Christianity in the modern world.

philologos

maitri wrote: »

Interesting. Love your neighbour as yourself - does this perhaps also mean "see yourself in your neighbour"?

Indeed I see myself as being no better than anyone else, we have all fallen and I have fallen into sin. However the best thing I can do to reconcile this is follow Christ Jesus.

maitri wrote:

What does "faith in Him" mean to you? Is it a feeling of trust? Of some quality of Goodness perhaps? Of Meaning? Unity?

All the things you have described are correct. Faith in Him to me basically is trying to keep in accordance with the Gospel and the earlier books of the Bible. No, the quality of goodness is never of me. I am never good, it is through Christ that I am deemed good if at all.

maitri wrote:

That's a rare and admirable quality!

I see evangelism slightly different from many of my brothers and sisters of Christ would. It is through practising what we preach that we truly establish Christianity in the mind of others instead of judgement. We should be willing to answer all concerns others have for Jesus Christ and hopefully explain to them what He means, not by compulsion but by interest.

Archeron

Jakkass wrote: »

I see evangelism slightly different from many of my brothers and sisters of Christ would. It is through practising what we preach that we truly establish Christianity in the mind of others instead of judgement. We should be willing to answer all concerns others have for Jesus Christ and hopefully explain to them what He means, not by compulsion but by interest.

Thats a very interesting statement. I have, as a Christian never found Christianity to be welcoming of those with inquisitive and questioning minds; in fact I always found it quite rigid. Perhaps though, that is because I have been researching more the writings upon which it is built, rather than the actual practice of it within society.
That is why the concept of Buddhism intrigues me, as Buddhism seems to ask as many questions as it seeks to answer, and I feel that is a good thing, I think we must always continue to question ourselves and our beliefs if we ever hope to find the Ultimate truth and I feel that the stagnancy of Catholicism in Ireland is what has made me seek other answers (and questions).

philologos

Archeron wrote: »

Thats a very interesting statement. I have, as a Christian never found Christianity to be welcoming of those with inquisitive and questioning minds; in fact I always found it quite rigid. Perhaps though, that is because I have been researching more the writings upon which it is built, rather than the actual practice of it within society.
That is why the concept of Buddhism intrigues me, as Buddhism seems to ask as many questions as it seeks to answer, and I feel that is a good thing, I think we must always continue to question ourselves and our beliefs if we ever hope to find the Ultimate truth and I feel that the stagnancy of Catholicism in Ireland is what has made me seek other answers (and questions).

Hmm, I'm truly sorry to hear of your difficulties within the Catholic Church. Indeed I think that we should continually question our faith, and continually build on our faith in apologetics through discussions among other means. There are various things about Christianity that I wouldn't know were I not prompted to seek answers during discussions with other people. So I believe that others have indeed played an active role in the building of my own personal faith even if they did not intend to do so in the first place. I'm not a Catholic, but I consider myself purely Christian. It is the message that matters not the tiny frictions that exist.

I for one think that we must respect the questions of others in relation to Christianity if they are posed in a respectable manner. i.e not blaspheming against God or Jesus intentionally, and not referring to useless terms such as the FSM. Any genuine and serious question should be dealt with in a kind and loving manner.

MeditationMom

by Archeron - Hi Maitri!
Could the total loss of ego lead to a blinding of oneself to the "I" perspective, and possibly lead to the symptoms you list above? Is it possible, to look at (or through??) the "you" perspective to the point where doing good unto others overrules the need to do good for oneself?
Would it be considered a negative part of the ego to even ask that question?

The idea of Ego and Ego destruction or relaxation as Maitri suggests, gets very confusing and I thought I'd explain what I can in the few minutes I have today -

Ego - in spiritual terms - rather than Freudian terms - simply means the "I", in other words, everything! we identify ourselves with. In Maitri's example of being too caring of others - that is her Ego, as in "I am a very caring person". This Ego can be destroyed - or relaxed - by being a little more selfish. It will feel uncomfortable and dangerous. Just as uncomfortable as it would be for a "selfish tough guy" who is identified with that, suddenly to be kind and nurturing.

So it is not about good and bad. It is about not identifying with anything. At the point of enlightenment all that remains is "I am" - and even that is saying to much - as in - the Tao that can be said is not the Tao.

We develop our personalities and Ego as a survival mechanisms. If we do the opposite it is a good exercise, but if we then identify with "now I am a person with a healthy balance of caring and selfishness" we are just identified with something new and just have a new Ego we need to dissolve - that is if we are interested in Enlightenment.

As far as the I/You perspective goes, it is putting oneself into someone else's shoes, which automatically leads to compassion. It does require a setting aside of one's own "I" to do so. This compassion is different from self sacrifice or martyrdom - and it is easily confused, especially for Christians. The problem for many Christians is not that there is anything wrong with self sacrifice, but that Christians often end up with a huge identification about it and it is hard to dissolve.

A Korean master once told me that before enlightenment "I" is not "You". Once we become enlightened "I" is "You". After enlightenment - in other words, when we also do not identify with enlightenment, once again "I" is not "You". At that point compassion is absolute.

Not identifying with enlightenment is hilarious as it means not to identify with non-identification. That's when the Buddha belly shakes with laughter.

Asiaprod

maitri wrote: »

Thanks for your kind answer Asia , and sorry that it has taken me so long answering your post. I have been pondering about it, not beeing quite sure what are my own views about this.

Join the gang:)

Maybe this is true. It makes sense. Yet I usually don't really know what I have learned. Only that I'm left with the feeling that the process of both struggeling with all my might and giving up when I see I can't fix things seems to be very valuable in some strange way. Maybe it has something to do with acceptance - accepting the initial resistance in me about the situation as well as the "giving up"... I don't know if this makes sense.

It makes lots of sense. I don't think we are meant to fight every battle we come across. For me its about learning to choose wisely which battle to fight. I get that wisdom through the trials and tribulations I experience being a buddhist;) I learn, I absorb, and I move on. I get hurt, I feel joy, and I learn. Some times life does suck, and very often unjust things happen. But usually in retrospect, if I have looked at it from all sides, I generally understand what happened.

I don't know about killing the ego. To me it seems like an aggressive approach - too aggressive for me, at least.
Right now I feel like treating poor ego with compassion, it is already so full of self-hatred and self judgement which can easily turn to hatred or at least judgment of others.

You are very correct, and thanks. Kill was a completely inappropriate term to use. What I meant to say was subdue it to a point where it might as well seem dead in how it you let it effect your life.:o
You know, to this day, I treasure meeting you in Tokyo out of the blue. We met on this board, became friends, and actually got to meet. We even held the first "Buddhist Beers" in downtown Tokyo, with curry. Pretty amazing. And my lasting impression, you are a smart, nice person.:D Hope that helped to begin, and I use the term correctly here, kill your self-hatred and self judgement. You are what you are. Remember the "You" bit? Look to see how others perceive you before you begin to judge your own worth.;)

The "you" perspective seems very important if we want to have real contact with other people, and I think we all - on some level - long for that.
I am happy that you say that it's important "to also look at them through the "You" perspective", since I feel a need for the "I" perspective as well, a need to be taken seriously by myself perhaps ...;)

I did say you were smart.

You see, I remember a time where I tried always letting other peoples needs come before my own because that was part of my ideology at that time and I didn't think my own needs were important

That is a major mistake we all make. The most important person on this planet right now to you, is you. Buddhism's main directive is to advance oneself. We do, do a lot of that, by helping others. But there is a lot of other stuff we also have to do.

Maybe there is also some level of contact even beyond "you" and "I"?

The "Us"? The highest?

bogwalrus

i see alot of myself in what maitri is saying. i always seem to put others before myself which can then leave me stressed and depressed. I have learned quite a bit from your explanation of the "i" and the "you". it makes plenty of sense and thats something i can be aware of now.

