Before I begin, I should note that I am not saying deeds have nothing to do with salvation. No, it is clear that deeds do play a part. What I am trying to point out is that this fact has been overstated. Deeds do not have everything to do with salvation, and I intend to explain to you why. But before I do, allow me to unveil two of my statements regarding things to know about heaven.
My first statement is that heaven has a ruler, a king, a god, etc. of some sort who runs it. Regardless of what you believe about heaven, it must meet that standard. Why? Look at how it is if heaven supposedly has no ruler. That means that, upon dying, our soul finds its own way there. How does that make sense? How is it that our soul can exalt itself like that after death while death is a destructive, humbling thing? Furthermore, if our soul is capable of going to heaven on its own right now, shouldn't we be able to sort of "astral project" to heaven whenever we wanted? Or, could we not simply say, "I'm done with this world, I'm going to heaven," and our soul would immediately leave our lifeless body and go to heaven? At the very least, would we not have more knowledge about what heaven is like? No, clearly heaven has a ruler who sees the death of our body as a fitting "right of passage".
My second statement is that heaven is perfect. If it were not, it would be little different from the world we are in now. And if that is where you think you go when you die, then what you believe is much closer to "reincarnation", which is a different topic entirely from "salvation". This essay is not for anyone with such a belief.
So heaven is a perfect place with a king deciding who gets in and who is shut out. This puts us in a rather delicate position. When we say that deeds can get us into heaven, we are saying that mankind can make itself worthy of heaven. That statement makes no sense. Heaven is perfect. No human who has ever walked the earth has ever been perfect (I do not consider Jesus human; I believe he was perfect. You may not believe that, and that's fine. I only wanted to make a clarification). If the king of heaven let a human (who is imperfect) into heaven, then heaven would no longer be heaven because heaven has to be perfect. In fact, the king of heaven doesn't simply choose to lock imperfect people out; he has no choice. He cannot break the laws dividing good and evil because he is perfect (though I suppose he is the one who wrote those laws. Aaaand we've just discovered a circle of reasoning).
Now, some of you may conjecture this: "The human soul is perfect, it is the desires of the flesh that makes mankind imperfect. When the body dies, the soul is free and can go to heaven." That makes no sense either. After all, what is the soul? How can you define it? Does not your "soul" include the way you think, the way you approach life, your hopes, your fears, your fondest dreams, your darkest desires, etc.? And if all those things were perfect, how would the "desires of the flesh" stand any chance against you? If the inside were perfect, so too would the outside be. The outside is not, therefore the inside cannot be either.
It seems that raw logic and reason have taken us to a dark place. According to truth, no one can get into heaven. But don't go and get too down-trod. Logic and reason cannot explain everything to us. If it could, we would not be in an imperfect world now. We have no where else to turn but to the ruler of heaven in hopes that in his perfect knowledge he has found some way for us to be saved from our terrible fate.
Now, although all these things are true, I don't want you to go out and do whatever you want. That would be the equivalent of saying, "The world will never be perfect, so why even try?" Just because the world will never be perfect does not mean we shouldn't try to make it more perfect than it is. It is the same with you and your fallen state. Just because you will never be worthy of heaven, does not mean you should not try to make yourself more worthy. Just be mindful; the final decision is for the king of heaven. You are at his mercy.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Who do you say Jesus is?
For those of you who are particularly averted to religion, I do not want you to think this discussion to be religious at all. This essay is an analysis of the preachings of one of the most (if not the most) important figures in history; Jesus.
Allow me to first to silence your doubts and protests claiming that the Bible is not credible. That, I think, is a futile attempt to excuse yourself from having to answer the questions that it has to offer. While the Bible has been translated several times, note that it has barely been revised. Note that by revision, I am referring to omission, addition, and rearrangement. While the Bible was compiled by religious leaders long after Jesus' death, they did not write anything in the Bible; they simply compiled manuscripts written by credible sources who actually witnessed the events they wrote about firsthand.
In relation to Jesus story, even if translation has muddied the story, there can be no doubt that Jesus did claim to be the Son of God; which here is the only fact you need concern yourself with. I say this in all confidence because the Bible says that Jesus said "I am the Son of God" too many times and in too many ways to count; even if the story is poorly translated, there can be no doubt that Jesus said that at one time or other. Furthermore, to Jesus' story there are four witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). A story is considered credible if two credible witnesses come forth with the same story. Jesus has double that number for his story; not to mention the witness of the letter writers throughout the rest of the New Testament.
Now that I have cleared your doubts as to whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he claimed to be the Son of God, you have a choice to make; or rather, an answer to give. Our answers to the question of who Jesus is range from lunatic, blasphemer, and false prophet to the Son of God, the Christ, the Savior of the world. But besides these, we have developed a kind of middle section that was developed by looking at his positive influence but ignoring his actual teachings. That is the section that claims he is a great moral teacher, a true prophet, an angel, etc.
I once read a book called Mere Christianity by the wonderfully brilliant author C.S. Lewis. Upon reading the book, my eyes were opened to an important fact regarding the conclusion "Jesus is a great moral teacher". This answer is ignorant of the facts. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If he is only a "great moral teacher", that means he lied about being God in the flesh. And if he is a human who lied about being God, he is not a "great moral teacher", he is a lunatic, a blasphemer, a false prophet, etc. And do not presume to say, "He was insane about claiming he was God's son, but other than that he had great insight morally." Who was the last insane person you met who you did not know was insane? Is not insanity a condition that consumes the whole person? If Jesus is insane, you cannot trust anything he says. He is a lunatic or he is Lord.
The "lunatic" conclusion is found the opposite way as the "great moral teacher" conclusion. One who says he is a lunatic looks at Jesus' teachings but ignores his influence. Jesus' existence is the dividing line of humanity (B.C. - A.D.), and he remained at the center of human culture for nearly two millennium. Undeniably, Jesus' influence at its core is positive; while people do indeed to awful things in Jesus' name, note that Jesus never told them to do those things and thus is not to be held responsible. That would be the equivalent of the damsel being blamed for the war between two feudal lords fighting each other to win her heart. When people actually do as Jesus told them, nothing but good things happen. They give to charity, they accept people (note that accepting a person is different from accepting their beliefs), they love, they forgive, they respect, they obey, etc. This is what Jesus told them to do. Can you, in good conscience, denounce a man with such a legacy as a lunatic?
Perhaps, even after this evidence, you insist that Jesus is a lunatic? Fine. But there is more weight than you think on saying such a thing, besides denouncing his legacy. By saying he is a lunatic, you are saying that mankind was foolish enough to put a lunatic at the center of his culture for nearly two millennium. And if you truly think mankind to be so feeble-minded, should not you of all people believe in man's dependence on a higher, wiser being? And if you believe that, than what being, among the world's religions, is more believable than Jesus?
Regardless of who you say Jesus is, this essay should remind us that any answer to this question is one with a substantial amount of weight and that Jesus, considering the scope of his influence, ought to be taken seriously.
Allow me to first to silence your doubts and protests claiming that the Bible is not credible. That, I think, is a futile attempt to excuse yourself from having to answer the questions that it has to offer. While the Bible has been translated several times, note that it has barely been revised. Note that by revision, I am referring to omission, addition, and rearrangement. While the Bible was compiled by religious leaders long after Jesus' death, they did not write anything in the Bible; they simply compiled manuscripts written by credible sources who actually witnessed the events they wrote about firsthand.
In relation to Jesus story, even if translation has muddied the story, there can be no doubt that Jesus did claim to be the Son of God; which here is the only fact you need concern yourself with. I say this in all confidence because the Bible says that Jesus said "I am the Son of God" too many times and in too many ways to count; even if the story is poorly translated, there can be no doubt that Jesus said that at one time or other. Furthermore, to Jesus' story there are four witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). A story is considered credible if two credible witnesses come forth with the same story. Jesus has double that number for his story; not to mention the witness of the letter writers throughout the rest of the New Testament.
Now that I have cleared your doubts as to whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he claimed to be the Son of God, you have a choice to make; or rather, an answer to give. Our answers to the question of who Jesus is range from lunatic, blasphemer, and false prophet to the Son of God, the Christ, the Savior of the world. But besides these, we have developed a kind of middle section that was developed by looking at his positive influence but ignoring his actual teachings. That is the section that claims he is a great moral teacher, a true prophet, an angel, etc.
I once read a book called Mere Christianity by the wonderfully brilliant author C.S. Lewis. Upon reading the book, my eyes were opened to an important fact regarding the conclusion "Jesus is a great moral teacher". This answer is ignorant of the facts. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If he is only a "great moral teacher", that means he lied about being God in the flesh. And if he is a human who lied about being God, he is not a "great moral teacher", he is a lunatic, a blasphemer, a false prophet, etc. And do not presume to say, "He was insane about claiming he was God's son, but other than that he had great insight morally." Who was the last insane person you met who you did not know was insane? Is not insanity a condition that consumes the whole person? If Jesus is insane, you cannot trust anything he says. He is a lunatic or he is Lord.
The "lunatic" conclusion is found the opposite way as the "great moral teacher" conclusion. One who says he is a lunatic looks at Jesus' teachings but ignores his influence. Jesus' existence is the dividing line of humanity (B.C. - A.D.), and he remained at the center of human culture for nearly two millennium. Undeniably, Jesus' influence at its core is positive; while people do indeed to awful things in Jesus' name, note that Jesus never told them to do those things and thus is not to be held responsible. That would be the equivalent of the damsel being blamed for the war between two feudal lords fighting each other to win her heart. When people actually do as Jesus told them, nothing but good things happen. They give to charity, they accept people (note that accepting a person is different from accepting their beliefs), they love, they forgive, they respect, they obey, etc. This is what Jesus told them to do. Can you, in good conscience, denounce a man with such a legacy as a lunatic?
Perhaps, even after this evidence, you insist that Jesus is a lunatic? Fine. But there is more weight than you think on saying such a thing, besides denouncing his legacy. By saying he is a lunatic, you are saying that mankind was foolish enough to put a lunatic at the center of his culture for nearly two millennium. And if you truly think mankind to be so feeble-minded, should not you of all people believe in man's dependence on a higher, wiser being? And if you believe that, than what being, among the world's religions, is more believable than Jesus?
Regardless of who you say Jesus is, this essay should remind us that any answer to this question is one with a substantial amount of weight and that Jesus, considering the scope of his influence, ought to be taken seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)