Ask Nathan

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I guess this is a sort of a fad now so here we go.

As a theological conservative with several theologically liberal streaks, or a theological liberal with several theologically conservative streaks, but not really a theological moderate on much, I sometimes worry that the picture of my outlook that other people get is a little...muddled, not entirely coherent. If I've confused or, for that matter, even offended anybody, now's the time to get into it.

I'm also happy to just attention-whore a little if it comes down to that.

[DC Al Fine]

Well this should be fun since I know nothing of your theology

1) What denomination are you?

2) Do you believe in some sort of hell?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1) Episcopalian. I'm not always comfortable in the Episcopal Church, not by a long shot, but I doubt I'd be any more comfortable anywhere else. My family background is predominantly Roman Catholic, as is most of the theology that I read and otherwise interact with, and as are some of such behavioral and affectational manifestations of personal piety as I can claim to have (rosary beads, Marian artwork, genuflecting, the set Catholic version of the before-meal grace...).

2) Yes (otherwise what would there have been for the Resurrection to accomplish, exactly?), although I'm not sure what characteristics I believe it to have. I find the (for Catholics and Anglicans at the very least) classical model of tormented consciousness kept in and defined by a state of enforced separation from God so unsettling as to approach impossibility (as in it would be impossible for me to bring myself to actively believe, not that it would be theoretically impossible for that to be the case), but beyond that, that is one of the subjects on which I am exploring far more, and far more specific, concepts than I actually subscribe to. Theologians I've found compelling on some level or another on this issue include Hans Urs von Balthasar and (what's been said about) Theophanes the Branded. (I'd bring up The Great Divorce in this context, too, but most of the ideas expressed there are expressed with greater cadences by other theologians, such as, well, (what's been said about) Theophanes the Branded.)

[afleitch]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Since you believe in a literal Hell, through what means does one get there?  Contrasting that, how is one saved?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

Okay, I'm going to implement a policy of brutal honesty here, because a lot of what I'm about to say I would elide or at least be a lot cagier about if this were any other thread.

I realized about my sexual orientation and--vastly more relevant to this in my case, at least in my thinking--gender identity at around the same time as I was drifting back towards orthodox Christianity after a late childhood and early adolescence spent bouncing around various forms of neopaganism and religious humanism (i.e. Unitarian Universalism). Question yes, subdue no; I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself. I'm willing to stick my neck out for other elements of Christian sexual morality, such as the strong general preference for lifelong monogamy and the particular condemnation of adultery, but I think there are good reasons to treat traditional Christian circumscriptions of gender roles in this as in other spheres of life as overstated or as only having been imposed because of specific social circumstances that no longer obtain.

As you might recall I once expressed concern about religious same-sex marriage within the context of Christianity. That concern wasn't in any way meant to imply that I think it's a bad idea or wouldn't wholeheartedly support it--it was meant to imply that I think that it's in recent years been undertaken in a liturgically irresponsible manner, with too little regard for how to make a traditional marriage liturgy gender-neutral in a way that makes sense and isn't horrifically grating. I was in particular reacting against the Episcopal Church's recently-approved blessing for same-sex relationships, which I find insulting precisely because does not constitute marriage and thus comes across as almost the religious equivalent of a civil union! (As well as actually damaging by its very conceptual existence the nature of Christian marriage, which civil unions obviously do not do to civil marriage. Formal Christian liturgical recognition of same-sex relationships, of any romantic and sexual relationships really, should be marriage or nothing, and I would vastly prefer marriage.)

Gender identity isn't quite so much of a settled question in my own mind as sexual orientation is. I'm still working on questioning that--questioning for myself, not really for anyone else. But since it is only for myself that's probably more my own psychology and uncertainty and aversion to personal change than it is any sort of actual theological or moral objection, although I'm ashamed to admit I've on occasion tried to pass it off as theological uncertainty because I'm a coward.

The prospect that I'm wrong or think about this the way I do for self-serving reasons and the more conservative positions on these subjects are actually right has worried me from time to time, but even if I were willing to do that to myself, like I said, I'm just not willing to do it to my close friends.

Since you believe in a literal Hell, through what means does one get there?

I don't know. What I think can be said with some degree of certainty in that it strikes me as genuinely theologically incoherent to claim otherwise is that a far wider swathe of people ended up in Hell prior to the Resurrection. This could be anywhere from 'before the Resurrection everybody who ever lived was in Hell, afterwards it was emptied of everyone but the Devil and his angels and has remained so' right on down to far more cautious understandings, but like I said in response to DC Al Fine, if some variant of this isn't the case then it becomes an open question why the Crucifixion and Resurrection, possibly the Incarnation itself for that matter, were even necessary in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everybody is called to try to accept the person and abide by the teachings of Christ to the greatest extent physically or psychologically possible in their own circumstances. This includes 'anonymous Christians' in the Rahnerian sense. My uncertainty about Hell derives from not feeling qualified to answer what degree of success in this endeavor constitutes being saved and, indeed, not really feeling that it's human beings' business trying to develop an answer.

I will say, however, that I've lately been trying to take the Sheep and the Goats discourse more seriously.

[H. Ross Peron]

What is your view of the modern Calvinist movement (ie MacArthur, Piper, Keller)?

Who are your favourite theologians/ministers?

Do you believe that the history of the Hebrews as presented in the Old Testament is essentially accurate?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What is your view of the modern Calvinist movement (ie MacArthur, Piper, Keller)?

Strongly negative, albeit less so of Keller than of MacArthur and less so of MacArthur than of Piper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Johannes Scotus Eriugena, St Gregory Palamas, Julian of Norwich, Margery Kempe if she counts as a theologian,  St John of the Cross, Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz, Evelyn Underhill, Simone Weil, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Gustavo Gutiérrez, and recently Jürgen Moltmann and Edward Bouverie Pusey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In broad strokes and given that a lot of the chronology is sort of inexact, yes.

[H. Ross Peron]

What is your view of the modern Calvinist movement (ie MacArthur, Piper, Keller)?

Strongly negative, albeit less so of Keller than of MacArthur and less so of MacArthur than of Piper.

Why do prefer MacArthur over Piper? MacArthur is more of a traditional fundamentalist (ie Young Earth Creationism, Dispensationalism, tee-totaling) then Piper.

[TJ in Oregon]

Do you believe in Purgatory? Do you believe in the veneration of saints?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What is your view of the modern Calvinist movement (ie MacArthur, Piper, Keller)?

Strongly negative, albeit less so of Keller than of MacArthur and less so of MacArthur than of Piper.

Why do prefer MacArthur over Piper? MacArthur is more of a traditional fundamentalist (ie Young Earth Creationism, Dispensationalism, tee-totaling) then Piper.

Simple: I was confusing them. Although if pressed one thing I will say in MacArthur's favor that I can't really say in Piper's is that MacArthur's bullsh**t detector regarding many megachurches and other of the more culty manifestations of conservative Protestantism seems at least slightly sounder.

Do you believe in Purgatory? Do you believe in the veneration of saints?

Yes to both, although my uncertainty about the exact nature of Hell to at least some degree extends to Purgatory as well.

[TJ in Oregon]

Do you believe in Purgatory? Do you believe in the veneration of saints?

Yes to both, although my uncertainty about the exact nature of Hell to at least some degree extends to Purgatory as well.

Do you believe in the venial/mortal sin dichotomy of Catholicism and if not what distinguishes one's fate between purgatory and hell?

Clearly I see how most of your views follow from Christianity (I'd quibble with a few of your beliefs but we need not derail the thread with already common knowledge). But what is it that makes you believe that all of these constructs are actually real? Why do you believe in God in the first place?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do you believe in Purgatory? Do you believe in the veneration of saints?

Yes to both, although my uncertainty about the exact nature of Hell to at least some degree extends to Purgatory as well.

Do you believe in the venial/mortal sin dichotomy of Catholicism and if not what distinguishes one's fate between purgatory and hell?

In principle yes I do, although I of course don't agree with all of what the Catholic Church considers grave matter. (Aside from the obvious, I don't think I can really accept the notion that recreational drug use in and of itself constitutes grave matter, for example.) Occasionally this has reached the point of me wondering if there's perhaps more merit to the Eastern Orthodox notion of venial and mortal sins being distinguished by presence or degree of repentance, rather than by the nature of the sinful act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really clearly remember when or why I started believing--I wasn't raised particularly religious (although I was raised with some awareness of the Bible and traditional Christian, as I've said before mainly Catholic, teachings and culture) but I'm afraid I don't have any grand story of conversion or amendment of my ways (yet?). All I know is that, now that I do believe, to stop believing would be to lose my understanding of a lot more than just directly religion-related subjects. The manner and mechanism through which I see and understand anything at all would collapse. For me, to not have Heaven and Earth would be to no longer know which way was up, in more ways than one.

[TJ in Oregon]

Do you fear the pains of hell/wrath of God/eternal separation from God on a somewhat regular basis?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do you fear the pains of hell/wrath of God/eternal separation from God on a somewhat regular basis?

What's 'regular' mean to you?

[TJ in Oregon]

Do you fear the pains of hell/wrath of God/eternal separation from God on a somewhat regular basis?

What's 'regular' mean to you?

Well, at least once every couple months or so. Not necessarily every day, but more than about twice in your life.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think about going to hell sometimes and it's extremely worrying to me.  I do worry about it but mostly when I'm alone in bed and allowed to capture all my thoughts.  Hell is worrying, but supposedly those who fear hell are the ones saved.

Other than that, I'm done talking about God and stuff like that on here, so I'm done.

When I was a kid, I used to have nightmares about the floor caving in and the newly gaping chasm leading to hell. I probably had them on roughly a weekly basis. Sometimes it was really frightening and sometimes it was more like the lava game. When I was really young, I almost certainly spent more time thinking about hell than I did about God. I still do every once in a while, particularly when considering a moral decision or evaluating my actions in a given situation, but I no longer obsess about it the way I used to.

Sorry for clogging your thread Nathan, I was just curious to ask, particularly since I could see you being anywhere from the "hell is real but we don't talk about that" end of the spectrum to someone who considers it regularly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Do you fear the pains of hell/wrath of God/eternal separation from God on a somewhat regular basis?

What's 'regular' mean to you?

Well, at least once every couple months or so. Not necessarily every day, but more than about twice in your life.

I'd say I think about it more than once every couple months, but perhaps not as often as Scott seems to be describing. For me it can be either a lying-alone-in-bed sort of feeling or something that I start thinking about if I've been perseverating for long enough about whether I've wronged or offended a loved one or--even worse in some ways--a stranger. Those are thoughts that I have a lot, and although that's not a universal feature of them it's not rare either.

[afleitch]

Christ that's depressing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Christ that's depressing.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my answer to your question or to the more recent questions. If the former, I'm genuinely sorry for upsetting you, although I have to say I sort of hoped that if you had a response it would be a little more in-depth. If the latter, do you have any proposed alternative that doesn't involve radically reorienting my psychology?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Christ that's depressing.

I thought you were an atheist.

[afleitch]

Christ that's depressing.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my answer to your question or to the more recent questions. If the former, I'm genuinely sorry for upsetting you, although I have to say I sort of hoped that if you had a response it would be a little more in-depth. If the latter, do you have any proposed alternative that doesn't involve radically reorienting my psychology?

It was more to do with the talk of hell, particularly TJ fearing hell as a little boy. As for a response to what you've said, it would not be appropriate to go into depth publicaly as it concerns matters that might not be public knowledge.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Christ that's depressing.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my answer to your question or to the more recent questions. If the former, I'm genuinely sorry for upsetting you, although I have to say I sort of hoped that if you had a response it would be a little more in-depth. If the latter, do you have any proposed alternative that doesn't involve radically reorienting my psychology?

It was more to do with the talk of hell, particularly TJ fearing hell as a little boy.

Yeah, that...concerned me, too, but I didn't think really want to remark upon it because I didn't want to keep talking about that subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really, I don't insist on a response at all if you'd rather not.

[afleitch]

All I will say are two things and this is really directed at everone

First of all it is important to be right with yourself. Because you cannot be right with anyone else unless you are. It is also important to be well.

On the issue of being unable to see yourself defined by anything other than you beliefs, loosing your faith or finding 'another truth' hurts. Trust me from experience it blows a hole in your life. It is emotionally painful. A week later it resulted in my admission to hospital after a cardiomyopathic episode. I would have kept trying to hold on the the last vestiges of my belief if it was not for the effect on my health. Things that feel real to you in life, when you loose them the effect on you is just as real. It can be physical. But you get through it. People always get through what was previously an unknown. It only scares you to think of it beforehand.

If you have a keen mind and a keen interest in the complexity of existance and of god then to explore that; to explore concepts and feelings and different cultures and philosophies but return to the confines of a 'safe' place of comfort, of cultural, social and personal comfort merely because it is a safety you can understand is a disservice to both your own curiousity and your own search for truth.

[The Mikado]

If you have a keen mind and a keen interest in the complexity of existance and of god then to explore that; to explore concepts and feelings and different cultures and philosophies but return to the confines of a 'safe' place of comfort, of cultural, social and personal comfort merely because it is a safety you can understand is a disservice to both your own curiousity and your own search for truth.

Why is "the truth" a valuable thing to seek and understand if you're claiming that it serves a fundamentally painful role?  Why is whether or not something is true an important factor in one's belief system anyway, compared to other appeals like community, tradition, and comfort?

I don't know, I just never found "God doesn't exist" a compelling reason to not believe in God, if belief would lead that person to a more fulfilling and community-oriented life.  The truth value of a religion's claims seems tangential if not completely unrelated to the quality of what a religion offers.