I did always believe that the ego is very necessary to live socialy with your neighbours. in saying this though Is the ego not responsible for lots of good in the world? Like lets take for example bob geldof. he has a massive ego and i bet alot of it drove him to do live aid etc. And to be honest you dont see many ego-less people doing things like that for the world (even if live aid was somewhat corrupted but im just giving an example).

can the search for enlightenment also be very selfish? and therfore the "I" being the reason for enlightenment?

take care:)

MeditationMom

by bogwalrus - can the search for enlightenment also be very selfish? and therfore the "I" being the reason for enlightenment?

The search for enlightenment is selfish, like any other pursuit, which doesn't make it "bad". After all, searching for enlightenment could be thought of as "better" than searching for power, fortune and fame. I think what you are referring to is the search for enlightenment when it actually is nothing but a disguised form of searching for power, fortune and fame.

Can the "I" be the reason for enlightenment?

It would be like asking:"Are the tight boots I wear all day, that are two sizes too small, the reason for my feet feeling good at night when I am barefoot in my bed?" In other words the "I" is what constrains us into much less than what we are in truth - our true nature.

Replacing a small, fearful, suffering "I" with a confident, bold, fun-loving "I" is maybe freedom, but not liberation. It actually can be a bigger problem. One may happily take those tight boots off - but comfortable, well fitted boots? One may never go barefoot and enjoy the morning dew in the fresh spring grass.

So "shoes" are not the reason for "barefoot", the same way "I" is not the reason for "enlightenment". But the mind makes that connection. The natural state is described as "foot bare of shoe". Just like enlightenment is described as ego-less. To say "I am enlightened" is like saying "Shoes are barefoot".

DublinWriter

MeditationMom wrote: »

The search for enlightenment is selfish, like any other pursuit, which doesn't make it "bad".

Well, therein lies the inner truth of Buddhism that is the seed of its core philosophy.

If you actively desire to achieve Nirvana, then you never will, as to achieve Nirvana is to be in a state of total desirelessness and selflessness.

This is why the Koans were devised a teaching aid; to illustrate the initially paradoxical nature of the Buddha's teachings and that the conscious and rational mind must first be obliterated in order to not understand, but be at one with them.

bogwalrus

DublinWriter wrote: »

Well, therein lies the inner truth of Buddhism that is the seed of its core philosophy.

If you actively desire to achieve Nirvana, then you never will, as to achieve Nirvana is to be in a state of total desirelessness and selflessness.

Enlightenment can then just come to you if you are in the right frame of mind and not necessarily when you meditate. The decision for one to meditate to achieve enlightenment is then destructive and you never will yeah?

if so Meditation should then be engaged selflessly for the calming of the world and not neccessarily you....am i right? having a pure heart and soul and a great sense of realisation of things is then necessary to even begin to be on the steps to enlightenment.

Has anyone ever heard of Emaho? he is a very spiritual man that is believed to be an enlightened person. A friend of mine has been to his seminars and says they are life changing experiences. He had two in Cork last year and does them all over europe. Supposedly he was a very normal man who was on a train to work one day and he just collapsed and woke up with a sense of heightened realisation about life. i could not find his biography on the net but found a site of his at www.emaho.ws

i think i will go to see him the next time he comes. Out of curiosity really on what he teaches.

Asiaprod

bogwalrus wrote: »

Enlightenment can then just come to you if you are in the right frame of mind and not necessarily when you meditate..

That is what I have been taught. Also that many time during the course of a day one is indeed in an Enlightend state. The difficult bit is to stay in the Enlightend state all of the day.

The even more difficult bit is to try to explain what Enlightenment is. I have often wondered, if we don't know what Enlightenment is, how do we know when we have attained it? Is it an actual state, or is it just a word we use to explain something we do not know, but will achieve automatically so to speak if we continue to advance ourselves.
What do people here think Enlightenment is?

maitri

There are so many interesting posts in this thread now to muse on. Thank you everybody!

Asia: Thank you so much for that kind and encouraging "pep-talk" (right expression?). It actually helped. :)

Best wishes from maitri

stomprockin

Asiaprod wrote: »

That is what I have been taught. Also that many time during the course of a day one is indeed in an Enlightend state. The difficult bit is to stay in the Enlightend state all of the day.

The even more difficult bit is to try to explain what Enlightenment is. I have often wondered, if we don't know what Enlightenment is, how do we know when we have attained it? Is it an actual state, or is it just a word we use to explain something we do not know, but will achieve automatically so to speak if we continue to advance ourselves.
What do people here think Enlightenment is?

Hi asia
i will try and explain what i think Enlightenment is as im still a student of buddhism.
Enlightenment basically is to be free or to be Awakened to everyday life and to realizing the true nature life.Allso to be free from the ignorance, desires, and craving and Selfishness in life.When you realize them your enlightend and you see life in a much different way!

Im sure some of the more experienced people on here will explain it in better detail but hope it helps.:)

paddy...........

Asiaprod

stomprockin wrote: »

Im sure some of the more experienced people on here will explain it in better detail but hope it helps.:)

I am interested in in everyone's take on it, thanks for your answer.:)

bogwalrus

Enlightenment for me seems to be a searching for rather than a result. It is human nature i belief to keep looking and finding be it for money, self satisfaction, happiness or other, and the searching is what is the living.

I think if enlightenment means significant change and a destruction of the curent you then i think that in itself it is destructive. i wonder if the enlightened man could play music as beautiful as a symphony orchestra, or could the enlightened man be capable of painting such abstract but meaningful art. I believe there to be a great line between what is human and what a human should strive to be.

I can not imagine being one with the universe but what i can imagine is realising things and seeing things from perspectives that i have not yet seen from. I feel (from what i have learned here) that enlightenment is a stage a person arrives at after subcounsciously figuring out all the filters that are present in this world such as society and our emotions. There is nothing conscious about enlightenment, knowledge is in fact the enemy where if you know something you will have to eventually un-know it. As i have said above it is human nature to keep searching and the searching is what makes things worth it, not the end result.

maitri

Asiaprod wrote: »

What do people here think Enlightenment is?

For me, right now: Enlightenment is what we really are when we have removed (transcended?) all the veils that cover our heart.
Enlightenment is where we are truely at home. Even when we hide it from ourself and the world, Enlightenment is always there.

(I have borrowed this way of seeing it from the Sufis).

The "veils" perhaps consist of the clinging to the impermanent things we see as our "I" and indentify with - like our talents, our success (or failure), looks, image, political opinion, religious dogmas etc...


PS: I'm not an expert on this.

philologos

Asiaprod wrote: »

What do people here think Enlightenment is?

Personally I would see it as coming to one with God through the Holy Spirit, and when we are most focused on the Gospel and in what we need to do. This involves putting all else aside except for God in thought.

LaVidaLoca

"Personally I would see it as coming to one with God through the Holy Spirit, and when we are most focused on the Gospel and in what we need to do. This involves putting all else aside except for God in thought. "

And I would see that as the excact opposite of enlightenment. Enlightenment is when one comes closer to truth or to a way of thinking that will allow you to percieve truth: When you are free of all illusions about things and close to seeing them as they truly are. One sure fire way to avoid thinking about truth is to read the Bible.

MeditationMom

by Jakkass - Personally I would see it as coming to one with God through the Holy Spirit, and when we are most focused on the Gospel and in what we need to do. This involves putting all else aside except for God in thought.

Do you mean 'as coming to be one with God' ?

Christians are so allergic to Christian language because it sounds so hollow after decades of "brainwashing", but I find your way of putting it quite well said. Maybe it is the humility with which you say it that struck me. The problem of course is that we are trying to define something we don't know what it is - Enlightenment - with two other things we don't know what they are - God - and the Holy Spirit.

Considering the difficulty I had the other day trying to describe childbirth to my daughter - in the end everything - God, Enlightenment, Holy Spirit, the color blue, Love, kidney stones.....you know it when it is there.

philologos

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

"Personally I would see it as coming to one with God through the Holy Spirit, and when we are most focused on the Gospel and in what we need to do. This involves putting all else aside except for God in thought. "

And I would see that as the excact opposite of enlightenment. Enlightenment is when one comes closer to truth or to a way of thinking that will allow you to percieve truth: When you are free of all illusions about things and close to seeing them as they truly are. One sure fire way to avoid thinking about truth is to read the Bible.

