Question for Christians who believe that non-Christians go to hell

twinQuins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You don't actually have to be snotty, you know.

That wasn't my intention, I'm sorry if it came across like that.

I would have thought that the innumerable conflicts throughout the ages would at least make one consider that it might not be always be possible for the potential victim to find a peaceful resolution because it is often the aggressor who is the barrier to such amicable ends.

I see. What about even trying to discover why such action was taken in the first place?
And are we really going to extend this from two individuals to armed conflict involving entire nations?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I actually meant that we don't subscribe to the eye for an eye morality. (Read the post again and I think it becomes apparent.) Crossed wires, I think.

you don't subscribe to the idea itself (eye-for-an-eye), not iUseVi's idea that it is immoral. ah, got you.

So we are all in agreement, not a good system :P

JimiTime

Morkarleth wrote: »

I'd like to think most people could base a system of justice on something a little more sophisticated than that.

Of course. Any of mans justice 'systems' should incorporate mercy etc. However, this still does not remove the basic fundamental meaning of Justice, i.e. balance or 'eye for an eye'. Thanks to our sense of mercy and forgiveness, and in some cases love, we look to give people chances. We empathise, sympathise etc and bestow mercy or punishment accordingly. This does not contradict the basic precept of balance.

That my smacking you in the eye did not constitute a great enough threat to you for you to respond in the way you did.

It matters not about 'threat'. You have carried out an action, smacking me in the mouth, and it would be perfectly 'Just' to smack you back. You allude to a different issue, i.e. is this the wisest action to take. Does it attain the best outcome etc. I don't want to speak for antiskeptic, but I would think he'd agree that there may be wiser alternatives to smacking you back. This does NOT equate to 'smacking you back' being unjust though.

Act in self defence, if you must but what you suggest is just incredibly petty.

If I pose no immediate danger to you what is stopping you from finding a peaceful resolution?

Again, thats NOTHING to do with being JUST.

Soul Winner

StormWarrior wrote: »

Now, I never suggested that you should side with them and suffer their fate. The question I keep asking but never get answered is: How is it making you suffer if those souls are destroyed or sent somewhere other than hell?

I suppose it hurts me to know where people are going to end up even though they seem totally unaware of it and unprepared to accept the only escape from it when it is told to them. Christianity might be wrong but surely you can't blame anyone to feel like this if they actually believe that it is true. Can you?

StormWarrior wrote: »

Do I deserve it? I don't agree.

You are spectaculalry missing the point. You agreeing or not agreeing has no bearing on the matter. The Word has declared that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,and for sin comes death. And surprising as it may be to you but that includes little old you too. To say that you've never sinned makes you a lier to boot.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Firstly, if as Christians believe, I was born fallen anyway, how is that my fault?

Its not your fault but as the great British preacher G Campbell Morgan so elegantly put it; "It is your problem," in short you inherited a curse. The only way to be redeemed from it is to trust in The Redeemer.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Why should I inherit sin because of Adam and Eve?

Why should a junkie's kids be born an addict? He or she is contaminated. The Bible teaches that all of mankind has been contaminated by the curse which fell on Adam. We are all born with the deck stacked against us. We live a life of daily struggle with our sinful natures which is at constant war against God's will for us. We need to be empowered by His holy spirit in order to be delivered from our own self serving unfruitful natures. Which harks back to my earlier point: We need God, God does not need us.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Is it ok for you to be sent to prison because your great grandfather robbed a bank?

No, his robbing a bank does nothing to contaminate me, I was already contaminated long before he was a gleam in my great grandfather's eye.

StormWarrior wrote: »

And anyway, even if it was my own "sins" alone that I'm being judged for, I still don't see why I should suffer for them.

Again you don't have to agree with anything. It is either true or not true. You agreeing or not agreeing does not make the slightest bit of difference.

StormWarrior wrote: »

I did not enter any agreement with God, saying, "I agree to try and live up to your standards and will accept punishment if I fail." I haven't reneged on any contract because I haven't made one. I did not sign up for this, why is it ok for this god to bully people in this way?

Your judgment is that God is a bully. Why should we accept that if God's judgment on things is to consigned to the trash heap? If someone's opinion of you was that you were an a**h*le, should we accept that as well simply because they said it?

StormWarrior wrote: »

So you accept God out of fear of the consequences if you don't? Why would anyone want to spend eternity with this being?

What's the better option? Frying for eternity? Sounds like a blast.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Seems to me like this is exactly how he/it is.

Even if that was true and I do not accept that it is, but for argument's sake lets assume that you're right, it still beats the crap our of an eternity in the lake. So even if that was the choice, surely an eternity with a dictatorship in somewhat comfortable surroundings is the better of the two options?

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I certainly would look at the language used to describe Hell to be metaphorical. Even the word for hell that is used in the synoptics, Gehenna, was the name of a rubbish dump that lay outside Jerusalem. Of course, it doesn't then follow that Hell is in itself a metaphor.

'death and hades' is said to be thrown into 'the lake of fire'. Would you agree that it is metephorical in that instance?

I think that we just have to be careful not to read too much or too little into things.

I agree.

With regards to these questions, I don't have anything near sufficient understanding of theology let alone Greek to analyse the subtleties of the texts.

Then, if I may simply remove the texts and ask 'you'. Do you think the doctrine of hell as an eternal conscious existance in suffering sounds right and consistant to the God you have a relationship with?

Inevitably there are many interpretations of what the result of Hell is. Everything from a place/ state of eternal torture, a place/ state of eternal separation from God (it has just struck me that perhaps this is what C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce is about. The title certainly struck me as a perfect description of the point I was trying to make - God and you go your separate ways), a place/ state where eventually everybody there will be released when they turn towards God for release from their sins, another way of describing eternal destruction etc., etc. To my mind some are more plausible than others. But I'm open to debate on the finer points.

Sorry, is the bit in bold interpreting hell as a temporal state? the language of being released from their sins is confusing me a tad.

antiskeptic

Morkarleth wrote: »

Logic was evidently the wrong word. Mentality would have been better. A child would want to hurt someone the way they had been hurt.

Consider..

I'd like to think most people could base a system of justice on something a little more sophisticated than that.

...by "sophisticated" you mean repay my offence against you by way of converting your suffering into another currency (say jail) and extracting payment from me that way? That's already the way the law works.

Could you explain to me what's sophisticated about conversion of suffering from form x to form y?

I hope after reading this again you will realise just how ridiculous your initial claim was.

I hope after reading this you'll begin to build your case.

That my smacking you in the eye did not constitute a great enough threat to you for you to respond in the way you did.

My smacking you back isn't attempting to deal with any threat you might pose from now on. My smacking you back is dealing with the offence already committed

Act in self defence, if you must but what you suggest is just incredibly petty.

It's fair.

If I pose no immediate danger to you what is stopping you from finding a peaceful resolution?

We're assuming I've done nothing to warrant a smack in the eye (otherwise you're just paying me back eye-for-an-eye). In which case: resolution for what?

Are you suggesting that you can go around smacking people in the eye for no good reason then plead that "peaceful resolutions should be sought"?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Apologies, I thought it was implied if one says you lack decorum, that to have decorum is the solution. So, have more decorum, and be more thoughtful with regards to your audience 'if' you wish to engage in an honest knowledge sharing conversation. This will stand you in good stead in all walks of life, not just here.

BTW, I love to be straight-up, not beat around the bush etc. I value it in others too. However, that does not mean that I sacrifice tact or manners. All too often I see folk use the 'I say it as I see it' approach as an excuse to be rude or abnoxious.

The problem is that your definition of "lacking decorum" seems to be "saying things that people will be likely to disagree with". I fail to see how my post was rude or obnoxious, I gave what I considered to be an accurate representation of the beliefs of some christians and led these beliefs to a logical conclusion that I knew was going to make some uncomfortable. You say that the accuracy of my post was irrelevant so are you saying that I should not say anything that might make people uncomfortable even if it's true? That might not be what you're saying but honestly, I don't know what else I could have done wrong once you say that my post could have been completely accurate and would still have been rude and obnoxious.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sam, we already know you're not a Christian. If you are claiming to give an accurate representation of the beliefs of Christianity then I don't see why you should be giving your view as a non-Christian. You ended your post acknowledging that your representation was going to cause trouble. Low and behold... trouble.

My point was that as a non-christian I wasn't "representing" christianity. My core point was that morality is irrelevant to whether or not someone goes to hell, the common belief of "salvation by faith alone". You mentioned:

1. People who did not have the opportunity to reject Jesus, who are irrelevant to the point being made.
2. That it's not about belief but about acceptance of a gift which I see as largely semantics because acceptance of the gift first requires belief. You can in theory have belief without acceptance but you cannot have acceptance without belief.
3. The possibility that someone could truly believe that the gift is real and that rejecting will result in eternal damnation and still make a conscious choice to reject it but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense as I explain below

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe its like somebody who smokes but they have no intention of stopping despite what they know about smoking. It is easier not to change, to always put it off till tomorrow or simply slip back into old ways. Besides, somebody could simply be backing the wrong horse.

Not all smokers die of cancer. Many live into old age and never experience any of the serious ill effects of smoking. So smoking is a risk but one where there is a reasonable chance that you will avoid any repercussions. Even Russian roulette gives you a reasonable chance of not coming to harm. But if someone truly believes in Jesus and truly believes that he has offered a free choice between salvation with no strings attached and eternal damnation then refusing that offer is not like smoking, it's like playing Russian Roulette with every chamber loaded, you are 100% guaranteed to lose. What allows people to smoke is the doubt. No one consciously chooses lung cancer, they smoke and hope it won't happen to them. Similarly what allows people to "reject" Jesus' offer can only be doubt over whether doing so will definitely result in damnation (or whether they are in fact rejecting it) because the idea that someone could be fully aware that the choice they are making will result in eternal damnation and still make it is insane. It's like putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. This is why I said that the criteria for salvation is belief, because once you believe that this offer is real there is only one choice that any sane person could make.

There's only one scenario where I can imagine someone consciously rejecting the offer of salvation and that's someone who's repulsed by the idea of the christian god and would rather spend eternity in hell than bow to him. But the christian god is supposed to be absolutely moral, all loving and all forgiving so if someone realises that the christian god exists and is repulsed by him then they have simply misunderstood his nature and, still presuming that god is good, I see no reason why this honest mistake of a flawed human being should not be forgiven when any immoral act is. The same goes for "backing the wrong horse"

Also, when you say someone could "slip back into the old ways", I'm assuming you mean the old ways of commiting sin. But every single one of us is a sinner regardless of how strongly we accept Jesus and god is supposed to forgive us these sins as long as we accept christ as our saviour. The idea that god would send someone to hell for sinning even though they believed they had accepted Jesus doesn't seem consistent with the christian god as has been described to me.......

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't get me wrong: hell sounds absolutely awful. It is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy - had I got one. But if supposing the primacy of God's purpose being "the creation of beings with choice: with or without God" .. then I can see how eternal, conscious suffering respects that choice.

Anything less would be a form of sentimentalism.

Eternal destruction would seem a very valid way to deal with wickedness. Why would destroying the wicked be 'sentimental'?

God offers the very ultimate in both directions: you become absolute goodness or you become absolute vileness. Limit the ultimate in one direction (by annihilation) and you skew the balance of the choice. The issue isn't primarily our comfort. The issue is primarily our choice.

Why did he tell Adam he'd 'die', when what actually was due to happen was he'd live forever except in a sufferring state?

