Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > What is the worst sin?

Forum Quick Jump

51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Vexen
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55

Posted 1/17/2002 9:32 AM (GMT -6)

In my rush to highlight some excellent writing, I completely forgot to make a point. My point is this is the predicament of all living, caring creatures, and of anyone who creates something and risks manifesting their will in the world.

The same elements of risk are in all creations, and in making yourself vulnerable by allowing your feeling to show in the world. True evil would then be to say that this isn't worth it... it is denying life to not bring our inner feelings out and hide them.

The greatest sins in this sentiment are therefore: Suicide, harming the young, and denying Human beings their need to safely express vulnerabilities.

--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/17/2002 9:34 AM (GMT -6)

Vexen:

quote:
So the ultimate sin, in the light of this quote, would be for us to see the raising of children in love as evil?

*thinks so*

Vexen, if that's what you think, how would you feel about a God who KNEW BEFOREHAND the inevitability of at least ONE person being eternally in agony due to creating a universe that didn't NEED to exist...but felt the "risk" (in this case, the COST) was worth it?

Just wondering...

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/17/2002 9:46 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi said: Wouldn't a good, OMNISCIENT, loving God REALIZE that even at THIS juncture, those persons wouldn't be able to handle seeing God in his holiness? Wouldn't a good loving God make some type of "purgatory" where these people could over MORE time receive more and more forgiveness from God? Think about it. That would be like me KNOWING that someone hasn't eaten solid food in about a month...and then just up and expecting them to be able to eat huge, hearty helpings of steak and potatoes with no problems. It would be inconsiderate, AT BEST. So why would our loving God do that?

Semeia: I totally agree. I don't see "instantaneous" judgment at death. I do believe God goes far beyond anything we can imagine, to save every last one. And perhaps he succeeds! All I am saying is that if we don't have the freedom to reject God then ultimately we are determined. It is hard for me to imagine anyone rejecting God's love over time, but it is also hard for me to imagine the holocaust. All I know is that a love relationship is one that is chosen. It can't be a predetermined set-up. So we must all have at least the POSSIBILITY of rejecting God, in order to truly and freely love him. But all things considered, my hope is pinned on God's fathomless love and persuasion, for all of mankind, every last stubborn one of us.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Vexen
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55

Posted 1/17/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6)

If I knew before hand that it was inevitable, then the creation of the universe *must* go ahead along with such torture for "at least one living being".

Such a god, faced with an inevitable situation even before creation, has no choice as to whether they "should" or not, to not create something inevitable is an illogical paradox that easily kills metaphors and gods!

I wouldn't be able to hold such a god morally accountable for their actions, so my feelings towards such a god would be more of a blank than anger or sympathy.

I would, as a result, have to resort to playing Quake to vent my anger at the injustice and suffering which exists. So be it, luckily I play Quake 3 well!

--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/17/2002 10:01 AM (GMT -6)

Vexen said: My point is this is the predicament of all living, caring creatures, and of anyone who creates something and risks manifesting their will in the world.

The same elements of risk are in all creations, and in making yourself vulnerable by allowing your feeling to show in the world. True evil would then be to say that this isn't worth it...

Semeia: I agree. I so badly want my children whom I love to love me, but the only power I have in that regard is to love them. Love is something that cannot be coerced. It is the basic paradox on which the foundation of the world is laid: the only way to get love is to give it. I apologize for sounding like a Hallmark card, but that really is the best way I have for expressing it.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/17/2002 10:04 AM (GMT -6)

Vexen said:

quote:
Such a god, faced with an inevitable situation even before creation, has no choice as to whether they "should" or not, to not create something inevitable is an illogical paradox that easily kills metaphors and gods!

LOL!

That is my bad. I really didn't explain enough. We are imagining a god that is completely self-sufficient in a triune love relationship. IN other words, contingent reality ie the universe is ultimately superfluous. Now, this god knows that once he creates a contingent reality with sentient free-willed beings, it is an INEVITABILITY that, in the end, at least ONE of them will suffer eternal agony. So, to clarify, the inevitability ONLY APPEARS when the contingent reality is created. Does this help? From Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" page 287 (emphasis mine)

"Imagine that it is you yourself who are erecting the edifice of human destiny with the aim of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and contentment at last, but that to do that it is absolutely necessary, and indeed quite inevitable, to torture to death only one tiny creature,...would you consent to be the architect under those conditions?"

This is the way I saw the situation, though some disagree with me. There is an entire thread called "Was It Worth It" where we went into this, if you want to check it out.

PS: I used to rock at Quake, but it became an "addiction" so I quit.

PSS: Sorry for going so off topic.

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/17/2002 10:10 AM (GMT -6)

Vexen said: If I knew before hand that it was inevitable, then the creation of the universe *must* go ahead along with such torture for "at least one living being".

Such a god, faced with an inevitable situation even before creation, has no choice as to whether they "should" or not, to not create something inevitable is an illogical paradox that easily kills metaphors and gods!

Semeia: Hey, that was good! I want to see you and Mephi dice some more!

Vexen said: I would, as a result, have to resort to playing Quake to vent my anger at the injustice and suffering which exists. So be it, luckily I play Quake 3 well!

Semeia: Sounds like another addiction I need to stay away from!!!

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/17/2002 10:15 AM (GMT -6)

Brett: You are truly a gifted writer, Semeia. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

pia: I second that.

Mephi: So, we can see why this IMMENSE power of will over and against God is necessary for the sake of some people's theodicy. But I ask again, does this really make any sense, given God's power?

pia: No, but it does make sense given God’s self-limitation of power. God’s power is subject to God’s will, not vice versa.

Mephi: …basically God is just HIMSELF and ultimately it's OUR natures that determine whether we wither from him or not. If I'm not mistaken, that seems to be basically how many people round these parts want to view divine judgement. In essence, God's not really ACTIVELY judging anything. He is just letting nature "take its course" as it were.

pia: You have caricatured process as deism in the past. Certainly there are versions that tend toward deism, but in the versions I find persuasive (Sponheim, Suchocki, Cobb), God feels (aka prehends) the world more fully and profoundly than we feel even our own experience (hence God’s suffering!). And God does not feel the world indifferently—every prehension of every instant is simultaneously a judgment (apart from which there is no transformation). God responds to what God feels by calling creation to something greater.

Mephi: Another brief thought: Sometimes I wonder if we just entertain ideas of universalism or a VAST majority of people being saved just to make us feel better existentially.…It bothers us. And we have to do something about it. So we basically do what we are doing now. Find ways to ease the existential tension. Could this all just be some twisted way that we are creating Freudian archetypes for our own sanity?

pia: Which is worse, wrestling with the prospect of damnation for ourselves and others or indifference toward it?

Vexen: The greatest sins in this sentiment are therefore: Suicide, harming the young, and denying Human beings their need to safely express vulnerabilities.

pia: Ouch. Guilty.

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism for it announces that the hurt is to be taken seriously…” § Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/17/2002 10:34 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Mephi: So, we can see why this IMMENSE power of will over and against God is necessary for the sake of some people's theodicy. But I ask again, does this really make any sense, given God's power?

pia: No, but it does make sense given God’s self-limitation of power. God’s power is subject to God’s will, not vice versa.

That's not in question. What I am dealing with are the moral ramifications of God's "self-limitation"? Would an all-good God "self-limit" Himself to the extent that he couldn't save everyone? Hmmm..

quote:
Mephi: …basically God is just HIMSELF and ultimately it's OUR natures that determine whether we wither from him or not. If I'm not mistaken, that seems to be basically how many people round these parts want to view divine judgement. In essence, God's not really ACTIVELY judging anything. He is just letting nature "take its course" as it were.

pia: You have caricatured process as deism in the past. Certainly there are versions that tend toward deism, but in the versions I find persuasive (Sponheim, Suchocki, Cobb), God feels (aka prehends) the world more fully and profoundly than we feel even our own experience (hence God’s suffering!). And God does not feel the world indifferently—every prehension of every instant is simultaneously a judgment (apart from which there is no transformation). God responds to what God feels by calling creation to something greater.

Is someone trying to hit below the belt? LOL! Where did you come up with me saying that God was INDIFFERENT to the world? I never said that. I said that God is basically himself (meaning he DOESN'T alter his modes of action per person...he treats everyone the same) and it's ultimately OUR state of being that "judges" us. In other words, God doesn't say "You are guilty" or "You are inadequate". He continues to love and beckon as he ALWAYS has. But at this greater revelation of God, the state of a person's being determines whether or not they have closer union with God. This is NOT the judgement as thought of being the Great Judgement where some great pronouncement is made. That's what I was talking about. So, where did you come up with "deism vs process"??

By the way, I don't think that the process view of "apprehension" would best be called "judgement", especially in the sense that we mean. Apprehension would be more like "evaluation" where God takes in all the information to lead creation to maximize its aesthetic value. In my post on omnibenevolence, I discuss Griffin's use of 1) Divine Creativity 2) Divine Creative Love and 3) Divine Responsive Love to come up with a good sense of omnibenevolence. I think that you will see that the apprehension that you are talking about correlates to the idea of Divine Responsive Love. Check it out.

You know I love you, darlin! Cook me some grits, willya?

Holla,

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/17/2002 10:35 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi said:

Another brief thought: Sometimes I wonder if we just entertain ideas of universalism or a VAST majority of people being saved just to make us feel better existentially. It seems to wear on people that divine judgement exists at all...and even more that a Scripture like this would exist:

Mat 7:13-14, words of Jesus
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Semeia:

But is this about eternity, or this life? I read this as a description of this world, and the difficulty of finding Jesus (the gate) in the midst of all that leads to death. It is a metaphor about the difficulty involved in finding what leads to life, when the path toward death is such a well-travelled and easy one. But if we extrapolate from this that Jesus is talking about actual numbers here, then we have to do the same thing when he talks about going after the one lost sheep (leaving the other 99 behind untended!). If we take these too literally, then we are left with a contradiction. But if they are images that Jesus gives us that work on our unconscious to help us understand the paradox of God's love, over time they work their way into our thought processes, and help lead us toward life. Even though, if you line up all the parables, they appear to be contradictory sometimes, as well as very bad advice, if you take them literally.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/17/2002 10:42 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Pia! Now I really am going to do laundry... or sooner or later someone's going to have to do an intervention...

Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/17/2002 10:43 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia said:

quote:
But is this about eternity, or this life? I read this as a description of this world, and the difficulty of finding Jesus (the gate) in the midst of all that leads to death. It is a metaphor about the difficulty involved in finding what leads to life, when the path toward death is such a well-travelled and easy one. But if we extrapolate from this that Jesus is talking about actual numbers here, then we have to do the same thing when he talks about going after the one lost sheep (leaving the other 99 behind untended!).

Ummmm..ok. How about some context from a relatively parallel passage.

Luke 13:22-30

Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.' "Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'

"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

Does this help?

Edited by - mephi2K on 01/17/2002 3:44:16 PM

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/17/2002 11:25 AM (GMT -6)

Meph, I must have read too much into your statement: “…basically God is just HIMSELF and ultimately it's OUR natures that determine whether we wither from him or not. If I'm not mistaken, that seems to be basically how many people round these parts want to view divine judgement. In essence, God's not really ACTIVELY judging anything. He is just letting nature ‘take its course’ as it were.” What did you mean by this?

I also must have come off more tough than I intended. Cool. I mean, oops! You know I luv ya!

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism for it announces that the hurt is to be taken seriously…” § Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/17/2002 12:18 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi, Maybe it is all rationalization. But when I think of how I communicate with my own children as I try to lead them down the best possible path, I realize that I don't always stick to a strict literal truth, sometimes I use all sorts of ploys to communicate the harm that MIGHT come to them. I want them to know the seriousness of where something could lead. Sometimes not knowing the exact reality helps them to make the right decision. I tell them, "Buckle up, accidents happen all the time. Buckle up, if we get in an accident you could be paralyzed or dead." I don't tell them, "Buckle up, even though there is a very small chance that we will get in an accident, and if we do, you'll probably be ok." As children, they might think the risk is worth it. As an adult, I know it's not--because I know what it really means, because I have more knowledge and experience than them.

Or, for example, do you think it would be good for the kids of wealthy parents to know that no matter what happens, they are going to inherit great wealth? Maybe they would just screw around and wait for the money to come in? If they totally screwed up their life, should they get the money anyway? Or does it get withheld, as they go through hell to recover? If they do recover, do the parents then give them their inheritance? Do the parents hold it over them their whole life, and say, "You only get this if you're really good"? Or could that also screw them up?

It seems to me that spending eternity with God is the best inheritance one can imagine. When I think of how totally screwed up people are in this world concerning mere monetary inheritance, I think of how much more complex it is to consider eternity. And God seems to use the carrot and the stick, and both are real. The consequence of turning away from God is the potential of being eternally separated from God. No matter how many or few, it is a devastating consequence.

But it seems to me that Jesus uses this type of language mostly on the Pharisees--who were people who thought they were saved. He hammers the Pharisees--he tells them he will not recognize them; he tells them they will be shut out.

But then he turns around and tells everyone else that they must have "greater righteousness" than the Pharisees, and "be perfect, as my father in heaven is perfect."

Isn't this all about humility? Isn't this all about recognizing our sinfulness and our need for God? That the minute we think we're "saved" we get in trouble, because suddenly we have less need for God? Jesus has no problem with the prostitute, the tax collector, the thief on the cross. Why? Because they knew they needed some grace. The Pharisees didn't. That is what I think is at issue in these passages.

Anyway, that's my quick take on it, but I do struggle with this whole issue. And damn the laundry, now I have to go pick up the kids!

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Vexen
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55

Posted 1/17/2002 12:42 PM (GMT -6)

Mephist2k says:

quote:
Now, this god knows that once he creates a contingent reality with sentient free-willed beings, it is an INEVITABILITY that, in the end, at least ONE of them will suffer eternal agony. So, to clarify, the inevitability ONLY APPEARS when the contingent reality is created. Does this help? From Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" page 287 (emphasis mine)

I've read that before on an essay on Empiress' website, it's a popular question.

My answer is that if that was not my only choice, to commit to it would be immoral, having full knowledge that that unjustified suffering was going to exist.

Until I could apply for better planning permission, and perhaps even simply change the rules (if I'm the head of the board), I couldn't commit to such a dangerous project!

--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk

Edited by - Vexen on 01/17/2002 5:43:40 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 1/18/2002 2:45 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmmm... the worst sin... how about the last one you didn't receive forgiveness for doing.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/19/2002 6:43 PM (GMT -6)

Here is some insight from Kierkegaard on the ”narrow way.” Which version is your favorite?

The single individual’s consciousness of sin as the narrow way (from Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits)

This consciousness [of sin] is the straight gate and the narrow way. It is not the way as such that is narrow, although quite a few people walk along it single-file; no, the narrowness is simply that each one separately must become the single individual who must press forward through this narrow pass along the narrow way where no comparison cools, but also where no comparison kills with its insidious chill. The broad way, on the other hand, is broad because many are walking on it. The way of the crowd is always broad. There the gorgeous poisonous flower of excuses blooms; the beckoning hiding places of excuses are there; the chilling breezes of comparison are there—that way does not lead to life.

Offense as the narrow way (from Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments)

In our day, Christianity has become so naturalized and domesticated in such a way that no one dreams of offense. Well, it is quite in order, because one is not offended by a triviality, and that is what Christianity is on the point of becoming. Otherwise it is surely the only power that truly can cause offense, and the narrow gate to the hard way of faith is offense, and the terrible resistance against the beginning of faith is offense; and if becoming a Christian proceeds properly, offense is bound to take its share in every generation as it did in the first. Christianity is the only power that truly can cause offense, because hysterical and sentimental spasms of offense over this and that can simply be rejected and explained as a lack of ethical earnestness that is coquettishly busy accusing the whole world instead of itself. For the believer, offense comes at the beginning, and the possibility of it is the continual fear and trembling in his existence.