In your opinion, the Bible is untrue. For us Christians it's of paramount importance, and is not only seen as the truth, but the ultimate truth.

MeditationMom wrote:

Christians are so allergic to Christian language because it sounds so hollow after decades of "brainwashing", but I find your way of putting it quite well said. Maybe it is the humility with which you say it that struck me. The problem of course is that we are trying to define something we don't know what it is - Enlightenment - with two other things we don't know what they are - God - and the Holy Spirit.

I don't think we are allergic to Christian language at all, infact there isn't much Christian language to be had. The Holy Spirit is a presence that draws us closer to God the Father, ideally. It's described in sections of the Bible, that is the source really. Hmm, I guess not everyone knows God or the Holy Spirit, but the question that Asiaprod put was a rather subjective one if I recall asking what we made of enlightenment. Although my version of what you refer to as enlightenment is not as in Buddhism, doesn't mean it's any more or less valid ultimately.

maitri

Hi:)

Since we have been discussing earlier in this thread if all religions are the same or not, I find it interesting that they were actually debating the same question 400 BC:

Sakka asked the Buddha:
”Do different religious teachers head for the same goal or practice the same discipline or aspire to the same thing?”
“No, Sakka, they do not. And why? This world is made up of myriad different states of being, and people adhere to one or another of these states and becoming tenaciously possessive of them, saying, ‘This alone is true, everything else is false.’ It is like a territory they believe is theirs. So all religious teachers do not teach the same goal or the same discipline, nor do they aspire to the same thing.
“But if you fin truth in any religion or philosophy, then accept that truth without prejudice.”

(Digha Nikaya)

On one level I think it is right that that not all religions or philosophies teach the same “goal”.

Yet I believe the deep basic qualities people seek in religions, philosophies (as well as in other aspects of life) are more or less the same. I believe they are very basic qualities like: Peace, Meaning, Security, Freedom, Self-acceptance, Happiness, Union, Realisation of our potentials etc…

MeditationMom

A few clarifications about things I said earlier -

When I said :"Christians are allergic to Christian language" - I meant former Christians who moved on to other religions because they were disappointed or even traumatized during their Christian upbringing, and therefore went to find inspiration elsewhere. I have come across many former Christians who were indeed allergic to words like "grace", "sacred", "revelation", etc, which happen to be some of my favorite words/ideas. I have learned to be cautious in using those words around former Christians. That was not clear and I apologize.

As to - all religions/teachers teach the same - Maitri, you make a good point. The religions aren't only fighting amongst each other, but also within their own ranks about all the finer details of their teachings. Splintering into hundreds of forms of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc is the norm. "Christianity" is the "only" way, yet there are hundreds of forms of Christianity? Islam is the world religion? Which form of Islam exactly? Buddhism is the answer? Which form of Buddhism? And the same non-sense in all other religions.

What I meant is that that which we are all looking for in all of our religious practices, faiths, and beliefs - is the same "thing". We may as well find a path that suits us.
for Christians it is - the kingdom of heaven, eternal life
for Buddhist it is - liberation, nirvana, enlightenment
for Muslims it is - heaven, Allah (correct me if I am wrong)

I don't know the many names all the other religions give "it", but "it" is the same, and all religious search and longing will lead to it. The result of any religious understanding at all, no matter which faith - is compassion and kindness, or it is not a religion, spiritual teaching or practice at all.

Enlightenment looks the same in Sufis, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, etc. Enlightenment makes no distinction about which religion, country etc, anyone comes from. Compassion also looks the same coming from a Buddhist or a Christian or a Muslim. Kindness has no religion.

