Two questions

[Javier]

First,if Christ is going to judge all at the end of time,then Heaven and Hell are void of human souls,so where are the souls now?

Second,imagine a serial killer in an alley lurking to a good guy to kill him;there is a cop nearby who didn t see the psycho:
Would God help the cop to realize the situation?
Would the Devil help the killer?
If the good guy dies,he goes to Heaven,getting lost for the Devil,who would prefer him to survive in order to corrupt his soul in the future;but if the cop kills the bad guy,he goes to Hell,and Satan wins...
so if all is about winning souls for Heaven or Hell,the job of each other God and Devil,is to protect the other party s members to convince them,and to interfere with the other s work in protecting HIS OWN fans...

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Javier
First,if Christ is going to judge all at the end of time,then Heaven and Hell are void of human souls,so where are the souls now?

You're the first person I've noticed in a long time to clue into this issue.
You are your own soul.
Similarly, all souls living are the people you see around you, thus they are here.

Since, according to Ge. 2:7...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(Genesis 2:7, KJV).

there are two parts to man, spirit and dust, forming the third, the soul, those people who have died, simply don't exist anymore.

But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
(Job 14:10, KJV).

This is why there is a resurrection.

Second,imagine a serial killer in an alley lurking to a good guy to kill him;there is a cop nearby who didn t see the psycho:
Would God help the cop to realize the situation?
Would the Devil help the killer?

Yes, if the cop is paying attention.
Yes, if the killer is paying attention.
As well, God would be wanting to bring the killer to repentance, so as not to waste his life, so the killer has the problem of hearing two more-or-less conflicting sets of instructions.
This is why a life of crime would be such a pain.

If the good guy dies,he goes to Heaven,getting lost for the Devil,who would prefer him to survive in order to corrupt his soul in the future;but if the cop kills the bad guy,he goes to Hell,and Satan wins...
so if all is about winning souls for Heaven or Hell,the job of each other God and Devil,is to protect the other party s members to convince them,and to interfere with the other s work in protecting HIS OWN fans...

The problem is that Satan can read the Bible too.
He knows how it turns out in the end.
Thus, to assume that what he wants to do is "corrupt souls" is to miss the point.
He wants to kill you, pure and simple, or failing that, to make your life as miserable as possible.

Not only that, if you are not a Christian, Satan owns you.
There is no "selling your soul to the devil." He owns you flat out.

 

[Javier]

Thanks for the answers Tony...

I agree with the first one,the souls are to re-birth at judgement day...

Concerning the second you pointed out that God would want to bring the killer to repentance;therefore God speaks to men in order to show them the right way(there s a lot of examples of this guidance in the Bible)and that he would have to hear two sets of conflicting instructions,so the Devil can talk to him as well(this is undoubtful for the fact that the fall of Man was a hearing to the Devil mistake,not to mention the temptations against Christ in the desert,and in most of the qualities attributed to Satan is referred that seductive attitude);but the purpose they both seek with this behaviour can t be other than to win(or attract)the subject s mind and heart and will(soul)either to be saved (Heaven) or damned,or corrupted(Hell);you said that Satan knows how it turns out in the end;if you referred to a general notion of armaggedon and the apocalipse,that doesn t change that he wont know what will happen to any individual that crosses his way; but if they(Devil and God) know the outcame of the "game"in each particular case,then they entirely know the future,including their own acts,in which case they couldn t be able to make any decision,so they would keep on playing(they couldn t do otherwise):getting men s will to their side,and other s party dead is a guy lost;your own,won.

Considering that to get killed is worst than a miserable life I will desagree,since much more pain can be inflicted over years of torture,for example with a terminal disease,than with a shot to the head.

Also about the notion that if you are not a Christian you are owned by Satan,to say that would be to prejudice most part of world s population,not to mention the millions that lived before Christ,and couldn t know about Him,including of course the Holy men of Bible itself;
besides,to be a Christian can t consist only in believing what its written in the Bible,which is only a medium to let you know God s will:its to fulfill that will that counts,and of course,if you live by the law is needless to claim that you believe in its accuracy,(or to
recognize the Text,or His Creator, as the authority)because you are doing so by what really counts:what you do...
So my position is that if you harm nobody(from my point of view the core of not only Christianism,but most religions),you earn the respect of God,letting alone the fact that even the HUMAN law doesn t expect more than right behaviour,independently of one s reasons, which belong to the individual s rights,which God,being more fair than men, of course will respect.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Javier
Concerning the second you pointed out that God would want to bring the killer to repentance;therefore God speaks to men in order to show them the right way(there s a lot of examples of this guidance in the Bible)and that he would have to hear two sets of conflicting instructions,so the Devil can talk to him as well(this is undoubtful for the fact that the fall of Man was a hearing to the Devil mistake,not to mention the temptations against Christ in the desert,and in most of the qualities attributed to Satan is referred that seductive attitude);

Run-on sentences are a little hard to follow at times.

These two sets of conflicting instructions aren't necessarily heard at exactly the same time.

but the purpose they both seek with this behaviour can t be other than to win(or attract)the subject s mind and heart and will(soul)either to be saved (Heaven) or damned,or corrupted(Hell);

If you're not saved, you're already corrupted.

you said that Satan knows how it turns out in the end;if you referred to a general notion of armaggedon and the apocalipse,that doesn t change that he wont know what will happen to any individual that crosses his way; but if they(Devil and God) know the outcame of the "game"in each particular case

God does know, the devil doesn't.

Considering that to get killed is worst than a miserable life I will desagree,since much more pain can be inflicted over years of torture,for example with a terminal disease,than with a shot to the head.

This is true.
But the risk is that a person who is alive may change his mind, i.e. repent; a dead one won't.

Also about the notion that if you are not a Christian you are owned by Satan,to say that would be to prejudice most part of world s population,not to mention the millions that lived before Christ,and couldn t know about Him,including of course the Holy men of Bible itself;

The people of the OT under the law are covered by...
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
(Galatians 3:24, KJV).

Obedience to the law was counted as obedience to Christ.

The people of the OT before the law are covered by...
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(1 Peter 3:19,20, KJV).

The people of the world who haven't heard of Jesus are covered by...
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
(Romans 2:13-16, KJV).

besides,to be a Christian can t consist only in believing what its written in the Bible,which is only a medium to let you know God s will:its to fulfill that will that counts,and of course,if you live by the law is needless to claim that you believe in its accuracy,(or to
recognize the Text,or His Creator, as the authority)because you are doing so by what really counts:what you do...

Sort of right, what you do counts.
But living by the law is the best way to get toasted...

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(Galatians 3:10, KJV).

The written word is enough...
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(Matthew 4:4, KJV).

Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;
(Psalms 94:12, KJV).

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
(Psalms 119:18, KJV).

So my position is that if you harm nobody(from my point of view the core of not only Christianism,but most religions),

Ha ha.
You appear to be making the point that Christ died on the cross to make paganism, or wicca, or buddhism the religion of choice.
Fat chance.

you earn the respect of God

You would be working overtime for millions of wasted years if you plan on earning God's respect.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
(Acts 10:34, KJV).

For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
(Psalms 103:14, KJV).

,letting alone the fact that even the HUMAN law doesn t expect more than right behaviour,independently of one s reasons, which belong to the individual s rights,which God,being more fair than men, of course will respect.

God's law expects perfection.
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
(1 Peter 1:16, KJV).

Why would God "respect" an individual's rights?
If you make a figurine out of clay, you don't suddenly go insane and attribute rights to it, do you?

 

[Fred]

First I just want to say that we can not explain the decisions of God or the Devil, for we are not as corrupt as the Devil, and no where near as perfect as God.

But to the best of my understanding, to answer your first question to the Best of my knowledge of God's Word is this: What is the "end of time"? I can tell you this, there is no actual end of time. there is only an end of our time on earth, you see the Bible says that to be away from the body is to be with him, for those who believe and have confessed of God and Jesus. So I believe that when He says he will judge all and the end of time, He is basically saying that when you die, the end of your time, He will judge you. and let me say that although He loves you more than you can conceive He is a just and fair God.

To answer your second question to the best of my understanding. There is no real good answer. All I can tell you is this: A man's time is up when it is up. That is saying that you will die at a set time, whether you die of a gun shot wound or a disease, or just because of natural causes. Now please don't misunderstand I'm not saying that God puts a disease in your body or tells some one to shoot you, because He does not. Why do we all blame God for the things that we do? I think it is because we are all cowards, I don't think that is is the Devils fault we do bad things either. I know I just shocked a few people there, but we do have a freedom called choice, God gave that to us, and we do with it what we want to. Now I belive that the Devil can tell you to do things, but I know we do not have to listen to it, just like when God tells us to do something, we some times don't.

 

[Javier]

All right,thanks,Fred...I go getting some from each answer.
Javier

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Fred
First I just want to say that we can not explain the decisions of God or the Devil, for we are not as corrupt as the Devil, and no where near as perfect as God.

Sure we can.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 2:16, KJV).

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(John 8:44, KJV).

God tells the truth and the devil is a liar.

I can tell you this, there is no actual end of time.

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
(Revelation 10:6, KJV).

 

[Tiassa]

propaganda

God tells the truth and the devil is a liar.

This is not well-established by the Bible. I might point out the truthful serpent and the deceptive God of Genesis, but of course that route has short-circuited in other threads mostly because I still don't understand how it was Adam was going to live forever without the fruit of the Tree of Life, which is straight from God's mouth, according to the written Bible.

The God of the Bible deceives a good many people. Claims to his veracity come generally from three sources: God's proclamations of his own nature; prophets and evangelists making such boasts on behalf of their chosen deity; and later philosophies built around the Bible (though I might even claim the advantage of dismissing the whole of that claim of God's honesty by noting how Catholic some of those writings just happen to be.

Genesis contains perhaps a vital moment of God's actual honesty, when he admits to himself (or others; who is "us"?) that something must be done before mankind attains equality. When speaking to prophets and others, God bears a much more constructed attitude. But such moments of quiet honesty belie the notion that God is infallibly truthful.

Thus, no matter how often the faithful insist, they cannot back up their boasts without dismantling part of the Bible--specifically, the creation of humanity and the establishment of the relationship 'twixt God and humankind.

And this, too, is the Big Lie, this bit in Genesis. From this lie many consequences have resulted. Humankind requires salvation because God made it to be so. The plan itself is either carrying off flawlessly, or else God made a huge mistake by leaving the Trees accessible to Adam and Eve. Without this "fall" of mankind, God would not have to pare himself off into the Wise Son and send himself down to be murdered.

Whatever propaganda Christians want to assert before the culture regarding God's honesty is undermined by any sense of perfection of the Bible, infallibility of God, or immutable knowledge.

It doesn't work, and that's why the religion relies on the ballot box and the political structures of nations in order to accomplish what it cannot accomplish by the merit of its integrity.

--Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Question 1, sort of ...

It has occurred to me that since I see fit to stick my nose into this topic at all, it would most likely serve propriety well if I gave some thought to the actual issues presented in the topic post.

First,if Christ is going to judge all at the end of time,then Heaven and Hell are void of human souls,so where are the souls now?

To be honest, I'm right there with you on this question. But merely that does not suffice.

The easiest answer I can think of is that the souls are simply in stasis, awaiting their new life; as they are presently in a dead or dormant state, they would have little or no perception of time. I cannot, however, profess this as a personal belief.

And right here I have just eliminated a ridiculous tirade that has no place in this thread; that, of course, being my own hideous digression on the diversity of ideas about Heaven, Hell, and Judgement. The summary version is that none of it really makes sense to me due to fundamental theological questions. I have encountered myriad notions about the Judgement. None of them reconcile the issues that confuse me about what the hell Hell is. However, they are the relevant part of the missing prosaic vomitus I have chosen to remove.

Well, the whole of Judgement, but I couldn't resist a bad line. But in that sense, there are some believers who would address your question by "correcting" (as such) your "fanciful" notion about Judgement at the end of time. (I've read a few commentaries on the notion that the Judgement process is instantaneous; this despite images of trials and Books and Depart from me ..., and so on.)

Please trust that my attempt to give greater detail on the idea was a train wreck. I liked it, but it had nothing to do with anything. In the end, I find myself left with the anemic "answer" (as such) that I gave in the first paragraph, that I cannot profess as a personal belief.

And here is a short digression that I will take: I can profess no personal beliefs about the Judgement not because I disbelieve the Judgement (well, there is that), but also because there is a great deal I have yet to learn about the soul itself:

* Does it exist?
* What does it do?
* Can I really perceive it at times, or is it a psychological illusion? (This, of course, assuming the first answer to "Yes")

After all, some things communicate hidden meanings on exceptionally private levels. My favorite things in the world are those things that can do for me what nothing else can do: certain artistic expressions; certain human events; certain cosmic events. Is that my soul stirring when an abstract nostalgia for nothing specific cuts through consciousness? (Hello, in there ...? Come out for a few so I can get to know you ....) But no, I don't know that it exists. I don't know that it's only purpose is to redeem at the pearly gates. And I don't know if that's my soul I feel in there, or if it's just the deepest reaches of my perceptible psyche.

But at this point I'm irrelevant again, so I shall cut it out. I should probably give some better thought to anything I try to take on from your second issue.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[mirror]

tiassa,

The other night, when answering the final question for a million dollars, the contestant said, "We think the answer is..." - and "they" got it right!

I wondered who "we" was then, too.

 

[Tiassa]

Perhaps it's the Gilligan principle

In order to keep this digression short, Mirror ... I am reminded here of an episode of Gilligan's Island in which Gilligan advises Skipper that "we'll take care of it." We? "The three of us: Me, Myself, and I."

I won't get into the Emily Dickinson bit, else I might go on for hours.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: propaganda

Originally posted by tiassa
This is not well-established by the Bible.

The converse is very not well-established by tiassa, particularly given his antipathy for "dualistic" notions.

Originally posted by tiassa
... I cannot, however, profess this as a personal belief.
...confuse me... a train wreck...?...?...? ... But no, I don't know ... I don't know ... I don't know ... I'm irrelevant again...

Admittedly edited to save space, but your vague, unfocused rambling is much better than whatever it is that you oppose.

 

[Tiassa]

ah, Tony, to have no point at all ...

... it must be wonderful. After all, I can't imagine why you'd bother even trying to get one now.

 

[tony1]

You must be familiar with having no point at all ...

Originally posted by tiassa
... it must be wonderful. After all, I can't imagine why you'd bother even trying to get one now.

Your purpose appears to be channeling your goddess.
Have you considered that it, or "she," may have a point contrary to your best interests?

 

[Tiassa]

Tony, just so you know,

I'm not censoring your whining butt ... I'm generally ignoring it until such time that you have something to say beyond your usual egocentrism that leaves us questioning the functional degree of your literacy.

See the note in another topic whereby I explain the difference between ignoring and censoring. You were, I believe, complaining tha FA_Q2 owes you the regard of believing you entirely before objecting, which is nothing more than typical among the faction of Christianity that has managed to create the condition whereby the faithful are no longer in touch with the rest of society.

But you really should have a point. You really should be able to do better than recycle other people's rhetoric pointlessly. And you really should get off this trip you're on whereby you repeatedly argue from the perspective of being the only person in God's kingdom who has achieved salvation. Such assumptions not only upset God and his regard for you, according to faith, but they do nothing to achieve you even a fraction of a degree of the respect you seem to think yourself entitled to.

Get over yourself, and have a point. And try not to deny Catholics; try not to deny Christianity; try not to escape every result of your arguments by disassociating yourself from them. If we take you, Tony1, as an example and apply it Universally, then all Christians are inept cowards. You seem set in your faith; you ought to present it in a manner that allows--much less, compels--people to respect it.

The degree of your literacy is in question. The degree of your honesty is in question. The degree of your human empathy--specifically your complete lack thereof--is already settled in other posts. I quote Toad the Wet Sprocket, and slightly out of context, yet I think the phrase still applies: You can bend my ear, and we can talk all day--just make sure I'm around when you finally have something to say.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony, just so you know,

Originally posted by tiassa
...your usual egocentrism that leaves us questioning the functional degree of your literacy.

I presume that your egocentrism is somehow eclipsed by mine?

See the note in another topic whereby I explain the difference between ignoring and censoring. You were, I believe, complaining tha FA_Q2 owes you the regard of believing you entirely before objecting, which is nothing more than typical among the faction of Christianity that has managed to create the condition whereby the faithful are no longer in touch with the rest of society.

Again, who's complaining about being censored?

...only person in God's kingdom who has achieved salvation. Such assumptions not only upset God and his regard for you, according to faith, but they do nothing to achieve you even a fraction of a degree of the respect you seem to think yourself entitled to.

It's not the end, yet. Unless you know something I don't.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
(Matthew 24:13, KJV).

And try not to deny Catholics; try not to deny Christianity; try not to escape every result of your arguments by disassociating yourself from them. If we take you, Tony1, as an example and apply it Universally, then all Christians are inept cowards. You seem set in your faith; you ought to present it in a manner that allows--much less, compels--people to respect it.

I don't deny Catholics. I will publicly admit that they exist.

Sorry I don't agree with your Universalist beliefs.
Actually, I'm not sorry.
From the apparent randomness evident in such beliefs, I'm glad I don't agree with them.

The degree of your literacy is in question.

Really?

The degree of your honesty is in question.

Speaking of which, you still haven't found any scripture to indicate an eternal hell, where this supposed honesty thing started.
I guess for you it is much easier to accuse me of dishonesty than it is to find verses for an eternal hell.
Actually, I know it's easier.

The degree of your human empathy--specifically your complete lack thereof--is already settled in other posts.

Aaaaw.
Because I don't preach warm fuzzies, I don't empathize.
Shucks.

 

[Tiassa]

Oh, Tony, you fibber!

Again, who's complaining about being censored?

You are, you silly bunt. From Christians, a few logic questions, posted by Tony1, 4/21/01:

FA_Q2 is the only person here so far, whom I've seen advocating censorship. Posts disappear in forums moderated by Cris, so he appears to advocate censorship. As far as I can tell, both of those guys are non- or anti-christian.

and from the same topic, 4/29/01:

Counterpoints aren't a problem at all.
Your advocation of censorship doesn't go like this, "I advocate censorship."
It goes like this, "We should ignore him."

Get the picture, you whining tart?

Speaking of which, you still haven't found any scripture to indicate an eternal hell, where this supposed honesty thing started.
I guess for you it is much easier to accuse me of dishonesty than it is to find verses for an eternal hell.
Actually, I know it's easier.

Sorry, Tony ... I've given you those passages, and you've rejected your own Bible as "too Catholic". That's hardly my problem.

Quit your pathetic whining and get a point.

Because I don't preach warm fuzzies, I don't empathize.

Actually, I recall that you're quite proud of your lack of empathy.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Oh, tiassa, you fibber!

Originally posted by tiassa
You are, you silly bunt. From Christians, a few logic questions, posted by Tony1, 4/21/01:
and from the same topic, 4/29/01:
Get the picture, you whining tart?

Are you so tightly wound up in your own little world that you can no longer tell the difference between a complaint and a response to someone else's statement?

Sorry, Tony ... I've given you those passages, and you've rejected your own Bible as "too Catholic". That's hardly my problem.

My turn to call you a liar.
You gave me no verses to demonstrate that hell is eternal or that the torment of people is eternal.

You just gave me a verse that happened to have the words "torment" and "for ever" in them.

Actually, I recall that you're quite proud of your lack of empathy.

Just assumption on your part.

 

[Tiassa]

Try something original, Tony

My turn to call you a liar.
You gave me no verses to demonstrate that hell is eternal or that the torment of people is eternal.

You're right. You never dismissed Matthew as too Catholic. And I never showed you a website depicting the eternal fire that shares your beliefs about Catholics. We've never discussed the depth of the hellfire myth among American Christians.

Oh, that's right. You dismissed it with a few mumblings about nothing.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Try something, anything, tiassa

Originally posted by tiassa
You're right. You never dismissed Matthew as too Catholic.

I dismissed you as too Catholic.

And I never showed you a website depicting the eternal fire that shares your beliefs about Catholics.

If they share my beliefs about Catholics, why would they be preaching Catholicism?

We've never discussed the depth of the hellfire myth among American Christians.

Sure we have.
And we both apparently agree that eternal torment in fire is a myth, assuming that's what you're talking about.

Oh, that's right. You dismissed it with a few mumblings about nothing.

It should be quite easy to quote a few verses concerning eternal torture in fire if that were in the Bible.

If you actually have anything, just post it.