Liberal Christianity 2

[Pete]

I would say that everyone on the planet since the Bestowal of the Christ Spirit was a Christian effectively....

Since it WAS a bestowal to all who take bodies from that point on...

I don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins....

I don't believe in a virgin birth...

and I most importantly do not believe in any type of imposed Hell whatsoever....

or judgement other than self-imposed...

am I still a liberal Christian? I do believe that Jesus played a very crucial role in the " salvation " of my soul ( I would call it " development " ) and I do recognize the bestowal of the Christ Spirit to be inextricably linked with Jesus's last incarnation.... ( y'all know I'm using that name for clarity )

so am i a liberal christian?

Sky, that is one you have to answer for yourself.

However, I do not believe Jesus died for sins, had a virgin birth or that there is a hell or a devil. For me I believe there is that which is God and that which is not. There is whole lot of things I do not know and I ready to admit that.

The thing about being a liberal is I am also free to think and accept it and trust it to God to eventually make sense of it all..

Edited July 4, 2010 by Pete

[Pete]

Nice Pete. This following quote is from that link:

For many liberal Christians, social justice is a central concern, and the transformation of society, rather than that of the individual, is more typically stressed. Equality for racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and the economically disadvantaged is seen as an essential part of the Gospel message. A concern for the environment, and other typically liberal social issues, also find a great deal of support among liberal Christians.

.....is how I have viewed liberal Christianity in regard to comparing and contrasting with fundamental Christianity. After studying the great liberal Christian theologians and philosophers of religion this quote above was the conclusion that I had drawn.

This difference can be summed up by saying the the liberals view of God more transcendent, where the fundamentalist view in more immanent.

Personally, I think universalism is a flawed doctrine, but I think you can find evidence for it in Scripture, specifically in Paul's writings.

Hey, I think Paul taught a differing Gospel to Jesus but that's another matter. Jesus talked about his kingdom within and to come. Paul taught salvation through the death of Jesus. For me those are two differing things, but I recognize for others they are not.

[Brother Michael Sky]

Sky, that is one you have to answer for yourself.

However, I do not believe Jesus died for sins, had a virgin birth or that there is a hell or a devil. For me I believe there is that which is God and that which is not. There is whole lot of things I do not know and I ready to admit that.

The thing about being a liberal is I am also free to think and accept it and trust it to God to eventually make sense of it all..

actually i was hoping that the answer to the question could bump loose peoples thoughts on the matter.. there seems to be something that hasn't been said here...

as for me... I have a label collection... i use 'em for trivets...

ima go listen to that fireflies song again.....

Edited July 4, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Bro. Hex]

Thank you Hex. With this as what I would call the "basis" of Christianity, I would say it is then up to the individual to determine the direction and intensity of his or her commitment, action, and theology from there. But that would be the starting point. Would you agree?

Yes, I would agree with that completely.

I would like to add (in reference to your other post)

that I see God as both transcendental and immanent.

However, I am speaking only for myself,

and can't say whether or not this would be true

for Liberal Christians in general.

[Bro. Hex]

I would say that everyone on the planet since the Bestowal of the Christ Spirit was a Christian effectively....

Since it WAS a bestowal to all who take bodies from that point on...

I don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins....

I don't believe in a virgin birth...

and I most importantly do not believe in any type of imposed Hell whatsoever....

or judgment other than self-imposed...

am I still a liberal Christian? I do believe that Jesus played a very crucial role in the " salvation " of my soul ( I would call it " development " ) and I do recognize the bestowal of the Christ Spirit to be inextricably linked with Jesus' last incarnation.... ( y'all know I'm using that name for clarity )

so am i a liberal christian?

Oh please, can I answer this one?

I know that I am not supposed to

(because Pete is right; only you can truly answer this),

But I sense that you are really asking

"am I all alone in this perspective?"

Let's see, you don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins.

I don't believe that Jesus DID die for our sins.

You don't believe in the virgin birth.

Me neither.

You say there is no hell?

Me too.

No devil?

Ditto.