What is Enlightenment to me? It is nothing, and everything, to me. Who is this "me"? That is the question. The answer is so obvious it takes us forever to find it. And, we are on our own - no teacher will help, not even Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. But, it is nice of them to hold our hands, and give us comfort and inspiration, while we're looking.

philologos

MeditationMom wrote:

And, we are on our own - no teacher will help, not even Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. But, it is nice of them to hold our hands, and give us comfort and inspiration, while we're looking.

So basically even when we've found the Gospel we are the same as before we found it? I'm pretty sure every Christian, and every Muslim in relation to Qur'an, every Jew in relation to Tanakh etc, will disagree with you. The "enlightenment" we find as Christians comes through the Bible and the teachings of Christ, never without it.

MeditationMom

by J - So basically even when we've found the Gospel we are the same as before we found it?

No, we are never the same before and after anything - especially after something as significant as the Gospel, the Quran etc. This "we", though, is the human part of us that gets affected by all things, and not our eternal, infinite self that does not get affected by anything.

I think we are misunderstanding each other because of the word enlightenment.

The way I use the word I mean total liberation, becoming one with God, as in Jesus' statement "I and my father are one". That is Enlightenment in the sense that I am using the word. Christians in general do not believe that this is possible for normal people and think it means that Jesus was God's son - only begotten son, at that - in a material sense.

Reading "enlightening" scriptures, becoming "enlightened" through them - as I believe you use the term - is using the word to mean - reaching a deeper and higher understanding. Using it that way I agree with you.

Enlightenment, in the sense that I am using the word - union with God - as in Jesus' case, Buddha's case, Mohammed's case...we are on our own, much like every woman is on her own when it comes to giving birth. There are comforters, teachers, guides, people who stand by, books to read, faiths and beliefs to follow, practices and exercises to do and to inspire trust, courage, love...but it is all just preparation for the final event where we are on our own in the presence of union.

By saying - in the end no teacher can help - I didn't mean to say all teachers or scriptures are irrelevant. On the contrary, they are highly relevant, but not absolutely essential as so many religious people try to claim. Babies will be born whether you prepared yourself for birth or not, and people will become "one with their father"/enlightened, whether they prepare for it or not. Preparation - wise in most cases, obsessive and dysfunctional in some - has limits, and can even be counter productive. This holds true even in the religious realm.

The secret in childbirth as in re-union with infinite and eternal self - God if you will - is to get ourselves out of the way. People who have "found the Gospel" are practicing getting themselves out of the way as in "thy will be done" and therefore are preparing wisely and well

philologos

The difficulty lies not in the term of enlightenment for me. It means the same to me as you claim it meant for Christ, being one with God. Christ wasn't only spiritually at one with God however, He was one with God through the Holy Trinity.

That's okay.

The bit where you go on to suggest that people are on their own, is perhaps the most difficult for a Christian to comprehend as nobody is ever on their own in our view.

MeditationMom

by Jackass - He was one with God through the Holy Trinity.

One with God, is One with God. What does this mean as a "special thing" - "through the Holy Trinity"? Just curious how this is understood in comparison to any of us being one with God through anything.

In meditation "the holy trinity" is Mind, Body and Spirit, or brain, heart and that which unites the two, which is a third thing. Once united - mind, body and spirit disappear altogether, to be one with God.

By Jackass - The bit where you go on to suggest that people are on their own, is perhaps the most difficult for a Christian to comprehend as nobody is ever on their own in our view.

Only in the very, very end. As you would have much help and support, guidance, etc during childbirth, or the spiritual journey with all its trials - in the very end - you are all on your own. This is good, as your final moment, decision, to give yourself up completely to God should not depend on anything or anybody. Jesus, during his life and in the end did not die on the cross alone - yet he was on his own. Many are always standing by, but we are on our own.

Jesus will be by our side, only until the very last moment. It is our love and trust in Jesus that in the end helps us, not Jesus himself. What Jesus has done for us is that he is so infinitely trustworthy.

It is the culmination of free will - this total surrender to God in the end. Union with God would require this, as union with God means Absolute Aloneness - All-One-Ness. Because of this aloneness factor humans are so very afraid of it. The antidote for fear is love. In the face of the greatest fear - annihilation - our love of Christ becomes the key to the kingdom of heaven.

