Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know whether this will help with understanding what the Bible references taken as referring to heaven and Hell are actually about, but let me further complicate matters (and get even further off -topic ) by asking whether the faithful go straight to heaven when they die or whether they lie in the ground awaiting the last Trump? Until you undertsand this, you are never going to understand the references to eternal life and the fires of Gehennah.
(By the way, I'd appreciate something solid that shows that St. Francis did not think Jesus was the only way to God and heaven, and that hell is not the only alternative and that it is not eternal. I mean after all, that was my assertion - that the basis of Christianity is that no one will be saved except for Jesus and the alternative is eternal suffering - and that was what you were refuting...as I understand your responses, anyway.)
Hope this helps.
Look, JerZ, this is not about what institutional Christianity has taught, but about whether what Jesus taught can be discerned and whether it has any validity or not, so put all your objections on a shelf and know that I agree with you about almost all of them. I left the question about St. Francis in to illustrate: it does not matter what he believed about Jesus, divinity, or necessity to believe in him personally or not. What matters is whether he caught the spirit of what Jesus taught and was infected with that vested concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation that IS the message of Jesus.
The current concern is whether OT laws apply to Christians, and applying that touchstone to the question it should be easy to see that NO laws apply as such to Christians. Laws are for coercion, but look at the final line of Paul's description of the fruit of the spirit: "Against such there are no laws." When a Christian lives in that concern then the intent of law to order society is fulfilled, whether a specific law is applied or not.
About those shelved objections: when you take them down and dust them off just consider whether the thrust of the teaching involved is about that concern that I mentioned or about control. If it is about controlling people chalk another one up in the LOSE column for institutional Christianity.
Look, JerZ, this is not about what institutional Christianity has taught, but about whether what Jesus taught can be discerned and whether it has any validity or not, so put all your objections on a shelf and know that I agree with you about almost all of them. I left the question about St. Francis in to illustrate: it does not matter what he believed about Jesus, divinity, or necessity to believe in him personally or not. What matters is whether he caught the spirit of what Jesus taught and was infected with that vested concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation that IS the message of Jesus.
The current concern is whether OT laws apply to Christians, and applying that touchstone to the question it should be easy to see that NO laws apply as such to Christians. Laws are for coercion, but look at the final line of Paul's description of the fruit of the spirit: "Against such there are no laws." When a Christian lives in that concern then the intent of law to order society is fulfilled, whether a specific law is applied or not.
About those shelved objections: when you take them down and dust them off just consider whether the thrust of the teaching involved is about that concern that I mentioned or about control. If it is about controlling people chalk another one up in the LOSE column for institutional Christianity.
Excellent post, nate! The restrictions on reps is really frustrating.
Look, JerZ, this is not about what institutional Christianity has taught, but about whether what Jesus taught can be discerned and whether it has any validity or not, so put all your objections on a shelf and know that I agree with you about almost all of them. I left the question about St. Francis in to illustrate: it does not matter what he believed about Jesus, divinity, or necessity to believe in him personally or not. What matters is whether he caught the spirit of what Jesus taught and was infected with that vested concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation that IS the message of Jesus.
The current concern is whether OT laws apply to Christians, and applying that touchstone to the question it should be easy to see that NO laws apply as such to Christians. Laws are for coercion, but look at the final line of Paul's description of the fruit of the spirit: "Against such there are no laws." When a Christian lives in that concern then the intent of law to order society is fulfilled, whether a specific law is applied or not.
About those shelved objections: when you take them down and dust them off just consider whether the thrust of the teaching involved is about that concern that I mentioned or about control. If it is about controlling people chalk another one up in the LOSE column for institutional Christianity.
I'll rep you for Mystic because I agree. Though I take it a bit further. By sidelining the old Law (and I won't go into the reasons why) Paul supposed that our innate morality 'written on our hearts' would (if guided by faith) make us all little saints.
He was wrong of course, and didn't know why and didn't want to know. He didn't stop to think and just wrung his hands and berated the backsliders.
Just leaving it to instinct will not do and the rules handed down in the NT are often good as ideals, but doubtfully work in practice. Not casting the first stone and not offering to remove the splinter from your brother's eye don't work with those who feel that they are perfectly entitled to cast all the stones they want and simply don't accept that there is a timber baulk in their own eyes.
What I mean is; we are applying human morality all the time - both instinctive and taught. The Bible, new and Old T, can make some useful suggestions, but they must be considered; not accepted on Faith, or you end up with what the faiths are intended to do - validate privilege for one kind of believer, discriminate against all the others, and control, oppress and dominate, again and yet again.
Apologists determine if OT laws apply by if those laws agree with their own personal biases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) by asking whether the faithful go straight to heaven when they die or whether they lie in the ground awaiting the last Trump? Until you undertsand this, you are never going to understand the references to eternal life and the fires of Gehennah.
The restrictions on reps is really frustrating.
because I agree. Though I take it a bit further. By sidelining the old Law (and I won't go into the reasons why) Paul supposed that our innate morality 'written on our hearts' would (if guided by faith) make us all little saints. 