(I don't believe that he rose from the dead, either,

even though I readily acknowledge that "resurrection"

is a wonderful mythic theme...

but you didn't ask that one!)

If I understand you correctly, you believe that

"the Christ Spirit" was visited upon "the man Jesus",

and this was "the most recent such "incarnation"

(that we are aware of). That's pretty much

how I see the matter too. Of course, for me

this isn't dogma, it's just my way

of talking about something truly incomprehensible.

So, are you a Liberal Christian, Michael?

Do you try to live your life in accord

with the teachings and example of Jesus?

I think you do.

That makes you a Christian.

and the stuff we have just here discussed

makes you a Liberal Christian.

Now about those fire flies...

Edited July 4, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Fawzo]

Oh please, can I answer this one?

I know that I am not supposed to

(because Pete is right; only you can truly answer this),

But I sense that you are really asking

"am I all alone in this perspective?"

Let's see, you don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins.

I don't believe that Jesus DID die for our sins.

You don't believe in the virgin birth.

Me neither.

You say there is no hell?

Me too.

No devil?

Ditto.

(I don't believe that he rose from the dead, either,

even though I readily acknowledge that "resurrection"

is a wonderful mythic theme...

but you didn't ask that one!)

If I understand you correctly, you believe that

"the Christ Spirit" was visited upon "the man Jesus",

and this was "the most recent such "incarnation"

(that we are aware of). That's pretty much

how I see the matter too. Of course, for me

this isn't dogma, it's just my way

of talking about something truly incomprehensible.

So, are you a Liberal Christian, Michael?

Do you try to live your life in accord

with the teachings and example of Jesus?

I think you do.

That makes you a Christian.

and the stuff we have just here discussed

makes you a Liberal Christian.

Now about those fire flies...

Woozers, I must be a liberal Christian also then and a liberal Buddhist too boot, or maybe I should just label myself a fundalmentalist ChristBud with a beautiful flower about to spring forth.

[Coolhand]

Speaking of liberal Christianity, here is a paper I wrote in 2008 for a Contemporary Theology class. I researched Friedrich Schleiermacher. Whenever we have a project or writing assignment I always like to find someone or something that I think I disagree with or know nothing about; which I think is the point of education.

I was correct by the professor in regard to some of my comments regarding Friedrich Schleiermacher, specifically I took that stance that he was corrupting the gospel as I understood it, when in fact he was living out the gospel as he know it. I was looking at it like my way was the only right way, when each person is doing what appears to be the right way for them. This is an important bridge to cross in my opinion.

The paper is titled:

KEEPING CHRISTIANITY CHRISTIAN BY ENSURING THE REDEMPTIVE

ELEMENT REMAINS INTACT

Friedrich Schleiermacher was addressed by several prestigious titles, such as the “father of modern theology,” and also the “father of classic liberalism.” Schleiermacher referred to himself as the “midwife of a New Christianity.” He lived in the period of mo- dernity known as the Enlightenment era. In this era, man was optimistic in the powers of human reasoning and believed that he was on his way to solving all of the problems of the world. Schleiermacher took on the challenge of showing the relevancy of Christian belief to a period of intellectualism that rejected myth and superstition. Unfortunately, because Christianity could not be empirically tested or rationally described, it was class-ified as myth. Schleiermacher approached Christianity from a modern perspective and “none strove so valiantly to reconstruct Christian belief to make it compatible with the spirit of his age.” Not only did his era struggle with orthodoxy, Friedrich himself struggled with orthodoxy, specifically the substitutionary doctrine of atonement. His skepticism of orthodoxy and the skepticism of the times resulted in the emergence of a new brand of theology. In this new theology, the freedom of the individual to criticize and reconstruct traditional beliefs in light of modern knowledge was emphasized. The individual needed to have the autonomy to decide for him or herself the points of their theology. Friedrich Schleiermacher presented Christianity to the modern thinkers of his time attempting to make it credible to them. In doing this he redefined many of the traditionally held beliefs of orthodox Christianity. However, in redefining Christian theo-logy to conform to modern thought, Friedrich Schleiermacher altered the gospel and robbed it of its transforming power by teaching that God is responsible for evil, by his rejection of miracles, and his denial of the power of prayer.

In all theologies and philosophies there is a problem of evil. Evil has been attributed to angry and wrathful gods, self infliction, and random consequence. Schleiermacher is no different and he has his own explanation of evil. According to Schleiermacher, evil is being self-conscious instead of being God-conscious. When we deny our total depend- ence on God we are self-conscious. This self-consciousness (evil) is sent by God at the moment of election in each individual person. Evil is the tool used by God used to create the God-consciousness in a person. This happens to every person at sometime in their life. Schleiermacher argued that “evil exists as a consequence of absolute dependence [on God] and is ordained by God.” To Schleiermacher evil came from God because there was no literal Satan. He stated, “The idea of the Devil, as developed among us is so unstable that we cannot expect anyone to be convinced of its truth.” In Schleiermacher’s theology there existed no devil that attacked the people of the world. This was only myth that has been created and handed down through church tradition. Along with the Devil being mythological, he also asserted that the concept of an eternal damnation was also mythological or at best figurative. Schleiermacher proved himself to be a Universalist by saying, “Through the power of redemption there will one day be a restoration of all souls.”

The Biblical concept of evil is a little different than Schleiermacher’s version. We can see in Genesis 6:5 where “the people on earth were very wicked, that all the imagin-ings of their hearts were always of evil only” (CJB). Then in verse six it says God’s heart was “grieved with man” (CJB) because of the evil of man. In the New Testament, 1 Peter 3:11 we are exhorted to “turn from evil and do good” (CJB). If Schleiermacher is right, then we are supposed to turn from God’s way of making us aware of Him so that we can do right! There are several ways evil is used in the bible. The examples I have used are referring to evil as in wickedness, which is what Schleiermacher is said God used as a tool, and of this evil God was the author. God can use anything He wants as a tool, but God calls us to shun evil and fear Him. This is how we become aware of God.

The Biblical concept of Satan also differs from what Schleiermacher argued. Schleiermacher denied the existence of Satan, the Devil. In the Old Testament “saw-’TAN” means adversary. Satan is introduced to us in the book of Job, which is believed to be the oldest book in the Old Testament. He is introduced in poetry as a destroyer and as one who is undoubtedly working against mankind. In Luke 10:18 Jesus said he saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven. Schleiermacher believed that the Bible texts had became legendary over time. This could have been due to Greek texts that existed at his time. His access would have been to only late dated texts such as Textus Receptus of 1550 and 1624, and Griesbach of 1805.

We now have access to Greek texts of the Gospels that date in the 200’s (third century). These resources can eliminate the doubts earlier theologians may have had concerning the evolving of the text over time. The “instability” of the idea of believing in a being who is the Devil is removed due to the fact that we have reliable text evidence that Jesus Christ said he saw Satan falling from heaven. Since we have reliable Scripture references that say there is a Devil, and that he comes to “steal, kill, and destroy” (John 10:10), it is no longer logical to attribute evil as a work of God.

Schleiermacher’s concept of hell being figurative can also be refuted by the same argument for reliable Greek texts that date back with in one hundred years of the actual events. Jesus also spoke of hell as being a real place: Matt.10:28, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 12:5 to mention a few.

By attributing evil to God’s authorship Schleiermacher brought an element of confusion to the gospel. This confusion also could be a stumbling block to those who have suffered disaster from approaching a God that would bring disaster upon them. By his denial of the existence of the Devil he removed any ability those who follow his teaching would ever have to fight this enemy who according to 1 Pet. 5:8 says, “Stalks about like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (CJB). By His denial of the Scriptures that describe a literal hell he has doomed his followers to this fate. He robbed the gospel of its ability to help people fight their enemy, also to be aware of and stay out of a living burning hell. And he did this in the name of keeping Christianity relevant to the times.

