anonymous2 said:
Jenyar, this is kind of like what I've read about the Bab of the Bah'ai religion (or even Mani for that manner). Maybe he and Mani sincerely believed their claims were true, I don't know. But they were both supposedly killed for their beliefs. I know, I know, "but Jesus resurrected", so no reason to go there, I already know the claim.
The Bab made religious claims, and was killed in Persia. The Bab supposedly was to be put to death and a firing squad fired, but when the smoke cleared, he wasn't to be found, then later on they found him back in his prison cell, I guess he had things he needed to get done before he was killed, or so says that "miracle story." You're arguing from the idea that the Bible is true, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, he is who he said he was, etc, which is quite understandable, since you're a Christian.... but this is your view.
That's a disingenious argument. I don't believe Jesus' claims "because I'm a Christian". That would be circular logic. Besides, none of those who first heard him were Christian - there
were no Christians. Jesus didn't make random religious claims, either. His very existence proceeded from the expectation and need of generations of people. He didn't fall from the moon, nor did His message. Jesus' ministry was one of
confirmation as much as
news.
His baptism by
John the Baptist is a good example. Jesus would not have insisted on being baptized if he did not believe John's message. And did John's message come out of nowhere? Did it come from God, or from people?
Have I committed high treason though? And what's the punishment for that? Death, not eternal torture.
How do you know there's a difference? You didn't pay attention to my argument.
You're still maintaining that God is just so mad he can't stop it, for eternity, he just keeps on and keeps on being mad. Remember, he's supposedly pissed off and hell is God's wrath, not Satan's, so isn't God the one maintaining hell? And he just can't stop himself from doing so? I find that incredible. If this human commits "high treason", does that nation hate him just as much, say, 5000 years in the future, than it did when they convicted him? I doubt it. Their anger wanes, doesn't it? Who could possibly be mad forever? But that's how I see the Bible God, mad forever.
Mad? It's not God's anger that will be appeased - it's his justice. Please show me where you get the idea that hell is "God's wrath". It's a place of judgment, like a prison. We don't sens people to prison to appease our wrath - no matter how mad we get at criminals.
God is maintaining heaven and justice... anything else
is hell. It's everything that is
not God. If a human commits hight treason, he is guilty for as long as he lives. The nation might forget why he was hated, but justice doesn't "forget". Where did you get that idea? If any hope for mercy and forgiveness is rejected, where would those come from? The guilt will
remain forever.
What do you make of John 3:16? Why do you think it doesn't fit your argument?
First he says all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law. Who is he talking about here? Why would he even use these terms, when just afterward, he tries to make the Gentiles have a "law" in a sense. Why not just say that, instead of the "all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law" part, as if the Gentiles really have no law? Just odd to me.
It's odd because you don't realize that the law Paul is talking about is the Torah (having been a Jew, and speaking to Jews). Jews were under the impression that only they could be saved, since only they had the means to attain salvation, and everyone else were "apart from the law". But Paul shows them how their law is just as binding. Back to the concept of justice: if there is no law, you can't be considered guilty. This is an argument I hear often: "we don't believe in sin, so we can't be punished for it". But you do believe in an equivalent of sin, don't you? What else is morality than a law? What else is your conscience than a judge of that law?
God holds everyone accountable, not just Jews, and not just Christians. Without that, there would be no justice.
And when Paul says "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets though Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares", what is he referring to? He doesn't actually say anything about a judgement before this, he just says Gentiles' thoughts are NOW accusing and NOW even defending them. Not later. Not in a later judgement. So it's odd wording to me. No wonder Peter said Paul was "difficult to understand."
"Now this, now that". Ever heard the expression? Now he says one thing, now he says another. That "now" indicates contradiction. Internal conflict. God will judge by the law everybody is
already applying. Just because time elapses between being caught, being sentenced and being jailed, doesn't mean different laws or sentences are being carried out each time. It's all part of the same process.
It might seem difficult to understand because you're trying to force a different interpretation - or an uneducated one.
So, what is Paul saying? Is he saying that the Gentiles will defend themselves on the Day of Judgement? I'm guessing so. But this does not say a single thing about those who haven't heard getting into heaven. Not one thing. Just because Paul thinks the gentiles "do by nature the things of the law", that doesn't necessarily mean he's saying that they'll get to heaven, does it, because he then says that their thoughts ACCUSE them (why accuse yourself if you're sinless?) and defend them, and he said "all have sinned", so he doesn't see the Gentiles as being exceptions to the "all have sinned" part, does he? All he's saying, to me, is that God will judge gentiles by the "law in their hearts", "their consciences", instead of the Law of Moses. That'd still make them sinners in need of Jesus just as much as a Jew, wouldn't it? So why did you even quote this passage? What do *YOU* think it means?
As I explained, it's a matter of
accountability. The consequence is that nobody is without guilt, whether they derive their guilt from God's explicit laws, or implicitly - by showing they are aware of the need for laws. Yes, "all have sinned", when you understand sin this way. But likewise, not knowing Jesus does not make them ignorant of God, or takes away their ability to have faith in Him. It just leaves them open to uncertainty, or worse - leave them with a need to try working off their guilt, as if salvation depended on their efforts, or innocense could be earned. Some might have the perseverance to keep this up, others will feel its hopeless. Some might reject God altogether for demanding so much. They need to hear that God has heard them and sees their plight.
But that's the catch, isn't it? You have to assume those who haven't heard the gospel doesn't believe in God. Most people I know who reject their accountability is because they feel judged, and they don't like it. If you're so certain that you will be found innocent when God judges your secrets, why are you arguing with me? Are you trying to convince me those who haven't heard the good news are condemned? That they are without hope?
I see nothing about it saying that those who haven't heard can attain heaven, it doesn't even appear to be addressing that. To me, all it's saying is that the Gentiles have a standard, and so does the Jew, and they'll both be judged by each respective standard, kind of like how he says in the first part of the quotation, "All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles?] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews?] will be judged by the law." Isn't that what he's trying to say?
Yes, but that's not why I quoted it. It's a departure point for my argument: that Gentiles have a way of knowing something similar to God's requirements without Judaism. The very idea that everyone could have God's law written in their hearts means they have some kind of interaction with it. Something that might lead to realization. It's that realization that leads people to invent gods, or look for Him. How far do people have to look before they find out about Christ?
Should I emphasize that "judgment" doesn't
automatically mean condemnation? That punishment isn't
necessarily eternal? It is eternal for those who reject God and the means of his salvation. How could it not be? What options are there? But in an analogy, Jesus said:
Luke 12
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
But what about those who don't listen
at all, who in fact deny the very existence of the master in whose house they live? Won't He drive them out when He returns? If you do what the obedient servants do, the master might recognize your obedience. But how will you know?
Does it mention anyone not an OT "worthy", or not connected with Israel or Christianity being in heaven? Does it say Buddha's in heaven? Not only that, but the fact is, there are many people after Jesus who don't believe. To me, to say, that anyone in the past is in heaven, who was not connected with Israel (say, like Rahab), or was an OT "worthy", or was a Christian, is just a theory. Where does the Bible say any of that?
James 2
24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
What was Rahab's faith? Her deeds. They were evidence of an implicit faith.
Hebrews 11
31By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.
Her faith saved her by association, as opposed to someone who dissociates with God. And not just by lip-service association, but by taking action - like the woman who was healed by touching Jesus' robe. Was she healed only for this life, and not the next? Did everybody Jesus healed die and go to hell? Some of them weren't Jews or even believers. But He recognized their faith in spite, as far as it was in accordance to God's law: having hope, loving, forgiving,
believing. They all have one thing in common: they recognized a need greater than themselves, and they didn't presume to save themselves or heal themselves. They were depenent on God's mercy, and they weren't disappointed.
And the simple question, IF people can get into heaven without Jesus or being an OT "worthy", or connected with Israel (Rahab), but instead just need "faith in God", then why would anyone in their right minds preach Jesus to people who already have "faith in God", therefore, putting their eternal souls in jeopardy? Just ask the Muslims if they think they have "faith in God." Why tell them about Jesus if they can get to heaven without specifically believing he's the savior? If people could really get to heaven merely by having "faith in God", then why not preach only that?
Because faith that is blind has no hope. We don't preach Jesus as a replacement or an
alternative for God's mercy, but the inactment of God's salvation. A literal act of God - He
embodies faith in God. Having faith in God doesn't stop there, as James points out. There is no such thing as "
merely having faith in God". It requires recognizing when God delivers on His promises. If Rahab didn't recognize the opportunity and act on faith
on that moment, would she still have been saved? Blind faith leads nowhere, and responds to nothing - because it's
blind it doesn't see even God. What use is having faith in God when you're going to deny or reject what He does in response to that faith?
As I've said before, and I say this to Muslims as well: Jesus is the certainty we have - the proof of life. Not to make Christians the greatest most saved people around, but to present hope for those who otherwise would have had none. Do you know why some Muslims are prone to self-sacrifice in Allah's name? Because it's the ultimate sacrifice, it practically
guarantees salvation. If you are uncertain of your worth, or whether God recognizes your faith and forgives your sins, you might feel the need to
do more. It contradicts faith, and it's dangerous. Muslims are right: forgiveness
is solely in God's hands, and He may decide either way - you have no control over His decision. But when He has decided, why not listen and respect His decision?
The amazing thing is that God made a living decision. A decision that is final, but also an open invitation.
This is perspective. Good news? To you, perhaps. To me, it's HORRIBLE news, of unimaginable proportions. The Bible itself says most of mankind is going to hell (narrow is the way, few are those who find it, broad is the path to destruction, many are those who enter). That's HORRENDOUS news. I find it perhaps infinitely better news to think we just die and that's it, than to think that there's a God who's an eternal torturer of most of mankind.
What prevents anyone from walking the narrow way? Isn't morailty itself also such a narrow way, yet you stake your freedom on it. Why? Why expect the world to respect your freedoms, no matter how rightful they might be? Because the truth is, not many people do. Criminals might seem like a minority group, but what makes one man a criminal makes another an adulterer, and another simply hate his brother.
If your concern is for the fate of the immoral, then do something about it. Make some case that will convince people not to cheat, lie or steal from each other. To respect their neighbours as themselves. Then stake your life on it, because if anybody thinks you only have your own confort in mind, your case will fall trhough the floor. It might be convenient to believe there is only "death", but that's just blind faith. Living a moral life in the face of that is almost a contradiction: you belive there is ultimately no justice, but you live as if there is.
But unless you are on the popular everybody-does-it road, and feel it must be justified, why make a case for it?
When you speak of an omnipresent deity, and then say he "gathers" somewhere, just what are you really saying? There's a verse I believe which talks about "where can I flee from your presence?" And there's still the point of Satan being in the presence of God. Did God say "Leave me now, I can't tolerate your existence here, because you're the author of sin" and end the conversation there? Sure, I could see why God wouldn't want people who do these things in heaven. But if you were in heaven, why would you even want to still do these things? And why couldn't he change people (you yourself believe he changes people) so they wouldn't sin anymore?
What I am "really saying" is what I said in the previous post: That where God's presence resides and where it reaches is not the same thing. The Jews called God's presence the
Shekinah. It rested on the mercy seat, in the Holy of Holies, the innermost area of the Temple. Only the High Priest could enter there, and only with caution. It also appeared as an angel, a soft breeze, and in a burning bush. An example might clarify it further: "Where" are
you? Are you only in the few square inches your feet occupy, the reach of your arms, or wherever people can see you? What constitutes
your presence? How do you tolerate the sun, if it's there with you? Why don't you burn up in its inferno? And if it's not with you, has it gone somewhere else?
As for Satan, you know he wasn't always the entity you have in mind right now. In some places he is the accuser in God's service, and that's where his name comes from. That role is comparable to the prosecutor in a court of law. That role doesn't make him hateful or unacceptible as such. But what if the prosecutor leaves the courtroom and continues to accuse everybody, as if with the same authority? Is he still acceptible then? Is he still doing his job? What if he rebels against the authority of the court he served. Is he still welcome there?
You can't continue inventing scenario's for the sake of argument. I can appreciate a good hypothesis, but you are making assumptions about concepts that have a history and context of understanding.
Why would it need to live anywhere? Just destroy it. If God wanted to "have a few (million) whacks" at Hitler (for example) beforehand though, who would blame him? Destroying it is not torturing it for eternity. Big difference. You yourself are saying "death, sin, and every vile thought" lives, IN HELL, and people will LIVE forever, being tortured for eternity. It's not just merely "Oh this place where God has left, doesn't continue to maintain, etc". Evidently he still maintains it, because its fires are eternal, aren't they? And he maintains the soul's "integrity", doesn't he? I mean the souls are never destroyed. God continues to maintain hell, doesn't he? Otherwise, how does it eternally exist?
What is destruction? Wishing something away? Uninventing something? Unknowing it? Because creation doesn't work the same way in reverse. Energy can't be destroyed, yet it is destructive in some manifestations and productive in others. When we wield energy for a certain use, we are imposing order on it. Destroying that use, that order, simply lets it revert to what it was before. As the universe was before God imposed life, order and justice on it, so it still is without Him, but where there is existence, existence will remain. An existence without God is hell already, but living that existence with a burning desire to have life, a desire that will never be satisfied:
that is torture. Not to mention that it will be shared with things much more terrible than God's judgment itself. Without Satan and his minions, death might have been peaceful, hell might even have been a sanctuary.
Destruction is a relative concept - relative to
creation, but not to
existence. God created a Kingdom where eternal life is possible with Him. Outside that Kingdom, neither death nor hell is possible, only eternal separation. Did you think the "fires of hell" are literal, that they burn in oxygen, or that living souls feeds it?
Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades [hell] were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
Forces you to reconceptualize a bit, doesn't it?
