* * *
I must prefice this by mentioning that C. S. Lewis is one of my literary heroes. Aside from an occasional detour into the thickets, I found much of his writing to be concise and approachable. One exception to this was the book Miracles, which except for the first chapter was almost impenetrable. But then again, I find most philosophy imprenetable.
* * *
You wrote: "You know very well that Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are silly but you're far too smart to say so." Um, actually I don't know (or not know) that they're silly. All I know is that I don't understand it, and probably never will, mostly because I have little desire to even try. Why attempt to scale Everest when even small elevations make me dizzy?
* * *
You wrote: "This is why I believe it's much more important to get the message of The Bible than the minute details. I think that it's completely pointless to focus on and mark up each individual word." I couldn't agree more. Once one has the broad themes and messages down, then one can drill into words to pick up things like tense and singular/plural to try to discern a bit more about the immediate context. Focusing on small snippets and ignoring the broader sweep is like thinking Shakespeare's Hamlet is about the verb to be.
Then again, maybe it is. I never read Hamlet.
Or any Shakespeare. My high school was the dog's bollocks.
* * *
You wrote: "Physical evidence suggests that there has only ever been one moment of creation." That implies our souls (or angels, for that matter) are comprised of physical stuff. What's to say angels (or our souls) weren't created either before or after the Big Bang?
Frankly, I don't know when our souls were created, or the nature of our souls, or really anything much at all. But what I do know is that one of the cornerstone doctrines is that only God is eternal and self-sustaining, needing nothing; all else was created and requires God to sustain it. That's why I mentioned that ... because if our souls were also eternal, then that means God didn't create us, and if God didn't create us then either something else did, or in at least one way we're peers with God. Just as quickly as you close a book after seeing the word "silly," I become wary of theological opinion that undermines critical things like the uniqueness of God's eternal nature. It's not that I'm the holder of the all the knowledge, it's just that I see how the whole house of cards comes tumbling down if certain things are undermined.
* * *
You wrote: "Once "created" will our souls last forever?" My answer -- and again, what do I know? -- is that it appears the Bible teaches that our souls are everlasting. Why God chose to do it that way, I don't really know. I do believe that our soul's everlasting nature is only because God wills it to be so. He could, I suppose, will it not to be so. But the Bible doesn't teach that (or not that I'm aware of) and thus if one relies on the Bible as a True revelation of God's will (as I do), then I'm left to believe that it is God's will. Ecce homo, ergo, elk.
Sorry ... couldn't resist throwing in another Python reference ... "Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanised mansion. The points are frozen, the beast is dead. What is the difference? What indeed is the point? The point is frozen, the beast is late out of Paddington. The point is taken.But I digress ...
If La Fontaine's elk would spurn Tom Jones the engine must be our head, the dining car our oesophagus, the guards van our left lung, the cattle truck our shins, the first class compartment the piece of skin at the nape of the neck and the level crossing an electric elk called Simon. The clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? Over there in a box.
Shunt is saying the 8.15 from Gillingham when in reality he means the 8.13 from Gillingham. The train is the same, only the time is altered. Ecce homo, ergo elk.
La Fontaine knew its sister and knew her bloody well. The point is taken, the beast is moulting, the fluff gets up your nose. The illusion is complete; it is reality, the reality is illusion and the ambiguity is the only truth. But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No, there isn't room, the ambiguity has put on weight. The point is taken, the elk is dead, the beast stops at Swindon, Chabrol stops at nothing, I'm having treatment and La Fontaine can get knotted.
* * *
You wrote: "I suspect that this part of the doctrine (Hell) was invented to keep folks on the right path." Or perhaps it wasn't invented, but rather revealed?
* * *
You wrote: "Hell is an encouragement to keep banging the 10% tithe into the Church coffers." Ah, you see this would not be true if people truly held to the doctrine of Grace. Because then there'd be no reason to believe my giving 10% to the church would have any bearing whatever on whether I go to hell ... only the atoning sacrifice of Christ and my faith in the truth of that does. I'll agree that the threat of damnation and hellfire definitely was (and perhaps is) used for that purpose. And may God have mercy on the souls of those who commit the sin of corrupting his message of Grace for their profit.
You wrote: "I don't think that Christians really sign up for the non-transactional nature of Christianity you mentioned before." I agree. Sometimes I don't. But when I get a glimpse of it; when I get to experience a moment's comprehension of it -- it is strikingly beautiful and liberating.
You wrote: "Christians have faith that they will be saved from Hell and enjoy Heaven through their actions and faith on Earth." The Bible speaks of our rewards in heaven being tied somehow to our works on this earth, but never our salvation. But that said, I agree that most Christians are burdened by the idea of "works righteousness." So am I ... all too often. I have to work my way back to the basics of atonement and Grace.
Note: interesting sidenote -- if covetousness is a sin, and heaven is a place without sin, and people in heaven have differing rewards ... why should I care? If I have less than someone else, presumably I won't covet or otherwise desire what the other person has. So what does it matter? I have no answer ... just a thought that popped up in my head.
The bottom line is that I have absolutely no answer for why God chooses to maintain our souls in eternal torment, rather than simply extinguish us. This problem becomes even more vexing when one holds to the doctrine of election, whereby those who have saving faith in Christ do so only because God gave them the ability to do so. All others, presumably, were destined for damnation even prior to their being created, which really begs the question, why? I'll confess at this point I'm not making a clear and concise theological argument. I pray I do not derail others with this poor display of understanding. I'm sure there are answers that have been proposed by smarter people than me.
No comments:
Post a Comment