Lucifer vs. Social Revolutionary Jesus

[Mopsus]

Spin-off of TNF's recent poll.

For those unfamiliar, Social Revolutionary Jesus is the one responsible for the following passage:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mopsus]

So you guys really believe that people who don't give food and clothes to homeless people should burn forever?

I think that the point is that withholding one's goods from the poor is indicative of a kind of self-centeredness that has no place in the kingdom of God. 

[Mopsus]

So you guys really believe that people who don't give food and clothes to homeless people should burn forever?

I think that the point is that withholding one's goods from the poor is indicative of a kind of self-centeredness that has no place in the kingdom of God. 

And does have a place in eternal fire. You can't just point out how Jesus wants to reward good people while ignoring his promise of unmerciful punishment towards those who have failed to live up to his commands.

In my ideal theology, the punishment for those who live in the flesh is to also perish with the flesh. However, if one accepts the indestructibility of the soul, then the abode of Satan and the other fallen angels is a more fitting eternal dwelling place for the unrighteous than Heaven is.

[Mopsus]

Here are some of my thoughts on the issue: Human existence is a dichotomy between flesh (material existence) and spirit (intellectual existence). Those who invest the entirety of their existence into the flesh will pass away when the flesh passes away, while those who transcend the flesh and live in the spirit will continue to live on in the spirit when the flesh dies, except that they will no longer by constrained by the limits of this universe. I don't think that that's irrational or unjust.

[Mopsus]

The problem with separating good from bad, heaven and hell, is that you are making the assumption that any system of justice is based on a series of absolutes. Which is not a human/e method of justice. The absolutes of heaven and hell may place the righteous apart from the unrighteous, but it places the unrighteous with each other; it places the person who never spared a thought for the poor and the needy with the person who not only did the same but say, obliterated thousands of people through genocide. No human system of justice would ever do that. It would not be justice at all. This is why Christianity has had to mitigate these moral absolutes, as in the passage you initially quoted, since the beginning (placing the whole dichotomy of faith v deeds or both with regards to salvation aside) because it is uncomfortable and also unsellable.

But the person who neglects the poor and the person who commits genocide are ultimately guilty of the same crime: living according to the flesh. That's why it makes sense to exclude them from the presence of God, who is pure spirit. Where their consciousness should spend the afterlife instead is a matter of debate, as I indicated in my response to the yellow New York avatar above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to all of this, so I'll just try to outline some of my metaphysical musings so that you'll at least know where I'm coming from:

Everything that currently exists in our universe is the product of cause and effect. Thus, when one thinks that one has found the "first cause" of the natural universe, one will immediately be prompted to answer the question, But what was the cause of this "first cause"? Such is the objection that must be answered when one claims that the universe as it currently is has a cause originating within that same universe. However, if one moves the originator of our universe outside of it, then one can sidestep that conundrum - the originator doesn't exist within our universe, and so is not bound by the chain of cause and effect that everything within our universe is. Of course, that gives us a picture of a god that seems distant and unknowable, but one thing at least must be true: that god must have the capacity to create (a capacity which I associate with the human capacity to think). Now the existence of the soul does not necessarily follow from all of this, but if one accepts that the human mind is a kind of reflection of God's mind, then it is not unreasonable to believe that the human mind (some kernel of it) will return into some eternal non-physical realm the moment that it's released from physical bondage.

[Mopsus]

But the person who neglects the poor and the person who commits genocide are ultimately guilty of the same crime: living according to the flesh.

If you believe that they are in anyway comparable, then I question your ethical integrity.

You yourself must think that they're in some way comparable, assuming that you think that they're both bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While you just ignore it, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't deny that our thoughts have a physical origin (science, as well as common sense, seems to demonstrate that they do). I just think that the thoughts themselves don't have a physical dimension in any meaningful sense, which is why I use thought to help explain the nature of god, who doesn't have a material existence either. That's the way that it has to be if our current understanding of the universe is to be logically consistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe in grammar?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's quite possible. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can only answer these questions by saying that that's just the way that our creation is. That might seem unfair, but my concept of the deity is a fundamentally creative one, not a fundamentally fair one - fairness, after all, is a human concept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My concept of the afterlife is similar to that held by the Indian religions: The universe (or God, or Brahman) doesn't care if you attain enlightenment, but whether you do or not will nevertheless have an affect on your fate after death.