Friedrich Schleiermacher rejected the miracles that were presented in the Bible. He argues that although miracles could constitute proof, “It is never asserted that faith sprang from the proof, but from the preaching,” and that “Faith has been produced without miracles, and also miracles have failed to produce it [faith].” He says the only real proof for Gods existence is in the feeling of religion. He argues that “the explanation of miracles should be deferred until we have a more exact knowledge of both the fact in question and the laws of nature.” When asked about believers in his day that needed a healing or a miracle his response was, “The sick should seek external support,” seeking the Lord for a miracle of healing would only be asking for God’s divine will to be altered. If it is God’s divine will for us to be sick we should not seek release, as this would display an overpowering self consciousness, which to him would be sin. It would be interesting see how much money his followers spent on doctor visits just to be out of the will of God. The only miracles he believed we should be interested in are the Jewish prophecies concerning Christ. He did not believe we should have any interest in the Prophesies of Christ or His apostles.

Again Schleiermacher was going against the plain reading of Scripture. Jesus had a habit of healing all who were where he was preaching: Matt. 4:23-24, Matt. 8:16, and Matt. 9:35 to name a few. He then sent his disciples out to do the same: Matt.10:1, Mark 16:18, and Luke 10:9. Then, in the book of Acts, the miracles continued and the Apostles

asked specifically for God to, “take note of their threats; and enable your slaves to speak your message with boldness! Stretch out your hand to heal and to do signs and miracles through the name of your holy servant Yeshua!" (Acts 4:29-30 CJB). Jesus and the apostles were using miracles and healing as an evangelistic tool!

Schleiermacher, by his rejection of miracles and teaching others to reject them, substituted rationalist thought as his means to draw people to Jesus. This is in direct con-

flict with the way Jesus and His apostles worked. John the apostle in the Gospel of John says that he recorded what he did so that people might believe (John 20:31). John recorded seven miracles that Jesus performed, and seven statements referring to I AM (ego humee). These were miracles! Yet the claim that Schleiermacher made is that miracles are not how people come to faith in Jesus. Schleiermacher’s theology robbed people of the power of the gospel by stopping them from ever asking God for the big things, the things that would make all the difference.

Now we come to Schleiermacher’s denial of the power of prayer. He appeared to have developed this concept due to his reformed background. He said about prayer,“Pra-yer is asking for the fulfillment or refusal of divine plan. Here he made the claim that if we pray for something, we are attempting to alter God’s sovereign plan for our lives. According to him, if it is in God’s plan for it to happen it will happen. If what we are praying for is not in God’s divine plane for us it will not happen. His point is that prayer in this sense avails nothing. But prayer could be sinful because it could express a self-consciousness (which would be sin) instead of a God-consciousness. According to Schl-

eiermacher prayer in the Name of Jesus is our reflecting on Christ’s kingly activity.

With this, Schleiermacher reduced praying in the name of Jesus to a mere reflection on His works. Schleiermacher goes on to say that the “keys of the Kingdom of God” in Matt.16:19 refer only to the order of the Church and the persons in whom the conscious-ness of God flows.

According to the Bible, we are to “pray continually” (1 Thess.5:17), (Luke 18:1-8). We are told to “ask,” (Matt.7:7), (John 14:13), (John 16:23). The position Schleierma-cher took is a confusing one. It is God’s will for us to pray and to seek Him. It is God’s plan for us to pray within His will and for us to see Him work in our lives. If we pray for things to happen differently we do so because God told us to do so! God wants us to be stubborn about praying! God told us to abide in Him and ask what we desire so that the Father would be glorified (John 14:13). According to Schleiermacher’s theology it would be sinful to ask God to do something because of the self-conscious display. According to the Bible we glorify God when we abide in Him God for things in the name of Jesus. What a contrast! According to the plain reading of Matt.16:19 the keys to the Kingdom of God is the foundation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is the name with the power. Here we see how the theology of Schleiermacher robbed his followers of praying in the mighty name of Jesus and glorifying God.

