How Many Christians Believe that Heaven is REALLY Real?

[emilynghiem]

The doctor analogy is inherently flawed by leaving out the detail of the eternal punishment promised in scripture.
Don't get me wrong. I don't endorse this belief, but just about 100% of the most vitriolic believers not only endorse it but revel in the idea of their theological adversaries burning into perpetuity.

Thanks Bruce

This is where I make the distinction between people, whether Christian or nontheist, who favor either "retributive justice" as in the OT or "restorative justice" in the NT.

My understanding of justice is you get the type you give.
Justice is a double edged sword, how you approach it is what you get in return:
with either condemnation, rejection and punishment (wishing ill on others and not wanting to solve the problems) or with forgiveness in seeking correction and restitution to solve the problems for the mutual benefit of all.

So the people who preach "retributive" judgment punishment and rejection,
get rejected and judged by others. Let them answer to each other. If preachers specialize in this (as I think our friend GISMYS on here loved to preach this way),
then let them rebuke and yell at each other for their own hypocrisy.
They well deserve that, so have at it. If bullies only respond to other bullies,
then leave them to their own smackdown wars for dominance and pecking order.

While leaving the rest of us who are open to receiving and sharing corrections,
as equal neighbors, work under the systems of restorative justice.

We have merely to divide the sheep from the goats, and let each one choose which system they want to preach and be judged under, and let them have at it.

The most critical issue I found is that the division between Christian and nontheist
was more about the language of the laws, but the division between retributive and restorative justice is in the SPIRIT of the laws.

And restorative justice is so universal, that it unites people of different backgrounds, Muslim or Christian Jewish or Atheist. So this tells me the SPIRIT of the laws is more important than the letter, which can be worked out in context.

If the SPIRIT is off, where one person preaches retribution and the other
seeks restoration, then that is the cause of the conflict.

If both people seek restorative justice, they can overcome any other differences in political or religious views or language which are secondary.

If people seek RETRIBUTION and are UNFORGIVING
that's going to cause conflicts and "control battles" regardless.

This is independent of Christianity or the Bible but happens with all people.

===================================================

It's not just the church or religion where this is abused.

Leaving the law and authority to humans, both the church and state get corrupted where people in power abuse the "letter of the law" to excuse their wrongs while accusing others, to keep the political oppression and control going.

So this is where both church and state laws are abused to impose injustice while covering up and escaping accountability for the injustices done by the actual people in offices or positions of leadership.

In politics, if we put more emphasis on PUNISHING crime as a supposed deterrent, waging war on crime, drugs, poor, whoever we blame as being outside or in violation of laws;
then we detract attention and resources from programs that actually ADDRESS and CORRECT the cause of criminal abuse and behavior patterns.

So we make the same mistakes with secular govt laws as well, for political posturing and gain.

A Buddhist monk once summarized the Bible simply by explaining
the OT is about living by the letter of the law
and the NT is about living by the spirit of the law.

Ideally, we put the spirit first, and then the letter follows.

The justice process, of shifting from Retributive to Restorative Justice
applies to all people going through spiritual and social development, not just Christianity.

In both the church and state laws, even though the authority still exists for there to be punitive consequences for actions, if we follow the laws to begin with, and do the right thing or prevent/correct trespasses before they result in criminal abuse or violations,
then we "fulfill the letter of the law" by fulfilling the spirit of the law by obeying it in the first place.

We will not need to emphasize the punitive consequences as more people and populations
develop to enforce laws by voluntary compliance and not by political or religious coercion.

This OT way of enforcing laws will still be a choice, for people who need this, but where society is heading, we are learning not to depend on any "governing authority to punish us".

Like teenagers who outgrow spanking and grounding, and need to learn to make decisions and take responsibility as mature adults, so are society and humanity evolving to maturity.

We can learn from the past, as in the OT that is full of genocide and destruction from controlling nations and tribes by holding authority over people by the letter of the law,
and NOT keep repeating the same cycle of oppression and abuse over and over.

We are meant to recover from past mistakes and injustice, learn the causes and how to correct these problems, and prevent them in the future. so that is the spiritual process of humanity that is "symbolized" in the Bible, between the OT about the cycle of wars in the past and the NT about lasting peace in future.

The point is to get AWAY from the retributive model.
Unfortunately not all people are in the same phase or stage of progression.

So we will still see wars repeating from the past, until all these ills have played out,
and we agree not to keep adding more to these debts and damages.

Eventually the good will outlast the bad which is finite and has an end.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sigh...

I hate it when a nice person drops by to break up a good bar fight

Lots of folks learn to be viscerally anti-religion based on very bad experiences with same.

As you say, all people are cut from different cloths and none of us are the best representative of any group.

smiles and thanks RKMB

Perhaps if the Christians on here admitted and demonstrated we do need to do better to
"speak the truth with love" and forgive and love our neighbors as Christ does
(ie unconditionally, with faith that corrections made will be equal between us),

and we DO need to be open to receive rebuke and correction and not reject it,
maybe Bruce and Huggy would not have such a "negative perception" that
Christians "do not follow their own teachings" so it is "all hypocrisy."

