Question... Catholic and Christian/ Karma heaven and hell

[jojo]

What is the truth behind people saying if you take your own life you will not rest in the kingdom of heaven and you will go to hell?

I don't think God would be so heartless, he knows the pain others feel, when life becomes a punishment to live, why punish again by not welcoming them into heaven?

[Dorn]

What is the truth behind people saying if you take your own life you will not rest in the kingdom of heaven and you will go to hell?

It is an interpretation. In the words of Jesus, in John 10:10, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."

Another relevant passage is written by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:19, "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" So considering that you yourself are a temple of the Holy Spirit, one implored to have life to the full(est), then wouldn't the act of premeditated murder--which suicide is--be an affront of the gravest caliber?

I don't think God would be so heartless, he knows the pain others feel, when life becomes a punishment to live, why punish again by not welcoming them into heaven?

Grace does not depend on human effort but on God's mercy, so there is ultimately no way of foreseeing the outcome.

[jojo]

But if you believe your body is yours to do with as you please, and if you harm no others, but only yourself to release what ever pain lives with in, why should you be given any punishment by God.

Your death, even by your own hand is the free will he gave you. I do not think that dishonors him, I know others do.

I appreciated your reply on that question. Thanks.

[Dorn]

But if you believe your body is yours to do with as you please, and if you harm no others, but only yourself to release what ever pain lives with in, why should you be given any punishment by God.

If you believe that "your body is yours to do with as you please," a gift one can dispense with at will, as opposed to a temple of the Holy Spirit, then you're likely a libertarian/libertine.

Pain, suffering, and sin are conditions of life--not reasons for ending it. The circumstances surrounding the exceptions would have to be extraordinary.

Your death, even by your own hand is the free will he gave you. I do not think that dishonors him, I know others do.

Free will is the prerequisite for a just condemnation of faulty choices (like suicide). If our will were unfree, however, which is the case for the severely ill suffering delusions, then any moral judgment or condemnation would be a mere act of cruelty.

I appreciated your reply on that question. Thanks.

You're welcome.

[jojo]

I definitely do not feel my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, if I did I would not mark it up.

Being a libertarian, not sure, I would need to read up on that.

If life becomes to hard to continue there are always good reasons for why.

Some are selfish and full of self pity, I agree. But painful nonetheless.

[operatormike]

Dear JoJo,

The church says that if you commit suicide that you have to go to hell because you are committing a mortal sin and then dying in this sinful state. I understand their point, but respectfully object. (I guess that makes me a Protestant, Dorn!)

Gods grace holds no bounds. Time cannot stop God from loving us and forgiving us. Jesus said that "before Abraham was, I am". In one sense he is saying that God transcends time. So, God can find that lost soul and communicate with him or her. If that soul responds with faith, they will receive God's limitless grace.

God is all loving. His love is without condition. But here is an interesting thought: His forgiveness has conditions! 1. We have to be sorry that we did wrong. 2. We have to admit that. 3. We have to ask for forgiveness and...here is the one that stops us from receiving forgiveness the most: 4. We have to forgive everyone who did us wrong.

I truly wish you peace, JoJo,

Operator Mike

[Dorn]

The church says that if you commit suicide that you have to go to hell because you are committing a mortal sin and then dying in this sinful state. I understand their point, but respectfully object. (I guess that makes me a Protestant, Dorn!)

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a "mortal sin" to (Mainline) Protestants. God's selection cannot be envisaged, which would necessarily be the case if a sin were "mortal."

...here is the one that stops us from receiving forgiveness the most: 4. We have to forgive everyone who did us wrong.

That is absolutely contrary to my position. I may forget but I rarely forgive. If a perpetrator seeks forgiveness, then he or she should seek reconciliation with God, and expect my rejection. Besides, the compulsion to forgive devalues the act.

[jojo]

Dear JoJo,

The church says that if you commit suicide that you have to go to hell because you are committing a mortal sin and then dying in this sinful state. I understand their point, but respectfully object. (I guess that makes me a Protestant, Dorn!)

Gods grace holds no bounds. Time cannot stop God from loving us and forgiving us. Jesus said that "before Abraham was, I am". In one sense he is saying that God transcends time. So, God can find that lost soul and communicate with him or her. If that soul responds with faith, they will receive God's limitless grace.

