is him judging me. Just based on his beliefs I wouldn't go to heaven. To him it's not really a grey area. It's a statement of fact but not a personal attack. Same as saying, "yes, you do have grey hair." I might take offense, but I try not to be offended at his version of the truth. But this only works for us, because in all areas he is one of the least judgmental people I've ever met. At least where I'm concerned. There were many instances where I thought he would think I was strange or make some kind of derogatory comment (when we were dating) and he never did. He always fully accepted me. Since we are very compatible in so many ways, this little thing wasn't going to stand in my way. And he was willing to marry me. In fact, his step-father, who is a very old fashioned pastor married us, without comment on my religion (or lack thereof). So that's good enough for me.
On the other hand, if this is just another incompatibility that one has found in a new relationship that has other issues, it definitely could be a major concern. You can only have so many areas where you disagree, before there will be trouble. And from what I recall of the OP's other posts, there are other compatibility issues between her and him.
happystuff
5-15-11, 4:11pm
But this only works for us,
As long as it works for you - wonderful! It wouldn't work for me for exactly the reasons I already state. If my husband would think such a thought and even consider it "a statement of fact" - to me indicates he has made judgements and drawn conclusions about me that are not for him to make, but for the higher power to make.
ETA: He's free to come to any conclusions he wants about the status of his own salvation. :-)
This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode in which Elaine's boyfriend does not think Elaine will go to heaven. She does not believe in heaven or hell. She tells him that he should be trying to "save" her so that she doesn't go to hell. He believes in the christian god and such and she does not.
I just think it is funny. She doesn't think there is a heaven but yet she is so mad that he is not trying to save her.
But wouldn't it bother you if you were constantly trying to be saved? If your bf really thinks you are going to hell, he'd probably be bugging you constantly about switching your belief system.
I think you can't get hung up on the two belief systems. You have yours. He has his. The only way for them to co-exist is for you two to not try to mesh them together. When you do, you get exactly this kind of weird thing where you believe his system HALF WAY in as much as it means you may be going to hell and then get mad he is not caring about that.
Look for love from him in other ways a part from religion.
The Storyteller
5-15-11, 6:57pm
As to afterlife...
My wife tells me she is coming back as a man in the next life so I had better come back as a woman.
The Storyteller
5-15-11, 6:58pm
It would definitely upset me. Comments like that are disrespectful. And even if he didn't make such explicit comments, I don't think people of such different faiths can ultimately make it work together. Religion for people who are religious is just too much of a big issue to ignore.
Maybe she can convert him.
Reality religion is like politics. We must agree to disagree. I have a friend that protests that he is atheist. Several times the friend has made the statement thank god. We all believe in different things. My belief is in a power greater than us all and is the universe. I also believe that there are things that happen all around us all the time that I would consider rapturous. Anything that happens that takes thousands of lives whether manmade or by nature is a rapture. The rapture is to take to heaven if I remeber correctly those who are of a nature that would not be able to fight during the last days,armaggedon probably spelled it wrong,but that is my believe. Whether you believe during your life there is that last second chance to choose and if you don't it does not matter because you did not believe in it. Like voodoo it only works if YOU believe.
Sure - it would upset me. I'm not really interested in being romantically involved with someone who has so little sensitivity toward me that he would make jokes about me being sent to eternal perdition. Even if I DO think it's a bunch of horsesh**, it's not funny and shows a real lack of care imho. Just how I'd feel.
I think I would be upset and know the feeling. Church is full of those "holier than thou" types. I know I'm not perfect, honest most of the time and don't spend too much time trying to cover my imperfections. Each day is a struggle of good and evil within. Wish I had enough faith to believe in "the rapture."
Believing in good and evil, that is knowledge of good and evil, is the "fall from grace" and rapture is the transcendence of same; wholeness, ergo holiness.
Very interesting conversation, I am taking it more as a way he has talked and not thought about since he has spent his life around different people than I have. We are in our 40's now so we have some ingrained habits. He has been in practice very respectful of my beliefs and read a book and tried my church a few times so that ultimately means more to me. But I did tell him it wasn't funny after the first few times because of my background and he seemed surprised but okay with not saying it anymore.
Good point to whoever said wouldn';t it be annoying if he was trying to convert/save me. Whew, it would. That would be something i could not handle right there.
treehugger
5-16-11, 12:37pm
There are lots of people in my life who feel that way about me (no place for me in their idea of heaven) but that absolutely does not bother me. However, I could not be married to someone who felt that way.
I'm oblivious and didn't even notice those billboards until my DH pointed them out to me. Then we had a good laugh. One we saw said, "The Bible guarantees it!" Uh huh, sure it does. I certainly wouldn't complain if there was suddenly a lot less traffic on Monday the 23rd.
poetry_writer
5-16-11, 1:08pm
I am a Christian. We do believe that there is only one way to heaven, through Jesus Christ. Few Christians believe the end of the world predictions since the Bible says "no man knows the hour or the day". A good convo with him might be in order if your beliefs differ a great deal.
I would also find it difficult to be in a realtionship with someone of VERY different views (and the values and lifestyle that those views often engender). I'm agnostric and very open to all ideas, but would find nothing in common with a conservative Christain (or any evangelical belief) who's main purpose in life was to save my soul. All that nagging about hell and damnation would wear on me pretty quick, because how could my partner NOT nag me about it constantly if he really loved me and believed I was going to burn in the eternal fires or whatever.? I mean it would be a fate worse than the worse death to a Christian. I would actually be hurt if he didn't try his darnedest to convert me, to save me if he truelly belived that was my eternal fate. For him not to try ardantly would be like him just letting me walk off a cliff to my death without trying to stop or save me.
You know, looking at it from the other side (and I know that those Christians are really just so [choose one] ignorant/inflexible/self-righteous and we UnitariAgnosticHumanistbuddhatheists are really are so much better :0!) but I don't think that DH is going to the wonderful place in the sky where he assumes he will be in the afterlife. So the fact that he puts up with me is tit for tat.
Zoe has brought up this religious thing several times about her bf and while I'm not going to tell her it doesn't matter, I wonder at what point she will decide that it does matter and move on.
The Storyteller
5-16-11, 8:52pm
I am a Christian. We do believe that there is only one way to heaven, through Jesus Christ.
Speak for yourself. I believe no such thing.
rodeosweetheart
5-16-11, 10:43pm
If I had a romantic partner who told me that he was a Christian and thus would be saved in the rapture, and I was going to be left behind because I was not a saved Christian, I would think he was a hypocrite and using me, because how could he use me for sex or romance or whatever if he knew I was going to hell, and he was going to heaven--it would seem like he was treating me as some sort of physical convenience, very unChristian to my way of thinking. He could not possibly love me if he was not concerned about my eternal wellbeing. At least that would be my logic, and the question is how we would feel, right? I'm not judgingyour relationship, I'm saying that is how I would feel.
But it doesn't matter how I would feel, it's how you feel about it.
The Storyteller
5-16-11, 11:24pm
If I had a romantic partner who told me that he was a Christian and thus would be saved in the rapture, and I was going to be left behind because I was not a saved Christian, I would think he was a hypocrite and using me, because how could he use me for sex or romance or whatever if he knew I was going to hell, and he was going to heaven--it would seem like he was treating me as some sort of physical convenience, very unChristian to my way of thinking. He could not possibly love me if he was not concerned about my eternal wellbeing. At least that would be my logic, and the question is how we would feel, right? I'm not judgingyour relationship, I'm saying that is how I would feel.
But it doesn't matter how I would feel, it's how you feel about it.
Elaine?
I am a Christian. We do believe that there is only one way to heaven, through Jesus Christ.
What does that entail?
Is this bribery, the ole carrot and stick, the stick being symbolic of hell?
Is it following his rules, examples or both?
If I want something, to get in heaven, what am I expected to do, say or feel? Is this a quid pro quo? An exchange? If I fill my side of the deal in order to get this amazing eternal payoff is that okay? To be good so I can get my reward? Or is it selfish? Is this an appeal to our self interest? Will it transform us or will it motivate spiritual greed of sorts?
I know I can make mistakes and be forgiven as long as my attitude is good. I can keep that attitude really optimistic and positive if I know I'm bound for glory, but as I understand it that's not acceptable is it? I know many Christians repeat this and I've seen it in the Bible attributed to Jesus and I guess I'd like to know if it's not a quid pro quo why is it constantly promoted as a conditional offer?
If I fill my side of the deal in order to get this amazing eternal payoff is that okay?
Pascal's Wager! :cool:
poetry_writer
5-17-11, 11:23am
What does that entail?
Is this bribery, the ole carrot and stick, the stick being symbolic of hell?
Is it following his rules, examples or both?
If I want something, to get in heaven, what am I expected to do, say or feel? Is this a quid pro quo? An exchange? If I fill my side of the deal in order to get this amazing eternal payoff is that okay? To be good so I can get my reward? Or is it selfish? Is this an appeal to our self interest? Will it transform us or will it motivate spiritual greed of sorts?
I know I can make mistakes and be forgiven as long as my attitude is good. I can keep that attitude really optimistic and positive if I know I'm bound for glory, but as I understand it that's not acceptable is it? I know many Christians repeat this and I've seen it in the Bible attributed to Jesus and I guess I'd like to know if it's not a quid pro quo why is it constantly promoted as a conditional offer?
We believe you dont have to do anything, that Jesus death and resurrection accomplished it all. Its is a gift and all you have to do is believe it. Believing that I do nothing and that He loves me and gives me grace (undeserved favor) is the greatest motivator to do good. We also believe we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who helps us. So there are no conditions at all tied to Gods love.
Maxamillion
5-17-11, 12:19pm
Its is a gift and all you have to do is believe it. ....So there are no conditions at all tied to Gods love.
Well, maybe one condition. The condition is that you have to believe. Otherwise, you don't get God's love, you get hell. You get God's eternal wrath for a measly 70 years (plus or minus) of living with a human nature.
In response to the OP, I don't have a partner at the moment. I doubt I'd be able to be with someone who's religious views were very different from mine. I do have at least one person in my life that's told me she thinks I'll probably be going to hell. My biggest worry over it was her stressing out about it but she doesn't seem to be stressing too much after all.
He loves me and gives me grace (undeserved favor) is the greatest motivator to do good.
I believe that trying to eliminate another's suffering is a greater motivator (and a more unselfish act) to do good. I think that trying to earn the love and avoid eternal damnation is a poor and selfish motivator IMHO.
The Storyteller
5-17-11, 5:24pm
We believe you dont have to do anything, that Jesus death and resurrection accomplished it all. Its is a gift and all you have to do is believe it. Believing that I do nothing and that He loves me and gives me grace (undeserved favor) is the greatest motivator to do good. We also believe we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who helps us. So there are no conditions at all tied to Gods love.
I have no problem with you believing whatever you wish. Just please stop saying "we" as if all Christians believe the same thing. They don't.
We believe you dont have to do anything, that Jesus death and resurrection accomplished it all. Its is a gift and all you have to do is believe it. Believing that I do nothing and that He loves me and gives me grace (undeserved favor) is the greatest motivator to do good. We also believe we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who helps us. So there are no conditions at all tied to Gods love.
Thanks for the honest and respectful response.
There exists odd parallels in your post and my own experience of the infinite and I'm intrigued because I think of myself as a "new eyes" Christian or a friend of Christianity i.e. that I left it and now I honor the truth I find in it and open heartedly challenge the rest.
I also see that there is nothing one must do to experience divine connection. Well, not do in the conventional sense. For me, however, it is not believing, but seeing the way he lived came from an awareness and realization of fundamental truths. It may be that the only differences we may have is semantics.
Now, the parenthetical "undeserved favor" took me by surprise though. Were you referring to just you or all of mankind? If it was mankind, why?
What if one is presented with Christianity in a way that is unappealing to one's sense of justice and intellect? For example, in this day and age one could see the actions of the Catholic church as excusing child abuse and inconsistent with respect to the Non-violence Jesus advocated; rationalizing or interpreting in ways that seem merely convenient. This hypothetical individual (which was, at one time, me) is repulsed and he turns his back on Christianity and either becomes agnostic, atheist or the follower of some other faith. In your opinion, does God turn his back on he/she?
Does God, who allows the conditions for all kinds of religions, slam the gates of heaven shut to those who have never even heard of Christianity?
poetry_writer
5-17-11, 11:48pm
Thanks for the honest and respectful response.
There exists odd parallels in your post and my own experience of the infinite and I'm intrigued because I think of myself as a "new eyes" Christian or a friend of Christianity i.e. that I left it and now I honor the truth I find in it and open heartedly challenge the rest.
I also see that there is nothing one must do to experience divine connection. Well, not do in the conventional sense. For me, however, it is not believing, but seeing the way he lived came from an awareness and realization of fundamental truths. It may be that the only differences we may have is semantics.
Now, the parenthetical "undeserved favor" took me by surprise though. Were you referring to just you or all of mankind? If it was mankind, why?
What if one is presented with Christianity in a way that is unappealing to one's sense of justice and intellect? For example, in this day and age one could see the actions of the Catholic church as excusing child abuse and inconsistent with respect to the Non-violence Jesus advocated; rationalizing or interpreting in ways that seem merely convenient. This hypothetical individual (which was, at one time, me) is repulsed and he turns his back on Christianity and either becomes agnostic, atheist or the follower of some other faith. In your opinion, does God turn his back on he/she?
Does God, who allows the conditions for all kinds of religions, slam the gates of heaven shut to those who have never even heard of Christianity?
The undeserved favor, or grace..is available through Jesus. Its for anyone who wants it. He never forces anyone. I think if you look at His bumbling followers you will be disappointed. I try to keep my eyes on Jesus. Some have done very harmful things in His name. He will deal with that. God doesnt slam the gates on anyone, they are open wide to whoever wants to come in...but He alone says how one gets in. He Himself provided the Way to get in.
Why is the favor undeserved?
The undeserved favor, or grace..is available through Jesus. Its for anyone who wants it. He never forces anyone. I think if you look at His bumbling followers you will be disappointed. I try to keep my eyes on Jesus. Some have done very harmful things in His name. He will deal with that. God doesnt slam the gates on anyone, they are open wide to whoever wants to come in...but He alone says how one gets in. He Himself provided the Way to get in.
And what of those millions (and probably billions) who have never heard of Christ and have no knowledge? What becomes of them?
poetry_writer
5-18-11, 12:57pm
Why is the favor undeserved?
Because I dont deserve it.
poetry_writer
5-18-11, 12:58pm
And what of those millions (and probably billions) who have never heard of Christ and have no knowledge? What becomes of them?
I leave that in His hands, believing He is a fair and righteous judge, full of mercy and grace.
Hmm...
Interesting question. My DH just asked me yesterday if I believe in a "heaven"--and we're both practicing Christians--he from a Presbyterian tradition and I was raised Catholic.
I consider myself Christian in SO many ways, and I co-practice Buddhism. But my personal interpretation of the Gospel is that the Kingdom of Heaven is (or can be) here. The Buddhist in me says, who cares what happens when we die as long as we are being good stewards of the present moment (see my avatar).
IF my SO really believed that he is being saved but I am not because of my beliefs, I would have to question the relationship, because that attitude breeds condescension. I read in one of Malcolm Gladwell's books that condescension is a predictor of divorce, and that makes sense to me.
I leave that in His hands, believing He is a fair and righteous judge, full of mercy and grace.
But if he doesn't "judge" people on their actions or deeds as you pointed out earlier, and that the only way to reach God and heaven is by knowledge and acceptance of Christ as the savior, how can those people be saved? I'm not trying to be argumentative but it has always been one of the things about Christianity I don't understand: "How can you know and accept Jesus if you have no knowledge - and no way to gain that knowledge - ever?"
poetry_writer
5-18-11, 2:06pm
But if he doesn't "judge" people on their actions or deeds as you pointed out earlier, and that the only way to reach God and heaven is by knowledge and acceptance of Christ as the savior, how can those people be saved? I'm not trying to be argumentative but it has always been one of the things about Christianity I don't understand: "How can you know and accept Jesus if you have no knowledge - and no way to gain that knowledge - ever?"
Here is what I believe on that issue. God is all powerful and has ways of revealing Himself to people even when they have never heard of Him. There is a young girl who began painting beautiful pictures of heaven and spoke of Jesus after being raised in a non believing household. She had never been exposed to any religion. How could she have known? (I can look up her name, cant remember it right now.) So He has ways to give knowledge. Are there some who never hear and dont know any better, with absolutely no knowledge at all of Him? I dont know. I know He is fair. So I rest in that. He has a Fathers heart. What would a Father heart do?
He has a Fathers heart. What would a Father heart do?
Well my father walked out on my SAH mom and three kids, leaving us homeless and penniless, so I guess I can't use that as a good example :laff:!! But I understand what you are saying - that you have faith for others.
poetry_writer
5-18-11, 2:43pm
Well my father walked out on my SAH mom and three kids, leaving us homeless and penniless, so I guess I can't use that as a good example :laff:!! But I understand what you are saying - that you have faith for others.
We often form our concepts of God from very imperfect parents. God is the perfect Father. I am sorry that happened to you.
The Storyteller
5-18-11, 3:01pm
Most scholars believe Jesus never said anything about people believing in him, or even anything about being God in the flesh. He spoke of being the son of God, but the evidence is that it was in the same sense as Kind David as the son of God. He never claimed even to be the messiah.
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet preaching on the coming of the Kingdom of God, which he believed would come during his lifetime, and that kingdom would be set up on earth. He preached kindness and mercy were the ways into that kingdom. Actions, not faith, were the way to God.
He didn't care who people thought he was, and certainly didn't care if they "believed in him". He cared about what they did.
Pascal's Wager! :cool:
Pascal's Wager doesn't work for me. I'm always more at peace when I'm not trying to manage and force my thoughts, words and deeds to fit into some prescribed system of ethics from outside of me, whether it's the Bible or any other religious text. That is, I have my own guidance system that tells me I'm off or out of sync with the universe: suffering. If I'm at peace within, I'm not at war with others and all other virtues flow from that.
As I understand it, Pascal's Wager in not okay with the Christian clergy either, for different reasons.
I also don't believe that Jesus was about exclusivity even though the statement was attributed to him.
Jesus, explicitly and immediately, forgave those who demonstrated that they didn't believe in him by nailing him to a cross; men who had no contrition.
We often form our concepts of God from very imperfect parents. God is the perfect Father. I am sorry that happened to you.
Thanks for your nice words. I'm agnostic (basicly don't know and don't believe that there is any way to actually prove the exisiance of a God, gods, or a spiritual life with the tools and knowledge currently available to us) so don't have a set concept or idea of God - or any of the religious beliefs that exisit.
Most scholars believe Jesus never said anything about people believing in him, or even anything about being God in the flesh. He spoke of being the son of God, but the evidence is that it was in the same sense as Kind David as the son of God. He never claimed even to be the messiah.
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet preaching on the coming of the Kingdom of God, which he believed would come during his lifetime, and that kingdom would be set up on earth. He preached kindness and mercy were the ways into that kingdom. Actions, not faith, were the way to God.
He didn't care who people thought he was, and certainly didn't care if they "believed in him". He cared about what they did.
Storyteller, I totally agree with you. Christianity did not really start with Jesus. He just started a movement that eventually became Christianity after many years and after many revisions of what certain authors of the Gospels, etc. thought Jesus said. These people were trying to get believers involved in the new paradigm. I have recently decided that I do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a mortal man with a great message and very devoted followers. The scholarly evidence that I believe in just does not support the resurrection or superhuman qualities of Jesus.
The Storyteller
5-18-11, 11:39pm
Jesus, explicitly and immediately, forgave those who demonstrated that they didn't believe in him by nailing him to a cross; men who had no contrition.
Well... no, he didn't. Jesus never said anything on the cross except "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The other sayings were added later by other authors trying to mold the new religion of Christianity..
I am impressed by the quality of this conversation. So often when people discuss religious beliefs and practices, the discussion polarizes and stagnates. It is lovely to read comments of people who are having different experiences and sharing them without projecting them. Back to the OP, though, the idea that one could be living with a partner who genuinely believed that you were going to hell and he was heaven-bound might be hard. Why would he not be desperately trying to convert you?
My exDH decided that I was headed for hell when I decided to divorce him; but then, in my rigidly religious days, I was pretty sure he couldn't count on heaven as compensation for the "good works" in the community that he did, which also enhanced his small business bottom line and were deductible as marketing. I am much happier without all of those stories running around in my head, and running my life. My personal experiences of transcendence have been for more fruitful.
Thanks for the thread: interesting and mutually respectful.
Well... no, he didn't. Jesus never said anything on the cross except "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The other sayings were added later by other authors trying to mold the new religion of Christianity..
Are you saying that he did not say, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"?
If so, what authors?
The Storyteller
5-20-11, 10:43am
Are you saying that he did not say, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"?
Yes, that is what I am saying. Most scholars believe that is the only authentic saying. It is quoted in Aramaic, which was Jesus' native tongue, while all the Gospels were written in Greek. That suggests it came from the oral tradition, which is how the stories of Jesus were carried forward until the gospels were written decades after his death. Mark was the first Gospel written, and the others (except John) used Mark and an unknown source now called Q (for Quelle meaning The Source) as their sources. They added their own stuff along the way, here and there.
In Mark, Jesus says absolutely nothing, during his trial or his crucifixion, until his last words of despair.
Matthew, Luke, and John all added sayings, for their own purposes.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Most scholars believe that is the only authentic saying. It is quoted in Aramaic, which was Jesus' native tongue, while all the Gospels were written in Greek. That suggests it came from the oral tradition, which is how the stories of Jesus were carried forward until the gospels were written decades after his death. Mark was the first Gospel written, and the others (except John) used Mark and an unknown source now called Q (for Quelle meaning The Source) as their sources. They added their own stuff along the way, here and there.
In Mark, Jesus says absolutely nothing, during his trial or his crucifixion, until his last words of despair.
Matthew, Luke, and John all added sayings, for their own purposes.
So what you've given me is conflicting sources. How do I know which is the truth?
The Storyteller
5-20-11, 1:49pm
So what you've given me is conflicting sources. How do I know which is the truth? Sorry, you lost me.
One song I always liked was this one: ("Fly From Heaven")
Paul is making me nervous
Paul is making me scared
Into this room he swaggers
Like he's God's own messenger
Change the name of my brother
Change the things that he said
Says that he speaks to him
But he never even knew the man
And I'd give my life for him
Like water through my hands
You'd give him any ending
And if he's all you say
Would he fly from heaven
To this world again?
I've played that CD a few times in these past few strange rapture-predicting days. I believe in a god of love, in a Jesus who was a brilliant, kind, and gentle teacher & prophet --- not in this business of fire and brimstone, pillars of salt and all the rest. But so many biblical embellishments have turned this loving soul into some sort of superman/terminator type, and it has always deeply saddened me.
poetry_writer
5-21-11, 10:11am
I say the Bible is authentic and reliable. There are thousands of early manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy from OT to New, eyewitness accounts of some Biblical events, early historians mentioned Jesus and His followers, and arcehological discoveries than confirm Biblical events. There are certain tests you apply to any historical document, including the Bible, to see if it is accurate. The Bible passes the tests.
The Storyteller
5-22-11, 11:22pm
There are certain tests you apply to any historical document, including the Bible, to see if it is accurate.
Well, that part is correct, at least. :) But I'm afraid the bible fails them. One of the chief tests would be records independent of the work by disinterested parties that support what it says. They do not. They are either completely lacking or they directly contradict its stories. For instance, there was no worldwide census during the time of Jesus' birth, and there was no "slaughter of innocents" by order of Herod the Great.
And there are thousands of manuscripts, but they don't tell the story you might think. The Bible we have today is much altered from its origin. So, which Bible is authentic, the one then, or the one we use now?
The other story ancient documents tell is that there is a surprising dearth of them contemporary to Jesus that attest to him. There is not a single one, in fact, that so much as mentions him. No record of any kind from a non-Christian source, and even the Christian sources were not contemporary except for the writings of Paul. The earliest Jewish source that even mentions Jesus was the historian Josephus, and that is in 90 CE, some 60 years after Jesus. The first Greek or Roman sources aren't found until 130 CE and later, a full century after his death. Even those tell us nothing of his life and ministry. Yet, there are thousands and thousands of documents from that era.
There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus and his ministry in the New Testament. The gospels were all written 30 to 65 years after the crucifixion, by people who never met him and who wrote in another language (Greek) than the one he and his followers spoke (Aramaic). The earliest writings we have are from Paul, and he never met Jesus except in his "vision". He did meet a grand total of two eyewitnesses, but he goes to great pains to discount their influence. Even there, he didn't exactly say much about Jesus or his ministry.
So, believe what you want about the bible. It is a great book (or group of books, more accurately, books that often contradict one another). But it is not an historical document.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Most scholars believe that is the only authentic saying. It is quoted in Aramaic, which was Jesus' native tongue, while all the Gospels were written in Greek. That suggests it came from the oral tradition, which is how the stories of Jesus were carried forward until the gospels were written decades after his death. Mark was the first Gospel written, and the others (except John) used Mark and an unknown source now called Q (for Quelle meaning The Source) as their sources. They added their own stuff along the way, here and there.
In Mark, Jesus says absolutely nothing, during his trial or his crucifixion, until his last words of despair.
Matthew, Luke, and John all added sayings, for their own purposes.
Both text and oral traditions made into text can be manipulated and scholars, clergy and disciples can have biases, assumptions, beliefs and incompetency. We are the authors of truth. Their authority comes from our say so: there is no objectivity only cases of mutual agreement of the subjective, that is of course until it is scrutinized.
I'm willing to suppose that the entire Bible is historically inaccurate. Its veracity, to me, is entirely beside the point. If we assume that Jesus is a mythical figure, that is he never lived, the teachings are significant in and of themselves as a collection of parables or allegories. I've read quotes of Buddhist masters, of whom I've never heard and I rarely remember their names but I often remember the quotes. A teacher or master that would have difficulty with not getting post mortem copyrights was not a master in the first place.
We honor spiritual leaders by living the truth they share, not by honoring their names.
Maybe these stories have more impact for others if they have a name to which they can attach and for me, that is a spiritual trap tantamount to idolatry. As I understand it his name was actually Emmanuel anyway.
I got into this discussion to challenge the idea that the character Jesus, real or not, was in favor of excluding anyone from entering heaven, whether it would be those of other religions or those who that persecuted him. The Bible is inconsistent on this point so I look to other traditions so I can glean what I see as the obscured truth therein (not Truth).
poetry_writer
5-24-11, 3:06pm
Both text and oral traditions made into text can be manipulated and scholars, clergy and disciples can have biases, assumptions, beliefs and incompetency. We are the authors of truth. Their authority comes from our say so: there is no objectivity only cases of mutual agreement of the subjective, that is of course until it is scrutinized.
I'm willing to suppose that the entire Bible is historically inaccurate. Its veracity, to me, is entirely beside the point. If we assume that Jesus is a mythical figure, that is he never lived, the teachings are significant in and of themselves as a collection of parables or allegories. I've read quotes of Buddhist masters, of whom I've never heard and I rarely remember their names but I often remember the quotes. A teacher or master that would have difficulty with not getting post mortem copyrights was not a master in the first place.
We honor spiritual leaders by living the truth they share, not by honoring their names.
Maybe these stories have more impact for others if they have a name to which they can attach and for me, that is a spiritual trap tantamount to idolatry. As I understand it his name was actually Emmanuel anyway.
I got into this discussion to challenge the idea that the character Jesus, real or not, was in favor of excluding anyone from entering heaven, whether it would be those of other religions or those who that persecuted him. The Bible is inconsistent on this point so I look to other traditions so I can glean what I see as the obscured truth therein (not Truth).
Hi Xmac, I do enjoy discussing the Bible. :o) You say you "are willing to suppose that the entire Bible is historially inaccurate". What do you base that idea on? I dont believe that Jesus excluded anyone, for He Himself provided the way to heaven. He says that He is the way ...."I am the way , the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me". It doesnt say that the way to Father is by honoring His principles or a set of standards. He said "I am the resurrection and the life". Not a set of rules or guidelines. Jesus ...Himself. That is a blessed relief, for it does not depend on what I , but on what He has done.
poetry_writer
5-24-11, 3:09pm
Storyteller, I totally agree with you. Christianity did not really start with Jesus. He just started a movement that eventually became Christianity after many years and after many revisions of what certain authors of the Gospels, etc. thought Jesus said. These people were trying to get believers involved in the new paradigm. I have recently decided that I do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a mortal man with a great message and very devoted followers. The scholarly evidence that I believe in just does not support the resurrection or superhuman qualities of Jesus.
His message was that He was the Son of God who came to redeem man. So how can you say that He is a great man if you dont believe that? Would a great man say something that was a lie? You can believe Him, or not. But a great man isnt one of the options.
loosechickens
5-24-11, 3:22pm
Well, to ME.....they SAY that Jesus said that, but people say a lot of things, especially after the fact, and even more especially when they are trying to gather followers for a new religion.
I'm quite comfortable with there being a historical Jesus, an ordinary human being, not in any way divine, just as the Buddha was not divine, teaching the same message of love, generosity, compassion and understanding, and can respect him and consider him a great teacher, without dimishing him in any way, without any belief whatsoever in all the stuff that was piled on later by others.
Of course Jesus was a great man. He lived. He influenced a number of people in his life. He brought some ideas that were important. Because someone chooses not to accept what people SAID he SAID (we were, after all, not there) does not dimish that. Nor is it necessary for me to swallow all those people said, and wrote, for me to do so. I consider Jesus to have been a great man, a great teacher, one of several who have appeared through historical time, all of whom pretty much have brought the same teachings about how to live, and I venerate him, just as I venerate those from the Buddha and Mohammed to Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. None of whom I believe to have been divine in any way. Nor were any of them the only path, or offered some exclusive benefit, IMHO. Others, of course, are free to believe differently.
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 5:52pm
His message was that He was the Son of God who came to redeem man. So how can you say that He is a great man if you dont believe that? Would a great man say something that was a lie?
Except he never said it. :)
Except he never said it. :)
Although I believe he did refer to himself as the Son of Man, which in that period's common usage could be interpreted to mean that he would sit at the right hand of God, an honor reserved for divinity.
Here is my particular issue with this -- and it's just mine, born more of melancholy than anything else.
When you take an ordinary great man -- a great and wise teacher, a compassionate spirit in a very difficult period in our history --- and give him these paranormal powers (healing, walking on water, etc.) you take him out of the realm of Real Men and make him a God.
This is all well and good if what you need is a god -- and back in those times, gods definitely got more airplay than regular folk in terms of changing social behavior.
But what we need NOW is a society is a role model, not a god. I want to live in a world in which we all know that any person can do what Jesus did: Live with dignity and integrity, devote a good portion of his life to service, raise people to a higher level of devotion and joy, give of himself until it hurt. The "ordinary Jesus" was ripped from history and replaced with a superhero, someone whose actions can easily be discounted ("Oh, sure, HE can do that, he also did the loaves and fishes thing")
I honor the Ordinary Human Jesus, who apparently --- even in the face of public scorn and personal risk --- did all he could to love, love, and love some more.
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 7:46pm
Although I believe he did refer to himself as the Son of Man, which in that period's common usage could be interpreted to mean that he would sit at the right hand of God, an honor reserved for divinity.
Actually, while he spoke of the Son of Man, he never claimed it was him. Read those passages closely. They are always in the third person, never a self designation.
Actually, while he spoke of the Son of Man, he never claimed it was him. Read those passages closely. They are always in the third person, never a self designation.
The third person part is true, but I think it was clear at the Last Supper, while talking about his upcoming betrayal by one of the disciples, he was talking about himself when he said (in Mark 14:20-21):
20 "It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the
bowl with me.
21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.
But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he
had not been born."
poetry_writer
5-24-11, 9:32pm
The third person part is true, but I think it was clear at the Last Supper, while talking about his upcoming betrayal by one of the disciples, he was talking about himself when he said (in Mark 14:20-21):
Mark 14:60-62
Then the high priest asked Him "Are you the Messiah?" Jesus said "I AM. (The OT calls God I AM) And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at Gods right hand, and coming on the clouds of heaven"
Hi Xmac, I do enjoy discussing the Bible. :o) You say you "are willing to suppose that the entire Bible is historially inaccurate".
Discussions which degenerate into what Jesus said or God said, when and where, interpretations this way and that way are of no interest to me. As Loosechickens pointed out, none of us were there and even if we were eyewitnesses, our accounts still wouldn't amount to the Truth, only a truth. I'm not saying the Bible is inaccurate, I'm saying I can't possibly know because I'm always deferring to someone I never met for its veracity.
I remember Doubting Thomas got a bit of a bad rap in the Bible. I don't know why. Skepticism (not cynisism) is a virtue as far as I'm concerned.
If Jesus wanted people to follow only him (which I don't believe) wouldn't he want discerning followers? Ones that wouldn't stray into other religions?
I dont believe that Jesus excluded anyone, for He Himself provided the way to heaven. He says that He is the way ...."I am the way , the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me". It doesnt say that the way to Father is by honoring His principles or a set of standards.
I agree. It was I who said otherwise. So what does he mean? His body is not available, nor any other aspect like his voice, etc. His spirit, which is the Spirit, the infinite, the divine, etc., is silent and unknown without those specific teachings, is it not? One might experience connection with the ground of being and feel it was his Buddha nature, Brahman or Allah, not Christ because the teachings are absent.
He said "I am the resurrection and the life". Not a set of rules or guidelines. Jesus ...Himself. That is a blessed relief, for it does not depend on what I , but on what He has done.
Okay, so now you've narrowed it down to what he has done. So, he has shown us the way...The Way? Surely, The Way to which you say he refers to does not include getting oneself killed? That's not to sound sarcastic, I'm trying to get a fix on exactly what it is that you think he is talking about. If he has done miracles and forgiven brutality are we not also expected to do the same? How can we follow an example that is God himself? Are we expected to reach that level? I say yes. And I also say that that is the real Good News that never got out.
In prior posts it sounds or seems as if you're implying that people keep themselves out of heaven and oddly enough, I agree with you. However, I don't see that it is because they choose another "way" or religion.
Let's put it this way, if I believed there was a Jesus that actually felt as though every generation around the world for all time should only follow him, I wouldn't respect him and furthermore I would see his stature as lessened.
For me, the universal truths I find in other traditions can be found in the Bible. Although sometimes they are written symbolically or as allegories, one can elicit those truths if one looks closely.
It doesn't bother me.
My mother once was very upset because she felt that "anyone who knows and yet rejects Christ is doomed to hell." and she was very, very upset about it. Essentially, trying to get me to go back to church. (She's catholic, btw.) She asked me if I cared about that, or if I was concerned for her feelings in this regard, etc.
And I calmly told her the truth: Her own beliefs were upsetting her, not mine. She claimed she was upset with my beliefs (and thereby rejection of Jesus), but the reality is that it was her own beliefs about what my beliefs meant that was upsetting her.
Likewise, I don't agree with her belief in this regard. I believe that heaven and hell are allegorical (even when I was catholic), and so there is no eternal damnation, etc.
When a friend of mine or someone close to me makes a joke about it -- like my mother did on our skype call -- I just laugh it off because, to me, it *is* a joke. Not their beliefs, per se -- they are welcome to believe whatever they wish about heaven, hell, and who is going where -- but rather when they say "oh well, too bad for you!" For me, it *is* funny because they are poking fun at it AND it's a way for them to make peace with our differences.
It's sort of like how Halloween helps people cope with death, honestly. Make it something fun and playful, and we can face our fears.
Having this understanding of what is going on makes the whole evangelical process a lot easier on me.
Oh, and btw, "doubting Thomas" also was "St Thomas" and Jesus gave him what he asked for, which is pretty sweet. It's actually quite a celebrated little act, though people fail to comprehend why and how in many cases. :)
And, Hero with A Thousand Faces (campbell) is very illuminating regarding The Way and the crucifixion and how it all fits together. It actually *is* about deeds and acts, not about whether or not you "believe" in Jesus in the way that many do believe in him. At least, mythologically speaking. Which is how I function. Cool stuff, btw. :D)
catherine
5-31-11, 12:28pm
Another really interesting way to view Jesus is the way that William Atkinson describes him in Mystical Christianity: You can get a free download here. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13143
I just read it this weekend. I'd try to explain it, but I'd botch it up. However, his interpretations of the miracles, Jesus's teachings, particularly The Sermon on the Mount, and the Resurrection are based on writings by Yogi Ramachuraka, and thought-provoking to say the least. You don't have to buy it all, but it helps to look at the life of Christ in an out-of-the-box way as opposed to the way we've been taught in a typical Sunday School upbringing--and it addresses Christ's Essence rather than simply the Gnostic accounts of his life.
The Storyteller
6-1-11, 2:36pm
Discussions which degenerate into what Jesus said or God said, when and where, interpretations this way and that way are of no interest to me.
It does to me.
If Jesus said he was God and he wasn't, then he was a nutcase and all of his teachings should be viewed accordingly. If he said it and he was, we should all take note and try to figure out what he (not his followers) had to say or we may all be in hot water. If he didn't say he was God (he didn't), then all pressure is off and we can study his teachings for what they are... great teachings by a great teacher.
It does to me.
If Jesus said he was God and he wasn't, then he was a nutcase and all of his teachings should be viewed accordingly. If he said it and he was, we should all take note and try to figure out what he (not his followers) had to say or we may all be in hot water. If he didn't say he was God (he didn't), then all pressure is off and we can study his teachings for what they are... great teachings by a great teacher.
Here's how it works for me: If you tell me you're the King of the Lizards and ten minutes later I hear you say, as someone is beating you senseless, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do". I regard the latter statement as being divinely inspired, all other statements notwithstanding.
If someone, whose credibility is unknown to me directly, tells me you said one thing and not the other, neither or both. I hear the Lizard King quote and think WOW, that's out there, what a story. I hear the forgiveness of violence and think WOW, that's out there, what a story AND what a teaching!
If someone gives me 25 more amazing teachings and stories and attributes them to you, I start to think: hmm...it sounds like this guy and/or the people around him were really connecting to something profound.
I don't need or care about any other details. All else is ego and idolatry. I could buy into something others say is false and I could reject what is thought to be profound by a billion people.
If what is taught resonates with me, i.e. that it has an effect on me as though I'm remembering something or it locks my attention to the extent that it blocks all my inner self talk, then those words are the primary consideration and the source of them is trivia. Supposedly, The Buddha wanted that kind of non-worship.
It does to me.
If Jesus said he was God and he wasn't, then he was a nutcase and all of his teachings should be viewed accordingly. If he said it and he was, we should all take note and try to figure out what he (not his followers) had to say or we may all be in hot water. If he didn't say he was God (he didn't), then all pressure is off and we can study his teachings for what they are... great teachings by a great teacher.
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity followed the same thought process in his talks regarding lunatic, liar or lord, sometimes called the Lewis Trilemma. Very interesting!
The Storyteller
6-1-11, 11:13pm
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity followed the same thought process in his talks regarding lunatic, liar or lord, sometimes called the Lewis Trilemma. Very interesting!
Except he left out a 4th possibility... he never said some of the things he is credited for. :)
It does to me.
If Jesus said he was God and he wasn't, then he was a nutcase and all of his teachings should be viewed accordingly. If he said it and he was, we should all take note and try to figure out what he (not his followers) had to say or we may all be in hot water. If he didn't say he was God (he didn't), then all pressure is off and we can study his teachings for what they are... great teachings by a great teacher.
Storyteller, I'm curious. I think you mentioned already that you are a Christian. If you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, can you still be a Christian? I recently have come to the conclusion for myself that Jesus was just a great man, but nothing else. I respect what you have to say, therefore the question.
The Storyteller
6-2-11, 3:36pm
I never said he wasn't the Son of God, just that he never claimed to be. I do believe he was the *son of God, just not the way most Christians do. I am a monotheist like he was, not a polytheist like most Christians.
I am Christian because I follow his teachings and worship the God he worshiped, the way he told us to worship him.
*Note how I use capitalization here.
I just started rereading the New Testament for some personal investigation reasons, however...
I ran into an apparent contradiction on the first page of Matthew, announcing the genealogy of Jesus Christ. However, the genealogy is based on male succession and stops at Joseph, the father, but not begetter of Jesus.
Some interpretation is called for here, either how to interpret the word genealogy, or how to interpret the chapter as a whole. I personally like the concept of requiring Biblical interpretation, because it can then support multiple perspectives.
However, I also find the whole concept of Biblical interpretation to be a very slippery, never ending slope. Once you start, plenty of wiggle room can be found, with no clue at what point is the interpretation excessive.
More meditation is required.
The Storyteller
6-2-11, 7:03pm
Sometimes there is no need for interpretation. In this case, it is what it is... a genealogy proving Jesus is of the tree of King David, as is supposed to be the case for the Messiah.
The problem is of course Matthew also posits that Joseph was not actually his father, which creates the exact conundrum you imply. If he is not Joseph's son, then what difference does it make what Joseph's genealogy is?
None, of course. But Matthew wants it both ways, for Jesus to be of the tree of David AND of God the Father.
What is more, there is also a genealogy in Luke, which is equally superfluous if we are to believe Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph. The interesting thing is, that genealogy does not match the one in Matthew.
;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.