Spiritual fascism

[j.elvira]

Throught mankind from the beginning we as humans have allways tryed to be the number one being on the planet we've come up from the dinosaures and plants and such that now today we are going against eachother in superiority even though in every spiritual teachings it says we are allways created equal. We've come so far working together to be superior above everything else living that now we are trying to be superior over each other. Though in life their are such things that we can never come above i.e. religion, spirituality, and human kind. So why is it that we try so hard, why is it that we strive to be so much better than one another, when everything that has been taught to us has said that we are created equal in most if not all aspects of life?

[Steveintn]

I have had an ongoing battle with Spiritual Fascism within my own family. Too bad family dynamics weren't governed by the US Constitution (freedom of religion)! I think a major part of the problem with spiritual fascism (and in turn, fanaticism) is that religious individuals often are compelled to share their beliefs with others - always expecting the other person to have an open mind. It is rare, however, for the religious fanatic (at least for fundamentalist Christians) to be open-minded to other worldviews. I choose the word "worldview" purposely, because that is exactly what every religion is - and for each one, there are others which are comparable and equally valid. For any deeply spiritual individual, he/she should rationalize their own choice of worldview in terms of what it brings to them personally, not in terms of why other worldview are "wrong." It's also difficult for me to comprehend how any practicioner of a Judeo-Christian religion could consider themselves "enlightened" when the basis of their beliefs comes from a text which is several thousands of years old - the word "enlightened" suggests "new ideas".

[Vajradhara]

Namaste,

thank you for the post... please, pardon my tardy reply! i lost track of the thread

Originally Posted by Scarlet Pimpernel

Well, yeah, usually. Granted, I was raised in a pretty liberal tradition (Lutheranism, for the curious out there), but what we learned is that one is not so much externally punished for sin in the sense of getting a detention at school, but that we punish ourselves through our behaviour.

i would suspect that for the purposes of our conversation we should necessairly be general or "usual" with our responses. whilst perhaps not so much in your tradition, within the paradigm of Buddhism, one can find a wide variety of views which do not lend to a productive conversation with non-Buddhists.

so.. having said that, you would agree that, generally, this is how the term is understood, however, your tradition explained it a bit differently. yes?

[quote]
Like I said...

is this due to your traditions belief that God cannot stand the presence of sin or for some other reason?[?QUOTE]
Hmm, interesting question. I think it's not so much that God can't stand it as that it can't exist in His presence - like a campfire can't exist underwater. Also, the Confession and Forgiveness of Sin was not a necessary part of every service - God could accept our worship and we could get close to God just as well without it. So I think the purpose was more that if there was something we felt guilty about it wouldn't be weighing on our chest and distracting us from worship. It was something we needed more than something God needed from us.


That, and the resulting separation from God.

ok.. so it is based on your traditions belief that you hold this view good to know.

I personally agree with what Abogado del Diablo said about "God" being a linguistic placeholder for the idea of the Absolute, but I think that is an idea I came to after moving away from Christianity, rather than an idea intrinsic to the Christianity I was taught.

whilst i have no particular argument with regards to this view, my concern is, generally, how these things are actually implemented in a mindstream. human minds are sort of particular and even when we say that "such and such is unimagineable or unthinkable" our minds still try to imagine and think of what it cannot.

as such, the term "God" has come to have some particular attributes associated with it. effectively, rendering the term nearly meaningless to me. it is clear enough that many theistic beings not only have an "idea" about God, but some of them even claim to "know" God and, moreover, feel that God needs their help to accomplish some task. whilst i am not a theist, this has always struck me as odd.. heck, even in the Gods in Buddhism require little human interaction to implement their desires.. yet, if one can believe some of the Semetic tradition adherents, that is most certainly the case.

saying that God is the Ground of Being, like Protestant theological Paul Tillich, is not much different than saying that God is Brahma.

of course, from the Buddhist view, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the root sequence from which all things arose. as such, even with an undefined "Ground of Being" Buddhism could still not assent to such a proposition.

Well, no. Technically God doesn't judge us in the afterlife, but we are judged for our sins the moment we commit them.

by whom or what is one judged?

more to the point, what of the passage in John where he speaks of the White Throne Judgement?

But we bring about our own punishment.

of course, i heartily agree with this... and it's collorary... we also bring about our own reward.

Hell is defined as "the state of separation from God," and that can certainly exist in this lifetime.

fair enough.

But that separation is not because God pushes us away because we are dirty. Like I said, it isn't the "getting detention" idea but more the "fire-can't-exist-underwater" idea (and please, any marine geologists out there, don't point out underwater volcanoes - you know what I'm trying to get at ). The emphasis is laid on God's mercy and not on His judgement - He doesn't want our separation and would do anything to remove it.

yet, you also say that God cannot be in the presence of sin. either this is a rhetorical device meant for something else, or it is a statement of a particular condition.

moreover... review the words that you are choosing to write here... "he wants..." "he doesn't want...." those are all human wants and desires... well concieved in the human mind.

Again, I am only speaking from the perspective of the Christian tradition in which I was raised. I'm not even speaking from the perspective of my current beliefs. Based on my (limited) understanding of other Christian traditions, I think there are some whose idea of sin is closer to what you have posited.

interesting indeed.

hopefully, some of them may join the forum and find this thread, read it, post in it and i'll remember it! Whew!



metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

In case, you haven't noticed the slip just yet, the author you refer to is actually Chogyam Trungpa.

DUH!!!



metta,

~v

[earl]

[quote=Vajradhara]Namaste,

thank you for the post... please, pardon my tardy reply! i lost track of the thread


i would suspect that for the purposes of our conversation we should necessairly be general or "usual" with our responses. whilst perhaps not so much in your tradition, within the paradigm of Buddhism, one can find a wide variety of views which do not lend to a productive conversation with non-Buddhists.

so.. having said that, you would agree that, generally, this is how the term is understood, however, your tradition explained it a bit differently. yes?

Like I said...


ok.. so it is based on your traditions belief that you hold this view good to know.


whilst i have no particular argument with regards to this view, my concern is, generally, how these things are actually implemented in a mindstream. human minds are sort of particular and even when we say that "such and such is unimagineable or unthinkable" our minds still try to imagine and think of what it cannot.

as such, the term "God" has come to have some particular attributes associated with it. effectively, rendering the term nearly meaningless to me. it is clear enough that many theistic beings not only have an "idea" about God, but some of them even claim to "know" God and, moreover, feel that God needs their help to accomplish some task. whilst i am not a theist, this has always struck me as odd.. heck, even in the Gods in Buddhism require little human interaction to implement their desires.. yet, if one can believe some of the Semetic tradition adherents, that is most certainly the case.

saying that God is the Ground of Being, like Protestant theological Paul Tillich, is not much different than saying that God is Brahma.

of course, from the Buddhist view, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the root sequence from which all things arose. as such, even with an undefined "Ground of Being" Buddhism could still not assent to such a proposition.


by whom or what is one judged?

more to the point, what of the passage in John where he speaks of the White Throne Judgement?


of course, i heartily agree with this... and it's collorary... we also bring about our own reward.


fair enough.


yet, you also say that God cannot be in the presence of sin. either this is a rhetorical device meant for something else, or it is a statement of a particular condition.

moreover... review the words that you are choosing to write here... "he wants..." "he doesn't want...." those are all human wants and desires... well concieved in the human mind.


interesting indeed.

hopefully, some of them may join the forum and find this thread, read it, post in it and i'll remember it! Whew!



metta,

~v

Hi Vajradhara. As you are much more versed it seems in formal study of Buddhism, in particular vajrayana, than me, I'm interested in your take on this. Your points regarding Buddhist notions of "God" are quite apt and to the traditional point of Buddhist teachings-in fact I'd probably agree with 99.999% of what you just said . To a large degree my own use of the term "God" is my short-hand stemming from my upbringing & I'd agree that there are so many notions of what that term implies, (you're so right that one perhaps needs to be mindful of how one is using it and the effect on the mindstream accordingly). I do love speculating regarding metaphysics but fundamentally I also subscribe to the "zen" notion that concepts/notions can also be subtle but significant traps, stopping one's progress on the path. To paraphrase the old Zen "Song of Mind" from Chan China: as long as we hold to a self and to an Other, heaven and earth will be far apart. However, you did pique my curiosity with your statement about Buddhists not equating "Buddha Nature" and "Ground of Being."

I've long loved vajrayana writings because they seem so lyrical, they seem so inclined to metaphors of personification that they almost seem to overlap with mystical theistic writings. I've not actually encountered this purported vajrayana tantra before, the "All Creating King Tantra, that speaks of the universal Mind of Awakening personified as Samantabhadra. Don't know if this purported snippet from it is even genuine, but caught my eye with that sort of lyricism wherein Samantabhadra declares of himself:

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. i am the root of existence. I am the 'core' because I contain all phenomena. I am the 'seed' because I give birth to everything. I am the 'cause' because all comes from me. I am the 'trunk' because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am the 'foundation' because all abides in me. I am called the 'root' because I am everything."

Interesting I think in reference to phrases such as "ground of being," though, as we know, notions such as "self," "Other," & "personhood," take on many different meanings (to ultimately largely evaporate), as our meditative paths lead us on. In that ultimate sense, don't know how much straining over the concepts will mean in the long run-but fun for now. Take care, Earl

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Dave the Web

This is a definite concern within Christianity. One of the things that pushes me more from it is the high atitude of superiority, the judementalism, the legalism, and the general ignorance of the words of Jesus. Spiritual fascism as you call it is endemic, even among those who appear as moderates with a friendly smile and wave. Inside they know you're going to Hell and they are not. It is a terrible situation.

Originally Posted by VirtuousValkyrie

YES! I totally agree with you!! I am going through a year of "spiritual seeking" of sorts because I was totally abandoned by my so called "church". The same ones that said they "love people and care for them like Christ does.." HYPOCRISY!!! I have looked back on my 3 years in that church and I realized how unloving and judgemental I was. Here were some things I believed: all gay people were going to hell and they could help they had feelings for the same sex, anything that was not Christian was from the devil and not good... etc etc.. Now looking back I am like, oh my gosh.. how closed-minded could I be??? Are these thoughts what Jesus would want me to think?? No! He would want me to love and accept gay people, to accept other people's religions, and to leave judgement to God. Jesus taught us not to judge others, but to instead look at ourselves first (Matthew 7:1-5). I am glad I am finally taking that to heart.

Originally Posted by mac1

This is the most of the reason why I don't particularly care for organised religion. Most religions consider their teachings to be correct, and all the rest wrong. This is both arrogant and myopic, you will never become enlightened with an attitude like that. To anyone here that thinks I am going to burn in hell for that remark, no, I just don't believe the same as you, is that so hard to take on board. Sadly, for far too many people, it is.

Being a Christian, I think it's interesting what people have to say about the Christian faith and particularly organised religion.

I've read quite a lot of books on religion, especially on "false Christian teachings." I've done quite a bit of thinking about the faith I follow, and I've done some vigorous reading of the New Testament and the Epistles. You could say I've come to terms with the ugliness of "Christianity" as I was brought up knowing.

Instead of being disgusted with it, I think it made me feel better about it.

With organised religion, I'd like to say that I am not totally against, but nor am I totally in favour of it. Firstly, I do attend a congregation weekly on Sundays, but from the books I've read on Christian ministry I've come to believe that meeting in public buildings is probably not the best in terms of spiritual experience for Christians and especially recent converts to the faith.

Organised religion, public meeting places and meeting in large groups makes the "spiritual experience" impersonal. I think I would much prefer meeting in smaller groups and in so-called "house churches." Everything gets more close and personal.

I am not saying the experience I had with my congregation was negative. Actually it's been quite comfortable for me because I was brought up and raised in it. I go to a Baptist church and the thing about Baptist churches is that leadership is local. That means that the leader of your congregation is free to make up his own agenda without having to "answer to a higher authority." I consider myself lucky to be brought up in that kind of environment.

With what VirtuousValkyrie said, 'The same ones that said they "love people and care for them like Christ does..," ' I think the problem is that many people think that church is just a public building. Christians often fall for that way of thinking.

"Do you go to church?" means do you go to that public building? If you don't it means you're disloyal or uncommitted. They put so much effort into getting people to come into that public building that they don't do anything "personal" outside the public building.

My personal view is that "the Church" as in "the True Church," the Kingdom of God and the Body of Christ, includes everything we do in life not just in a public building.

I think the other problem (as VirtuousValkyrie said) is when people say that "certain behaviours" are Christian and others "un-Christian." I don't support this view as a Christian. My reading of the NT and Epistles tells me this is not the way of distinguishing between good/bad people and Christian/non-Christian.

If you were actually to read the NT/Epistles, the apostles don't talk about so-called "Christian behaviours." They talk about human nature and good and evil instincts. Sin comes from following our evil instincts.

A Christian is simply a person who believes that because Adam brought evil into the world by eating from the Forbidden Tree, Christ came to offer us a path back to God. After converting, a Christian lives by faith, hope and love and withdrawing from his evil instincts and strengthening his good instincts.

Therefore, there is no such thing as "Christian behaviour" especially to a "true Christian believer." True Christians know there is no such thing as Christian behaviour. It's the exact opposite to what most think!!!!

Faith, hope and love are the rungs of the ladder to God. They are the pathway laid down for us by Christ. This faith, hope and love are not about us becoming "powerful spiritual warriors," it's part of the pathway we follow. It's not something superhuman. Christ performed the ritual, and by doing so opened a pathway for us. To stay on that path we have to live by faith, hope and love otherwise we're not true believers. Comprendei? Excuse me, my Spanish is very poor.

As for who goes to hell, I can't exactly tell you. The view I have now is that everybody will be judged, believer and unbeliever. The difference is that a believer will judged on how he practiced his faith, hope and love during his spiritual journey. Unbelievers will be judged on their deeds, actions and attitudes. Unbelievers will come from a wide range of realities and walks of life.

Of course, I am just stating what I believe as a Christian. I am not arrogant or conceited about my faith and nor do I think we all have that "superiority complex" that many people think Christians have. I think it's the way Christians present their religion and sometimes it puts people off.

I don't actually consider my faith "superior." I simply believe it's the True Story of God's Creation. That doesn't make me arrogant, does it? As far as I know, we are just messengers who are trying to tell people the True Story of God's Creation. Not everybody believes us.

We don't force people to believe us, so how can that be "spiritual fascism?" Fascism involves force, coercion and domination.

An example of what I mean could be that you know that in 24 hours the whole world is going to get blown up but nobody else knows and nobody believes you. Who's going to believe that the world's going to blow up in 24 hours? But what if it's true? It's a bit like what happened in Noah's flood.

Anyone ever seen that kind of drama on TV? It's like you know something, but no matter what you tell people they don't believe you. They either think you're crazy or you're just making trouble.

If you want to know what I think I reckon the Christian Gospel is in many ways inferior simply because it's "a Gospel" and was never meant to solve all of life's problems.

That's not intellectual suicide though, I still think it's the True Story because it's the Truth that matters not practical usefulness in the world we live in.

As it says in 1 Peter 2:7, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone."

In other words, the Christian Gospel, the most inferior and worthless religion in the world, may actually turn out to be most important to human beings in rescuing them from a world of evil. As Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world."

What if, after all the bad things that have happened in the world, all we had to do was admit that Adam really did eat from the Forbidden Tree and corrupted human nature?

It's like we're telling people about an incredible story that couldn't possibly be true. People think we spiritual fascists. Sometimes we are, but when we tell the story for what it was really meant to be, with genuine love and honesty, with no desire for personal glory, I think the fascism disappears.

Love is revealed for what it is in times of great trouble. Who knows? Maybe when World War 3 breaks out we will all know who the true believers are.

As I Christian I don't see all this as a "superiority complex." It's just what we believe is the Truth about the world. When we try and convert others, we're just doing our job.

[jiii]

I think it's merely that people in this world are typically 'divided' by many things...race, ethnicity, language, politics, money...the list goes on. Dividing people on something like Truth and spirituality seems, admittedly, pretty strange and contrary to basic intuition.

Of course...there are no absolutes with intuition, I guess.

[Curios Mike]

Spiritual people may be regarded so, not for their beliefs, not for theor thoughts, but for their humility. The humble do not elevate themselves. Those who are humble are greatest before God.

This is a true statement, but what do you percieve as humble? Check out Elijah of the Bible. Was he humble?

Those who claim to be spiritual, yet regard as worthless others for no crime other than being different to they, are not spiritual people – they are merely fascists with some limited measure of spiritual insight.

Does this mean Elijah was a spiritual fascists? Read 1kings 18:20-40

1 Kings 18:20-40
20 So Ahab sent for all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together on Mount Carmel. 21 And Elijah came to all the people, and said, "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people answered him not a word. 22 Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 23 Therefore let them give us two bulls; and let them choose one bull for themselves, cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other bull, and lay it on the wood, but put no fire under it. 24 Then you call on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD; and the God who answers by fire, He is God." So all the people answered and said, "It is well spoken."
25 Now Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one bull for yourselves and prepare it first, for you are many; and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it." 26 So they took the bull which was given them, and they prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even till noon, saying, "O Baal, hear us!" But there was no voice; no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they had made. 27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they cried aloud, and cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them. 29 And when midday was past, they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice. But there was no voice; no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down. 31 And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Israel shall be your name." 32 Then with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD; and he made a trench around the altar large enough to hold two seahs of seed. 33 And he put the wood in order, cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood, and said, "Fill four waterpots with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood." 34 Then he said, "Do it a second time," and they did it a second time; and he said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time. 35 So the water ran all around the altar; and he also filled the trench with water. 36 And it came to pass, at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, "LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel and I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your word. 37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that You are the LORD God, and that You have turned their hearts back to You again." 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 Now when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, "The LORD, He is God! The LORD, He is God!" 40 And Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!" So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
NKJV

I think being humble about God is wrong.... But Its when we exalt ourselves weather it be becuase We are right (wether we are or not), or becuase we want to make ourselves beter then others is where we get into trouble. But boasting our God is The only true God if your bringing Him Glory rather then seeking your own glory is more or less what He desires. But theirs is a thing Called wisdom that some who may boast may lack.... Their is a time and a place.... Like Elijah that was the time and place.....

1 Peter 5:5-7
5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for
"God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble."
6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, 7 casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.
NKJV

A Good example of this would be liken to the pharisees of the Bible.... Or yes I have to agree alot church folk can be this way tooo(probably most).... But I think God seeks for those like Elijah who boast in Him rather than selfrighttousness.

[Katyana1980]

Originally Posted by foundationist

The trouble is, I see it everywhere. It really came to my attention in the "neo-hippie pot-smoking" crowd - and how they would speak of peace and love one moment, and then denigrate "trendies" and "townies" in a sometimes most incredible manner.

I've seen this a lot too. I've also had a close friend tell me that he prays for me because he thinks I'm going to hell because I don't turn to God. My boyfriend has been in love before and he says that they split up because his ex-girlfriend had the same attitude. SHe dumped him and he acutally nearly attempted suicide. Now he's afraid to go into a church.

People need to think about imposing their religion on others and how destructive it can be. And think about how it can make other people feel if you tell them that they are damned or act superior to them. When my friend told me that the thought I was going to hell, I felt hurt that he thought that my life was wrong, when I do everything I can to be a good person - basically in line with my Christian upbringing, but not out of Christian belief, and also from my own sense of ethics developed from experience.

I also felt patronised when he said that he would pray for me. I know that the had the best intentions, but I don't want someone praying to a God that I don't believe in on my behalf. It seemed hypocritical.

I am very happy for my friends and family to have strong beliefs if it helps to make them happy. I don't agree with people feeling that this makes them superior people, especially not with the responsibility to bring me in line with their faith.

Depsite my Christian upbringing, my father is an atheist, my mother is an active Christian, and both have been to muslim and pagan weddings because of their mixed group of friends. Tolerance and doing what I think is right is the main message that I've got from them.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Katyana1980

I also felt patronised when he said that he would pray for me. I know that the had the best intentions, but I don't want someone praying to a God that I don't believe in on my behalf. It seemed hypocritical.

What does it hurt though?

I believe He was wrong in telling you that he thought you were going to hell.. I also think that telling a non-believer that they are in thier prayers can sound a bit self righteous.. but if you honestly thinking about it.. what does it hurt if he prays for you. If you dont believe his prayers will be heard then it doesnt affect you.. and if hes right.. it wouldnt be bad either. Maybe take it as I believe it was meant to be.. a friend loving another friend.

[Katyana1980]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Maybe take it as I believe it was meant to be.. a friend loving another friend.

I guess you're right. It just made me feel uncomfortable because in his mind I needed help in certain respects, and in my mind I didn't.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Sorry, I kinda lost track of the thread too

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so.. having said that, you would agree that, generally, this is how the term is understood, however, your tradition explained it a bit differently. yes?

Yeah, I guess that's a fair and accurate summary.

whilst i have no particular argument with regards to this view, my concern is, generally, how these things are actually implemented in a mindstream. human minds are sort of particular and even when we say that "such and such is unimagineable or unthinkable" our minds still try to imagine and think of what it cannot.

as such, the term "God" has come to have some particular attributes associated with it. effectively, rendering the term nearly meaningless to me. it is clear enough that many theistic beings not only have an "idea" about God, but some of them even claim to "know" God and, moreover, feel that God needs their help to accomplish some task. whilst i am not a theist, this has always struck me as odd.. heck, even in the Gods in Buddhism require little human interaction to implement their desires.. yet, if one can believe some of the Semetic tradition adherents, that is most certainly the case.

okay, very good point, all of that, and something to think about.

saying that God is the Ground of Being, like Protestant theological Paul Tillich, is not much different than saying that God is Brahma.

I certainly agree with that these days, but back then I would have been leery of this idea, because the mainstream Christian belief is that the only accurate way to describe God is with the terminology used within the Christian Church, and not with words intrinsic to other religions, because you want to be sure you're not worshipping false gods.

of course, from the Buddhist view, there is nothing which can rightly be regarded as the root sequence from which all things arose.

okayyy....like I said, my understanding of Buddhist theology is very weak, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. I'm not sure what to put in the place of the "root sequence".

by whom or what is one judged?

more to the point, what of the passage in John where he speaks of the White Throne Judgement?

aha, excellent question. To address your second question first, my Bible knowledge isn't as good as it used to be - to which passage, specifically, are you referring? As for the first question, you know, I don't think that was ever specifically addressed. I kind of picked up the idea that it was just the way the cosmos worked - sort of a theological equivalent of a law of physics. We didn't judge ourselves because we haven't the wisdom, God or Jesus didn't judge us because He is loving and merciful, and not judgemental. So what else is left? All I can think of is that underwater campfire image - when we sin, we are pushing ourselves away from God - we are dooming ourselves to separation from God because sin cannot exist in His presence. Maybe "judge" was never the right word, it was just the one commonly used.

of course, i heartily agree with this... and it's collorary... we also bring about our own reward.

agree with you now, wouldn't have agreed with you then. the official line is that only God can reward us because only God has the authority and power to release us from our punishment. Only God can circumvent those theological laws of physics.

yet, you also say that God cannot be in the presence of sin. either this is a rhetorical device meant for something else, or it is a statement of a particular condition.

hmmm...what "something else"did you have in mind? As for it being a statement of a particular condition, I suppose you could look at it that way. but if you think of "sin" as "imperfection" and you accept that God is perfect, then you get "perfection cannot be in the presence of imperfection," which seems selfevident (and also tautological and circular, but certainly true).

moreover... review the words that you are choosing to write here... "he wants..." "he doesn't want...." those are all human wants and desires... well concieved in the human mind.

granted. God certainly doesn't want things in the way we want them. That is also a linguistic placeholder to make it easier for our limited human minds to grasp, and that is an idea I was taught within Christianity.

Originally Posted by Katyana1980

I guess you're right. It just made me feel uncomfortable because in his mind I needed help in certain respects, and in my mind I didn't.

I certainly understand your discomfort, and it's hard not to take this attitude as anything other than a feeling of superiority when you're on the receiving end. But I do agree with Faithfulservant's take on it.

But it's what Saltmeister was saying, "It's just what we believe is the Truth about the world," with a capital T. Even when the intention is purely humble and helpfully meant (and often enough it is neither), the implication is "I have the Truth and you have Falsehood" and that is not easily heard by anyone.

I think a much better approach is "I have what is True for me. Maybe it is True for you too, and I certainly hope so, because I think it's wonderful." I don't know how to make the distinction clear in practice, however.

[seattlegal]

White Throne Judgement is Revelation 20:11-15

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Ah, thanks, seattlegal. Well, it just says

And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

It still doesn't bring us any closer to answering who or what is doing the judging (unless one wishes to maintain that the "things which were written in the books" were doing the judging, in which case that sounds to me as if your works yourself are judging you, which is pretty close to what both you and I are arguing. I also checked out seattlegal's link, and tried all the versions in every language I can read, and none of them say who or what is doing the judging, either.

In my personal opinion, John of Patmos had done a few too many shrooms. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Good_Omens

[Curios Mike]

Scarlet Pimpernel

aha, excellent question. To address your second question first, my Bible knowledge isn't as good as it used to be - to which passage, specifically, are you referring? As for the first question, you know, I don't think that was ever specifically addressed. I kind of picked up the idea that it was just the way the cosmos worked - sort of a theological equivalent of a law of physics. We didn't judge ourselves because we haven't the wisdom, God or Jesus didn't judge us because He is loving and merciful, and not judgemental. So what else is left? All I can think of is that underwater campfire image - when we sin, we are pushing ourselves away from God - we are dooming ourselves to separation from God because sin cannot exist in His presence. Maybe "judge" was never the right word, it was just the one commonly used.

It still doesn't bring us any closer to answering who or what is doing the judging (unless one wishes to maintain that the "things which were written in the books" were doing the judging, in which case that sounds to me as if your works yourself are judging you, which is pretty close to what both you and I are arguing. I also checked out seattlegal's link, and tried all the versions in every language I can read, and none of them say who or what is doing the judging, either.

1 Cor 4:3-5
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.
NKJV
1 Cor 6:1-3
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
NKJV

hmmm...what "something else"did you have in mind? As for it being a statement of a particular condition, I suppose you could look at it that way. but if you think of "sin" as "imperfection" and you accept that God is perfect, then you get "perfection cannot be in the presence of imperfection," which seems selfevident (and also tautological and circular, but certainly true).

James 1:12-16
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
NKJV
Gal 5:19-22
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Gal 5:22-25
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.(james 1:13-16)
NKJV

Hope this answers your questions: