And so we're forever stuck with crime and criminal minds with no power to do anything about it but punish them and try to compensate for the effects. We can't eradicate it. God takes care of the requirements of justice we are unable to meet. What part of a man is it that sins? It is only his hand that steals, but his whole body is punished. It is his mind that transgresses, yet we leave it free. In fact, those sins go unpunished in all of us. If we don't correct them, who will? But we must remain content with damage control.anonymous2 said:I paid attention to your argument, I just didn't agree with it. Sure, you're forever guilty of something, but that doesn't mean you punish someone the same way at the time of their crime as compare with hundreds/thousands/eons in the future. I'd hate to think the justice system of humans would be based on your idea, for then we'd have judges saying "You're always guilty", "You can never pay for your crimes", "You must be in jail until you die".
Does justice ever stop? Is it ever satisfied enough to retire for good? Isn't that just as much a prison in we live in?
"You're always guilty"
until someone with the authority declares your innocense. Who has the moral authority to pronounce you innocent?
"You can never pay for your crimes"
because they are against God, and what can you possibly give that will restore your life with God? God pays for them.
"You must be in jail until you die"
Death is our prison, justice is our jailor. I challenge you to deny that. If you're content with that, then hell is contentment with death.
I stand corrected, but I have a better quote:And yes, hell is God's wrath. Check out these verses and then tell me that hell is not God's wrath...
What do you think these verses are saying? There are other verses which refer to God's wrath, but I figure, why quote them, because you may say that they only refer to the Tribulation.
Deut.32:22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,
one that burns to the realm of death [Sheol] below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.
Note that this is a judgment against God's own people, Israel, who "deserted the Rock, who fathered them, and forgot the God who gave them birth".one that burns to the realm of death [Sheol] below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.
I believe hell is not "reserved" for some, but is the fire in which sin and death itself burns (Revelations). Can you stand in the fire without getting burnt? Can you endure death? And it's not God who placed us in the fire - it is the result of the first desertion of man, and of every man.John 3:36 says God's wrath abides on the unbeliever. So God is always mad at the unbeliever, which includes his sentence in hell, wouldn't it? If you don't believe hell is God's wrath, please show me from the Bible that it's not.
When you die, you're life is complete and your decisions are final. Live life as you please, because you can always ask for forgiveness later? I don't think so. And you believe death is eternal anyway, unless you're into reincarnation. It's just that you believe consciousness is terminated. That would be true if our lives were only natural, and if God didn't give you life.Sure, he's still guilty. But the punishment scenario you envision is unrealistic, because you don't believe anyone can ever pay for their crimes, or even ask God for forgiveness in the afterlife, not even for an eternity.
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
In the first place, what is the "age of accountability"? In Christianity, it's not an age, but a mindset. Your very existence is accountable for itself, responisble for itself. In the second place, all sin is forgiveable, except rejecting the power of forgiveness itself. In the third place, we don't get to decide who *deserves* what. Muslim wisdom says a child's parents are his heaven or his hell, and I have no doubt about that. God doesn't prevent any child from coming to Him, and doesn't tolerate anyone or anything preventing children coming to Him.And the fact remains that the slightest wrong thing would be guilty of hell according to Christianity, am I right or am I not? In reply to your example of high treason, let's say there's a boy, who reaches the "age of accountability", and he steals $1, and he was raised in an atheist household, and he doesn't believe in God. Then he gets ran over by a car and dies. Now, don't deny this Jenyar, please, don't. In Christian thought, does this boy go to heaven or hell? So stealing $1 would be enough to get hell, right? You can say it's not, but you know it's true. Tell me that it's not Christian theology which says the slighest sin warrants eternal hell. You're envisioning in your mind the worse kinds of criminals, and then saying God needs to punish that. But that's not Christianity, Jenyar. Christianity says the slighest crime is infinite, so the thief of $1 is just as offensive in God's eyes as Hitler. I find that view incredible and offensive.
So your logic is to leave people in ignorance, because that *might* save them, and informing them might be enough to make them stop being who they are for the worst. The 'path we're on' has no power to save - it is only God who saves.And some might reject Christianity altogether because they think it's wrong, IF you preach it to them. And what would that warrant in Christian thought? IF the Muslim/Jew/Baha'i/Zoroastrian/Deist/whoever could get into heaven without explictly believing in Jesus, and just needed to maintain the path that they're on, I'd think nothing would justify preaching Jesus to them, if by preaching Jesus they would reject that message and get eternal damnation.
Acts 10:28
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
I agree: no life deserves death. But do we automatically live forever? Do we automatically have spiritual life available to us? Who decides what we deserve? If it weren't for our concept of justice, we wouldn't even have the ability to conceive of anyone "deserving" anything. It's a moral judgment, based on certain assumptions. Different considerations apply for each situation, and everything is judged within its context and by its own merit. Blanket statements are impossible where justice is concerned, except that "all will be judged".I'm not at all certain I would be found "innocent" in any deity's eyes. I do not even remotely claim I'm innocent. But I do claim I don't deserve eternal torture, and that the standard of "perfection or hell" is absurd. If God wanted to kick my butt from here and back for the things I've done wrong in my life, then I guess I'd have to lump it, even if I didn't like it. But I still find a *realistic* punishment scenario perhaps infinitely better than what Christianity teaches (most in hell).
You don't claim to deserve eternal torture. Have you any reason to make that claim? Any basis to support it? No, you have to assume first that my God is who I say He is, and does what He say He will do, and then realize that you are guilty as I am. But by those standards, you are included in His mercy. Now the circular argument is that you reject His judgment because you have not believed in Him, and will therefore be excluded from his mercy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One no-one forces you to perpetuate.
Because the gospel can force its way into any circumstances to provide hope. But "preaching the gospel" has been waterered down to a point where preaching it's message is actually obscuring the message, as you indicated. It was never a "man on a pulpit", but "fishers of men" - a profession like our earthly occupation, but with a different focus. Being Christ to all people, so that those who haven't heard can see, and not be dependent on words or language, or Bibles.I'm not trying to convince you that those who haven't heard are without hope, Jenyar. I was just wondering why you quoted those verses, because they don't seem to be directly addressing those who haven't heard. But, you are well aware that many Christians throughout history didn't see things the way you do (those who didn't hear "the gospel", after Jesus came, can get into heaven, or those who are in other faiths after Jesus came can get into heaven). You may *want* to believe that such people can get into heaven, but has this been the consistent position of Christianity? If it truly was the position, why has there been such a press to preach "the gospel"?
Is anyone excluded from hearing or seeing and believing? Is there anyone God cannot reach, if we don't? I think the problem is that hypothetical people don't exist. If the gospel declares that you can trust God with your life, no matter how guilty of sin you were, and that salvation is available to all, then you have to prove the opposite if you want to believe it. Salvation is available to those who live by the laws written in their heart, because they can judge themselves and be judged by their judgment. People like Rahab, who act according to a different law than the one they were born into can fulfill all the commandments. They expect no less, why should you or I expect more?
Don't you think it's possible to be sincerely wrong? Hitler sincerely believed in his cause - did that exonerate him? I know of many people who are struggling for survival in India, and many who are Christians. Hearts, not intentions, determine what you do. And our judgment is dependent on what a person does. We can't see further than that, and because of that we can only judge according to society's laws. If someone wishes to live in a country, it's his responsibility to become aware of its laws, not so?This depends on the time/situation they were born in, as you know. But the fact still remains, there are lots of people who truly think that they've already FOUND God/the gods, right within the tradition they already have, and see Christianity not as the "ultimate truth". Your scenario is kind of like "Sincere people will believe the gospel, once they hear it", but I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Christianity has been in India, how long? And look how many Hindus and Muslims are there. And there are some Jains and Zoroastrians. Are these people just all insincere people who really know Jesus is the "only way" and refuse to submit? I doubt it.
Yes, but did that make them feel they were the exclusive and special owners of salvation? No, on the contrary. Those who were gentiles were perhaps more aware of being saved by faith in God rather than personal knowledge of the law or acquanitance with Jesus himself.These NT people believed in Jesus though, didn't they, even though the later theological certainties (Jesus was the Messiah, 2nd person of the Trinity, he paid for our sins) were revealed later, right?
That's a very superficial view of morality. Respect for other people has eternal consequences. That only emphasizes a responsibility you already feel - it doesn't undo it. But at the extremes of life, a vague feeling that we ought to be moral to each other loses out to "greater" needs. What Jesus taught is that there can be no greater need. And not just for vague lovey-dovey moral life, but a consistent and conscious responsibility for one's actions, whether they are seen or not.I have a conscience like (most) others, but I don't claim I live a "moral" life, as if I'm some bastion of morality. Some things just make sense from a societal point of view, why would I go around killing people? Now, if society didn't exist, and it was truly dog eat dog, then I guess that's the type of person I'd be, wouldn't I? I find it a bad proposition, to say that the only reason we should be moral, is that we fear hell and hope for heaven. We should be moral because we have respect for other people, not because of alleged eternal consequences, in my opinion. I almost find it scary that this argument exists, that perhaps the only thing restraining people from being horrible people is hell/heaven. IF that's the basis of one's morality, what happens if it's drug out from under them, and they lose faith? Scary thought.
If faith is the only reason that someone is moral, he will have a lot to answer for when he stands accused of being a hypocrite. They are white-plastered sepulchres for trying to acquire status with God as much as one who is only moral to acquire status with people.
I'm not impressed. That's a technical explanation that depends on a literal understanding, which is not how language works. The radiation that we receive on our skins is the same radiation that leaves the surface of the sun. The sun's proximity isn't measured by density. Does its identity end at its core, or the outer reaches of the gases surrounding that, or to the edges of its solar flares? By its presence, we mean that we have seen it, and its absence doesn't negate that observation. The sun is neither "here" nor "there" technically speaking, because we don't have Cartesian co-ordinates in our minds when we say that. But it can intelligibly be "present" in many ways, and even absent in other ways. It can be seen in many ways, and invisible in other ways.Now, it's fairly obvious that the literal sun is not within close proximity, you're speaking of the sun when you're really speaking of the sun's warmth. The sun is not with me because it never was with me. Surely you agree.
God's presence to the Israelites, was different from Satan's presence with God. We apply the same spatial language because we can't help but anthropomorphize things. But looking for contradictions using such forced "proximities" is mere ignorance. How far from the bush was holy ground? What principles or laws were at work when Moses took off his shoes to approach God, or when the High Priest entered the Temple?
The author of lies. Lies, not sin. Sin is believing those lies, and sin is lying. Whether Satan was the author of sin or not, he could not make Job sin. He tempted Job and he tempted Adam. Job wasn't to be tempted, like Adam, but that gave him no more justification against God than Adam. Job is written as a stage play, a poem. It's characterization doesn't lie on the same level as Genesis.But he was the author of sin when he met up with God in Job, wasn't he? Before the creation of the world, you could argue that he wasn't the author of sin. But that's not the scenario in Job, is it? He rebelled long before Job, Jenyar. Or do you believe the serpent deceived Eve because God ordered him?
The soul belongs to God, just like breath belongs to those who breathe. God breathed life, whether matter existed or not, and what is from God is eternal. It isn't matter as we know it that will be destroyed in hell, it is what matter gave birth to. The spirit that gave birth goes back to its father. Spirit goes back to God, dust goes to dust. Matter doesn't matter, but it's all we have to relate to. If it had nothing to do with God, we wouldn't be warranted to make analogies, but it does. Analogies aren't perfect, though, but they prevent us from making baseless "logical" assertions like "poof it's gone". A philosophical God might have done that, but we don't have the luxury of dealing with a purely philosophical God. If rationalization is funny to you, then I can see why you have a problems thinking about these issues - they're so foreign to you that you can't apply any mode of thought consistently.Jenyar, you're speaking of a soul as if it's some matter which God (even though he's supposedly omnipotent) can't destroy. You think God could violate the conservation of energy when he created energy, but couldn't violate it by destroying it. Isn't this a convenient hypothesis? Why should I believe that? I submit that God could destroy matter. You're acting like an omnipotent God is bound by some physical laws. That's somewhat humorous to me. The bottom line is that you're trying to rationalize the issue. There is no logical reason why God couldn't destroy a soul, as in, poof, it's gone.
But also read the verse (Rev 14:11)
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Doesn't sound like a cup of tea to me.
Rev.14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."
Then a second angel proclaims the fall of Babylon, the "origin" of sin, a third angel comes with a warning to those who think and do (forehead and hand) like the beast (who parodies the Trinity). After all of this, anyone who still rejects God and his salvation will inherit the punishment of the beast, because they belong to him. They have chosen him, in spite of everything.No, it's certainly no cup of tea. Do you wish it were?
Last edited: