Wednesday, April 1, 2009

A Thought on Theology

Lately we've been having some discussion on here about religion, truth, love, and their source.  We have debated whether our old theologies and doctrines are stale.  It has gone even a step further in questioning why we need a specific religion, or set of doctrines, at all.  Why can't we just find God and Truth in all places instead of one specific doctrine?

I am one that has thought that theologies can often get in the way of God.  There are so many denominations and doctrines out there, even just within Christianity itself.  How can these small differences in doctrine possibly make a difference in our faith?  I don't really think they can honestly.

I do think, on the other hand, that understanding the different theologies and doctrines in our faith is important.  Last night I was reading a chapter in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and he had a good point about theology.

Lewis was considering the fact that many people are put off by theology (theology being the "science of God").  Many people find it is more personal and beneficial to feel God, through whatever means they can.  They feel they can learn more about God through their daily interaction with Him as opposed to studying theology.  

It is true that personal interaction with God is going to be more "real" than any old theology.  Lewis' illustration was that this is similar to standing on the beach of the Atlantic Ocean and seeing it's magnificence, then going and looking at it on a map.  Obviously the map is going to be far less real than the actual Atlantic ocean itself.  The map, however, is necessary in navigating the ocean, should you want to travel that ocean from England to the US (I am paraphrasing Lewis here).  Lewis made the point that theologies are based on the interaction of hundreds and thousands of people with God over thousands of years.  They have written down what they found to be truth about God.  Others have then built on those theologies as the centuries have gone on.  

Take science for example.  Over thousands of years scientists have studied the world and its inner workings.  Each one building on the next and correcting the falsehoods of the last.  What if each time we wanted to learn something of the world we had to reconstruct the Periodic Table, or refigure the E=MC2 equation...we wouldn't get very far.  

In a similar way, the theologies that have been passed down over the centuries can help us better understand the God we worship.  We can learn great things from what others before us found as Truth about God and attempt to build on them.  This seems a far greater way of coming to know God than relying solely on our own feelings and experience.  As long as we study with a certain skepticism.  We still need to constantly question and come to our own conclusions.  

Don't get me wrong, experiences have a huge place in understanding and learning about God.  What I am saying is that it is foolish to negate thousands of years of people, just like you and I, trying to know God, and passing on the truth that they had found.  It is still important to discuss and debate these theologies, none are perfect.  It is impossible for any of us to understand and explain God perfectly...if it were possible, He would be a pretty lame God.  

So let's continue to discuss our theologies and doctrines, whether from Christian faith, or from any other source we believe we can find truth in, and see what we come up with, but let's not forget the great people that came before us that God revealed His truth to as well.  

16 comments:

  1. The "map vs territory" analogy you allude to might be my all time favorite analogy in the history of analogies. I just encountered that for the first time a few months ago and the deep meaning behind it is still resonating with me. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that the best way to understand the nature of the territory (God) is with a map (religious doctrine), even if our map might be quite poor...it must be better than nothing. That's deep. First of all, I want to say that I am a mapmaker myself and I am not against trying to rationally understand God, as long as we realize that we can't….as long as we don’t confuse the map with the territory. Especially recently, I have become deeply interested in mapping God out in any way I can...it fills me with so much awe.

    The truth I feel I have found is that everyone has different maps of the same territory, and the best way to understand that territory is to explore the similarities and differences between each of those maps, and to try navigating once or twice with other maps. If I can envision the territory through a number of different maps, or templates, its true form begins to take a clearer shape, despite its ultimate blurriness. To choose one map as the one true map and disregard all other maps as illegitimate, while also acknowledging that your map is still only a blurry, distorted outline of the real territory, is clearly a mistake. From what you wrote Joe, I feel like maybe you agree with me on that?

    Regardless of whether or not the theologies that have been passed down over centuries can help us better understand the God we worship...I want to really talk about that in a later post actually because I don't yet know my answer.... what would happen if everyone on this planet who seeks love for all of creation threw away their maps and joined hands? Is not the act of loving the same as worshipping God…is this not, in its essence, the message of Jesus? Is not the fact that we don’t do this indicative that we have not understood the most important point of our entire complex theology…to freely love one another through the spirit of God? Haven't so many of us confused our maps with the territory?!

    If we all accepted and loved one another despite our different views of God, creating a brotherhood among those who would choose love, with no other conditions, would Jesus be upset and say, “Wait a minute, I didn’t tell you to love one another, I told you to accept me as God’s son or pay the price?” What does God want for His people? Does He want them to believe in Jesus as God’s son, or does He want them to love one another as He loves? Does He want you to fulfill a certain set of conditions during your life, or does he simply want love to exist between man on Earth? If you answer is both, then you confuse your map with the territory.

    Morgan, thanks for your great comments, hopefully you have jumped over into these as well. I have a ton of things to respond to from you and Joe and eventually I will get there. The one thing I wanted to tell you now though is that when I say spiritual evolution, I am referring to an increased awareness of God’s nature, and our own nature. An increased spiritual awareness in just one person increases the net spiritual awareness of the collective, and therefore this is not self-focused….in fact I believe that is why we are here…to increase everyone’s God awareness...this is spiritual evolution. I am not saying we need to grow or evolve in order to exist, but that we need to grow and evolve in our awareness of God’s nature. I see that we desperately need to do this because so many of us believe that God’s love is conditional.

    Gotta run folks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is Morgan. It seems like growing in order to increase our awareness of God ultimately benfits us (collectively) instead of God. God does not cease to be God or be glorified if someone doesn't believe in Him or doesn't attempt to glorify Him. (Thankfully! Otherwise all the wrong things Christians have done "in His name" would have dethroned Him by now.)Basically, I think our attempts at glorifying God are like extra credit. But He is so worth it, so that's why we do it!

    I actually do believe that God cares more whether or not we accept Christ as Lord than whether or not we love each other. Otherwise, His death was in vain! "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-- and shudder." -James 2:19 Like I said, when we fail to love each other (and thus, fail to accurately portray God to others), it sucks, but at the end of the day God is God, and He forgives His children. But if we never accept Christ's love as atonement for our sins, in the end (I'm talking end of the end), Scripture makes it sound like God, in His holiness, has to be ticked and do something about it. (This is where I have to stop. Even my own understanding is gray in this area in regards to "the afterlife!")

    I like the map analogy as well, but I think at one point (like all analogies) it fails. I have to agree with Scott and say that there is no perfect map. And if we knew of one, there would be no contest. That is why I think you were adding to this with the idea of Tradition, right Joe? Asking ourselves what Biblical scholars and Church fathers have discovered in the past. Although maps are good to understand the ocean, we come to a point where the map just doesn't make the cut. We could look to our own experience next, but when we are honest with ourselves we see that this is pretty limited or bias. So if our own experience is limited and self-focused, we go to an oceanographer or marine biologist who has studied the ocean.
    But ultimately, I don't think any theology knows it all. All Christians know and can agree upon there is a perfect way to know God. ("No one comes to the Father except through me." -Jesus)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I deleted my last post because I didn't like how I worded it. I wrote it too late I guess.

    You are right in saying that Jesus would never be disappointed if all of mankind joined hands and loved each other as he loves us. The problem is this...it is impossible...that doesn't mean it is not a worthy goal, but it is impossible.

    As human beings we are fallen creatures. We are not capable of truly loving one another. It is from God, through Christ, that we find the ability to love. Before we are able to love we have to accept that love from God, through Christ. If we do not accept that love, it is completely impossible for us to truly know what love is, therefore if we don't know it, we cannot freely give it out. It is because of the free will God gave us to either love or reject him, that we have the ability to either love or not. Many people will choose not to know Christ, therefore will never know how to really love. These people will eventually be judged.

    There is one single condition that our eternal life hinges on. Loving God. If one doesn't love God with "all your heart, all your soul and with all our mind" (Matt 22:37) he will be excluded from eternal life. That is the greatest commandment and the condition upon eternal life.

    Is this a condition upon God's love....no. God loves all man, even those who hate him. He does not however free us from judgement and the penalty of not returning that love to him.



    Also, I just want to say that this has been a great conversation. I'm sure there are those out there that think this might just be stupid arguments, but this has truly been beneficial to me. It is not every day that I am challenged to REALLY dig deep into what I believe about God and Truth and salvation. Even if we all end up back at where we were when we started, just challenging us all with each others' thoughts and beliefs is a great way to strengthen or reform our own faith. Keep it coming and I encourage anyone else reading this to add your own thoughts. Don't be shy, don't be afraid of someone thinking you are stupid. We'd love to get other people's thoughts and beliefs in on this. No one here is judging. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I actually do believe that God cares more whether or not we accept Christ as Lord than whether or not we love each other. Otherwise, His death was in vain!"

    Does this mean that God sent Christ here to die for us only so that we would accept that God sent Christ here to die for us? God created and saved us because his ultimate goal was that we would realize that he created and saved us? I think you might be focusing so much on the extrodinary act that Christ took sacrificing his life on earth that you are forgetting the most important part which is why he would do such as thing. Love is obviously God's highest principle. Nothing in the story makes sense without the element of unconditional love.

    The life of Jesus teaches us that there is no greater principle on which to base our lives than love. He did not come here to teach that there is no greater principle on which to base our lives than acceptance of Jesus as Lord. Accepting Jesus as Lord does not mean anything in itself! I mean the KKK accept Jesus as Lord...... is God happier with them than a hindu who believes in loving his neighbor but does not even know the story of Christ?

    What is the difference between you accepting Christ's love as atonement for your sins and a Buddhist who accepts love as ultimate truth but does not call it Christ? We call the source of the love Christ, other religions call the source of the love different things. But love is love....regardless of what we call it, it is telling us the same thing.

    "You are right in saying that Jesus would never be disappointed if all of mankind joined hands and loved each other as he loves us. The problem is this...it is impossible...that doesn't mean it is not a worthy goal, but it is impossible."

    If I said we could love eachother as He loves us then I did not mean to....I don't believe that and I agree it is impossible. What I am saying is that when and where there is love, there is God. It is only through love that people can unite, and while we may not be capable of loving as God does, Jesus came to teach us that we should still try!!!! Because in doing so God will be revealed.

    "It is from God, through Christ, that we find the ability to love. Before we are able to love we have to accept that love from God, through Christ. If we do not accept that love, it is completely impossible for us to truly know what love is, therefore if we don't know it, we cannot freely give it out."

    I agree it is from God that we find the ability to love, but like you say later we are born with the capacity for love and for evil...we dont have to know where love or evil come from to act in loving or evil ways. And whether or not you accept God's love through Jesus Christ's death, through Siddhartha's enlightenment, through mother Theresa's selfless deeds, or through a blade of grass does not matter, as long as you are accepting love. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What is the difference between you accepting Christ's love as atonement for your sins and a Buddhist who accepts love as ultimate truth but does not call it Christ?"

    I think this is where it gets tricky for our conversation. What you call love, I call Christ. Are they the same thing? It is hard to tell. Yes Christ is love, and where there is love there is Christ. Where we get off base from each other is that (i think) you believe that true love is accessible without the knowledge and personal relationship with Christ.

    I think God does plant a sense of love in places that have never heard of Him (or have but chose to believe another religion, or none at all). I think that it is just that though, a SENSE of love, not fully true love. As a Christian I believe that the only way to know true love is through Christ. These people may know a sense of love, but that is just the seed of Christ planted inside of them calling them to a higher love in Christ.

    Here is my problem, as much as I don't want to get into afterlife discussion I think this is the difference between us, although we haven't really said it yet...

    Love is great, God is great...but without the promise of eternal life in the presence of God, it is all pointless. As selfish as it seems, our motivation for loving, and believing in God and Christ is acceptance into eternal life with Him. If God did not make the promise of an eternal life in His presence, and when we died it was the same for true followers of Christ as it was for atheists and Satan worshipers, we would have no need for love or God.

    So we search for a way to attain that eternal life in the presence of God. As a Christian I believe the Scriptures are the Word of God. I see that they say

    "The work of God is this: to believe in the one that he has sent." (John 6:29)

    and

    "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

    and

    "..If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)

    Love is a HUGE part of this search for eternal life with God, but words are just as important. We may believe in God's love (and find a sense of it through many facets of Christianity as well as other religions and beliefs) but if we do not also profess, with words, that Christ is King, we do not pass Go or collect $200.

    God shows his love and works through us in many ways. Although that is a HUGE part of his purpose for us, Love, he also requires us to profess faith in Christ and that he died and was resurrected from the Dead. God did this through Love, but it is our belief in the act, as well as the motive of God behind the act, that secures our salvation. We must have both.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems to me you both are debating on the wrong subject. You agree that love is the answer for the world, great. Your differences stem from your interpretations of grace.

    Scott seems to think grace is unconditional. Free to everyone. And that grace allows us to no longer focus on the 'requirements' and we now can "move past our religion" and truly love people.

    Joe believes that although Jesus died for everyone it is still the duty of the people to profess Jesus as lord before one can receive this gift of grace, which leads to eternal life.
    Good luck to both.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think Anonymous is spot on here. Our interpretation of grace is maybe the central element in our divide and I know at least I personally have allowed myself to get carried away and jump into ideas that should probably have been saved for later. But anyway, I agree with the analysis of my position as being that grace is unconditional, and I think perhaps this really is that initial breaking point where Joe and I go in different directions…would you agree Joe?

    So let’s try to get right at this divide. Joe do you believe that grace is conditional?

    The rationale for my position is really simple: conditional grace is clearly out of harmony with the unconditional love exemplified by the actions of Christ, and by the act of God sacrificing his only son. Joe let me know what you think and we can go from there.

    In the mean time, just for fun allow me to share my current theory of post-life ‘judgment’. When most of us think about judgment, we think about people being held accountable by other people, by an external entity be it your parents, a judge, or God. But what if when you die you go to a place of infinite knowledge and wisdom, and having that ultimate perspective you then look at the life you just lived, and in your understanding you come to actually feel the pain you caused others in life just as intensely as they felt it. This isn’t because God is punishing you for what you did, but it’s more like you are punishing yourself, because with infinite knowledge you can see and feel the truth of your life, both the pretty and the ugly. Surrounded by infinite love, you are sick from the evil that you allowed yourself to propagate in life, now that you can actually see it and feel it, and you are sorry, so so sorry, but you are forgiven and not cast out of the loving light, because you only allowed evil to exist in you because you were ignorant, on some level you did not know or understand, but now given the chance to see your life with true perspective, you do.

    Actually that idea of post life judgment is one I have come to after reading that this is what has been reported by numerous people after having a near death experiences, and not just people from one culture, but people numerous cultures throughout recorded history of these things. And it is a concept of judgment that is harmonious with an unconditionally loving God, whereas believing that grace could possibly be conditional is not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why would someone push Christ's grace away though? It is only through ignorance. Nobody would look Truth in the face and deny it....the problem is people are too ignorant to recognize truth when they see it on Earth. People are absolutely pathetic when it comes to making good decisions, and some people are born into conditions that are so terrible that they are never even given a chance to form a decent perspective on reality. You and I are fortunate enough to come from a background in which we have been shown love and given the knowledge and wisdom to help us understand the world. Yet we still disagree about the Truth we both claim to know because we can still only form a very basic understanding of it. We are so lucky and blessed just to have that...imagine how difficult this must be for people never exposed to these ideas.

    Being ignorant of Truth is not the same as pushing Truth away. The fact is that choosing Christ is not easy while on Earth, but it would be a no brainer in a state of mind that was beyond our normal human ignorance. You know what Jesus would say about people who make the mistake of denying God's grace because they are too ignorant to realize it is true? Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.

    We all need to realize that we too know not what we do...not one of us does. My prayer tonight is that Jesus you save yourself from us, your followers, who know not what we do, but when given the gift of knowledge will always choose love.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Haha, looks like you caught that post I put up that I deleted about 10min later. I hated the way I worded that and was not at all convinced it conveyed what I really meant. I just need some time to figure out how to word properly what I mean to say. Sorry for the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe that we receive grace through faith; faith in Jesus Christ. Here is my reasoning for that presented through Scripture as I understand it.

    John 1:17 says, "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

    Romans 1:5 says, "Through Him [Jesus] and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith."

    Romans 3:23-24 says, "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ."

    Ephesians 2:8 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

    Galatians 5:4 says, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from Grace."

    It is clear that Christ is the one through whom God gives grace. It is through faith in Him that we receive the grace of God. When we attempt to be justified by other means we are alienated from Christ, therefore we are alienated from grace.

    It does sound harsh. How could a God that freely loves every person in the world, regardless of sin, withhold grace from them?

    I know not every person on earth will hear about Christ in there lifetime, and I don't know how God deals with that, I won't claim to know how God deals with that. I believe though that for those that hear about Christ and turn him away, turn away grace as well. God will indeed give us every chance in the world to follow Christ, but when this life is all said and done, whether we receive grace, or God's "pardon," depends on our faith in Christ.

    I hope that gets my view across better than the first post I deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe, interesting choices of scripture. I'm not sure they support your case.
    "How could a God that freely loves every person in the world, regardless of sin, withhold grace from them? "

    Don't your versus say differently? All of your scripture speak of grace as a gift from God, or from Christ's death. One specifically says "and this is not from yourselves it is a gift from God".

    Joe, if someone were to leave a gift at your doorstep and walk away how could you deny the fact that they gave you the present. You could of course not take the present and leave it there, but this does not diminish the fact that the present was still given. Correct?

    Scott
    "Nobody would look Truth in the face and deny it...."
    I believe this statement to be false. Satan did just that, along with those angels who fell with him. How in the world do you think we got into this mess in the first place.. were not adam and eve in harmony, living among truth, yet still took the bite?

    -good discussion

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Joe, if someone were to leave a gift at your doorstep and walk away how could you deny the fact that they gave you the present. You could of course not take the present and leave it there, but this does not diminish the fact that the present was still given. Correct?"

    Correct. When I say someone is denying Christ (and therefore grace) they are turning away the gift. It doesn't mean they are denying that the gift was given. That is what I mean when i said "I believe though that for those that hear about Christ and turn him away, turn away grace as well."

    They obviously know that the gift is at their doorstep, but choose to ignore it. They have chosen a life outside of salvation and the presence of God. Although I think that God will keep working on that person through the Holy Spirit, if they never come back around, God will eventually respect their decision.

    I think I may have overstepped with the word "withhold." God does not "withhold" grace. He grants it to every person freely through Christ. I do believe that it is our choice to accept it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Anonymous that those verses could easily be used to support my case just as well if not better. I would also bust out a little Ephesians 2:8-9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the free gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Joe, I have rarely seen anyone do such a good job of justifying holding two completely contradictory ideas as both being true. Unconditional love and conditional grace are mutually exclusive, and you do a nice job of rationalizing how the two could possibly coexist, but ultimately this is futile because on the most fundamental level it doesn't make sense. Saying that an unconditionally loving God would give out conditional grace is like saying that an unconditionally hateful God would give out conditional destruction. Why would love not save and why would hate not destroy?

    Love saves THROUGH grace. Grace is the mechanism through which love applies itself, through which love is transformed into an act. To separate grace from love is nonsense. That is like separating hate from harm!

    ReplyDelete
  14. From my perspective it seems like most Christians are with Joe on this, and since it defies common sense, the only way anyone can even attempt to justify it is by throwing out a few Bible verses. “Maybe it doesn’t make sense, but read these verses and you know why I must believe this.” Just in the past few comments we have a great example of how easy it is for different people to draw different conclusions from the same passages. And we are not just any people….we are truth seekers, we are hungry for it, and still we can’t draw the same conclusion.

    “They obviously know that the gift is at their doorstep, but choose to ignore it. They have chosen a life outside of salvation and the presence of God. Although I think that God will keep working on that person through the Holy Spirit, if they never come back around, God will eventually respect their decision.”

    How do they obviously know the gift is at their doorstep? Do you really think so many people would choose a life outside of salvation if they understood their situation? If everyone knew everything, how many people would choose to be away from God?

    Let me borrow an analogy from my dad. Frequently prisoners of war when liberated from their prisons will not flee their cells into the arms of their liberators, but will just sit in the corner of their cell. Their experiences have beaten them down to the point where they don't even believe that they can actually leave. Despite the cell door swinging wide open in front of them, they have no faith in their liberation....they are so weak that they cannot even believe what they see. Now, according to your interpretation, God would just leave them there. A lot of people never see the gift at their doorstep, and if they did they would accept it.....and then regardless of what they do, God already opened the door...he is not going to close it and imprison you again after liberating you.

    Anonymous brings up Satan and the fallen angels as examples of those who would not accept his love, but personally I see no reason to interpret these stories literally. It makes sense that God would want me to put my faith in love because I can experience it directly, and I can also directly experience its opposite. I put my faith in Jesus because he is the perfect model of love. Nowhere in this experience, though, do I see justification for putting my faith in the truth of a story full of as many mythological elements as most of the other ancient creation stories.

    Since I have no real evidence that the Biblical account of creation is true, why would God expect me to believe it? We have two ways of trying to understand reality – our minds and our hearts. Our minds deal only with rationality and facts. Using rationality and facts alone, we have no reason to believe that God really played out this whole story in the Garden or before because we have no more evidence for it than we do the Greek creation story. Our minds can only recognize truth scientifically, and there is no scientific support for belief in the historical facts of the creation story. Is there?

    That leaves us with our heart. We feel God in our hearts when we reach for him, including when we are reading scripture. But your heart does not deal with historical fact, rationality, or science….our heart only relates to meaning, feeling, and emotion. Now there is a boatload of meaning in the Biblical creation story! So go to town on that. But the meaning of the story is separate from the historical fact. The meaning is deep and touches us beyond rationality, but you could create an infinite amount of allegorical representations of that same meaning. God wants us to contemplate the meaning, but why on earth would he want you to believe historical facts that have no historical evidence in their support? This is why Christianity is pushing a lot of intelligent, truth seeking people away….because we aren’t just asking people to have faith in the meaning of our religion, we are asking people to believe in historical facts, something that requires intelligent, scientific analysis…except that a scientific analysis produces nothing substantive! When we are knocking on doors to tell people that there is a gift sitting there on their porch, they still can’t see it because we tell them to look for the facts, the history, the things we can’t prove, instead of telling them to look for the meaning, which is the existence of love in the world. I see that gift on my porch because I see love in the world and it doesn't make sense without God.

    To clarify, I believe that the story of Satan and the fallen angels, juxtaposed with God’s pure creating love, is a symbolic representation of the dynamic relationship in the material world of love and hate, good and evil, and our position of choosing between them. Nowhere do I have to accept historical facts without evidence in order to understand the meaning of my relationship to God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ok, here's another try at putting this into words...I'm not the best at this but I'll give it another shot. I am going to try and separate this into two different realms; earthly and heavenly.

    I believe that in our lifetime (earth) we receive unconditional love AND unconditional grace from God. God loves us so much he is willing to give his son for our sins and forgive any sin we commit in our lifetime. Where I get hung up is ..

    What happens next? Do we get to heaven and God says, "Ok, one more shot...do you love me too?" Do we get one more shot at grace when we get to heaven?

    I believe that no person can turn away from God when put in his presence (I am talking after death, not on this earth kind of presence...I'm talking actually staring down the face of God). If we are presented with this and given ONE MORE CHANCE to accept him, what was the point of Christ?

    This is where I think grace has to essentially stop. Which may sound ridiculous I know. At some point we will meet face to face with God and be forced to account for our life. If God gives us one more chance to accept him we will not be able to turn that down. This negates the need for Christ and a change in lifestyle on our part on earth. Does this make any sense? Hopefully separating this makes my point more clear.

    ReplyDelete
  16. wow....

    Scott, interesting ideas. I would have to agree that it is very possible God can use fictional stories with concrete concepts to convey ideas to us. I would say that Jesus very often taught through analogous stories.

    In regards to Satan, if these stories aren't real do you propose the unconditional loving God created death?


    Joe, well said. You bring up a very good point. What would the death of Christ mean if we get a second chance anyway?

    Id like to throw an idea out there. If grace covers sin... could our salvation be decided on something other then "sin"?

    ReplyDelete