The bible exists to encourage the conversation, not end it. If the bible was written in 21st-century speak, it would certainly be, I think, easier to comprehend, but regardless of that not being the case we still have to view the bible through 21st-century eyes. Eyes that are set before a brain that has been educated in many ways the ancient peoples' brains were not. Critical thinking and weighing theological differences with common sense was probably not exercised in those days, I imagine, nor was it encouraged. That was a "do as I say, not as I do" era. This is a "Well, hang on now, let me think about that a minute" era.
If we're to swallow what the bible gives us at face value, it is asking us to dumb ourselves down. You wouldn't take a VCR programming guide and not think about exactly what you are reading before employing the instructions, would you? And if the writers of the VCR programming guide originally wrote it in Greek and in Hebrew, the translation to English would be rather...innacurately rough.
The bible is the same way. If the bible is a guide for how to live, it also needs to be carefully thought through to be correctly applied and the origins of speech in which it was written also need to be taken in consideration. God chose Greek and Hebrew for the original text on purpose - these languages have specific nuances and meanings. Many of which have been grossly changed during the translation into Latin. Who translated these texts into Latin? Error-filled, politically-influenced humans.
Theologians such as Augustine have raped the message that made its way to the west. The early Christian church was largely universalist. The idea that God as an Omnipotent Love could and would save his creatures which he made (and made susceptible to sin and weakness) was unfortunately weeded out from the Church over the course of years under influence of - what else? - politics. Below is an excerpt from Augustine in response to the early church's universalist leanings, which he absolutely did not like:
"It is quite in vain, then, that some yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture - but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth."
--Enchiridion, Ch. XXIX
Here's my thing: One of the many reasons I did not vote for McCain was because of Sarah Palin. Now, people have said "I like her, she's just like one of us". And I must respond with "No, I don't want a VP who is like me. I want a VP who is a Savant and a genius." So, Augustine, as for a God who I will worship and love, I want a God who does not have my humanistic tendencies to lash out and wreak vengeance upon those who wrong me (also, we are programmed by God Himself to commit wrong). I want a God who is SO MUCH BETTER THAN MYSELF, one whose love is all-encompasing and inescapably, wonderfully perfect. A love that I can look to and say to myself "I need to be more like that, I need to be more merciful and good."
Damning someone to hell for eternity seems like something a begrudged southside Irish matriarch would do to her enemy, the neighbor, for accidentally shoveling snow over onto her side of the yard.
So, Augustine, who is yielding to their own human feelings now?
If I am to love and revere a God who is "like me" in the sense that the punishment delved out is so over the top and does not fit the crime (one lifetime cannot warrant an eternity in hell) ...well, I'd rather vote someone else into that office, thank you.
I believe "hell" is a purifying fire with an EXIT. If it were eternal that would mean evil would exist forever and I don't think an all-loving God would allow that. God's justice is a loving justice. His Love and His Justice are one in the same. Any punitive actions are taken for the benefit of the punished, not the human-like pleasure of the Creator.
3 comments:
"I believe "hell" is a purifying fire with an EXIT."
Write more on this. I'd love to hear what you have to say.
What would God need Hell for anyway? What purpose would it serve? Seems to me that one could take the most evil person in all of history stick him or her in front of the almighty, and with less effort than it takes me to draw a breath that person could be made whole where deficit, could be purified, forgiven, and granted peace, understanding, and salvation. Why then would there be a need for hell? When you train a dog, the most effective methods don't involve punishment. Punishment makes us fearful, not understanding. I cannot imagine having my eyes opened through suffering if the other option is to have them opened through kindness and love. And I have a hard time buying the "punishment is the mechanism for love" argument. Seems to me that God wouldn't need a stand in for his love. He or She could simply heal and open the eyes of the wicked and call that shit a day.
That's exactly my point.
When you're a child you are told there are monsters by the river so that you won't go by the river. When you grow up, you just know not to go near the river because it is dangerous.
I liken hell to the monsters usage. Yeah, when you're immature you need something to scare you straight. But when you grow up you are good for goodness' sake and realize there is no eternal hell.
I believe "hell" is nothing more than a temporary place where you can shower off all your earthly sins.
The ego people have to think that their belief will save them. God's belief in us is so much bigger than our miniscule and weak attempt at faith.
Post a Comment