My Father's House

Rev. Freese...

The radical claim of Jesus Christ is that he is the exclusive way to heaven. There is no getting around it. He made this claim personally in John 14:6. It may be uncomfortable to affirm this, but affirm it we must.

I agree totally with Father Reese. God is love and His love is agape. If you strive in your heart to love this way to all those around, your words and actions will reflect this. We cannot know exactly how Jesus will judge us on how we have lived our lives, however I think what Father Reese has said accurately reflects a core foundation of His judgment, love. If you love, you are actively choosing God, whether or not if you believe in the existence of God. God is involved intimately in your life and cares about each of us deeply, he knows how to judge because he is so intimately involved. A house cannot be divided upon itself, you choose to love or the alternative in how you live your life. Also no one is perfect in life, we know Jesus loves us so much he forgives our sins, who knows if we are allowed to seek forgiveness for the times when we did not love after we die. Live love and you are living and walking with God. After you die you will just continue walking except the scenery will change to something amazing and truly beautiful.

Father Reese,

I think that the statement "...anyone who loves can go to heaven" is too general and vague. For example, are 2 adulterers who love each other, while harming others, fit for heaven?

If your conception of love precludes all sinfulness, then yes, otherwise it would appear to me that only the pure of heart go to heaven.

"Anyone who loves goes to heaven?" I can just see Rev. Reese going up to Jesus as he's preaching, and saying to him, "Now just wait a minute, Jesus, let me tell you who gets into heaven. It is 'anyone who loves' who gets into heaven."

Anon,

No need to read added info from Aquinas. His views were verified by JPII.

As with the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis plus the conclusions of a number of contemporary archeologists, the OT is mostly fiction to include the book of Daniel.

As with a lot of us, we were bred, born and brainwashed in our religion. I highly recommend reading the books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. Such reading and perusing will hopefully bring you to the world of reality and out of Dante's fictional world.

Concerned now liberated:
You said:
Aquinas concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies. From that one might conclude there were no bodily Resurrection of Jesus, no Ascension and no Assumption.

Have you ever read the Summa? Aquinas like all orthodox christian theologians realized that the notion of heaven is multi-dimensional - if I have the beatific vision then even were I to descend into the deepest reaches of hell - I would still be participating in heaven and if the devil was raised up to heaven but was unable to see the beatific vision he would still be in hell. Yet heaven and hell are are places as well - scriptures tells us that hell was created for the fallen angels - a place of torment and fire. Heaven is a place where all present have access to the beatific vision - in some sense each and every one of the billions of spirits has God all to him or herself. Now does that clear up your confusions? Because the book of Daniel which Aquinas certainly read - attests to the Son of Man ascending to the Father - that Son of Man was the Jesus Christ and Aquinas also believed that all men and women would be united with their bodies on the last day - the good in glory and the evil in corruption (or disfigurement - the sin of the soul be reflected in the body).

Concerned now liberated:
You said:
Aquinas concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies. From that one might conclude there were no bodily Resurrection of Jesus, no Ascension and no Assumption.

Have you ever read the Summa? Aquinas like all orthodox christian theologians realized that the notion of heaven is multi-dimensional - if I have the beatific vision then even were I to descend into the deepest reaches of hell - I would still be participating in heaven and if the devil was raised up to heaven but was unable to see the beatific vision he would still be in hell. Yet heaven and hell are are places as well - scriptures tells us that hell was created for the fallen angels - a place of torment and fire. Heaven is a place where all present have access to the beatific vision - in some sense each and every one of the billions of spirits has God all to him or herself. Now does that clear up your confusions? Because the book of Daniel which Aquinas certainly read - attests to the Son of Man ascending to the Father - that Son of Man was the Jesus Christ and Aquinas also believed that all men and women would be united with their bodies on the last day - the good in glory and the evil in corruption (or disfigurement - the sin of the soul be reflected in the body).

Anyone who loves goes to heaven? Come on now Padre, you know your Church has heaven in a box.
According to your religion, only good Catholics who go to confession and take communion go to heaven. These are the keys for you.

In your mind and in the minds of millions desperately waiting for something to happen, the Catholic Church controls the keys. This is how you manipulate, control, guilt and suck money for the masses.

The Lord's table in your Church is not the Lord's but the invitation or permission only comes from the Church. Others are excluded and thus condemned to hell. Tell us the truth Padre, not a sugar coated version you and your Church don't believe in.

Mr Reese,

“I believe in hell because I believe we are free to reject God.”

Here you are implying that rejection of God leads to hell and consequently accepting God leads to heaven but you fail to elaborate on what accepting God means to you. And then you pose the question: “Do only Christians go to heaven? No, anyone who loves can go to heaven.” Here you are saying that love is the deciding factor to attain heaven. My question is which one of the two leads to heaven? And is your conclusion based on the bible or is it wishful thinking on your part?

On another note you seem to discount what Paul said about the subject. In Romans Paul writes: “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9) I don’t see anything about love or lack thereof as the condition to get to heaven. And sadly most Christians today discard what Jesus said and preached about ‘the kingdom of God’ and rely on Paul’s writing and dogma only.

That’s one of the things I don’t get about Christianity and that is the subject of salvation. You would think as important as human destiny is, whether one spends eternity in hell or in heaven, the way to salvation should be clear and plain. Yet that’s not what one takes away from the bible after reading what the different authors wrote. There is no harmony whatsoever in the NT in the matter of salvation. My question, then, is why is that?

You also stated that “God loves us so much he became one of us and raised Jesus up as a sign of our everlasting life.” My question is who is this entity “God’ that became man and is it the same entity that raised Jesus? Also, I remember reading in the OT about Elijah raising a dead child and Jesus raising Lazarus after he was dead for four days and Jesus was supposed to have been in the tomb for two nights. By the way, there’s no way to know for how long he was in the tomb. He could’ve been there for shorter period than that because nobody went to check the tomb, say, the next day. I ask you, then, isn’t that enough evidence for the resurrection of humanity or you need more evidence? And why is that so important any way? And how could the confession to the incidence be the measuring stick as to who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

It's nice to see a Christian who doesn't believe everyone who is not a Christian is automatically condemned to hell.

There is no evidence that Jesus every spoke of a Heaven, The Kingdom of Heaven or God; he did supposedly speak about coming to his Father.

Remember, the essential pre-creator of the Christian Church, that is Paul, never actually met or even saw Jesus; He had to fall on his head to see the light of his persecution of the followers of Jesus; Most scholars believe that Paul and the rest of the followers of Jesus expected the Kingdom to be realized on earth during their life times; then when they started dying before the Kingdom arrived, he had to invent the resurrection myth so they could enjoy the delayed Kingdom of God! From such rationalizations has the Church been created. I always find one of ironies is that Jesus obviously did not think much of the Priests of Jews; that a cult of priests would build their house of cards around the man that dispised them is one of the few lights in their bleak culture of death! Why would people who had the living presence of God choose to celebrate his brutal torture and death? Why do these same people think that a human sacifice of God would appease God for the evil in the hearts of God's supreme accomplishment? Why would the canibalistic practice of drinking the Blood of God and eating the Body of God be viewed as a positive experience; presumably they expect that this ritual consumption of God will give them Godly attributes?

Here is a question for the learned Jesuit: Is it possible that the popular understanding of "The Kingdom of Heaven" is actually a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant?

Catholic mystics throughout the ages, outside formalistic Church dogma, seem to comprehend the "Kingdom" as a mystical union with the Godhead, a coming together of the divine spark within an individual with the universal Mind or Consciousness, a state of being outside of space and time, evidently an awesome and sacred highly personal experience of transcendence. Of course, one has to be alive to experience this (or anything else).

By contrast, the vulgar understanding of the "Kingdom" is some pleasant, comfortable, loving existence somewhere after one dies, and the means of acquiring an entry ticket to this place has been chronically in dispute, with the Catholic Church claiming to hold the keys. For example, one Church father in the Third Century said, "The road to Heaven is paved with the skulls of priests" (whatever that means).

So which is it, a union with God, a "Kingdom" experienced in this life, witnessed or experienced by the Catholic mystics (called the Perennial Philosophy by non-Catholic writer Aldous Huxley and chronicled by American psychologist William James ("The Varieties of Religious Experience") -- or an alleged continued personal existence entered into after death in an afterlife for which no evidence whatever exists and from which no traveler has ever returned or communicated?

The vulgar, popular version seems to dominate the Washington Post's "faith-based" listserve these days. What do the Jesuits say?

Here is a question for the learned Jesuit: Is it possible that the popular understanding of "The Kingdom of Heaven" is actually a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant?

Catholic mystics throughout the ages, outside formalistic Church dogma, seem to comprehend the "Kingdom" as a mystical union with the Godhead, a coming together of the divine spark within an individual with the universal Mind or Consciousness, a state of being outside of space and time, evidently an awesome and sacred highly personal experience of transcendence. Of course, one has to be alive to experience this (or anything else).

By contrast, the vulgar understanding of the "Kingdom" is some pleasant, comfortable, loving existence somewhere after one dies, and the means of acquiring an entry ticket to this place has been chronically in dispute, with the Catholic Church claiming to hold the keys. For example, one Church father in the Third Century said, "The road to Heaven is paved with the skulls of priests" (whatever that means).

So which is it, a union with God, a "Kingdom" experienced in this life, witnessed or experienced by the Catholic mystics (called the Perennial Philosophy by non-Catholic Aldous Huxley and chronicled by American psychologist William James ("The Varieties of Religion") -- or an alleged continued personal existence entered into after death in an afterlife for which no evidence exists and from which no traveler has ever returned or communicated?

The vulgar, popular version seems to dominate the Washington Post's "faith-based" listserve these days. What do the Jesuits say?

Patrick - how do you define loving and serving God?

I know not all christians think alike about this and it's my understanding, from what some people have said on the On faith forum that all you have to do to get into heaven is to say you believe in Jesus as your saviour.

"Hey, Fr. Reese - why does rejecting God have to mean going to Hell? can't it just mean turning to dust?

Since you seem to be making your own rules anyway (e.g. non-christians can go to heaven, as long as they "love") maybe it just means that YOU'LL go to hell if you reject God.

Maybe everyone just makes up their own post-mortal destiny and gets what they decide upon."

It means that because that is what God wills and tells us. It is justice. The evil people of the world and those who rejected God get the separation from God which they wanted. God gives you what YOU wanted. You rejected him and his love, you get what you want, separation and the evil that flourishes among those who reject God. You love him and serve him, you get the joy for eternity of his being. It is a pretty elegant and logical deal, love returned for love, separation and anguish for those who committ evil and spurn God.

I'm challenging the contention that we are "a planet spinning around the sun." I spent my hard earned money on a Bible just so I could see a picture of the universe authenticated by God or at least God's representative, the pope. That's "The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible." The fact that it's "New" says there was something wrong with the "Old" Bible and a part retained was that picture of the universe. By not discarding that picture it must be absolutely so, word of God so, about as so as so gets.

Sure enough and sure fire there it was, the picture of the universe. The rest of you here can save money by clicking on http://www.hoax-buster.org and verify that the earth is, "God's word" flat.

And it's down hill from there. Using that picture we can locate heaven, a land mass saying we go there in body. We can see the nebol bridge that joins this flat earth to the "next" flat earth below. Of course that bridge is blocked by a demon so we need a Christ to get past it else it will chuck us over the side of the bridge down into hell.

Hell? Yeah, hell. The most important part of religion is hell avoidance. That wonderful picture allows us to locate hell and actually read and understand the book of Revelation, i.e. "A star that had fallen from the sky took a key and opened the door to a shaft down to the abyss..."

When religion is shucked and shelled the cob that's left is hell. Take hell away and there's nothing left to faith, nothing but shucks, no cob to hold the corn. So the question answered by the earth spinning around the sun is rather obvious. The Bible is a hoax and we know the central, cob hoax of the Bible is hell. Thus the expression to sum religion that's been out of style since the proliferation of toilet paper is, "rougher than a cob."

Paul;
I'm not sure I'm clear as to something in your post... the 'atheists quandry...' perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly... could you exand?

It is clearly much harder to believe that we merely stop existing upon our deaths. It is innately human to think that our souls continue on past our death. We can hardly imagine what it is like to cease existing. Hence, the afterlife, a much easier and intuitive concept. Of course I continue on. And religion was neatly constructed around this "intuitive" idea. And here we are. The atheists quandry over the meaning or non-meaning of a finite life is much more difficult to grasp than bothering with religion.

Hey, Fr. Reese - why does rejecting God have to mean going to Hell? can't it just mean turning to dust?

Since you seem to be making your own rules anyway (e.g. non-christians can go to heaven, as long as they "love") maybe it just means that YOU'LL go to hell if you reject God.

Maybe everyone just makes up their own post-mortal destiny and gets what they decide upon.

I agree. I would go so far as to say that the premise, "Choose Christ, and live; Reject Christ, and be damned," is really using Christ's name as a stand-in for the concept of love for all humanity. Good acts will follow naturally from that position of love and loving-kindness.
Sorry if I'm posting twice, my computer is fighting with me...

Some beliefs by religious scholars who have studied the situation: (besides the ones already articulated by the On Faith panelists who have addressed the question today).

Professor JD Crossan (an On Faith panelist) does not believe in an afterlife as noted in his book, Who is Jesus? He may have changed his mind as he progresses in years.

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in his spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.

Aquinas concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies. From that one might conclude there were no bodily Resurrection of Jesus, no Ascension and no Assumption.

Other points of interest: Angels and devils (those demons of the demented)

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie talking thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Personnally, fear of punishment has it rewards so I CMAFH (Cover My A__ with Fear and Hope).