The infinity and eternity of Aloneness - is our greatest fear and our greatest desire. Love is the only way to fulfill our destiny. Our destiny being this re-union with God/Oneness.

You could say that God (All-One-Ness) is always with us, though. We do not even need Jesus, except for helping us realize that.

philologos

See that's the issue again. We are with God until the very end, and even after the very end.

As for not needing Jesus, that's also absurd to my world view anyway. See John 14, which says that we only even experience the Father through Jesus Christ. More importantly it's through Christ's sacrifice that our iniquities are forgiven if we accept Him through faith. We definitely need Christ.

bogwalrus

what do you mean by "we definitely need christ"? Is it that you need him to be saved? Or do you mean you need him to live or something? Just curious.

philologos

For Christianity to exist, we need Christ to be able to guide us through the Gospel. Christianity is more than a book, there is a spiritual involvement through the Holy Spirit with Christ and the Father. It's not just a book that we adapt to our lives, there is more to Christianity than this.

As for needing Christ, yes, we need Him to be saved if you will. However to follow the Gospel we also need Him to be with us in the Holy Spirit also. We do not think that Christ is dead or gone, we think that He lives.

bogwalrus

thanks for clearing that.

So i am now just wondering if a person who is on their death bed suddenly came to believe in christ (which they did not before) and in a genuine manner prayed for forgiveness for not believing in him and all that, would they be treated the same at the pearly gates as the long term Christians?? I have always wondered this and i believe PDN had talked about this before but really did not get a clear answer (or i just didnt understand the answer)


if yes, does that not seem unfair or just wrong. It seems possible to me (if i were a christian) that non-belief could be acceptable even up until you are confronted with whoever or whatever in the afterlife. Why should it be in this life time (on earth) that you have to believe in god, for me the proof is not there and the lord should know this and accept this. Maybe the lord can make exceptions for people who have lived their mortal life not believeing but when seeing the afterlife (hell/purgatory???) they will then repent and ask for forgiveness in which the lord accepts. Is the lord not eternal? are mortals only allowed the time on earth to believe and live by the lords gospel. It does not seem to make sense according to the kind of life jesus spent on earth.

If no then fair enough. Just seems like any normal outcome. first come first serve......or no serve:D

PDN

bogwalrus wrote: »

thanks for clearing that.

So i am now just wondering if a person who is on their death bed suddenly came to believe in christ (which they did not before) and in a genuine manner prayed for forgiveness for not believing in him and all that, would they be treated the same at the pearly gates as the long term Christians?? I have always wondered this and i believe PDN had talked about this before but really did not get a clear answer (or i just didnt understand the answer)

The Bible does indicate that there will be different kinds of rewards in heaven. But I agree with CS Lewis that the judgement involved in receiving such rewards or not is akin to the tension felt when the prizes are handed out at a Horticultural Show - very different from the life or death tension of a verdict in a murder trial where the death penalty is on the table.

So, Christians do not believe that the last minute repenter will receive exactly the same reward as long term obedient Christians - but the difference is nowhere as important as the distinction between those who are saved and those who are not.

if yes, does that not seem unfair or just wrong.

All salvation is, in a sense, unfair. None of us deserve it. I think that the very idea of me getting to heaven is outrageous - but that's what is so amazing about God's grace. Jesus told several parables making this very point.

It seems possible to me (if i were a christian) that non-belief could be acceptable even up until you are confronted with whoever or whatever in the afterlife. Why should it be in this life time (on earth) that you have to believe in god, for me the proof is not there and the lord should know this and accept this. Maybe the lord can make exceptions for people who have lived their mortal life not believeing but when seeing the afterlife (hell/purgatory???) they will then repent and ask for forgiveness in which the lord accepts. Is the lord not eternal? are mortals only allowed the time on earth to believe and live by the lords gospel. It does not seem to make sense according to the kind of life jesus spent on earth.

Christians base their beliefs on the Bible, not wishful thinking. The Bible does not support the idea of getting a second chance to accept salvation after death.