Perhaps he is just talking about this life? — Beebert

Well, salvation would be achieved in this life no?

They say so yes. But this life is all we know about, the rest is about faith. There is only now. I like Wittgenstein talking about eternal life in Tractatus. He ends by asking what is explained by the fact that I continue to live after death? It doesnt answer any questions. The mystery that life is remains.

"This is a valuable insight; I think you have the key here already, within all of your trepidations and frustrations. How could personhood be the highest value if sin sends someone to eternal conscious torment? Christianity has missed the importance of the person, of personality. The idea of eternal conscious torment is dehumanizing; it begins with man in a state of total depravity. The problem with this is there's no reference, within basic human experience, for why this is, or what it's measured against. Sin originally has the connotation of "missing the mark". But the way Christianity unfolded in history assigned a normative toxic shame to sin, and, therefore, to all of life; all aspects. The typical Christian ethos is one embroiled in shame and subsequent virtue-signaling. Shame creates an entire culture of pathological play-acting. But none of this has to do with the crux of the actual Gospel. There are other interpretations. Christus Victor places Christ as the victorious hero conquering sin and death; it's a cosmic battle that's already been won. If Christianity had adopted this view of the Gospel as it's basis, then the culture of shame that embroils it wouldn't exist.

Ultimately, toxic shame eats away at the sacredness of that personhood that you expressed. I personally think that personhood (I would say personality or individuality) is the highest value of Christianity precisely because Christ was God incarnated in an individual person. The sheer depth of symbolical significance of that fact, within the context of history, is staggering. It creates a connection between God and man; man has a need for God, but God also has a need for man. The notion that man's need for God is not reciprocated for need on God's end is nonsensical. Man has zero value if God does not assign value to him, and God cannot assign value to man without having a need. Any value assigned without need would be purely theoretical; value means need.

What all of this has to do with organized religion is anathema to me, at this point. I've had similar experiences to what you describe. I also resonate with the feeling of having "lost faith", and yet still finding belief in Christ to exist within myself. I've had a long, painful journey of coming to terms with these contradictory experiences, but to come to the realization that a belief exists, deeply within me, a belief in Christ, despite everything, has been a huge comfort. I sense that you're wrestling in possibly a similar way. There's a name for our ilk; "Doubting Thomas". Just think about the depth of Thomas's faith after having seen the wounds of Jesus with his own eyes. This is the beauty of our doubt; it leads us into deeper Truth. Keep it up."

Thank you a lot for this post. It resonates very well with me. I thank you.

Christianity has missed the importance of the person, of personality. The idea of eternal conscious torment is dehumanizing; it begins with man in a state of total depravity.

Christianity is all about the person since Christ revealed the divinity inherent in all people. And not all Christians, or even all Catholic scholars, believe in eternal torment. So, Christianity begins with man in a near-exalted state.

But the way Christianity unfolded in history assigned a normative toxic shame to sin, and, therefore, to all of life; all aspects. The typical Christian ethos is one embroiled in shame and subsequent virtue-signaling. Shame creates an entire culture of pathological play-acting. But none of this has to do with the crux of the actual Gospel.

Sin can be terribly expressed or dealt with by obtuse clergy, but all Abrahamic religions have a notion of distance from God and our suffering from it. Even Secular Humanists like myself have a notion of sin in which we hold certain states--murderous, deceitful, racist, homophobic, violent, terrible parents--as states of sing--that people need recovery from and sometimes punishment for.

Christus Victor places Christ as the victorious hero conquering sin and death; it's a cosmic battle that's already been won. If Christianity had adopted this view of the Gospel as it's basis, then the culture of shame that embroils it wouldn't exist.

This is not Christ's conquest to many Christians. To many, it is showing us that true divinity in men isn[ power, wealth, or violence, but rather kindness, compassion, and empathy.

The notion that man's need for God is not reciprocated for need on God's end is nonsensical. Man has zero value if God does not assign value to him, and God cannot assign value to man without having a need. Any value assigned without need would be purely theoretical; value means need.

This is not Catholic belief at all as the Trinity demands God's need for man since part of himself, Christ, is human and that part, as well as humans, give God the opportunity to love within and without Himself.

No problem.

You're quoting me there, not Beebert, fyi.

So, Christianity begins with man in a near-exalted state. — John Harris

This is theologically true, but not really the case in the general zeitgeist of the faith, which is what I was commenting on. I already made the distinction later on in that post.

This is not Christ's conquest to many Christians. — John Harris

Yes, that's what I was saying.

This is not Catholic belief — John Harris

I was talking about the general Protestant view.

So, Christianity begins with man in a near-exalted state.
— John Harris

This is theologically true, but not really the case in the general zeitgeist of the faith, which is what I was commenting on. I already made the distinction later on in that post.

Sure it is, and grouping members of all the various Christian groups in one gestalt is a mistake and a poor indicator. Many Christians, particularly American Christians, have a very exuberant Christianity seeing it as something that both lifts them spiritually and even (incorrectly) offers them greater chance for material success.

This is not Catholic belief
— John Harris

I was talking about the general Protestant view.

But you said Christian, and Catholics are Christians, and even most Protestants believe in the dynamics of the Trinity; they're not Arian heretics.

Sure it is, and grouping members of all the various Christian groups in one gestalt is a mistake and a poor indicator. — John Harris

So you're saying it is, in fact, "the general zeitgeist of the faith", and then saying I shouldn't group "members of the various Christian groups in one gestalt". Which is it?

I would say we should both avoid making such a gestalt. But if we were to comment on that gestalt/zeitgeist of the faith, then I would say most, particularly most American, Christians do see themselves in a exalted, not a degraded, state because of their Christian faith.

A notable exception would be traditional--not so much contemporary--Irish Catholicism that does focus on the negative, fallen state and the torments of sin.

particularly most American, Christians do see themselves in a exalted, not a degraded, state because of their Christian faith. — John Harris

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here. My personal experience within Christian protestantism revealed a hidden shame that was lying underneath the outward exuberance. And that shame is latent in the way the American church at large interprets scripture, I think.

Based on my own experience with American Protestantism and their leaders like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc. I must say that I agree with you here too

Ugh

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong, and when you disagree you are making wide sweeping statements here, so I guess we'll keep making them.

My personal experience within Christian protestantism revealed a hidden shame that was lying underneath the outward exuberance. And that shame is latent in the way the American church at large interprets scripture, I think.

Anyone should know that personal anecdotal experience is not sufficient evidence to speak for a group. And no, it does not--except the fundamentalists--hide a hidden shame or interpret scripture to find it, and most Christians don't go looking for it.

Ugh — Noble Dust

Looking for a date son?

Noble Dust Based on my own experience with American Protestantism and their leaders like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc. I must say that I agree with you here too

Again personal experience is never enough to speak for the realities of the group. Using that logic, a woman who was raped by a police officer could say all police officers rape women.

Using that logic, a woman who was raped by a police officer could say all police officers rape women. — John Harris

Incidentally, I think she may be right :-O

Nah.

Ugh... I really have problems with that guy's understanding of things

Yes I see what you mean, but it certainly is true that these leaders either knowingly or unknowingly try to invoke this kind of feelings of shame.

John Harris Yes I see what you mean, but it certainly is true that these leaders either knowingly or unknowingly try to invoke this kind of feelings of shame.

No, mostly they don't, and if they do go negative it's usually on "guilt,' not "shame"...very different things. The reality is most Christians, including American ones, don't want to be told how awful they are all, or even a lot of the time. The biggest sellers of Christianity are "you're special," "you're going to a good place," and "you have a God who loves you." They may mix in some guilt here or there, but not enough to hurt attendance.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong, — John Harris

>:O

and most Christians don't go looking for it. — John Harris

No, mostly they don't, — John Harris

The reality is most Christians, including American ones, — John Harris

You continue to generalize. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience?

I'm sure John Piper could set me up with a fine young Christian lass.

I'm sure John Piper could set me up with a fine young Christian lass. — Noble Dust

Oh... I was thinking more with the man himself :P

Yikes.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong,
— John Harris

Yes, you can disagree, but you'd be wrong, and no childish--are you over 18?--emolji changes that.

You continue to generalize. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience?

I continue to generalize because you continued to generalized in the bold quote below. The only difference is my generalizations are accurate. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience? Because personal experience certainly wouldn't suffice.

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here.

I dunno, I guess we're done debating this topic? As you've offered no actual points for me to address here.

are you over 18? — John Harris

I continue to generalize because you continued to generalized — John Harris

I

I dunno, I guess we're done debating this topic? As you've offered no actual points for me to address here.

Actually, I have--in my last post, and in the post before where you ignored the part below. But since you've offered no actual points, we're definitely done.

Anyone should know that personal anecdotal experience is not sufficient evidence to speak for a group. And no, it does not--except the fundamentalists--hide a hidden shame or interpret scripture to find it, and most Christians don't go looking for it.

That is not true of John MacArthur.