You don’t know what a christian is…? Holy crap…! Oooooooooohhhhh I see, that’s one o’ them “Gee whizz I dunno what to say so I’ll ask a really dumbass question in a really deep and meaningful tone of voice to buy time” kinda gambits, isn’t it…?
And anyway, “a christian” is the singular form of the group noun “christians”. “Christians” being a countable noun, of the concrete variety.
I’ll take this one. The Bible also states that little children are the best Christians, being as they do not know sin. As people age, they grow more aware of their surroundings, learn of such things as lying, stealing, etc. As such, a complete innocent would be the ideal candidate for going to heaven.
And something you should pay attention to there is that a child isn’t the most benevolent and innocent of sin form of a person.
Kind of a contradiction of dogma to assert natural sin and to suggest that babies are less sinful through innocence.
By all rights, since they haven’t cognitive awareness of their natural sin yet, they should be naturally filthy, not innocent.
The only ante-up they have over other ages is their naive acceptance of the world so openly.
However, on every other front, they are as purely self centered as man is capable of being; typically something dogmatically frowned upon.
So really, if, dogmatically, Jesus saves little babies and God holds man to original sin, then innocents cannot be the reason that Jesus saves little babies.
Apparently, the only thing there is naivety.
Or, perhaps Jesus was referring to something else than naivety, and selfishness in children.
What do you suppose that would be that would be of value?
If I recall correctly, Aquinas determined that abortion was a venial (forgivable) sin, as the foetus was not yet actualized as a moral being (i.e. is without moral experience), but only potentially so. I don’t recall, though, where things were at for him in terms of infant death, though I think the same basic principle was in operation. I believe this is why the Church contrived Limbo (recently recanted).
It is a morbid thought, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but as a conundrum that nonetheless arises, there does seem to be a prima facie valid line of reasoning that might pass through some minds (say, for instance, a disturbed single young new mother) that would imply an infant is being done a favour by being given a direct ticket to heaven rather than having to undergo difficult earthly circumstances. Certainly, in any case, it’s an issue in need of clarification for that sort of reason.
Here’s the reason, btw, Christianity holds Children go to heaven, more or less.
It has nothing to do with innocence on Earth or anything about any of what I was challenging above.
(rather than wait, I’ll jump to it)
The point is that if you explain Heaven to a Child, they will openly accept it, as they do with all of reality.
They openly accept all of reality.
So if a child dies and goes to God, they will not rebuke God or heaven, in the Christian mind, because that would be against their child-like nature to simply accept anything that is presented in reality to them openly.
Just as kids will accept any form of living conditions and behaviors as reality without concern over it (largely because they yet lack the capacity for complex examination and consideration of many emotional and cognitive possibilities, but hey…that’s splitting hairs).
So if a mind is simply open and accepting, then it is good.
The devils advocate to this is quick to point out that this makes children of other religions blameless, and if they are blameless, then they must also be blameless when they are grown until they have an opportunity to reject the reality that includes God.
But, what can be said is that the Christian idea of babies in heaven typically revolves around their open acceptance of God, just as they don’t challenge that their parents are their parents (yet).
That’s what the passage is focusing on teaching.
Be to God as these children are in believing their parents are their parents.
As to the mentally disordered or impaired; if we go with what the Bible holds, they are captives of evil spirits that have over taken their minds and bodies with wickedness that removes their God given capacity for self control.
They are implied Biblically to be suffering a horrible fate of which man is often shown should be sympathetic towards.
As to their ultimate fate…one can assume Hell in the construct of Christianity, since they are healed in the Bible with reference to casting out Demons.
Even later eras of Christians held to afflictions as Demons.
Now, we more think they are innocents, but I think that’s because we have a hard time holding someone accountable for their actions without all of their faculties functioning reasonably.
Which is kind of an interesting thought, because if we create a pardon there, then do we create a neurological IQ gradient for being responsible for sin?
I’ve asked many people who purport to be Christians what it takes to be a Christian and I have gotten many different answers. I have a thread devoted to this topic. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169846
Then it sounds like you have your answer then.
Christian is whatever you want it to mean if you are striving to use the ideal Christian as an icon for how one should live within any set of dogmatic or theological interpretations of the Christian Bible.
Oh, and what a Christian is and how a Christian should live are two different questions.
The first is capable of being very vague and grouping millions and millions of people into the same group.
The second is the reason you have all of the separations within Christianity.
Cutting through all of this i think what you are saying is akin to the other quote of Christ’s: "Unless you become as little children you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. I think what is really being said here is that one has to be open and trusting as children are. This is Not about little children going to heaven it is about Christ saying that the way in which christians are to approach faith is simply without questioning with trust.
The Kingdom of Heaven is not heaven after one dies. The Kingdom of Heaven is Now as one lives one’s life according to the teachings of Christ. I think this is in accord with the teachings of the church…not mine…not being a christian though i could almost assert that the Kingdom is Now right Here if i were a christian.
Nope, that’s not what a Church would commonly agree with.
They would agree that you need to be open with your faith as a child, but they would not agree that the Kingdom of Heaven is Now when faith is held as a Child.
They would hold the Kingdom of Heaven as Heaven after one dies, and state that one has access to Heaven, The Kingdom of Heaven, if faith in God through acceptance of Jesus as one’s savior was held during life.
However, what you are stating is more likely and, indeed, more in line with the Hebrew mindset at the time Jesus was teaching.
As the Hebrews did not hold a separation of Heaven like Christians do, but held that one is rewarded and punished in this life according to their merits.
So it would not be out of line for Jesus to be interpreted as saying that if one holds a faith like children, that one has the Kingdom of God.
One trick is the translation…oh once again…sigh
The word that occurs in Mark 10:15, and in the other version of this story, Matthew 18:3 for “kingdom” means the “right” or “authority” to rule over a kingdom.
It does not mean an actual kingdom itself.
So it refers to the authority.
Following this word, we have a small problem because in Mark it says, “God” and in Matthew it says, “Heaven”.
Here’s the actual literal of both:
Mark:
basileia tou yeou
Matthew:
basileian twn ouranwn
Mark:
(Right/authority) (this, that, these) (deity; or supreme divinity [when used with “this,that,these” refers to a singular supreme divinity])
Matthew:
(Right/authority) (this, that, these) ([confused translations, but definitely means at least, “HIGH”, or “ELEVATED PLACE ABOVE A MOUNTAIN”] Generally translated as, “Sky”, or implied translation to, “Heaven”, though no such direct translation exists)
So in the first, we have something like:
“Authority of this divinity.”
In the second we have something like:
“Authority of this Sky.”
The second seems odd, but if you understand that the point of the divine Sky was that one could see even more than what one could see on a mountain top, then we come to an understanding of expanding one’s knowledge.
So we really have something like:
“Authority of this site from the Sky.”
In both cases, we actually have a general point that what one receives is ownership of more knowledge (as “authority of this divinity”, refers to God, held as looking down from the sky, which loops to the Matthew variation where the Sky is the highest peek of looking out and seeing all).
So the statement loosely goes that if someone does not openly accept the divine knowledge, then they will not gain the divine knowledge.
Kind of self evident.
In Matthew it’s more an assertive where it’s loosely saying that if you don’t change and openly accept the divine knowledge, then you will not gain the divine knowledge.
But essentially, they are after the same point.
It’s more or less an assertion that a person isn’t supposed to be questioning the divine knowledge, but openly accepting it.
Divine knowledge isn’t just what Jesus was saying; it’s the same kind of thing as Buddhists and the internal Self, or the Taoists and their idea of Natural Harmony.
It’s the concept that there exists an ultimate state of awareness that brings ultimate enlightenment and knowledge; divine.
The statement goes that one cannot have this ultimate state of awareness if one does not openly accept it without question.
Considering many religions say something very close to this about “divine knowledge”, this isn’t a strange assertion.
So the value of Children is metaphorical; in that they are an example of open acceptance.
But very few churches would say that this is canon; instead, they would adhere to the time-honored translation that you won’t get to go to heaven without faith like a Child.
Personally, this translation dilutes the value of the passages, but shrug whatever you want.
Children Go to Heaven, because they are wise, do they not know any better yet. As adults we forget to be simple, the key to life is be simple, be like a child.Knowledge is Knowing
[size=150]~Knowing is to Choose~[/size]
[size=150]~Choice has Consequence~[/size]
[size=150]~What Will you Choose?~[/size]
Stumps:
I wasn ‘t saying that the only requisite to attaining the kingdom of heaven, from the Christian pov, was to have faith as a little child does. Obviously, it also goes without saying as you quoted:
They would hold the Kingdom of Heaven as Heaven after one dies, and state that one has access to Heaven, The Kingdom of Heaven, if faith in God through acceptance of Jesus as one’s savior was held during life.
It also requires much more than simply faith and acceptance that Christ is the savior. That would be presumption. It would also require living that faith and those teachings of Christ.
When I said the kingdom of heaven is now, I was referring to Christ’s words Luke 17:20 where Christ answered the Pharisees’ question as to when the kingdom of God was coming. Christ answered that “the kingdom of God is among you” or or “in your midst” or now.
The kingdom of God or Heaven, to Christians, Is Christ. He was trying to tell the pharisees that he is the kingdom of God or he was already within their midst. They couldn’t accept this though because they thought the messiah was bringing a physical kingdom.
This I did not know…that they held that one is punished in this life. Perhaps because the messiah had not come as yet for them. Did they not believe in reincarnation as I seem to recall reading somewhere that reincarnation was believed in at that time.
I believe that many Christians – believing that Christ truly is the son of god, would assert that the kingdom of heaven is now, Stumps. It is not something that is simply just attained after one dies. Christ actually did say that his kingdom was not of this world – he was not referring to a physical kingdom but a spiritual one in which he is the king, if you will. Therefore, for Christians all over the world, that kingdom would be now and wherever people love and believe in christ’s teachings and follow them – and that kingdom would extend to eternity. This is according to the Christian pov. I don’t know many christians who would say that the kingdom of heaven is after one dies. If there would be those who believed that, then i would say they have very little comprehension of their faith.
Hmmm I wouldn’t even know where to go with this. I myself question everything…this is why I’m not a Christian anymore…does this mean I can never have divine knowledge? That is not a challenge…it is a question for you.
Of course, all Christ was simply doing is using the example of a child’s innocence and openness, as he also did with parables to teach the people, in a way they could comprehend. I believe that there are very, very few things within the church that must be accepted on faith. i think one might be the holy trinity, the divinity of christ and the infallibility of the pope (hahahaha). but i’m not sure even of that.
Hi arc,
sorry for intruding… funny, I’d say there are very few Christians whodon’t say that the kingdom of heaven is after one dies, i.e. at the time of the “resurrection of the body and life everlasting”, which goes to the question of dogmatic faith, being the Apostle’s Creed (or whatever slightly alternate version). The “now” is a reflective context for the Christian, but, on the main anyway, not THE kingdom (where the many mansions are housekept by an army of lesser angels)… a deferral of reward for effort response…
Oughtist:
…intruding you are Not intruding 
- how could you - no one owns this thread this is not someone’s home.
.
perhaps you can say it is one coin, with two sides. in that case, if you are not able to see both sides, then i would still say that they don’t comprehend the meaning of “The kingdom of heaven”. Heaven (for lack of a better word) is not a physical place but a spiritual awareness or attitude. When one dies, it is not a physical place to which one goes, i don’t feel…if one does not experience the kingdom of heaven here within their mind and spirit, how will one possibly experience it after death?
I would be interested in a poll to see how many christians view the kingdom of heaven as a place they go to after they die. something seems to be really lost at that point if that is the case. if christ truly is the son of god, and i don’t know, then the kingdom of heaven is still here among the people since christians believe, do they not, that the holy spirit abounds here.
you would probably be surprised how many people still believe that way that there are many mansions…and that heaven is a place filled with gold. i suppose it depends on what one’s view of heaven is, what one seeks.
I apologize. I am deeply sorry for assuming I was unwelcome. Please forgive me. 
Sometime in the '50s (yes, Nineteen-50s!!) it became Roman Catholic dogma that one must believe that Mother Mary ascended into heaven in full corporeal form. So, it must be a place of some “physical” description, if it is to harbor carnally dressed skeletons.
I think there are such polls (I’m forgetting the polling agency, something like “PIMMS”, but that’s a drink), and there’s a scary number of Americans waiting to be scooped up in the Rapture sometime during their lifetime.
Pascal’s wager implies a winning lottery ticket.
I was sitting here reading the above and laughing my fool head off and listening to music from Ireland at the same time. so my mouth is laughing and my head and body are bobbing up and down. chacha chacha chacha chacha…chacha chacha chacha chacha…so nice…
Keep this in mind while I say the next part…
Right, now…with the above in mind, he would not say that and mean what you are interpreting for the simple fact that no one would interpret that meaning at that time.
They would interpret it as Israel; not Jesus.
At best, one could say, ‘fellow man’.
But the word in Greek is unclear, because it means either “within”, or sometimes, though less commonly, “among”.
However, considering the literate capacity of the authors of the time writing in Greek, or translating to Greek, it’s difficult to say since this word only occurs twice in the entire Bible.
Either way, however, it is unlikely that Jesus would tell Pharisees, which is a sect of Judaism popular at the time, that they held the Kingdom within themselves since the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees was their interpretation that they held the divine authority of God in themselves, and that others needed access to this authority through the Pharisees.
So, it would unlikely that Jesus would say something that could only be used as further defense for the Pharisee position of authority.
And considering that, again, the word here we translate as “kingdom” is actually a word that means, “authority of rule”, or “right of such authority”, and considering that the Pharisees were all about being the sole owners of the authority of God, and that Jesus was concentrated on public domain of the authority of God amongst the Israelites, it is far more likely that he was saying that you cannot find the authority of the Kingdom of God any where, it is not something that will come, as the authority of God is among all Israelites; it is among you now.
Their question was loaded; because if Jesus were to declare a time when the authority of the kingdom of God would come, then he would have removed the power of authority of Moses and Abraham and therefore committed a crime.
Instead, he told them that because all are children of Israel; of Abraham; that all have the authority of the kingdom that God gave to the Israelites.
So whether the word means within or among, it means the same thing here: it is in all around you because all are the bloodline of the covenant of God’s authority granted to Israel, and it is among you because all are Hebrew; Israel.
It means that you haven’t found a balance between a desired spiritual experience and your healthy skeptical examination.
It just means you haven’t found an outline of what is safe to immerse in for religious experiences, and so the skeptical side is on full-time because all must be examined critically for threat of being carelessly immersed into artificial experiences that do not fulfill your desires.
Like looking for the right spot to meditate…you walk around and see all that is around you, and nothing strikes as symbiotic in it’s nature with you.
So…you do not sit, and you do not stop criticizing.
This is good.
Because you can’t pick out a sofa by not examining it’s qualities of conforming to you.
Even while Christ was preaching the Kingdom, people would wonder about what he was saying. They were no different than you and I. And in the doing of what Christ said (that if followed would make a person wise being grounded in obedience like on a rock foundation that cannot fall), there were lived out varying degrees of strength of faith. As it goes, faith was to be coupled with actions (obedience to God’s words) to perfect its genuiness. Faith coupled with a loose or unwilling approach towards fullfillment of Christ’'s words rendered that kind of faith incomplete, inadequate to justify that a person is worthy to recieve the reward contained in the gospel.
The whole being like a little child and kingdom of heaven thingy…
Obvioulsy I was applying the text hermanuetically rather than offering a decent exegesis when I suggested that the Christ accepts kids bigger than the unborn with relish and immediacy therefore how much more so the unborn?
The term ‘kingdom of God’ is ambiguous and can be said to mean both the immediate earthly presence of heaven as well as its broader after-life sense (which is an implication of it being upon earth, ie. the earthly reflecting the divine model).
What I find interesting is how everyone has jumped upon the “children are pure/innocent/naive” band-wagon while overlooking an important issue:
The Christ was talking about God (indirectly) and children. I would have thought that his audience (the Jews, the children of God) would immediately make the connection regarding God as PARENT, and that this was, perhaps, what the Christ was refering to. That children run to their parents and know they are accepted and loved by them, which is how we must be with God.
(Also the Christ was fairly consistent with his claims to divinity, and so to state “let the children come to me” in the same breath as talking about entering the kingdom of heaven would underline this.)
Within Christian theology there is little distinction between the kingdom of heaven as an earthly pursuit/state and the kingdom of heaven as the afterlife because, as someone has pointed out, it was initially a Hebrew sect (something St Paul fought to separate his whole life).
I actually was talking about that with my post.
That was my point actually.
That’s why I literally said
The reason why they don’t challenge, isn’t because they are naive; that wasn’t my point.
My point was that they were easily and openly accepting and trusting of their parents because it is assumed that their parents love them and look out for them.
Yep, the “kingdom of God” is ambiguous.
However, that phrase didn’t exist anywhere in the verses examined regarding the children.
The only word used was, in all instances of the translation, “Kingdom of Heaven”, or “Kingdom of God”, basileia.
Basileia literally translates right out of the Ancient Greek dictionary as:
from basileus; properly, royalty, i.e. (abstractly) rule
Basileus
It is only by an extension of inferred figurative meaning, that basileia can mean a physical construct, “Kingdom”, or realm.
Yep.
And that’s why the Kingdom of God or Heaven was being said to be the Israelites; not a Christian concept of Heaven.
—> the Artist is clearly too tired to read carefully enough, sorry about that old bean 