Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Is Hell really necessary? And what about Heaven?
-
Is Hell really necessary? And what about Heaven?
“The modern age in which we live, and with which C.S. Lewis contested throughout his writings, denies the supernatural. John Lennon brilliantly expressed this modern mind in his song “Imagine”: “Imagine there’s no heaven… No hell… Imagine all the people, living for today…”
Lennon was merely lyrically distilling the growing consensus of the modern mind that has been developing in Western culture since the Enlightenment. A hundred years earlier, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “Other world, there is no other world. Here or nowhere is the whole fact of the matter!”
<sup>1</sup>Lewis believed that a vigorous supernaturalism was essential to understanding Christianity.<sup>2</sup> Central to Lewis’s supernaturalism was an unapologetic belief in heaven and hell. Without a supernatural world, especially heaven and hell, there is much about our lives, human experience, and Christianity that just doesn’t fit together.”
I’m curious what people here think of the idea that “there is much about our lives,” that doesn’t make sense without heaven or hell. Is hell necessary in order for there to be true justice? Do people need to go to a place like the Bible describes as heaven in order to be truly happy?
-
79 Replies
-
Consider this: By and large, the underlying concepts of the lyrics to “Imagine” (see below) are compatible with the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus. For example, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Whereas the underlying concepts of the Pauline gospel is, if anything, antithetical to the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus. For all intents and purposes, Christianity has the Pauline gospel as its foundation. Christians embrace the Pauline gospel because it is self-serving to do so; self-loving to do so.
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin’ for today
Ah
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin’ life in peace
You
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
-
Thanks for sharing the lyrics. In what way do you view the Gospel of Christ as differing from the Gospel Paul preached? How do you see the Pauline Gospel as self-love?
-
Jason @PhilosophicalLogic
The gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the words attributed to Him in the four gospels from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion.
Let’s begin with a couple of concepts that a high percentage of Christians have as foundational to their beliefs. Concepts rooted in the Pauline gospel.:
1) No one can make themselves righteous. This concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus.
2) In order to be “saved”, one must have faith that Jesus paid the penalty for one’s sins with His crucifixion – or some variation thereof. This concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus.
According to the gospel preached by Jesus, in order to be “saved”, the unrighteous must make themselves righteous. At a minimum righteousness entails not committing sin. See the following examples:
John 5
28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Matthew 16
24Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 27“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.
Luke 13
23And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24“Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25“Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ 26“Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; 27and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ 28“In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
-
Thank you Algernon for sharing your thoughts. Paul’s teaching in a continuation of Christ’s teaching, and an expounding upon it. They’re not contradicting each other, they’re complementing each other. You seem to be suggesting that Paul didn’t teach that Christians should live righteous lives, but:
Romans 3:31
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ro 3:31.
-
Jason @PhilosophicalLogic
Paul’s teaching in a continuation of Christ’s teaching, and an expounding upon it. They’re not contradicting each other, they’re complementing each other. You seem to be suggesting that Paul didn’t teach that Christians should live righteous lives.
I suggested nothing of the kind. My post pointed out a contradiction in what is required to be “saved”. According to the gospel preached by Jesus, the unrighteous MUST make themselves righteous. Full stop. For all intents and purposes, this is antithetical to the beliefs of a high percentage of Christians. Beliefs that are rooted in the Pauline gospel. Please reread my post.
Pointing out that Paul taught that Christians should try to live righteous lives is neither here nor there. You’ve created a strawman. According to a high percentage of Christians, it is NOT required to be “saved”. TRYING to do something is not the same thing as actually doing it. COMMITTING to do something is not the same as actually doing it.
Matthew 21
28“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ 29“And he answered and said, ‘I will, sir’; and he did not go. 30“And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, ‘I will not’; yet he afterward regretted it and went. 31“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The latter.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you. 32“For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax-gatherers and harlots did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.
-
According to the gospel preached by Jesus, the unrighteous MUST make themselves righteous. Full stop.
You are misinterpreting Jesus’ teaching. Consider the following:
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 3:16.
John 6:28-29
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 6:28–29.
John 11:25-26
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jn 11:25–26.
You find a few verses where Jesus teaches that we should live righteously, and you ignore the rest of his teaching. That is a tragic mistake. Consider again:
Matthew 13:19
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 13:19.
-
Jason @PhilosophicalLogic
Setting aside the fact that John 3:16 was likely not said by Jesus, but is instead commentary by the author of the Book of John.
Of course, belief in Him is required. When Jesus was preaching His gospel, He used the terms “believe Him” and “believe in Him” essentially in three different ways:
1) Believe that He has the authority to speak the word of God
2) Believe that His words are the word of God
3) Believe His words in and of themselves.
Of the three listed, the first two are as means of getting to the third and not the ends in and of themselves. Those who believe in living as Jesus exhorts people to live and therefore actually do it are His true disciples.
John 8
34 …“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.”
31 …“If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
36“If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
35“And the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
Jesus did NOT use them to mean to believe that “Jesus paid the penalty for one’s sins with His crucifixion” or what have you.
That “believe in” Him equates to believing in “His commandment”, “the things [He] speak[s], “[His] sayings”, “the word[s] [He] spoke” cannot be laid out much more straightforwardly than the following:
John 12
46 “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
50 “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”
48 “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49 “For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear”.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
You find a few verses where Jesus teaches that we should live righteously, and you ignore the rest of his teaching. That is a tragic mistake.
Jesus isn’t merely “teach[ing] that we should live righteously”, He explicitly states that they are absolutely required to be “saved”. Plus, it’s not as if those are the only verses that point in that direction.
It’s as if you are bound and determined to dismiss what Jesus explicitly states by any means possible – no matter how unreasonably. For all intents and purposes, it’s as if you don’t even understand the words Jesus spoke, much less believe them; you allow the words of Paul and followers of Paul to BLIND you to what Jesus is saying; you “remain in darkness”. Matthew 13:19 applies to YOU rather than me.
-
You rightly point out that John 3:16 is thought to be a summary of Jesus’ teaching. Since you know about Biblical scholarship, let me answer you this way. We don’t have any of Jesus’ words, all the Gospels are fabrications. The only writings we have from an apostle are the seven authentic Pauline epistles, everything else in the new Testament is forgery and fabrication. Therefore, the only way to understand Christianity from the apostolic age is to read Paul’s epistles.
Put another way, you have no idea what Jesus taught about salvation, and neither does anyone else. But we do have what Paul said. So I go with Paul.
-
Have to give you credit for conceding that the Pauline gospel is extremely different from the gospel preached by Jesus. It’s more than a bit of a rarity for a Christian to have that kind of intellectual honesty. The vast majority continue to defend, defend, defend – no matter how unreasonable, no matter how ridiculously unreasonable.
That said, have to question your reason for choosing the Pauline gospel. The gospel preached by Jesus is so much more sound. For example, take the topic of this thread: Heaven, hell and justice. Presumably the underlying point is that although there is no “true justice” in this world, an afterlife would remedy this. The evildoers would ultimately be held to account. Do I understand you correctly?
With the underlying concepts of the Pauline gospel this would not be true: Hell for those who fail to have faith that Jesus paid the penalty for one’s sins with His crucifixion – or some variation thereof. Heaven for those who have faith that Jesus paid the penalty for one’s sins with His crucifixion – or some variation thereof. Evildoers would still not be held to account. Even worse, those who are not evildoers would be held to account.
With the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus, this would be true: Hell for the unrighteous, that is the evildoers. Heaven for the righteous. Evildoers would ultimately be held to account.
-
This reply was modified 5 days, 11 hours ago by Algernon.
-
This reply was modified 5 days, 11 hours ago by
-
Great point. My view is that the Gospel as attributed to Christ in the Gospels is essentially the same as Paul’s Gospel. Briefly put, I don’t believe Paul excuses the unrighteous at all:
Romans 1:18
The Guilt of Humankind
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ro 1:18–11:26.
Paul teaches that faith is how we partake of the sacrifice of Christ, but that we must live righteous lives or we will not be counted as true believers:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 1 Co 6:9–11.
-
Your latest post seems to at odds with your previous post which seemed to indicate that you had conceded that the Pauline gospel is extremely different from the gospel preached by Jesus. Specifically that what is required to be “saved” cannot reasonably be reconciled. Now it seems that you’ve done a 180 and say that your view is that “the Gospel as attributed to Christ in the Gospels is essentially the same as Paul’s Gospel.” What?
-
-
-
You wrote: “The gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the words attributed to Him in the four gospels from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion.”
When I look at the NT and particularly the gospels, I really only use the original Mark (ending at chapter 16:14). I do so because there is considerable consensus about that being the oldest, and therefore most reliable version. The rest seems to be add-on’s and a narrative becoming progressively skewed. The next step would be to discard any Jesus quotes that predated Jesus historically, like the sermon on the mount of which most was already recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls, possibly indicating a particular sect’s set of teachings (before Jesus).
It still leaves the question about the origin of the rest of Jesus’ quoted words that correspond accross Matthew and Luke somewhat unresolved. Those phrases are not in Mark, even though a lot of Mark were apparently used to construct Matthew and Luke. A so-called Q-source that might have predated Mark is one hypothesis, which means that Matthew and Luke freely expanded on what Mark wrote while adding a second source only containing quotes that they attributed to Jesus .
John is regarded as the least reliable as it is said to have been written by followers in the monastry where John lived out the remaining years of his life many decades later (apparently not 1st century).
Interesting therefore that all quotes given here and in this discussion originated outside Mark. Just my two cents.
-
Your position doesn’t seem particularly well-considered. For example, it seems to largely rest upon the following:
“I really only use the original Mark (ending at chapter 16:14). I do so because there is considerable consensus about that being the oldest, and therefore most reliable version.”
The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow the premise. If you want to discuss this, start another thread. I’ll chime in with more thoughts.
-
I disagree, and afaik most scholars do. If you consider various historical scriptures about the same events one would give more weight to the scripture written closest to the events. The more conservative christology in original Mark vs the others would be factored in, also the added narratives of the others (miracle birth, post mortem appearances). Embellishments of the story are more likely than a toned down version.
-
Since you chose not to start another thread, I’ll take it that you aren’t all that interested in discussing it. Your position is overly simplistic.
-
-
You state a lot of things definitively. Should I assume your source is “trust me bro” or are you willing to back those claims with primary sources? (Genuinely Interested)
-
This reply was modified 5 days, 11 hours ago by Joel.
-
@Enigma Joel, I assumed that this is widely known (even though not always agreed with), which is why I did not bother with citations. I think that by now you would have already found this, if you were interested.. just a general overview supported by various sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
-
Thanks, haven’t read up on this. The purposeful nature to the differences in each book seems like it would be intended by God. I’ll get back to you after I look at their primary sources. A wikipedia page doesn’t show any true personal understanding though, so if you could extrapolate in the mean time, I’d appreciate it.
-
This reply was modified 5 days, 11 hours ago by
-
-
-
-
I definitely don’t embrace the Pauline gospel because of it being self-serving. I’m not able to practice delayed gratification and take up my cross in the midst of my selfishness (which I’d argue to be sin 1 Corinthians 13 love is not self serving, the summarized commandments being around love). I love and embrace the Pauline gospel because of The Holy Spirit and because Christ first loved me.
-
joel @Enigma
I love and embrace the Pauline gospel because of The Holy Spirit and because Christ first loved me.
Please read through my discussion with Jason @PhilosophicalLogic . It should help you to better understand what I had in mind when I wrote: “Christians embrace the Pauline gospel because it is self-serving to do so.”
Then answer the following questions: According to the gospel preached by Jesus, what is required to receive “The Holy Spirit”? According to the gospel preached by Jesus, what is required for Jesus to love you? Please cite scripture to back up your answers.
-
Ah, sorry. I see what you meant now. We believe in a salvation by faith alone without works because it’s self-serving is what you’re saying. I’ll provide my rundown of your questions with provided scripture.
Acts 2:38 (NASB95): 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This seems pretty straightforward. Before I was baptized, I experienced the Holy Spirit through an unprovoked wave of ecstasy and tears after repenting and asking for forgiveness. Then I had a part of me that was willing to joyfully sacrifice everything to please God and help others. Just my experience which
Jeremiah 17:9 (NASB95): 9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?”
might prove worthless.
On the note of who Jesus loves, I believe it comes down to the definition of love. Love being wanting what’s best, then in a way, Jesus loves everyone. Love as actively for and hate as actively against. Then Jesus loves the possibly willingly repentant and hates the unrepentant/obstinate.
2 Peter 3:9-10 (NASB95): 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
My belief on the gospel is that we have to believe Christ is who he says he is (the son of God), repent for heartful belief, confess Christ as God, and true repentance would lead us to Christ for salvation from honestly acknowledged sin rather than moral superiority, prosperity, or comfort from death.
John 8:23–24 (NASB95): 23 And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
There’s a ton of verses saying repent and believe. I’m sure you know them.
Romans 10:9–10 (NASB95): “9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
I also believe in the doctrine of regeneration, that one becomes “born of God” after heartful repentant belief and confession. We should test ourselves because of our deceitful heart and the litmus test can be found in 1 John.
2 Corinthians 13:5 (NASB95): 5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?
1 John 1:8 (NASB95): 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1 John 2:3–6 (NASB95): 3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
He extrapolates more specifically
1 John 2:9 (NASB95): 9 The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
1 John 2:11 (NASB95): 11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
1 John 2:15–16 (NASB95): 15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
1 John 2:22–23 (NASB95): 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
1 John 2:29 (NASB95): 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 3:6–10 (NASB95): 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
1 John 3:15 (NASB95): 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 3:17 (NASB95): 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
1 John 4:7 (NASB95): 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 5:1–5 (NASB95): 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:18–19 (NASB95): 18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
!! Thanks, it’s a lot to read. Feel free to reply and read at your convenience.
-
Joel @Enigma
Yes. Belief in salvation by faith alone without works is a self-serving belief. It is but one of the many self-serving beliefs that many Christians embrace that has roots in the Pauline gospel rather than the gospel preached by Jesus.
Seems that you overlooked the fact that each of the questions was prefaced with “According to the gospel preached by Jesus…”.
Perhaps the most prevalent theme of the gospel preached by Jesus is the importance of His words including, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine” and “the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day”. His true disciples abide in His word. Not the word of Paul. Not the of anyone other than Jesus. Yet it is to the word of those other than Jesus that you turn when asked to support your beliefs with scripture. Where you did cite the word of Jesus, you took His word out of context – not understanding His words.
Receiving the “spirit of truth” and receiving the love of Jesus are conditional. They both require keeping His commandments. Compare that to your response.
John 14
15“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16“And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you… 21“He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him.”…23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. 24“He who does not love Me does not keep My words
To those who do not keep His commandments, that is those who are evildoers, that is those who commit sin: Jesus says, “I do not know where you are from, depart from Me”. Jesus does not know them. Jesus did not disclose Himself to them. Jesus did not make His abode with them.
Luke 13
23And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24“Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25“Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ 26“Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; 27and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ 28“In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
-
I’m curious, are you an Atheist, a Christian, something else? Just wondering.
-
Jason @DiscipleOfChrist
I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus. His words speak to me. I listen to His voice. His teachings are sound and coherent. Many are deep and profound.
In my experience, most Christians do not know even the half of what He said. For them, His words are unimportant, no matter how much they may claim otherwise. Even fewer understand what He is saying, much less believe His words. Even less follow His word, much less abide in and keep His word. Despite this, they call themselves “followers of Jesus”, “disciples of Christ”, etc. And they call Him, “Lord, lord”. The reality is that instead they believe and follow the words of those other than Jesus. For all intents and purposes, they are the “white-washed” tombs, if not the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that Jesus warns about.
Hence the oft-repeated quote: “Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”.
John 8
12Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.”… 31Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”… 36“If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed…43“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. 45“But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me…47“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
-
Thanks for sharing that, very interesting.
-
Jason @DiscipleOfChrist
Can you expand on “interesting”? In other words, what do you really think?
-
I think it’s interesting that you refuse to identify yourself with any particular worldview. You will not say you are a Christian or an Atheist, etc. So you are hiding your beliefs. It makes it very difficult to argue with someone when you don’t know what they believe. So I find it “interesting” that you are hiding what you believe.
-
Jason @DiscipleOfChrist
I’ve been telling you many things that I believe, why I believe them and have been backing it up with the words of Jesus from His gospel. Thus far, you’ve failed to reasonably counter any of them. If you believe that my beliefs are incorrect, then by all means construct a well-reasoned argument against them. Instead of tossing out red herrings about identifying with a particular worldview and making false claims about “hiding [my] beliefs”.
-
Besides not liking Paul, how do you differentiate yourself from other Christians in terms of action, behavior or lifestyle? You say you have a more authentic interpretation of Jesus but live just like every Christian. This indicates your interpretation is not really different. Jacob Hutter, by contrast, claimed a different interpretation, leading to radical changes.
-
Do you see any churches that are justified? Do you have others who agree or are you a church of one? I’m curious, for this would leave you claiming to be the only one who understood scripture. Rejecting Paul and all Christians, do you say that you stand alone?
-
Do you see any churches that are justified? Do you have others who agree or are you a church of one? I’m curious, for this would leave you claiming to be the only one who understood scripture. Rejecting Paul and all Christians, do you say that you stand alone?
Sorry, but this doesn’t make logical sense. Especially in light of the fact that it’s been less than a month since I posted the following in response to one of your posts:
Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.
—-Thomas Jefferson
From < https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1559>
And to which you responded:
“Jefferson was wise. I’ve always thought so.”
-
We’re talking about your wisdom now. I mean, welcome to being one of the wolves in sheep’s clothing that you decry. Despite saying Jesus should be followed instead of Paul, you find no route different from ordinary Christian behaviors, which means you really are not seeing a difference but just say so. If you say your “belief architecture” is different although your actions are entirely the same, then you’re guilty of “faith before works.” In other words you are a follower of Paul in practice, thinking your beliefs to be sufficient.
I think you’d have to identify a living member of your “church of one,” not just point at Thomas Jefferson who is not here at the moment to dispute what you say about him. And Thomas Jefferson too did not identify different behaviors than the standard Christians do. You stand churchless and declaring yourself to see more clearly than other Christians, yet aren’t ready to found any kind of church since you ask for no other kinds of behaviors. Your claim is specious as you say other actions are needed, but can’t tell us what they are.
-
Listen. I know you have an axe to grind. But trying to worm your way into discussions others are having and making false/unfounded accusations isn’t the best way to go about it. Try starting another thread. Grind your axe there.
-
This reply was modified 15 hours, 44 minutes ago by Algernon.
-
This reply was modified 15 hours, 44 minutes ago by
-
I see you can by no means answer. It means I have tripped you up in hypocrisy, regarding your entire worldview. I don’t think it is appropriate to start a new thread explaining how Algernon is able to sound off about Christians not performing actions for salvation like Jesus asked, but is totally unable to list any actions he thinks they should do differently. I’m not seeking a resolution here, just pointing to a mind that occupies an empty position.
-
Unfortunately jayceeii has chosen to double down, remain true to form and continue making false/unfounded accusations. More’s the pity.
-
I have shown you are not a more authentic Christian, as you tell people that you are. I don’t say that I pity you, but you are not in a place where you can integrate your ideas. With respect to Judgment or the return of Jesus, you are non-different from all Christians. To correct this you’d need to “make real” your attestation different actions are needed. You mind can say, “This must all be different,” with absolutely no idea of the differences.
In other words, all of this redounds against yourself, for you can point to no changes:
In my experience, most Christians do not know even the half of what He said. For them, His words are unimportant, no matter how much they may claim otherwise. Even fewer understand what He is saying, much less believe His words. Even less follow His word, much less abide in and keep His word. Despite this, they call themselves “followers of Jesus”, “disciples of Christ”, etc. And they call Him, “Lord, lord”. The reality is that instead they believe and follow the words of those other than Jesus. For all intents and purposes, they are the “white-washed” tombs, if not the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that Jesus warns about.
-
Unfortunately jayceeii has chosen to triple down, remain true to form and continue making false/unfounded accusations. More’s the pity.
Listen. I know you have an axe to grind. But trying to worm your way into discussions others are having and making false/unfounded accusations isn’t the best way to go about it. Try starting another thread. Grind your axe there.
Can anyone be more oblivious to the context of a conversation?
-
You’re “the man without a plan,” lambasting the inattentive Christians but paying no more attention than they. Let’s look more closely at your “context,” what you are saying. I still say it is inappropriate to put up a “roast thread,” where I point at your hypocrisy. You aren’t that important to myself or to the forum; it would become an unanswered distraction. I’m not grinding an ax, just looking for anything real instead of emptiness.
AG: In my experience, most Christians do not know even the half of what He said.
JC: This is faulting other Christians without offering any alternatives. You are claiming to know better than most Christians what Jesus said, but do not differ from them in lifestyle.
AG: For them, His words are unimportant, no matter how much they may claim otherwise.
JC: This blows back against you, Algernon. You claim Jesus’ words are more important to you than they are to other Christians, yet have no plan for better implementing the words.
AG: Even fewer understand what He is saying, much less believe His words.
JC: If you understand and believe, nonetheless you offer nothing beyond usual Christians. If you have it so much better, surely this is a foundation for a sect Jesus would like better.
AG: Even less follow His word, much less abide in and keep His word.
JC: All of the sects claim to follow Jesus’ words better than the other sects, that’s how they form. You only have the “They aren’t doing it,” not, “Here is how it is to be done.”
AG: Despite this, they call themselves “followers of Jesus”, “disciples of Christ”, etc.
JC: You lambaste yourself at the same time, offering no differences from Christianity particularly where you insist men are to be judged on their actions by the Lord. Your actions are the same as all other Christians, so as you judge them, you judge yourself.
AG: And they call Him, “Lord, lord”.
JC: And you call Him, “Lord, Lord.” I see no difference between Christians and yourself.
AG: The reality is that instead they believe and follow the words of those other than Jesus.
JC: So explain here, what are they doing wrong and how is it better done? This would indeed be subject for another thread, were your mind not totally empty regarding all this. You can’t establish a church, even of one, if you don’t propose some actual differences.
AG: For all intents and purposes, they are the “white-washed” tombs, if not the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that Jesus warns about.
JC: Yes, that is you! Otherwise show how your actions take you outside of that group. You are also one of those crying, “Lord, Lord,” that Jesus will say don’t belong to Him.
-
My point here is you seem to be declaring a unique religion for Algernon as sole correct interpreter of Jesus, and yet you give no additional insight into what a better lifestyle more correctly following Jesus would amount to. You say to stop sinning, but this is what all Christians will say they attempt to do. In particular when you look at the monastics, these are humans who definitely avoid all the usual sins, and yet you say if they listen to sermons about Paul they have fallen away. You declare a separate path but it looks empty. If someone agreed with you, what steps should they take? There don’t seem to be any. How can you say the Christians have fallen away from Christ, if you suggest no changes?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Understanding any purpose for Hell turns on what kind of person one thinks their god is.
If the standard Christian view if God is correct: that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then Hell serves no purpose whatsoever. God could not justify sending any human who has ever existed to Hell because this standard Christian God is an accomplice to every evil act ever committed. This is, of course, not part of the standard Christian view but it is a logical consequence. Relegating someone to Hell would be hypocritical.
Further, eternal damnation is pointless, punishment can only be justified as a teaching tool, but teaching someone a “lesson” they will never be allowed to apply is either futile or cruel.
Understanding any purpose for Hell turns on what kind of person one thinks their god is.
seán s.
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. So much to respond to. I’ll start with the idea of God as accomplice to every sinful act. How do you come to the conclusion that God is such an accomplice?
-
An accomplice is defined as a person who knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally gives assistance to another in (or in some cases fails to prevent another from) the commission of a crime.
That is the legalistic meaning; it is not perfect; it is not controlling, but it’s a good place to start.
If the standard Christian view if God is correct (that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) then that God is an accomplice to every evil act by knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally aiding or permitting the evil act, by assisting the escape or evasion of serial perpetrators. The standard Christian God supposedly has foresight to anticipate evil acts; and omniscience to know what evil has occurred, who the guilty party is, and where they are hiding. The standard Christian God would have the ability to prevent any evil act before it occurred. His failure to do so makes him an accomplice before and after the fact.
seán s.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
That’s really interesting. However, if we look at what the Bible says, God has cursed humanity to live in this world full of suffering and evil. It is God’s intention and purpose to have us living in this fallen world because of humanity’s sin in Eden. Therefore God has decided he will not prevent certain evils, and that he will not punish them until the end of this current age. I am a young earth creationist, I believe what the Bible says in Genesis. Therefore, God is not an accomplice to humanity’s sin, rather, he has turned us over to our free will choice of rebellion against him.
-
Taking all you say as true, it still leaves us with this: your God is evil. That conclusion is based on your description. If God is not evil then your description is simply wrong. I don’t see any way to decide which.
seán s.
-
That’s really interesting. However, if we look at what the Bible says, God has cursed humanity to live in this world full of suffering and evil. It is God’s intention and purpose to have us living in this fallen world because of humanity’s sin in Eden. Therefore God has decided he will not prevent certain evils, and that he will not punish them until the end of this current age.
Sorry, this is going dark but it is sometimes the only way of helping people see the point.
So imagine a scenario where two police officers burst into a house to arrest a drug dealer. Entering his bedroom, they discover him raping a small child. They stand back saying, “This is awful. We’re going to let you finish and then arrest you in order to face justice!” When questioned over why they let the rape continue when they were in a position to stop it (it was the two of them against one man and a non resistant child who wanted to be rescued), the officers point out that the little girl’s father was an awful character and that as a result, she was not so innocent herself. That’s why they let it continue.
You end up defending something analogous to the above. Why?
I am a young earth creationist, I believe what the Bible says in Genesis.
But again, why? This seems to create even more of a problem for the Christian position. Otherwise decent people end up defending heinous ideas that they would never dream of defending in any other context and their only presented reason for doing so, is assumptions they make about a book and (seemingly) refuse to question. Some of the Biblical characters claim they were ordered by God to go out and kill children with swords (and take the females for themselves). Given what they did (or, attempted to do when it didn’t quite work out), why would you just trust their self professed claim to be hearing from God (even in situations where the claims fly in the face of modern discoveries) and publicly defend the killing (and other ideas) ahead of simply entertaining the possibility that they were probably mistaken in their idea that they were hearing from God? You would do this if it was any other book, wouldn’t you? Didn’t Jesus even say that you should judge a tree by observing its fruit?
Therefore, God is not an accomplice to humanity’s sin ..
I need to pause you there. If I drive a person to a bank robbery and wait in the car and then take them home, all the while knowing what the person is doing then legally I am an accessory to the crime even if I did not take any of the money myself. Even though I did not take any money, I knowingly participated in and facilitated the act and legally I will be help culpable even if I receive a lesser sentence than the person who took the money. If I acted freely (I wasn’t coerced), I am likely to receive a harsher penalty that if I was forced into helping. If God exists (and is omniscient and omnipotent), he knowingly provides people with everything they need in order to do evil (the breath, the strength, access to certain victims and so on). He is a very particular type of accessory because if he exists, he must be knowingly facilitating in ways that we are not capable of because unlike us, he sustains in being those who are committing the acts.
… he has turned us over to our free will choice of rebellion against him.
Even if we concede that Adam and Eve freely chose to sin (and that is questionable because they didn’t even know what evil was when faced with the choice so it wasn’t informed … but that is another matter), the idea that everyone after them has freely sinned is to be found nowhere in the Bible and in fact, the teachings of folk such as Paul suggests the complete opposite.
Paul teaches that due to the original sin, everyone has inherited a sin nature and that this sin nature has taken them captive and made them slaves to sin. Nowhere does Paul state that people are freely sinning and even where they want to sin, they are still doing it because they are slaves to their sinful nature. If you don’t believe me, read through Romans 6 and 7 (the whole passages). The whole theme of those chapters is that we are slaves to sin and not merely willing participants. The slavery to sin culminates in Paul saying “For what I want to do I do not do and what I hate I do” (Romans 7:14). Do those sound like the words of a person who claims to be sinning freely? Paul does claim that people have a free choice over whether to sin or not once they have been set free by Christ and received the Holy Spirit but nowhere does he claim that anybody else is sinning freely and indeed, he teaches the complete opposite! In fact, he could not make it clearer!
Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Romans 7 : 20-25
If Paul believed he was sinning freely, why would he write “it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it”? If he believed himself capable of simply being able to choose not to sin, why would he present himself as in need of rescuing?
So where did you get this idea that people are sinning freely? I’ll guarantee you that it isn’t by reading the Bible and coming to your own conclusions.
-
Thank you for your thoughtful response James.
You start with a human committing a crime against another human, and further, it is humans you cite as law enforcement. For such instances, we refer to God’s word, and God commands that we stop the crime as soon as possible, and punish those responsible. But you are trying to respond to what has happened between God and humanity, and you are ignoring the Creator/creature distinction. There is something different about what our first parents did in Eden towards God, and what humans do to each other. The next natural question is, what is the difference between Eden and today? I don’t know all that the Creator/creature distinction entails, but we can all see that there obviously is such a distinction. So your attempt at an analogy fails.
Next you cite the conquest of Canaan, claiming God does not have the right to order executions, and to have them carried out by the means he sees fit. Again you seem to be ignoring the Creator/creature distinction. No human authority may have the right to order such action, but it was not a human authority but a Divine one that gave the command. The Bible is the story of God’s dealings with his people, and he does not ask our permission for his actions. That’s something that needs to be recognized if you hope to understand God at all.
You said, “If God exists (and is omniscient and omnipotent), he knowingly provides people with everything they need in order to do evil (the breath, the strength, access to certain victims and so on). He is a very particular type of accessory because if he exists, he must be knowingly facilitating in ways that we are not capable of because unlike us, he sustains in being those who are committing the acts.” You’re on to something here when you point out the differences between what a human can do, and what God does. The Creator/creature distinction. That’s right, what God does is very different than what we do, and when we sin against God, it is very different than what goes on here on earth between humans. God is our creator, he does sustain us in existence, and he has the right to punish us. God has chosen to punish us by causing us to live in a world where people can freely choose to do good or evil to each other, since we chose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
You closed with a reference to Paul’s teaching. Here I would point out that the Bible is not a single book to be blindly obeyed, but a collection of writings to be thought about and reasoned through. I do not accept Paul’s teaching of Calvinism for example in Romans 9. Reading through the Bible you see that there is an argument going on between those who believe in free will, and those who are determinists. It’s a theological dispute, and I come down on the side of free will, consequently, Paul’s teaching on the subject is interesting but not determinative for me.
Joshua 24:15
15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jos 24:15.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Jason.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by
-
Thank you for your thoughtful response James.
You’re more than welcome. I see how you respond with courtesy to Sean and other contributors and see prima facie evidence of a decent person who understands that it is important that intelligent beings treat one another decently. That is why I have chosen to respond in this way.
You start with a human committing a crime against another human, and further, it is humans you cite as law enforcement.
Correct. To highlight that you would not even begin to attempt defending this in any other context (see my opening comment). You are a decent person who understands that it is wrong for intelligent beings to hurt other intelligent beings for their own gratification and to fail to stop it happening under circumstances where they can. If this scenario involved intelligent aliens from another planet, you wouldn’t excuse them on the basis that they are not human, would you?
In the case of Christianity in particular, this differentiation does not really fly either. According to the orthodox Christian position, God became human in the person of Jesus and he is currently in Heaven allowing these things to happen. So in the person of Christ, we also have an instance of a human allowing these things to occur.
For such instances, we refer to God’s word, and God commands …
This goes back to the problem that I highlighted in my previous post.
The Bible was written by humans (and that’s all we have evidence of it being written by). Most of those authors do not claim that God is inspiring them (in fact, I can’t think of any who do and most don’t name themselves either). You have no way of fact checking their claims and some that did think God was speaking to them, thought that God was telling them to kill children (hence my opening example) and they did it. Yet in this instance (and for no reason, except that it is in the Bible), you assume that those humans couldn’t have made any mistakes when writing the Bible, thinking they were hearing from God etc.
If your neighbour chopped someone up with an axe and said “God told me to do it”, I’m confident you would not immediately think “Phew! I thought you were just doing it because you wanted to do it. God told you to, so that’s OK!” But for some reason, if that human is mentioned in the Bible …
But you are trying to respond to what has happened between God and humanity, and you are ignoring the Creator/creature distinction.
There’s no reason to think that there is a valid creator/creature distinction.
Let’s also assume that one of the policemen in my opening example is also the girl’s father. Because he played a role in creating the girl, is he now exempt from punishment for standing by and watching? Absolutely not and in fact, these added details make his inaction even more inexplicable! If the other person was actually Jesus, acting incognito, would his inaction suddenly be perfectly OK?
I don’t know all that the Creator/creature distinction entails, but we can all see that there obviously is such a distinction. So your attempt at an analogy fails.
You have to show a valid distinction to claim that my analogy fails. Absent that evidence, my analogy succeeds. That’s how these things work. And an analogy does not have to be “like for like” to succeed as an analogy. It only has to be close enough.
Next you cite the conquest of Canaan, claiming God does not have the right to order executions, and to have them carried out by the means he sees fit.
No, I made no such claim. I asked you a question, and here it is:
Some of the Biblical characters claim they were ordered by God to go out and kill children with swords (and take the females for themselves). Given what they did (or, attempted to do when it didn’t quite work out), why would you just trust their self professed claim to be hearing from God (even in situations where the claims fly in the face of modern discoveries) and publicly defend the killing (and other ideas) ahead of simply entertaining the possibility that they were probably mistaken in their idea that they were hearing from God?
I don’t think they were hearing from God and I won’t assume that they were just because they claim that they were. Why would I do that? I would not do it for anyone else in any other context and neither would you. So obviously, I don’t hold God responsible for any of those atrocities. The issue is, you must and only because you refuse to question the claims of those particular humans and only because their claims are contained within a particular book (or, collection of book in one volume).
Again you seem to be ignoring the Creator/creature distinction. No human authority may have the right to order such action, but it was not a human authority but a Divine one that gave the command.
It is the humans who committed and ordered the atrocities who claim they were receiving their orders from God and for some reason, you don’t seem open to the possibility that they got something wrong, despite what they did. Why? At the moment you’re not answering that question but merely repeating your belief that they were hearing from God (which you believe on the basis of their say-so).
The Bible is the story of God’s dealings with his people …
This is your assumption. You believe this because the human authors claim that the events involve God and you believe them, despite not being able to fact check anything they said. I mean, how do you fact check what is invisibly inspiring someone? It’s not possible (as far as I can tell).
Is it possible for people to think they are hearing from God when in fact, they are not? Of course. Is it possible that some events in the Bible involve some of the people thinking they were hearing from God when in fact, they were not? Of course. If some were mistaken in their belief that they were hearing from God, how would you be able to find this out and while you continue to entertain any possibility that they could be wrong (even when it involves killing children and taking women as slaves)?
You’re on to something here when you point out the differences between what a human can do, and what God does. The Creator/creature distinction. That’s right, what God does is very different than what we do, and when we sin against God, it is very different than what goes on here on earth between humans. God is our creator, he does sustain us in existence, and he has the right to punish us. God has chosen to punish us by causing us to live in a world where people can freely choose to do good or evil to each other, since we chose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
You closed with a reference to Paul’s teaching. Here I would point out that the Bible is not a single book to be blindly obeyed ..
But you are blindly obeying it, that is the problem! Or at least, certain passages, and for no obvious reason. If something Paul claims flies in the face of experience / evidence or doesn’t sit with your moral sensibilities, you will reject it. But at other times, you accept other human claims (about the beginning of the universe and that they were ordered to kill children), despite that flying in the face of all our best evidence.
… but a collection of writings to be thought about and reasoned through.I do not accept Paul’s teaching of Calvinism for example in Romans 9.
Paul seems to keep a tension between both positions (Calvinism and Arminianism). Those without the Holy Spirit are slaves to their sinful nature so end up doing what they don’t want to do (Calvinism). God gave the law, not to free us from sin but to reveal the problem so he could then send Christ to free us from the problem. Once saved and in receipt of the Holy Spirit, we once again possess the ability to choose whether to sin or not (Arminianism).
Joshua 24:15
15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Jos 24:15.
These passages are not incompatible with Paul’s teaching. A decision over whether to serve God or not is not a decision over whether one has a choice over whether to sin or not. The people could choose to serve God yet still be slaves to sin in the broader sense (which is why they needed continual sacrifices – see Paul).
-
You’re very good at arguing your case James, thanks for sharing all that. There are a couple key issues we are disagreeing on, and they make all the difference.
1. Is there a Creator/creature distinction? If the answer is yes, then God sits outside of and above human experience, and he makes the rules. If the answer is no, then God is bound by the same moral constraints that govern our lives, and you would be correct in your view. So the Creator/creature distinction is crucial, and I don’t know how to argue for that, it’s something you either accept when you read the Bible or you don’t.
2. Regarding passages referring to Canaan and related issues, should we believe God was leading the Israelites, or should we conclude they were acting on their own initiative? As you rightly point out, there is no way to fact check this, other than the claim that a person can receive spiritual revelation of the truth when reading God’s word.
So we can try to be reasonable, but in the end, there is always a faith element. I don’t think that faith element is irrational, but it is spiritual, not subject to the five senses commonly agreed upon. I don’t know what I could say to argue for these two issues, I believe what I do because I’ve had a spiritual encounter with God through the reading of the Bible.
Romans 10:17
17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ro 10:17.
Thank you for the great conversation James, as I said, you argue for your position very well.
-
-
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by
-
-
-
I don’t think Hell was invented by people who enjoy the idea of wicked people getting punished. The very idea of punishment was invented as a way to discourage wicked behaviour, plain and simple.
Heaven was (I imagine) invented for the very same reason advertising was invented.
-
I think Hell was invented by people who used religion as a way to control others; Hell was invented to coerce obedience.
seán s.
-
So are you saying there is no real justice? That people will get away with their several evil deeds?
-
Good questions! The answer is real justice is not easy, and people already get away with things.
Punishment is not “justice”, it’s just evil for evil. Any clear-eyed examination of the world shows that does not work. Hangings bring no one back from their grave.
Justice comes from figuring out why evil deeds happen in the first place so as to prevent them, ensuring restitution and reconciliation, and similar efforts.
People get away with their evil all the time. Prisons make prisoners worse. The threat of eternal damnation does not make much difference.
Hell is futile as well as evil.
seán s.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
You said, “Punishment is not ‘justice’ and ‘Justice comes from figuring out why evil deeds happen in the first place so as to prevent them, ensuring restitution and reconciliation, and similar efforts.'”
I think a type of punishment is just, certainly infinitely more just than is eternal suffering in hell, and it can play a critical role in serving justice. That type of punishment is corrective punishment, which, by correcting the evil committed and the will in the doer to commit evil again, goes far toward ensuring restitution and reconciliation. Such punishment is a tenet of Universalism. It seems not to be, in more mainline Christianity.
But there are some hints that corrective punishment is biblical. One appears in a vivid story related by Jesus in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:21-35). Jesus says the unmerciful servant must pay his monetary debt before he can get out of jail. Similarly, Jesus says the same will happen to anyone who sins by not forgiving others: such a person will not get out of jail (i.e., hell?) until he, too, pays back his debt, this time by forgiving others.
Paul also seems to support this kind of punishment in 1 Corinthians 3:9-15. He mentions the results on judgment day of a fiery test that saves. Even those suffering a loss from the fire will be saved by it, as it correctively burns up all that is impure in us.
-
You mentioned “corrective punishment, which, by correcting the evil committed and the will in the doer to commit evil again, goes far toward ensuring restitution and reconciliation.“
I wrote that “Justice comes from figuring out why evil deeds happen in the first place so as to prevent them, ensuring restitution and reconciliation, and similar efforts.”
So I think we agree on how to respond to evil acts or crime.
“Corrective punishment” is a poor term. It generally refers to training of some kind. It is legitimately spoken of but it’s a bad term. It’s not really punishment.
The standard Christian God, being the one who put whatever impurities there are in people, would be hypocritical to make people suffer in anyway because of his own blunders. So, even “corrective punishment” involving temporary suffering would be unjust.
And it appears to me that you reject the notion of “eternal damnation” which is one of the essential attributes of Hell.
seán s.
-
You said, “And it appears to me that you reject the notion of ‘eternal damnation’ which is one of the essential attributes of Hell.”
Note that the KJV of the Bible does not imply that hell is eternal.
“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Revelation 20:14)
But, yes, if the mainline definition of eternal is used, I reject eternal damnation. The word eternal could simply describe where the punishment comes from: from God, The Eternal. So, eternal punishment could well be simply punishment that comes from one who is eternal, God, just as a royal decree comes from one who is royal, say a king. This God-centered view of eternal then would suggest punishment lasts as long as God intends it to last, to accomplish the purpose of such punishment. So, it may last long for some and not so long for others. Similarly, post-mortem life in heaven for the righteous, say the sheep in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, lasts as long as God intends it to last, and that may indeed be a period without end for them.
-
You said, “Corrective punishment” is a poor term. It generally refers to training of some kind. It is legitimately spoken of but it’s a bad term. It’s not really punishment.”
If one looks at what Paul said in the reference I gave in my first post to you, you will see why corrective punishment could be said to be true punishment. People are saved by the fire that tests them. They suffer a loss even though they are saved. The words suffer and loss in 1 Corinthians 3:15 imply that what is occurring is indeed punishment. But it is punishment that serves an uplifting purpose for the person punished as well as for the world that person interacts with.
-
“This God-centered view of eternal then would suggest punishment lasts as long as God intends it to last, to accomplish the purpose of such punishment.“
The standard Christian God, being the one who put whatever impurities there are in people, would be hypocritical to make people suffer in anyway because of his own blunders. So, even “corrective punishment” involving temporary suffering would be unjust.
No nonzero period of punishment would be just. There is no just punishment of a human for the acts of a god.
“Corrective punishment” even as you describe it, is neither necessary nor just for the reasons given.
seán s.
-
You said this.
“The standard Christian God, being the one who put whatever impurities there are in people, would be hypocritical to make people suffer in anyway because of his own blunders. So, even “corrective punishment” involving temporary suffering would be unjust.
No nonzero period of punishment would be just. There is no just punishment of a human for the acts of a god.”
Yes, you said “The standard Christian God.” I am not in any way an advocate for the standard Christian view that says God is directly the creator of everything, despite what the Bible says. There are just too many contradictions to that view within the Bible, itself. Thus, I don’t think God put whatever impurities there are in people. I think it more likely that God relied upon evolution to create a world of creatures that could respond, without intervention by Him, to a constantly changing environment. That world of creatures evolved a necessary level of self-preservation that sometimes went too far in producing selfishness verging on what could be called sinfulness.
So, if this view is correct, it is possible that there are limits to God’s power. He cannot rely upon evolution and then intervene when it produces creatures that freely choose to do evil acts. He cannot rely upon evolution and then intervene when it produces creatures that exploit others through pathogenicity, parasitism, predation, and competition. He cannot rely upon evolution and then intervene when physical environmental conditions–e.g., glaciation, earthquakes, and volcanoes, for example, conditions necessary for evolution to unfold via speciation–become lethal to life.
-
You propose a god who relied on natural processes (like evolution) to create humans. This is conceivable but I does make this person a whole lot less than a god.
But in any event this less-than-god person is still unfit to pass judgment on others. Your less-than-god person could easily call the relevant authorities to give them actionable information on any criminal, forewarn of a planned terrorist act, or military attack. This assumes that your less-than-god person did not have the foresight of things to come; if he did then he would be even more culpable!
All you propose is possible, but it is also possible that there simply is no god at all.
seán s.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by
-
You said, “You propose a god who relied on natural processes (like evolution) to create humans.”
No, I didn’t say natural processes like evolution. I said specifically evolution was used to create life in this world.
You said, “This is conceivable but it does make this person a whole lot less than a god.”
I would think the amazing elegance of evolution unfolding in a tremendously variable environment without any intervention or tweaking by the one relying upon it for creating speaks to a being worthy of a lofty title. And this accomplishment is even more impressive because evolution indeed produced just exactly what was desired: sentient beings.
You also said, “But in any event this less-than-god person is still unfit to pass judgment on others.”
Nothing you said relates to this being as unfit to pass judgment on others. In fact, if the judgment rendered provides an appropriate path of corrective punishment, if necessary, for all to be saved, as implied in Matthew 18:21-35 and 1 Corinthians 3:9-15, then again, this being deserves a lofty title.
You also said, “Your less-than-god person could easily call the relevant authorities to give them actionable information on any criminal, forewarn of a planned terrorist act, or military attack. This assumes that your less-than-god person did not have the foresight of things to come;”
No, this does not assume this being did not have the foresight of things to come. It assumes this being did have the foresight of things to come. Otherwise, why would you expect the being could tell authorities actionable information, forewarn of a planned terrorist act, or military attack?
You also said, “if he did [have foresight] then he would be even more culpable!”
No, he would not be more culpable, even if he did have foresight. As I said in an above post to you, this strategy of using evolution, without intervention, to produce life has consequences that limit God’s powers. And one relevant consequence that limits God’s powers is, “He cannot rely upon evolution and then intervene when it produces creatures that freely choose to do evil acts.”
-
“No, I didn’t say natural processes like evolution. I said specifically evolution was used to create life in this world. … As I said in an above post to you, this strategy of using evolution, without intervention, to produce life has consequences that limit God’s powers. And one relevant consequence that limits God’s powers is, ‘He cannot rely upon evolution and then intervene when it produces creatures that freely choose to do evil acts.'”
This two quotes indicate that you believe your god chose to create us in a certain way. If so, your god is morally culpable for the consequences if his choices.
If your god chose to do things in a way where he would not interfere with evil, he chose evil. There’s a word for those who chose evil when they could have chosen otherwise: “EVIL“.
From your words, it appears your god “freely chose to do evil acts.“
All that would make him an accomplice to every evil act committed by any of us.
All that would deprive him of any moral authority to judge any of us.
seán s.
-
You said, “If your god chose to do things in a way where he would not interfere with evil, he chose evil.”
Not necessarily.
If God doesn’t interfere with evil, it doesn’t necessarily follow that He chose evil, despite your above comment.
Sometimes things, including evil things, are impossible to stop, even for an omnipotent being, who cannot do the logically impossible.
For example, if an evolved agent is free to choose A (a noble act) or B (an evil act), it follows that a possible world in which A is chosen exists and a possible world in which B is chosen also exists. But if the agent freely chooses B, the evil act, God is powerless to actualize the possible world in which the agent freely chooses A, the noble act, even though the possible world in which the agent freely chooses A exists.
Thus, your claims below are not true.
“From your words, it appears your god ‘freely chose to do evil acts.'”
“All that would make him an accomplice to every evil act committed by any of us.”
“All that would deprive him of any moral authority to judge any of us.”
-
If B chooses an evil act, god can prevent B from harming anyone else. If god chose to arrange B’s world so that god could not prevent harm, then god chose evil.
seán s.
-
You said, “If B chooses an evil act, god can prevent B from harming anyone else. If god chose to arrange B’s world so that god could not prevent harm, then god chose evil.’
Do you even know what a possible world is? From this post, it looks like you do not.
Even an omnipotent being is powerless to actualize a possible world in which B does not choose an evil act if B actually chose an evil act.
To actualize a possible world in which B does not choose an evil act when he actually did choose an evil act is logically impossible.
It has nothing to do with God choosing evil.
-
-
-
Interesting! You said, “Justice comes from figuring out why evil deeds happen in the first place so as to prevent them, ensuring restitution and reconciliation, and similar efforts.” But this is what punishment/justice is all about. Providing as much restitution as possible by holding the criminal responsible for their actions, and showing the world that those who do such things will suffer the consequences. Are you really trying to say that punishment for crimes offers no deterrence/prevention?
-
“But this is what punishment/justice is all about.“
You’re conflating punishment and justice. Justice is often thwarted by the desire for punishment.
Forget about punishment; justice is about providing, “as much restitution as possible by holding the criminal responsible for their actions, and showing the world that those who do such things will suffer the consequences.” But these consequences cannot exceed what is necessary for restitution, reconciliation, or prevention. Nothing more is justified that I can think of.
Hell goes far beyond the need; the eternal punishment of Hell–as it is usually described–is pointless and cruel. It is simply evil. And God would be the culprit in that.
seán s.
-
Can you give an example of when justice was thwarted by a desire for punishment as it is administered by the God of the Bible?
You said, “But these consequences cannot exceed what is necessary for restitution, reconciliation, or prevention.” I agree. But then the question becomes, what is necessary for restitution? It depends on the crime. You said, “Hell goes far beyond the need,” but does it? To be clear I believe Hell is like living in a trailer park, as opposed to the beauty of God’s cities. I do not believe the language of fire is literal. So the person in Hell is separated from God, because they chose to reject him. They are separated from his blessings, because they chose to reject him. I don’t think that goes “beyond the need” at all.
Thank you for discussing, I look forward to reading your thoughts. 🙂
-
“Can you give an example of when justice was thwarted by a desire for punishment as it is administered by the God of the Bible?“
Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you know about the numerous cases in which innocent people are thrown into jail only to be victimized there too, or people convicted of minor crimes are imprisoned for long periods under horrific conditions. Prisons around the world are filled with petty criminals enduring horrific conditions. Restitution rarely happens because criminals are impoverished by punishment and so cannot make restitution. All this happens so “good people” can be satisfied that “bad people” are suffering.
“... what is necessary for restitution? It depends on the crime.”
No disagreement from me, but whatever that is, justice does not demand anything more.
As I said before, “… justice is about providing, ‘as much restitution as possible by holding the criminal responsible for their actions, and showing the world that those who do such things will suffer the consequences.’ But these consequences cannot exceed what is necessary…”
Even if “Hell is like living in a trailer park, as opposed to the beauty of God’s cities” that is far beyond what God can demand, unless you think God is confined to that trailer park too. Do you?
seán s.
-
Regarding unjust conditions in prisons, I agree with you. That’s a problem. But we can’t just give up the idea of punishment because of this, we’ve got to work on the problem.
You said, “Even if “<i style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>Hell is like living in a trailer park, as opposed to the beauty of God’s cities” that is far beyond what God can demand, unless you think God is confined to that trailer park too. Do you?” No, I don’t think God is confined to the trailer park. I’m not sure why you would suggest he should be, unless you are referring to your idea that God is an accomplice to sin. But God is not an accomplice to sin, he simply allows us to make our free will choices. You’re problem seems to be with the idea that we and not God, are solely responsible for our actions. But that is what free will entails. God has created us as responsible moral agents.
-
“You’re problem seems to be with the idea that we and not God, are solely responsible for our actions. But that is what free will entails. God has created us as responsible moral agents.“
Free will (FW) is the ability to make choices, but FW does not entail the ability to succeed with our choices.
I want to be able to fly like a bird. FW enables that desire, and to act toward its accomplishment. But if I step off a high ledge while flapping my arms, I will not fly; I cannot. I will just go splat!
FW is an ability to make choices and act toward some desire. But FW does not include any guarantee of success.
A god giving us FW does not have to allow the successful accomplishment of evil deeds, certainty not repeated evil.
If your god can prevent me from flying like a bird or from walking on water, then — WITHOUT DEPRIVING ANYONE OF THEIR FREE WILL — your god can prevent every rape, murder, child molestation, or any other victimization.
But he does not. And if that’s because he wants it this way, your god is evil.
seán s.
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by
-
You are trying very hard to escape the reality of our moral responsibility for our actions. God has created a world with general governing principles, people cannot fly like birds or walk on water. However, people can do lots of other things, and God has given us the free will to make those choices.
People can choose to do evil or people can choose to do good, this is the mess we got ourselves into when humanity ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sad state of this world is entirely humanity’s fault, not God’s. Read Genesis chapter three and think about it. Then make your free will choice of whether you will accept or reject God.
-
You are trying very hard to deny the moral failures of you god. We are responsible for our choices, but your god is responsible for allowing us to harm each other. He could have chosen otherwise. God bears moral responsibility for his actions too.
If your god can prevent me from like a bird or from walking on water, then your god can prevent every rape, murder, child molestation, or any other victimization without depriving anyone of their free will.
Trying to blame us because of “the Fall” won’t work; that is worth it’s own discussion. To use a modern expression, the story of the Fall has some major plot holes!
seán s.
-
@sean_s. it’s worth me pointing out that the notion of people being free to sin or not (as something that is true of everyone), is to be found nowhere in the Bible. In Romans 6 and 7, Paul actually teaches otherwise and describes people as “slaves to sin”. He does hold that those with the Holy Spirit now face a choice but because they are no longer slaves to sin since receiving the Holy Spirit etc.
-
The religious site Got Questions https://www.gotquestions.org/free-will.html has a column on free will. It could be of interest here. The site is perhaps a bit too mainstream or traditional for some, but comments and especially biblical references provided may be helpful in answering questions raised here and elsewhere.
-
Thank you Lancia. 🙂
-
-
-
This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by
-
-
-
See above.
-
This may be a tad off topic but it is extremely interesting so I will just mention it. For the matter of Paul, he appears to hold Calvinism and Arminianism in tension in a way that can be summarised as follows.
Following the fall, people inherited a sinful nature that made them slaves to sin and since then they have not simply been willing participants. As a result, people do what they do not want to do and fail to do what they want to do (even though their sin sometimes coincides with their desires in a combatibilist way). The law was given, not to cure the problem (it could not, hence the need for Christ) but to expose the problem. Paul says that he didn’t know what sin was until he was given the law. Once he was given the law, he was made acutely aware of a problem that the law and his volitional freedom alone could not solve! The law isn’t evil (it isn’t the problem), it is there to expose the problem. In Romans 6:6 he describes the regenerate as being “ruled by sin” and makes no mention of sin being a consequence of free will, at this stage.
According to Paul, Jesus and not the law was God’s solution to this problem, providing the Holy Spirit to free people from this law of sin and death. Once in this situation, Christians can still sin but they now have a choice over whether to do it or not. This is why Paul says (to believers), that they are no longer slaves to their old nature and can now make the right choices. I think he wrestles with this issue and also calls believers “slaves to righteousness”, even though they are still free to sin!
However, the idea that people in general are free not to sin prior to being regenerated, is not to be found anywhere in his teaching. It is relevant insofar as it relates to the notion of eternally punishing people for something they were slaves to. Paul seems to have no difficulty with accepting this idea and in fact, his likening the new arrangement to a slave / master relationship also indicates that he has no moral issue with slavery either. If someone considered a setup sinful or a crime against humanity, they would not liken God’s relationship with believers to it. For example, because adultery is considered sinful in context, Paul and other authors do not liken the relationship between God and believers to an adulterous union.
We need to avoid a genetic fallacy in that, his acceptance of slavery etc does not prove that theism is mistaken (theism cannot be demonstrated false, and even if it is). However, it does demonstrate that Paul (and others) were just as prone to error as anyone else and we do have evidence of those errors making it into the Bible (as much as we can have evidence for anything, and so long as we apply the same standards to the Bible that we would any other piece of human written literature).
-
That is an excellent and a very interesting contribution!
I think it could also be said that Scripture reveals a tension in Paul’s words between Calvinism and Universalism. While that tension is exhibited in several verses, the one verse that probably does it best is Romans 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all.”
-
Thanks lancia!
For the universalist, I don’t think there is a massive problem here but also, I don’t see much of a problem for the Arminian who is not a universalist. People are condemned, not for sinning simpliciter, but for not asking for and accepting Christ’s offer to rescue them from their being trapped in sin (something they are able to do, despite being slaves to sin prior to salvation).
It actually allows the Arminian and the Calvinist to come to a somewhat reconciled view.
-
-
Log in to reply.