In Message #16, Philip responds to comments made in an earlier message, in part, by saying:
"I know my hell (where I would have gone) had I not been enabled to believe the gospel of Christ amidst my sinful state."
Philip, if your persceptions of your sins and the wages you would have paid, and your method of redemption and salvation, work for you and make you a better human, who am I to refute you personally? Congratulations, and may you, your family, and your neighbors benefit from your good deeds.
Personally, I prefer to believe that there is no torturous hell for mean, nasty, greedy, evil-doers no matter how much I would like to see them suffer mightily for the hurtful things they do to other living beings and to nature in general. And I prefer to believe that we are each more likely to be rewarded for our good deeds right here on Earth, rather than in some mythical paradise.
However, if we are never directly rewarded for our good deeds with return benefits, so what, we should simply be gratified that we were able to offer our fellow humans and our natural surroundings. Besides, we should give freely expecting nothing in return to begin with.
Philip, you also offer the following: "Now secular humanism may find mercy in 'that day', I don't know. Paul overtly wished the secular humanists of his day to discover mercy (salvation methinks), for they helped him oft times. But Paul also warned about preachers who preached another non-propitiating Christ (Galatians 1) as to be accursed.
Philip, if there is an Almighty God, may he have mercy on my soul in "that day" by which I assume we are both referring to "Judgement Day." And I don't know about that possibility anymore than you do. But I am more concerned about the mercy we show each other, and the stewardship we practice regarding the environment, right here on Earth, and I am willing to devote more time and attention to what's going on around me concerning my family, my neighbors, and the habitat in which I am blessed to exist in the first place.
As for Paul, he was a hateful man. If I had held the coats of the stonethrowers while they pelted gentle people for "heresy," I too might wish for eternal salvation through grace alone. It's very curious to me also that after receiving another vision of life, Saul of Tarsus as Paul continued to preach the belittlement of women when his messiah did not. But that is another subject I simply throw out there to indicate reasons for my total dismissal of Paulian theology.
I do understand though how "the humanists of his day" were helpful to him regardless of his often apparent dismissal of their potential to attain an "everlasting paradise" of the same nature and quality as was in store for dear Paul. One sees humanists every day who are more than willing to help people in need regarless of the personal, economic, or psychological tragedies that may have contributed to those people's bad fortune.
Philip, I have no idea what degree of humanism I am entitled to claim. I'm certainly not a black belt. If I ran into a guilt-ridden Roman collaborator (read "Neo-nazi"), struck down by lightening on the way to Damascus, ranting and raving like a lunatic, but in obvious need of food or medical attention, I assure you I would offer some assistance; although I imagine as soon as that person appeared the slightest bit self-sufficient, I would turn my attentions elsewhere.
As far as Paul's determinations regarding "accursedness," I couldn't care less.
Also in Message #16, you offer that, "If you are a Messianic Jew, you hold to and accept the NT scriptures as valid; Matthew and Luke might make Christ appear to you as an evolutionist (in spirit). Love evolving and growing via random acts of human love may be observed, I perceive that (probably not enough)."
I am not a "messianic Jew" and I think that the category of "messianic Jew" that you define as "accepting the NT scriptures as valid" would qualify as a "Christian" in my frame of references. The reality is that there still are "messianic Jews" who continue to await their Messiah, and do not accept the validity of NT scriptures. I am not one of them either.
My only purpose in refering to Luke 10:25-37 was to have you and others read and re-read that story as it has a great deal to offer in the way of historic and contemporary assessment of human nature and human interactment in politically charged environments. I also think that every person professing "salvation through grace" should read and re-read that passage along with every person who parades himself or herself in front of their fellow humans in a posture of theologic or social superiority.
Philip, on your point of, "it's vexing for me to argue: are compassionate atheists who believe in supreme goodness (God) damned for their overt atheism/evolutionism, especially when their inward man(woman) confesses redemptive events in their hearts?" - I am not sure if the following statement even adequately or remotely responds:
First of all, I'm not sure that the compassionate atheist expresses or views secular humanism as "supreme goodness" so much as "simple duty" to humankind and nature.
Secondly, all the waffling and doubting we "atheistic humanists/evolutionists" may express from time to time and in obviously weak or drunken moments is just, IMHO, "garbage in/garbage out" backwash from former indoctrination and continual social pressures from friends and family who apparently are convinced they will be looking down from heaven and watching us writhe in eternal damnation. Ah well.
And if we are damned for acts of love and compassion in the absense of theological conformity, then we are damned. But if there is an Almighty God, I would be my most humble opinion that the only damnation would be not for the sin of disbelief, but for the sin of willfully and selfishly leading another into disbelief. Again, I gather this from Luke 10:25-37, and specifically with regard to the first half of the two-part equation.
Philip, you offer an encouraging anecdote that, "an atheist (podiatrist) friend of mine supported my Haiti visits (2 days ago) with medicines (and such) with joyful compassion (I detected). Ironically, she has framed prayers on her clinic-wall (though she's a professing atheist)."
What a wonderful friend you have! And I am drawing a picture that she thinks you are a wonderful humanist to give your time and resources toward helping Haitians. I have no idea why the walls of her clinic hold framed prayers, but I can tell you that I have observed that even those who do not adhere to standardized religious dogmas often put a great deal of stock or find some degree of comfort in either the act or the text of prayer.
I would suggest you read the prayers to determine whether they are standard sectarian hogwash, or if they are carefully phrased in universal, non-exclusionary terms to appeal to the broadest audience possible.
Besides, how is an atheist's "belief structure" compromised by the hanging of prayers on a clinic wall? Think about it.
Philip, you ask, probably rhetorically, "what's going on, Abshalom? I hate divorce, television, chemical dependence, actors playing sex, and my own personal sin-baggage (foremost). My 'strawman' (redemption-love hypothesis) still requires I reconcile all essential biblical events as absolute truth, else there could be no Christ, no love, no redemption, etc."
Hey, man, life's a bitch, and then you die. That I have lived a fortunate life and am able to share it with others is enough reward for me. If you require more, then you must seek a higher truth or experience some kind of metaphysical epiphany.
Normally, my advice would be to burn that strawman, forget about theories like the redemption of sin via blood sacrifice, continue to step up to the plate like you have in Haiti, and thank whomever you wish for the good fortune you enjoy as a free American citizen of the world. But I'm gonna hedge my bet by stopping short of drawing you away from your apparent personal relationship with your god.
[Philip ends]: "But back to the topic: Why diseases? Rom 6.23 still fits for me: 'The wages of sin is death'. How would you (and/or you lurkers) answer that question?"
Philip, this is how I interpret "the wages of sin are death":
1) If you are a believer in the Judeo/Christian God, the result of your willfull separation (sin) from God is your spiritual disconnection (death) from God and denial of reward (eternal paradise).
2) If you are a pagan believer in a pagan god or goddess, your neglect to show devotion by blood sacrifice will result in your exclusion from Valhallah.
3) If you are a secular humanist, your neglect (sin) to live a life dedicated to the betterment of humankind and nature will result in your spiritual disconnection (death) from life on Earth and your niche (earthly paradise) within it.
I'm still dazzled by what I found behind Door #3.
Peace and good fortune to you and yours.
™ Version 4.2