Questions for liberal Christians

[Lainey]

1. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what do you think it is like? If not, do you believe in Heaven? For those who say Hell is "eternal separation from God," what does this mean?

2. What do you think happens to unbelievers when they die?

3. Do you believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, and was literally resurrected?

4. Do you believe in sin? If so, where did it come from?

5. Do you believe humans need "saving?" If so, from what?

Thanks!

[Lainey]

Lainey,

I just wanted to say that my PM seems to be stuck in the outbox. Your thread starter looks fantastic!

Ha ha! Zzyzx explained to me just today that messages stay in the outbox until they're picked up by the recipient. I wonder if that confuses a lot of people?

If you don't mind, I would like to suggest adding this question:
4: Is there a solid, scientific definition of evolution? Or is the definition a bit fuzzy?

Done.

Here is a link.

[Intrepidman]

Lainey,

I just wanted to say that my PM seems to be stuck in the outbox. Your thread starter looks fantastic!

Ha ha! Zzyzx explained to me just today that messages stay in the outbox until they're picked up by the recipient. I wonder if that confuses a lot of people?

If you don't mind, I would like to suggest adding this question:
4: Is there a solid, scientific definition of evolution? Or is the definition a bit fuzzy?

Done.

Here is a link.

Excellent! I am like a cat that ate some cheese waiting by a mouse hole to see what will happen.

[Lainey]

Excellent! I am like a cat that ate some cheese waiting by a mouse hole to see what will happen.

[Intrepidman]

Excellent! I am like a cat that ate some cheese waiting by a mouse hole to see what will happen.

Cool! You got the joke,"I am waiting with baited breath!".

The correct spelling is actually bated breath but it’s so common these days to see it written as baited breath that there’s every chance that it will soon become the usual form, to the disgust of conservative speakers and the confusion of dictionary writers. Examples in newspapers and magazines are legion; this one appeared in the Daily Mirror on 12 April 2003: “She hasn’t responded yet but Michael is waiting with baited breath�.

It’s easy to mock, but there’s a real problem here. Bated and baited sound the same and we no longer use bated (let alone the verb to bate), outside this one set phrase, which has become an idiom. Confusion is almost inevitable. Bated here is a contraction of abated through loss of the unstressed first vowel (a process called aphesis); it means “reduced, lessened, lowered in force�. So bated breath refers to a state in which you almost stop breathing as a result of some strong emotion, such as terror or awe.

Shakespeare is the first writer known to use it, in The Merchant of Venice, in which Shylock says to Antonio: “Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key, / With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness, / Say this ...�. Nearly three centuries later, Mark Twain employed it in Tom Sawyer: “Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale�.

For those who know the older spelling or who stop to consider the matter, baited breath evokes an incongruous image; Geoffrey Taylor humorously (and consciously) captured it in verse in his poem Cruel Clever Cat:

Sally, having swallowed cheese,
Directs down holes the scented breeze,
Enticing thus with baited breath
Nice mice to an untimely death.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm

[Jester]

Okay, to start, I love you avatar pic. Nice choice.
As to content let's see here...

1. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what do you think it is like? If not, do you believe in Heaven? For those who say Hell is "eternal separation from God," what does this mean?

I do believe in Hell, and I would say that it is separation from God. As for what that means (as far as I understand it myself), that is this:
We see in people a tendency to want certain things too much (an obvious example being alcohol or drug addiction). In such a case, even if the original thing was good to begin with, an obsession/addiction slowly destroys a person. A small addiction (such as a love for food or relaxation) could become as terrible as drug addiction on an infinite time-line, simply because it has so much time to fester.
Such negative feelings, as they grow stronger, make it increasingly difficult to shake off. C.S. Lewis describes the situation as grumbling until one can't control the grumble, and, eventually, there's hardly a you left, just a grumble going on for eternity.
The idea is that, if Christianity is true, then people really are built for God, and other things will ultimately leave us disappointed. Pursuing them for an eternity, then, would be torment. The alternative to this, of course, is pursuing a loving God instead, who gives perfect fulfillment.
That's the general idea, at least.

2. What do you think happens to unbelievers when they die?

I don't pretend to know who's "making the cut", if that is the question. I personally suspect that there will be some non-Christians who will look at God and say "Oh, you're what I've been looking for all this time", and others (even many whom we would call Christians) who aren't going to be interested in God, and refuse to believe in either his existence or goodness (or both). These people will be allowed to leave, and will experience the self-destruction described above (I'm trying hard not to be that type).