Christ as the narrow way (from For Self-Examination)

Christ is the way. These are his own words; so it certainly must be the truth. And this way is narrow. These are his own words; so it certainly must be the truth.…Even if Christ had never said, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life," look at him and you see immediately: the way is narrow.…Furthermore, you see here that the proclaiming of Christianity for a period of a half hour, by a man whose life every day, every hour of the day, every moment, expresses the opposite, is at the greatest possible distance from the true proclamation of Christianity. Such a proclamation transforms Christianity into its very opposite.

Church Militant is the narrow way (from Practice in Christianity)

As long as this world lasts and the Christian Church in it, it is a militant Church; yet it has the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But woe, woe to the Christian Church when it will have been victorious in this world, for then it is not the Church that has been victorious but the world. Then the heterogeneity between Christianity and the world has vanished, the world has won, and Christianity has lost. Then Christ is no longer the God-man but a distinguished human being whose life is related homogeneously to the development of the human race.…Then the way to life is no longer narrow and the gate strait, nor are there only few who find it. No, the way is broad and the gate wide open—the gates of hell have prevailed, and many, indeed all, are admitted. Christ has never wanted to be victorious in this world. He came into the world in order to suffer; that he called being victorious. But when human impatience and brazen impertinence in imputing to Christianity its own thoughts and conceptions instead of letting his thoughts and conceptions be transformed by Christianity, when this has gained the upper hand, then in the old human way to be victorious comes to mean to be victorious in this world, and then Christianity is abolished.

Jesus was wrong about the narrow way (from The Moment)

A Eulogy in Praise of the Human Race; or Evidence that the New Testament is No Longer the Truth

In the New Testament, the Savior of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, presented the matter thus: The way that leads to life is narrow, the gate is strait—and few are they who find it

——now, however, we are all Christians; the way is as broad as possible, since it is the one we are all walking on, moreover, easy and comfortable in every way, and the gate as wide as possible—indeed, no gate can be wider than one through which all are walking en masse: ergo the New Testament is no longer the truth.

All honor to the human race! You, however, you Savior of the world, you have held too lowly an opinion of the human race, so that you did not foresee the elevation that it, perfectible as it is, can reach through steady, continuous striving!

Consequently to this degree the New Testament is not longer the truth: the way is the broadest, the gate is the widest, and we are all Christians. Yes, I venture to go a step further (this inspires me, since it is indeed a eulogy in praise of the human race), I venture to maintain that the average [pagans] living among us are to a certain degree Christians, Christians like all the rest of us—to the degree to which we are all Christians, to that degree the New Testament is no longer the truth.

…I venture to go a step further, yet without expressing any definite opinion, in view of my lack of knowledge in this regard, and therefore I ask the experts, the professionals, whether among domestic animals, the nobler ones, the horse, the dog, and the cow, there would appear a sign of something Christian? It is not improbably. Consider what it means to live in a Christian state, in a Christian nation, where everything is Christian and all are Christians, where one sees, wherever one turns, nothing but Christians and Christianity, truth and truth-witnesses—it is not improbable that this is bound to have an influence upon the nobler domestic animals and thereby, in turn, upon what, according to the judgment of bother the veterinarians and the pastors, is always the important thing: the offspring.…It is not improbably—although I do not presume to have a definite opinion, since this is not my profession, but prefer to refer it to a committee composed, for example, of pastors and veterinarians—it is not improbable that eventually it will turn out that domestic animals in "Christendom" bring Christian offspring into the world. I become almost dizzy at the thought. But then, on the greatest possible scale—all honor to the human race—the New Testament will not be the truth anymore.

Savior of the world, when in concern you said, "When I come again, will I find faith upon the earth?" and when you bowed your head in death, you surely did not have the slightest idea that your expectations would be exceeded on such a scale, that the human race would make the New Testament untruth in such a beautiful and moving way and your significance almost doubtful—such rare creatures, can they truthfully be said to need or to have ever needed a Savior!

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/19/2002 6:57 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia said: But is this about eternity, or this life? I read this as a description of this world, and the difficulty of finding Jesus (the gate) in the midst of all that leads to death. It is a metaphor about the difficulty involved in finding what leads to life, when the path toward death is such a well-travelled and easy one. But if we extrapolate from this that Jesus is talking about actual numbers here, then we have to do the same thing when he talks about going after the one lost sheep (leaving the other 99 behind untended!).

Mephi replied: Ummmm..ok. How about some context from a relatively parallel passage.

pia agrees: According to Matthew 19:23–26 (cf. Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27), the way is not only narrow and difficult, it is impossible: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “…Again I tell you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…you should be true, that is, you yourself should be what you proclaim, or at least strive to be that, or at least be honest enough to confess about yourself that you are not that…” § Søren Kierkegaard

Edited by - pia†desideria on 01/20/2002 12:01:17 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/19/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia said: But then he turns around and tells everyone else that they must have "greater righteousness" than the Pharisees, and "be perfect, as my father in heaven is perfect."

Isn't this all about humility? Isn't this all about recognizing our sinfulness and our need for God? That the minute we think we're "saved" we get in trouble, because suddenly we have less need for God? Jesus has no problem with the prostitute, the tax collector, the thief on the cross. Why? Because they knew they needed some grace. The Pharisees didn't.

Pia said: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “…Again I tell you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked a them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

The way is not only narrow and difficult, it is impossible for us to follow.

Semeia: I once heard an explanation of that parable that said that "the eye of the needle" was the name of a low gate into Jerusalem, so low that it would have required a camel to crawl through on its knees. Camels are well-known to be ornery and stubborn creatures, and it would have been nearly impossible to coax one through in this position. The analogy is that wealth makes it much more difficult for a person to have humility (to crawl through to God on their knees), and it is exactly humility that is needed to give one's self over to God's leadership. "My power is made perfect in weakness."

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/20/2002 2:24 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia, I’ve heard that interpretation also. This verse is often quoted to point out that rich people have a more difficult time getting into heaven than others. I disagree with that interpretation—at least, that’s not the way I would ever use this verse. I think it’s very clear from the text that Jesus isn’t just saying salvation is especially difficult for rich people—he is saying it’s impossible—for everyone.

At least that’s what I was thinking when I cited this verse in relation to “the narrow way.”

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…you should be true, that is, you yourself should be what you proclaim, or at least strive to be that, or at least be honest enough to confess about yourself that you are not that…” § Søren Kierkegaard

Edited by - pia†desideria on 01/20/2002 07:27:42 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 1/20/2002 3:44 AM (GMT -6)

Pia, I totally agree with your interpretation. I think it is clear from the disciples' reaction that they, too, understood it this way-- as impossible for everyone.

My only thought is that the reason it is "impossible" without God's help is because of the human problem with true humility and submission. It's not ever something we can do on our own, because the very definition of what it means to be "saved" is to be with God.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/29/2002 7:40 AM (GMT -6)

Here’s another take on the “narrow way”:

“Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way…and few there be that find it.” When a modern religion forgets this saying, it is suffering from an atavistic relapse into primitive barbarism. It is appealing to the psychology of the herd, away from the intuitions of the few.” — Alfred North Whitehead (Religion in the Making, 28)

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Peace to the one who wrote and to the one who reads and to those who love the Lord in simplicity of heart.” § Melito of Sardis

(o)
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/31/2002 7:48 AM (GMT -6)

Anything not done in love.

Vexen
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55

Posted 1/31/2002 8:05 AM (GMT -6)

Such as putting your socks on in the morning?

--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 1/31/2002 8:07 AM (GMT -6)

For some, putting socks on those ugly feet is certainly a loving thing to do. :)

peace and love,don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual