Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
So does hell exist or what
Options
Comments
-
Then his lack of faith is called invincible ignorance, and is not culpable. I rendered it as 'A person ignorant of Christ would not be culpable' (#127). How have I misrepresented it?
Catholic.com mentions culpability. Does the evangelical website mention it? It is a common Christian doctrine? Is it widely held in the same regard? I doubt it, but please feel free to share what you know.
So that's the only Church that teaches culpability? Are there others?
I don't see how my very own link has given the correct context for the verses of John 3 you disputed. If you have given your context, I cannot find it; could I ask you to direct me to the post, please? No need for a link, just the post number will do (I know how these things can be a hassle, especially on a mobile device).
There were two instances of for non culpabilty in the link not one.
a)Someone might never have heard of Christ or might not know anything about him. (ignorance of Christ)
b)Someone might know all about Christ and God, but because of circumstances a sincere person is prevented from coming to believe in God.
a is not the same as b
The poster tried to claim that Christians believe all 'really really good' non Christians cannot go to heaven.
My own context of the verse is still the same, entire Christian belief is not a selected one liner. The bible is a library of over 750,000 words. I believe in Jesus Christ, but for those who do not believe in God it does not automatically mean they cannot be saved under certain conditions, as per the explanation in your own link. They will have to deliberately reject God / Christ with full knowledge, and that will be their own free will choice.Well, I said I wouldn't address this until you'd provided your context, and I don't see that you have, but I'll engage your question. In what context am I standing in front of Him?
In whatever context you want, similar to the other poster.
If you were standing in front of Jesus would you believe in him or not ?
Would you want to believe him or not, and why ?0 -
What is the point of believing Jesus Christ after seeing him face to face after a person's death?? It will be irrelevant and there will be no reward for that but condemnation, for not believing in Christ while the person was alive on Earth!
"Blessed are those who are not seen & yet believed." John 20:29
John 11:25 Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die, but have eternal life." (Eternal life in union with Christ)0 -
B is referred to as ‘invincible ignorance’. I did not claim that A is the same as B, but I did use the umbrella term of ignorance for both.Bob_Marley wrote: »There were two instances of for non culpabilty in the link not one.
a)Someone might never have heard of Christ or might not know anything about him. (ignorance of Christ)
b)Someone might know all about Christ and God, but because of circumstances a sincere person is prevented from coming to believe in God.
a is not the same as b
Well, the poster may have a point, if that is indeed what he said. Belief in God is of paramount importance in both the Old and New Testaments. To illustrate the point, the Ten Commandments begin by stressing that one better have one’s house in order with reference to one’s relationship to God; in the New Testament, we have Jesus saying in Matthew 22:37 that the greatest commandment is to love God with heart, soul and mind. The links I provided above also support the idea that if one does not believe in God (unless one is of types A and B above, of whom we shall regard as irrelevant to this forum as I doubt there are many here who come into those categories), then one will not gain entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.The poster tried to claim that Christians believe all 'really really good' non Christians cannot go to heaven.
Can you provide examples of Christian doctrines that will permit entry to Heaven even if they don’t believe?
I must admit that I am unable to find the post where you give the context for the quote that was given. Could you show me the post where you gave the context, please? I am sorry to keep repeating the request, but I would very much like to know what you consider the correct context of that quote to be.My own context of the verse is still the same, entire Christian belief is not a selected one liner. The bible is a library of over 750,000 words. I believe in Jesus Christ, but for those who do not believe in God it does not automatically mean they cannot be saved under certain conditions, as per the explanation in your own link. They will have to deliberately reject God / Christ with full knowledge, and that will be their own free will choice.In whatever context you want, similar to the other poster.
If you were standing in front of Jesus would you believe in him or not ?
Would you want to believe him or not, and why ?
You’re asking me to engage in your hypothetical question, but you’re asking me to do all the heavy lifting? The context here matters; as pointed out by another poster above, if this encounter is taking place after I have shuffled off this mortal coil and I am standing in front of the Good Shepard awaiting judgment, then the time for belief has long past. If I am meeting Him now, then I would need to ask how I know that He is indeed Jesus (it might also be useful to clarify which Jesus I am being presented with).0 -
You cannot be a christian without believing in Jesus, and you can't believe in Jesus unless you believe in God. Hence, if christians believe heaven and hell exist, and that God resides in heaven with Jesus at his right hand, and that only through Jesus can you gain entrance to heaven (and thus believe in him) then it must be that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven.
Now, