On non-belief and the existence of God

[Michael]

As a Christian I trust Jesus doesn't mess things up. If Jesus were just a man I don't think I could have the same trust in following him.

Sorry if I gave the impression that it meant I didn't think I (or other Christians) could mess things up. History is quite clear on that!

[Neo-Scholastic]

In His Glorified state, the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is not just another good man; but rather the Ideal of Human Perfection, i.e. the complete unity of Divine Love and Divine Wisdom.

According to whom?

Emanuel Swedenborg taught this doctrine; however, you can find essentially the same doctrine in the works of the Schoolmen.

…we have a tendency of messing things up…also, why would a good person reject the personification of goodness? …

Perhaps this is what is meant by Jesus saying "he is the way", that it is his example that matters,… Does Jesus' transcendence constitute the way we are to follow or does it mark him as a being above others to be worshiped?

The second reflects the fact that Christ is the Divine Logos. Thus the way to the Father is not by following the external and accidental aspects of the man; but rather, being led by the essential spiritual Truth made manifest through Him.

...Hang on, so are you [Michael] essentially saying that knowledge of Jesus/God isn't required to gain access to heaven?

I want to answer this, not to put words into Michael’s mouth, but to contribute my own thoughts on your question.

Salvation is not an either/or proposition. In both Catholic (correct me if I’m wrong Michael) and New Church doctrine, both Heaven and hell have degrees to reflect either: 1) the maximum amount of happiness that can be attained by the blessed OR 2) the level of corruption present in the wicked. It is all based on how much light a person is capable of receiving; regardless of when the light is received. Thus if a person is incapable and resistant to receiving the Light of Truth during their earthly existence, they will not be able to receive it in the afterlife. Even though ‘the heathens’ failed to hear the Gospel truth, they may still move towards the Light of Truth in the afterlife, because the direction of their earthly life was already heading in that direction.

Missionary work remains important, because salvation is more than a one-time confession based and affirmation of a specific doctrine. Missionaries use the Gospel to deliver people from the false religious beliefs that foster strife and unnecessary bondage to false doctrines in this life. This allows the newly saved, as a community of believers, to bring healing, education, and love into this world.

…If we remember that God is omniscient, then he would know precisely how to reveal himself such that we wouldn't be mistaken about his existence… it would still make a world of difference … if God undeniably showed himself. That way, those who lack the will to act on this knowledge are *absolutely* responsible for the life they've lead. … it's unjust to punish the unbeliever to an eternity of damnation just because God didn't make it clear…

And why must it be undeniable clear and not simply clear enough?

[Whateverist]

As a Christian I trust Jesus doesn't mess things up. If Jesus were just a man I don't think I could have the same trust in following him.

Sorry if I gave the impression that it meant I didn't think I (or other Christians) could mess things up. History is quite clear on that!

But isn't it a fallible human being which must decide whether Jesus were just a man and whether it was possible to trust in him even if he were just a man? There doesn't seem to be any way to get from fallible human being to the correct choice of what is infallible.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But isn't it a fallible human being which must decide whether Jesus were just a man and whether it was possible to trust in him even if he were just a man? There doesn't seem to be any way to get from fallible human being to the correct choice of what is infallible.

That has always been case. Making choices with lack of complete certainty is essential to the human condition. I personally believe that the mercy of the Lord will take into consideration all the factors on which someone based our choice. Even still people are responsible for how they have made their choice: rationally, honestly, selfishly, prejudicially, or otherwise.

[Michael]

As a Christian I trust Jesus doesn't mess things up. If Jesus were just a man I don't think I could have the same trust in following him.

Sorry if I gave the impression that it meant I didn't think I (or other Christians) could mess things up. History is quite clear on that!

But isn't it a fallible human being which must decide whether Jesus were just a man and whether it was possible to trust in him even if he were just a man? There doesn't seem to be any way to get from fallible human being to the correct choice of what is infallible.

Yes, I certainly accept that there's always a fallible component (I could be wrong). But, if Jesus is who I think he is then he is still a far better person to follow (a far better 'King') than any person, I believe.

---

Chad. It's interesting that you mention degrees of heaven and hell. My understanding is that actually goes back to Jewish belief in the time just before Jesus (though it is still not in our Deuterocanonical books, or those you might call the Apocrypha). But it does seem to be implicit in Paul's writings, where there are different levels of reward. Certainly medieval thinkers seem to have a lot of fun with it, especially Dante.

Another contentious, but relevant, point we might want to mention is the question of whether there is a temporary state where people work out their final salvation, much like Scrooge in Dicken's wonderful Christmas Carol. Orthodox and Catholic Churches allow for this, though with somewhat different theology, and that is one possible route Catholic theologians go for people who have not wholeheartedly rejected God, but who still have some stuff to work through (which is probably the case for many of us). It's all quite speculative it seems. I do rather like C.S.Lewis's the Great Divorce and his thoughts on heaven and hell.

[Whateverist]

Yes, I certainly accept that there's always a fallible component (I could be wrong). But, if Jesus is who I think he is then he is still a far better person to follow (a far better 'King') than any person, I believe.

But what if the only way to follow Jesus was by relying on the same transcendent source? It is the search for a king or someone to be ruled over by that I question. If there were a god and that god created life in the hope of one day enjoying the company of another that was capable of being a true thou to Him, wouldn't he be disappointed if we settled instead on worship? I think a worthy god would rather we go wrong in our own way so that when we finally go right, it will be ourselves that have been transformed and not just the outer appearance of our behavior.

[Michael]

Yes, Whateverist, but I think true transformation is at the heart of the Christian faith. Scripture puts poetically as a heart of stone being replaced with a heart of flesh. And the Judeo-Christian narrative is also one of growth. And we're not just called to worship, but we're called to be co-creators with God, building Jerusalem, the light on top of the hill. Indeed wasn't that the prime driver and belief of the Founding Fathers?

[Welsh cake]

Welsh. Well, to put it in more concrete terms, it is the choice of healing hurts or causing hurts, feeding the poor or exploiting them,

Michael, you're not addressing my questions at all. :S

[ShaMan]

<snip>

...if Jesus is who I think he is...

'IF' being the key word in that sentence.


Too bad so many people have been slaughtered over something so uncertain. I'd be much less disgusted with a few dozen million executions if this god guy would show himself.... NOT!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Too bad so many people have been slaughtered over something so uncertain. I'd be much less disgusted with a few dozen million executions if this god guy would show himself.... NOT!

Same old atheistic inability to distiguish between the profanation of religion for political ends and actions motivated by piety. (Yawn)