If we will not even receive or share corrections among ourselves as the Bible calls for us to seek, of course, Christianity appears nothing more than a huge "cult" or "scam" to rook followers and justify abuses instead of correcting them, claiming to forgive these, while allowing injustice to go unchecked by "blaming the critics" and denying responsibility for our fault in the conflicts, where both accuse the other of ulterior motives instead of correcting the problems being complained of.

Perhaps if more people saw that it actually DOES work to rebuke Christians within the spirit of the laws (not dividing or rejecting in conflict with them), so that these corrections ARE RECEIVED between peers, and it DOES make a difference,
they might be more open to the idea that
the message and laws in the Bible ARE valid and have authority after all.
And just because people are flawed in following or abusing these, doesn't mean they don't work. These laws can be enforced to compel believers to RECEIVE CORRECTION and follow consistently for the sake of truth and justice (and not for religious agenda or control), by NOT using the same "negative rejection, judgment, and coercion" that the critics oppose so much.

Not just with the Scriptural laws, but Constitutional laws can also be used to rebuke and correct problems (instead of playing "control games" to coerce people by attacking each other's groups as the problem). If we could correct political problems by agreeing to enforce common Constitutional principles that all people and parties align on,
this renews faith that we are under the same laws and invoking authority based on that which is common and equal among all people, and not just a tool for one group to use against another.

If we show how the church laws can also be used to correct problems, then there would not be such a loss in faith that these laws DO serve a positive purpose to help people, instead of merely enabling religious abuse to divide conquer and control by group force.

Power, money... all men are human, the churches are not immune. The result being what you see here with some men hating all who love one another because of what some humans did to them while proclaiming their rule over said love. Nutz. Have faith... but verify

 

[thebrucebeat]

Bullshit. You show no knowledge of what Christianity is about, your 'fear' bilge being among the more prominent examples, being from a Marxist view of religion in general rather than Christianity.

In short, you are a bald faced lying sack of shyte.

No counter argument.
So noted.
I thought I was on your ignore list.
Did you miss me?
I know enough about Christianity to know you discredit it with every single post you make.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Do these look familiar?
They are in your bible.
They describe what you should be like if you have any connection to the Christian god.
You don't.

Satan loving Troll.

The love of the believer. It warms me to the core.

 

[RKMBrown]

Eventually the good will outlast the bad which is finite and has an end.

Or there will always be good and evil. To a certain degree good an evil are two sides of a coin within certain groups & cultures, but in some situations that which is good and just for one group may be evil and unjust for another... this all based on context & culture.

Thus back to my first question for the thread.. define "heaven" and "real." I don't think we all have the same view of what those terms mean, alone or in combination.

 

[thebrucebeat]

The doctor analogy is inherently flawed by leaving out the detail of the eternal punishment promised in scripture.
Don't get me wrong. I don't endorse this belief, but just about 100% of the most vitriolic believers not only endorse it but revel in the idea of their theological adversaries burning into perpetuity.

Thanks Bruce

This is where I make the distinction between people, whether Christian or nontheist, who favor either "retributive justice" as in the OT or "restorative justice" in the NT.

My understanding of justice is you get the type you give.
Justice is a double edged sword, how you approach it is what you get in return:
with either condemnation, rejection and punishment (wishing ill on others and not wanting to solve the problems) or with forgiveness in seeking correction and restitution to solve the problems for the mutual benefit of all.

So the people who preach "retributive" judgment punishment and rejection,
get rejected and judged by others. Let them answer to each other. If preachers specialize in this (as I think our friend GISMYS on here loved to preach this way),
then let them rebuke and yell at each other for their own hypocrisy.
They well deserve that, so have at it. If bullies only respond to other bullies,
then leave them to their own smackdown wars for dominance and pecking order.

While leaving the rest of us who are open to receiving and sharing corrections,
as equal neighbors, work under the systems of restorative justice.

We have merely to divide the sheep from the goats, and let each one choose which system they want to preach and be judged under, and let them have at it.

The most critical issue I found is that the division between Christian and nontheist
was more about the language of the laws, but the division between retributive and restorative justice is in the SPIRIT of the laws.

And restorative justice is so universal, that it unites people of different backgrounds, Muslim or Christian Jewish or Atheist. So this tells me the SPIRIT of the laws is more important than the letter, which can be worked out in context.

If the SPIRIT is off, where one person preaches retribution and the other
seeks restoration, then that is the cause of the conflict.

If both people seek restorative justice, they can overcome any other differences in political or religious views or language which are secondary.

If people seek RETRIBUTION and are UNFORGIVING
that's going to cause conflicts and "control battles" regardless.

This is independent of Christianity or the Bible but happens with all people.

===================================================

It's not just the church or religion where this is abused.

Leaving the law and authority to humans, both the church and state get corrupted where people in power abuse the "letter of the law" to excuse their wrongs while accusing others, to keep the political oppression and control going.

So this is where both church and state laws are abused to impose injustice while covering up and escaping accountability for the injustices done by the actual people in offices or positions of leadership.

In politics, if we put more emphasis on PUNISHING crime as a supposed deterrent, waging war on crime, drugs, poor, whoever we blame as being outside or in violation of laws;
then we detract attention and resources from programs that actually ADDRESS and CORRECT the cause of criminal abuse and behavior patterns.

So we make the same mistakes with secular govt laws as well, for political posturing and gain.

A Buddhist monk once summarized the Bible simply by explaining
the OT is about living by the letter of the law
and the NT is about living by the spirit of the law.

Ideally, we put the spirit first, and then the letter follows.

The justice process, of shifting from Retributive to Restorative Justice
applies to all people going through spiritual and social development, not just Christianity.

In both the church and state laws, even though the authority still exists for there to be punitive consequences for actions, if we follow the laws to begin with, and do the right thing or prevent/correct trespasses before they result in criminal abuse or violations,
then we "fulfill the letter of the law" by fulfilling the spirit of the law by obeying it in the first place.

We will not need to emphasize the punitive consequences as more people and populations
develop to enforce laws by voluntary compliance and not by political or religious coercion.

This OT way of enforcing laws will still be a choice, for people who need this, but where society is heading, we are learning not to depend on any "governing authority to punish us".

Like teenagers who outgrow spanking and grounding, and need to learn to make decisions and take responsibility as mature adults, so are society and humanity evolving to maturity.

We can learn from the past, as in the OT that is full of genocide and destruction from controlling nations and tribes by holding authority over people by the letter of the law,
and NOT keep repeating the same cycle of oppression and abuse over and over.

We are meant to recover from past mistakes and injustice, learn the causes and how to correct these problems, and prevent them in the future. so that is the spiritual process of humanity that is "symbolized" in the Bible, between the OT about the cycle of wars in the past and the NT about lasting peace in future.

The point is to get AWAY from the retributive model.
Unfortunately not all people are in the same phase or stage of progression.

So we will still see wars repeating from the past, until all these ills have played out,
and we agree not to keep adding more to these debts and damages.

Eventually the good will outlast the bad which is finite and has an end.

If you get the kind of justice your give, that isn't justice. It's simply quid pro quo.
Isn't justice supposed to be blind?
The NT has just as descriptive renditions of this fiery punishment, so that isn't a get out of jail free card on this issue.
Don't you love the irony of Jim Bowie "liking" your posts and then "liking" another poster using the most vile vulgarities imaginable in his addresses to me?
This is going nowhere, but I admire your staying in there fighting.
Helpful suggestion.
Take on one subject at a time and keep it short.
You are probably losing most of your audience.
Maybe that's why Jim likes your posts.
He hasn't read them, or can't understand them and bails.

 

[The Irish Ram]

If you don't let the doctor in, is it the doctor's fault you die? Seems you have sealed your own fate. His medicine would have guaranteed the removal of your illness and the replacing of it with vitality, for eternity. You chose illness and death instead of healing and life. And yet you blame the doctor?

As for the assertion that our Father makes sure His children tow the line or burn in hell, how many people in the Garden of Eden did He fry? In fact, His punishment for murder was to take the victim to Paradise, and then seal the murderer to keep him safe from others. Grieved, yes. Vindictive, no. Merciful, yes. Reciprocal, no.

Many of the covenants God has made with His children require our participation. So do His promises. For example, If you give him 10 percent off of the top of your income, and he'll will return it to you, and much much more.

On the other hand, our salvation is way to important to Him to leave any part of it dependent on our actions. One single individual is responsible for removing our sins, healing us, and returning us to the Highest Level. And it is a gift. Not the condition of a contract.

So, very simply, you don't believe that rejecting god does earn you everlasting torment in hell?
Great.
Step one toward sanity.

I can't find that anywhere in my post, but the question is, do you believe it? If so, aren't you relying on the Bible for your information about God? And if not, why didn't your epiphany come long before your religious studies culminated in being schooled enough to take the pulpit?

 

[RKMBrown]

No counter argument.
So noted.
I thought I was on your ignore list.
Did you miss me?
I know enough about Christianity to know you discredit it with every single post you make.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Do these look familiar?
They are in your bible.
They describe what you should be like if you have any connection to the Christian god.
You don't.

Satan loving Troll.

The love of the believer. It warms me to the core.

Thought you'd enjoy that

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Bruce, I do not believe you can know what Jim has or has not experienced in his own personal relationship with God - neither can he say for certain what your past experiences are. But your conflict seems to be with the written word of God and not so much what people have to say. ( athough it may appear the reverse ) The bible is not something that adapts to opinions. It does not require mans opinion and must be taken as it is written. Again that is a spiritual conflict within for you not with others. imo. Your battle is with God. ( not man ) - J.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, very simply, you don't believe that rejecting god does earn you everlasting torment in hell?
Great.
Step one toward sanity.

Bruce you might find refreshing the approach that Carlton Pearson
takes in his books on the "Gospel of Inclusion"
where he argues that since God's will is so great, and is truly supreme,
that not a single soul should be lost since that is not God's will.

I agree with him on universal salvation.
But find he takes it too far by saying hell does not exist at all.

Just because we can overcome what creates hell or spiritual suffering
does not mean it does not exist. It just isn't the "eternal punishment"
that people teach it as. I see the purging or purgatory process of
cleansing out negatives from the past as some kind of grueling
transformation process. So the burning away is to get rid of impurities,
and leave behind that which is naturally and eternally good.

Frankly these days I find as many REJECTORS of Christianity teaching
that God means "condemnation and eternal damnation to hell."

So Bruce if you keep teaching this, too, then how are you different
from Christians who teach that God means that?

Both sides, for and against, keep spreading and reinforcing this negative
conflicting interpretation of God, INSTEAD of teaching to interpret as something
constructive and positive to CORRECT errors and PREVENT any suffering,
hell or otherwise "condemnation and punishment" however this is perceived.

I was glad to find that Pearson's book uses scripture to teach and correct
fellow Christians, as he used to preach the same negative message
until he figured it out that it contradicted the message in the Bible. Duh.

Two authors, one historian and one theologian also wrote "Saving Paradise"
about restoring the original message in Christianity as peace on earth and
brotherhood of man; and explain that it was 1000 years later that the
"crusades" and "killing in the name of the cross" started, abusing the laws
and religions for political control and gain over land, people and nations en masse.

I think this might align with the Biblical warning that "Satan would be bound and contained for 1000 years before letting loose again."

So whatever fear and evil is manipulated by unequal knowledge and authority of laws,
there was peace for about 1000 years in the early church, before the antichrist spirit
of abuse of authority for political oppression came out in full force. Hitler was seen
as the epitome of Antichrist or abuse of authority to commit injustice "in the name of the law" when in fact acting lawlessly to kill off people unjustly.

But any acts of abuse, invoking the law but breaking it in spirit and just manipulating the letter or power to justify those actions,
are in the spirit of Antichrist which is the opposite of Christ.

Christ represents embodiment of the law by conscience and fulfillment by the spirit of the laws, so the letter and spirit are reconciled in harmony.

Antichrist represents manipulating and violating the spirit and letter of the law
by abuse of authority.

The false prophet is false teaching, especially with religion, to divide people by false "hate speech" and to foment conflicts and war, which is the opposite
of the Holy Spirit which brings comfort, healing and peace.

So Bruce I think you are trying to address the roots or seeds of
the corrupted spirit of "antichrist" that abuses law and authority for political greed,
and the "false prophets" who teach religions in false ways that are conflicting, divisive,
and hypocritical to cause injury and damage to faith and relations.

The only thing really missing is that you seek to make these corrections
as a person outside in rejection of the people or faith you are criticizing.

We know that people normally reject criticisms coming from adversaries
whose motivation is to discredit them at all.

Other than that, I most likely agree with the content of your objections
and criticisms, and just regret that your approach invites mutual rejection.

I think we need a better system of doing this, where the intention is clearly
on correction of the problems, and not trying to discredit whole systems of belief.

If God is really in control of creating all things for a purpose,
surely there is a purpose behind atheists and nontheists not
using the Bible or Christianity to operate and contribute in the world.

Instead of rejecting each other, I would like to see more acceptance
that there are two folds of the one flock for a reason,
the secular gentiles under natural laws
the believers under scriptural laws
and these do not need to be in conflict.

We also have people enforcing retributive justice
and people supporting restorative justice
and need both approaches, just applied to the right people for effective results.

That is what I would like to see come out of all these interactions.
Some understanding of how these differences can work for us instead of against us,
and maybe some ideas how to set up better systems
so the next people don't have to go through this same process over and over.

Thanks Bruce

May peace and justice be yours,
more wisdom, more insights,
and more successes in the future
sharing your unique perspective and contributions with others
where we all become more effective in communicating.

Thanks, Jim for this thread
and may the blessings you receive
also be multiplied in abundance

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[thebrucebeat]

If you don't let the doctor in, is it the doctor's fault you die? Seems you have sealed your own fate. His medicine would have guaranteed the removal of your illness and the replacing of it with vitality, for eternity. You chose illness and death instead of healing and life. And yet you blame the doctor?

As for the assertion that our Father makes sure His children tow the line or burn in hell, how many people in the Garden of Eden did He fry? In fact, His punishment for murder was to take the victim to Paradise, and then seal the murderer to keep him safe from others. Grieved, yes. Vindictive, no. Merciful, yes. Reciprocal, no.

Many of the covenants God has made with His children require our participation. So do His promises. For example, If you give him 10 percent off of the top of your income, and he'll will return it to you, and much much more.

On the other hand, our salvation is way to important to Him to leave any part of it dependent on our actions. One single individual is responsible for removing our sins, healing us, and returning us to the Highest Level. And it is a gift. Not the condition of a contract.

So, very simply, you don't believe that rejecting god does earn you everlasting torment in hell?
Great.
Step one toward sanity.

I can't find that anywhere in my post, but the question is, do you believe it? If so, aren't you relying on the Bible for your information about God? And if not, why didn't your epiphany come long before your religious studies culminated in being schooled enough to take the pulpit?

No, I don't.
Have you stopped learning?
I never did. My ordination didn't stop the process. It was part of it.
Very eye opening.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you get the kind of justice your give, that isn't justice. It's simply quid pro quo.
Isn't justice supposed to be blind?

The NT has just as descriptive renditions of this fiery punishment, so that isn't a get out of jail free card on this issue.

Don't you love the irony of Jim Bowie "liking" your posts and then "liking" another poster using the most vile vulgarities imaginable in his addresses to me?

This is going nowhere, but I admire your staying in there fighting.
Helpful suggestion.
Take on one subject at a time and keep it short.

You are probably losing most of your audience.
Maybe that's why Jim likes your posts.
He hasn't read them, or can't understand them and bails.

I think Jim is thanking any positive attempt to contribute meaningful posts to this thread.
I do the same thing with my threads, the difference being i also try to thank the negative objections as long as they make a valid point; I just regret when I cannot thank a post that contains slamming that has no content that makes a point regardless if I agree or not.

As for quid pro quo with God's justice.

A. I think you mean that God's grace rains on the just and the unjust
so it is unconditional.

Yes, this is still true.

One of the most disturbing things I found
is that where people forgive, then no matter how unjust the wrongs were,
good things still come.

And when people do not forgive, even when they did nothing wrong but
do all the right things while others do wrong,
what opens up to receiving is the FORGIVENESS not necessarily the
amount of wrongs done.

So it is downright disturbing to see people suffer who did nothing wrong,
while those who did wrong and continue to forgive keep receiving grace for it.

We are not measured by the amount we do wrong, but
how much we forgive.

As for the justice, the greater the wrongs we forgive then when there is restitution paid,
the more blessings we receive in place.

The fewer or lighter the wrongs we forgive, the less that is owed to restore justice.

So it is still equal, relatively.

B. one important part, the level of justice on man's earthly level
is different from forgiveness salvation and justice on God's level.

Just because we are already forgiven spiritually and unconditionally
between man and God (or the higher collective/spiritual level beyond our
individual level as physical humans)

does not discount the restitution or justice owed
in our relations between people that is governed by natural laws on earth

C. the unconditional part is that
whichever way you act, if you seek retribution then you attract the same.
if you seek justice with mercy, then people respond and tend to reciprocate
(where they can, most people are not used to this so it isn't immediate)

EITHER WAY you get the justice you invoke

Bruce again I think the difference is you see this
"as a condition"
where I am trying to spell it out in terms of
"that's how human nature works"

it is not some artificial construct enforced for control or authority.
it is more like a "natural consequence" of cause and effect,
similar to the laws of gravity or laws of physics.

Bruce do you consider it a condition
that if you add two positive numbers together you get a positive
and if you add two negative numbers together you get a negative?

That is just the laws of math, the way the system works.
either way, whether you deal with positive numbers or negative numbers
you get a result that follows this universal rule or pattern (for both positives and negatives).

You remind me of a math student I had who did think the rules were some "control game" by the teachers, and whoever wrote the textbooks or decided on this math system. She was convinced she had better ways to get answers that didn't need to follow these math rules, and it took hours longer to get any homework done because we had to negotiate everything "on her terms" where she didn't think the teacher was trying to
say she was wrong to control her and dominate over her.

D.
The way religions have been abused, I don't blame people for only seeing the "ulterior motives" because I never understand how it was taught that way either! It looks like a huge screening device to keep anyone out of the "club" who can't make sense or forgive how it is taught using weird symbols and language that isn't being explained in plain terms.

So it may be more like animal mating calls, where only people who belong together respond to that language. If you respond to Muslim, or Christian or Jewish, Bahai or Buddhism then when you hear the teachings expressed this way, it rings true for you and you follow that tribe.

In this way all the people are organized in tribes so we can communicate and establish like values using a like language.

at some point we will learn how to universally organize and connect all these tribal branches as one tree, without any need to compete to cut down the other branches.

I also compare it to a huge orchestra that has diverse sections, learning to play in harmony.

Bruce I do not think religions are intended to be abused, but their original purpose is to serve as a "language" for laws and relationships in society.

The abuse you see in Christianity happens in ANY group with collective influence or authority concentrated in the hands of the few. That is a human fault, that comes with our need to organize in hierarchies because people are of different social class and stages of independent development; so we rely on these social structures until we reach maturity where we can become self-sustaining and not rely on following others "blindly."

 

[thebrucebeat]

So, very simply, you don't believe that rejecting god does earn you everlasting torment in hell?
Great.
Step one toward sanity.

Bruce you might find refreshing the approach that Carlton Pearson
takes in his books on the "Gospel of Inclusion"
where he argues that since God's will is so great, and is truly supreme,
that not a single soul should be lost since that is not God's will.

I agree with him on universal salvation.
But find he takes it too far by saying hell does not exist at all.

Just because we can overcome what creates hell or spiritual suffering
does not mean it does not exist. It just isn't the "eternal punishment"
that people teach it as. I see the purging or purgatory process of
cleansing out negatives from the past as some kind of grueling
transformation process. So the burning away is to get rid of impurities,
and leave behind that which is naturally and eternally good.

Frankly these days I find as many REJECTORS of Christianity teaching
that God means "condemnation and eternal damnation to hell."

So Bruce if you keep teaching this, too, then how are you different
from Christians who teach that God means that?

Both sides, for and against, keep spreading and reinforcing this negative
conflicting interpretation of God, INSTEAD of teaching to interpret as something
constructive and positive to CORRECT errors and PREVENT any suffering,
hell or otherwise "condemnation and punishment" however this is perceived.

I was glad to find that Pearson's book uses scripture to teach and correct
fellow Christians, as he used to preach the same negative message
until he figured it out that it contradicted the message in the Bible. Duh.

Two authors, one historian and one theologian also wrote "Saving Paradise"
about restoring the original message in Christianity as peace on earth and
brotherhood of man; and explain that it was 1000 years later that the
"crusades" and "killing in the name of the cross" started, abusing the laws
and religions for political control and gain over land, people and nations en masse.

I think this might align with the Biblical warning that "Satan would be bound and contained for 1000 years before letting loose again."

So whatever fear and evil is manipulated by unequal knowledge and authority of laws,
there was peace for about 1000 years in the early church, before the antichrist spirit
of abuse of authority for political oppression came out in full force. Hitler was seen
as the epitome of Antichrist or abuse of authority to commit injustice "in the name of the law" when in fact acting lawlessly to kill off people unjustly.

But any acts of abuse, invoking the law but breaking it in spirit and just manipulating the letter or power to justify those actions,
are in the spirit of Antichrist which is the opposite of Christ.

Christ represents embodiment of the law by conscience and fulfillment by the spirit of the laws, so the letter and spirit are reconciled in harmony.

Antichrist represents manipulating and violating the spirit and letter of the law
by abuse of authority.

The false prophet is false teaching, especially with religion, to divide people by false "hate speech" and to foment conflicts and war, which is the opposite
of the Holy Spirit which brings comfort, healing and peace.

So Bruce I think you are trying to address the roots or seeds of
the corrupted spirit of "antichrist" that abuses law and authority for political greed,
and the "false prophets" who teach religions in false ways that are conflicting, divisive,
and hypocritical to cause injury and damage to faith and relations.

The only thing really missing is that you seek to make these corrections
as a person outside in rejection of the people or faith you are criticizing.

We know that people normally reject criticisms coming from adversaries
whose motivation is to discredit them at all.

Other than that, I most likely agree with the content of your objections
and criticisms, and just regret that your approach invites mutual rejection.

I think we need a better system of doing this, where the intention is clearly
on correction of the problems, and not trying to discredit whole systems of belief.

If God is really in control of creating all things for a purpose,
surely there is a purpose behind atheists and nontheists not
using the Bible or Christianity to operate and contribute in the world.

Instead of rejecting each other, I would like to see more acceptance
that there are two folds of the one flock for a reason,
the secular gentiles under natural laws
the believers under scriptural laws
and these do not need to be in conflict.

We also have people enforcing retributive justice
and people supporting restorative justice
and need both approaches, just applied to the right people for effective results.

That is what I would like to see come out of all these interactions.
Some understanding of how these differences can work for us instead of against us,
and maybe some ideas how to set up better systems
so the next people don't have to go through this same process over and over.

Thanks Bruce

May peace and justice be yours,
more wisdom, more insights,
and more successes in the future
sharing your unique perspective and contributions with others
where we all become more effective in communicating.

Thanks, Jim for this thread
and may the blessings you receive
also be multiplied in abundance

Yours truly,
Emily

I'm not teaching this.
I'm mocking it.
Please tighten up your posts. Some people on here are very busy.

 

[thebrucebeat]

If you get the kind of justice your give, that isn't justice. It's simply quid pro quo.
Isn't justice supposed to be blind?

The NT has just as descriptive renditions of this fiery punishment, so that isn't a get out of jail free card on this issue.

Don't you love the irony of Jim Bowie "liking" your posts and then "liking" another poster using the most vile vulgarities imaginable in his addresses to me?

This is going nowhere, but I admire your staying in there fighting.
Helpful suggestion.
Take on one subject at a time and keep it short.

You are probably losing most of your audience.
Maybe that's why Jim likes your posts.
He hasn't read them, or can't understand them and bails.

I think Jim is thanking any positive attempt to contribute meaningful posts to this thread.
I do the same thing with my threads, the difference being i also try to thank the negative objections as long as they make a valid point; I just regret when I cannot thank a post that contains slamming that has no content that makes a point regardless if I agree or not.

As for quid pro quo with God's justice.

A. I think you mean that God's grace rains on the just and the unjust
so it is unconditional.

Yes, this is still true.

One of the most disturbing things I found
is that where people forgive, then no matter how unjust the wrongs were,
good things still come.

And when people do not forgive, even when they did nothing wrong but
do all the right things while others do wrong,
what opens up to receiving is the FORGIVENESS not necessarily the
amount of wrongs done.

So it is downright disturbing to see people suffer who did nothing wrong,
while those who did wrong and continue to forgive keep receiving grace for it.

We are not measured by the amount we do wrong, but
how much we forgive.

As for the justice, the greater the wrongs we forgive then when there is restitution paid,
the more blessings we receive in place.

The fewer or lighter the wrongs we forgive, the less that is owed to restore justice.

So it is still equal, relatively.

B. one important part, the level of justice on man's earthly level
is different from forgiveness salvation and justice on God's level.

Just because we are already forgiven spiritually and unconditionally
between man and God (or the higher collective/spiritual level beyond our
individual level as physical humans)

does not discount the restitution or justice owed
in our relations between people that is governed by natural laws on earth

C. the unconditional part is that
whichever way you act, if you seek retribution then you attract the same.
if you seek justice with mercy, then people respond and tend to reciprocate
(where they can, most people are not used to this so it isn't immediate)

EITHER WAY you get the justice you invoke

Bruce again I think the difference is you see this
"as a condition"
where I am trying to spell it out in terms of
"that's how human nature works"

it is not some artificial construct enforced for control or authority.
it is more like a "natural consequence" of cause and effect,
similar to the laws of gravity or laws of physics.

Bruce do you consider it a condition
that if you add two positive numbers together you get a positive
and if you add two negative numbers together you get a negative?

That is just the laws of math, the way the system works.
either way, whether you deal with positive numbers or negative numbers
you get a result that follows this universal rule or pattern (for both positives and negatives).

You remind me of a math student I had who did think the rules were some "control game" by the teachers, and whoever wrote the textbooks or decided on this math system. She was convinced she had better ways to get answers that didn't need to follow these math rules, and it took hours longer to get any homework done because we had to negotiate everything "on her terms" where she didn't think the teacher was trying to
say she was wrong to control her and dominate over her.

D.
The way religions have been abused, I don't blame people for only seeing the "ulterior motives" because I never understand how it was taught that way either! It looks like a huge screening device to keep anyone out of the "club" who can't make sense or forgive how it is taught using weird symbols and language that isn't being explained in plain terms.

So it may be more like animal mating calls, where only people who belong together respond to that language. If you respond to Muslim, or Christian or Jewish, Bahai or Buddhism then when you hear the teachings expressed this way, it rings true for you and you follow that tribe.

In this way all the people are organized in tribes so we can communicate and establish like values using a like language.

at some point we will learn how to universally organize and connect all these tribal branches as one tree, without any need to compete to cut down the other branches.

I also compare it to a huge orchestra that has diverse sections, learning to play in harmony.

Bruce I do not think religions are intended to be abused, but their original purpose is to serve as a "language" for laws and relationships in society.

The abuse you see in Christianity happens in ANY group with collective influence or authority concentrated in the hands of the few. That is a human fault, that comes with our need to organize in hierarchies because people are of different social class and stages of independent development; so we rely on these social structures until we reach maturity where we can become self-sustaining and not rely on following others "blindly."

Quid pro quo has absolutely nothing to do with it rains on the just and the unjust. That is completely unrelated to what I said and is simply not responsive to it.
The rest got a skim job.
I post at work as time allows. Others are also busy.
Make your points with some concision and clarity.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Jim, I have never heard of a protestant that didn't believe heaven was real or that the bible wasn't to be taken literally. What denomination is that?

Many denominations are not bible literalists.
You need to get out of your bubble and meet the world.

If they don't take the Word literally they don't have the Word - that is the Word of God, Bruce. Take it up with God. It's His Word and His Word defines the Believer. Not the latest fad in the backslidden churches of America. ( or new age interfaithism movement ) Thanks on the invite but I'm right where I'm supposed to be... .

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not teaching this.
I'm mocking it.
Please tighten up your posts. Some people on here are very busy.[/QUOTE]

1. Are you not convinced yourself that this is what God means to Christians?
And you are pointing this out as a TRULY EXISTING problem
(which you are then mocking).

This is what I mean by enforcing it, by spreading the perception that
it IS what is being taught by Christians.

Bruce what would it take for you to believe
this is NOT the meaning of God, NOT what Christianity means
and NOT what Christians are teaching or should be teaching.

Would it take a public declaration and agreement between the Pope
and heads of all major religions to agree that God is NOT this punitive authority figure?

What would you need to see before you would
stop "teaching that Christians are teaching this thing about God"

2. Thanks for you help to do this, to eliminate the excess,

my posts will get shorter as we focus on what
the root problem really is we can do something about

 

[thebrucebeat]

Jim, I have never heard of a protestant that didn't believe heaven was real or that the bible wasn't to be taken literally. What denomination is that?

Many denominations are not bible literalists.
You need to get out of your bubble and meet the world.

If they don't take the Word literally they don't have the Word - that is the Word of God, Bruce. Take it up with God. It's His Word and His Word defines the Believer. Not the latest fad in the backslidden churches of America. ( or new age interfaithism movement ) Thanks on the invite but I'm right where I'm supposed to be... .

LOL!
Yes you are.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Heaven is real and our goal should be that God sees everyone there his Son invited! So many times we lose sight of the goal here. There could be a better discussion all around if people were willing. The truth is there is no excuse for a Christian to be attacking non christians in their biblical discussions. It's out of place. On the other hand there is a point where answering certain accusations would just lead to a dispute. We need to avoid disputes and silly myths and seek to be at peace with all men irregardless of what they are throwing our way. If it were so easy everyone would be doing it. It isn't but it is what is required of the believer.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bruce again I think the difference is you see this
"as a condition"
where I am trying to spell it out in terms of
"that's how human nature works"

it is not some artificial construct enforced for control or authority.
it is more like a "natural consequence" of cause and effect,
similar to the laws of gravity or laws of physics.

Bruce do you consider it a condition
that if you add two positive numbers together you get a positive
and if you add two negative numbers together you get a negative?

That is just the laws of math, the way the system works.
either way, whether you deal with positive numbers or negative numbers
you get a result that follows this universal rule or pattern (for both positives and negatives).

Quid pro quo has absolutely nothing to do with it rains on the just and the unjust. That is completely unrelated to what I said and is simply not responsive to it.
The rest got a skim job.
I post at work as time allows. Others are also busy.
Make your points with some concision and clarity.

Okay how about the point about the math rules.

Do you consider this a "condition" that
* positive numbers reap positive numbers when added
* negative numbers yield negative numbers when added.

Or do you see it is a "general rule" that applies
to ALL numbers without condition.

There is no "control" game going on, where numbers
"have to meet a condition" in order to get that result
out of some need to manipulate the process or results.

Regardless of who we are, and who did wrong to whom to what degree,
* if we seek retributive justice that is what comes back to us
* if we seek restorative justice that is what we get

In both the cases of math and in the laws of justice,
I see them as how the systems work, not a control game.

Do you consider it a "condition" that positive numbers yield
different results than negative numbers in math?

NOTE: If you mean you object to how Christians teach this wrong,
as God controlling and trying to punish people to win respect and obedience,
I agree with you that is a problem.

the results we get are based on natural laws of cause and effect.
there is no subjective need to try to manipulate controls,
which I think you object to "people" adding to the equation.

In any case, I agree with removing any "man made religions conditions"
which Luther specifically criticized with the Catholic church.

Perhaps your standards are even higher than Luther's!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm not teaching this.
I'm mocking it.
Please tighten up your posts. Some people on here are very busy.

1. Are you not convinced yourself that this is what God means to Christians?
And you are pointing this out as a TRULY EXISTING problem
(which you are then mocking).

This is what I mean by enforcing it, by spreading the perception that
it IS what is being taught by Christians.

Bruce what would it take for you to believe
this is NOT the meaning of God, NOT what Christianity means
and NOT what Christians are teaching or should be teaching.

Would it take a public declaration and agreement between the Pope
and heads of all major religions to agree that God is NOT this punitive authority figure?

What would you need to see before you would
stop "teaching that Christians are teaching this thing about God"

2. Thanks for you help to do this, to eliminate the excess,

my posts will get shorter as we focus on what
the root problem really is we can do something about[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________________________________________

True Christianity will never capitulate to the demands of false interfaithism and won't be joining the new age one world religion which is currently gaining momentum under the interfaithism banner. It is already falling apart at the seams due to Sharia law intro to Catholic faith and dialogue ongoing - the pope doesn't represent christianity. Nor does He speak for God and His Written Word ( obviously! ) He represents the catholic church which is a completely separate matter. ( which he is presently misleading imo ) Just to clarify that one. Christians teach the Word of God and we don't alter the Word of God to accomodate those it offends. It is what it is. Quite "Literally"...

Thanks for reading. - Jeremiah

 

[emilynghiem]

Jim, I have never heard of a protestant that didn't believe heaven was real or that the bible wasn't to be taken literally. What denomination is that?

Many denominations are not bible literalists.
You need to get out of your bubble and meet the world.

If they don't take the Word literally they don't have the Word - that is the Word of God, Bruce. Take it up with God. It's His Word and His Word defines the Believer. Not the latest fad in the backslidden churches of America. ( or new age interfaithism movement ) Thanks on the invite but I'm right where I'm supposed to be... .

Hi J:
* I found some Christian take the 7 days of creation literally as 7 earth days.
* And others interpret these as "1000 years of man make one year to God"
and count this as 6000 years of humanity's development
* while others intepret the 1000 years loosely to mean "ages or eras/stages"
so that we have gone through different stages of development
and are in the last stages or "days" now

I don't think it is necessary for all people to agree completely
in order to serve good common purpose. We can still agree on the
"seasons" and go through the changes or steps in process, even if we divide
that process into different calendars or timeframes.

In Scott Peck's book he also acknowledged that some Christians read the Bible
literally and are not on the same timeline as others who see there are stages
of "evolution" that go back millions of years. He referred to demonic entities in his patients he sensed
were "older" from the ancient days at the beginning of creation, while some seems
"younger" with lighter faster energy. He mentioned there were both perspectives
in how to frame the world views.

This is like how some people may depict the world using photography which is realistic, while others using "abstract" drawing or painting that is symbolic, not exact replicas.

And yet we still refer to the same world, even if our representations or expressions
differ that much!