3. Do you believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, and was literally resurrected?

Yes. I believe in the resurrection) as a literal, historical fact.
I don't claim to know exactly what 'son of God' means, but that was clearly what Christ claimed (if one believes the Bible, which I personally do). As such, I continue to study that particular point, and the whole trinity concept in general. It's interesting stuff.

4. Do you believe in sin? If so, where did it come from?

I do believe in sin. I believe that sin is selfish action - or, to put it another way, actions which contradict a loving attitude. By this definition, sin clearly exists, but maybe this question has another one in mind. I know there are other takes (though I don't agree with all of them).
Where did it come from? That one I'm very hazy on myself. Ultimately, it comes from Satan's belief that he had a better idea than God how things ought to be. There are lots of theories about what the particular point of debate was, but the general agreement is that he is it's inventor.
In each person, I'd say that sin comes from a lack of love. Overdesires for otherwise good things, selfishness, etc. all spring from a lack of love.

5. Do you believe humans need "saving?" If so, from what?

Yes. I certainly do myself.
I believe that the aforementioned tendency in humans to go after the wrong things, thinking that they'll make us happy, is a path to destruction that is common to all if we don't have help. Beyond that, there is the simple matter of the amount of hurt we each cause, of course, and the fact that we take so much of life for granted.
As to the issue of forgiveness and being "saved" in general. I adore it as a concept. Even if just for being created we owe God a great deal. The fact that he doesn't expect us to pay him back seems to me to be a requirement for a loving God.

Thanks!

Thanks to you as well. Those were great questions - made me think.

[Lainey]

Okay, to start, I love you avatar pic. Nice choice.

Thank you. Me too. I needed a pretty avatar to distract my opponents...

2. What do you think happens to unbelievers when they die?

I don't pretend to know who's "making the cut", if that is the question. I personally suspect that there will be some non-Christians who will look at God and say "Oh, you're what I've been looking for all this time", and others (even many whom we would call Christians) who aren't going to be interested in God, and refuse to believe in either his existence or goodness (or both). These people will be allowed to leave, and will experience the self-destruction described above (I'm trying hard not to be that type).

So do you think the ones who were non-believers, but say, "Oh, you're what I've been looking for all this time," will be allowed to stay? Why would someone refuse to believe in God's existence if they've seen him? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I do believe in sin. I believe that sin is selfish action - or, to put it another way, actions which contradict a loving attitude. By this definition, sin clearly exists, but maybe this question has another one in mind. I know there are other takes (though I don't agree with all of them).
Where did it come from? That one I'm very hazy on myself. Ultimately, it comes from Satan's belief that he had a better idea than God how things ought to be. There are lots of theories about what the particular point of debate was, but the general agreement is that he is it's inventor.
In each person, I'd say that sin comes from a lack of love. Overdesires for otherwise good things, selfishness, etc. all spring from a lack of love.

So you believe Satan is an actual entity? Do you believe in Adam and Eve and that a serpent tempted them in the Garden of Eden?

And the follow up questions (I should have put these in the OP): Do you believe in evolution? How old do you think the earth and universe are?

[Jester]

So do you think the ones who were non-believers, but say, "Oh, you're what I've been looking for all this time," will be allowed to stay?

Yes.

Why would someone refuse to believe in God's existence if they've seen him? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I think that there are many who would believe anything in order to refuse to submit to God. It would be more of an emotional reaction than a reasoned process to make such a denial. Who knows? Those people would likely come up with any number of theories to explain what they saw.
I don't know if that will happen, honestly, I only think that it's possible. More often, I think the people who won't be in heaven are those who want God to go away.

So you believe Satan is an actual entity? Do you believe in Adam and Eve and that a serpent tempted them in the Garden of Eden?

Yes, I do believe in Satan. As to how literally I take the story of Adam and Eve, I don't know. I'm still deciding about that one. My strongest opinion is that it is a story meant to teach certain points, not a history book. Thus, I deal with it on that level, and generally get frustrated when I feel that it's lessons are overlooked for the sake of treating it as history (either a correct or incorrect one).
To answer the question, though: Right now, I'd say that I'm leaning toward symbolic with this one.

And the follow up questions (I should have put these in the OP): Do you believe in evolution? How old do you think the earth and universe are?

For this one, I'm a little more obviously in the symbolic category. I don't take Genesis 1 literally. I've been told that it's actually poetry, and it makes more sense to me that way. Again, I don't think recording history is it's purpose.
Also, this number of 6,000 years was reached through the ages of the prophets. I don't find that to be an accurate reading at all. First, it assumes that ancient Jewish culture is as literal as ours is today (which is simply not the case), meaning that the phrase "40 years" is taken literally. It seems instead to be a phrase meaning "a long time", much like we would say "and I waited there for a million years before the doctor came out". Also, it was common practice in genealogies to skip generations that weren't important for the point one was making. This always strikes modern people as odd. The point of a list of names, for us, is always to have an accurate record. In ancient times, it was usually to string together names of people in a family that had common traits/experiences, showing something about a family trait or God's purpose with that family. Generations that didn't fit this purpose were generally skipped over.
All that is to say that I don't see any reason to believe that the Bible claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Given that, I don't see any reason to reject modern scientific guesses on the number.
As for evolution, I'm open to the idea that it could be in line with the existence of God. I know that many take this position. I'm not yet really convinced of any guess as to how life came about. The evolution debate leaves me with doubts, and the creation position doesn't actually propose any mechanical/scientific explanation as to what God did, meaning that neither side answers the physical/literal question for me. I tend to emphasize that that isn't the point, but I do read a lot of science in the hope of satisfying that curiosity.

[MagusYanam]

1. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what do you think it is like? If not, do you believe in Heaven? For those who say Hell is "eternal separation from God," what does this mean?

2. What do you think happens to unbelievers when they die?

3. Do you believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, and was literally resurrected?

4. Do you believe in sin? If so, where did it come from?

5. Do you believe humans need "saving?" If so, from what?

1.) I think Hell is something that we have to talk about and deal with conceptually in liberal Christianity, and unfortunately, we haven't historically been very good at doing either. A number of followers of the process tradition (including my father) have posited that since God is changing in response to a teleological universe, and that the telos of the universe is God's victory, that eventually there will be nothing that remains untouched by the nature of God (thus nothing that remains separated eternally from God).

I, however, prefer a more existentialist approach: Hell must exist as a logical consequence of God's (and our) free will, but I must trust that God is both powerful enough to save every soul and that he is good enough to choose to save every soul from it.

2.) I don't know what happens when we die, believers or unbelievers, and I'm not really sure it matters. What does matter is that we make the best of this life and attempt to commit ourselves to something worthwhile herein.

3.) I believe that Christ was God, and that Christ is the way we understand God on a personal, human scope. Was he resurrected, literally? Again, I'm not sure it matters. According to the Gospel of St Mark, he went to his death, he was buried, and the women who followed him found an empty tomb and were told by a young man that Jesus had been raised and was 'going ahead' of them to Galilee. It is to this we must respond as believers, though I find little merit in merely giving it a glib assent.

4.) Sin exists, though again, I don't think we liberals do a very good job of talking about it. I think there is far more to sin than just 'being naughty' - I think no definition of 'sin' is complete without referring to the tendencies of human beings to short-sightedness, and the lack of empathy for and the need to prove ourselves against (and thus exploit and dominate) our fellow human beings. Thus, though I don't see homosexuality as intrinsically sinful, I do see any unequal or exploitative sexual relationship as sinful.

Where did it come from? I think it's part of human nature, part-and-parcel with the survival instinct, though evolutionarily speaking I think it developed along with our capacities for linguistic communication and higher reasoning - with these came concepts of good and evil, and the potential for mindful exploitation of one human being by another. (I think that Genesis 2 is a mythological account that illuminates many of these tendencies well, as I have claimed before.)

5.) Do I think human beings need 'saving'? I think there are many who are in need - whether they are hungry, thirsty, outcast or exploited. And I think those who have enough to eat and drink, and who hold the reins of power over the outcast and exploited are in need, too, to take responsibility according to their positions of privilege. That pretty much covers everybody, doesn't it?

[micatala]

I've been meaning to get into this thread for some time, and hope the rest of you have not lost interest in the meantime.

I was reminded of the issues Lainey raises in another thread, and will start by copying in a short post from the Atheist Conversions thread.

The question is quite simple...how does an atheist go from no belief in God to Christianity (or any belief in God for that matter)? It appears as if most atheists (of which I've experienced on this forum and in life in general) are supremely confident in their belief in science, and their unwavering belief that science cancels out God. They seem to be very knowledgeable of what science has to say, as well as what is considered to be inconsistencies within a belief in a divine being. Therefore, with all this necessary knowledge, how does an atheist all the sudden have a change of heart and thinking and end up converting to a belief in God? They certainly could not have been duped?

For example, I work at a doctor's office, and one of the doctors here is an out-spoken atheist. Yet, as of recently she has had a change of heart and mind and has stated that she is on a journey towards discovering that perhaps God is in fact real. She's even been reading books in support of the Christian belief...and even beyond that...she has been passing these books along for others to read!

Now, from a Christian perspective, the Bible is quite clear about why such things happen in Romans 1-2. However, I'm interested to hear from an atheist perspective.

I was raised Catholic. Later, I rejected that faith and for a time considered myself an atheist. I now have returned to Christianity though not Catholicism. My return had very little to do with science or even rational consideration of "does God exist or not exist." It admittedly had more to do with subjective experiences of my own and a feeling of being unsatisfied with atheism from an emotional, spritual, and meaning standpoint.

I am certainly not overly doctrinaire in my beliefs and am willing to consider the possibility of metaphorical interpretations for just about any aspect of Christian doctrine or Biblical teaching. While I view the Bible as inspired by God, I do not view it as inerrant or infallible. To me, it is a record of certain individuals and groups and their spiritual journeys and historical understandings of God.

I don't see returning to faith as rejecting science and I accept standard scientific theories as very likely to be essentially true, including evolution. To me, faith is not a denial of reason, but an acceptance that while we are rationale beings, we are not completely rationale beings. I also believe that reason and rationality has inherent limits. We will probably never be able to completely rationally explain even the physical universe in a consistent way, let alone the non-physical aspects of our existence.

Just my two cents worth.

[micatala]

ANd now to the OP. As a prefaratory comment, I will note that some of these views are not ones that I am very dogmatic about, and that the particulars are sometimes not issues of importance for me from a faith perspective.

1. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what do you think it is like? If not, do you believe in Heaven? For those who say Hell is "eternal separation from God," what does this mean?

I tend to look at hell more as a condition of the soul and much less as a 'place of eternal punishment.' I once read a description of hell as a place where a great banquet was being served, but all the utensils were extremely long. The length was such that you could not feed yourself with the utensils. Unfortunately, none of the people there seemed to be willing to feed other people with their long utensils, which would have easily allowed everyone to enjoy the banquet.


Hell, then, is condition within ourselves created by our own attitudes and choices. Assuming an afterlife and a conscious soul in that afterlife, hell would then be maintaining this condition after death.

2. What do you think happens to unbelievers when they die?

I am very unsure. I do believe in an afterlife but do not give much credence to the traditional literal 'lake of fire' idea of hell.

3. Do you believe that Jesus was literally the son of God, and was literally resurrected?

Yes and yes, with the caveat that I be allowed to fudge on what these mean.

Under the assumption that God is a spiritual being, what it means to be "the Son of God" I think is wide open to interpretation. To me, it may mean no more than the inner spirit of Jesus comes directly from God, probably in a more 'direct' way than for any other person.

On the resurrection, the rational part of me finds the idea of a literal bodily resurrection unreasonable. The faithful part of me holds that it is possible nonetheless. The doctrinal part of me considers it a non-essential matter of faith. The more essential part to me is the notion that the spiritual aspect of God, including Jesus' spiritual nature and the Holy Spirit, can reside in each of us. The resurrection, whatever that entails, is more a means to that end rather than an end in itself. The sacrificial death is an example and a metaphor for us to consider physical life less important than the spiritual, to be willing to sacrifice for others, and to be willing to let others sacrifice for us and acknowledge that sacrifice within our innermost beings.

4. Do you believe in sin? If so, where did it come from?

Yes. To me sin is both a separation from God, either complete but usually partial, and an action or thought that represents us being less than our perfect selves. It comes from, in my view, having the capability to make moral judgments.

5. Do you believe humans need "saving?" If so, from what?

Yes. I don't think we are "saved" from sin in the sense that we escape from it, as I believe we can never reach perfection. However, I think we can be saved from its consequences. These would include a sense of separation from God and from brotherhood with our fellow men.


I look to the parent-child relationship as a metaphor or a symbol for this. No child will perfectly please their parent. However, in a healthy relationship, the parent and the child acknowledge their imperfections while always trying to express their love more completely and never letting their imperfections get in the way or lead to a separation. If a child (or a parent) allows their imperfections to lead to a self-judgment that is so severe that they deem themselves unworthy of the love of the other, then this would be in some sense a "hell" or "unsaved" condition.



Anyway, those are a few thougths, probably not too cogently expressed, for what they are worth.