MARX

Stalin and Mao were not Marxists. They merely leveraged the notion of the peoples’ antithesis to those in power. Where Marx could be said to be in error is that he did not see industrial-capitalism transforming into market-capitalism, requiring a “purchasing” class, if you like. Similarly, trade unions and industrial laws have held capitalism in check. Lastly, Marx lived in a mechanical world, wherein, he tried to apply mecho-scientific principles to sociology. Regarding, the Labour Theory of Value, he would not have known the socio-biological construct of by-product mutualism: i.e., co-operation. In times of depression/recession the old animosities can be renewed, but, perhaps tensions between large societal sectors are best reviewed from the perspectives for Veblen – not Marx.

One could apply dialectics to early Judeo-Christian religion and Jesus’ situation. Marx would have fought in a flight-flee situation, as a thesis to resolve conflict between the classes. With Jesus, Herod is trying to have Rome persecute Jesus, but Jesus takes flight, metaphorically. The Dichotomy is between the temporal and the secular; between the metaphysical (relationship with God) and the physical ( the control of the relationship with the means of production). Christ was not a Marxist.

Both were ethical moralists: Only Marx was a liberal, democrat. Jesus was a big picture person, I think,and the better histographer than Marx. Jesus (derived from his biographers) seems more apt at linking First Century history to the Old Testiment than Marx did veloping the Labour Theory of Value (from: Adams, Riccardo) and Dialectic (from: Hegel, Plato, Socrates)towards a general theory of class history. Jesus had the benefit of hindsight; Marx has to forecast the future.

GOD AND HEAVEN

Justification by Faith seems a tall order for a loving God. We are given the power to reason and are supposedly punished for not believing in the unreasonable. Seems strange behaviour to me. Why would it be repulsive to a loving God to ask for evidence given the limitions of human cognition set in place by God in the first place?

Boxgum,

This is Forum. People debate issues and posit various propositions. It is the nature of the venue. For instance, I could ask a good RC why is it necessary to give a deceased Pope nine Absolutions? Would not just one final penance, one absolution and one viaticum suffice?

Justification by Faith or Pride cometh before the Fall?

I like to think of eternal life as the quality of righteousness that is very God. That is why Jesus is spoken of as being from eternity. The signs of the quality of his character, thought, motives etc demonstrate what we worship as the Holy God - the perfection of character. Jesus was never another being in a remote physical heaven: he was the very expression of the eternal quality of perfection that is the eternal God. That is why I reject the common concept of three persons in a Godhead. There is but one God and Jesus made claim that he and the Father are one [not two in union] but exactly the same.

When we die only the righteousness that reflects the righteousness of God remains eternal. All other aspects of character and behaviour that do not reflect God are destroyed eternally [to use the concept of Valley of Gehannah - the rubbish dump outside the old city of Jerusalem that continually burned]. That is why Christians uphold we are clothed in the righteousness as we see expressed in Christ. That is why Christ in us places us in God and God is in us. The very worship of that perfection of character and repentance of our failures of that perfection places our desires and wishes in God.

Essentiall we are not merely a body as our body is temporal and totally renewed in every cell each seven years. We are essentially our character, actions, our attitudes, motivations, wisdom and creativity etc. Those aspects that are pure reflect the very nature of the eternal God. This is the eternal. Matter is not eternally stable, but it is not evil either as it was a very good creation of the eternal God - Father of our spirit.

R0bert,

Sells’ views on afterlife (or lack of it) are more common among us churchgoers than you think, though I'll concede that we're a minority (especially in this forum). In my denomination (Anglican) you could go to church for years and hear no sermons on pie in the sky when you die, but lots on the kingdom of heaven here and now, or at least breaking into the here and now.

But the many clergy who don’t believe in an afterlife seldom dare to preach on this explicitly for fear of upsetting those in their congregations who cling to traditional belief. This is a shame and encourages an infantile and ultimately unbelievable religiosity stuck in arrested development that cannot grow or learn or respond to challenges.

This infantile Christianity gets mercilessly (and, in my view, rightly) lampooned in this forum. The silliness of literal belief in miracles and the myths of Eden (or tortuous rationalisations such as “creation science”), the desperation of wanting to go to heaven when we die, the conceit and smugness of believing that we’ll go to heaven (however bad we’ve been) while everyone else goes to hell (no matter how good they’ve been), or that only Christians can be moral.

This infantile Christianity is the one non-believers seem to want believers to believe in. This is partly because it’s so much easier to ridicule and to dismiss than more complex and nuanced theologies, but also because – as Sells points out – an awful lot of non-Christians believe in some form of afterlife too. My guess is that these non-believing afterlife believers would be pretty uncomfortable if the church repudiated the idea of heaven as a place where you go when you die - which admittedly is likely to happen rather later than hell freezes over with our current church leadership.

So here we have a columnist trying to explain (or at least discuss), important strands in contemporary mainstream theology, while in the forum we endlessly rehearse the arguments for and against views that he doesn’t hold and has never propounded.

Poor Sells.

I was just reading today in Acts, how Paul went to Athens to talk to the Stoics and Epicureans, and they listened until he mentioned the Resurrection of the dead (Jesus). Then they mocked him and stopped listening.

It seems 2000 years later, even those who profess their faith in Christ, mock the idea of the resurrection of the dead (for Jesus' followers). The New Testament is littered with references to Christians anticipating resurrection from the dead. In Revelation, we see martyrs and other Christians, towards the end of time, in the throne room of God, praying and worshiping Him. I'd say this is a pretty big tenant of the Christian faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that our English word "heaven" can mean one of three things in the Bible. 1) Outer space/atmosphere around Earth, 2)where the justified sinners go after they die (or as you put it, the righteous) and 3) God's throne room.

Revelation talks about a new heaven and a new Earth. I think "heaven" is a spiritual dimension, not limited by space, matter or time as this Earth is. However, I don't believe we were created for the place called heaven, but to live heaven on Earth. Sin has obviously created a huge separation but Christ's Restoration has enabled us to be Christ's body on Earth, doing His ministry. One day we will spend eternity with God in the new Earth (not the new heavens).

"The rebellion of man against God could only be a rebellion against his own nature and could only cause him misery, while restoration can only restore man to his original state of grace first experienced in the Garden of Eden."

I loved that sentence. Jesus did use the words Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven interchangably. It is obvious that His plea to the Father "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven" was not just about bringing the cherubs and the angels onto Earth.

Rhian, thanks for the response. I am wondering what is left when the items you refer to are removed from the christain faith

"The silliness of literal belief in miracles and the myths of Eden (or tortuous rationalisations such as “creation science”), the desperation of wanting to go to heaven when we die, the conceit and smugness of believing that we’ll go to heaven (however bad we’ve been) while everyone else goes to hell (no matter how good they’ve been), or that only Christians can be moral."

I'm also interested to see how those who hold to a christainity without an afterlife deal with passages such as the one I refered to earlier (sheep and the goats). Any comments on that.

Sells does some interesting work with his articles and posts exposing a side of christainity which most of us never hear of.

I do think that the non-christain understanding of issues like the afterlife has more to do with what is presented repeatedly by christains rather than deep seated needs.

I must admit to some surprise at how muted the response to Sell's points has been from the usual christian posters. No sign of a rack and inquisitors robe with calls for him to recant his heresy. Strange.

R0bert