In closing, what we have seen in this essay is the damage done by Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theology that stripped the power out of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The amount of cutting and editing of the Gospel by Schleiermacher is frightening. Schleiermacher robbed Christianity of his time the ability to know who the enemy was, therefore he also removed any chance of combating this enemy. Schleiermacher attributed the work of the Devil to God and at the same time he denied the real enemy even existed. He told his followers there is no burning hell that waits for the wicked and assured them that all will be saved in the end. He robbed Christianity of its best proof of all, the proof God Himself provides: prophecy and miracles. He removed from Christianity the weaponry given by God to combat the evil brought on by our enemy. That is the arsenal of prayer. The Christianity of Schleiermacher was just another philosophical system designed to appeal to the broadest number of people in a one size fits all program.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara , Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlos M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, The Greek New Testament, Germany: C.H. Beck, 2001.

Berry, George Ricker, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.

Christian, C.W. ed. Bob E. Patterson, Makers if the Modern Theological Mind, Waco:World Books, 1979.

Clements, Keith, Friedrich Schleiermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, San Francisco:Collins, 1987.

Enns, Paul P., the Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago: Moody Press, 1997.

Gonzalez, Justo L., the Story of Christianity Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present

Day, San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985.

Grenz, Stanley J., and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a

Transitional Age, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992.

Hodge, Charles: Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc.,1997.

Niebuhr, Richard R., Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion: A New Introduction, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Edited by H.R Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, The Christian Faith, T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1928.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Translated by Jon Oman, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1958.

[Bro. Hex]

Speaking of liberal Christianity, here is a paper I wrote in 2008 for a Contemporary Theology class. I researched Friedrich Schleiermacher...I took (the) stance that he was corrupting the gospel as I understood it, when in fact he was living out the gospel as he (knew) it. I was looking at it like my way was the only right way, when (in fact) each person is doing what appears to be the right (thing) for them. This is an important bridge to cross in my opinion.

In my opinion, a very important bridge indeed.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Dan56]

I would say that everyone on the planet since the Bestowal of the Christ Spirit was a Christian effectively....

Since it WAS a bestowal to all who take bodies from that point on...

I don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins....

I don't believe in a virgin birth...

and I most importantly do not believe in any type of imposed Hell whatsoever....

or judgement other than self-imposed...

am I still a liberal Christian? I do believe that Jesus played a very crucial role in the " salvation " of my soul ( I would call it " development " ) and I do recognize the bestowal of the Christ Spirit to be inextricably linked with Jesus's last incarnation.... ( y'all know I'm using that name for clarity )

so am i a liberal christian?

Well, your definitely very liberal. You don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins? Your right, he didn't have too, but he did so that we won't need to die for our sins.

If you only believe in a self-imposed judgment, then I'm guessing your future is in pretty good hands? The difference between liberalism and fundamentalism is that liberals agree with many sayings of Jesus the man, while fundamentalist embrace Jesus as the Christ (Emanuel), the only begotten Son of God. The question then becomes; Is agreeing with the teachings of Jesus enough to gain salvation, or is it a necessity to believe and accept Christ as our personal savior? I believe we are all dead to sin until we believe Jesus paid for our transgressions. We can all appreciate Jesus, but if we deny the cross, we deny Christ.

"...The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1;7-10)

[Pete]

Well, your definitely very liberal. You don't believe Jesus had to die for our sins? Your right, he didn't have too, but he did so that we won't need to die for our sins.

If you only believe in a self-imposed judgment, then I'm guessing your future is in pretty good hands? The difference between liberalism and fundamentalism is that liberals agree with many sayings of Jesus the man, while fundamentalist embrace Jesus as the Christ (Emanuel), the only begotten Son of God. The question then becomes; Is agreeing with the teachings of Jesus enough to gain salvation, or is it a necessity to believe and accept Christ as our personal savior? I believe we are all dead to sin until we believe Jesus paid for our transgressions. We can all appreciate Jesus, but if we deny the cross, we deny Christ.

"...The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1;7-10)

Firstly in response to Cool's essay, I have never read Friedrich Schleiermache and I have come to my conclusions over a period of time. The argumentl stands in that your saying God allows evil so that people will realize a need of him. The debate although bible based also has to stand in relation to the world we live in which is said to be God's creation. How do you explain the New years tidal wave that killed whole families. How would you explain the world wars and others that killed so many and not to mention the world wide plagues that existed in the past that also had no discrimination as to its victims child and adult alike. How do you rationalize that those who fell from such events would now feel a greater reliance upon God and come to know him as loving . How is that so many die in when so young without reaching the concept of self, let alone God.

The other issue for me is with using the bible to justify things and boldly stating that Jesus said this and that when there is so little evidence that many things were actually said. I point to the Jesus seminar that did a study into these assertions and found that they could not support much as genuine http://en.wikipedia....i/Jesus_Seminar . I also point out the problem that existed with the authorship of the NT and the dating of Gospels that were written after the disciples, the supposed as the originators of the works, had died and the fact that they were edited and not seen as Gospel (as the word of God) until the Eight Council (at Carthage) in 397AD.

Its a nice bit of work for an essay Cool but one has to swallow first that the bible is infallible or inerrant on these matters. Something I cannot do with the evidence of suffering that I work with and contradictions that appear to me and others but it has to be said not fundamentalists.

Dan, here you go again with the devil symbol. The thing that fundamentalist are most associated with, accept that God is loving and if you do not obey him you will fry. For many that outlook does not make sense and contradicts the relationship that they personally have with God.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Pete

[Pete]

Firstly in response to Cool's essay, I have never read Friedrich Schleiermache and I have come to my conclusions over a period of time. The argumentl stands in that your saying God allows evil so that people will realize a need of him. The debate although bible based also has to stand in relation to the world we live in which is said to be God's creation. How do you explain the New years tidal wave that killed whole families. How would you explain the world wars and others that killed so many and not to mention the world wide plagues that existed in the past that also had no discrimination as to its victims child and adult alike. How do you rationalize that those who fell from such events would now feel a greater reliance upon God and come to know him as loving . How is that so many die in when so young without reaching the concept of self, let alone God.

The other issue for me is with using the bible to justify things and boldly stating that Jesus said this and that when there is so little evidence that many things were actually said. I point to the Jesus seminar that did a study into these assertions and found that they could not support much as genuine http://en.wikipedia....i/Jesus_Seminar . I also point out the problem that existed with the authorship of the NT and the dating of Gospels that were written after the disciples, the supposed as the originators of the works, had died and the fact that they were edited and not seen as Gospel (as the word of God) until the Eight Council (at Carthage) in 397AD.

Its a nice bit of work for an essay Cool but one has to swallow first that the bible is infallible or inerrant on these matters. Something I cannot do with the evidence of suffering that I work with and contradictions that appear to me and others but it has to be said not fundamentalists.

Dan, here you go again with the devil symbol. The thing that fundamentalist are most associated with, accept that God is loving and if you do not obey him you will fry. For many that outlook does not make sense and contradicts the relationship that they personally have with God.

Other notes on Hell:-

The threat of eternal heaven or eternal hell?

The threat of eternal hell is one of vengeance and serves no part in justice which seeks to reform a person by punishment.

The threat of hell is not justifiable proof in God.

If one does not believe in hell that the threat holds no threat to the non-believer and serves no purpose.

If hell is used to separate evil from good then what would be the point because people are already dead before they get there and there is little point in reviving someone just separate them from others.

Hell is revenge without rehabilitation and therefore serves no purpose that can be described as good and its threat does not serve to justify a belief in a God who said to be good.

To eternally punish someone is not justice and would say more about the sadistic nature of the person inflicting it rather than the good of them.

If we argue that God is all powerful then we have to say that evil exists because God has allowed it or there would not be evil. It therefore follows that God who would have us believe he is only good should be seen to hold some of responsibility for the existence of evil and therefore if punishment for exists for evil then God is also guilty.

If we are to believe that the way is narrow then we are also to believe that most will not make it and therefore we are met with a God who punishes many and gives pleasure for the very few. If that is so then justice is imbalanced against humanity and the very creation of God and which is said to have been created in God's prior knowledge. How does that make God good.

Religions that believe in some sort of punishment for not believing are mainly from Fundamental Christianity or Fundamental Islam. Judaism from which they both declare they grow from. interestingly does not. see:- http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html

Hell in the Bible see:- http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

[Coolhand]

Religions that believe in some sort of punishment for not believing are mainly from Fundamental Christianity or Fundamental Islam. Judaism from which they both declare they grow from. interestingly does not. see:- http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html

Earlier in this discussion I posted a Scripture from Daniel:

12 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wisea will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Da 12:1-3.

Explain how this is not from Judaism in regard to your claim.

[Tsukino_Rei]

Earlier in this discussion I posted a Scripture from Daniel:

12 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wisea will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Da 12:1-3.

Explain how this is not from Judaism in regard to your claim.

simple, in Judaism that passage is understood differently than it is in Fundamentalist Christianity. Quoting passages will not alter the fact that the Jewish interpretation and understanding of the passages holds no relation to the Fundamentalist Christian or Islamic interpretation of the passages.

Hell as a place of eternal torment, as defined by Fundamentalist Christianity, is against God's law, the Law of Jubilee actually. To allow any being to experience eternal torment would require God to sin against Himself.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Tsukino_Rei

[Coolhand]

simple, in Judaism that passage is understood differently than it is in Fundamentalist Christianity. Quoting passages will not alter the fact that the Jewish interpretation and understanding of the passages holds no relation to the Fundamentalist Christian or Islamic interpretation of the passages.

Hell as a place of eternal torment, as defined by Fundamentalist Christianity, is against God's law, the Law of Jubilee actually. To allow any being to experience eternal torment would require God to sin against Himself.

How is this Scripture in Daniel to be understood?

[Pete]

How is this Scripture in Daniel to be understood?

Olam Ha-Ba: The World to Come

The spiritual afterlife is referred to in Hebrew as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come, although this term is also used to refer to the messianic age. The Olam Ha-Ba is another, higher state of being.

In the Mishnah, one rabbi says, "This world is like a lobby before the Olam Ha-Ba. Prepare yourself in the lobby so that you may enter the banquet hall." Similarly, the Talmud says, "This world is like the eve of Shabbat, and the Olam Ha-Ba is like Shabbat. He who prepares on the eve of Shabbat will have food to eat on Shabbat." We prepare ourselves for the Olam Ha-Ba through Torah study and good deeds.

The Talmud states that all Israel has a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. However, not all "shares" are equal. A particularly righteous person will have a greater share in the Olam Ha-Ba than the average person. In addition, a person can lose his share through wicked actions. There are many statements in the Talmud that a particular mitzvah will guarantee a person a place in the Olam Ha-Ba, or that a particular sin will lose a person's share in the Olam Ha-Ba, but these are generally regarded as hyperbole, excessive expressions of approval or disapproval.

Some people look at these teachings and deduce that Jews try to "earn our way into Heaven" by performing the mitzvot. This is a gross mischaracterization of our religion. It is important to remember that unlike some religions, Judaism is not focused on the question of how to get into heaven. Judaism is focused on life and how to live it. Non-Jews frequently ask me, "do you really think you're going to go to Hell if you don't do such-and-such?" It always catches me a bit off balance, because the question of where I am going after death simply doesn't enter into the equation when I think about the mitzvot. We perform the mitzvot because it is our privilege and our sacred obligation to do so. We perform them out of a sense of love and duty, not out of a desire to get something in return. In fact, one of the first bits of ethical advice in Pirkei Avot (a book of the Mishnah) is: "Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward; instead, be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of receiving a reward, and let the awe of Heaven [meaning G-d, not the afterlife] be upon you."

Nevertheless, we definitely believe that your place in the Olam Ha-Ba is determined by a merit system based on your actions, not by who you are or what religion you profess. In addition, we definitely believe that humanity is capable of being considered righteous in G-d's eyes, or at least good enough to merit paradise after a suitable period of purification.

Do non-Jews have a place in Olam Ha-Ba? Although there are a few statements to the contrary in the Talmud, the predominant view of Judaism is that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Statements to the contrary were not based on the notion that membership in Judaism was required to get into Olam Ha-Ba, but were grounded in the observation that non-Jews were not righteous people. If you consider the behavior of the surrounding peoples at the time that the Talmud was written, you can understand the rabbis' attitudes. By the time of Rambam, the belief was firmly entrenched that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba.

Gan Eden and Gehinnom

The place of spiritual reward for the righteous is often referred to in Hebrew as Gan Eden (GAHN ehy-DEHN) (the Garden of Eden). This is not the same place where Adam and Eve were; it is a place of spiritual perfection. Specific descriptions of it vary widely from one source to another. One source says that the peace that one feels when one experiences Shabbat properly is merely one-sixtieth of the pleasure of the afterlife. Other sources compare the bliss of the afterlife to the joy of sex or the warmth of a sunny day. Ultimately, though, the living can no more understand the nature of this place than the blind can understand color.

Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba.

Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse.

This 12-month limit is repeated in many places in the Talmud, and it is connected to the mourning cycles and the recitation of Kaddish. See Life, Death and Mourning.

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

An interesting conversation is also taking place with a Jewish Rabbi on the topic of Daniel which appears to say that the term everlasting is referring to the summing up of this world and not the afterlife.

http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/1261

[Bro. Hex]

How is this Scripture in Daniel (Da 12:1-3.) to be understood?

I don't think that Daniel disproves Pete's point.

Sure, you can find some support for the idea of

an afterlife and the idea of eternal punishment within

Jewish Scripture. But you have to go looking for it.

Ask the average Jew on the street "is there an afterlife?"

and you will get "no" for an answer.

Ask the average Jew "is there such a place as heaven or hell?

and again, you will hear "no".

Ask the average Christian or the average Muslim

these same questions, and you will hear

a resounding "yes".

This Scripture in Daniel is to be understood as

the exception that proves the rule.

I think Pete's point is quite sound.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Bro. Hex]

simple, in Judaism that passage (Da 12:1-3.) is understood differently than it is in Fundamentalist Christianity. Quoting passages will not alter the fact that the Jewish interpretation and understanding of the passages holds no relation to the Fundamentalist Christian or Islamic interpretation of the passages.

Hell as a place of eternal torment, as defined by Fundamentalist Christianity, is against God's law, the Law of Jubilee actually. To allow any being to experience eternal torment would require God to sin against Himself.

Interesting points, Tsukino.

I had not considered this viewpoint.

Thanks for this alternative perspective!

Edited July 5, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Dan56]

Dan, here you go again with the devil symbol. The thing that fundamentalist are most associated with, accept that God is loving and if you do not obey him you will fry. For many that outlook does not make sense and contradicts the relationship that they personally have with God.

My point was that there is no remission of sin accept through Christ. Its not a question of; "if you do not obey him you will fry". I agree with you in the sense that the is of no consequence for Christians who have firmly established their faith in God through Christ. But the devil is of influence in those who are wishy-washy in their belief. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). I'd ask you that if most liberals don't believe Jesus died for our sins, whether or not you also don't believe he was resurrected from the dead? I don't understand how a person professes to be Christian if they are in denial of those 2 essential tenants of the faith?

[RevRainbow]

Hey Hex, what's an "average Jew?"

[Pete]

My point was that there is no remission of sin accept through Christ. Its not a question of; "if you do not obey him you will fry". I agree with you in the sense that the is of no consequence for Christians who have firmly established their faith in God through Christ. But the devil is of influence in those who are wishy-washy in their belief. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16). I'd ask you that if most liberals don't believe Jesus died for our sins, whether or not you also don't believe he was resurrected from the dead? I don't understand how a person professes to be Christian if they are in denial of those 2 essential tenants of the faith?

I think the issue is Dan that you are now heaping on more threats but avoiding the discussions that Hex, Tsukino Rei, and myself have given you about those threats.

See:- #370 #371 #373 #375 #376

Throwing more scriptural threats into the discussion does not prove that they are any the more true.

Hey Hex, what's an "average Jew?"

Who is average anybody. We may have facets that are shared but that does make the totality of any person average (IMO). Yet, it is those shared facets that I believe Hex has referred to and not any single person in particular.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Pete