out of all the great things ghandi did....

[cannondalejunky]

did he go to heaven....or did he go to hell because he wasn't a christian...i had a baptist priest tell me once that "ghandi, like my grandmother, was a great man, but he didn't belive in the right things" now which is worse the fact that this man just compaired his grandmother to ghandi or the fact that he said his grandmother went to hell

discuss

[Old Man G Funk]

did he go to heaven....or did he go to hell because he wasn't a christian...i had a baptist priest tell me once that "ghandi, like my grandmother, was a great man, but he didn't belive in the right things" now which is worse the fact that this man just compaired his grandmother to ghandi or the fact that he said his grandmother went to hell

discuss
If Ghandi blasphemed the Holy Spirit by not believing in Christianity, then yes, he would have gone to hell. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is sin and sin is punishable by spiritual death. It's not like he can claim ignorance of the Bible since he went to university in England.

[kinghami3]

Here's a quote from CS Lewis' The Last Battle (Tash would be the equivalent of Allah or a Hindu god, and Aslan would be the equivalent of God/Jesus):
"But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me... Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted."

Although this is a children's book, I think CS Lewis had a lot of insight on the issue. The Bible clearly says that we are saved through Jesus Christ, but people interpret that differently. I believe his sacrifice covered the sins of all, not just those who know God. As a Christian, I believe I know the Way, the Truth, and the Light (Jesus), so that is why I devote myself to worshiping him and promoting the two central Christian ideas which Jesus himself laid out as key to salvation: love your neighbor as yourself, and love the Lord your God above all others. I don't know what happens to those who reject the message, but I have to have faith that God is the ultimate judge, who truly knows our hearts.

[kinghami3]

If Ghandi blasphemed the Holy Spirit by not believing in Christianity, then yes, he would have gone to hell. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is sin and sin is punishable by spiritual death. It's not like he can claim ignorance of the Bible since he went to university in England.
I don't see how not becoming a Christian is blaspheming the HS. I think you have your concepts muddled.

[cannondalejunky]

If Ghandi blasphemed the Holy Spirit by not believing in Christianity, then yes, he would have gone to hell. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is sin and sin is punishable by spiritual death. It's not like he can claim ignorance of the Bible since he went to university in England.


i just find it very hard to belive that of all ther great things he did, he went to hell for the pure sake that he wasn't a christian

I believe his sacrifice covered the sins of all, not just those who know God.

thats the same way i think about god...if god wont forgive a man like ghandi for not being a christian...then i want a better god

[Slugman]

...i had a baptist priest tell me once that "ghandi, like my grandmother, was a great man, but he didn't belive in the right things"
Obviuosly the Baptist priest is a moron... he just said his GrandMOTHER was a great man.

[cannondalejunky]

Obviuosly the Baptist priest is a moron... he just said his GrandMOTHER was a great man.

heh...i guess that should be person

[Westy]

There is no hell, only Gary Indiana.

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't see how not becoming a Christian is blaspheming the HS. I think you have your concepts muddled.
It is blaspheming because he was well aware of the scriptures and yet chose to disbelieve in Jesus.

[Old Man G Funk]

There is no hell, only Gary Indiana.
I've been there and you are pretty much on the nose. I call it the a-hole of America.

[Westy]

I've been there and you are pretty much on the nose. I call it the a-hole of America.

I only drove through but sped up to get out as fast as possible. If the car broke down I would have ran. It is more than the a-hole, it is a cancerous swollen bleeding colon.

[Old Man G Funk]

I only drove through but sped up to get out as fast as possible. If the car broke down I would have ran. It is more than the a-hole, it is a cancerous swollen bleeding colon.
Yeah, my brother used to work at US Steel. He was glad that they had their own exits off the highway.

I think that even Ghandi would dislike Gary, IN.

[MudGrrl]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/hmcraig76/garyindiana.jpg

[lovebunny]

id be interested to see what andyman has to say on this

[MudGrrl]

about Ghandi?

[kinghami3]

It is blaspheming because he was well aware of the scriptures and yet chose to disbelieve in Jesus.
Then you're really confused about your terms; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same persons of the Trinity.

(taken from Bible.com)
Mark 3:28
"28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Matthew 12:31:
"31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

Passage Luke 12:10:
"10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

These are in response to the Pharisees' claims that the Devil was driving out the Demons, essentially calling the Holy Spirit the Devil. Because the Holy Spirit is the transforming and saving power of the Trinity, this is such an utter perversion of what is right that their souls are beyond saving; they will reject all that is truly good. They are confusing good and evil, and once this has happened they will not accept the truth. A rejection of Christianity can happen for many reasons, not just the complete confusion of good and evil.

[binary visions]

about Ghandi?
About cancerous, bleeding, swollen colons.

[Old Man G Funk]

id be interested to see what andyman has to say on this
Not to speak for Andyman, but he would probably say that hell is not an idea that Jesus would have believed in, coming from the Jewish tradition that he preached in. Also, he would probably say that Ghandi followed the most important commandments, whether he did it in god's name or not, and would be worthy of being saved.

Did I get it right Andyman?

[Old Man G Funk]

Then you're really confused about your terms; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same persons of the Trinity.

(taken from Bible.com)
Mark 3:28
"28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Matthew 12:31:
"31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

Passage Luke 12:10:
"10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

These are in response to the Pharisees' claims that the Devil was driving out the Demons, essentially calling the Holy Spirit the Devil. Because the Holy Spirit is the transforming and saving power of the Trinity, this is such an utter perversion of what is right that their souls are beyond saving; they will reject all that is truly good. They are confusing good and evil, and once this has happened they will not accept the truth. A rejection of Christianity can happen for many reasons, not just the complete confusion of good and evil.
Ah, but the Trinity is all one and the same at the same time. It's true that speaking against Jesus doesn't necessarily mean blasphemy, but disbelief and outright rejection does.

[kinghami3]

Ah, but the Trinity is all one and the same at the same time. It's true that speaking against Jesus doesn't necessarily mean blasphemy, but disbelief and outright rejection does.
No, the Trinity is three separate persons in such intimate communion that they form one God. The three cannot be confused. Jesus is the logos, the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the transformative and saving force of God, and because of that fact alone, blaspheming (and in that context, blaspheming means confusing it with evil, not rejecting it, and means nothing else) against the Holy spirit is essentially rejecting the salvation of God to such a degree that it can never be reversed because the mind the thoroughly corrupted. Rejecting Jesus is rejecting the Word of God, the logos or will, but it is still not rejecting the saving power of God.

[BuddhaRoadkill]

..if god wont forgive a man like ghandi for not being a christian...then i want a better god
:thumb:

[Andyman_1970]

Not to speak for Andyman, but he would probably say that hell is not an idea that Jesus would have believed in, coming from the Jewish tradition that he preached in. Also, he would probably say that Ghandi followed the most important commandments, whether he did it in god's name or not, and would be worthy of being saved.

Did I get it right Andyman?

Well kinda……..LOL

Anyway, in the 1st century the concept of “hell” as we refer to it as today actually had two different aspects to it from the Hebraic perspetive. Ghenna, with reference to the land fill outside Jerusalem was more of a present reality rather than an eternal destination. The way one chose to live determined if they experienced hell here on earth right now. Sheol, is more like our Western/Greek understanding of hell as a place were “bad people go”…….LOL.

An interesting side note, many “fire and brimstone” types will say Jesus preached on hell more than any other subject. One must keep in mind which term Jesus was using, living in a way right now that resulted in a “hell on earth” presently or one’s eternal destination. The only instance in Jesus’ teachings we have in the Gospels is Luke 16 the rich man and Lazarus, where Jesus speaks of an actual person in an actual hell. Note: the rich dude is in hell because he did not take care of those in need when it was in his power to do so…..Jesus doesn’t say he was in hell because he rejected Jesus.

We also have to remember that Judaism was not an exclusive religion with regards to salvation. The Jews understood that they would participate in the world to come through faith in the Creator God, but that Gentiles would also have a part in the world to come if they adhered to the Noachide laws.

While not a universalist by any stretch, I tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive with regards to salvation, especially with Jews.

And as for the whole Trinity thing……………..oh don’t get me started……LOL

[Old Man G Funk]

No, the Trinity is three separate persons in such intimate communion that they form one God. The three cannot be confused. Jesus is the logos, the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the transformative and saving force of God, and because of that fact alone, blaspheming (and in that context, blaspheming means confusing it with evil, not rejecting it, and means nothing else) against the Holy spirit is essentially rejecting the salvation of God to such a degree that it can never be reversed because the mind the thoroughly corrupted. Rejecting Jesus is rejecting the Word of God, the logos or will, but it is still not rejecting the saving power of God.
So, you aren't monotheistic then? Good to know.

Edit: I really like how accepting and worshipping other gods (contrary to the very first commandment) isn't blasphemy, so long as the person is sufficiently said to be "good" like Ghandi.

[Old Man G Funk]

Jesus doesn’t say he was in hell because he rejected Jesus.
True, but the cited example did come from a fundie that sentenced his own grandma to hell.

[Andyman_1970]

An excerpt from "Theological Errors due to Seperation from Hebrew Roots"
By: Dan Rodriguez Posted: February 19 2004

Note: I tend to lean this direction.

I. The foundational truth of the Bible is the monotheism it presents in opposition to the polytheism of heathen religions. This concept of one God is "the foundational truth" espoused by Judaism.

The Scripture teaches that God is one, in opposition to the doctrine of Trinity in Christianity. Trinitarianism was not accepted by the Church as dogma until the fourth century C.E. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus or his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. The council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine, which adopted the Homoousias (sameness of essence) position. Over the next half-century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula and, by the end of the fourth century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. (Adapted from Enc. Brittanica, s.v., "Trinty.")

Monotheism is the God concept that separated the Jew or Hebrew from the pagan nations that surrounded him. In ancient times, the multiplicity of gods was the "in" thing. It was considered heretical to believe in one God, and especially one without an image. This idea of monotheism far surpassed the religious concepts of its day. It was a concept not created by man, it was the revelation of God Himself to man. Deuteronomy 6:4 became the foundational truth of Judaism--the Shema. It is the first thing the religious Jew teaches his child, and the last thing the religious Jew wants to say before he dies.

God has no counterpart. He is the all-powerful, omnipresent, omniscient God. His name is YHWH in the transliteration from Hebrew. It is not known how it was pronounced. What does this name mean? There are a few interpretations of this, but He said to Moses. "I am that I am." Literally this means, "I was, I am, and I will be." He is ALL in this sense that He is the only God there is, and He is all-powerful. All possibility of dualism is left out. Zoroastrian thought proclaimed the existence of two opposite gods in the universe; one good and the other evil. The one God concept excludes the polytheistic notions of a world where there are many gods.

What does Trinity really mean? In general, the interpretation is that God is one in substance, but three in "PERSON"; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then there is the school that teaches that there are really three, completely separate beings in the godhead. In all honesty, it is very difficult to call this latter theory anything but a modified polytheistic philosophy of God. The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. The Spanish texts of the sixth century are the first to offer a clear-cut trinitarian formula in the so-called Comma Johaneum of I Jn. 5:7 ff.(TDNT,III:108). The word trias and trinitas, in this application to the Godhead, appears first in Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras in the second century, and in Tertullian in the third. (Schaff, History of the Church, III:6454)

Professor David Flusser has discussed another problematic text, Matthew 28:19. He said that all extant manuscripts of Matthew record that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize all nations "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But this trinitarian formula is missing from all the quotations of the passage in the writings of Eusebius composed before the council of Nicaea. The text before Nicaea reads, "Go forth and make all nations disciples in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." The texts Euseblus used from the library in Caesarea appear to have had this form. Other witnesses for this shorter form were found in a Jewish Christian source, and a Coptic text. (Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, pp. 380ff.)

By the fourth century there existed three main schools of thought concerning the nature of Christ and the nature of God. Homoousia was the doctrine of a similarity of essence in the godhead. Homoousia, taught the sameness of essence, while heteroousia believed in a difference of essence. Again, controversy raged for many years. In 381, after the council of Constantinople, Emperor Theodosius I published as law the homoousian position. In all the kingdom, every church was to be given up to bishops who ascribed to this doctrinal point of view. The public worship of those who did not ascribe to homoousianism was prohibited by law. (Schaff, History of the Church, III:618-698)

In a very enlightening scholarly work by Robert Grant of the University of Chicago, there's ample evidence of pagan influence in the Trinitarian concept of God.
"Numenius was the source for much of Plotinus' thought, according to ancient critics, but the Christian authors Clement and Origen knew him well.He evidently influenced both Neoplatonism and Christianity. In his thought, there is a combination of monotheism and polytheism, of the one and the many which is quite similar to what we find among Christians. Plato anticipated the Christian (Trinity) doctrine of God.... The doctrine of the trinty in unity is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century... This is to say that in beginning to develop the doctrine of the Trinity, Christians made use of methods already worked out among Platonists and Pythagoreans for explaining their own philosophical theology, in harmonious accord with pagan polytheism... As time went by, the logical implications of the faith were worked out on the basis of the leading philosophies of the time, often in ways remarkably similar to such workings out in other religions. The religious impulses and their expressions turn out to be much the same....

The upshot was that the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was, to say the least, not alien to philosophical or even rhetorical statements made by pagans about pagan gods" (Gods and the One God, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986, pp. 150-175).

In other words; trinitarianism has roots that go all the way back to pagan religions. As an example, we can speak, of the Phoenician triad of El, Ashtarte, and Baal. Gerhaid Herm said that the Phoenician pantheon could have been easily adopted by any good believer in the Holy Trinity.

The concept of a triad of the gods was prominent in Tyre, Sidon, Arvad, Biblos, and Ugarit. (Die Phonizier: Das Purpurreich der Antike, Dusseldorf Vienna, 197.) We must understand that early Christian monotheism is confirmed rather than, shattered by the Christology of the New Testament, Monotheism is a firm part of the tradition and is established throughout the New Testament, beginning with Jesus' own declaration of the Shema In Mark 12:29-30 as being the first commandment of Scripture. (TDNI 111:101-102)

The question of the nature of God is still an issue in many quarters. The basic problem is a misunderstanding the nature of Christ. Yet, when Jesus spoke, he did not claim to be just the "Son of God." Once and again, he made the startling declaration that he was God. When he declared that he had come to seek and save those that are lost (Luke 19:10), he was alluding to Ezekiel 34, where it is God that is to seek and save the lost sheep. Again, this calls to mind Jesus' words in John 10:1-16, where he is the good shepherd that gives his life for the sheep. Listen to him as he states that he and the Father are one (John 10:30). "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). "The Word that was God became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:1,14). He was IMMANUEL, GOD WITH US. God was manifest in the flesh according to I Timothy 3:16.

Was this a problematic concept for people of a polytheistic background? How could Son also be Father? (Isaiah 9:6) It is understood only in its Hebrew context. The Pentecostal aberration known as "Oneness" theology is completely different from this. Oneness is the theology that believes that Jesus is God and God is Jesus; that ALL of God is Jesus.

Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua. Today, the idea that the spoken language among Jews in Judea and Galilee was Hebrew is becoming more and more accepted. It is also being recognized that the original life story of Jesus was communicated in Hebrew. (See R. Blizzard and D. Bivin. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus; D. Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity; R.L. Lindsey, The Gospel of Mark, and others.) The angel tells Joseph, "you shall, calls His name Yeshua for He will yoshia His people from their sins" (See Hebrew New Testament). The word Yeshua is a play on the word yoshia, (from yasha) which means SALVATION. So Yeshua means Savior or Liberator, the Salvation of God. So Jesus was Yeshuat Elohim!
Who was he? He was, for the believer, God in human flesh redeming or saving. Just as Ruach Elohim or El-Shaddai is God, each revealing a different spect of deity, so it is with Yeshuat Elohim. Yeshua was God, but he was not all of God there is. Ruach Elohim is all God, but not all of God there is. Ruach Elohim is the aspect of God's nature that reveals his power. God is all we have mentioned and much more. He is beyond the capacity of human reason to understand his greatness. We can only know him by his names and his activity among men. Yet, God is beyond human description, description or discernment. He is beyond our imagination. Still, in all His varied ways and manifestations, he is the one supreme God. Maimonides best expressed this by insisting that trying to comprehend God adequately was so hopeless that it was impossible to describe him in positive terms. Language could never convey what God was, only what he was not, and that any intelligent discussion about his nature could only contain negatives. The consensus of Jewish thought can be summarized in this: the fullness of God is impossible to know.
In the New Testament we have an emphasis on God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because of the unique features of the ministry and mission of Jesus. The one that was to come was to have a relationship with God as a father has with a son, and in some special way, he was to be the bearer of the spirit. In addition, we must remember that the Greek of the New Testament is at pains to express these Hebrew concepts in a language of pagans.

[Andyman_1970]

The continuation.......

Throughout this entire explanation we have maintained the integreity of Biblical monotheism for the believer in Christ Jesus. The trinitarian or Pentecostal Oneness doctrines put sever limitations on the Biblical concept of God. God is more than a mere manifestation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is more than only Jesus. He is beyond anything we can ask or think, yet he is the ONLY God, and he can manifest himself however he chooses to do so.

[Silver]

He's in hell if the Protestants are right and Jesus (I'm using Jesus in the sarcastic sense, not the theologically correct way. I don't claim to know how God did his divine version of Powerball) didn't pick him. Of course, if you're not elect, it doesn't matter if you go to church anyways (and you also don't need to go if you are elect, you already won the lottery.) I've lobbed that one back at some Calvinists I know, and that really pisses them off...

[Old Man G Funk]

He's in hell if the Protestants are right and Jesus (I'm using Jesus in the sarcastic sense, not the theologically correct way. I don't claim to know how God did his divine version of Powerball) didn't pick him. Of course, if you're not elect, it doesn't matter if you go to church anyways. I've lobbed that one back at some Calvinists I know, and that really pisses them off...
Actually, that's funny, because I thought part of their faith was that election was pushed onto the individual which made them want to go to church, etc. So, if you aren't one of the elect few, then you naturally want to sin and not attend church anyway.

[Silver]

Actually, that's funny, because I thought part of their faith was that election was pushed onto the individual which made them want to go to church, etc. So, if you aren't one of the elect few, then you naturally want to sin and not attend church anyway.

You're thinking of the irresistable grace tenet.

But, if you are elect, it doesn't matter if you're Hitler, you're still saved. (Conversely, you can be Gandi and not be saved if you aren't elect.) An elect person MAY exhibit the characteristics you listed, but since you were elect or not since before the earth was formed (6000 years, give or take, right? :) ) your actions now make no difference. Because once you're elect, you can't give it up.

It's really about as screwed up a philosophy as you can possibly get. It's also amazingly effective in making sure that you can rationalize any actions done in this life without guilt.

[Andyman_1970]

Speaking of Calvinism………..

One of my biggest problems with Calvinism and Reformed Theology (not to mention that both Calvin and Luther were raging anti-Semites……..and Calvin had countless people executed who disagreed with him….) is that they fundamentally misunderstand 1st century Judaism. With respect to the debate of God choosing us or us choosing God, the Hebraic way of thinking (referred to sometimes as 2 handed) is comfortable holding two seemingly contradictory truths to be simultaneously true. The Jewish way of thinking is “both and” rather than the Western/Greek way of thinking “either or” when encountering contradictory ideas. So from the Hebraic perspective with regards to “election” God chooses us, but we also choose God……….in the words of Rabbi Akiba “all is foreseen yet freewill is given”.

Anyway………..that’s my 2 shekels worth on the matter.

[Connundrum1]

most people here are on the wrong track. Ghandi wouldn't have gone to a "christian heaven" since only christians beleive in that heaven. Ghandi being a Hindu would have either been reincarnated or attained nirvana and become one with God. God is what you beleive in, it doesn't have to be in terms of christian beleifs but what he beleived in. WOuld he care that he didn't get into christian heaven? who knows? Hindus beleive that there is a greater being that is above us all but hindus also beleive that there are many paths to god and all are the correct way. Whether you believe in Allah, Bhuddha, Jesus Christ etc. they are all just different highways to the same end point.

[The Amish]

I've been there and you are pretty much on the nose. I call it the a-hole of America.


Worse than camden NJ?

[kinghami3]

So, you aren't monotheistic then? Good to know.

Edit: I really like how accepting and worshipping other gods (contrary to the very first commandment) isn't blasphemy, so long as the person is sufficiently said to be "good" like Ghandi.
Me and the rest of the Christian world, if that's what you think Monotheistic means (who ever said a god has to be one person?). "One God, three persons" is an easier way of putting it, but it doesn't conform to our way of thinking or understanding; there have been numerous counsels held on this issue alone. Secondly, the Commandments are the Jewish code of Law, not the Christian. Although Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, the two cannot be confused.

(Andy's quote best explains the trouble in trying to define God)

[stevew]

I've been there and you are pretty much on the nose. I call it the a-hole of America.
Visit Newark, New Jersey.

Gary, Indiana will look better.

[stevew]

I'm going in the ground.

Beyond that, I could care less.

[LordOpie]

i had a baptist priest tell me once that "ghandi, like my grandmother, was a great man...
:think:

[BurlyShirley]

Whatever.

Ghandi got his ass kicked, and didnt even fight back. God hates a coward. Ghandi went straight to hell.

[jaydee]

I believe Andy's quote illustrates how the "Christian" churches of today and their beliefs bear little if any resemblance to what Jesus/Yeshua (if he actually existed) was talking about. "Christianity" as a religion was apparently not in Christ's plan at all, and he wouldn't recognize much of his original message in the politically and financially motivated machinations and overt reconstructions that have been performed on it over the centuries. I'm sure he'll be back any day to disown all the various (per)versions of the bible and write it down himself this time and publish it as a read-only pdf. Just think, if he'd have published it in Word in the first place we'd have a record of all the pretenders who added their own bits.

[ohio]

who ever said a god has to be one person?
By this definition, there is almost no such thing as polytheism.

[ALEXIS_DH]

i understand, that for religion and faith to exist, you have (in fact is required) to bend logic and that... but the whole "three and one at the same time" is just really pushing it. even by faith related standards.

[mantispf2000]

Ok, gang, with all this talk of God, Heaven, Jesus, etc, maybe, just maybe, someone here can say something that will make even a smidgen of sense.

As most of you know, our 4-year-old daugher, Alaina, went to Heaven in February, '04. I've been to four counselors and a preacher, and here's my thoughts--

First and foremost, Alaina went to Heaven. Children are pure, don't know hate or anything really negative, and are the greatest gift of all. I also know that she's met Jesus, and very well could be in awe of him.

Me, on the other hand, dislike God like you would not believe. At first, when Alaina came to this world, I felt I was given the greatest gift a man and woman could be given- a healthy child. I knew that Alaina was my responsibility. I taught her what I could, and loved her with all my heart. Then, for whatever reason, God decided that I had done something wrong in my past, and didn't deserve to raise Alaina any longer, so he took her from us. After all, if he could punish the Pharoahs and such for their acts, why couldn't he also punish me for my acts, whatever they may be? Though we didn't go to church, I first taught Alaina about God and prayer on the first anniversary of 9-11, stopping at the local church (little did I know at that time it would also be the church to hold Alaina's service), kneeling at the cross, and praying for the children that lost their moms and dads.

Does this make sense? I rreeaallyy would like to get beyond the quilt and hate for God I have still, and I don't know what it would take at this time. Yes, I know, there are parents that lose their child/ren every day. And yet the question keeps going around in my head-- If I couldn't take care and protect a 4-year-old, then who am I to be here any longer?????

Thank you for reading.

[Old Man G Funk]

You're thinking of the irresistable grace tenet.

But, if you are elect, it doesn't matter if you're Hitler, you're still saved. (Conversely, you can be Gandi and not be saved if you aren't elect.) An elect person MAY exhibit the characteristics you listed, but since you were elect or not since before the earth was formed (6000 years, give or take, right? :) ) your actions now make no difference. Because once you're elect, you can't give it up.

It's really about as screwed up a philosophy as you can possibly get. It's also amazingly effective in making sure that you can rationalize any actions done in this life without guilt.

I was also making reference to the idea of "Total depravity."

If one is elect, if doesn't matter if one is Hitler, but the elect will be compelled to accept Jesus and act accordingly, according to the doctrine.

Edit: I agree, it's pretty screwed up.

[Old Man G Funk]

Visit Newark, New Jersey.

Gary, Indiana will look better.
Last time I was in Newark I was very young, so I don't remember it too well, but I do remember that Newark is another pit.

Worse than camden NJ?
I've never been to Camden, so I couldn't say. But, looking at the map, it looks like Philly's version of East St. Louis.

[Old Man G Funk]

Me and the rest of the Christian world, if that's what you think Monotheistic means (who ever said a god has to be one person?). "One God, three persons" is an easier way of putting it, but it doesn't conform to our way of thinking or understanding; there have been numerous counsels held on this issue alone. Secondly, the Commandments are the Jewish code of Law, not the Christian. Although Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, the two cannot be confused.

(Andy's quote best explains the trouble in trying to define God)
Methinks you should read Andy's quote yet again if you think that it supports your notion of the trinity.

If the Commandments are the "Jewish code of Law" (of which they are only a small part) and not to be confused with Christian law, then why do Christians continually refer to the ten commandments? Do you strive to follow the ten commandments?

[MudGrrl]

Whether you believe in Allah, Bhuddha, Jesus Christ etc. they are all just different highways to the same end point.


I don't think I would have lumped Buddha in with Allah and Jesus.

A Buddha is someone who is enlightened. They are not a god, and don't claim to be.

[Old Man G Funk]

Ok, gang, with all this talk of God, Heaven, Jesus, etc, maybe, just maybe, someone here can say something that will make even a smidgen of sense.
You are right, all this talk of predestination, Ghandi burning in hell, trinities, etc. doesn't make sense.
As most of you know, our 4-year-old daugher, Alaina, went to Heaven in February, '04. I've been to four counselors and a preacher, and here's my thoughts--

First and foremost, Alaina went to Heaven. Children are pure, don't know hate or anything really negative, and are the greatest gift of all. I also know that she's met Jesus, and very well could be in awe of him.

