The Aimless Musings of a Thoughtful Christian

[Adolescent09]

I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked and go haywire but these are some random thoughts/musings on Christianity I had. I just so happen to be a Christian but perhaps not in the orthodox sense. Feel free to read it and provide your input but PLEASE no disrespectful comments or personal chastisements.

---

The way I see it is Jesus is a metaphor for us having to go through hell to get to heaven. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, I don't know what that has anything to do with why we are here. One persecuted individual 2000 years ago performing miracles is supposed to mean... what?
The bible makes a lot more sense if you see it as a type of fable written by scholars and sages who wanted to answer the age old question of why we are here. We must all make a sacrifice to get to heaven (a place of peace & goodness where we want to be). God sacrificed himself in the form of a man (Jesus) to give us an example of how much we would have to give up to get to this place. God also sacrificed his most beloved right-hand angel (Lucifer) to create Hell as a place where we would go if we did not sacrifice ourselves. God created Lucifer whom he knew was going to be evil and hence he knew he would have to make hell. In other words, God in all his glory and greatness created the CHOICE to be evil and constructed a destination where such choosers would dwell. What reason is there to strive for peace if there isn't a choice for an alternate destination? Goodness and peace would be just as bad as hell if no other option was given. The utopian societal construct of a place where morality need not exist since goodness is prevalent is the inspiration for communism which has led to countless chaos over the years. Scholars knew that the freedom to choose was more important than either a heaven or hell to begin with (and interestingly enough choice is the only thing the almighty God doesn't have any control over).

Also the greatest sacrifice in my eyes would be to go to Hell so that the rest of the world could go to heaven. When people think of going to heaven they think of THEMSELVES and THEIR family/friends going to heaven. What about everybody else? Isn't the thought of wanting to go to heaven for yourself extremely selfish and satanic in and of itself?

[Gladys]

The way I see it is Jesus is a metaphor for us having to go through hell to get to heaven.

Jesus is love: the way, the truth and the life.

[mona amon]

Hi Adol! Nice to see you again.

I'm a Christian too, but I do not think I believe in this heaven and hell business. I love Christ's teachings and think they totally make sense, and have made me a better person.

[bounty]

adol---I think its a mistake to attribute something to the authors (jesus as metaphor) when it seems pretty clear that a great deal of what they have written is meant to be taken literally.

[Seumas99]

Hi adolescent09,

Conventional Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus endured the punishment for the sins of humanity in order that humanity could escape judgement, which is somewhat inconsistent with Christians having to go through "Hell" to enter Heaven. The Bible certainly teaches that Christians should endure hardships on earth for the furtherance of God's plans (agreeing with what you've said about us all making a sacrifice) but it is unbiblical to say that it is through this that one gets to heaven, unbiblical but not necessarily untrue.

Another point. I personally agree with your controversial point about God ultimately causing Lucifer to fall and Hell to be constructed. However, surely that extends to humanity as well. You say God "constructed the CHOICE to be evil" for mankind but surely God knew whether each individual human was going to 'choose' evil when he created them and so those condemned to Hell have no more choice than Lucifer did. God must have control over choice or he's not "almighty".

To expand on that, any Supreme Being must have predestined who is to be saved and who condemned. An individual will choose to sin or not based on a myriad factors ranging from the way their brain is wired to outside influences as trivial as the weather. All these factors (themselves ultimately caused by genes, the makeup of the atmosphere or whatever) will have been caused by a domino effect reaching back to the creation of the universe. If God created everything then he set up the initial 'domino' and (being omniscient) knew exactly what he was doing and deliberately chose to do it that way. Thus if God exists then choice is an illusion and every decision we make, however trivial or serious, was preordained by God at the creation of the world. Sorry if this comes off as callous and fatalistic but it's what I believe is the logical conclusion from God's existing, of course if he doesn't exist then this is all academic.

[Ecurb]

Hi adolescent09,

Conventional Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus endured the punishment for the sins of humanity in order that humanity could escape judgement, which is somewhat inconsistent with Christians having to go through "Hell" to enter Heaven. The Bible certainly teaches that Christians should endure hardships on earth for the furtherance of God's plans (agreeing with what you've said about us all making a sacrifice) but it is unbiblical to say that it is through this that one gets to heaven, unbiblical but not necessarily untrue.

Another point. I personally agree with your controversial point about God ultimately causing Lucifer to fall and Hell to be constructed. However, surely that extends to humanity as well. You say God "constructed the CHOICE to be evil" for mankind but surely God knew whether each individual human was going to 'choose' evil when he created them and so those condemned to Hell have no more choice than Lucifer did. God must have control over choice or he's not "almighty".

To expand on that, any Supreme Being must have predestined who is to be saved and who condemned. An individual will choose to sin or not based on a myriad factors ranging from the way their brain is wired to outside influences as trivial as the weather. All these factors (themselves ultimately caused by genes, the makeup of the atmosphere or whatever) will have been caused by a domino effect reaching back to the creation of the universe. If God created everything then he set up the initial 'domino' and (being omniscient) knew exactly what he was doing and deliberately chose to do it that way. Thus if God exists then choice is an illusion and every decision we make, however trivial or serious, was preordained by God at the creation of the world. Sorry if this comes off as callous and fatalistic but it's what I believe is the logical conclusion from God's existing, of course if he doesn't exist then this is all academic.

An all-knowing God would certainly know which of his creations will be damned, and which will be saved. However, that doesn't (I think) preclude "choice". We know what "choices" we made yesterday. Does that make the word "choice" inappropriate? The choice has been made; it cannot be changed. But that is irrelevant to the aptness of calling it a 'choice'.

I'll grant that this is a linguistic argument, and, perhaps, trivial. But "choice" refers to our own view of what we do, and the notion that God, our hard-wired brains, or the big-bang that kick-started the universe preclude our "choosing" other than how we DO choose does not necessarily make the use of the word "choice" inappropriate.

[Seumas99]

An all-knowing God would certainly know which of his creations will be damned, and which will be saved. However, that doesn't (I think) preclude "choice". We know what "choices" we made yesterday. Does that make the word "choice" inappropriate? The choice has been made; it cannot be changed. But that is irrelevant to the aptness of calling it a 'choice'.

I'll grant that this is a linguistic argument, and, perhaps, trivial. But "choice" refers to our own view of what we do, and the notion that God, our hard-wired brains, or the big-bang that kick-started the universe preclude our "choosing" other than how we DO choose does not necessarily make the use of the word "choice" inappropriate.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I wasn't trying to criticise the use of the word "choice" (it was only in capitals because it was a direct quote). I was remarking on the possible inconsistency of Lucifer not having a choice but man having one, which veered off into an argument against the existence of free will.

[wildstrawberry]

In my opinion we have two options. We can choose the goodness or the malice. As a consequence we deserve heaven or hell. It isn't selfish to go to heaven. If other people want to access this peaceful and loving place they can choose to follow the teaching contained in the bible.

[GeneralLiterate]

I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked and go haywire but these are some random thoughts/musings on Christianity I had. I just so happen to be a Christian but perhaps not in the orthodox sense. Feel free to read it and provide your input but PLEASE no disrespectful comments or personal chastisements.

---

The way I see it is Jesus is a metaphor for us having to go through hell to get to heaven. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, I don't know what that has anything to do with why we are here. One persecuted individual 2000 years ago performing miracles is supposed to mean... what?
The bible makes a lot more sense if you see it as a type of fable written by scholars and sages who wanted to answer the age old question of why we are here. We must all make a sacrifice to get to heaven (a place of peace & goodness where we want to be). God sacrificed himself in the form of a man (Jesus) to give us an example of how much we would have to give up to get to this place. God also sacrificed his most beloved right-hand angel (Lucifer) to create Hell as a place where we would go if we did not sacrifice ourselves. God created Lucifer whom he knew was going to be evil and hence he knew he would have to make hell. In other words, God in all his glory and greatness created the CHOICE to be evil and constructed a destination where such choosers would dwell. What reason is there to strive for peace if there isn't a choice for an alternate destination? Goodness and peace would be just as bad as hell if no other option was given. The utopian societal construct of a place where morality need not exist since goodness is prevalent is the inspiration for communism which has led to countless chaos over the years. Scholars knew that the freedom to choose was more important than either a heaven or hell to begin with (and interestingly enough choice is the only thing the almighty God doesn't have any control over).

Also the greatest sacrifice in my eyes would be to go to Hell so that the rest of the world could go to heaven. When people think of going to heaven they think of THEMSELVES and THEIR family/friends going to heaven. What about everybody else? Isn't the thought of wanting to go to heaven for yourself extremely selfish and satanic in and of itself?

Adol

It's not that humans have to go through hell to get to heaven. It's more of a matter that if you do love God than you will endure through persecution. Persecution can come in many different forms. If you're a social person, persecution might come in the form of your friends persecuting and rejecting you. If you're an intelligible person, persecution might come in the form of you being enticed where that person goes through a long period of philosophical questioning of God's existence. The point of receiving salvation is not as a means of self preservation but rather you wanting that healthy respect of God's definition of good and evil. This isn't satanic because we seek only for our own salvation. You see, even though God's intention on everyone's person is complete, God does not restrict it from being flexible. This is shown in the Bible when many of God's prophets intercede His intention on destroying many people. At that point in time, humankind was under the Law. Now that we are under Grace, people do have the free will and God will harden the hearts of those that he needs so that he may glorify himself through them. The reason for this is that the christians are not doing a good job in showing that it is easy to live a christian life in regular culture. Sorry, I got side tracked. If we can save ourselves than we can go to saving other people friends, family, and even enemies. This was the intention for the Scripture saying:

Matthew 7:5 ESV) You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

[YesNo]

Also the greatest sacrifice in my eyes would be to go to Hell so that the rest of the world could go to heaven. When people think of going to heaven they think of THEMSELVES and THEIR family/friends going to heaven. What about everybody else? Isn't the thought of wanting to go to heaven for yourself extremely selfish and satanic in and of itself?
[/SIZE]

The way I see it, there is no heaven unless everyone goes there. If someone gets lost along the way, God would search for them and bring them home. God could not stand living in heaven without them.

What you wrote reminded me of a story about a guy and his dog. They both died and went to the pearly gates together. The guy read the sign: "No dogs allowed" The gatekeeper pointed to the sign and said that he could go in, but not his dog. The guy decided heaven wouldn't be heaven without his dog and so they walked away. As they left, the gatekeeper smiled. Where ever they went was heaven.

[Seumas99]

The way I see it, there is no heaven unless everyone goes there. If someone gets lost along the way, God would search for them and bring them home. God could not stand living in heaven without them.

But what is the point of our existence on earth if everyone must go to heaven? Our temporary corporal existence makes sense if it is some form of test but if God allows everyone into heaven then why doesn't he just place us there automatically, bypassing this unnecessary vale of tears?

It's nice to think of a loving God who wants everyone to be in heaven and will make sure that those who are lost will be saved but is there any evidence for that anywhere?

[YesNo]

But what is the point of our existence on earth if everyone must go to heaven? Our temporary corporal existence makes sense if it is some form of test but if God allows everyone into heaven then why doesn't he just place us there automatically, bypassing this unnecessary vale of tears?

It's nice to think of a loving God who wants everyone to be in heaven and will make sure that those who are lost will be saved but is there any evidence for that anywhere?

As far as the evidence goes, I think one should look at what people had to say who have had near-death, shared-death and after-death-communication experiences. I am aware that there are some who had "hellish" experiences, but I wonder if that was only temporary. So there is evidence. One could portray Christianity as a religion based upon similar evidence in the after-death-communication experiences of Jesus' followers.

However, your main point is whether there is any philosophical theory that would justify such a universal salvation. Your position seems to be that this life is a "vale of tears". However, going back to Genesis, God made the universe "good". So which is it? Is the universe a vale of tears or is it good? If it is good, then there is nothing wrong with our being here. There is nothing wrong with our sorrow here. It is not a test.

Also you seem to claim that heaven is some sort of goal so why not place us there automatically if everyone is going there anyway? It might be possible that heaven is a temporary resting place prior to the next incarnation. In that case we are always in heaven even when we are here and being here is what it is all about.

By the way, I do not represent any religious position on these matters. I am just trying to make sense out these things just like you are. None of these texts are "sacred" for me. For example, I don't care whether Genesis said the universe is good or not. If I like what the text says, I will accept it. If I don't I reject it.

[Seumas99]

As far as the evidence goes, I think one should look at what people had to say who have had near-death, shared-death and after-death-communication experiences. I am aware that there are some who had "hellish" experiences, but I wonder if that was only temporary. So there is evidence. One could portray Christianity as a religion based upon similar evidence in the after-death-communication experiences of Jesus' followers.

However, your main point is whether there is any philosophical theory that would justify such a universal salvation. Your position seems to be that this life is a "vale of tears". However, going back to Genesis, God made the universe "good". So which is it? Is the universe a vale of tears or is it good? If it is good, then there is nothing wrong with our being here. There is nothing wrong with our sorrow here. It is not a test.

Also you seem to claim that heaven is some sort of goal so why not place us there automatically if everyone is going there anyway? It might be possible that heaven is a temporary resting place prior to the next incarnation. In that case we are always in heaven even when we are here and being here is what it is all about.

By the way, I do not represent any religious position on these matters. I am just trying to make sense out these things just like you are. None of these texts are "sacred" for me. For example, I don't care whether Genesis said the universe is good or not. If I like what the text says, I will accept it. If I don't I reject it.

Surely if you can dismiss the "hellish experiences" as temporary you can do the same with the heavenly experiences? There are many who would say that all near-death etc experiences could be explained away as hallucinations or delusions (personally I would hesitate before doing so myself but I wouldn't say such experiences were at all conclusive). Furthermore the existence of heaven doesn't disprove the existence of hell, some would say that you need a hell for heaven to be heaven (in the same way they say that without death life loses all meaning).

As far as I'm aware, it is only immediately after creation that the Biblical God describes his universe as "good" and that, according to the Bible, since the Fall it is no longer good (hence its being now a "vale of tears" as the Psalmist puts it). I agree that if the universe is good "then there is nothing wrong with our being here" but surely also if the universe is truly good then there is no need for heaven (if you define heaven as the perfect place rewarded to those who believe in God/live good lives/burn infidels depending on your beliefs). If the afterlife is simply the next step then things are different but the whole point of God creating a "new Earth" (to focus on Christianity) is that the current Earth has been corrupted.

Of course if once you truly embrace the doctrine that life is not a test of any sort then you find no reason not to indulge in any sort of so-called immoral behaviour. If there is no standard against which your deeds will be measured (in a metaphysical setting) then why not rob, murder, lie, etc?

Heaven is usually considered the goal of life (at least in Western philosophical/religious traditions), I suppose ultimately the word "heaven" has so many monotheistic connotations that using it as a general term for the afterlife may take a bit of getting used to for me. Anyway, there's nothing to disprove that heaven is a temporary resting place but it seems to me there's nothing conclusive to prove it either. It's easy to suggest hypothetical meanings for life but hard to determine whether they are true.

Personally, I wouldn't say I represented any religious position either, I'm at the stage of life where one is searching for meaning in life. However I would be scared of accepting a text just because I like what it says. Mightn't you settle for comfortable lies that you "like" rather than actual truths?

[YesNo]

Surely if you can dismiss the "hellish experiences" as temporary you can do the same with the heavenly experiences? There are many who would say that all near-death etc experiences could be explained away as hallucinations or delusions (personally I would hesitate before doing so myself but I wouldn't say such experiences were at all conclusive). Furthermore the existence of heaven doesn't disprove the existence of hell, some would say that you need a hell for heaven to be heaven (in the same way they say that without death life loses all meaning).

I don't know what happens after death. That I think the hellish experiences can be ignored are based on Anita Moorjani's "Dying to Be Me". She had a near-death experience and her writing suggests to me that they can be ignored.

Anybody can explain anything away and still be deluded. If you think near death experiences can be explained away as hallucinations or delusions, then the foundation for Christianity, that is, the supposed resurrection, or at least the after death communication of Jesus reported in the Acts and the Gospels, can be explained as hallucinations or delusions.

I don't know what you mean by "without death life loses all meaning". I also don't see why "you need a hell for heaven to be heaven". I would agree with claims that we need a finite universe for life be possible within it.

As far as I'm aware, it is only immediately after creation that the Biblical God describes his universe as "good" and that, according to the Bible, since the Fall it is no longer good (hence its being now a "vale of tears" as the Psalmist puts it). I agree that if the universe is good "then there is nothing wrong with our being here" but surely also if the universe is truly good then there is no need for heaven (if you define heaven as the perfect place rewarded to those who believe in God/live good lives/burn infidels depending on your beliefs). If the afterlife is simply the next step then things are different but the whole point of God creating a "new Earth" (to focus on Christianity) is that the current Earth has been corrupted.

I don't think the Earth has been corrupted by us although I do think we have enough free will to make mistakes. I don't see heaven as completely separate from what we experience now.

Of course if once you truly embrace the doctrine that life is not a test of any sort then you find no reason not to indulge in any sort of so-called immoral behaviour. If there is no standard against which your deeds will be measured (in a metaphysical setting) then why not rob, murder, lie, etc?

Our subjectivity leads us to understand a moral way to live. Even animals have this moral understanding. I am currently reading Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce's "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals". I don't think animals need a heaven to be moral although I don't think they are in any worse position than we are with respect to an afterlife.

Also I don't trust standards. They are objective texts. Morality will have to be contextual and understood through our subjectivity.

Heaven is usually considered the goal of life (at least in Western philosophical/religious traditions), I suppose ultimately the word "heaven" has so many monotheistic connotations that using it as a general term for the afterlife may take a bit of getting used to for me. Anyway, there's nothing to disprove that heaven is a temporary resting place but it seems to me there's nothing conclusive to prove it either. It's easy to suggest hypothetical meanings for life but hard to determine whether they are true.

The reason I think it might be temporary is reincarnation evidence. However, I don't think the word "temporary" completely fits, even though I used it, because it assumes a dualistic perspective. What we see around us is heaven at some level of understanding. We just have a finite perspective on it allowing us to be alive in it.

I agree that there's nothing conclusive to prove any of this, but we have our lives to live now and we need to answer for ourselves the questions that bother us. I also agree that we have to be careful of hypothetical solutions. They may be wrong. What I am suggesting may be wrong and it certainly is not the complete truth. If I were able to state the complete truth then atheism would be true, because I would be able to objectify into an unconscious state my subjectivity. Without my (our) subjectivity there is no reason to consider theism, but then there would be no reason to consider anything at all.

Personally, I wouldn't say I represented any religious position either, I'm at the stage of life where one is searching for meaning in life. However I would be scared of accepting a text just because I like what it says. Mightn't you settle for comfortable lies that you "like" rather than actual truths?

I have to understand a text before I accept it. I don't know that the text represents "actual truths" or if I will be able to understand the text well enough to see those truths.

[Seumas99]

Anybody can explain anything away and still be deluded. If you think near death experiences can be explained away as hallucinations or delusions, then the foundation for Christianity, that is, the supposed resurrection, or at least the after death communication of Jesus reported in the Acts and the Gospels, can be explained as hallucinations or delusions.

Acts and the Gospels are very careful (suspiciously so) to present Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in such a way as to make them seem as little like hallucinations or delusions as possible. Additionally, there is a significant different between a walking, talking, eating person you can touch and a 'light at the end of the tunnel' near-death experience.

I don't know what you mean by "without death life loses all meaning". I also don't see why "you need a hell for heaven to be heaven".

If life went on indefinitely it would be meaningless and one could do anything with it. Some folk believe that to be meaningful or significant a thing has to be lose-able.

Measurements of value require different measurements in order to be significant (you can't say something is "big" without being able to conceive something bigger or smaller). Similarly, people like to look at things from a dualistic perspective and like to think of any absolute being balanced out by an opposing absolute. Therefore they may say that any absolutely perfect place (ie heaven) must have a corresponding absolutely terrible place (ie hell). In the same way they say you could not have happiness if sadness were inconceivable.

I specifically prefaced both these statements in my earlier post with "some would say" in an effort not be identified with these stances, please don't assume I hold these as truths.

I don't think the Earth has been corrupted by us although I do think we have enough free will to make mistakes. I don't see heaven as completely separate from what we experience now.

Christian doctrine and scriptures (which I don't hold as infallible, admittedly) teach that all the woes of the earth, including death, sorrow, sickness and labour, come from Adam and Eve's first sin, the Fall. If everybody made every single decision based on whether it would bring happiness to as many other people as possible the majority of the world's hardships would disappear.

Our subjectivity leads us to understand a moral way to live. Even animals have this moral understanding. I am currently reading Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce's "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals". I don't think animals need a heaven to be moral although I don't think they are in any worse position than we are with respect to an afterlife.

We may have urges to be moral but is there any logic behind them? What rational reason can you give me to be anything other than selfish (bearing in mind that the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" argument is founded on selfishness and isn't even applicable in every situation). Surely the fact that "even animals have [a] moral understanding" demonstrates that there is nothing especially spiritual about it and can be ignored?

Also I don't trust standards. They are objective texts. Morality will have to be contextual and understood through our subjectivity.

Surely there can be a contextual, subjective standard?

Without my (our) subjectivity there is no reason to consider theism, but then there would be no reason to consider anything at all.

Surely objectivity is the only way to ascertain the truth, and the truth is the only thing worth having/seeking? I don't quite understand what you mean by subjectivity in this context.