God is all loving. His love is without condition. But here is an interesting thought: His forgiveness has conditions! 1. We have to be sorry that we did wrong. 2. We have to admit that. 3. We have to ask for forgiveness and...here is the one that stops us from receiving forgiveness the most: 4. We have to forgive everyone who did us wrong.

I truly wish you peace, JoJo,

Operator Mike

I agree with you and object as well.

Why should God want his children suffering, if he cannot intervene and prevent the pain, why can't we take it upon ourselves to stop it.

We are still God's child even if we do that, imo.

I think when before God and at his feet and asked all 4 conditions anyone would accept all there and agree.

Thank you

[operatormike]

OK, even so, I think that the act of suicide is horribly wrong. We do not have the right to murder and this includes murdering ourselves. If stopping pain were a valid reason to kill ourselves, then we would be perfectly right to go around to everyone who is in pain and kill them. See what I mean?

Also, you mentioned that it is selfish. Focus on that fact. The people that love you are going to be hurt very deeply and you will not be able to undo that hurt. How could it be right to stop your own pain and give pain to your loved ones. Focus on the love. Let it rule. Bear the pain, so they don't have to.

I once contemplated the meaning of evil. What makes an act evil? What makes an act good? I came up with selfishness. Selfishness is the motivating force that causes evil acts. On the opposite extreme is selflessness..that is what causes us to do good. Look within yourself and strive to become selfless. Become centered on God and others, rather than yourself.

Peace,
OM

[operatormike]

...here is the one that stops us from receiving forgiveness the most: 4. We have to forgive everyone who did us wrong.

That is absolutely contrary to my position. I may forget but I rarely forgive. If a perpetrator seeks forgiveness, then he or she should seek reconciliation with God, and expect my rejection. Besides, the compulsion to forgive devalues the act.

I don't really want to get into an endless debate over the fine details of the Protestant/Catholic schism, but this last comment concerns me. Jesus clearly and repeatedly makes the point that we must forgive others as a condition of our forgiveness.

The Lord's prayer: Here is the Matthew chapter 6: Our Father...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. (also have seen "trespasses" interpreted debts and wrongdoings)... if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you your offenses. But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offenses.
(Pretty clear and to the point, I think.)

Do not judge that you may not be judged.

Why do you consider the speck in your brother's eye, and yet do not consider the beam in your own?
(I like this because Jesus was a carpenter, and this is from his trade.)
On this I would have you consider what we are asking...forgiveness for offending the Almighty God..compared to what he asks..forgive your fellow man who offended you! Which offense is worse, offending God or offending you, a mere creature?

Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy.

Please consider this, Dorn. And forgive me!!!!

Peace,
OM

[Dorn]

I don't really want to get into an endless debate over the fine details of the Protestant/Catholic schism, but this last comment concerns me. Jesus clearly and repeatedly makes the point that we must forgive others as a condition of our forgiveness.

The Lord's prayer: Here is the Matthew chapter 6 [...]

The passage highlights reciprocity and must be put into context. The ones judged are those in your own community, your brothers and sisters, the ones you hold to a higher standard. The ones you do not judge are those excluded from that community. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.'"

You see, "judge not" expresses a principle not of forgiveness but of social exclusion.

[operatormike]

I see said the blind man who picked up his hammer and saw.

So what does this mean?:

Jesus said:if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you your offenses. But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offenses.

[Dorn]

Let's present Matthew 6:14-15 in the proper context with two different translations.

New International Version
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

King James Version
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Whether we regard the paraptomata (sins, trespasses, offenses) as a singular occasion, a series of acts, or a standard particular to an individual in a group, it still relates to reciprocity.

The community this relates to is further expanded by Paul in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians. And if you are uncertain about Paul's role, revisit Acts 9:15.

[operatormike]

Thank you. I don't see any conflict between the three translations.

Jesus further illustrates this point in the story of the ungrateful servant. You know?

[DRLHyper]

Personally I think all texts are flawed, and you can not take them literally. However beyond being a moral guide, you can not be certain what is true or not.

[The Atomic Mango]

this thread is so full of false information, i don't know what to say...

[operatormike]

Hi Hyper and Mango,

The particular text that we are discussing is rather straight forward. It is not obscure at all. I am sure these words are easily translated into any language:

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Kind of simple and to the point, don't you think. There is direct moral guidance there. Good advice no matter what your belief system. Forgive the wrong that people do to you. It will help you function better and be a happier more peaceful person....and you will find yourself free of some of the emotional baggage that might be weighing you down.

