If Socrates were alive today: non-Christians and Hell
Dave Wheeler
The following is an argument against the possibility of non-Christians
going to a place called Hell, in the style of, and with apologies to,
Plato. To those who don't know, Plato wrote many 'socratic dialogues',
where the character of Socrates (Plato's one-time teacher) uses a
method of reasoning, for which he was renowned, to get to the
nitty-gritty of various assertions or arguments. In the Republic, he
uses the brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus as foils, to dissect an
assertion by the character Thrasymachus. I have chosen to look at the
idea that non-Christians go to Hell, which we assume Thrasymachus to
have made prior to Socrates's argument (completely hypothetically, of
course, given the period of these characters' lives, 400BC). Why am I
doing this and am I being some kind of clever-arse? To the latter, yes
probably; to the former, I am doing this because it contains a lot of
questions and answers and as this is not a chatroom, it saves time. I
am reading Mere Christianity and the way it's going, I expect C S
Lewis to respond effectively to the following argument - however, what
the heck, this is my position now so let's run with it.
"Friends," said Socrates, "we are gathered here today in order to
ascertain - so far as it is possible - whether there is merit in the
assertion, made just now by Thrasymachus, that 'non-Christians go to
Hell'. It is, I think, appropriate to define a few terms so that I do
not misrepresent him in any manner. Is it not implicit in the sentence
that there is a sender of the non-Christian and that that sender is
God?"
"Not necessarily," said Glaucon, "because the soul of the
non-Christian may not be ABLE to join the Kingdom of Heaven, through
some sort of imperfection, and thus may not be SENT to Hell. Hell may
be the 'default'"
"Indeed, Glaucon, but can we agree that God, as Creator of all things,
also created the SYSTEM whereby that soul is consigned to Hell by
default of not being perfect, and that therefore in a loose sense it
is God who 'sends' him there?"
"I suppose that is true, and in any case many people would be happy to
use the literal sense of 'send', so do go on"
"And this God, in accordance with the religion of Thrasymachus, is the
Christian God of the Bible, and not his own or our own conceptualised
God? It is the God, familiarly believed in by Christians?"
"It is certainly best to proceed on that basis"
"And is it true to say that there are qualities we can attach to God
that would be in accordance with what the Bible says?"
"There must be"
"For example, could we use the adjective 'all-powerful'?"
"Certainly, that is the first quality that occurs to me" said Glaucon
"And using that term do I need to spell out that this implicitly
includes 'all-knowing' and 'all-seeing'?"
"There was no need to spell that out for us, Socrates" said Adeimantus
"Then forgive me, Adeimantus. But may we use the term 'all-loving', in
the sense that God loves all His children?"
"Happily so"
"Thank you. I will take it as acceptable also that we may add 'Wise'
and 'Just' to the list, and now, having cleared up our conception of
the sender, albeit in a simplistic manner, we must now define the
'sendee'. Thrasymachus contended that the 'sendee' can be summed up in
the phrase 'non-Christian'. What are we to understand from this?"
"Well, for one thing, we could say that this refers to any person who,
at the moment of death, has not committed himslef to Jesus Christ"
said Glaucon
"By which you mean a person who believes in Jesus Christ as Redeemer
and Saviour, has taken him into his heart, so to speak, and moreover,
has declared this commitment by the act of joining a church and
receiving the sacraments?"
"Quite so, although some do speak of the 'invisible church' whereby
membership of a church may not be a necessary requirement, as long as
the other requirements are in place"
"So a non-Christian is any person not answering that description. We
might list some examples. The atheist; the agnostic; any member of any
other religion that does not recognise Christ as saviour; any former
Christian who has 'lapsed'; any person who lives remotely and has
never heard of Jesus; any person who lived and died prior to the
establishment of the Christian Church"
"That would seem to cover most categories"
"Excellent, and finally we might describe this term 'Hell'"
"That would be fitting"
"We are told that Hell is the 'eternal lake of fire and brimstone'; a
place of torment where suffering is real and everlating. Is this not
your conception of Hell, young Glaucon and Adeimantus?"
"Yes, Socrates, but it must be said that many Christians perfer to
conceive of Hell as rather a barren wilderness, or nothingness,
representing distance from God"" replied Glaucon
"Indeed so. However, this does seem to be a re-interpretation and
would find opposition from the early Church Fathers and from the
orthodox. Be that as it may - at any rate, we can say that Hell is not
a pleasant place to be, and its purpose is one of punishment?"
"It would be hard to think of it in any other way"
"And the sorts of human souls we might imagine to populate Hell would
be the souls of, shall we say for an example, murderers?"
"Yes, and one might add rapists and torturers and the like" added
Glaucon, "and thieves and n'er-do-wells"
"And if the Scriptures are believed, homosexuals and adulterers?"
"Yes"
"And good men and women?"
"no, one does not immediately see the reason why genuinely good people
should be punished"
"But you are reminded of our opening statement, my friends, that all
non-Christians go to Hell. And this category has a lot of scope for
many, many good people. It leaves room for a model citizen who never
harmed a thing in his or her life, who considered service to others
over service to self, who was as charitable as the day is long,
adhered to the cardinal virtues, and so forth. It even leaves room for
a man who lived ninety years as a committed Christian, only to be
swayed into a crisis of faith on his death-bed. But by Thrsymachus's
assertion, these men are destined for torment"
"If we are to believe the orthodoxy, Socrates, there does appear to be
no room for exceptions and it boils down to the fact that no matter
how good these people were, they remain imperfect and unfit for entry
into the Kingdom of Heaven. However, I must admit it does seem quite
unjust, though God must have His reasons for creating such a system"
"You make an excellent point, Glaucon, because I think I am right in
saying that we cannot conceive of God as 'Unjust'. Therefore, we must
consider how our conception of 'unjust' might stand in apposition to
God's conception of 'unjust'"
"We have to be sure"
"Well, let's start by asking ourselves how we arrived at our own
notions of justice. What is it inside you, Glaucon and Adeimantus,
that naturally bristles at the idea of an innocent and genuinely good
individual being punished?"
"The first thing I should say is: instinct. I instinctively consider
your scenario unjust. Secondly, everybody else in society feels the
same way, as shown by society's laws and customs and iniversal notions
of justice"
"There are universal notions of justice, you say, and, although there
are certain modes of behaviour that may be acceptable in one society
but taboo in another, in general we can say that the differences are
little. In fact, it could be said that the Ten Commandments serve as a
rudimentary but clear pointer towards justice. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill',
for instance, is adhered to as a maxim in all societies; that murder
is wrong (with certain provisos such as where human sacrifice or
capital punishment are acceptable) and unjust?"
"Yes, even where murder occurs, the perpetrators are sought and
brought to justice"
"So we can say, can we not, that God Himself gave us our notions of
justice in the form of the Ten Commandments?"
"Undoubtedly"
"And furthermore, you mentioned instinct, Glaucon - you instinctively
felt that our hypothetical good but non-Christian person would be
dealt with unjustly by being sent, or 'defaulting', to Hell. Where did
you get your instinct, Glaucon?"
"Well, I suppose I was given it by God"
"You suppose? Are you in doubt?"
"No, there is no doubt that my instinct is distinct from my freewill
in that it comes to me in a manner not controlled by me. It must be
God-given"
"So, we find that God gave us both an instinctive notion of justice,
as well as an explicit set of instructions which led mankind to frame
its own laws and customs with a view to maintaining justice. Does this
not indicate that our notions of justice are the very same notions, in
general, as those possessed by God?"
"It would be hard to argue otherwise"
"And is God incapable of being Unjust?"
"I would stake my life on it"
"Then friends, we have here a paradox. Thrasymachus stated that all
non-Christians go, or are sent, to that pernicious place called Hell.
God either commands it, or allows it in concordance with His system.
He also knows the nature of our hypothetical soul and knows he is good
and righteous, for He is all-seeing. Moreover, He also knew the
outcome of our soul's life and knew exactly that he never was going to
become a Christian, for He is all-knowing and can see the future. Even
though that man had freewill, this does not prevent God from knowing
what he was going to do with his freewill. God also knows that,
despite missionaries, certain human beings are going to live out their
entire lives in ignorance of the Good News. Now, to pitch these souls
into the fire or the wilderness or the darkness or the void, strikes
us as unjust. We agree that our notions of justice are God-given, and
just as we are told we are made in God's image, equally our notions of
justice reflect His. Thrasymachus appears to be unwittingly calling
God unjust; indeed, I fear that he comes nearer to blasphemy than was
his intention. Are we not right in concluding that an insurmountable
paradox amounts to a proof against the assertion?"
"I certainly hope to hear Thrasymachus eat his words" said Glaucon
"Perhaps, Glaucon, but you have not heard Thrasymachus respond yet,
and you may yet be surprised to find we have missed an essential point
in our discussions. Thrasymachus, we have been talking for far too
long - please feel free to respond"
The End
Question: has Socrates just disproved the assertion? If not, what is
the fatal flaw in the argument and where, if at all, has Socrates
misled Glaucon and Adeimantus?
rtda...@yahoo.com
> Question: has Socrates just disproved the assertion? If not, what is
> the fatal flaw in the argument and where, if at all, has Socrates
> misled Glaucon and Adeimantus?
This "argument" may be better broken down in its premises/conclusion
form.
1) God is all-powerful/knowing/seeing/loving, wise and just.
2) A non-Christian is one who has not accepted Jesus as Redeemer and
Savior.
3) Hell is torment and suffering both real and everlasting, possibly
nothingness- representing distance from God. This place is created by
God and he knew which of us would end up in hell. We are free to
choose that, but God nonetheless knew it.
4) People can be "good" but not perfect. "Genuinely good people should
not be punished."
5) Our innate notions of justice come from God, and are equal with
his.
6) We innately have a notion that some are good and not worthy of
separation.
7) Despite the fact that God is just, his plan as we understand it is
innately unjust because we instinctively feel it to be so.
Therefore:
8) A conception of God that contradicts our notions is an
insurmountable paradox amounting to proof against that conception of
God.
This seems to be a fair representation of the argument as put forth to
date.
I see its strengths as more/less accurately describing God,
non-Christians, and Hell, as well as linking our notions of justice
with a creator. For IF there is a creator, then it seems fair enough
to believe that we derive any innate moral sense from him.
Therefore it would seem plausible enough that if something seems
unjust to us, it would likely be unjust to God based on the derivation
of our sense from his.
Likewise, the criterion for heaven/hell would seem to us to be a merit
system whereby "good" people would be given entrance to heaven and
"bad" people exile to hell. Merit systems abound in our daily
experience, so it would seem likely to transfer it to heaven/hell.
The weakness in the argument is that in considering what constitutes
"good" we may have a tendency to downplay our weaknesses and overplay
our strengths. This would seem manifestly true in everyday life as
well, it is certainly a tendency of humanity in general. It was
acknowledged that it would be necessary to consider diverging
conceptions of justice between God and man:
"We must consider how our conception of 'unjust' might stand in
apposition to God's conception of 'unjust' "
But in an illogical jump, it was deduced that our notions of justice
must be in their entirety derived from God.
To be fair, it is possible that while certain notions of justice may
be derived from God, application of those notions may be varying and
wholly unfair. In fact, we may also note that in some cases, justice
is completely warped by human thinking. This too is recognizable in
everyday humanity. For example double standards of justice are
commonplace when we condemn others offhandedly for offenses we most
likely commit on a regular basis. For larger scale warped justice,
consider the Islamic militants who sawed the head off an American
contract worker as retribution for our own unjust treatment of Iraqi
prisoners. And likewise our claiming to be liberators while abusing
the human rights of these people.
So while we may consider it plausible in a creator paradigm that his
creation indeed bears notions of his justice, the application may not
be perfect. And that seems manifestly true as well. In this sense,
premises 5) 7) are invalid.
Likewise the weakness in the merit system concerning heaven hell, is
that while we may grade on a curve, whereby the best human would
denote 100% and perhaps the worst 0%, should we reasonably apply that
to "heaven"?
It would seem to me that in such a case, we would have no better than
another earth, still filled with imperfections, but not on such a
grand scale. If we were to consider what a perfect creator might want
to accomplish with his creation, what would such a "heaven" accomplish
at all?
And in fact perfect creator, if he is truly perfect would have to have
a perfect society as the end result. He as a perfect creator cannot
have as an end result a society that is less than perfect. If he is
perfect, then his standard of moral right must also be perfect and his
judgment of wrong must be perfect as well. We could accept that
perhaps in mercy and forbearance, his judgment could be withheld for a
time, but eventually since this is his creation, he will be
responsible for maintaining justice perfectly.
So on this consideration, it would seem a grave disservice to the
perfection of God, for him to grade on a curve. Rather the standard
could only be perfection.
Therefore, on this understanding it would seem necessary to rethink
our notions of who is "good". If all sin, then none are "good" as God
would need to count "good". On this reasoning, premise 4) is invalid.
To this point we have 7 basic premises and a conclusion. Premises 4-7
seem invalid, therefore the conclusion does not follow. As admitted in
premise 1), God is all-knowing and just and wise, so application of
justice should likewise be perfect, whereas no human being can
reasonably claim the same attributes. Our application of justice is
often unfair, therefore we cannot be certain that simply based on our
own notions, God must likewise be constrained.
dave
John Sparks
your flaw is your concept of "good"
A truly "good" and righteous person will not go to hell even without being a
Christian. Christ was given for those of us who are not righteous or
good" - it is God's solution to allow any who wants to choose him to be
with him forever in heaven, even though they are not "good" but flawed and
sinful. It's the back door into heaven. The front door is and has always
been, to be "good" and not sin. So far, other than Jesus, no man or woman
has met this standard.
What you consider as to be "good" is only good as you compare this
hypothetical person to the rest of humanity. If you compare his "goodness"
to God, you will find him falling far short of "good"
If you examine yourself truthfully, you will find that you don't meet God's
standard. If fact, I am confident that you don't even meet your own standard
of "good" - have you ever done anything that you know was wrong and
regretted it? Have you ever hurt someone you cared for emotionally or
physically?
Therefore, if you can't even meet your own standard of "good" how do you
think you can meet God's?
-------------------------------------
John Sparks
Dave Wheeler
> Dave,
>
> your flaw is your concept of "good"
>
> A truly "good" and righteous person will not go to hell even without being a
> Christian. Christ was given for those of us who are not righteous or
> good" - it is God's solution to allow any who wants to choose him to be
> with him forever in heaven, even though they are not "good" but flawed and
> sinful. It's the back door into heaven. The front door is and has always
> been, to be "good" and not sin. So far, other than Jesus, no man or woman
> has met this standard.
I understand that no-one can be 'perfect' against an impossible
standard. On this basis, I know that you are saying that, for example,
if Mother Theresa was not a Christian, she could not reach the
standard and nor could anybody. So, your 'front door ' does not exist
(except that used by Jesus). But, is this just? My argument is that
this is not just, and so as not to repeat myself, have a look at my
reply to David on this. My argument is that God would not have created
an unjust system, and He would not have allowed Adam's back-turning to
produce such an unjust system either.
>
> What you consider as to be "good" is only good as you compare this
> hypothetical person to the rest of humanity. If you compare his "goodness"
> to God, you will find him falling far short of "good"
>
>
> If you examine yourself truthfully, you will find that you don't meet God's
> standard. If fact, I am confident that you don't even meet your own standard
> of "good" - have you ever done anything that you know was wrong and
> regretted it? Have you ever hurt someone you cared for emotionally or
> physically?
Yes, but I contend that there are people who come pretty close to
Jesus' standard, i.e. hit the mark on all the cardinal virtues and
more besides, and yet, because of holding an honestly attained but
different world view, apparently are punished with eternal torment
>
> Therefore, if you can't even meet your own standard of "good" how do you
> think you can meet God's?
OK, we can't, but again, why would God punish these faults when some
of His children try incredibly hard to be good? And put another way:
if, as C S Lewis contends convincingly, there is a Moral Law, existing
on its own like mathematics, and someone adheres to that Moral Law,
but has never heard of Christ, why the punishment? And how else can
one view Hell but as a punishment?
Dave Wheeler
> davewh...@ntlworld.com (Dave Wheeler) wrote in message news:<hMeoc.26739$vz5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> form.
>
> 1) God is all-powerful/knowing/seeing/loving, wise and just.
> 2) A non-Christian is one who has not accepted Jesus as Redeemer and
> Savior.
> 3) Hell is torment and suffering both real and everlasting, possibly
> nothingness- representing distance from God. This place is created by
> God and he knew which of us would end up in hell. We are free to
> choose that, but God nonetheless knew it.
> 4) People can be "good" but not perfect. "Genuinely good people should
> not be punished."
> 5) Our innate notions of justice come from God, and are equal with
> his.
> 6) We innately have a notion that some are good and not worthy of
> separation.
> 7) Despite the fact that God is just, his plan as we understand it is
> innately unjust because we instinctively feel it to be so.
>
> Therefore:
> 8) A conception of God that contradicts our notions is an
> insurmountable paradox amounting to proof against that conception of
> God.
Elegantly summarised
> The weakness in the argument is that in considering what constitutes
> "good" we may have a tendency to downplay our weaknesses and overplay
> our strengths.
But only in the 'middle ground', the grey bits. I was talking about an
extreme, because it is sometimes necessary to exaggerate in order to
get the point across. Let's recap our hypothetical non-Christian soul.
You know how the Catholic church essentially has two standards of
morality? It has one standard that suffices for salvation (if that
person is a Christian) and a higher standard which when realised
constitutes a saint. Well, let's say our hypothetical soul possesses a
morality consistent with the higher standard, and differs in but one
aspect - he is not 'in Christ'. Now, as Christianity stands, that
soul, whose non-Christian world view has been honestly arrived at,
will be punished by a Just and Good God with eternal damnation. On the
face of it, this decision would seem, to us as men, to be unfair.
There is no grey area here in our possible notions of fairness.
Now, a Christian might say that fairness has nothing to do with it; it
may be said that it is simply a case that one needs to be 'in Christ'
in order to access the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, being 'in
Christ' metaphorically dresses one in a cloak that allows access - the
cloak acts like water through a sieve whereas our hypothetical
non-Christian, no matter how 'good', does not possess the cloak and is
caught in the sieve. But this does not work either becasue this system
would itself have been invented by God and we come back to our notion
of its being unfair.
So, is our notion of fairness somehow warped by our imperfection? No,
because even if we fail to adhere to the moral standard, we still know
what the moral standard is. Similarly, we may, in our lives, be unfair
and unjust, but we nonwtheless know what fairness and justice is. We
can back this up by looking at the other side of the coin: we find it
eminently fair if told Mother Theresa had gained entry to Heaven
(regardless of her religion) - what is wrong with our notion of
fairness here?
Therefore, even though, as John Sparks says, we can never be as good
as God's standard (even though this itself does not make sense given
the fact that God gave us a Moral Law to live by), God, being
infinitely Wise and Just, would not have created (or allowed its own
creation by the fall of Adam or Satan or anyone else) an unjust
system. Yet we perceive it as unfair and unjust. Therefore either 1)
God is unjust or 2) Hell does not exist or 3) both Heaven and Hell are
populated by both Christians and non-Christians dependent on their
level of goodness or badness respectively attained. I agree that it is
difficult to conceive of goodness on a curve. I think this only
contributes to a different argumment about the very existence of Hell.
I have been accused of putting human ideas onto the meaning of 'good',
but you have to demonstrate that I have done the same with the words
'fair' and 'just'
Incidentally, I was puzzled to find that C S Lewis doesn't even
mention Hell in his book Mere Christianity (I can't remember, Dave, if
you were one of those, along with John, who recommended that) - too
much of a minefield for him? ;)
rtda...@yahoo.com
> > 8) A conception of God that contradicts our notions is an
> > insurmountable paradox amounting to proof against that conception of
> > God.
>
> Elegantly summarised
Thanks, I do appreciate that. One of the things I am trying to work
hard on is that in a debate, I need to be able to restate my
opponent's position to his satisfaction and state the strengths of the
position as well.
I hoped I had correctly understood the argument, if not, then I am
debating straw men, which is never productive.
Two issues with the argument are still:
Our sense of justice must equal Gods
Entrance to heaven criterion.
While accepting that an overall sense of justice would be derived from
God, we cannot assume our applications of justice to individual cases
being equal to how God would apply justice. Why is this important? You
may argue that you are talking about the overall sense, but I would
argue that you are not.
1. The innate sense of justice that comes from God, only means that we
are endowed with notions of right/wrong, and that wrong brings
retribution, right brings some sort of reward. There may even be a
fair amount of uniformity in notions of right/wrong.
2. The individual's sense of justice and its application concerns not
only right/wrong, but how it is rewarded/punished. One can see that in
the individual applications of justice, wide variations may occur,
influenced by all manner of input. Killing another human may generally
be seen as wrong, but other factors may allow it: self-defense,
cultural degradation of other demographic populations, "choice",
revenge, etc.
Likewise the punishment for killing, death penalty, lifetime
imprisonment, in some instances no punishment.
3. If these are both true, then the only sense that can really be
applicable when it comes to the rewarding/sentencing of individual
humans for their actions is the individual sense of justice.
Generic right and wrong comes from an innate moral sense we are
endowed with from God. What actually constitutes right/wrong and their
subsequent reward/penalty is widely variable and determined by many
other factors.
Therefore it is necessary that we consider our sense of justice in the
second, individual sense, rather than in the general sense for the
scope of this argument.
Your argument has been that our sense of justice is equal to Gods.
Yet,
P1. If God is perfect, then he will have one perfect sense of justice.
This is logical enough assuming perfection is an attribute of God.
P2. We as individuals vary in our sense of justice.
This seems demonstrably true. For example: you feel the system as
outlined in the NT to be unjust, whereas I feel to be perfectly just.
Therefore there are variations in our senses of justice.
P3. If 1 and 2, then it is not possible that all variations came from
God
P4. If 3, then variations cannot have come from God, but must have
developed apart from God.
C. IF 4, THEN we cannot reliably equate our sense of justice with
God's.
And of the two difficulties I mentioned, that is really the more minor
point.
Given a place such as heaven, what would the entrance requirements be?
As I have argued before, perfection can be the only standard. Here is
a restatement:
a) God is absolutely holy. He is absolutely perfect.
b) As a function of his holiness, he can never cease to be holy, nor
can his holiness lessen. His perfection, by its very definition,
demands that he be nothing less. If he were to be any less than
perfect at any time, then he ceases to be who he is. By virtue
therefore of who he is, he necessarily will remain perfect at all
times. He can do nothing less.
c) His being just is a part of his perfection and holiness. To be just
is to be right, proper, equitable, fair and impartial. Justice is the
practice of being just. Holiness and perfection encompass justice. A
perfect God will necessarily be just, and will necessarily practice
justice.
d) God is the creator of the universe and therefore responsible for
maintaining order in it. Given that God created the universe without
flaw, and according to his laws, he is responsible for maintaining
justice in the universe. He has created all that is within the
universe and his holiness necessitates that he will practice justice.
He will practice it perfectly.
e) Any violation of the order in God's universe necessitates that God
bring justice.
f) Sin is a rebellion against the order of God's universe.
g) Therefore, it is impossible by Gods very nature that he can dwell
with sin. His holiness, which includes justice, necessitates that he
maintain the perfect order of his creation. Disorder must be removed.
That removal of sin from himself is called death.
Either you are perfect or you are not admitted.
Since none of us is perfect, then we all fall short. So a merit system
based on a curve is not really tenable as a logical argument into
heaven.
Summary:
While the argument reasonably equates our sense of justice with Gods
in a general sense, it misses the fact that justice is applied by
individuals and that we have too many variations to equate our sense
with Gods. Therefore the argument fails on that point.
Likewise, while it appeals to a merit system as qualification for
entrance to heaven, and most of our experience is based on merit
systems, the perfection of God would dictate that his standard not be
a merit system.
dave
John Sparks
news:H9Xpc.48113$L8.4...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> "John Sparks" <john...@mystique.net> wrote in message
news:<I0Xoc.56293$wY....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
> > Dave,
> >
> > your flaw is your concept of "good"
> >
> > A truly "good" and righteous person will not go to hell even without
being a
> > Christian. Christ was given for those of us who are not righteous or
> > good" - it is God's solution to allow any who wants to choose him to be
> > with him forever in heaven, even though they are not "good" but flawed
and
> > sinful. It's the back door into heaven. The front door is and has always
> > been, to be "good" and not sin. So far, other than Jesus, no man or
woman
> > has met this standard.
>
> I understand that no-one can be 'perfect' against an impossible
> standard. On this basis, I know that you are saying that, for example,
> if Mother Theresa was not a Christian, she could not reach the
> standard and nor could anybody. So, your 'front door ' does not exist
> (except that used by Jesus). But, is this just? My argument is that
> this is not just, and so as not to repeat myself, have a look at my
> reply to David on this. My argument is that God would not have created
> an unjust system, and He would not have allowed Adam's back-turning to
> produce such an unjust system either.
But God is Just. He says you can be perfect and get into heaven on your own,
or if you can't do that, here is Jesus to give you a way in. This is how he
allows for ANYONE to get into heaven. How is this unjust? He gives you a
free way to get in and you claim it's not just!
>
> Yes, but I contend that there are people who come pretty close to
> Jesus' standard, i.e. hit the mark on all the cardinal virtues and
> more besides, and yet, because of holding an honestly attained but
> different world view, apparently are punished with eternal torment
But I contend that their are none who "come close" - everyone has moral
failures. No one lives up to their own standard of good. Not me, not you,
not Ghandi, not Mother Theresa.
> >
> > Therefore, if you can't even meet your own standard of "good" how do you
> > think you can meet God's?
>
> OK, we can't, but again, why would God punish these faults when some
> of His children try incredibly hard to be good? And put another way:
> if, as C S Lewis contends convincingly, there is a Moral Law, existing
> on its own like mathematics, and someone adheres to that Moral Law,
> but has never heard of Christ, why the punishment? And how else can
> one view Hell but as a punishment?
If someone did adhere to their own moral law (knowing right and wrong and
never doing what they knew was wrong) and did not know of Christ, then they
would get into heaven - God will not say to them "oops, you missed law 6578
paragraph B. Sorry" - but he will say to them "You knew XXX was wrong, but
you did it anyway. Sorry" . But forget about those hypothetical people
anyway - no one has every lived up to their own moral law. And since you
know that you haven't adhered to what you know to be right and wrong, so you
don't fall into this category anyway. So you need Jesus.
Here is what Paul had to say about the moral law in Romans.
(it is from "the Message" a modern paraphrase of the bible available at
www.biblegateway.com )
Romans 2:12 If you sin without knowing what you're doing, God takes that
into account. But if you sin knowing full well what you're doing, that's a
different story entirely. 13 Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your
time if you don't do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the
difference with God.
14 When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less
by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. 15 They show that
God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into
the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that
echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. 16 Their response to God's yes and
no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision
about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through
Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.
Romans 10:9 Say the welcoming word to God--"Jesus is my Master"--embracing,
body and soul, God's work of doing in us what he did in raising Jesus from
the dead. That's it. You're not "doing" anything; you're simply calling out
to God, trusting him to do it for you. That's salvation. 10With your whole
being you embrace God setting things right, and then you say it, right out
loud: "God has set everything right between him and me!"
11Scripture reassures us, "No one who trusts God like this--heart and
soul--will ever regret it." 12It's exactly the same no matter what a
person's religious background may be: the same God for all of us, acting the
same incredibly generous way to everyone who calls out for help. 13"Everyone
who calls, "Help, God!' gets help."
AJA
> Incidentally, I was puzzled to find that C S Lewis doesn't even
> mention Hell in his book Mere Christianity (I can't remember, Dave, if
> you were one of those, along with John, who recommended that) - too
> much of a minefield for him? ;)
Look around pages 77-78. There is mention. There is much about hell in the
essay, _The Weight of Glory", and in the books _The Problem of Pain_, and
_The Screwtape Letters_. The one principle of Hell is "I am my own."
attrib. to George MacDonald by C. S. L in his book _Surprised by Joy_.
Blessings,
Ann
Dave Wheeler
>
> Thanks, I do appreciate that. One of the things I am trying to work
> hard on is that in a debate, I need to be able to restate my
> opponent's position to his satisfaction and state the strengths of the
> position as well.
You do right. The most important thing, I think, in debate, is
considered and careful analysis of your opponent's opinions. Who can
really know their own opinions if they haven't rigorously analysed the
opposing ones?
> I hoped I had correctly understood the argument, if not, then I am
> debating straw men, which is never productive.
You seem to have understood the argument well
> Two issues with the argument are still:
> Our sense of justice must equal Gods
> Entrance to heaven criterion.
Yes, on the matter of our hypothetical soul. I do not claim that man's
sense of justice should be equal to God's sense, i.e. any quality in
man, I understand, should be imperfect when contrasted with the same
quality in God, thus man's sense of justice would not be expected to
be perfect. But, in the example I used, can my, or man's, notion of
justice be so far removed from God's?
> While accepting that an overall sense of justice would be derived from
> God, we cannot assume our applications of justice to individual cases
> being equal to how God would apply justice. Why is this important? You
> may argue that you are talking about the overall sense, but I would
> argue that you are not.
But why? We are talking about this one person, who lived an exemplary
life, but who, for whatever reason, failed to accept Christ into his
life. He is, apparently, doomed to suffer eternal torment. I think
this is unfair. According to you, God must think the scenario is
actually fair and that therefore my conception of fairness is
imperfect. But, consider my judgement in human, earth-bound cases. A
man murders with no mitigation: I consider him guilty and deserving of
a penalty for his anti-social act. I con a friend of mine out of some
money: I know I have acted unjustly. I read a story in the newspaper
about a corporation that has been proved to have been guilty of
corruption: I judge that that company is not a good company. My
notions of justice are universally approved - but when I judge this
hypothetical situation concerning non-Christians and Hell, suddenly my
conceptions of fairness and justice are not to be trusted. Why not?
I have to sign off now, but have a lot to say later: talk to you soon,
while you consider the above!
Dave
Dave Wheeler
> > standard. On this basis, I know that you are saying that, for example,
> > if Mother Theresa was not a Christian, she could not reach the
> > standard and nor could anybody. So, your 'front door ' does not exist
> > (except that used by Jesus). But, is this just? My argument is that
> > this is not just, and so as not to repeat myself, have a look at my
> > reply to David on this. My argument is that God would not have created
> > an unjust system, and He would not have allowed Adam's back-turning to
> > produce such an unjust system either.
>
> But God is Just. He says you can be perfect and get into heaven on your own,
> or if you can't do that, here is Jesus to give you a way in. This is how he
> allows for ANYONE to get into heaven. How is this unjust? He gives you a
> free way to get in and you claim it's not just!
John, for God to be Just, Justice must be done. No matter that He
provides Jesus as a vehicle, the fact remains that many people do not
take that vehicle; therefore, those people fail to gain entry to
Heaven. For most of these people, Justice is not done, because,
despite being imperfect human beings, they do not deserve to be
consigned to eternal torment, and Justice is about giving people what
they deserve. Therefore, this system lays God open to accusations of
Injustice. Now, I do not believe that - I would contend that God is
infinitely Just. So the paradox here leads one to suggest that my
notion of justice is perhaps flawed. This cannot be so, however,
because justice is a historically well-discussed and agreed quality,
and my perception of eternal torment for non-Christians (infinitely
out of proportion to their crime or imperfection) as being unjust is
shared by millions. If Justice means something different to God, then
we have no right to use that word. In other words, I contend that
God's infinite Goodness and Justice is different to man's
understanding of Goodness and Justice only in degree, that is,
different in finiteness but not in basic meaning.
Although I would concede that man's imperfection can lead to
differences in opinion about what is good and bad, just and unjust, I
maintain that such differences arise only in grey areas coloured by
culture and religion and so forth (e.g. whether polygamy is
acceptable, or the eating of pork). For the big issues there is no
argument - for example, murder is universally labelled as 'bad'.
Similarly, eternal and unremitting torment for souls who are
undeserving of such a fate is Unjust! It is no good saying that they
should have taken the path offered to them by God via the Christian
Church, because for many different reasons, millions simply haven't
and won't take that path - these innocent souls paying with all
eternity for a simple belief or misbelief is irrefutably unjust. And
as God cannot be Unjust, God cannot therefore consign souls to Hell -
it really is an impossibility if you think about it
> >
> > Yes, but I contend that there are people who come pretty close to
> > Jesus' standard, i.e. hit the mark on all the cardinal virtues and
> > more besides, and yet, because of holding an honestly attained but
> > different world view, apparently are punished with eternal torment
>
> But I contend that their are none who "come close" - everyone has moral
> failures. No one lives up to their own standard of good. Not me, not you,
> not Ghandi, not Mother Theresa.
This is agreed, because God is God and humans are humans. My point was
that - let's take Gandhi - Gandhi, as a non-Christian, is now
languishing in Hell, according to your doctrine. Does this strike you
as fair, just and reasonable? If it does, I am afraid for your
conception of morality, and if you are also telling me that God would
consider this fair and just, then I am afraid for your conception of
God.
I'm only using Gandhi as an example of a person of a high moral
standard. We could use a murderer, because even here it is not just to
consign a murderer into eternal torment for one finite crime. Even our
sense of justice allows for a lifetime term in prison for such a
crime. If you are saying that I cannot understand what God does and
does not consider Just, I again affirm that we should not be using the
word just if it is potentially not what we mean
John Sparks
> John, for God to be Just, Justice must be done. No matter that He
> provides Jesus as a vehicle, the fact remains that many people do not
> take that vehicle; therefore, those people fail to gain entry to
> Heaven. For most of these people, Justice is not done, because,
> despite being imperfect human beings, they do not deserve to be
> consigned to eternal torment, and Justice is about giving people what
> they deserve.
Think about what you are saying Dave. Justice DOES mean doing what is right
and giving people what they DESERVE. Which means:
1. We sinned against God
2. Justice demands that sin be punished by God. (we broke the law, we
deserve punishment)
Therefore, if God was ONLY Just and not Merciful. We would ALL go to hell,
and we ALL deserve to go to hell.
But God the Father is Merciful. So he gives us a way out. He decided that he
would allow his Son to pay the Just penalty of death so that we would not
have to. He still gives out the punishment that sin deserves, but pays for
it himself (Jesus is God the Son). Because the offense was against him, he
can pay for it himself to satisfy his Justice (if he chose someone else to
pay, that would not be just). So, in his mercy, he allows us to claim the
payment of Jesus as our payment of our deserved punishment.
If God just forgave sins without having a payment being made by Jesus, then
that too would be unjust. For how can he say to Dave Wheeler, OK I forgive
your sins because I want to, but then turn to Hitler and say, I don't
forgvie your since because I don't want to. That would be arbitrary and not
just. So there has to be a standard to measure who gets forgiven and who
doesn't. That standard is the acceptance of Jesus as your savior. What you
are doing is saying "I choose to submit to God and be on his side" by
accepting Jesus as your Lord and Master. Those who refuse to do that, are
refusing to be on God's team, in his family. It is their choice.
>
> Although I would concede that man's imperfection can lead to
> differences in opinion about what is good and bad, just and unjust, I
> maintain that such differences arise only in grey areas coloured by
> culture and religion and so forth (e.g. whether polygamy is
> acceptable, or the eating of pork). For the big issues there is no
> argument - for example, murder is universally labelled as 'bad'.
How about turning your back on the God who created you? By refusing to love
him and do as he says and live by his rules, you are turning your back on
him. Doesn't he have the right to tell you that by doing so, you can go and
spend eternity away from Him?
If I built a robot (just an example) and gave it free will, and that robot
decided he did not love me and wanted nothing to do with me, why would I be
obligated to let that robot live with me? If I told him "If you love me you
will do as I say." and he said "screw you. I want to do what I want to do,
not what you want me to do" - then he would not be welcome in my house. If
he wanted to enjoy my land and house, but have nothing to do with me, I
would have the right to kick him out, right?
> Similarly, eternal and unremitting torment for souls who are
> undeserving of such a fate is Unjust! It is no good saying that they
> should have taken the path offered to them by God via the Christian
> Church, because for many different reasons, millions simply haven't
> and won't take that path - these innocent souls paying with all
> eternity for a simple belief or misbelief is irrefutably unjust. And
> as God cannot be Unjust, God cannot therefore consign souls to Hell -
> it really is an impossibility if you think about it
I don't think that hell is God torturing people. I think that God's love and
companionship is so integral to our souls that if we were separated from God
completely (as when we are in hell) that our soul would feel so lonely,
cut-off and deprived that it would feel like torture to us. God is not
sticking pitchforks into them and roasting them on a rotiserie, he is just
withholding his love and comfort (that we all have right now, even the
wicked) and their souls will wither from the loss. And if we sin against
God, doesn't he have the right to withhold his presence from us if we reject
him? And God also restricts evil in the world and gives all of us good gifts
that we take for granted: wonderful food, air, rain, sunshine, families and
love of others. These gifts will not be given to those in hell, because they
rejected God, not because God rejected them.
> > But I contend that their are none who "come close" - everyone has moral
> > failures. No one lives up to their own standard of good. Not me, not
you,
> > not Ghandi, not Mother Theresa.
>
> This is agreed, because God is God and humans are humans. My point was
> that - let's take Gandhi - Gandhi, as a non-Christian, is now
> languishing in Hell, according to your doctrine. Does this strike you
> as fair, just and reasonable? If it does, I am afraid for your
> conception of morality, and if you are also telling me that God would
> consider this fair and just, then I am afraid for your conception of
> God.
Again, you see hell as god sending Ghandi off to a torture chamber, where
God says "Ha! Now you will get what you deserve! Take this! and This!"
But instead God might have said to Ghandi that you were loved by me and I
wanted you with me so much, but you refused my love and rejected my
salvation. So now you must go on for eternity with your choice, to live
without me and my love. Thy will be done.
God is so wonderful that just being with him will be heaven, and just being
without him will be hell.
Dave Wheeler
> and giving people what they DESERVE. Which means:
>
> 1. We sinned against God
> 2. Justice demands that sin be punished by God. (we broke the law, we
> deserve punishment)
Firstly, John, you are accepting that to deny Christ is to sin against
God, but why so? Is denial of Christ's divinity not 'ignorance' rather
than 'sin'? I am talking here about an individual who is devoted to
God - he may have the wrong conception of God, he may believe the
wrong details, but at heart he is God's. OK, you might reply that
"Ignorance of the law is no defence", but this maxim is not Just, it
is a human expedient (we have to invoke the "Ignorance is no defence"
maxim in a court of law to avoid the relentless use of ignorance as a
defence). But God knows all, and He knows if someone is really devoted
to Him, despite failing to accept, or know about, Christ. So you are
saying that unknowing, ignorant sin is still a sin and deserves
punishment?
Secondly, let's accept for the sake of argument that ignorant sin is
still a sin and deserving of punishment. OK, but shouldn't punishment
bear a relation to the sin? For example, on earth we hand out
punishments that we deem appropriate to the crime - we don't hang the
thief or fine the murderer. But you say that the Divine Law sentences
a soul, for an ignorant sin, to an eternal punishment without chance
of remission or rehabilitation. One mistake - the mistake of failing
to believe in Christ's divinity - and THAT'S IT! Now, I understand
that the system might be such that only a purity of essence, as gained
only from Christ, can gain entry to Heaven, but you are saying that
God does not give any SECOND chances (for example, a Just God might
have chosen to introduce reincarnation to provide a second chance, or
He might have ordered a fixed time in Limbo to repent and think about
the man's errors in life, or He may have made Christ's message more
discernible and accessible in life). That is not Justice
> Therefore, if God was ONLY Just and not Merciful. We would ALL go to hell,
> and we ALL deserve to go to hell.
No, John, you have got it the wrong way round. Mercy, or Mercifulness,
means making allowance for a person's sins, i.e. that millions of
innocent souls that had been sinful only in ignorance would have been
saved (or given more chances to be saved) from eternal Hell. If, as
you say, we ALL deserve to go to Hell, we would have to be all guilty
of a very serious sin, and that means intended and premeditated, and
not as innocent as a misbelief. You might criticise my human notion of
'sin' but again, as I have argued before about the meaning of Justice,
the word is a universally understood one except when clouded by
cultural differences. Sin is 'bad', but a misbelief is just a
misbelief
> But God the Father is Merciful. So he gives us a way out. He decided that he
> would allow his Son to pay the Just penalty of death so that we would not
> have to. He still gives out the punishment that sin deserves, but pays for
> it himself (Jesus is God the Son). Because the offense was against him, he
> can pay for it himself to satisfy his Justice (if he chose someone else to
> pay, that would not be just). So, in his mercy, he allows us to claim the
> payment of Jesus as our payment of our deserved punishment.
This is a large and contentious topic, but let's just settle on the
one salient point: How can a simple BELIEF lead to this "Get out of
Hell Free" card? And that's what it boils down to: a simple, human,
personal belief in Christ - not love of God, or good works, or a pure
nature (because millions of non-Christians have those attributes), but
a simple belief. If it's that easy, it devalues the love of God and
good works encouraged by all religions
> If God just forgave sins without having a payment being made by Jesus, then
> that too would be unjust. For how can he say to Dave Wheeler, OK I forgive
> your sins because I want to, but then turn to Hitler and say, I don't
> forgvie your since because I don't want to. That would be arbitrary and not
> just. So there has to be a standard to measure who gets forgiven and who
> doesn't. That standard is the acceptance of Jesus as your savior. What you
> are doing is saying "I choose to submit to God and be on his side" by
> accepting Jesus as your Lord and Master. Those who refuse to do that, are
> refusing to be on God's team, in his family. It is their choice.
Here's what would be Just:
God: "Dave Wheeler, you lived a generally good life, you sought truth
wherever you could find it. Unfortunately, you failed to believe in
the Christian doctrines, but I can hardly blame you for that as there
was a minefield of religious and philosophical material to choose
from. Your lack of belief does mean that you cannot come into Heaven,
however. Your sin deserves no punishment, apart from being banned from
Heaven for the while, but you must stay in Limbo until you learn the
truth about my Son"
"Hitler, you lived a murderous, brutal life, and were not even brought
to justice in your lifetime. You will be punished for a fixed term in
Limbo where you will live long hours in awareness of your distance
from God and in repentance for your crimes. After that, you will stay
for even longer while you learn the truth about my Son (for though you
professed a belief in Christianity, I know your heart)"
This, of course, is utterly fanciful, but I tell you what, it's more
just, in the universal and true meaning of the word, than Hitler and I
burning forever in a lake of fire.
> How about turning your back on the God who created you? By refusing to love
> him and do as he says and live by his rules, you are turning your back on
> him. Doesn't he have the right to tell you that by doing so, you can go and
> spend eternity away from Him?
But as I said above, this is not about turning one's back on God. This
is only about failing to believe in Christ's divinity. Do you not see
the difference?
> If I built a robot (just an example) and gave it free will, and that robot
> decided he did not love me and wanted nothing to do with me, why would I be
> obligated to let that robot live with me? If I told him "If you love me you
> will do as I say." and he said "screw you. I want to do what I want to do,
> not what you want me to do" - then he would not be welcome in my house. If
> he wanted to enjoy my land and house, but have nothing to do with me, I
> would have the right to kick him out, right?
You would explain better what he had previously failed to understand,
and when he realised his errors, he would come back to you
whole-robot-heartedly. We, on the other hand, have got to rely on
certain ancient revelations that may or may not have been actual
divine revelations. If God wants us to believe (and after all,
according to the parable with the one lost sheep out of the flock of
100, He does want us all to believe), why does He not get His message
across better. You could do a better job with your robot than He is
doing with us!
> I don't think that hell is God torturing people. I think that God's love and
> companionship is so integral to our souls that if we were separated from God
> completely (as when we are in hell) that our soul would feel so lonely,
> cut-off and deprived that it would feel like torture to us. God is not
> sticking pitchforks into them and roasting them on a rotiserie, he is just
> withholding his love and comfort (that we all have right now, even the
> wicked) and their souls will wither from the loss. And if we sin against
> God, doesn't he have the right to withhold his presence from us if we reject
> him? And God also restricts evil in the world and gives all of us good gifts
> that we take for granted: wonderful food, air, rain, sunshine, families and
> love of others. These gifts will not be given to those in hell, because they
> rejected God, not because God rejected them.
Before we go any further, the Christian Church and its inhabitants
really should be getting their definitions right. The Bible says that
Hell is an eternal lake of fire. Is this an allegory for 'distance
from God', and if so, why did preachers warn of 'burning in Hell'?
> Again, you see hell as god sending Ghandi off to a torture chamber, where
> God says "Ha! Now you will get what you deserve! Take this! and This!"
Well, that's how the Bible portrays it!! I actually don't see God as
sending anyone to hell, as you know; it's the bible that dishes out
this torture chamber imagery. It's the Bible that created the kind of
imagery that all Christians used to have, as in Dante's Inferno
(although that poem does draw on classical mythology as well).
Christians now have a more palatable 'distance from God' image of
Hell. What's the real story?
> But instead God might have said to Ghandi that you were loved by me and I
> wanted you with me so much, but you refused my love and rejected my
> salvation. So now you must go on for eternity with your choice, to live
> without me and my love. Thy will be done.
>
> God is so wonderful that just being with him will be heaven, and just being
> without him will be hell.
See above. You seem to be saying that God says "Ha, you've made you
choice, now you're going to have to deal with it!"
I feel that I have gained the upperhand in this debate, John - what
are you going to pull out of the bag this time? ;-)
John Sparks
> Firstly, John, you are accepting that to deny Christ is to sin against
> God, but why so? Is denial of Christ's divinity not 'ignorance' rather
> than 'sin'?
If Jesus is God and you reject him, then you are rejecting God. Even if
Jesus is not God, but just his chosen representative, if you reject him, you
are rejecting God. I am speaking of willful rejection, such as you are
doing, not ignorant rejection as for someone who has not heard about Jesus.
Rejection of God is a sin, because how can you reconcile with someone who
you reject? If you had a son who rejected you and ran away from home, how
can he come back home if he refuses to? It's a catch 22. If you reject God,
how can you be with God? That makes it a sin.
It is funny but people always bring up "what about some ignorant savage on
an island who never heard of Jesus...." But that really is a dodge because
they (and you) DO know about Jesus and have access to the gospel, so you
have no excuse, so it does no good to speculate about these savages on
remote islands since you are not one. But I will play along...
>I am talking here about an individual who is devoted to
> God - he may have the wrong conception of God, he may believe the
> wrong details, but at heart he is God's. OK, you might reply that
> "Ignorance of the law is no defence", but this maxim is not Just, it
> is a human expedient (we have to invoke the "Ignorance is no defence"
> maxim in a court of law to avoid the relentless use of ignorance as a
> defence). But God knows all, and He knows if someone is really devoted
> to Him, despite failing to accept, or know about, Christ. So you are
> saying that unknowing, ignorant sin is still a sin and deserves
> punishment?
I never said "ignorance of the law is no defense" instead I said that if
you sin without knowing it, the bible says God takes that into
consideration. It is when you sin, knowing full well what you are doing then
you condemn yourself. Go back and read my earlier post. And we have all done
that, done what is wrong even though we know it was wrong.
If someone did not know of Jesus, but did love God, and somehow realized
that he was a sinner and did not live up to his own standard's much less
God's, and he prayed to God, throwing himself at God's mercy and asked God
to save him, I think God would do so (see #1 below). But if he knew about
Jesus and rejected that Jesus was God's sacrifice, then he has no standing
to come before God and say "I am a sinner, save me, but by the way, I don't
believe all that Jesus stuff" - He has heard the truth and rejected it. He
rejected the chosen one of God, so how can he come to God for forgiveness?
(#1) - The bible says that no-one seeks after God, that God has to seek
after them, so I don't think an ignorant savage would ever seek after God on
his own. But, If he made the slightest effort, I think God would make sure
that he heard about the Gospel, whether by sending someone to him, like when
he sent Peter to the Centurian in Acts, or he could give them a vision, like
he did with Paul. God is in control of where you are born, where you live,
and when you live. He also knows everything you will ever do or say. He
knows if savage XX will respond to the gospel or not, and he will make sure
that everyone who will respond will get a chance. At the Judgement day no
one will be able to say God was unjust.
>
> Secondly, let's accept for the sake of argument that ignorant sin is
> still a sin and deserving of punishment. OK, but shouldn't punishment
> bear a relation to the sin? For example, on earth we hand out
> punishments that we deem appropriate to the crime - we don't hang the
> thief or fine the murderer. But you say that the Divine Law sentences
> a soul, for an ignorant sin, to an eternal punishment without chance
> of remission or rehabilitation. One mistake - the mistake of failing
> to believe in Christ's divinity - and THAT'S IT! Now, I understand
> that the system might be such that only a purity of essence, as gained
> only from Christ, can gain entry to Heaven, but you are saying that
> God does not give any SECOND chances (for example, a Just God might
> have chosen to introduce reincarnation to provide a second chance, or
> He might have ordered a fixed time in Limbo to repent and think about
> the man's errors in life, or He may have made Christ's message more
> discernible and accessible in life). That is not Justice
God gives you plenty of chances while you are alive. He is a God of many
chances. As many times as you turn away from him, he still waits with open
arms for you to return. But when you die, that is it. You have no more
chances, so don't waste them. Turn to God now. You know the gospel, so you
have no excuse. What good would reincarnation do? If you had two lifetimes
of chances and still refused God you would still be in trouble.
And I don't think you (or I for that matter) really understand what a
grievous offense a sin, any sin, is to God. Sin tore us away from Him,
separated us from him and caused us to have a spiritual death. If something
tore you and your child apart, even if it was a small thing, it would still
be horrible and terrible in its consequences. And if you sent out someone to
fetch your child back and he refused to come because he did not believe the
person who you sent, then that would keep you apart forever. Well we believe
that God did not just send "somebody" he sent himself (the Father sent the
Son) and people rejected him.
>
> > Therefore, if God was ONLY Just and not Merciful. We would ALL go to
hell,
> > and we ALL deserve to go to hell.
>
> No, John, you have got it the wrong way round. Mercy, or Mercifulness,
> means making allowance for a person's sins, i.e. that millions of
> innocent souls that had been sinful only in ignorance would have been
> saved (or given more chances to be saved) from eternal Hell. If, as
> you say, we ALL deserve to go to Hell, we would have to be all guilty
> of a very serious sin, and that means intended and premeditated, and
> not as innocent as a misbelief.
Yep. and we are (all guilty of premeditated sin) and God will not punish you
for ignorance. But misbelief is a misnomer. Refusing to believe his
salvation when you have heard it, that is not misbelief, but NON belief, a
refusal to believe, a rejection of God.
..
>
> This is a large and contentious topic, but let's just settle on the
> one salient point: How can a simple BELIEF lead to this "Get out of
> Hell Free" card? And that's what it boils down to: a simple, human,
> personal belief in Christ - not love of God, or good works, or a pure
> nature (because millions of non-Christians have those attributes), but
> a simple belief. If it's that easy, it devalues the love of God and
> good works encouraged by all religions
Hmm. it devalues no such thing. To say that you can earn your own way to
heaven means that you are "better" than the poor souls who can't do that. It
gives you a reason to brag and be proud of yourself. It makes you the one in
control, not God. God doing it all for you and only requiring you to accept
his salvation method, that takes away all of the bragging and ego and then
God gets the glory, not David Wheeler. The good works are a side dish. They
are required to show you are on God's side and want to be like him, good and
help others. It doesn't earn you salvation. Salvation is freely given out of
love, but if you refuse out of pride, then you are saying "I am in control"
again. God wants you to submit your will to him and obey him with an open
heart.
As I said in another thread, long, long ago... :-)
If you were dying from some poison you ingested and I came up to you and
said "you are going to die unless you take this antidote" and I told you
that I was once poisoned myself and I know it will work and it is free....
All you have to do is "believe" me and take the antidote. Belief is all it
takes. Refusal to believe will mean you will die. You can say "I don't
believe you, and I won't take your antivenom. There must be some way I can
cure myself" but there is no other way (in this example), then you will die
in your unbelief. Now this is just an analogy, so don't try to take it too
far.
> Here's what would be Just:
>
> God: "Dave Wheeler, you lived a generally good life, you sought truth
> wherever you could find it. Unfortunately, you failed to believe in
> the Christian doctrines, but I can hardly blame you for that as there
> was a minefield of religious and philosophical material to choose
> from. Your lack of belief does mean that you cannot come into Heaven,
> however. Your sin deserves no punishment, apart from being banned from
> Heaven for the while, but you must stay in Limbo until you learn the
> truth about my Son"
>
> "Hitler, you lived a murderous, brutal life, and were not even brought
> to justice in your lifetime. You will be punished for a fixed term in
> Limbo where you will live long hours in awareness of your distance
> from God and in repentance for your crimes. After that, you will stay
> for even longer while you learn the truth about my Son (for though you
> professed a belief in Christianity, I know your heart)"
But again, you play down sin too much here. Sin is much more destructive
than that. Professing a belief in Jesus does not save you. TRUSTING in Jesus
saves you. Just like you would have to trust me that I was telling you the
truth about the poison/antidote in order to actually TAKE the antidote, you
have to trust that Jesus will save you and then he actually will. Jesus does
the saving, trust is just the doorway to get that salvation. If I gave you a
present and you never opened it, you would never have gotten the gift, just
a box. Jesus's salvation, his sacrifice is done for anyone (a wrapped up
present) - you just have to make that sacrifice your own (open it)
(had enough analogies yet, heheh?)
> > If I built a robot (just an example) and gave it free will, and that
robot
> > decided he did not love me and wanted nothing to do with me, why would I
be
> > obligated to let that robot live with me? If I told him "If you love me
you
> > will do as I say." and he said "screw you. I want to do what I want to
do,
> > not what you want me to do" - then he would not be welcome in my house.
If
> > he wanted to enjoy my land and house, but have nothing to do with me, I
> > would have the right to kick him out, right?
>
> You would explain better what he had previously failed to understand,
> and when he realised his errors, he would come back to you
> whole-robot-heartedly.
If he did, I would forgive him. But if he refused to change? If he refused
to love me as his creator and still wanted to live on my dime, drinking up
all my oil and pissing battery acid on my good furniture, would I have the
right to kick him out? Out evil Bender (bad futurama pun :-) )
We, on the other hand, have got to rely on
> certain ancient revelations that may or may not have been actual
> divine revelations. If God wants us to believe (and after all,
> according to the parable with the one lost sheep out of the flock of
> 100, He does want us all to believe), why does He not get His message
> across better. You could do a better job with your robot than He is
> doing with us!
I think he is doing a pretty good job. Jesus is known throughout the world.
The word is out. But people still refuse to believe. And heck, he came in
person 2000 years ago and they still refused to believe so I don't think any
magical sky writing or apearances now would make much difference. Today we
would chalk it up to special effects or mass delusion. People have free will
and they can and do refuse. But many do believe and are saved.
Come on David! Join us! (you know you want to <grin>) I'll skootch over on
my pew so you can have a seat on the Jesus train.
> Before we go any further, the Christian Church and its inhabitants
> really should be getting their definitions right. The Bible says that
> Hell is an eternal lake of fire. Is this an allegory for 'distance
> from God', and if so, why did preachers warn of 'burning in Hell'?
The bible speaks of hell in different ways. One is the Outer Darkness Where
There Will Be Gnashing of Teeth. How can it be both a fire and darkness? I
think it is allegory. And just as the bible speaks of different rewards in
heaven, many christians believe that there are varying "levels" of
punishment in hell. Jesus aludes to this when he says "I tell you, it will
be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town [Capurnam]" So
Hitler will get a tougher afterlife than someone who only refused to believe
in Jesus but lead a good life (by human standards).
> Well, that's how the Bible portrays it!! I actually don't see God as
> sending anyone to hell, as you know; it's the bible that dishes out
> this torture chamber imagery. It's the Bible that created the kind of
> imagery that all Christians used to have, as in Dante's Inferno
> (although that poem does draw on classical mythology as well).
> Christians now have a more palatable 'distance from God' image of
> Hell. What's the real story?
Hell will never be palatable. You really don't want to go there, Dave. It
wont be party central.
> > God is so wonderful that just being with him will be heaven, and just
being
> > without him will be hell.
>
> See above. You seem to be saying that God says "Ha, you've made you
> choice, now you're going to have to deal with it!"
But without the "Ha!" - He takes no pleasure in it. It grieves him. But he
will let your life choice be your eternal choice. Don't say we didn't warn
you. You know the score.
Stop fighting it and accept Jesus.
Just pray to God: "God I admit I haven't done right and that makes me a
sinner. I am sorry. I believe you sent Jesus to pay for my sins and I want
him to be my Lord and Savior. Save me Lord. Thank you, Amen. "
Then you don't have to worry about the what if's of your soul. You will be
right with God.
>
> I feel that I have gained the upperhand in this debate, John - what
> are you going to pull out of the bag this time? ;-)
Hmm. Most of what you said was misunderstanding of what I said before so all
I did was correct that. I think we are back to where we were last round.
By the way, Dave. I really appreciate that we can discuss this civily and
even with humor. It makes it so much more enjoyable than some of the threads
that go on in this newsgroup (I take the blame for some of that too and have
resolved to be more polite in the future with anyone I debate with.)
Thanks.
The LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.
John Sparks
> shouldn't punishment
> bear a relation to the sin? But you say that the Divine Law sentences
> a soul, for an ignorant sin, to an eternal punishment without chance
> of remission or rehabilitation. One mistake - the mistake of failing
> to believe in Christ's divinity - and THAT'S IT!
I thought of another analogy after I posted my other reply. (woo hoo another
analogy, eh?)
If I gave you a glass of pure water and told you to drink it, would you?
If I put a spoonful of raw sewage in the water, would you drink it?
How about just one drop of raw sewage?
All sin pollutes our entire soul and any sin pollutes our entire soul. The
effects of sin changed our pure souls into one that turns away from God, it
even corrupted God's entire universe. There was no death or suffering or
even tornadoes or earthquakes until sin entered the world. Somehow sin
brought down creation with it, and it won't be restored until God remakes
the world after Jesus comes back (read end of Revelation)
Because sin entered the world we have sickness, divorce, pain, suffering,
death, anger, hatred and evil. One person's sin is not an island, it affects
everyone around him, spreading out like ripples in a pond. Throw enough
rocks in a pond and you will have a real mess of waves on your hand. Sin is
not just some little gaff on our part, it is the reason why we have all the
problems in the world that we have. That is why God hates sin so much and
why even one sin is important to God.
John
Gilberto Simpson
> It is funny but people always bring up "what about some ignorant savage on
> an island who never heard of Jesus...." But that really is a dodge because
> they (and you) DO know about Jesus and have access to the gospel, so you
> have no excuse, so it does no good to speculate about these savages on
> remote islands since you are not one.
But at what point does that accountability happen? Think about it this
way. Forget the savage on the remote island for a sec. Suppose I'm a
sophisticated well read intelligent person. I know that there are
hundreds and thousands of different religions in the world all
claiming to be the true one. Some say to follow some guy named the
Buddha. Some say to follow Muhammad. Some say to follow Bahaullah,
Lao-Tzu, Conmfucious, John Africa, Lord Matraya, etc.
They all seem to be telling their followers to do pretty decent stuff.
Give money to charity. Be nice to your neighbors. Respect your
parents. And so on and so on. So now here is my question. At what
point is the case for Christianity so compelling that people can be
held morally sinful for rejecting it? What aregument do you have for
Christianity that puts it so head and shoulders above the crowd that
someone should be punished for not accepting it?
>
> If someone did not know of Jesus, but did love God, and somehow realized
> that he was a sinner and did not live up to his own standard's much less
> God's, and he prayed to God, throwing himself at God's mercy and asked God
> to save him, I think God would do so (see #1 below).
Ok.
But if he knew about
> Jesus and rejected that Jesus was God's sacrifice, then he has no standing
> to come before God and say "I am a sinner, save me, but by the way, I don't
> believe all that Jesus stuff" - He has heard the truth and rejected it. He
> rejected the chosen one of God, so how can he come to God for forgiveness?
>
So another way at getting at a related question (to mine above) would
be to ask at what point is the line between having heard about Jesus
and *knowing* about Jesus. I mean, suppose all I've heard about Jesus
is that he is the God of a group of people called Christians who have
done (like other groups) a number of horrible violent things in
history, the inquisitions, the crusades, pogroms against the Jews,
cooperating with the slave trade, etc....
>
Peace
Gilberto
Knocky
>So another way at getting at a related question (to mine above) would be to
ask at what point is the line between having heard about Jesus and *knowing*
about Jesus. I mean, suppose all I've heard about Jesus is that he is the God
of a group of people called Christians who have done (like other groups) a
number of horrible violent things in history, the inquisitions, the crusades,
pogroms against the Jews,
>cooperating with the slave trade
Leaving aside for the time being the sins commited by some who call themselve
Christain (which may not in some cases be even sins) what you are looking for
is a course in Christian aplogetics which justifies the set of books called
the Bible as being inspired by God. This can be done (I think), but it will
take a lot of words.
John Sparks
> "John Sparks" <john...@mystique.net> wrote in message news:<Hv9xc.13721$9g6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
>
> But at what point does that accountability happen? Think about it this
> way. Forget the savage on the remote island for a sec. Suppose I'm a
> sophisticated well read intelligent person. I know that there are
> hundreds and thousands of different religions in the world all
> claiming to be the true one. Some say to follow some guy named the
> Buddha. Some say to follow Muhammad. Some say to follow Bahaullah,
> Lao-Tzu, Conmfucious, John Africa, Lord Matraya, etc.
> They all seem to be telling their followers to do pretty decent stuff.
> Give money to charity. Be nice to your neighbors. Respect your
> parents. And so on and so on. So now here is my question. At what
> point is the case for Christianity so compelling that people can be
> held morally sinful for rejecting it? What aregument do you have for
> Christianity that puts it so head and shoulders above the crowd that
> someone should be punished for not accepting it?
First, I am not saying that you won't get into heaven because it is
morally sinful to reject Jesus, as if God is mad at you for not
picking Jesus and says "You bad man! you reject Jesus! To Hell with
You" (although I do belive it is morally sinful) - I am saying that
Jesus is the ACTUAL way that anyone gets saved. He is the ticket, the
doorway, the gateway. He is the Method itself. If you reject the
method, how can you be saved by it?
If I tell a foreigner that in order for him to become a citizen of the
US he must take an Oath of Loyalty, what good would it do for him to
say he doesn't believe me? If he refuses to take the Oath, he will not
be granted Citizenship. There is no use complaining that it is not
fair or that he should be granted citizenship because he swore an oath
to another country or is a really nice guy. It is the way it is. He
must take the Oath in order to be granted Citizenship.
You want to be a Citizen of Heaven, you have to swear an oath of
loyalty to Jesus.
God said you need to be perfect like him in order to get to heaven and
we aren't, so we can't get there on our own. But God sent Jesus to
provide a way into heaven. Basically, it is the same with our
Citizenship analogy. You can be born in the US and get your
citizenship that way, or you can take the Oath and become one that
way. The US doesn't HAVE to let you become a Citizen if you weren't
born here, but they do as an unmerited favor. God doesn't HAVE to let
us into heaven if we aren't perfect, but he does as unmerited favor
(mercy) and the way he does it is with Jesus. Take the "Oath" or leave
it. Your Choice.
Even the savage that might get saved in ignorance will still be saved
through Jesus and what he did. No one gets into heaven without Jesus.
>
> So another way at getting at a related question (to mine above) would
> be to ask at what point is the line between having heard about Jesus
> and *knowing* about Jesus. I mean, suppose all I've heard about Jesus
> is that he is the God of a group of people called Christians who have
> done (like other groups) a number of horrible violent things in
> history, the inquisitions, the crusades, pogroms against the Jews,
> cooperating with the slave trade, etc....
God can provide ways for a person who seeks him to get the truth of
Jesus. In the bible there was a "savage" (a roman centurion), who
believed in God and did what was right, God honored his belief and
sent the apostle Peter to preach to him (I will post the verses
below.) He probably heard about Jesus in a rumor sort of way, as an
insurrectionist or criminal but He did not believe. When he heard
about Jesus from Peter he believed and was saved. God does that today
also. If someone even hints at wanting to be forgiven and follow God,
God will get the information to him. He is all powerful and all
knowing after all. Can you claim that you don't know about Jesus, or
anyone you know that doesn't know about Jesus or even not enough to
make a decision to believe or reject him?
God will make sure you know about the true Jesus if you show the
slighted interest in him. He can send missionaries, visions, books,
internet posts, web sites, pamphlets, radio and TV messages all your
way. No one will have an excuse on Judgement day. Whether you believe
in Jesus or reject him will be your own decision.
==
Acts 10
1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was
known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and
God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God
regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision.
He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said,
"Cornelius!"
4Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked.
5The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up
as a memorial offering before God. Now send men to Joppa to bring back
a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6He is staying with Simon the
tanner, whose house is by the sea."
7When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his
servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. 8He told
them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.
[snip peter's vision for brevity]
21Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking
for. Why have you come?"
22The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a
righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish
people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he
could hear what you have to say." 23Then Peter invited the men into
the house to be his guests.
24The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers
from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea.
Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and
close friends. 25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and
fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. "Stand
up," he said, "I am only a man myself."
27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of
people. 28He 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. 29So when I
was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you
sent for me?"
30Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this
hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes
stood before me 31and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and
remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is
called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives
by the sea.' 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you
to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to
everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."
34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God
does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear
him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the
people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ,
who is Lord of all. 37You know what has happened throughout Judea,
beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached-- 38how God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he
went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the
devil, because God was with him.
39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews
and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God
raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.
41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had
already chosen--by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from
the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify
that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the
dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes
in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on
all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come
with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been
poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in
tongues[2] and praising God.
47Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized
with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So
he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then
they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
John Sparks
Quasin
The Bible offers an intriguing example of what God means by justice,
in the nativity story.
Joseph thought Mary had committed sexual sin. "Being a just man," he
decided to quietly dissolve their relationship.
The law allowed him to have her stoned.
Apparently, just men choose to NOT impose the law's permitted penalty.
God is just.
Dave Wheeler
> Jesus is not God, but just his chosen representative, if you reject him, you
> are rejecting God. I am speaking of willful rejection, such as you are
> doing, not ignorant rejection as for someone who has not heard about Jesus.
> Rejection of God is a sin, because how can you reconcile with someone who
> you reject? If you had a son who rejected you and ran away from home, how
> can he come back home if he refuses to? It's a catch 22. If you reject God,
> how can you be with God? That makes it a sin.
Hi John! I cannot agree that a believer in God who rejects (does not
believe in the divinity of) Jesus is rejecting God, even if Jesus
actually is God. For example, I have heard people explaining the
Trinity with the analogy of water, ice and steam. If I believe in
water but not in ice, am I not still believing in water? Similarly,
others have used the analogy of a man being a father, son and brother
all at the same time - if I believe that a man is a father but not a
brother, am I rejecting the man? No, I simply have an inaccurate
conception of him
> It is funny but people always bring up "what about some ignorant savage on
> an island who never heard of Jesus...." But that really is a dodge because
> they (and you) DO know about Jesus and have access to the gospel, so you
> have no excuse, so it does no good to speculate about these savages on
> remote islands since you are not one.
Indeed I am not one of these 'savages' but it is still eminently
worthwhile to speculate about them because we are not talking just
about me but the whole of humanity, as it is the whole of humanity
that God has an interest in
> (#1) - The bible says that no-one seeks after God, that God has to seek
> after them, so I don't think an ignorant savage would ever seek after God on
> his own. But, If he made the slightest effort, I think God would make sure
> that he heard about the Gospel, whether by sending someone to him, like when
> he sent Peter to the Centurian in Acts, or he could give them a vision, like
> he did with Paul.
Come on, I'm not letting you get away with that! I would warrant that
there are people even today who have never heard of Christ. Even if
this is wrong, then certainly in days gone by it would certainly be
the case. In the first century AD there were people living on the
islands at the southernmost tip of South America - do you seriously
believe these people had a chance of hearing the Gospel?
> God gives you plenty of chances while you are alive. He is a God of many
> chances. As many times as you turn away from him, he still waits with open
> arms for you to return. But when you die, that is it.
Yes, John, and this is Unjust, because if a person errs for one reason
and he is not 'put right' then he will likely err and err again.
Christianity, for many reasons, is not putting everybody right. I
liked your analogy of the antidote, John, but here's another analogy:
you have a litter of kittens on your cold driveway and you would like
them to come into the warmth of the kitchen. For this purpose you have
created a cat-flap and got a mother cat to 'show them the way'. What
happens? Some kittens will follow the example; some will even follow
other kittens. Others, however, will stay on the driveway, and even
when you try to entice them by pointing at the cat-flap, the kittens
are more likely to stare innocently at your finger than at the
cat-flap. They freeze for evermore on the driveway. Now, your plan has
failed - shouldn't you be thinking about a better plan?
Here's the insuperable paradox about Christianity:
Either:
1) God wants ALL His children to return to the Kingdom of Heaven
2) His scheme to enable them to do so is to believe in Jesus Christ
3) It only works for SOME and therefore the scheme is flawed and God
is Imperfect
Or:
1) God has to accept that only SOME of His children will believe in
Jesus Christ because He has endowed them with freewill and the ability
to 'reject'
2) Many of these children are innocent and ignorant and for their
failings are punished by eternal estrangement from God
3) Many of them, moreover, imitated Christ in their morality far
better than many Christians do
4) Therefore, God is Unjust
It is no good saying that God is 'sad' that His children 'reject' Him.
A perfect being has no need to be sad when His omnipotence allows Him
to conceive a much better scheme. That is, your simple 'antidote'
needs to have clearer instructions.
As a further point, note that Deism - a belief in one perfect God but
a rejection of Christian doctrine - does away with away with the
paradox of Imperfection versus Unjustness. It recognises the
Perfection of God in the creation around him - who needs a
'revelation' that is capable of being disbelieved, mistranslated,
doctored, and incapable of perfect dissemination, when the beauty of
Nature and the earth and heavens is immutable and open to every single
person?
Further, if there is no permanent estrangment from God, but a gradual
development of each individual towards perfection in this life AND the
next, then the Injustice problem is evaporated. Is Deism too
simplistic and idealistic? Well, suspend your disbelief for one moment
and imagine the Scriptures were totally man-made - suddenly Deism
becomes a more realistic proposition (as Christianity is, in this
hypothesis, wrong). If it does not, then I'm afraid Atheism, or the
belief in an impersonal God (Nature), become better contenders
(certainly better than Islam!)
> And I don't think you (or I for that matter) really understand what a
> grievous offense a sin, any sin, is to God. Sin tore us away from Him,
> separated us from him and caused us to have a spiritual death. If something
> tore you and your child apart, even if it was a small thing, it would still
> be horrible and terrible in its consequences. And if you sent out someone to
> fetch your child back and he refused to come because he did not believe the
> person who you sent, then that would keep you apart forever. Well we believe
> that God did not just send "somebody" he sent himself (the Father sent the
> Son) and people rejected him.
But continuing on from my kitten analogy, and despite anything the
First Man and Woman might have done, God has responsibility, desire,
and the Power, to effect a better outcome. You have Him feeling sad
and rejected by His children - effectively, you call God impotent. God
knows full well that a person cannot switch on or off a belief in
Jesus's divinity. You encourage me to join the Jesus train, but if I
do that only half-heartedly, what would God think of that? If He laid
a trail of sardines between me and the cat-flap, perhaps I would
follow. So far, He has sent me only you, John, ;-) and although I am
thoroughly enjoying these mental jousts, you are failing to convince
me that under the Christian scheme God is neither Imperfect nor Unjust
> Yep. and we are (all guilty of premeditated sin) and God will not punish you
> for ignorance. But misbelief is a misnomer. Refusing to believe his
> salvation when you have heard it, that is not misbelief, but NON belief, a
> refusal to believe, a rejection of God.
No! It is simply 'failing to believe'; it is not conscious rejection.
God gave us the faculty of Reason. When I use my reason, I find that I
fail to believe in Jesus. I am not consciously rejecting God and
consciously sinning, nor am I doing this from 'pride'. I may be
unconsciously rejecting God, and unconsciously sinning - BUT, what can
I do about my unconscious acts?
> If you were dying from some poison you ingested and I came up to you and
> said "you are going to die unless you take this antidote" and I told you
> that I was once poisoned myself and I know it will work and it is free....
> All you have to do is "believe" me and take the antidote. Belief is all it
> takes. Refusal to believe will mean you will die. You can say "I don't
> believe you, and I won't take your antivenom. There must be some way I can
> cure myself" but there is no other way (in this example), then you will die
> in your unbelief. Now this is just an analogy, so don't try to take it too
> far.
Yes, as I said, it's a good analogy (if true), but there is a flaw. In
your scenario, all I would need do is take the antidote and no harm
done. But I can't just 'take Christ' - as I said, I can't simply
switch on a belief; it has to come naturally. This is the problem that
Christians seem to forget; they say it's 'easy' and 'simple' - 'just
believe'. But belief is not a case of deciding to take one or another
route, or doing one or another thing. Belief is a profound part of the
fabric that makes up a human being, and the nature of God-given Reason
is such that either good evidence has to back up the belief (I believe
in electricity because I can use it even if I don't understand it) or
a good intellectual argument where the evidence does not exist (I
believe the universe is infinite because it is harder to believe in
its ending, or I believe in God because the intellectual arguments for
His existence make sense to, or at least do not offend, my Reason)
> If he did, I would forgive him. But if he refused to change? If he refused
> to love me as his creator and still wanted to live on my dime, drinking up
> all my oil and pissing battery acid on my good furniture, would I have the
> right to kick him out? Out evil Bender (bad futurama pun :-) )
No John, because he is only a robot - that you built - and you should
take the responsibility for him. Let's say you knew his program would
not work (and here I am referring to God's knowledge that Adam would
turn his back on him, on the basis that God knows past, present and
future) - you should have worked harder on the program. In fact, you
could have reprogrammed him before he had a chance to create billions
of descendant robots!
> I think he is doing a pretty good job. Jesus is known throughout the world.
> The word is out. But people still refuse to believe. And heck, he came in
> person 2000 years ago and they still refused to believe so I don't think any
> magical sky writing or apearances now would make much difference. Today we
> would chalk it up to special effects or mass delusion. People have free will
> and they can and do refuse. But many do believe and are saved.
He IS doing a bad job! Jesus may be known throughout the world but so
is Buddha and the Beatles. And if miracles worked in those early days,
why would they not work now? Some would indeed suspect special effects
and mass delusion at first, but repeated, sustained miracles would
ultimately work very well
> Come on David! Join us! (you know you want to <grin>) I'll skootch over on
> my pew so you can have a seat on the Jesus train.
Well, make sure it's good and polished, heh, heh!
> By the way, Dave. I really appreciate that we can discuss this civily and
> even with humor. It makes it so much more enjoyable than some of the threads
> that go on in this newsgroup (I take the blame for some of that too and have
> resolved to be more polite in the future with anyone I debate with.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> The LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.
Very kind, thank you
rtda...@yahoo.com
In order for us to be "just" we should NOT punish crimes?
Do you really mean to interpret it that way?
dave
rtda...@yahoo.com
Hi Dave,
I had been waiting for you to write more, but perhaps you have been
sidetracked or decided not to return to this.
> > Two issues with the argument are still:
> > Our sense of justice must equal Gods
> > Entrance to heaven criterion.
>
> Yes, on the matter of our hypothetical soul. I do not claim that man's
> sense of justice should be equal to God's sense, i.e. any quality in
> man, I understand, should be imperfect when contrasted with the same
> quality in God, thus man's sense of justice would not be expected to
> be perfect. But, in the example I used, can my, or man's, notion of
> justice be so far removed from God's?
Yes. That is exactly my point.
The general sense of justice: wrong deserves to be punished, is
intact.
The application is liable to our weakness.
So while the general sense can be derived from a creator, our sense of
application in specific instances cannot.
You moved from a general into a specific, so as has been argued it
falls under the rubric of being untrustworthy.
> > While accepting that an overall sense of justice would be derived from
> > God, we cannot assume our applications of justice to individual cases
> > being equal to how God would apply justice. Why is this important? You
> > may argue that you are talking about the overall sense, but I would
> > argue that you are not.
>
> But why?
Because the fact that we have a sense of justice; wrong deserves
punishment, does not mean that we can equate our sense of HOW justice
would be applied in individual cases.
Once you apply it, you move from the general to the application so it
is no longer equitable with God
> We are talking about this one person, who lived an exemplary
> life, but who, for whatever reason, failed to accept Christ into his
> life. He is, apparently, doomed to suffer eternal torment.
1. The standard of conduct is not "exemplary", it is perfect. The
entrance requirement for heaven is not "exemplary" behavior, it is
perfection. And perfect encompasses A LOT. It covers not only moral
conduct and action, but motive as well.
2. IF we were created, and there is a heaven, then we were created to
dwell with God. In fact this is what the Bible teaches. So IF that is
the case, then we can see there is a further problem by populating
heaven with those that are simply good: they will not necessarily stay
good. God cannot create a perfect society out of people that are not
committed to him and his goals.
Someone may live an exemplary life but not necessarily love God above
all else. However, if he does not, then it would destroy the very idea
of heaven. Acknowledgement of God is primary, acknowledgment of sin is
primary. Acknowledgement of a covering for our sin is primary.
There simply MUST be a recognition of sin, an acceptance of a covering
for that sin, and a pledge of service to God. Exemplary behavior is
just not enough.
> I think this is unfair.
> According to you, God must think the scenario is
> actually fair and that therefore my conception of fairness is
> imperfect. But, consider my judgment in human, earth-bound cases. A
> man murders with no mitigation: I consider him guilty and deserving of
> a penalty for his anti-social act. I con a friend of mine out of some
> money: I know I have acted unjustly. I read a story in the newspaper
> about a corporation that has been proved to have been guilty of
> corruption: I judge that that company is not a good company. My
> notions of justice are universally approved - but when I judge this
> hypothetical situation concerning non-Christians and Hell, suddenly my
> conceptions of fairness and justice are not to be trusted. Why not?
For the aforementioned reasons.
Your argument is really something like "I think this is unfair". I
don't know how to say this more clearly than my previous argument, but
we cannot automatically equate our reasoning with Gods.
As should be proven by the fact that I disagree with you. We can't
both be right, because God can only have one sense of justice, while
amongst humans there are variations. Therefore we cannot equate our
application of justice with God.
Considering your judgment is human cases is a case in point. Your
notions are not "universally approved". Some may agree with you,
others will not, THIS is the problem. You cannot automatically equate
your application of justice with Gods.
You seem to understand this on one hand, then on the other hand you
turn right around and do it.
Your argument still comes down to this: Dave Wheeler thinks it is
unfair that God should send certain people to Hell, therefore God must
think the same way.
To reword it in a way perhaps more acceptable to you, most people feel
it is unfair that God should send certain people to Hell, therefore
God must think the same way.
But let's take it to the extreme: 100% of humanity feels it is unfair
that God should send certain people to Hell, therefore God must think
the same way.
This is still not a guarantee of our thoughts = Gods thoughts.
Factor in that the third is flat out untrue and we are left with an
unjustifiable position of equating our own application of justice to
Gods without reason.
That God would have a perfect standard of conduct, based on his own
innate perfection follows. We can accept that God should demand
perfection, and in fact logic would seem to necessitate that. After
all if God did not have a standard that was perfect, then he would not
be perfect himself.
One would also have to admit that given the free nature of humans it
is not necessary that we think in accord with God. In fact that we
have different sets of notions among ourselves and God could only have
one set, is proof that we cannot necessarily equate our particular
sets of notions with Gods. It would be feasible that an individual
human could hold to the exact same set as God, but we cannot simply
assume that our particular set does so without some reason. And it is
beyond our ability to prove if indeed any individual human actually
does hold the same set. If it cannot be proven that any individual
human holds the exact same set of notions as God, then it is
impossible to equate any set of notions with God.
Lacking any kind of logical mechanism for equating Gods set of notions
with any individual set of notions, we are left with no argument as to
why this should be so. It is a mere assertion.
dave
Dave Wheeler
> I had been waiting for you to write more, but perhaps you have been
> sidetracked or decided not to return to this.
Hi there, I have been holidaying with my wife and haven't had too much
access to the Internet. Actually, I'm still away, but happened upon
this cafe in Thessalonika. Also, I got involved in a mental joust with
the good John Sparks last time I was online
> > But, in the example I used, can my, or man's, notion of
> > justice be so far removed from God's?
>
> Yes. That is exactly my point.
> The general sense of justice: wrong deserves to be punished, is
> intact.
> The application is liable to our weakness.
>
> So while the general sense can be derived from a creator, our sense of
> application in specific instances cannot.
> You moved from a general into a specific, so as has been argued it
> falls under the rubric of being untrustworthy.
Dave, like most Christians you love viewing mankind as miserable
wretches with imperfect notions of qualities such as Justice! Why
wouldn't our notions equal God's? Let's use my earlier examples: 1)
you and I consider murder wrong; presumably so does God (our notions
agree with God's) 2) you and I consider conning a friend out of money
wrong; so does God (our notions = God's) 3) you and I consider the
movers and shakers of a corrupt company wrong; so does God (once
again, bingo!). So far, our 'imperfect' notions are on a par with
God's, unless you insist on your argument and assert that we cannot
know what God's verdict would be. Well, my guess is that He would
agree with you and me. Therefore, if He agrees on these examples, the
chances are He might also agree that eternal estrangement from God as
a punishment for a mere lack of belief in Jesus' divinity is a tad
unjust. I mean think about it: 'eternal' is a hell of a long time, and
we are told that chances of rehabilitation are nil once we have passed
on. You are locked into a mindset, determined that it MUST be just
because God is Just.
Let's consider other qualities such as Mercy, Goodness, Wisdom. Do you
think our notions of these qualities are perhaps so far off God's that
we cannot rely on them? Of course not - after all, we understand what
they mean, even if we ourselves fail to aspire to them. And here's the
crux of it: if we believe that God may not display that Goodness that
we mean when we use that word 'Goodness', then we have no right to use
that word. We know that goodness when applied to mankind is a curve
(with its bottom end merging into what we call Badness) whereas we
imagine that in God, Goodness is infinite. However, note that the
difference here is in degree (in Man, goodness is finite; in God it is
infinite), but in definition, it is the same, i.e. the opposite of
Badness. If we as mankind had an imperfect notion of goodness, we
could not have created a civilisation but would still be living
anarchically in a completely amoral, dog-eat-dog world. We wouldn't
know when something was good or bad, but note that we DO. It's the
same with Justice.
I agree with you that I cannot foist upon God what He may or may not
think. However, I feel by all the powers of thought and compassion
given to me by God that eternal estrangement from God for a 'decision'
made in this world is unjust. I may be out of my depth in believing
so, but what am I if not a product of God's creation, including my
faculties of thought and compassion (and sense of justice)?
> 1. The standard of conduct is not "exemplary", it is perfect. The
> entrance requirement for heaven is not "exemplary" behavior, it is
> perfection. And perfect encompasses A LOT. It covers not only moral
> conduct and action, but motive as well.
Therefore, no-one fulfils the entry requirements including Christians.
I know the theory is that God has created a back-door (as John Sparks
described it) to Heaven by a belief in Christ, but the persons using
this back-door are not perfect. They too can only be exemplary. If, as
you state below, God needs only those who are committed to him and his
goals, why can He not allow Deists and muslims, who are equally
committed to him and his goals. God cannot blame these people for
their beliefs, but if, at their core they represent a commitment to
God, they are surely just the people God is after. If their conception
is wrong, then it is not their fault, and again, I state that this
favouritism is, yes, unjust
> 2. IF we were created, and there is a heaven, then we were created to
> dwell with God. In fact this is what the Bible teaches. So IF that is
> the case, then we can see there is a further problem by populating
> heaven with those that are simply good: they will not necessarily stay
> good. God cannot create a perfect society out of people that are not
> committed to him and his goals.
And in what way can Christians be relied upon to stay good? I'll tell
you - as soon as they have their beliefs confirmed by the almighty
majesty of God and His heaven, they will want nothing else but to stay
good. But what do you think would happen if a muslim or a deist
entered heaven and was faced with that same majesty? Exactly the same!
They would want nothing else but to stay good and of course alter
their beliefs into line with those of Christianity. They wouldn't
quibble, nor decide that because Jesus was divine after all they would
rather not stay in heaven!
> Someone may live an exemplary life but not necessarily love God above
> all else. However, if he does not, then it would destroy the very idea
> of heaven. Acknowledgement of God is primary, acknowledgment of sin is
> primary. Acknowledgement of a covering for our sin is primary.
> There simply MUST be a recognition of sin, an acceptance of a covering
> for that sin, and a pledge of service to God. Exemplary behavior is
> just not enough.
Muslims conform to this description: acknowledgement of God and sin
> But let's take it to the extreme: 100% of humanity feels it is unfair
> that God should send certain people to Hell, therefore God must think
> the same way.
I know I'm now repeating myself somewhat, but if God's idea of justice
is different to 100% of humanity, or even the X-percent that is the
educated and reasonable, we may as well scrap our ideals of justice
and go back to the caves. I'm not trying to tell God how to do His
job; instead I am telling you that God, in my humble human world,
would be unjust in consigning an innocent soul to an eternity of at
best, distance from God, and at worst, torture and torment in the
fires of Hell.
And again, if I am wrong, then I cannot believe the nose on the end of
my face because my entire world is a topsy-turvy nightmare where
injustice is justice and badness is goodness. Yes, badness, because a
deity who consigns anyone to Hell, whoever that person is, is Bad with
a capital B (and let's not forget that Hell, if it exists, is not a
place constructed by Man; it is created by one entity alone, God)
> That God would have a perfect standard of conduct, based on his own
> innate perfection follows. We can accept that God should demand
> perfection, and in fact logic would seem to necessitate that. After
> all if God did not have a standard that was perfect, then he would not
> be perfect himself.
There's no point anymore using logic or reason, because in this
reality that you are suggesting, injustice is justice and badness is
goodness, so the use of logic is illogical and perhaps perfection is
imperfection. Note that the creation of a Hell, even a benign one
where you sit around all day bored, is an imperfect way of dealing
with created souls. It would be fairer if souls failing to gain the
entry requirements to heaven were annihilated.
> Lacking any kind of logical mechanism for equating Gods set of notions
> with any individual set of notions, we are left with no argument as to
> why this should be so. It is a mere assertion.
>
> dave
I believe that it does follow, for the above reasons. I think you and
me are uncrackable nuts on this, but may I say I certainly have
enjoyed exploring it with you
Dave
rtda...@yahoo.com
> > > But, in the example I used, can my, or man's, notion of
> > > justice be so far removed from God's?
> >
> > Yes. That is exactly my point.
> > The general sense of justice: wrong deserves to be punished, is
> > intact.
> > The application is liable to our weakness.
> >
> > So while the general sense can be derived from a creator, our sense of
> > application in specific instances cannot.
> > You moved from a general into a specific, so as has been argued it
> > falls under the rubric of being untrustworthy.
>
> Dave, like most Christians you love viewing mankind as miserable
> wretches with imperfect notions of qualities such as Justice!
This is not an accident. We are Christians because we have come to the
conclusions that we have offended an almighty God with our sin and
that we need help. If an individual cannot make that claim, then he is
probably not a Christian. That is the starting point for repentance.
Which is why we see humanity this way. Those that do not think this
way will not think they need salvation, so they will not become
Christians.
So for the majority of humanity that thinks they are basically OK,
yeah I suppose it would seem we are particularly "down" on sin and the
sinful nature of all humanity.
> Why
> wouldn't our notions equal God's? Let's use my earlier examples: 1)
> you and I consider murder wrong; presumably so does God (our notions
> agree with God's) 2) you and I consider conning a friend out of money
> wrong; so does God (our notions = God's) 3) you and I consider the
> movers and shakers of a corrupt company wrong; so does God (once
> again, bingo!).
OK, here we go. "presumably, so does God". How do we presume that? Now
the original stipulations were that this was to be a discussion of
logic and not of the Bible, so I am operating on those principles.
How do you know what God thinks about murder, and its 'wrongness' or
about conning, or corruption?
You simply assume that God considers these things in the same way you
do. And your appeal is that others consider those things wrong as
well, so God must consider those things wrong just the same.
But there are problems here:
1) not everybody agrees on the facets involved. I spoke on this
earlier: some cultures might believe murder is OK in the name of a
certain cause, or that revenge killing is OK, or human sacrifice, or
abortion, etc.
But given the various opinions on one hot button issue, abortion:
perhaps we feel this form of killing is not murder at all, possibly
justifiable, possibly even socially good. Or others may feel that it
is murder of innocents pure and simple. So where does God weigh in?
are you sure you can step up and speak for God on the issue based on
your general sense?
Dave if you think there is universal agreement on these facets, then I
don't know how much further we can proceed. It should be obvious that
there is no consensus among us. You have fabricated one for arguments
sake, but it doesn't really exist.
2) and this, biblically, would be the more relevant point. Perhaps in
contrast to our consideration of sin, God may have a much stricter
standard.
For example: corruption on a company scale is bad, affecting the lives
of all that it touches. Perhaps corruption on ANY scale is bad as
well, so that ANY misuse of time by an employee would be considered
bad. While very few would concede there is anything terribly wrong
with a small amount of time wasting here and there: in fact we could
probably be very inventive in justifying it, how can we accurately
delineate where small traces of "personal corruption", which we
considered harmless, turns into "company corruption" which we "know"
God hates?
On this note then while we may draw a general sense that corruption is
bad, we may not be inclined to apply it to ourselves fairly.
So again as to 1) yes we can probably equate a sense of justice as
having come from a creator. But we cannot assume that any of our
varying individual sense are automatically equal to Gods.
And 2) it is possible that on a scale of badness that we operate under
when considering what is sin, we may not be applying the standard
perfectly.
And as I have argued, God if he is perfect, must apply the standard
perfectly.
> So far, our 'imperfect' notions are on a par with
> God's, unless you insist on your argument and assert that we cannot
> know what God's verdict would be. Well, my guess is that He would
> agree with you and me. Therefore, if He agrees on these examples, the
> chances are He might also agree that eternal estrangement from God as
> a punishment for a mere lack of belief in Jesus' divinity is a tad
> unjust. I mean think about it: 'eternal' is a hell of a long time, and
> we are told that chances of rehabilitation are nil once we have passed
> on. You are locked into a mindset, determined that it MUST be just
> because God is Just.
They are "on par" with gods because you assert they are, and your
assertions are based on your unfounded belief that your sense simply
is the same as Gods sense.
Therefore there is no basis for declaring that He agrees with you on
the previous examples therefore, he will agree with you on Hell.
> Let's consider other qualities such as Mercy, Goodness, Wisdom. Do you
> think our notions of these qualities are perhaps so far off God's that
> we cannot rely on them? Of course not - after all, we understand what
> they mean, even if we ourselves fail to aspire to them.
Yes I do.
Again in a general sense, we grasp the concepts of mercy and goodness
and wisdom. How those things are applied in individual cases ranges
far and wide.
Examples: mercy
One may consider it mercy to grant pardon to those convicted of
murder. Others may say no, it is better to lock them up and throw away
the key because the death penalty would be too much, others say no, it
is more merciful to put them to death so they will not suffer a
useless remainder of life in prison.
Goodness:
Some may think it is goodness to hand out condoms to sexually active
teens because it will spare them unwanted pregnancies, others may feel
it is goodness to not give them condoms since they will not be
addressing the problem which is rampant premarital sex, which is a
social ill that must be countered.
Wisdom:
Some may think it is wisdom to seek consensus in our interactions with
others even if it means the relegation of ideals that we hold
personally dear, others think it is wisdom to stand up for those
personal ideals at the cost of difficulty in social interactions.
It should be obvious that there is no universal consensus on the
application of these various notions. They range significantly and
since God can only have one set of particular notions, while we as
individual humans hold widely variant notions, then it is impossible
to simply equate human notions with Gods. The question has to be
"which individual human"?
> And here's the
> crux of it: if we believe that God may not display that Goodness that
> we mean when we use that word 'Goodness', then we have no right to use
> that word. We know that goodness when applied to mankind is a curve
> (with its bottom end merging into what we call Badness) whereas we
> imagine that in God, Goodness is infinite. However, note that the
> difference here is in degree (in Man, goodness is finite; in God it is
> infinite), but in definition, it is the same, i.e. the opposite of
> Badness. If we as mankind had an imperfect notion of goodness, we
> could not have created a civilisation but would still be living
> anarchically in a completely amoral, dog-eat-dog world. We wouldn't
> know when something was good or bad, but note that we DO. It's the
> same with Justice.
>
> I agree with you that I cannot foist upon God what He may or may not
> think. However, I feel by all the powers of thought and compassion
> given to me by God that eternal estrangement from God for a 'decision'
> made in this world is unjust. I may be out of my depth in believing
> so, but what am I if not a product of God's creation, including my
> faculties of thought and compassion (and sense of justice)?
Dave if that is true, then it must be true for everyone. And that
means that every variation of these general notions MUST be from God,
even when they are contradictory. Yet how can God hold contradictory
notions?
So it ought to be pretty obvious that no one can use this as an
argument.
> > 1. The standard of conduct is not "exemplary", it is perfect. The
> > entrance requirement for heaven is not "exemplary" behavior, it is
> > perfection. And perfect encompasses A LOT. It covers not only moral
> > conduct and action, but motive as well.
>
> Therefore, no-one fulfils the entry requirements including Christians.
True, we are all unrighteous.
> I know the theory is that God has created a back-door (as John Sparks
> described it) to Heaven by a belief in Christ, but the persons using
> this back-door are not perfect.
The back door is that in exchange for a recognition that we are sinful
and repentance, and acceptance of a contract to follow after Jesus,
THEN he imputes his righteousness to us.
So that when God considers our lives, he sees the righteousness of
Jesus and not of our own lives. He accepts this because he has laid
this offer on the table. In return for our pledge, he imputes his
righteousness as well as a spiritual nature and a promise to bring us
into his presence and change us.
> They too can only be exemplary. If, as
> you state below, God needs only those who are committed to him and his
> goals, why can He not allow Deists and muslims, who are equally
> committed to him and his goals. God cannot blame these people for
> their beliefs, but if, at their core they represent a commitment to
> God, they are surely just the people God is after. If their conception
> is wrong, then it is not their fault, and again, I state that this
> favouritism is, yes, unjust
Gods stated goals are that we be holy but not according to what we
think is holy.
As you noted, no one can do it, so our only hope is that we accept the
atonement made for us. Only at that point will the righteousness of
Christ be imputed to us in exchange for our pledge.
The deist does not recognize he has sinned against God, or if he does,
he does not feel the need for a covering, preferring to do his own
works instead. The same with muslims, who teach that Jesus was not
God, and did nt die and did not atone for sin.
How can those who will not accept that they are sinners or that they
need a covering, come to God? They may think they are doing God stuff,
but as Jesus said, no one comes to the Father except through me.
God can and does blame people for their beliefs: beliefs such as "I'm
not that bad", or "I don't need atonement".
Their conception must include these things or there is no core
commitment to God, there is a core commitment to what the individual
wants.
> > 2. IF we were created, and there is a heaven, then we were created to
> > dwell with God. In fact this is what the Bible teaches. So IF that is
> > the case, then we can see there is a further problem by populating
> > heaven with those that are simply good: they will not necessarily stay
> > good. God cannot create a perfect society out of people that are not
> > committed to him and his goals.
>
> And in what way can Christians be relied upon to stay good?
They are covered for eternity by the blood no matter
They are spiritually regenerated
Temptation will have been removed
They will have known firsthand the difference between good and evil,
They will have seen the consequences of sin at the judgment
Pile all those up and we have compelling reason why there will be no
sin in heaven. I do not currently subscribe to a notion that we will
not have the ability to sin in heaven, because that would seem to take
away our free will, which I think is necessary for any voluntary
action including praise and service to God. But I do think the five
points listed will preclude it from happening ever again.
At the first fall of angels, there was not a direct first hand
knowledge of the consequence of evil. At the end, every redeemed soul
will know exactly what is at stake.
> I'll tell
> you - as soon as they have their beliefs confirmed by the almighty
> majesty of God and His heaven, they will want nothing else but to stay
> good. But what do you think would happen if a muslim or a deist
> entered heaven and was faced with that same majesty? Exactly the same!
> They would want nothing else but to stay good and of course alter
> their beliefs into line with those of Christianity. They wouldn't
> quibble, nor decide that because Jesus was divine after all they would
> rather not stay in heaven!
Maybe not, after all satan was in heaven and sinned
The thing they lack is the spiritual regeneration and the covering.
Those things are gained through faith during this life.
> > Someone may live an exemplary life but not necessarily love God above
> > all else. However, if he does not, then it would destroy the very idea
> > of heaven. Acknowledgement of God is primary, acknowledgment of sin is
> > primary. Acknowledgement of a covering for our sin is primary.
> > There simply MUST be a recognition of sin, an acceptance of a covering
> > for that sin, and a pledge of service to God. Exemplary behavior is
> > just not enough.
>
> Muslims conform to this description: acknowledgement of God and sin
But they think they can work their way up and stand before God and
answer for their own sins, which they will do. But they believe God
will simply forgive a bunch of sin as long as it wasn't too much.
As such they deny the need for a covering by Jesus. So they will stand
on their own and answer for their sins.
> > But let's take it to the extreme: 100% of humanity feels it is unfair
> > that God should send certain people to Hell, therefore God must think
> > the same way.
>
> I know I'm now repeating myself somewhat, but if God's idea of justice
> is different to 100% of humanity, or even the X-percent that is the
> educated and reasonable, we may as well scrap our ideals of justice
> and go back to the caves.
Or rather than go to the caves, we can adopt Gods notions of justice
and all become Christians.
> I'm not trying to tell God how to do His
> job; instead I am telling you that God, in my humble human world,
> would be unjust in consigning an innocent soul to an eternity of at
> best, distance from God, and at worst, torture and torment in the
> fires of Hell.
Your argument is that God is in your image, and he operates the way
you think he should operate.
Lots of people do this, it is called idol worship or creating Gods in
our own image, the bible warns against it for precisely the reasons
that are operating now: it leads us to a wrong worship of who God is
and we end up separated from him.
> And again, if I am wrong, then I cannot believe the nose on the end of
> my face because my entire world is a topsy-turvy nightmare where
> injustice is justice and badness is goodness. Yes, badness, because a
> deity who consigns anyone to Hell, whoever that person is, is Bad with
> a capital B (and let's not forget that Hell, if it exists, is not a
> place constructed by Man; it is created by one entity alone, God)
Tell me about it! We have to defend why abortion is wrong, when it is
flat our murder, we have to defend being able to pray in public, we
have to defend why homosexuality or fornication or pornography or idol
worship is wrong.
Consider this, Dave, you are demanding to know why you can't simply
reconstruct God in your own image, and I have to defend that, because
you assume it is correct. Indeed, the world is a topsy-turvy
nightmare.
> > That God would have a perfect standard of conduct, based on his own
> > innate perfection follows. We can accept that God should demand
> > perfection, and in fact logic would seem to necessitate that. After
> > all if God did not have a standard that was perfect, then he would not
> > be perfect himself.
>
> There's no point anymore using logic or reason, because in this
> reality that you are suggesting, injustice is justice and badness is
> goodness, so the use of logic is illogical and perhaps perfection is
> imperfection. Note that the creation of a Hell, even a benign one
> where you sit around all day bored, is an imperfect way of dealing
> with created souls. It would be fairer if souls failing to gain the
> entry requirements to heaven were annihilated.
Not quite Dave, what I am really saying is that justice is perfectly
justice, murder is judged perfectly and badness will be judged for
what it is. You are arguing that your notions must be Gods, despite
the fact that there is no sound reason for believing it. Your appeal
to universality fails when confronted with the variations of human
notions, and the apparent curve on which we grade. It does not account
for Gods perfection, and the subsequent need to judge perfectly.
dave
John Sparks
>
> Hi John! I cannot agree that a believer in God who rejects (does not
> believe in the divinity of) Jesus is rejecting God, even if Jesus
Hi Dave! If Jesus is God's method of getting into heaven, and you reject
that method, then you won't get into heaven. It's pretty simple. If I say
the only way into my castle is by coming through the locked main portculus
and you need this key here, and you refuse the key, then how will you get
into the castle?
>
> > (#1) - The bible says that no-one seeks after God, that God has to seek
> > after them, so I don't think an ignorant savage would ever seek after
God on
> > his own. But, If he made the slightest effort, I think God would make
sure
> > that he heard about the Gospel, whether by sending someone to him, like
when
> > he sent Peter to the Centurian in Acts, or he could give them a vision,
like
> > he did with Paul.
>
> Come on, I'm not letting you get away with that! I would warrant that
> there are people even today who have never heard of Christ. Even if
> this is wrong, then certainly in days gone by it would certainly be
> the case. In the first century AD there were people living on the
> islands at the southernmost tip of South America - do you seriously
> believe these people had a chance of hearing the Gospel?
You keep forgetting that God is Omniscient and Omnipotent. You really need
to meditate on what that means. He knows everything. And the Bible gives
examples (as I mentioned above) showing that he does use unusual and
ordinary means to make sure that those who will respond to his message will
get the message. And don't forget that I already said that God is a fair
God. He will not punish anyone for sinning without knowing about it. But he
gives them a concience and will judge them on how they respond to that and
the revelation of nature he has given them .
Another thing you keep forgetting. We are the ones who sin against God. He
would be completely justified if he kept all of us out of heaven. He was not
obligated to send us Jesus. So we have no excuse.
> > God gives you plenty of chances while you are alive. He is a God of many
> > chances. As many times as you turn away from him, he still waits with
open
> > arms for you to return. But when you die, that is it.
> Yes, John, and this is Unjust, because if a person errs for one reason
> and he is not 'put right' then he will likely err and err again.
I did not follow that one. Again God is not obligated to give you even ONE
chance, but he gives you as many chances as can fit into your lifetime.
> Christianity, for many reasons, is not putting everybody right. I
> liked your analogy of the antidote, John, but here's another analogy:
> you have a litter of kittens on your cold driveway and you would like
> them to come into the warmth of the kitchen. For this purpose you have
> created a cat-flap and got a mother cat to 'show them the way'. What
> happens? Some kittens will follow the example; some will even follow
> other kittens. Others, however, will stay on the driveway, and even
> when you try to entice them by pointing at the cat-flap, the kittens
> are more likely to stare innocently at your finger than at the
> cat-flap. They freeze for evermore on the driveway. Now, your plan has
> failed - shouldn't you be thinking about a better plan?
OK lets go with that analogy. And even to the point that I being the all
loving kitten God turn myself into the mother cat in order to lead the
kittens to safety. If they do not follow me, then the only other plan would
be to violate their kitten free-will and drag them into the house. Now, a
bunch of kittens that don't want to be in the house are forced in and begin
to tear apart my house and make life miserable for the kittens that want to
be there and the rest of my family.
>
> Here's the insuperable paradox about Christianity:
>
> Either:
>
> 1) God wants ALL His children to return to the Kingdom of Heaven
> 2) His scheme to enable them to do so is to believe in Jesus Christ
> 3) It only works for SOME and therefore the scheme is flawed and God
> is Imperfect
>
> Or:
>
> 1) God has to accept that only SOME of His children will believe in
> Jesus Christ because He has endowed them with freewill and the ability
> to 'reject'
> 2) Many of these children are innocent and ignorant and for their
> failings are punished by eternal estrangement from God
> 3) Many of them, moreover, imitated Christ in their morality far
> better than many Christians do
> 4) Therefore, God is Unjust
1. God created man perfect but with free will.
2. Man sinned and rejected God. Disobeyed.
3. God is now justified in kicking man out of heaven (eden in this case)
4. God still wants to reconcile man to himself.
5. God goes down to lead them and to provide a sacrifice to satisfy justice.
6. Some will follow, other will turn away, others may not know. all still
sinned.
7. No matter how much they imitated Christ better than many Christians,
unless they can imitate Christ perfectly (meaning NO sin whatsoever) they
still deserve being kicked out of heaven.
8. If they don't know, they will be judged by how they follow their own
conscience.
9. If they will choose to be on "God's side", God will make sure they get
the knowledge they need to be saved.
10. No one will be able to say "you are not fair" to God on Judgement day.
> As a further point, note that Deism - a belief in one perfect God but
> a rejection of Christian doctrine - does away with away with the
> paradox of Imperfection versus Unjustness. It recognises the
> Perfection of God in the creation around him - who needs a
> 'revelation' that is capable of being disbelieved, mistranslated,
> doctored, and incapable of perfect dissemination, when the beauty of
> Nature and the earth and heavens is immutable and open to every single
> person?
Again, this is what Paul speaks of in Romans 1 - Nature does reveal God to
man, and he can see that God is perfect. And God gives man a moral compass,
a conscience, and man does not even keep his own moral code, much less
God's.
> Further, if there is no permanent estrangment from God, but a gradual
> development of each individual towards perfection in this life AND the
> next, then the Injustice problem is evaporated. Is Deism too
> simplistic and idealistic? Well, suspend your disbelief for one moment
> and imagine the Scriptures were totally man-made - suddenly Deism
> becomes a more realistic proposition (as Christianity is, in this
> hypothesis, wrong). If it does not, then I'm afraid Atheism, or the
> belief in an impersonal God (Nature), become better contenders
> (certainly better than Islam!)
The problem with Deism as you presented it above, is that it doesn't match
Deism as presented by other Deists. How do I know which is the true version?
Where do you get your idea that each individual gradually moves toward
perfection in this life and the next? Where do you get the idea that there
is no estrangment from God? What is your AUTHORITY?
> You encourage me to join the Jesus train, but if I
> do that only half-heartedly, what would God think of that? If He laid
> a trail of sardines between me and the cat-flap, perhaps I would
> follow. So far, He has sent me only you, John, ;-) and although I am
> thoroughly enjoying these mental jousts, you are failing to convince
> me that under the Christian scheme God is neither Imperfect nor Unjust
Look around Dave, God has probably sent you many people and circumstances in
your life besides little old me. :-)
Ultimately Dave, belief IS a choice. Maybe if you made that half-hearted
effort God would approve of it and give you more faith and pretty soon you
would find it easy to believe completely. But you keep stubbornly refusing
to take that first step. Instead you try to find loopholes and ways around
the gospel and so on. Did you question this spiritualist, Clark I think you
said his name was, as thouroghly as you have Christianity? Or did it fit in
with what you wanted to believe and so you accepted it with little argument?
>But belief is not a case of deciding to take one or another
> route, or doing one or another thing.
>Belief is a profound part of the
> fabric that makes up a human being, and the nature of God-given Reason
> is such that either good evidence has to back up the belief (I believe
> in electricity because I can use it even if I don't understand it) or
> a good intellectual argument where the evidence does not exist (I
> believe the universe is infinite because it is harder to believe in
> its ending, or I believe in God because the intellectual arguments for
> His existence make sense to, or at least do not offend, my Reason)
Dave, I am not asking you for blind belief. That would be asinine. That
would make me into someone like Bushbadee. Christianity is a religion based
on evidences. But if no matter what evedences are shown to you, or how many
times (and ways) your questions are answered, you still refuse to
believe --- then it is no longer a subconscious thing, you are actively
refusing to believe. At that point, it IS a choice. You can accept the
evidence or reject it. But it is a choice.
Hey I have few other books to recommend to you:
The Case for Faith - Lee Strobel - This book actually asks the very same
questions you have been asking. It's almost like you were using it as a
script for this thread. Spooky.
When Skeptics Ask - By Normon Geisler and Ron Brooks - a more in depth
exploration of the issues you have been asking about.
Letters from a Skeptic - Gregory Boyd - This book reads like a newsgroup
thread between me an you! Greg Boyd's dad was an agnostic and he exchanged
letters with his Christian son, Greg, exploring these very issued. You will
like it.
> > If he did, I would forgive him. But if he refused to change? If he
refused
> > to love me as his creator and still wanted to live on my dime, drinking
up
> > all my oil and pissing battery acid on my good furniture, would I have
the
> > right to kick him out? Out evil Bender (bad futurama pun :-) )
> No John, because he is only a robot - that you built - and you should
> take the responsibility for him. Let's say you knew his program would
> not work (and here I am referring to God's knowledge that Adam would
> turn his back on him, on the basis that God knows past, present and
> future) - you should have worked harder on the program. In fact, you
> could have reprogrammed him before he had a chance to create billions
> of descendant robots!
So that is how the Matrix got started! :-)
Anyway, remember it is just an analogy, and not perfect. But I would argue
that his program was good and that I gave him free will. If he chose to use
that free will to diss me that is not a fault with the program but with his
mind and will. I could "fix" him by taking away his free will (which would
be wrong) or my trying to convince him to change (which is what God does)
> And if miracles worked in those early days,
> why would they not work now? Some would indeed suspect special effects
> and mass delusion at first, but repeated, sustained miracles would
> ultimately work very well
Well one day we will find out. During the end times, God will produce
"miracles" and fulfill prophesy in a last ditch effort to bring people to
himself before the end. But the people will still shake their fists at God
and deny him.
> > The LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.
>
> Very kind, thank you
Whew! these posting are getting pretty long. I hope we can shorten them
soon. It took me over an hour to reply to this one. Hope you are having fun
on your vacation.
>
Dave Wheeler
> that method, then you won't get into heaven. It's pretty simple. If I say
> the only way into my castle is by coming through the locked main portculus
> and you need this key here, and you refuse the key, then how will you get
> into the castle?
Hi John, you are right about the length of these discussions! However,
let's crystallize where we have got to. You have explained how there
is a simple system: here is the way into Heaven; it's the only way;
it's open to all; all one has to do is open oneself up to Christ;
there is ample opportunity to do so; failure to take the opportunity
can only be blamed on oneself. You have very ably brushed aside the
issue of justice, saying that God would be being just in consigning
everyone to Hell and is in fact being merciful in allowing even some
of us into Heaven. This is our brickwall, however: you consider it
must be Just for an innocent soul, having squandered his opportunities
over three score and ten years to find Christ, to be punished with
estrangement from God forever, where forever means a million years
then a million after that and so and so and so on forever; I can only
consider it Unjust, or at least, subtly changing the definition,
Unfair. Failure in seventy years on earth punished by an infinity of
time in Hell seems a bit unfair, can you not agree with that?
God can do what he likes, of course, but the idea of seeing how many
souls will turn back to him and then populating the Kingdom of Heaven
with these souls is somewhat difficult to swallow. You keep telling me
that God knows everything, past, present and future. In that case, He
knew that Man would go bad even before He created him. He knew that
the Devil would be created by the fall of the angel. He knows exactly
who will and won't become a Christian. He knew everything before He
even created the creation out of the void. It makes it all a bit
pointless, doesn't it? It means that God said to Himself, I'm going to
now make mankind who I know will then go bad. This is impossible for
me to swallow.
> 1. God created man perfect but with free will.
...knowing that he would disobey
> 2. Man sinned and rejected God. Disobeyed.
...as God knew was going to happen
> 3. God is now justified in kicking man out of heaven (eden in this case)
...and He has had a lot of time to prepare for it, knowing this was
going to happen from the Beginning
> 4. God still wants to reconcile man to himself.
...and knows exactly who will, who won't, and when
> 5. God goes down to lead them and to provide a sacrifice to satisfy justice.
...knowing who will believe in Christ, and who won't
> 6. Some will follow, other will turn away, others may not know. all still
> sinned.
...and God knows who they are and where they live
> 7. No matter how much they imitated Christ better than many Christians,
> unless they can imitate Christ perfectly (meaning NO sin whatsoever) they
> still deserve being kicked out of heaven.
...but why do they deserve it? They never even asked to be born, much
less asked to be endowed with an intellect or personality that
directed them away from Christianity
> 8. If they don't know, they will be judged by how they follow their own
> conscience.
> 9. If they will choose to be on "God's side", God will make sure they get
> the knowledge they need to be saved.
> 10. No one will be able to say "you are not fair" to God on Judgement day.
...yes, they will, for the same reason I gave above - it was God who
gave them their intellect or personality, not Adam. Everything comes
from God, so this whole idea of blaming the first man is nonsensical
> Look around Dave, God has probably sent you many people and circumstances in
> your life besides little old me. :-)
Yes, when I bought my current house twelve years ago, the nice old
lady next door, when hearing that I was not a Christian, told me that
God had sent me to live next door to her in order for her to save me.
This was of course wishful thinking of the highest order
> Ultimately Dave, belief IS a choice. Maybe if you made that half-hearted
> effort God would approve of it and give you more faith and pretty soon you
> would find it easy to believe completely. But you keep stubbornly refusing
> to take that first step. Instead you try to find loopholes and ways around
> the gospel and so on. Did you question this spiritualist, Clark I think you
> said his name was, as thouroghly as you have Christianity? Or did it fit in
> with what you wanted to believe and so you accepted it with little argument?
Yes, I questioned it rigorously (his name was Crookes, though he was
but one example I cited from hundreds). When I started out I was an
agnostic - open-minded, reasoning and not sceptical to anything if it
was backed up by evidence. Right now, I admit that I want my beliefs
to be right and Christianity to be wrong, because I have invested a
lot of effort into it and don't want to have wasted my time. But when
I started, I didn't want to believe anything in particular over
another; I just wanted to get at the truth.
I have uncovered facts about communications between people of this
earth and intelligent entities not of this earth, and make no mistake,
they are indeed facts if we accept 'facts' as something proved by
repeatable demonstration. The question is: who are they? They claim to
be simply 'dead people' who used to live in the physical on this
earth. You have suggested in the past that they could be demons, bent
on confusing mankind and leading him away from the truth of
Christianity. I have thought about this. Let's assume for the sake of
argument that this earth is, as C S Lewis puts it, an enemy-occupied
territory where good is battling evil. Now, in this hypothesis, demons
are coming through to human mediums and pretending to be the spirits
of dead people - literally a 'demon'stration. The problem with this is
that there is never any communications from good angels who we are
told are also involved in the struggle. Why do they not come through
to say 'Don't listen to that last communicant - he is a demon intent
on fooling you'? Also, the communications are not about dissing
Christianity; they are about whatever you would talk about to someone
you knew once. Of course you also ask questions about 'what it's
like', and the consistency in the responses leads one to suggest that
there is a worldwide conspiracy of demons, and it all becomes a bit
fantastical
> Dave, I am not asking you for blind belief. That would be asinine. That
> would make me into someone like Bushbadee. Christianity is a religion based
> on evidences. But if no matter what evedences are shown to you, or how many
> times (and ways) your questions are answered, you still refuse to
> believe --- then it is no longer a subconscious thing, you are actively
> refusing to believe. At that point, it IS a choice. You can accept the
> evidence or reject it. But it is a choice.
>
> Hey I have few other books to recommend to you:
>
> The Case for Faith - Lee Strobel - This book actually asks the very same
> questions you have been asking. It's almost like you were using it as a
> script for this thread. Spooky.
>
> When Skeptics Ask - By Normon Geisler and Ron Brooks - a more in depth
> exploration of the issues you have been asking about.
>
> Letters from a Skeptic - Gregory Boyd - This book reads like a newsgroup
> thread between me an you! Greg Boyd's dad was an agnostic and he exchanged
> letters with his Christian son, Greg, exploring these very issued. You will
> like it.
I will certainly check these out
> Well one day we will find out. During the end times, God will produce
> "miracles" and fulfill prophesy in a last ditch effort to bring people to
> himself before the end. But the people will still shake their fists at God
> and deny him.
'Last Ditch Effort'?? As we have said before, He already knows who
will believe and who won't. What is the point of making a last ditch
effort?
Was this any shorter? Not by much, sorry!
Dave
John Sparks
> Hi John, you are right about the length of these discussions! However,
> let's crystallize where we have got to. You have explained how there
> is a simple system: here is the way into Heaven; it's the only way;
> it's open to all; all one has to do is open oneself up to Christ;
> there is ample opportunity to do so; failure to take the opportunity
> can only be blamed on oneself. You have very ably brushed aside the
> issue of justice, saying that God would be being just in consigning
> everyone to Hell and is in fact being merciful in allowing even some
> of us into Heaven.
Pretty much. Yep.
This is our brickwall, however: you consider it
> must be Just for an innocent soul, having squandered his opportunities
> over three score and ten years to find Christ, to be punished with
> estrangement from God forever, where forever means a million years
> then a million after that and so and so and so on forever; I can only
> consider it Unjust, or at least, subtly changing the definition,
> Unfair.
Again, you thrown in that word "innocent" - None are innocent (except
perhaps infants, small children, and mentally deficient. And they are not
innocent of sin, but innocent in that they do not understand the concept of
right and wrong and so are not held responsible for it) - and they will not
be sent to hell.
So there will be no innocent people in hell. None. The innocent won't have
to spend one second in hell, much less an eternity. So you can take that
weight off of your shoulders, Dave. Only the guilty will be in hell.
> God can do what he likes, of course, but the idea of seeing how many
> souls will turn back to him and then populating the Kingdom of Heaven
> with these souls is somewhat difficult to swallow.
As the other David has been telling you, God wants a perfect society, full
of those that willingly choose him. That means that there will be those who
reject him.
>You keep telling me
> that God knows everything, past, present and future. In that case, He
> knew that Man would go bad even before He created him. He knew that
> the Devil would be created by the fall of the angel. He knows exactly
> who will and won't become a Christian. He knew everything before He
> even created the creation out of the void. It makes it all a bit
> pointless, doesn't it? It means that God said to Himself, I'm going to
> now make mankind who I know will then go bad. This is impossible for
> me to swallow.
Yes what you say is true. God knows all and knew about it even before it
happened. But that doesn't make it pointless. He had to let it happen in
order to get the good separate from the evil. Separate the wheat from the
tares. That is what life is about. It is God's garden. He grows souls and
harvests the wheat and tosses out the weeds. If it is impossible for you to
swallow, that doesn't make it not true. Dave Wheeler's swallowing ability is
not the standard of truth in this universe (at least the last time I
checked) ;-)
>
> > 1. God created man perfect but with free will.
> ...knowing that he would disobey
Yep.
> > 2. Man sinned and rejected God. Disobeyed.
> ...as God knew was going to happen
Yep.
> > 3. God is now justified in kicking man out of heaven (eden in this case)
> ...and He has had a lot of time to prepare for it, knowing this was
> going to happen from the Beginning
Yep. But it was still MAN who did the wrong. Not God.
> > 4. God still wants to reconcile man to himself.
> ...and knows exactly who will, who won't, and when
Yep. But just knowing it doesn't stop us from having free will on the
matter.
> > 5. God goes down to lead them and to provide a sacrifice to satisfy
justice.
> ...knowing who will believe in Christ, and who won't
again, yes, but he has to do it for our sake, because without it, none would
believe.
> > 6. Some will follow, other will turn away, others may not know. all
still
> > sinned.
> ...and God knows who they are and where they live
Yes.
> > 7. No matter how much they imitated Christ better than many Christians,
> > unless they can imitate Christ perfectly (meaning NO sin whatsoever)
they
> > still deserve being kicked out of heaven.
> ...but why do they deserve it? They never even asked to be born, much
> less asked to be endowed with an intellect or personality that
> directed them away from Christianity
They deserve it because God gave them a chance and they blew it. They are
the ones who sinned against God. God did not make them sin. Why did God
bother creating them if he knew they would sin? I don't know. Maybe they are
needed so that others will be saved. My mother's father was not a Christian.
But unless he lived, my mother would not have been born and now be saved,
and neither would I.
> > 8. If they don't know, they will be judged by how they follow their own
> > conscience.
> > 9. If they will choose to be on "God's side", God will make sure they
get
> > the knowledge they need to be saved.
> > 10. No one will be able to say "you are not fair" to God on Judgement
day.
> ...yes, they will, for the same reason I gave above - it was God who
> gave them their intellect or personality, not Adam. Everything comes
> from God, so this whole idea of blaming the first man is nonsensical
God gave them their intellect, but he doesn't dictate how they are to use
it. God gave them hands too. If they use those hands to harm others rather
than to help others, is that God's fault? No.
>
> > Look around Dave, God has probably sent you many people and
circumstances in
> > your life besides little old me. :-)
>
> Yes, when I bought my current house twelve years ago, the nice old
> lady next door, when hearing that I was not a Christian, told me that
> God had sent me to live next door to her in order for her to save me.
> This was of course wishful thinking of the highest order
But maybe she isn't done with you yet, haha. Reminds me of this joke:
There was a little old lady who would come out every morning on the steps of
her front porch, raise her arms to the sky and shout, "Praise the Lord!"
Well, one day an atheist moved into the house next door. Over time, he
became irritated at the little old lady. So every morning he would step out
onto his front porch and yell after her, "There is no God!"
Time passes with the two of them carrying on this way every day. Then one
morning in the middle of winter, the little old lady stepped onto her front
porch and shouted, "Praise the Lord! Lord, I have no food and I am hungry.
Please provide for me, oh Lord!"
The next morning she stepped onto her porch and there were two huge bags of
groceries sitting there. "Praise the Lord!" she cried out. "He has provided
groceries for me!" The atheist jumped out of the hedges and shouted, "There
is no Lord. I bought those groceries!" The little old lady threw her arms
into the air and shouted, "Praise the Lord! He has provided me with
groceries and He made the devil pay for them!"
> Did you question this spiritualist, Clark I think you
> > said his name was, as thouroghly as you have Christianity? Or did it fit
in
> > with what you wanted to believe and so you accepted it with little
argument?
>
> Yes, I questioned it rigorously (his name was Crookes, though he was
> but one example I cited from hundreds). When I started out I was an
> agnostic - open-minded, reasoning and not sceptical to anything if it
> was backed up by evidence. Right now, I admit that I want my beliefs
> to be right and Christianity to be wrong, because I have invested a
> lot of effort into it and don't want to have wasted my time. But when
> I started, I didn't want to believe anything in particular over
> another; I just wanted to get at the truth.
Thanks for being honest about being invested in your beliefs. That is the
biggest hurdle anyone has to overcome. Everyone (including Christians) are
invested in their beliefs and to change those beliefs takes a lot of
convincing. But there is no way I or anyone else can answer every question
and doubt you may have about Christianity. At some point you will have to
decide that the preponderance of the evidence points to or against
Christianity and make your decision from there. That is what faith is for.
It fills the gap between what we know and what we don't know. It is trust in
someone or something that it is true.
Here is a good link to an article on "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at
all?" http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27244 (it's long
but very good)
>Now, in this hypothesis, demons
> are coming through to human mediums and pretending to be the spirits
> of dead people - literally a 'demon'stration. The problem with this is
> that there is never any communications from good angels who we are
> told are also involved in the struggle. Why do they not come through
> to say 'Don't listen to that last communicant - he is a demon intent
> on fooling you'?
Er, God won't let them? If they did that they would be disobeying God and
would then be "demons" themselves?
>Also, the communications are not about dissing
> Christianity; they are about whatever you would talk about to someone
> you knew once. Of course you also ask questions about 'what it's
> like', and the consistency in the responses leads one to suggest that
> there is a worldwide conspiracy of demons, and it all becomes a bit
> fantastical
Direct attack is not always the best attack. By attacking Christianity
directly, maybe they would be calling too much attention to it and get
people thinking, "methinks thou protesteth too much"
And if the bible and Christianity is true, then yes there is a worldwide
conspiracy of Demons. Personally I think most of the mediums and psychics
are phoneys.
Have you personally seen and spoken with a spirit? Not through someone
claiming to be a medium, but directly seen and spoken with a spirit? If not,
you are only taking someone else's claims as truth and do not have direct
evidence. So you are taking it all on faith.
> I will certainly check these out
>
> > Well one day we will find out. During the end times, God will produce
> > "miracles" and fulfill prophesy in a last ditch effort to bring people
to
> > himself before the end. But the people will still shake their fists at
God
> > and deny him.
>
> 'Last Ditch Effort'?? As we have said before, He already knows who
> will believe and who won't. What is the point of making a last ditch
> effort?
Because while many will shake their fists at God, others will be saved
during that time. He may know who they are, but they still have to be saved
(they don't know who they are).
Dave Wheeler
> perhaps infants, small children, and mentally deficient. And they are not
> innocent of sin, but innocent in that they do not understand the concept of
> right and wrong and so are not held responsible for it) - and they will not
> be sent to hell.
John, is not innocence another way of saying "They know not what they
do!"? I understand that a child or a mentally deficient person is
unlikely to know the difference between right and wrong, but cannot
innocence extend to someone who knows the difference, in terms of
right and wrong morality, but is simply innocent in his wrong
understanding of religion? If a man is born into a moslem family,
lives wholly in a moslem culture and environment, and is completely
surrounded by moslems, he is demonstrably unlikely to convert to
Christianity. It would not occur to him. This is surely innocence (if
Christianity is indeed the way to Heaven) because he is surely guilty
only of being born at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Let us imagine that Islam is the correct way, and a person is born
into a strictly Christian family and environment. All he knows about
Islam is that it is practised predominantly in another part of the
world, and moreover, he is warned time and time again that they are
infidels - he never comes even close to converting and of course why
would he? However, if your scheme is right, but in this hypothetical
example the boot is on the other foot, our man is guilty and as such
is condemned to hell. God of course knows the treu nature of guilt and
innocence, but to restrict the definition of innocence to children and
mentally deficient is unjustly limited. Sorry to use that word unjust
again! ;-)
> As the other David has been telling you, God wants a perfect society, full
> of those that willingly choose him. That means that there will be those who
> reject him.
But here again, I bring up the difference between "reject him
knowingly" and "reject him unknowingly". You talk about sinning
against God and rejecting God, but this is all suggestive of intent. I
do not think you have adequately dealt with those who worship God -
the one, true God - but have innocently chosen (or more correctly, had
their religion chosen for them) the wrong religion. Is a moslem who
daily gets up at dawn, and repeats the exercise several times
throughout the day, to devoutly praise and worship God, guilty of sin?
Guilty of rejecting God?
> God gave them their intellect, but he doesn't dictate how they are to use
> it. God gave them hands too. If they use those hands to harm others rather
> than to help others, is that God's fault? No.
This hands analogy is unfair. Using your hands to harm someone is not
the same as using your intellect in the only way you know how, which
in the case of our moslem is to praise God. You can brainwash a child
to grow up into a terrorist which is wholly irrational; you can
certainly brainwash a child to believe in Islam - surely innocent? And
let us not forget that most of the population, especially in poor
countries, have extremely limited intellects. They would not know
where to start in a debate such as this, for example
> But maybe she isn't done with you yet, haha.
She moved!
> There was a little old lady who would come out every morning on the steps of
> her front porch, raise her arms to the sky and shout, "Praise the Lord!"
(snip)
Good story! Here is another one that I read recently:
St Augustine is sat on a beach, meditating and contemplating the
Trinity. He watches a child carrying water in his cupped hands to put
into a hole he had dug in the sand. St Augustine asks him why he is
doing this. The child replies "Why are you trying to fit the boundless
mysteries of the Divine into the capacity of the human mind?!"
A good one eh? Perhaps it reminds us of the difficulties we encounter
in this here newsgroup!
> Thanks for being honest about being invested in your beliefs. That is the
> biggest hurdle anyone has to overcome. Everyone (including Christians) are
> invested in their beliefs and to change those beliefs takes a lot of
> convincing. But there is no way I or anyone else can answer every question
> and doubt you may have about Christianity. At some point you will have to
> decide that the preponderance of the evidence points to or against
> Christianity and make your decision from there. That is what faith is for.
> It fills the gap between what we know and what we don't know. It is trust in
> someone or something that it is true.
>
> Here is a good link to an article on "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at
> all?" http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27244 (it's long
> but very good)
Again, I will check it out. If after I have read all those books as
well, and I come back to you and say "Still not convinced", you will
probably happily bang your head against a brick wall!! ;-)
Dave
Rev. Craig C. Krueger
that there is something in us that leads us to the one true God. There is
an inner sense of right and wrong. Now, I do not intend to say that we
should be our own compass when it comes to morality, but there is something
that tells us we do not measure up to the divine ideal and we need to be
reconciled.
Romans says that because we reject God we make gods to worship, descending
finally to worship that which symbolizes our fear, the serpent, in hopes
that we can keep it at bay. Realizing that we fail at holiness we make up
excuses for not being holy and doing the things we do until we reach a point
of not just ignoring unrighteousness, but actually looking up to those who
ignore God's law.
I know that is my paraphrase, but I think it is pretty accurate. Comments?
C. Krueger
Ennis, TX
> John, is not innocence another way of saying "They know not what they
> do!"? I understand that a child or a mentally deficient person is
> unlikely to know the difference between right and wrong, but cannot
> innocence extend to someone who knows the difference, in terms of
> right and wrong morality, but is simply innocent in his wrong
> understanding of religion? If a man is born into a moslem family,
> lives wholly in a moslem culture and environment, and is completely
> surrounded by moslems, he is demonstrably unlikely to convert to
> Christianity. It would not occur to him. This is surely innocence (if
> Christianity is indeed the way to Heaven) because he is surely guilty
> only of being born at the wrong place at the wrong time?
John Sparks
> If a man is born into a moslem family,
> lives wholly in a moslem culture and environment, and is completely
> surrounded by moslems, he is demonstrably unlikely to convert to
> Christianity. It would not occur to him. This is surely innocence (if
> Christianity is indeed the way to Heaven) because he is surely guilty
I have said this over and over again... heck, what's one more time? :-)
**God takes ignorance into account.**
Ignorance is not the same as innocence. Ignorance means "unknowing" -
innocent means "not guilty". We are all guilty of sin (as I said we can't
keep our own moral standards, much less God's) so none of us are
innocent" - Some are ignorant though. In that case God will judge them on
how well they kept whatever moral code they had. So if there is some muslim
that never heard of Jesus, or was brainwashed to ignore Jesus, or whatever,
then God will judge them on his works (just like you want to be judged if I
remember correctly).
=======
Romans 2:12 (the Message paraphrase)
If you sin without knowing what you're doing, God takes that into account.
But if you sin knowing full well what you're doing, that's a different story
entirely. Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your time if you don't do
what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God.
When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by
instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's
law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the
very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes
God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will
become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every
man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ
takes into account all these differences.
==
www.biblegateway.com (read Romans in "the Message" paraphrase. The first 3
chapters really explain the things you have been asking. the Mesage
paraphrase is pretty good at putting all that religious jargon into everyday
language. )
So, believe in Jesus and be forgiven of all of your sins and have "no
worries, mate!"
or try to live as best a life as you can and hope God let's you into heaven
on the merits of your good works. But unless you can live your life
consistantly on the "right side" within the moral standards of right and
wrong that God has placed in your heart, you are in big trouble.
Best bet? Believe in Jesus. Make him your Master. Put your trust in him.
>
> St Augustine is sat on a beach, meditating and contemplating the
> Trinity. He watches a child carrying water in his cupped hands to put
> into a hole he had dug in the sand. St Augustine asks him why he is
> doing this. The child replies "Why are you trying to fit the boundless
> mysteries of the Divine into the capacity of the human mind?!"
>
> A good one eh? Perhaps it reminds us of the difficulties we encounter
> in this here newsgroup!
Yep. I think you are trying to do a little of that too. Trying to get all of
the answers about God from my limited little human mind (and others in this
group). We don't have all of the answers. I am happy to guess as best I can
based on what I read in the bible, but I am fallable.
But I can tell you one thing for sure: Put your trust in Jesus and be saved
and then you have all eternity to ask God all the questions you want to!
> Again, I will check it out. If after I have read all those books as
> well, and I come back to you and say "Still not convinced", you will
> probably happily bang your head against a brick wall!! ;-)
Nah. by that time it will be YOU banging your head against the brick wall.
But maybe with enough banging, you will break through that wall of
resistance in your heart and become a Christian. When that happens, I will
jump for joy.
It took me **40 years** to break through that wall myself. I hope it doesn't
take you that long!
John
Matthew Johnson
says...
>
>If I may add something to this discussion. Romans 1,2 make it very clear
>that there is something in us that leads us to the one true God. There is
>an inner sense of right and wrong. Now, I do not intend to say that we
>should be our own compass when it comes to morality, but there is something
>that tells us we do not measure up to the divine ideal and we need to be
>reconciled.
>
>Romans says that because we reject God we make gods to worship, descending
>finally to worship that which symbolizes our fear, the serpent, in hopes
>that we can keep it at bay. Realizing that we fail at holiness we make up
>excuses for not being holy and doing the things we do until we reach a point
>of not just ignoring unrighteousness, but actually looking up to those who
>ignore God's law.
>
>I know that is my paraphrase, but I think it is pretty accurate. Comments?
What IS it with paraphrases today? I just saw the "Message paraphrase" for the
first time, and just as I was hoping I would never see it again, now I see this.
No, it is NOT "pretty accurate". On the contrary: you miss the point of Romans
if you believe that is all that Rom 1 and 2 say, or even that that is the _main_
point of Rom 1 & 2. Why, you even miss the point of Paul shocking his reader
with fooling them into being comfortable with the condemnation of sinners
outside the church, then suddenly transferring the condmentation to his
listeners, with his famous:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are,
when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon
him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are
doing the very same things. (Rom 2:1 RSVA)
[snip]
What else did you miss? You left out the reference to their further descent into
sin being a punishment for prior sin. But this too, is very important. How could
you leave it out?
---------------------------------------
Subducat se sibi, ut haereat Deo. Quidquid
boni habet, illi tribuat a quo factus est (St. Aug. Ser. 96)
Dave Wheeler
>
> **God takes ignorance into account.**
>
> Ignorance is not the same as innocence. Ignorance means "unknowing" -
> innocent means "not guilty". We are all guilty of sin (as I said we can't
> keep our own moral standards, much less God's) so none of us are
> innocent" - Some are ignorant though. In that case God will judge them on
> how well they kept whatever moral code they had. So if there is some muslim
> that never heard of Jesus, or was brainwashed to ignore Jesus, or whatever,
> then God will judge them on his works (just like you want to be judged if I
> remember correctly).
Excellent, so after all, being a Christian is NOT the only way into
Heaven? I cannot believe you mean this - you have said repeatedly
that being a Christian is indeed the only way 'through the backdoor'.
Perhaps you mean that being ignorant of Jesus Christ, but performing
good works, does not ensure entry into Heaven but ensures a 'better
deal' in Hell? This is not Christianity as I know it - I thought it
was 'all or nothing'! Just patiently answer this last point and then
we'll move onto something else!
Dave
Rev. Craig C. Krueger
on. I did not say that my few lines where a total exegesis of the text.
Paul's writings in Romans 2:1 are to show the universality of the law. He
is saying that even those who would ignore the Torah recognize what it says.
All men are sinners because they cannot live up to their own standards.
We say it is wrong to lie? Do we lie? Have we ever told one? If the
answer is yes, then we condemn ourselves with or without the Torah. This is
Paul saying that it is not just the Jews who have broken God's law. No, he
is showing how God's law is universal and all people have broken it, and
KNOW it.
If they know it, they know that there is a break in their
relationship/communication with God. That relationship must somehow be
restored. Since we have broken the law, Paul says it is obvious that it
must be God who initiates the restoration.
Craig
"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:XGJDc.9625$Xn....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
John Sparks
> "John Sparks" <john...@mystique.net> wrote in message news:<TnMCc.5126>
> > I have said this over and over again... heck, what's one more time? :-)
> >
> > **God takes ignorance into account.**
> >
> > Ignorance is not the same as innocence. Ignorance means "unknowing" -
> > innocent means "not guilty". We are all guilty of sin (as I said we
can't
> > keep our own moral standards, much less God's) so none of us are
> > innocent" - Some are ignorant though. In that case God will judge them
on
> > how well they kept whatever moral code they had. So if there is some
muslim
> > that never heard of Jesus, or was brainwashed to ignore Jesus, or
whatever,
> > then God will judge them on his works (just like you want to be judged
if I
> > remember correctly).
>
> Excellent, so after all, being a Christian is NOT the only way into
> Heaven? I cannot believe you mean this - you have said repeatedly
> that being a Christian is indeed the only way 'through the backdoor'.
Boy are we going around in circles? If you are ignorant of the gospel, God
judges you on your keeping of what revelation you have had. The basic
revelation of God to us is the knowledge of right and wrong. We know what is
right and what is wrong. If we keep that code, we will get into heaven. It
would be considered getting in through the "front door" - being perfect and
sinless - if we break that code of right and wrong, it is called sin, and
then we need Jesus, or we will be judged on our "works" (things we did right
and wrong).
This is what you WANT, right? to be judged on your deeds? Well, you will be.
The problem is that if you have done anything wrong (sin) no amount of good
will erase that bad. So you will be judged to be guilty of sin, and sent to
hell. You still need Jesus if you want to bypass judgement.
> Perhaps you mean that being ignorant of Jesus Christ, but performing
> good works, does not ensure entry into Heaven but ensures a 'better
> deal' in Hell?
Not exactly (see above.) But, yes, if you do go to hell, your good deeds
will help you. They won't keep you out of hell (one sin is enough to send
you there) but you will "get credit" for doing good. There will be different
degrees of torment in hell, just like there will be different degrees of
reward in heaven. I am sure that Hitler will be tormented much more than,
say, Bertrand Russell. But I think the torment will be self inflicted, not
some external torture chamber or such. The person's character will determine
their torment.
Also, here is an article that attempts to explain hell on terms of honor and
shame, it is a pretty good read. http://www.tektonics.org/2muchshame.html
One of the best quotes I have read on Hell was by CS Lewis - he said that
the gates of hell will be locked - from the inside.
>This is not Christianity as I know it - I thought it
> was 'all or nothing'! Just patiently answer this last point and then
> we'll move onto something else!
Round and round we go. Hey if you have the time, go back and reread our
thread from the beginning, I think we are starting a loop here and we might
avoid it if you reread what I said previously. I know the discussion has
been going on for a long time and it is easy to lose track of the
conversation (especially with a new wife and vacation and all!)