Playing God - the afterlife

[Undone]

I'm going to make a simple, non-hostile point: "Grasping at" and "huge problem" are very subjective.

 

If someone (not referring to you in the least, knapp) is convinced that Christianity is a falsehood without having considered all angles, so be it. Again, as a Christian, that's where apologetics come in. It's the defense of faith.

 

Again, and this is in no way directed towards you, but my main beef is, and always will be, with secular materialist atheists. Seriously, take a a hard look at the infinitely fine-tuned universe we live in. Take your pick on any given scientific subject...it blows the mind. Rejecting Christianity based on perceived incongruencies? I understand why a person would do that, because I've considered those elements myself. But at least be a deist. That's my condensed rant on the subject, at any rate.

[knapplc]

The intricacies of the universe are no more an endorsement of Christianity than they are of any other religion. Each religion has a creation myth, and each religion could say that the intricate nature of the universe lends credibility to the existence of their god. And yet, there is no evidence of any god. God is not necessary for this universe to exist. The science works - can't not work, actually - without a god. I've used that "balanced finely on the edge of a knife" argument myself to explain the intricacies of the universe around us, but the fact is, the balance nature finds for itself made those intricacies, not "god."

 

And I have considered all angles. I was Christian - and devout at that - for 40 years. Spent time in the church administration, attended uncountable bible studies, led bible studies for years, volunteer work all over the place, you name it. I've given sermons, I've taught VBS, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "rejecting Christianity based on perceived incongruencies." I, personally, rejected Christianity based on a progression of logical steps, none of which led to Jesus being a god. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of what you can prove, and you cannot prove that Jesus is God any more than you can prove unicorns don't exist.

 

Far more dubious would be to accept Christianity without proof, knowing that you are Christian by an accident of birth more than anything else. Were you born in Saudi Arabia, you would not be Christian, you'd be Muslim. This is a truth you cannot ignore, and that should not lead you to accept the fact that there is a god, it should lead you to question the veracity of any god. Being a theist isn't meritorious in the absence of proof. It's the acceptance of what you've been told, often blindly (although not necessarily), and it flies in the face of perceivable fact.

 

Further, without that proof, you have nothing but the word of others, "sinful" humans in Christian parlance, to rely on. Christianity itself tells you not to trust itself, simply because the knowledge you're given comes from Man. Were God to be here, doling out wisdom, that would be different, but he's not.

 

I could go on and on. This is something I've invested years of my life in.

[Undone]

The intricacies of the universe are no more an endorsement of Christianity than they are of any other religion.

I actually agree with this. I was trying to go out of my way to point that out with my deist comment. To say that Christianity is the correct "religious" alternative is a separate discussion, which we don't have to have here.

 

I've used that "balanced finely on the edge of a knife" argument myself to explain the intricacies of the universe around us, but the fact is, the balance nature finds for itself made those intricacies, not "god."

This is also where intelligent design research enters the ring. ID does not claim to be rooted solely in Christianity. Again, that's where theological apologetics come in.

[rawhide]

Among all the billions and billions of stars, there was life. Anywhere else???? Radio, TV, microwave signals received??? Just us??? So far, it's just us. So I've got my faith and what's in my heart. Other than blood, muscle and tendons.

[ZRod]

Among all the billions and billions of stars, there was life. Anywhere else???? Radio, TV, microwave signals received??? Just us??? So far, it's just us. So I've got my faith and what's in my heart. Other than blood, muscle and tendons.

The universe is a pretty expansive place, takes more than a few hundred years for waves of any form to travel across it. Even the catholic church itself acknowledges that there could be alien life. Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms for them. And just remember when you look at those stars it's like going back in time, we view the nearest star 4 years in the past.

[Landlord]

Among all the billions and billions of stars, there was life. Anywhere else???? Radio, TV, microwave signals received??? Just us??? So far, it's just us. So I've got my faith and what's in my heart. Other than blood, muscle and tendons.

The universe is a pretty expansive place, takes more than a few hundred years for waves of any form to travel across it. Even the catholic church itself acknowledges that there could be alien life. Of course that opens up a whole other can of worms for them. And just remember when you look at those stars it's like going back in time, we view the nearest star 4 years in the past.

 

 

What cans do you suppose it opens up? As a Christian, I don't see how extra-terrestrial life would be incompatible with anything I believe. Especially if they showed up one day and worshiped Jesus

[ZRod]

Just random thoughts off the top of my head:

Are they free from sin or aren't they? If they are declared free from sin, and they commit what we consider sins what the heck does that mean? Will they be treated as animals or equals? After all they likely won't be human so what from the bible applies to them? We as humans have a tendency to treat a new civilization of our own specieas as savage and inhuman. What about their religion, if they have one? If they did it would be in serious conflict with ours if it wasn't Christianity (more than likely not, since Jesus died here on Earth) and how could god just leave them out of the loop?

[JJ Husker]

Might have to define what "accepting" the invitation means. Surely, repeatedly claiming that you don't exist, that the man called Jesus is not your son, was not immaculately conceived, that your book is simply the work of drunken monks, etc. would be some sort of sign that the invitation was not accepted.

 

It's really not terribly complicated. If they accept it, it's simply a decision to believe that it exists, that it is what it claims to be and to claim it. What confuses people, and I don't understand why, is that there aren't any rules, caveats or stipulations other than that. The reason there aren't any is because there is no need for them - if you believe it and accept it, your life reflects that as a natural response and outpouring of what you place your faith, hope and trust in. The things this results in are not requirements, but responses.

 

It's just like being in love. If I am in love with someone, I want what's best for them, I am honest with them, I look out for them and cherish them. I don't do these things as requirements to love that person, but they very naturally occur because of my love for them. Obviously, we would all agree, if I tell my wife I really love her, and then flirt and have inappropriate relationships with other women and expect her to still love me (even though she will), that is not true love on my part.

 

 

How can they accept your invitation if they don't believe you exist?

 

 

They can't, unfortunately.

 

I am not claiming it takes more than that. However, it also is not as simple as stating that you believe Jesus died for you. As you pointed out, there are a whole bunch of other things that need to happen and be reflected in your life that are a result of really accepting that invitation. I've read enough of your posts to know that you understand this but, for people who have not read your posts, people on fence (or the other side of it), or people that have just not been exposed to the message due to circumstance or purposely ignoring it, saying all you have to do is say yes to the invitation doesn't really cover it. You have to understand what you are saying yes to and really believe it and then your life will reflect that acceptance. In my mind, that is quite a bit more involved than simply accepting the invitation.

[Landlord]

Might have to define what "accepting" the invitation means. Surely, repeatedly claiming that you don't exist, that the man called Jesus is not your son, was not immaculately conceived, that your book is simply the work of drunken monks, etc. would be some sort of sign that the invitation was not accepted.

 

It's really not terribly complicated. If they accept it, it's simply a decision to believe that it exists, that it is what it claims to be and to claim it. What confuses people, and I don't understand why, is that there aren't any rules, caveats or stipulations other than that. The reason there aren't any is because there is no need for them - if you believe it and accept it, your life reflects that as a natural response and outpouring of what you place your faith, hope and trust in. The things this results in are not requirements, but responses.

 

It's just like being in love. If I am in love with someone, I want what's best for them, I am honest with them, I look out for them and cherish them. I don't do these things as requirements to love that person, but they very naturally occur because of my love for them. Obviously, we would all agree, if I tell my wife I really love her, and then flirt and have inappropriate relationships with other women and expect her to still love me (even though she will), that is not true love on my part.

 

 

How can they accept your invitation if they don't believe you exist?

 

 

They can't, unfortunately.

 

I am not claiming it takes more than that. However, it also is not as simple as stating that you believe Jesus died for you. As you pointed out, there are a whole bunch of other things that need to happen and be reflected in your life that are a result of really accepting that invitation. I've read enough of your posts to know that you understand this but, for people who have not read your posts, people on fence (or the other side of it), or people that have just not been exposed to the message due to circumstance or purposely ignoring it, saying all you have to do is say yes to the invitation doesn't really cover it. You have to understand what you are saying yes to and really believe it and then your life will reflect that acceptance. In my mind, that is quite a bit more involved than simply accepting the invitation.

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree. The sentence I bolded isn't compatible with Scripture as I understand it, but maybe you just worded it poorly. Those things do not need to happen, because if they did that would make them requirements, when Scripture says we are saved by faith alone, through grace alone from Jesus Christ alone. However, they do always follow as a result of salvation.

 

The main thing I think we're at odds at here is that I don't think you are allowing the Holy Spirit to do His job properly. I used to get stuck on having to explain through all of this, like you are doing, until I came to the realization that people don't need to understand all those things. When Jesus called the disciples to follow Him, He didn't give them a breakdown of the doctrines of salvation, nor did he give them a theological quiz. He just told them to follow, and somewhere along the way they believed and understood, because later Jesus asks Peter who he thinks He is, and Peter says "you are the Christ."

 

It is, quite beautifully and divinely wonderful, that simple. The reason I believe saying yes to the invitation (assuming it is a heartfelt and sincere yes) is enough to cover it is because the Holy Spirit is the one who does the covering, and the one who does the convicting and leading to understanding and wisdom. I can try all I might to make sure people understand ever tenant of how to be saved and become a disciple of Jesus, but that information can not regenerate them as a new creation.

[knapplc]

The interpretation of scripture that Landlord posted above is what I was always taught. Humans have free will, but that free will does not empower us to do any "work" that will get us into heaven. "Works" are a by-product of faith, not a means to the end of salvation.

 

Humans have free will to turn away from God ("negative free will" as I've been taught) so we can turn away from God, but we cannot turn to God, insasmuchas we cannot decide today "I'm going to believe, and be saved." The actual factual salvation comes from Christ's sacrifice on the cross and the Holy Spirit coming into your heart. Those two things are only accomplished by God's grace, and nothing else - certainly not anything the person does. The act of "turning to God" is simply no longer turning away from God, and again not an act, but the absence of action - the absence of actively turning away from God.

 

We cannot save ourselves. Christ and the Holy Spirit accomplish this. So the statement, "...there are a whole bunch of other things that need to happen..." is not Biblically accurate, nor, I believe, is it Biblically supportable.

[Undone]

Just random thoughts off the top of my head:

Are they free from sin or aren't they? If they are declared free from sin, and they commit what we consider sins what the heck does that mean? Will they be treated as animals or equals? After all they likely won't be human so what from the bible applies to them? We as humans have a tendency to treat a new civilization of our own specieas as savage and inhuman. What about their religion, if they have one? If they did it would be in serious conflict with ours if it wasn't Christianity (more than likely not, since Jesus died here on Earth) and how could god just leave them out of the loop?

 

Just going to post a "light" reply to this, for fun.

 

C.S. Lewis was a sizable proponent of the compatibility of other worlds and Christianity. So much so that he wrote his "space trilogy." Pretty great books. And the crazy part is that he ties in almost every single element of the questions you posed above. Just thought it was noteworthy.

[knapplc]

I've read those C.S. Lewis books. Heavy on sophistry, light on substance. For someone concerned with the subjective, I wouldn't think these would be worth mentioning.

[Undone]

ha, referring to me as being concerned with the subjective (in light of my post #31)? Or C.S.?

 

"Heavy on sophistry, light on substance" is generally how I would describe any good fiction book. It's fiction. However, I'd probably disagree that the space trilogy is light on substance. It's an extrapolation of many concepts, probably the greatest of which is 'original sin.' It's interpretive on the part of Lewis, no doubt about that. But both interesting and stimulating, nonetheless.

[knapplc]

C.S. Lewis wrote from a very subjective standpoint. He wore his Christianity on his sleeve, and promoted it throughout his writings, in subtle and very much not-so-subtle ways. So using him work as an example of how to explain something that, as of yet, has no explanation, would be kind of odd in light of your concern with my use of the words "grasping at" and "huge problem."

[Undone]

This is where internet dialogue just plain sucks - would much rather have this conversation over a beer, in person. I must not have put the right amount of "keyboard inflection" into #31. I'm not being facetious about that either.

 

C.S. Lewis wrote from a very subjective standpoint. He wore his Christianity on his sleeve, and promoted it throughout his writings, in subtle and very much not-so-subtle ways.

Agreed -- this is a pretty accurate description of Lewis.

 

So using him work as an example of how to explain something that, as of yet, has no explanation, would be kind of odd in light of your concern with my use of the words "grasping at" and "huge problem."

Erm...I agree with your correlation and point. And I'm not even sure why I'm defending this, but I'll point out that I intentionally gave post #41 the tagline of "Just going to post a "light" reply to this, for fun." with that very standpoint in mind. I didn't have any plans of using Perelandra to give an "explanation" to ZRod's post.

 

It's all good.