tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4225502016359798858.post7165512873548002021..comments2023-08-29T09:34:48.537-05:00Comments on εἰκών βασιλέως: Metatheology, Part III: A Theology of DiversityDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08244026688548871531noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4225502016359798858.post-47163678953952963972013-05-17T13:20:50.828-05:002013-05-17T13:20:50.828-05:00Its not just "evangelical" Christianity....Its not just "evangelical" Christianity. I don't think you can find or establish a version of Christianity that isn't ultimately all about your personal salvation and a great deal dismissive of relational ethics (that is, of treating others right).<br /><br /><i>"I'm not really sure where you're coming from about the Pharisees and Sadducees, though. Christianity definitely teaches in a hope for after death (John 11:25), which the Sadducees didn't believe in."</i> That's a load of baloney. Paul can use the term "hope" all he wants, but Christianity is really about CERTAINTY of a resurrection not "hope." I would say someone who only hopes for a resurrection of the just alone but believes in certainty that the unjust cease to exist and will not be raised, is a Sadducee. I don't buy that the Sadduccees taught a certainty that nobody will be raised; I think they taught a certainty that the unjust cease to exist and held out a thin hope for an afterlife for the just alone. <i>"After going through all the implications of denying resurrection, Paul says that if we are only Christians for this life, we have made a tremendous mistake (1 Corinthians 15:19)."</i> Yes, but Paul was a Pharisee, right? So of course he'd say that: whereas his opponents there in Corinth were also Christians and didn't believe in a resurrection "both of the just and unjust"--were they Christian Saduccees? I reject the notion that Paul is a prescriptive authority for modern Christian belief: he's just a theologian like Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Augustine, Aquinas, Manicheaus, Marcion, Socinus, Calvin, Luther, Ratzinger, or any of the rest. Besides, Paul's argument here seems to be more against those who teach a certainty that there is no afterlife for anyone, not against those who say the unjust have no afterlife but the just do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16372463300223880001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4225502016359798858.post-30228246567407998052013-05-17T08:01:22.154-05:002013-05-17T08:01:22.154-05:00Well said. I agree that evangelical Christianity t...Well said. I agree that evangelical Christianity tends to make too big a deal out of salvation, knowing you're saved, having an assurance of (that is, having faith in) your saving faith, etc. It's not about crossing the line between heaven and hell and then being all set, it's about constantly walking or running toward Jesus, for eternal life is knowing Him. We do what is right not simply because it's right, but because we're becoming more like Jesus. Christian faith transforms the whole person, not just their code of ethics.<br /><br />I'm not really sure where you're coming from about the Pharisees and Sadducees, though. Christianity definitely teaches in a hope for after death (John 11:25), which the Sadducees didn't believe in. After going through all the implications of denying resurrection, Paul says that if we are only Christians for this life, we have made a tremendous mistake (1 Corinthians 15:19). Have you read the series I previously did on Hell? I see a much better (and, I think, more biblical) alternative to either the "eternal conscious retributive torment" view or denying an afterlife altogether. http://dpitch40.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-hell-part-i-two-main-views-of-hell.htmlDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244026688548871531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4225502016359798858.post-47214641098868748362013-05-17T08:00:57.464-05:002013-05-17T08:00:57.464-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244026688548871531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4225502016359798858.post-14047356972663446972013-05-16T19:17:55.130-05:002013-05-16T19:17:55.130-05:00"How do we, as Christians, "do" the...<i>"How do we, as Christians, "do" theology lovingly and truthfully in the midst of significant theological disagreement?"</i><br /><br />Its not possible because Christianity is setup as a selfish me me me religion. Its all about being damned by default and gotta get saved: about me me me, my salvation. I gotta ensure I get to heaven: that is the goal, the only goal. This nonsense is inherited from the Pharisees and is a side-effect of belief in the afterlife, really. If you want loving religion, go Sadducee. So long as religion is about who is going to heaven or hell rather than who is pleasing God by their life without the taint of the concepts of heaven and hell, then religion will be a hate-filled enterprise. Its not really possible to love people that you believe God is going to broil for all eternity in a place of conscious everlasting torment. That concept breeds hate. The Sadduccess on the other hand taught a religion of do what right simply because its right: do God's will just because its his will: and IF (and its a big if) there is a reward in an afterlife for doing it, well then that will be taken care of by itself, but probably there is no reward in an afterlife and certainly there is no afterlife of torment. Such an attitude permits one to love even those who are not right in God's sight: at the very least they have no reason to yell at them "you're going to hell" because there is no hell. But they can still try to get them to reform, but without having to engage in all the vitriol that the concept of hell requires.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16372463300223880001noreply@blogger.com