Knighty,
i'm going to throw out some thoughts that run contrary to popular christian tradition and i'd appreciate your super human critical thinking abilities to tell me if i'm crazy or if everyone else is crazy. ;-)
1. who said this life is the only chance one has at salvation? i've not read anything like that in the bible. in fact, i've read the exact opposite. read ezekiel 37 and notice what happens just before ancient israel is offered salvation for the first time.
2. the bible teaches the meek inherit the earth, jesus' second coming has him coming back to earth, the saints in this life will rule on the earth for 1000 years, etc. there is no second ascension pictured in scripture. i believe the last chapter or two revelations pictures the father coming to earth, too.
yes, the bible does picture the kingdom of god/heaven (used interchangeably) as salvation, but the lord's prayer makes it clear that god's kingdom of heaven is coming to earth... "thy kingdom come, they will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." we are supposed to pray the kingdom of heaven comes to earth, not that we go to heaven.
3. the bible clearly teaches the wages of sin (failing to care for others equal to oneself) is death and that the dead know nothing. how could a resurrection possibly relate to currently living entities? yet, these teachings are rejected in favor an immortal soul doctrine that sounds suspiciously like the first lie recorded in the bible - "you shall not die" (you have an immortal soul) if you eat the fruit.
4. eternal hell fire for humans. it isn't taught. lazarus and the rich man is all about caring for the needy. the bible is clear the wages of sin is death, not life. it is also clear that the dead know nothing. in the lazarus example, a resurrection from the dead is pictured (lifted his eyes from the grave). nothing is said about his eternal state, just his state at that moment.
also, i watched some war movie (forget which one) and some dude got hit by some napalm. funny, that guy couldn't hold a normal conversation and he surely didn't ask for a drop of water for his tongue.
i figure the evidence of such an idea as eternal hell must be horrible if they have to bastardize a verse about caring for the needy in this life into alleged "evidence" for dante's inferno.
the crux of the matter is i see a traditional christianity that, frankly, values human traditions over what the bible actually says in pretty clear language.
i think what likely happened is these traditions were taught by the religious leaders (and to their good advantage, no doubt) prior to the development of the printing press.
once books could be printed, though, and people could actually read the text, they then went into proof text mode to justify their prior erroneous teachings.
people being the lemmings we are, we accept the nonsense with nary a critical thought.
my son attends a religious school so you can bet i'll be a favorite there if he ever speaks about what i teach him vs their extra biblical ideas.
it isn't just religion, either. diet is the same way. my son told me he had learned about the food pyramid. i told him that was not an optimal eating plan. he said he was told to avoid fatty cooking oils. i told him i drink moderate amounts of olive oil straight up (while losing 1 lb of excess fat per week at the same time). he kind of looked at me funny and i said, "who are you going to believe about how to eat, your healthy dad or your unhealthy teacher." i think he got the idea. ;-)
you'd think national dietary recommendations would be supported by years of research rather than an unsupported opinion poll at one conference held a long time ago. then again, grain subsidies are BIG BUSINESS. someone has to eat it, right? |
