The Devil, Heaven and Hell, and does confession cut it?

Asiaprod

All of the interesting subjects posted here, and the wealth of information and ideas from people who I must say it is a pleasure to get to know, has persuaded me to revisit some of the issues that I was very uncomfortable with before. My firsthand experience with christianity ended 20 years ago when I moved to Japan, a country with roots steeped in Shinto and Buddhist beliefs. What I have realized from my recent involvement with this board is that people's attitude to what they are now prepared to accept on faith is very different from the blind, sheep-like mentality (which was my big issue) I left behind. In light of this rekindling of interest--hold on to you're pants Excelsior, I have not decided to revert back from Buddhism to Christian yet, but you haver made me question--I would really like to hear people's views in the 21st century on
The Devil, who and what he is or is not,
Heaven and Hell, is it for real
and how the act of confession can be seen to be an actual act of restitution for actions committed.
I believe that these three issues are among the major sticking point in acceptance of Christianity.
I realize these are tough questions, but I believe that behind these questions lies the answers to the major problems we are facing today's world.
looking-forward to hearing all you're opinions
Peter Kearney :rolleyes:

Excelsior

Peter, you know my postings here well enough by now to realise that I have a tendency to be verbose. Gladly, I have to go in about 10 minutes so I'm gonna fire off a quick response before The Atheist and Robin and the rest of the regulars jump in.

Really quick answers:

The Devil. Is he real?
Whether or not satan exists, evil does. It seeps into everything we do and no matter how pure our intentions, the outcome is always flawed. The existentialists were on to something when they bemoaned that life was suffering. It is important in the face of the very real effects of evil, both human and natural, to not patronise the sufferer or minimise the despair by claiming that evil doesn't exist. Or that it is the shadow of good. Or that it depends on perspective. Or any other argument that makes evil less than the stark tragedy that it is.

As such, for many people in today's world, it is more important that they face up to and respect the existence of evil before we even start talking about whether evil has a president.

Are heaven and hell for real?

Heaven is. The Kingdom of God, whatever the specifics of it, is real. We were all built to have relationship with God and heaven is where we get to hang out.

Hell exists too. How it exists really is open for debate amongst Christians. All the Bible really says about it is that it is a place for people who refuse relationship with God in this life. That they send themselves there. There might not actually be a place. The very influential and brilliant theologian John Stott argues that hell is annihalation (sp?). Others argue for literal pits of fire. Others just say that it is the absence of relationship with God. The Bible is overwhelmingly clear that the condemnation to hell is always just and it strongly suggests that you could almost speak of it in terms of choice!

]What's up with confession?

Confession doesn't make restitution for your sins. Only God can do that. He did it on the Cross. Salvation, heaven, liberation, freedom from evil and all that good stuff is by Grace. You don't earn it. You receive it as a gift through entering into relationship with God. You can see the good conversation me and Sapien had under the thread entitled Grace to understand that more. To suggest that your confession makes good on your sin goes against this God-centred-ness of Grace.

It also is deeply insulting for those who suffer from your mistakes. It goes back to taking tragedy and suffering and evil seriously. If Christianity really taught that by saying sorry in a darkened room alone you could make good on your misdeeds, then that wouldn't just be idiotic, it would be kind of sickening. God has already made good on your deeds, you just have to start accepting it.

Very brief answers, I know. But I gotta run. I will come back to it though cos its good that there is a thread that hasn't been posed negatively for once!

Dades

The problem with my username is that on certain issues, my thoughts are pretty much out there without me typing a word.

Anyways for that reason I don't have much to add. I'm also fully aware of the vast experience (compared to mine) you have behind you in your 'quest', if I can call it that.

Asiaprod wrote:

In light of this rekindling of interest... I have not decided to revert back from Buddhism to Christian yet...

I am curious about the route you're taking to align yourself with a faith.

It almost sounds to me like you're looking for an ethos, rather than a religion to believe in. Okay so Christianity is an ethos that many follow, but to be an actual Christian you also have to believe in the "facts", as well as just following the "teachings" of the bible.

The big question is do you believe that God created the cosmos and sent his son to die for our sins. If you believe that, you're a Christian - if you don't - you can't (or shouldn't) be.

My point is that many things are open to interpretation in the bible, but in order for any interpretation to be relevant you have to believe in the keystone first - and not the other way around.

But I've been wrong before.

robindch

> The Devil, who and what he is or is not

There's certainly plenty of nefarious and appropriate characters in the bible to pick from -- Satan, Lucifer, The Devil, the devils, evil itself are all mentioned separately -- and I'm not sure which one of these you're referring to, or whether it's a mixture of them, or something else entirely.

Regardless, and referring to the traditional and shallow characterization of devil, I'm certainly aware of quite a few people, all over the age of 50, who seem to believe sincerely that there's some kind of invisible serpent-tailed chap running about the world with fangs and pitchfork, tending to all the nastiest habits of mankind and encouraging them where he can (and these people make life decisions based upon this belief). Personally, I think these people have unaddressed psychological problems.

A belief in the existence of a defined source of "evil" (whatever *that* is) in the world, though, is actually quite handy, as it gives unthoughtful people a convenient nail upon which to hang the blame for all the bad things that happen to them and thereby deny any personal resonsibility for the action, or the severity of the response which they feel is necessary. America was "attacked by evil", as GW Bush weirdly put it after the WTC attacks, as though a competing religious ideology, and several planes piloted by lunatics, didn't exist.

A more mature response would be to consider the possibility that the perpetrators of some act perceived as 'evil' may not have carried out the act as 'evil', but rather something else -- very few people will perform acts which they personally regard as 'evil'. In fact, there's a false, and very dangerous, equivalence in the minds of many between 'evil' as expressed in the action of the doer, and 'evil' as perceived by the recipient. The two are rarely, if ever, equal -- a simple, even obvious, fact which seems to be forgotten by people with a developed belief in the forked-tailed one.

> Are heaven and hell for real?

It'd be lovely to know that heaven is for real, as it would remove entirely the fear that many people have of their own death, and of the deaths of others. In fact, some thoughtful folks have suggested that this is actually *why* people believe that heaven exists. As far as I can make out, far more people believe in heaven than the fanged demon above.

Though this doesn't take away from the suggestive fact that, of the billions of dead people who populate the ground in the woods, deserts, mountains, plains and cemetaries of the world, not a single one has ever managed, unambiguously, to communicate so much as a cough to the living. There is an obvious biological reason for this which is worth looking into

Who was it who said that you shouldn't put your faith in a company which promises your payoff when you die?

> What's up with confession?

It's always rewarding to offload oneself of guilt, and the simple act of telling another human being and thereby going through the motions of receiving forgiveness is one of the (few) pleasant aspects of catholicism. If it does it for you, then do it. Just be aware of what you're actually doing.

robindch

...not that I'm in a narky mood or anything (perish the thought!) but religious discussion continually indulges itself in pleasant-sounding, but meaningless, hooray-words.

Can anybody tell me what an "ethos" is, and how it's different in anything but tone from a "characteristic manner" (in which case the phrase 'christian ethos' suddenly loses any positive meaning, though does gain a peculiar accuracy). Or why it is that religious people are blessed enough to be able to provide "teachings", whereas everbody else is stuck with having to make "claims"?

Do spin this off to another thread if it's inappropriate to this one.

Excelsior

I know this is a digression but I will be brief. I'm interested to see how there are as many different approaches to atheism as there are to all other faiths. The Atheist has this calm fairness to his posting where he does my job for me. To be a Christian, you need to literally do what the word means- follow Jesus. Robin however is a far more passionate, explicit apologist for atheism, but as articulate in a way we all aspire too.

But over the past few weeks I have a sneaking suspicion that as there are as many Christianities as there are Christians, there seem to be a myriad of atheisms on offer too.

Forgive me if this is impenetrable bollocks. I'm watching that show Revelations on TV3 and I might have caught idiocy off it.

TakeDown247

Just quicky I can't make my mind up what to belive
I did think that I did but now i'm not so sure
I know their is a God and would like to get to know him but
how would I do that? and Jesus too

Dades

robindch wrote:

...not that I'm in a narky mood or anything (perish the thought!) but religious discussion continually indulges itself in pleasant-sounding, but meaningless, hooray-words.

robindch - I can't remember if you were involved with the athiest/agnostic debates that burst on the philosophy boards? They were great discussions, real nitty-gritty get-to-the-bottom of what you believe and more importantly, why. I lobbied briefy for a Atheist/Agnostic forum but that kinda died out.

Excelsior wrote:

The Atheist has this calm fairness to his posting where he does my job for me. To be a Christian, you need to literally do what the word means- follow Jesus. Robin however is a far more passionate, explicit apologist for atheism, but as articulate in a way we all aspire too.

Excelsior you're too kind.
As a strong atheist I agree with everything robindch has said above, I'd just hate people to think we just appear to discredit the tenets of the forum we're guests in. Just interested in general.

robindch wrote:

Can anybody tell me what an "ethos" is, and how it's different in anything but tone from a "characteristic manner" (in which case the phrase 'christian ethos' suddenly loses any positive meaning, though does gain a peculiar accuracy). Or why it is that religious people are blessed enough to be able to provide "teachings", whereas everbody else is stuck with having to make "claims"?

Do spin this off to another thread if it's inappropriate to this one.

Probably worth another thread rather than hijacking this one. Go for it.

robindch

> I'm interested to see how there are as many different
> approaches to atheism as there are to all other faiths.

'zfar as I've ever noticed, there's only one form of atheism, though there're a million ways that atheists have of looking at believers, wondering just exactly what is it that make them believe whatever it is they beleve, and why it is that very frequently, they're unable to explain what they believe in either and lapse into the tired "well, that's just a sacred mystery" excuse (surely a belief which is not understood is pointless?)

> To be a Christian, you need to literally do what
> the word means - follow Jesus.

So, we're back to the old (largely unanswered) question about how a well-intentioned believer should work out what bits of the gospels should be 'followed', and which should be ignored

Excelsior

Every part of the Gospel outlined in the Gospels must be followed Robin. What could ever be complex in that?!?

arctic lemur

Any views on the gnostic gospels, do they have any substance as much as 'the established'?

Excelsior

That issue has been discussed in coma inducing detail in other threads over the last few months. Have a look around. Contribute to what already exists or splot off new points to new threads.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

That issue has been discussed in coma inducing detail in other threads over the last few months. Have a look around. Contribute to what already exists or splot off new points to new threads.

Coma inducing? Hmph! I thought we all gained something from those discussions.

Excelsior

It was meant to be a joke Sapien. I am sorry for offending you. It was a self-deprecating remark that fell flat. Mea culpa.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

It was meant to be a joke Sapien. I am sorry for offending you. It was a self-deprecating remark that fell flat. Mea culpa.

:rolleyes: Oh god - I'm not that touchy! Enough of the mea culpas - this christian excessive contrition thing is so annoying. Hmph!

Excelsior

Sorry for annoying you.