Niggling conscience? Not at all. Niggling my worry regarding those I love - most certainly. Although I don't suppose problems come the time when their choice too will have been rendered.

You say you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy, yet it doesn't even 'niggle' your concience? If you truly do see its fairness, then why would it bother you that your 'worst enemy' was being treated fairly?

The best word I can think of for hell is ... apt. Fit for use.

Really? 70 years of sin equals 'eternity' of sufferring? Also, does it serve a purpose?

Precisely what being thrown into a fire would mean in reality: pain/anguish/suffering.

You left out a very obvious effect, i.e. Death and consumption.

But my main reason for supposing eternal torment arises from what I believe God's primary motivation and purpose regarding us, is.

Could you expand on this?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't. Our current justice system is based on deterrent/security/rehabilitation.

You sound like you've googled that. Unfortunately, the world and his brother (amongst whom the lawmakers) don't agree with you.

People don't scream for justice in order that the offender be rehabilated or be deterred from offending again. They scream because they want to hang the offender up by the balls. And in societies/times where that option is made possible, by the balls offenders are hung up.

You are not sent to jail for 4 years to clear up some imbalance in some quais-supernatural notion of karma. Punishment has not purpose in of itself. Nothing of any tangible value is actually balanced by you taking my eye because I took yours. It achieves nothing. All that happens if you are left with me without an eye and might pissed off about that. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

What is balanced is your debt to me - extracted in a currency I am perfectly entitled to demand. Whether or not this is good, bad or indifferent to the world at large isn't the issue.

In modern social democracies you are sent to jail in order to removed from harming others and to be rehabilitated so that you won't hurt others in the future. It is an act of social responsibility, not retribution./quote]

I disagree that punishment isn't an element.

The length of the sentence is a deterrent against others carrying out similar crimes.

No doubt.

It is in our nature to seek revenge, so it is some what understandable why people think our justice system is about revenge (send him to jail to make him suffer for what he did!) but it isn't actually. Revenge and retribution is a system of justice that has so many flaws few if any modern justice systems are based on it any more.

How does a people, who by nature consider revenge an appropriate response to crime manage to contruct a system that circumvents their own considerations regarding how crime be dealt with.

Wouldn't that be a bootstrap argument?

kumate_champ07

monosharp wrote: »

Because that would be no fun.

fun for whom, god?

twinQuins

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course. Any of mans justice 'systems' should incorporate mercy etc. However, this still does not remove the basic fundamental meaning of Justice, i.e. balance or 'eye for an eye'.

I think you'll find that's revenge, not justice. The two are quite distinct concepts.

It matters not about 'threat'. You have carried out an action, smacking me in the mouth, and it would be perfectly 'Just' to smack you back.

And so comes the inevitable question: why? What justification do you offer?

antiskeptic wrote: »

by "sophisticated" you mean repay my offence against you by way of converting your suffering into another currency (say jail) and extracting payment from me that way? That's already the way the law works.

Could you explain to me what's sophisticated about conversion of suffering from form x to form y?

Well if you're just going to oversimplify it...

It's not a case of making the other person suffer, well not just that at least. It's about showing them what they've done wrong and encouraging them to become law-abiding citizens.

Again, justice does not equate to revenge.

I hope after reading this you'll begin to build your case.

Well, this certainly isn't becoming tedious. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you just don't get it.

My smacking you back isn't attempting to deal with any threat you might pose from now on. My smacking you back is dealing with the offence already committed

Okay. I see you go on to clarify.

It's fair.

Just "it's fair"? You don't need to justify why you've done so? Or why it's fair?

We're assuming I've done nothing to warrant a smack in the eye (otherwise you're just paying me back eye-for-an-eye). In which case: resolution for what?

Are you suggesting that you can go around smacking people in the eye for no good reason then plead that "peaceful resolutions should be sought"?

Thank you, so kindly, for putting words in my mouth.

There is always going to be some reason, don't you think it wise to find out what that is first?

JimiTime

Morkarleth wrote: »

I think you'll find that's revenge, not justice. The two are quite distinct concepts.



And so comes the inevitable question: why? What justification do you offer?



Well if you're just going to oversimplify it...

It's not a case of making the other person suffer, well not just that at least. It's about showing them what they've done wrong and encouraging them to become law-abiding citizens.

Again, justice does not equate to revenge.



Well, this certainly isn't becoming tedious. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you just don't get it.




Okay. I see you go on to clarify.



Just "it's fair"? You don't need to justify why you've done so? Or why it's fair?



Thank you, so kindly, for putting words in my mouth.

There is always going to be some reason, don't you think it wise to find out what that is first?

Alot of bluster, 'you don't get it' type of rhetoric here that could be solved if you defined justice for us?

twinQuins

JimiTime wrote: »

Alot of bluster, 'you don't get it' type of rhetoric here that could be solved if you defined justice for us?

I mentioned "you don't get it" once. Care to respond to the rest of the post?

antiskeptic

Morkarleth wrote: »

I think you'll find that's revenge, not justice. The two are quite distinct concepts.

So are the concepts riding and bike. But one can ride a bike. Is there something unjust about vengence?

And so comes the inevitable question: why? What justification do you offer?

I don't need one. Not if you didn't need none.

Balance is the idea with eye for an eye.

Well if you're just going to oversimplify it...

It's not a case of making the other person suffer, well not just that at least. It's about showing them what they've done wrong and encouraging them to become law-abiding citizens.

Again, justice does not equate to revenge.

Why not?

Well, this certainly isn't becoming tedious. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you just don't get it.

You didn't say anything to particularily get. You were pronouncing verdicts when we've only got going. What's unjust about vengence is the current thing not got.

Just "it's fair"? You don't need to justify why you've done so? Or why it's fair?

It seems fair to me that I pay you for goods you give me. It seems fair to me that I pay you for bads you give me. I don't think it's possible to justify why a scales should be balanced. You either agree they should be or you don't

Happily, if you choose to hit me in the mouth and I choose to do the same in return (or something considered of equal value ) then all talk of justifications is somewhat moot.

Thank you, so kindly, for putting words in my mouth.

There is always going to be some reason, don't you think it wise to find out what that is first?

What I might do on finding out the reasons may or may not influence my decision regarding extracting an eye for an eye. This doesn't, however, detract from the injury done and my entitlement to extract same. You might feel that your girlfriend leaving you, resulting in your hitting the pub, absolves you from the responsibility of the effects of sticking a glass in my face out of frustration. If I agree then fine. If I don't then that is my perogative.

And eye for an eye is an entitlement. It need not be drawn down on. Nor need it be drawn down on immediately.

twinQuins

I get the sense that you think it's okay to offer your opinion as fact.
I admit, I was wrong to say justice and revenge are different. Essentially, it comes down to whether you consider vengeance just or not.

Also that your idea of justice is automatically right and that you don't need to justify any action within it or even explain how, exactly, it works.

EDIT: look, can someone just tell me if I'm the only one having difficulty understanding antiskeptic? Maybe it's just that it's late but...these posts just sound so disjointed and nonsensical.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I gave what I considered to be an accurate representation of the beliefs of some christians and led these beliefs to a logical conclusion that I knew was going to make some uncomfortable.

I've re-read your offending post again to see if it was a fair reflection, but I can't say that it is. A number of Christians have told you that you have misrepresented their beliefs and you still can't even bring yourself to admit it that maybe you have the wrong end of the stick.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say that the accuracy of my post was irrelevant

I don't believe I said such a thing. Are you not following the reason why I feel the need to write these posts?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so are you saying that I should not say anything that might make people uncomfortable even if it's true? That might not be what you're saying but honestly, I don't know what else I could have done wrong once you say that my post could have been completely accurate and would still have been rude and obnoxious.

What? Honestly, it would be greatly appreciated if you stopped claiming I made certain statements (see the line in bold) that I never actually made. The whole point, Sam, was that what you wrote was not accurate. Any rudeness or obnoxiousness (words I'm not sure I used) displayed in writing your posts was secondary to their inaccuracy.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My point was that as a non-christian I wasn't "representing" christianity. My core point was that morality is irrelevant to whether or not someone goes to hell, the common belief of "salvation by faith alone".

Common belief? Sola fide aside, I'm quite sure the people on this forum have often stated their belief that faith without works is dead. Speaking in general terms, Christians believe that a relationship with Jesus brings about change in the person, specifically a moral improvement over their old selves. If there isn't some evidence for that change, and one keeps on doing the bad things that were done before, then questions would have to be asked about commitment etc. Despite what you may say, I believe that the majority of Christians believe that morality (or a Godly life, if you will) is an essential aspect to salvation. What you suggest is a disconnect between faith and morality. It's like claiming that you really do love your wife just as you're about to boink the neighbour's wife.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You mentioned:
[*]People who did not have the opportunity to reject Jesus, who are irrelevant to the point being made.
[*]That it's not about belief but about acceptance of a gift which I see as largely semantics because acceptance of the gift first requires belief. You can in theory have belief without acceptance but you cannot have acceptance without belief.

It is maddening debating with you. I feel like I'm pissing in the wind. You reject point one as irrelevant and then go on to make point two. Given that we are talking about salvation and you don't appear to understand it, point one is entirely relevant.

Moses didn't believe in Jesus in the same way anybody from the last 2000 years could have. Why? Because Jesus wasn't alive when Moses was trying to find the Land of Israel. Yet we are told that he accepted the gift. Similarly, I think you would be hard pressed to find many Christians agreeing that salvation is denied an infant who dies. Here it is clear that the infant could not have believed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

[*]The possibility that someone could truly believe that the gift is real and that rejecting will result in eternal damnation and still make a conscious choice to reject it but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense as I explain below

I think people are quite capable of holding two or more conflicting beliefs. But did I say anything about a concious decision? No. This game where you pretend I said something else is getting boring. Please stop.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There's only one scenario where I can imagine someone consciously rejecting the offer of salvation and that's someone who's repulsed by the idea of the christian god and would rather spend eternity in hell than bow to him. But the christian god is supposed to be absolutely moral, all loving and all forgiving so if someone realises that the christian god exists and is repulsed by him then they have simply misunderstood his nature and, still presuming that god is good, I see no reason why this honest mistake of a flawed human being should not be forgiven when any immoral act is.

Again with consciously rejecting God! What about unconsciously doing it? There may well be the odd Ivan Karamazov of this world but the latter part of your post is really only outlining your particular objections to the concept of forgiveness. Irrelevant or what? I don't believe there is any point in attempting to change the angle you choose to view this which I think can be summed up as "there is no God, but if he does exist he is a bastard."

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The same goes for "backing the wrong horse

Why? If somebody believes that Satan is the supreme being or in with a shot of being the supreme being (and it transpires that they are wrong) then they most certainly have rejected God and backed the wrong horse.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, when you say someone could "slip back into the old ways", I'm assuming you mean the old ways of commiting sin. But every single one of us is a sinner regardless of how strongly we accept Jesus and god is supposed to forgive us these sins as long as we accept christ as our saviour. The idea that god would send someone to hell for sinning even though they believed they had accepted Jesus doesn't seem consistent with the christian god as has been described to me.......

The old ways of committing sin? I realise that some of us can be a pious lot at times. But do you suppose that Christians believe they are sinless? We commit sin with as much gusto as the next heathen.