Me, on the other hand, dislike God like you would not believe. At first, when Alaina came to this world, I felt I was given the greatest gift a man and woman could be given- a healthy child. I knew that Alaina was my responsibility. I taught her what I could, and loved her with all my heart. Then, for whatever reason, God decided that I had done something wrong in my past, and didn't deserve to raise Alaina any longer, so he took her from us. After all, if he could punish the Pharoahs and such for their acts, why couldn't he also punish me for my acts, whatever they may be? Though we didn't go to church, I first taught Alaina about God and prayer on the first anniversary of 9-11, stopping at the local church (little did I know at that time it would also be the church to hold Alaina's service), kneeling at the cross, and praying for the children that lost their moms and dads.

Does this make sense? I rreeaallyy would like to get beyond the quilt and hate for God I have still, and I don't know what it would take at this time. Yes, I know, there are parents that lose their child/ren every day. And yet the question keeps going around in my head-- If I couldn't take care and protect a 4-year-old, then who am I to be here any longer?????

Thank you for reading.
First and foremost, I am truly sorry for your loss.

I'm also sorry that you have come to blame yourself for what happened. It is one of the reasons that I dislike Christianity. Please don't blame yourself, or feel like you did something wrong. If god is punishing you by killing your innocent child, then god is the one in the wrong here and you have every right to be upset. It is neither good, nor just, to exact punishment on a blameless party for the (alleged) sins of another.

[Andyman_1970]

Me, on the other hand, dislike God like you would not believe. At first, when Alaina came to this world, I felt I was given the greatest gift a man and woman could be given- a healthy child. I knew that Alaina was my responsibility. I taught her what I could, and loved her with all my heart. Then, for whatever reason, God decided that I had done something wrong in my past, and didn't deserve to raise Alaina any longer, so he took her from us. After all, if he could punish the Pharoahs and such for their acts, why couldn't he also punish me for my acts, whatever they may be? Though we didn't go to church, I first taught Alaina about God and prayer on the first anniversary of 9-11, stopping at the local church (little did I know at that time it would also be the church to hold Alaina's service), kneeling at the cross, and praying for the children that lost their moms and dads.

Does this make sense? I rreeaallyy would like to get beyond the quilt and hate for God I have still, and I don't know what it would take at this time. Yes, I know, there are parents that lose their child/ren every day. And yet the question keeps going around in my head-- If I couldn't take care and protect a 4-year-old, then who am I to be here any longer?????

Thank you for reading.

Wow, as a father myself it makes me almost physically ill to read accounts of parents loosing their children, my prayers brother really do go out to you.

I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers of the universe, or claim to understand why these things happen, so I’m not even going to try to. Sometimes (and rightly so) we get so consumed in our pain that we miss how close God is to us, kind of like when a child skins their knee, you can pick them up and comfort them all you want but they still are consumed with the pain even though you’re holding them close to you.

When my wife miscarried our first child we were crushed but there was this passage in the Bible that was a great source of hope for us:

Psalm 34:18 “the LORD is close to the broken hearted”

So just like the little kid that skins their knee, sometimes I think God is a lot closer to us than we realize.

Anyway, I certainly don’t mean to preach, I hope this was helpful if only in a little way. Like I said, in all seriousness, my prayers go out to you and your family brother.

May He give you His Shalom………

[Silver]

I was also making reference to the idea of "Total depravity."

If one is elect, if doesn't matter if one is Hitler, but the elect will be compelled to accept Jesus and act accordingly, according to the doctrine.

Edit: I agree, it's pretty screwed up.

Ah, here's another interesting part of Calvinism:

Hitler and Gandi are equivalent in God's eyes anyways. Their actions are of no import, since they are all born with original sin and are damned unless elect.

And since every thing that is a sin is equal, orchestrating genocide and stealing a piece of gum are also morally equivalent, and grounds for damnation.

[Old Man G Funk]

Ah, here's another interesting part of Calvinism:

Hitler and Gandi are equivalent in God's eyes anyways. Their actions are of no import, since they are all born with original sin and are damned unless elect.

And since every thing that is a sin is equal, orchestrating genocide and stealing a piece of gum are also morally equivalent, and grounds for damnation.
Yup. In fact, all people are abhorrent to god, unless you have been elected, and therefore compelled to be good. And, it's not just acts of genocide or stealing gum, it's all acts. I love theology.

[Silver]

Yup. In fact, all people are abhorrent to god, unless you have been elected, and therefore compelled to be good. And, it's not just acts of genocide or stealing gum, it's all acts. I love theology.

Except you can't be compelled to be good, because you still have freewill, supposedly.

Being elect is like being George W. Bush on a cosmic scale. Consequences never hit you...

[kinghami3]

Methinks you should read Andy's quote yet again if you think that it supports your notion of the trinity.

If the Commandments are the "Jewish code of Law" (of which they are only a small part) and not to be confused with Christian law, then why do Christians continually refer to the ten commandments? Do you strive to follow the ten commandments?
I know what I read. Andy's quote was questioning the Christian idea of the Christian Trinity as compared to the single person of YHWH (Elohim, or whatever you want to call the Jewish idea of God). This is not a a popular view. Instead, I was drawing from the idea that it is a topic that even the most educated and tested scholars have difficulties with.

Why do Christians refer to the 10 Commandments? Because it's good leverage. We can still refer to them as standard moral codes, but look at any culture and the 10 Commandments will often fit in fairly well with their society (even the 1st commandment). However, they hold no authority in the church (as with the rest of the TANAK). Only the canonized Bible in its entirety holds Scriptural authority in the church.

[Andyman_1970]

My Catholic brother………..please know these comments are not specifically at you and are meant with all due respect.

I know what I read. Andy's quote was questioning the Christian idea of the Christian Trinity as compared to the single person of YHWH (Elohim, or whatever you want to call the Jewish idea of God).

I would argue the “Jewish idea” of God was the idea that Jesus and all the authors of the New Testament held……….as they were all Torah observant Jews, with the exception of Luke who was a Noachide.

However, they hold no authority in the church (as with the rest of the TANAK).

Someone needs to tell those fundies and WOF Pentacostals this, because they keep insisting from the OT that I have to tithe or I’m under a curse. I would also argue that for the first 30 years or so of the church the OT was the Scripture for them. Most of the early church was made up of Torah observant Jews who held the OT as authoritative and observed it.

Only the canonized Bible in its entirety holds Scriptural authority in the church.

I would argue the only authority that the church has is Jesus as He is the head of the church. IMO to argue that the Bible has authority over the church (vs. being authoritative) it tantamount to Bibliolatry…..something a lot of fundy churches (especially the King James Only ones) tread awfully close to IMO.

There’s a transcript of NT Wright’s lecture of how the Bible can be authoritative……….if anyone is interested I can email you a copy of the PDF……it’s very interesting.

[Old Man G Funk]

I know what I read. Andy's quote was questioning the Christian idea of the Christian Trinity as compared to the single person of YHWH (Elohim, or whatever you want to call the Jewish idea of God). This is not a a popular view. Instead, I was drawing from the idea that it is a topic that even the most educated and tested scholars have difficulties with.

Why do Christians refer to the 10 Commandments? Because it's good leverage. We can still refer to them as standard moral codes, but look at any culture and the 10 Commandments will often fit in fairly well with their society (even the 1st commandment). However, they hold no authority in the church (as with the rest of the TANAK). Only the canonized Bible in its entirety holds Scriptural authority in the church.
So the scholar that Andy quoted has trouble with it? It didn't seem like it to me. There were some pretty definitive statements in there about how your concept of the trinity is not biblically derived. But, hey, believe what you want.

So, Christians want to place the ten commandments in schools and on plaques in state houses and courts because "we can still refer to tham as standard moral codes?" Oh, and maybe you can explain how the first commandment fits into our current culture, or the culture in very secular countries in England, or in Buddhist culture? I do like how you've admitted that the 10 commandments are culturally derived, however. I rather thought you would say they were divinely derived, so good for you.

[Old Man G Funk]

Except you can't be compelled to be good, because you still have freewill, supposedly.

Being elect is like being George W. Bush on a cosmic scale. Consequences never hit you...
Right, but your free will is based on your desires and through sanctification you desire to be good.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

[mantispf2000]

Now when you mention this, Andy--

Psalm 34:18 “the LORD is close to the broken hearted”

I am curious as to who is referenced by "LORD". If you mean Lord God, stuff him. As mentioned earlier, I feel he rewards, as well as punishes. If you mean Lord Jesus, then I do agree. Since the movie Passion of the Christ came out after Alaina went to Heaven, I did feel that Alaina was/is with a great being.

Maybe, just maybe, my hiccup is that I'm being so tunnel visioned to make some sort of sense out of our loss. Though I'm putting all the blame on myself, I also feel that God, had he wanted to, would've guided me better in taking care of Alaina. Since my feelings are that he was "too busy", well, you know the rest.

[Silver]

Right, but your free will is based on your desires and through sanctification you desire to be good.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Why do you think I'm an atheist? ;)

[kinghami3]

My Catholic brother………..please know these comments are not specifically at you and are meant with all due respect. My ecumenical brother, I ain't Catholic, I'm Presbyterian :). And I don't take offense that easily.

I would argue the “Jewish idea” of God was the idea that Jesus and all the authors of the New Testament held……….as they were all Torah observant Jews, with the exception of Luke who was a Noachide. You're right, I won't argue that. But remember that the Trinitarian idea evolved out of the early church, when the apostolic succession was very strong. The Jewish idea of God was monotheistic in its fullest sense, but the Greeks added a lot to that.

Someone needs to tell those fundies and WOF Pentacostals this, because they keep insisting from the OT that I have to tithe or I’m under a curse. I would also argue that for the first 30 years or so of the church the OT was the Scripture for them. Most of the early church was made up of Torah observant Jews who held the OT as authoritative and observed it.

There's a significant difference between the OT and Hebrew Scriptures; the hermeneutics were entirely different. Though the early church lacked the canonized NT, they read the OT in light of Christ, so while it was the same text, it was a different Scripture.

I would argue the only authority that the church has is Jesus as He is the head of the church. IMO to argue that the Bible has authority over the church (vs. being authoritative) it tantamount to Bibliolatry…..something a lot of fundy churches (especially the King James Only ones) tread awfully close to IMO. I should have put an emphasis on the SCRIPTURAL authority in the church, not ultimate authority. I agree that scripture in itself is authoritative, and that authority originates in God. I'll PM you a couple paragraphs I wrote on this in a recent paper.

There’s a transcript of NT Wright’s lecture of how the Bible can be authoritative……….if anyone is interested I can email you a copy of the PDF……it’s very interesting.
I'll PM you about that too; he's a fascinating speaker and has come to my school on occasion.

[Andyman_1970]

Now when you mention this, Andy--

Psalm 34:18 “the LORD is close to the broken hearted”

I am curious as to who is referenced by "LORD". If you mean Lord God, stuff him.

I realize this is a sensitive subject with you, so if at any point you want to cease talking about it just let me know, I certainly don’t want this to be a source of pain to you.

When I say “LORD” I mean YHVH, the God that gave Moses the Torah. We in our Western/Greek/Christian understanding of “the God of the Old Testament” tend to view God (and all the “bad” stuff that people tend to think of) as a grouchy grandpa character that you can’t quite tell what mood He’s in. Anyway, the Jewish understanding of this is totally different (the understanding Jesus and the authors of the New Testament had), they understood God to be a lover in search of a bride, they even refer to the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) as God’s love letter, Exodus chapter 19 and 20 are titled “God the lover” (the chapters where the Torah is given to Moses).

Anyway, I think the popular Christian/Western notion of the God of the OT is a grouchy breaded dude who just wants to make people extra crispy………..alot of people don’t believe in that god, including me.

If you mean Lord Jesus, then I do agree. Since the movie Passion of the Christ came out after Alaina went to Heaven, I did feel that Alaina was/is with a great being.

I would agree that your daughter is with Jesus…………my hope for you is that gives you hope.

Maybe, just maybe, my hiccup is that I'm being so tunnel visioned to make some sort of sense out of our loss. Though I'm putting all the blame on myself, I also feel that God, had he wanted to, would've guided me better in taking care of Alaina. Since my feelings are that he was "too busy", well, you know the rest.

Brother I can’t even begin to comprehend your lose. It’s in these times I wished I had some sort of “nugget” I could share to make things better, but I don’t. Sometimes when the world doesn’t make sense, when I see things like your circumstances that make no sense to me all I can do, (sometimes with a lot of questions and doubts) either say or just pray what those early followers of Jesus did when they were faced with pain they couldn’t understand……“He has risen” (I know that sounds corny and like “Christian talk”…but when faced with stuff where there’s no clear answers all I can to is have hope).

I pray that God will heal you and make you whole again.

[Old Man G Funk]

When I say “LORD” I mean YHVH, the God that gave Moses the Torah. We in our Western/Greek/Christian understanding of “the God of the Old Testament” tend to view God (and all the “bad” stuff that people tend to think of) as a grouchy grandpa character that you can’t quite tell what mood He’s in. Anyway, the Jewish understanding of this is totally different (the understanding Jesus and the authors of the New Testament had), they understood God to be a lover in search of a bride, they even refer to the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) as God’s love letter, Exodus chapter 19 and 20 are titled “God the lover” (the chapters where the Torah is given to Moses).

Anyway, I think the popular Christian/Western notion of the God of the OT is a grouchy breaded dude who just wants to make people extra crispy………..alot of people don’t believe in that god, including me.
Wait, is this the same god that ordered genocide on such a large scale that men, women, children, and even livestock had to be slaughtered? The one who plagued his pick for king, Saul, with evil spirits because Saul dared to make a burnt offering when he was supposed to, but didn't wait for Samuel who was late? Oh, I forgot, Saul was also merciful, so I guess he deserved that punishment.

Oh, is this the same god that knew Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, yet put it there in front of them anyway, then gave them no concept of right and wrong just so he could punish them for eating the fruit that he knew they were going to eat?

Yeah, he's a loving guy. He sentences all sinners to death. When I'm out looking for brides, I tend to sentence people to death myself. Sorry Andy, no offense, you may be right about how they saw god, but that is clearly not what is portrayed in the scriptures.

[Andyman_1970]

My ecumenical brother,….

That’s a four letter word in fundy land………..LOL

I ain't Catholic, I'm Presbyterian :). And I don't take offense that easily.

I grew up in a Presbyterian church…………..cool.

There's a significant difference between the OT and Hebrew Scriptures; the hermeneutics were entirely different.

I would argue that’s part of the problem, hermeneutics, we as Christians interpret the Text differently than those of the tradition Jesus came from.

Though the early church lacked the canonized NT, they read the OT in light of Christ, so while it was the same text, it was a different Scripture.

I guess I disagree………….the early church was totally Jewish up until Acts 10, they still observed Torah, so I would argue they didn’t view the Text differently. Now 100 years after the fact that might be the case.

I'll PM you about that too; he's a fascinating speaker and has come to my school on occasion.

He is totally awesome……….I’ve got a load of his transcripted lectures and several of them on MP3 very very good stuff. I’ve been reading his new book on Paul as well, if you have the chance I recommend it.

[Changleen]

Wow this is a really long thread about an imaginary dude in the sky.

[jaydee]

Wow this is a really long thread about an imaginary dude in the sky.

Amen to that, brother.

If we all took personal responsibility for our actions and decisions instead of playing the "god made me do it" game, this would be a lot simpler place to spend a lifetime (or several, if you think you are a Buddhist).

[Silver]

Wow this is a really long thread about an imaginary dude in the sky.

He's sort of important these days. (Not like he wasn't in the past, but our information is a touch better.) The guy with his finger on the button thinks that he's being guided by him. His son is Bush's favorite philosopher (of course, my little brother used to not pay attention when the Bible was being read, and would blurt out "Jesus!" as the answer to any question, which is what I suspect Bush did.)

God may be imaginary, but belief in belief isn't...