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy. It helps you discern truth from falseness. But be careful it doesn't rule your mind with negativity.

I have not seen much falseness if any on this thread. What are you most concerned about, Mango?

Peace,
OM

[Dorn]

I don't see any conflict between the three translations.

Then you misunderstood me. The conflict isn't located in the text itself, or between the translations from the original Greek, but in your particular interpretation. What is highlighted in the passage, in context, is reciprocity as opposed to doctrine.

Jesus further illustrates this point in the story of the ungrateful servant. You know?

I would much prefer if you could illustrate this example through the prism of your particular interpretation.

I have not seen much falseness if any on this thread. What are you most concerned about, Mango?

Don't worry about the contrarian's red ink. She is troll-fishing, and you're biting the bait.

Personally I think all texts are flawed, and you can not take them literally. However beyond being a moral guide, you can not be certain what is true or not.

Do you mean true or factual? Regardless, any text--from phone books to novels--can contain both truth and falsehood, facts and errors, in a multitude and all at the same time. Are you, by any chance, referring to the text considered "as a whole"?

[DRLHyper]

Personally I think all texts are flawed, and you can not take them literally. However beyond being a moral guide, you can not be certain what is true or not.

Do you mean true or factual? Regardless, any text--from phone books to novels--can contain both truth and falsehood, facts and errors, in a multitude and all at the same time. Are you, by any chance, referring to the text considered "as a whole"?

The problem with ancient texts is that they contain critical flaws. Sometimes even completely contradictory information. Alas, what determines what is 'truth' and what is 'falsehood' in a religious text?

[operatormike]

The problem with ancient texts is that they contain critical flaws. Sometimes even completely contradictory information. Alas, what determines what is 'truth' and what is 'falsehood' in a religious text?

This is an intelligent well thought out question.

Many of the best minds on the planet have been studying the ancient texts (the bible and others) for thousands of years. When translating from one language to another, the utmost care has always been taken. These are, after all, considered 'sacred' texts.

Archeologists have been searching, and have found older and older versions. These are always studied very carefully and compared against our current translations. The dead sea scrolls, in particular, are a great example. These were discovered by a young Palestinian Moslem goat herder who was chasing after a lost goat. I love these details, because of the human interactions that took place. This young man recognized it and brought it to an Israeli museum. The curator there, a Jewish Rabbi, recognized it as authentic ancient text and brought it for safe-keeping to the Orthodox Christian bishop of Jerusalem. Several minutes after the Rabbi left the goat herder, the building where they met was destroyed by a bomb blast.

I love the irony of the people of different faiths who are on the surface rivals coordinating their efforts, without which one of the greatest archeological finds of all time would not have been brought to light.

If you read this thread, you will see that Dorn and I have discussed the apocrophal texts. There are 10 or 11 books that the "protestant" biblical scholars and leaders cannot ascertain as authentic, and have removed from their Bible. This is part of the same type of quest for truth that is prominent in you.

I have read, and clearly Dorn has intensively studied, much of what has been written by such biblical scholars. This is how we try to discern the truth.

Outside of the scientific approach, there is a more personal...you might say spiritual..approach for discerning the truth. This would be prayer and/or meditation. Even lucid dreaming can help you reach the sort of enlightenment that you seem to yearn for.

Peace,
OM

[Dorn]

The problem with ancient texts is that they contain critical flaws. Sometimes even completely contradictory information.

But a contradiction in language isn't necessarily a contradiction in thought. This is often the case when the German word Aufhebung--a term crucial to Hegelian dialectics--is translated into English as "cancellation." Aufhebung means annihilation (of the current form), elevation, and lastly preservation all merged into one. This describes the idea that grows so powerful that it cancels itself (as thought) and becomes rooted in the automatic function of one's unconscious thought processes. One such example is the development of thought from conscious morality to unconscious ethical complex (Sittlichkeit). It doesn't "cancel" one's morality--rather, it becomes so ingrained that one acts without reflection.

Alas, what determines what is 'truth' and what is 'falsehood' in a religious text?

Separating truth (judgment in the Kantian sense) from fact (verifiable statement provable via reference) we find two completely different paths. Facts are plain and textually unalterable: Buenos Aires is the capitol of Argentina, dolphins are mammals, sharks are fish; one can go on indefinitely adding one factual statement after another.

However, if I were to say, "in Buenos Aires, the capitol of Maradona-Land, dolphins are fish whereas sharks are mammals," then I have stated three apparent falsehoods. Nevertheless, that sentence, taken as a whole, may well disguise a truthful statement (judgment), perhaps relating to the Peron years when Maradona was a national emblem and the order of society upside down (metaphor for the reversed order of dolphins and sharks) vis-à-vis Western liberal democracy.

Accordingly, truth can be concealed in error. So if we consider the textual genre of the New Testament--lyric poetry as opposed to the crude prose in my sentence above--then we have to include other dimensions relevant to the narrative format of the given text.

[operatormike]

I don't see any conflict between the three translations.

Then you misunderstood me. The conflict isn't located in the text itself, or between the translations from the original Greek, but in your particular interpretation. What is highlighted in the passage, in context, is reciprocity as opposed to doctrine.

Jesus further illustrates this point in the story of the ungrateful servant. You know?

I would much prefer if you could illustrate this example through the prism of your particular interpretation.

I just noticed your tag "Dream Warrior". Soldier on, Dorn!

So I don't really see the difference between reciprocity and doctrine as you say. I know that this idea that God requires us to forgive others as a condition of being forgiven is not taught as doctrine, but I see it indicated by Jesus throughout his ministry. We have discussed some of the examples. The most clear, of which being that last one.

However, you are very insightful to ask me to illustrate the example 'through the prism of my interpretation'. My interpretation comes from a supernatural experience that I had...I just wrote about it so I will cut and paste here:

So , I prayed a whole lot when I was younger, then lost faith and stopped praying...from about the time I was 17 until about 19.

Then this one day as I was walking toward my bedroom and at the end of the hall was this crucifix of my sister's. Jesus' arms looked like wings flapping. Now I was not on any kind of drugs or alcohol. It scared me. I began reciting this string of logic that I had taught myself to dispel my atheistic existentialist fear...(that I would cease to exist). 1. There is no God or heaven or anything that cannot be seen or proven. 2. Our life ends when we die, which is nothing to fear, because we will not be conscious of anything..no pain or cold or darkness..only nothing...NO CONSCIOUSNESS. 3. There are some who say there is an afterlife. They are either right or wrong. A. If they are right, it is probably better than this life. B. If they are wrong refer back to #2...no consciousness.

So then a rather clear voice said to me: "Are you sure, man?"
It scared me. I went looking around our apartment for my sister or anyone. No one else was there. So I went back to my string of logic, he repeated, "Are you sure, man?"
This time I repeated my string, but real loud so that I would not hear any more hallucinatory voices. This time he said, "Are you sure, Michael!"
OK, I officially freaked. I was so scared, I instinctively did something that I had not done for years, I prayed. I said, "Oh, God help me!" That is all it took:
Immediately I saw this blinding light. I reasoned that a light that bright in the evening could only be a nuclear blast. I hid by my bed and covered my eyes. I was thinking...did the Russians send a missile here, but the direction was not toward Cleveland, it was away..out in the country, so I thought, there is no target there. Then I thought of this military base and decided "that's it, that is what is happening." I was expecting sound and radiation and shock.
Then I had this weird craving to look at the light. I tried to talk myself out of it, but it was really strong. Finally, I thought, well you might go blind or die, but at least you will see it! At that point I had my arm across my eyes and could see a sort of shadow of my bones...that's how bright it was. Then I looked and in the middle of the brightest light I have ever seen before or after..I saw eyes. Apparently human eyes. They looked sort of like my Dad, who has brown eyes, but darker and larger in shape..like a Mediterranean person. I realized there was a "being of light" (I called him at the time) I was terrified. He said, "Don't be afraid." and took my arm in his. My fear went away. Then I was in a vision where I was standing in muck. I felt like I should not be there because he was so pure and holy and I was...NOT. I asked him to take me out of the muck. He took my hand and said, "What about him?" I looked at his other arm and he was holding my cousin, also stuck in the muck. (I immediately knew this was because my cousin had tempted me to commit my first sin when we were younger. And I was still deeply angry at him about it...but that is another story.) I said," Yes, him too"..and we were both standing on solid ground.
This is how I know that Jesus means it when he says: You must forgive others for you to receive forgiveness.
So from then on, I believed. and grew in my prayer-life. And thanked God for it.

Peace,
OM

[DRLHyper]

The problem with ancient texts is that they contain critical flaws. Sometimes even completely contradictory information.

But a contradiction in language isn't necessarily a contradiction in thought.

You can not project your thoughts into words without the usage of language. Ergo it does not matter if you have it crystal clear in your mind; if you can not explain it clearly, nobody will understand. I can say that 1 + 1 = 1. But if I do not explain first that the actual sum is 1/2 + 1/2 = 2/2 = 1, then everybody will say I am wrong.

Alas, what determines what is 'truth' and what is 'falsehood' in a religious text?

Separating truth (judgment in the Kantian sense) from fact (verifiable statement provable via reference) we find two completely different paths. Facts are plain and textually unalterable: Buenos Aires is the capitol of Argentina, dolphins are mammals, sharks are fish; one can go on indefinitely adding one factual statement after another.

However, if I were to say, "in Buenos Aires, the capitol of Maradona-Land, dolphins are fish whereas sharks are mammals," then I have stated three apparent falsehoods. Nevertheless, that sentence, taken as a whole, may well disguise a truthful statement (judgment), perhaps relating to the Peron years when Maradona was a national emblem and the order of society upside down (metaphor for the reversed order of dolphins and sharks) vis-à-vis Western liberal democracy.

Accordingly, truth can be concealed in error. So if we consider the textual genre of the New Testament--lyric poetry as opposed to the crude prose in my sentence above--then we have to include other dimensions relevant to the narrative format of the given text.

Nonsense is nonsense. There can only be one correct interpretation, not many. If there are many, then it means there is no correct interpretation and the text must be taken literally. In the same way you can twist the meaning of a biblical verse to mean what you [interpreter A] want it to mean, I can twist it to what I [interpreter B] want it to mean. In the above example, my interpretation would be that you are parodying Argentina to mean 'everything is upside down'. But doing so signifies a clear lack of understanding of the Argentinian political-socio-economical structure and history... So how can a parody conceal the truth?

[Dorn]

You can not project your thoughts into words without the usage of language.

My point was that words do not necessarily reflect thought. Let's exemplify this by the words semiosis, osmosis, and psychosis, in which the Greek suffix -osis seemingly appears in each case. Language is filled to the brim with such imperfections (which isn't the case with thought).

Nonsense is nonsense. There can only be one correct interpretation, not many. If there are many, then it means there is no correct interpretation and the text must be taken literally.

A multiplicity of interpretations do not necessary disqualify one another. Rather, the richness of a text (think Shakespeare) may require various theoretical perspectives in order to exhaust interpretive possibilities. It is uncertainty that forces us to reject cyclopean approaches.

In the above example, my interpretation would be that you are parodying Argentina to mean 'everything is upside down'. But doing so signifies a clear lack of understanding of the Argentinian political-socio-economical structure and history... So how can a parody conceal the truth?

Because you, being both attached to reality and knowledgeable enough to make sensible judgments, are able to uncover the hidden message and discover the encoded information. Parody is such a means of concealment.

[irrevocably]

What is the truth behind people saying if you take your own life you will not rest in the kingdom of heaven and you will go to hell?

I don't think God would be so heartless, he knows the pain others feel, when life becomes a punishment to live, why punish again by not welcoming them into heaven?

In the u.s.a. everything is overrun by fear. Religions are just another form of by-product.
spirituality is what's important.
since we live in the 3rd dimension - we see things in duality. - male, female. hot, cold. light, dark. etc. so we were brought up believing that there is heaven and hell.
but the truth is that there is no such thing as evil. think about it, if God made us, then that would make God evil because we see people committing crimes and killings. Also God made "satan" correct? so that would also make God evil - if this were true.
but there is no such thing as evil. evil is just the word we use to describe the absence of good. its like light and darkness
You can measure light. you can have low light, bright light, flashing light, light is an energy source all in its self. however when something is dark - its just void. there's nothing there, it is the absence of light.
when a person does "bad" or "EVIL" things it is because that is what's left inside of him when he doesn't have love inside him.

demons or devil is just a thought form of our fears - yes we can manifest angels or demons - but in reality there are such things as angels.
And also think about it - why would there be someone in charge of a world that is evil - who punishes evil people? if the devil is bad and his goal is to punish bad people then that doesn't make any sense. how can you punish someone for being like you - get what i mean?

evil like darkness - is what's left when a person doesn't have good or love or light inside himself.

But these are just my opinions, i'm not a rapper.