But this has been discussed numerous times before, no? Being forgiven doesn't mean you have also been granted carte blanche to go about doing whatever sins you feel like. If you go home tonight and you get into an argument with your wife. It gets heated and you slap her. You are both shocked and you start to blubber that "I don't know what came over me. Please forgive me. It will never never happen again". Some women might forgive that eventually. Yet if the next month arrived and you got into another argument only this time you beat her into a pulp... Well, I would hope that a cold hard reflection would show that there is a disconnect between your promises and your actions.

I have no interest in debating with you further.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've re-read your offending post again to see if it was a fair reflection, but I can't say that it is. A number of Christians have told you that you have misrepresented their beliefs and you still can't even bring yourself to admit it that maybe you have the wrong end of the stick.

I don't believe I said such a thing. Are you not following the reason why I feel the need to write these posts?

What? Honestly, it would be greatly appreciated if you stopped claiming I made certain statements (see the line in bold) that I never actually made. The whole point, Sam, was that what you wrote was not accurate. Any rudeness or obnoxiousness (words I'm not sure I used) displayed in writing your posts was secondary to their inaccuracy.

Everything here was a reply to Jimitime so it indeed contains replies to several things you didn't say

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Common belief? Sola fide aside, I'm quite sure the people on this forum have often stated their belief that faith without works is dead.

Yes that is a problem in that pretty much no matter what you say about christianity, no matter how many people actually do believe what you're saying, there will always be some who don't believe that and say you're misrepresenting them. Would you agree that this belief is not shared by all christians and that salvation by faith alone is an accepted belief of many christians?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Speaking in general terms, Christians believe that a relationship with Jesus brings about change in the person, specifically a moral improvement over their old selves. If there isn't some evidence for that change, and one keeps on doing the bad things that were done before, then questions would have to be asked about commitment etc. Despite what you may say, I believe that the majority of Christians believe that morality (or a Godly life, if you will) is an essential aspect to salvation. What you suggest is a disconnect between faith and morality. It's like claiming that you really do love your wife just as you're about to boink the neighbour's wife.

Yes christians are supposed to adhere to moral standards but we are all sinners and we all fall short of this standard. At the end of the day no one adheres to the standard but god is still supposed to forgive people who have accepted christ, otherwise he's not all forgiving, whereas an atheist will not be forgiven regardless of how they live their life. No?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is maddening debating with you. I feel like I'm pissing in the wind. You reject point one as irrelevant and then go on to make point two. Given that we are talking about salvation and you don't appear to understand it, point one is entirely relevant.

Moses didn't believe in Jesus in the same way anybody from the last 2000 years could have. Why? Because Jesus wasn't alive when Moses was trying to find the Land of Israel. Yet we are told that he accepted the gift. Similarly, I think you would be hard pressed to find many Christians agreeing that salvation is denied an infant who dies. Here it is clear that the infant could not have believed.

Yes, I realise that there are exceptions made to the rule for specific people who did not have the opportunity to accept the gift. Pointing out that there are some exceptions to the rule does not negate the existence of the rule and it would hardly be a comfort to a buddhist on his way to hell that had he been a baby or Moses this wouldn't have happened. Also, my point is that immorality is not what sends you to hell and none of those examples change that.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think people are quite capable of holding two or more conflicting beliefs. But did I say anything about a concious decision? No. This game where you pretend I said something else is getting boring. Please stop.

Again with consciously rejecting God! What about unconsciously doing it? There may well be the odd Ivan Karamazov of this world but the latter part of your post is really only outlining your particular objections to the concept of forgiveness. Irrelevant or what? I don't believe there is any point in attempting to change the angle you choose to view this which I think can be summed up as "there is no God, but if he does exist he is a bastard."

How does one unconsciously reject god? My understanding is that we are all sinners and all doomed but we have a choice to accept the gift of salvation. It hardly seems fair that someone could live their whole live under the impression that they had accepted the gift only to find it had been taken back without them noticing?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why? If somebody believes that Satan is the supreme being or in with a shot of being the supreme being (and it transpires that they are wrong) then they most certainly have rejected God and backed the wrong horse.

Again it comes back to my point that under christian belief going to hell is not about immoral actions. There is nothing immoral about being honestly mistaken in a belief.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The old ways of committing sin? I realise that some of us can be a pious lot at times. But do you suppose that Christians believe they are sinless? We commit sin with as much gusto as the next heathen.

But this has been discussed numerous times before, no? Being forgiven doesn't mean you have also been granted carte blanche to go about doing whatever sins you feel like. If you go home tonight and you get into an argument with your wife. It gets heated and you slap her. You are both shocked and you start to blubber that "I don't know what came over me. Please forgive me. It will never never happen again". Some women might forgive that eventually. Yet if the next month arrived and you got into another argument only this time you beat her into a pulp... Well, I would hope that a cold hard reflection would show that there is a disconnect between your promises and your actions.

But god is supposed to be all forgiving. We all sin to some extent so how much sin is too much?

Also, you say that christians commit sin with as much gusto as the next heathen but above you said Christians believe that a relationship with Jesus brings about change in the person, specifically a moral improvement over their old selves. Do you think that christians sin just as much as others but their sins are forgiven where others are not or do you believe that someone who truly believes in christianity and accepts the gift will commit less sin than anyone else? And if so do you think the act of them commiting less sin is a requirement of them being saved?

JimiTime

Morkarleth wrote: »

I get the sense that you think it's okay to offer your opinion as fact.
I admit, I was wrong to say justice and revenge are different. Essentially, it comes down to whether you consider vengeance just or not.

Also that your idea of justice is automatically right and that you don't need to justify any action within it or even explain how, exactly, it works.

EDIT: look, can someone just tell me if I'm the only one having difficulty understanding antiskeptic? Maybe it's just that it's late but...these posts just sound so disjointed and nonsensical.

TBH, all your posts amount to 'you're wrong', without you actually defining justice. You define what justice is, and we can see who is right and who is wrong, or at least setting about conversing about it. At the moment, you have given little in the way of detail.

antiskeptic

Morkarleth wrote: »

I get the sense that you think it's okay to offer your opinion as fact.

I suppose I suppose some things self-evident. Such as it being fair to pay for goods received (whether good or bad)

I admit, I was wrong to say justice and revenge are different. Essentially, it comes down to whether you consider vengeance just or not.

I do. I think punishment is an just response to offences committed.

Also that your idea of justice is automatically right and that you don't need to justify any action within it or even explain how, exactly, it works.

Any explanation of any system of justice is going to depend on arrival at what are agreed fundamentals. If you fundamentally don't agree that wrongdoing should be punished/sanctioned (whatever about other elements you might attach to the overall response aimed at deterrance/security) then you can never agree punishment justified. I'm merely stating my view assuming these fundamentals. You are entitled to do the same.

I would point to the dog in the street however. The dog in the street tends to consider punishment a vaild response to wrongdoing. Not everyone is yet a moral relativist. Not everyone considers murder the product of a "mistake"

StormWarrior

Soul Winner wrote: »

I suppose it hurts me to know where people are going to end up even though they seem totally unaware of it and unprepared to accept the only escape from it when it is told to them. Christianity might be wrong but surely you can't blame anyone to feel like this if they actually believe that it is true. Can you?

This doesn't answer the question I asked. My question is about why non-believers are sent to spend an eternity in conscious suffering rather than simply being destroyed. If they are destroyed, how does that hurt the Christians who inherit eternal life? Does it serve some purpose keeping them in tormented existence forever?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are spectaculalry missing the point. You agreeing or not agreeing has no bearing on the matter. The Word has declared that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,and for sin comes death. And surprising as it may be to you but that includes little old you too. To say that you've never sinned makes you a lier to boot.

I never said I haven't "sinned," as a Christian would understand it. As we have heard in this thread, to the Christian way of thinking it is impossible for anyone not to "sin." By "I don't deserve it," I meant that I don't deserve to be tortured for eternity because I told a few lies or had pre-marital sex. I know you will say that what I think on the matter doesn't count, but:
a - If we are made in God's image then I assume that means we must have a similar sense of justice to God? It seems very few people, even Christians, like the idea of non-believers spending eternity in torment, so why would God think this is an appropriate punishment?
b - If the fact that I have no say in whether I was brought into existence to participate in this little game of God doesn't matter, how can you genuinely love a god who will create unwilling victims knowing full well that many will end up in hell? I can understand how if you believe in this god you would serve it out of fear, but genuinely love it?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its not your fault but as the great British preacher G Campbell Morgan so elegantly put it; "It is your problem," in short you inherited a curse. The only way to be redeemed from it is to trust in The Redeemer.

But once again, we come back to the same problem. I have looked at the evidence thoroughly, and I have far more reason to believe that the christian god does not exist. There are many religions to choose from, Christianity is one of the many unproven stories out there. How can I be expected to trust in something that has given me no reason to believe it even exists? And it still leaves the problem of the unfairness of inherited sin.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why should a junkie's kids be born an addict? He or she is contaminated. The Bible teaches that all of mankind has been contaminated by the curse which fell on Adam. We are all born with the deck stacked against us. We live a life of daily struggle with our sinful natures which is at constant war against God's will for us. We need to be empowered by His holy spirit in order to be delivered from our own self serving unfruitful natures. Which harks back to my earlier point: We need God, God does not need us.

But firstly humans aren't omnipotent like God supposedly is, we can't help that the junkie's child be born an addict. That's a physical thing out of our control. It's not comparable to God deciding, "I'm going to hold all of Adam and Eve's descendants responsible for Adam and Eve not obeying me. This is different to you being sent to prison because your great-grandfather robbed a bank, as there is choice involved there for whoever's in charge to decide to send you to prison or not. If God is omnipotent and just, why didn't it throw Adam and Eve out but allow their descendants a clean slate? Or wipe Adam and Eve out and create new ones? It wiped out whole lands who weren't up to scratch at other times.
Also, if one one side of the battle there's our sinful natures which is just the way we are, and we can only be rescued by God, where does human choice even come into it? It sounds like we are just powerless either way. If God doesn't need us, why create us?

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, his robbing a bank does nothing to contaminate me, I was already contaminated long before he was a gleam in my great grandfather's eye.

Now you are spectacularly missing the point. This is just an analogy, showing that it is not fair for one person to be judged and punished for another's actions. I never said his robbing a bank contaminates you, I'm saying it's not fair that you be sent to prison for something that he did. And how exactly are we "contaminated" by Adam and Eve's actions anyway? Did their actions somehow get into our DNA and change our genes, or what?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your judgment is that God is a bully. Why should we accept that if God's judgment on things is to consigned to the trash heap? If someone's opinion of you was that you were an a**h*le, should we accept that as well simply because they said it?

But them calling me an a*****e doesn't affect anyone, even me. It certainly does affect people that they are being tormented forever. Of course, you don't have to accept my judgment that god is a bully. I never said that you have to agree, I'm saying that I personally don't understand how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What's the better option? Frying for eternity? Sounds like a blast.

So it's not that spending eternity with God will be brilliant, it's just the lesser of two evils?

StormWarrior

I am also confused about free choice in choosing god. If God created everything, then so-called "evil" must come from god too? So if you choose "evil" you are choosing god anyway? Would god seriously create evil just to give people free choice? And if so, why not create a third choice for those who don't want this god but don't want evil and hell either?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You sound like you've googled that. Unfortunately, the world and his brother (amongst whom the lawmakers) don't agree with you.

People don't scream for justice in order that the offender be rehabilated or be deterred from offending again.

Screaming people don't determine our justice system. One of the pillars of our justice system is to remove emotional vigilante revenge/retribution style justice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is balanced is your debt to me - extracted in a currency I am perfectly entitled to demand.

The "currency" doesn't exist, it has no tangible value beyond your thirst for revenge. It is in your head and entirely subjective on how much you think you have been wronged.

It shouldn't really be necessary to explain why such a system of justice is deeply flawed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether or not this is good, bad or indifferent to the world at large isn't the issue.

Yes actually it is. In modern social democracies justice systems more concerned with cause and effect than with revenge.

Someone stabs you in the arm while stealing your bike. He is caught by a mob who hold him down, give you a knife and you stab them back.

Great, problem solved if that ends there but of course it doesn't.

The person you stabbed, who already has issues with violence since he stabbed you in the first place, is now caught, scared, hurt and much more angry. He doesn't logically think "Ah, fair dues, I stabbed him so he got to stab me back, we will call it quits"

What he actually thinks is "You **** **** I'm going to **** you up"

He may not direct that anger at you, but he will direct it at someone. The end result of your revenge is that he is a greater danger to others than he was before.

Violence upon violence provokes more violence. Your revenge may make you feel better but it has served no useful purpose and only made a dangerous person more dangerous.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How does a people, who by nature consider revenge an appropriate response to crime manage to contruct a system that circumvents their own considerations regarding how crime be dealt with.

By realizing the above about human nature.

When you look wider than your specific need for revenge for a specific incident (which is what most people focus on) and look at how society as a whole works under such a system you see how ridiculously flawed it is.

An eye for an eye only works if when you take the persons who has harmed you eye they realize logically that this was a fair thing to do and hold no bad will towards you. But when is that ever going to happen?

What you actually do is create an embittered person who himself feels the need for revenge against you or someone else, even though he harmed you first.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is an apt phrase as it highlights that the need for revenge doesn't stop.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Screaming people don't determine our justice system. One of the pillars of our justice system is to remove emotional vigilante revenge/retribution style justice.

Removing the excess (which is vigilantism) doesn't removing the source of the excess. And that source, wrongdoing should be punished, lies in people at large and people at large determine the justice system.

The "currency" doesn't exist, it has no tangible value beyond your thirst for revenge. It is in your head and entirely subjective on how much you think you have been wronged.

It shouldn't really be necessary to explain why such a system of justice is deeply flawed.

The concept of an eye for eye is what we are dealing with - not the problems that might be encountered whilst applying it. There is nothing subjective about an eye lost and if it was lost by a wrongdoing of yours in fact then extraction of same in return is my entitlement.

I don't see how anyone else is entitled to convert the offence against me into some other currency (perhaps even a suspended sentence) - aside from my agreeing to partake in society and be governed by it's rules (which is a different thing to the justness of i4i).

Yes actually it is. In modern social democracies justice systems more concerned with cause and effect than with revenge.

I acknowledge the effects of moral relativism. But if we were to look back over the history of mankind - rather than narrow the focus to today uber alles we find as I've pointed out.

Someone stabs you in the arm while stealing your bike. He is caught by a mob who hold him down, give you a knife and you stab them back.

Great, problem solved if that ends there but of course it doesn't.

The person you stabbed, who already has issues with violence since he stabbed you in the first place, is now caught, scared, hurt and much more angry. He doesn't logically think "Ah, fair dues, I stabbed him so he got to stab me back, we will call it quits"

What he actually thinks is "You **** **** I'm going to **** you up"

He may not direct that anger at you, but he will direct it at someone. The end result of your revenge is that he is a greater danger to others than he was before.

Again, we're dealing with the justness of i4i - not the problems associated with people wanting their cake and eating it. I should point out that I'm not suggesting we move over to such a system - I also understand the realities on the ground. Those realites have to do with the sinful nature of man who will react in precisely the way you describe rather than take his due punishment.

What funny creatures we are: getting caught in wrongdoing then demanding we be rehabilitated and deterred.

We should remind ourselves that i4i will be the form of justice extracted at Judgement. There will be no chance of the re-reaction along the lines of our bike thief friend. Bound up and helpless, full punishment will be extracted with such distractions.

An eye for an eye only works if when you take the persons who has harmed you eye they realize logically that this was a fair thing to do and hold no bad will towards you. But when is that ever going to happen?

What you actually do is create an embittered person who himself feels the need for revenge against you or someone else, even though he harmed you first.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is an apt phrase as it highlights that the need for revenge doesn't stop.

As pointed out, the issue is the justness of it - not the practical application of it. The practical application of it is rendered problematic not by the justness of i4i but the injustness of those subject to i4i - as you point out above in the highlighted piece. They sure want it when they've been on the receiving end of crime. They want nothing to do with it when their on the delivery end of crime

The problem with implementation is that man isn't just by nature. He self-justifies most anything away.

antiskeptic

StormWarrior wrote: »

I am also confused about free choice in choosing god. If God created everything, then so-called "evil" must come from god too? So if you choose "evil" you are choosing god anyway? Would god seriously create evil just to give people free choice? And if so, why not create a third choice for those who don't want this god but don't want evil and hell either?

Er..

"Evil" is what comes about when free choice expresses itself in a way contra to God's will. God doesn't have to create evil as such - he only has to create free will and tell it to do God's will. In his doing so he creates the potential for evil. The evil itself is created by the free will when it chooses to act contra-God.

Which makes the creator of evil (ie: the free will) responsible for the evil.

StormWarrior

So evil is just anything that's against God's will? Then for evil to be inherently bad, we have to assume that god is good. Even if god exists, we have only god's word that it is good. There's no objective good, good is just whatever god wants it to be. If god is lying and it's not "good," whatever good is, then maybe it is evil, and what god says is evil, is good. Also the fact that we can deviate from god's will means that there is a direction to deviate in, in the first place. If god has created the potential for evil, then god has in effect created evil. If everything is from god, then all possibilities are from god and so evil must be from god.

StormWarrior

antiskeptic wrote: »

The concept of an eye for eye is what we are dealing with - not the problems that might be encountered whilst applying it. There is nothing subjective about an eye lost and if it was lost by a wrongdoing of yours in fact then extraction of same in return is my entitlement.

So you're entitled to take his eye out just because it'll make you feel better? I thought christians are supposed to turn the other cheek anyway.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how anyone else is entitled to convert the offence against me into some other currency (perhaps even a suspended sentence) - aside from my agreeing to partake in society and be governed by it's rules (which is a different thing to the justness of i4i

Then why is god entitled to condemn people to hell for the harm they may have done each other? We didn't agree to take part in this life. And how is that a different thing to the justness of it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

We should remind ourselves that i4i will be the form of justice extracted at Judgement.

How can this be? According to christianity, fornication is a sin. So how will i4i punishment work here? And what if you stole in life? In the afterlife, will you have belongings for someone else to steal?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Screaming people don't determine our justice system. One of the pillars of our justice system is to remove emotional vigilante revenge/retribution style justice.

A justice 'system' is not 'justice'. A justice 'system', involves mercy, social consaquences etc etc. Justice itself however, is a rather simple concept. Also, before I go on, I AM NOT calling for an eye for eye justice 'system'. Merely pointing out that an eye for an eye, is in fact Just.

The "currency" doesn't exist, it has no tangible value beyond your thirst for revenge. It is in your head and entirely subjective on how much you think you have been wronged.

No, it is wholly fair and balanced, that if you pluck out my eye, I can pluck out yours. You raise a good point too in saying 'how much you've been wronged.' You acknowledge that there is a balance.

Yes actually it is. In modern social democracies justice systems more concerned with cause and effect than with revenge.

Indeed, as the wisest thing is prevention. Also, and I would say due largely to exposure to Christs message, we encourage mercy etc in our justice 'systems' today. However, punishment is a big part of the 'system' still.

I personally think a justice 'system' should be about prevention first, protection second, rehabilitation third and puishment last. Punishment however, can be a part of the first three.

Someone stabs you in the arm while stealing your bike. He is caught by a mob who hold him down, give you a knife and you stab them back.

That is just alright. Not the best solution I would say, but there is nothing unjust about it.

Great, problem solved if that ends there but of course it doesn't.

You are mixing up what is Just, with what is the best course of action to take is in the society we live and the ethics one has.

The person you stabbed, who already has issues with violence since he stabbed you in the first place, is now caught, scared, hurt and much more angry. He doesn't logically think "Ah, fair dues, I stabbed him so he got to stab me back, we will call it quits"

What he actually thinks is "You **** **** I'm going to **** you up"

I agree.

Violence upon violence provokes more violence. Your revenge may make you feel better but it has served no useful purpose and only made a dangerous person more dangerous.

As much as I agree with your reasoning about not going and stabbing him back, it still does not contradict that my action would be just.

Also, what you say above is a due to a failing of the justice 'system' in allowing someone who wishes to harm innocents the ability to do so.

An eye for an eye only works if when you take the persons who has harmed you eye they realize logically that this was a fair thing to do and hold no bad will towards you. But when is that ever going to happen?

This still has nothing to do with what is just. Justice is not necessarily about the best solution under the circumstances. We set up a 'system' of justice which takes all this into account.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind is an apt phrase as it highlights that the need for revenge doesn't stop.

I agree. Any system set up by this imperfect world, governed by imperfect men, dishing out punishment on imperfect men can't simply act an eye for eye system. That however does not mean that 'an eye for an eye' is not just.

twinQuins

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, all your posts amount to 'you're wrong', without you actually defining justice. You define what justice is

For myself, my idea of justice is based upon western judicial systems. One offends against the state, in criminal matters. The state, being impartial, sets punishment both for that purpose (as a future deterrent) and to rehabilitate the offender.

and we can see who is right and who is wrong

Right and wrong? At best we're going to hold different opinions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose I suppose some things self-evident. Such as it being fair to pay for goods received (whether good or bad)

This is not self-evident. Explain why you think it's fair.

I do. I think punishment is an just response to offences committed.

Punishment, in your mind, being reciprocating whatever was done to you. You don't see a problem with this? For example, the glaring problem of escalating force? That a lot of people will not simply back down but continue to use greater force in response to your actions?

Any explanation of any system of justice is going to depend on arrival at what are agreed fundamentals. If you fundamentally don't agree that wrongdoing should be punished/sanctioned (whatever about other elements you might attach to the overall response aimed at deterrance/security) then you can never agree punishment justified. I'm merely stating my view assuming these fundamentals. You are entitled to do the same.

The question is, what purpose should said punishment fulfill? I presume you're going to give me your metaphor involving scales again, I can't say the idea makes much sense to me beyond some sort of balancing of karma or something like that.
Have you anything less abstract?

I would point to the dog in the street however. The dog in the street tends to consider punishment a vaild response to wrongdoing.

Humans, I think you'll find, are a little more advanced than dogs.

Not everyone is yet a moral relativist. Not everyone considers murder the product of a "mistake"

Why do your persist in putting words in my mouth?

dvpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

We should remind ourselves that i4i will be the form of justice extracted at Judgement. There will be no chance of the re-reaction along the lines of our bike thief friend. Bound up and helpless, full punishment will be extracted with such distractions.

Even if you sinned for every waking hour of every day of you life, being consigned to hell for eternity is hardly an eye for an eye.

dvpower

JimiTime wrote: »

No, it is wholly fair and balanced, that if you pluck out my eye, I can pluck out yours. You raise a good point too in saying 'how much you've been wronged.' You acknowledge that there is a balance.

I don't think its supposed to be taken literally
(what happens when I pluck the eye from a blind man?)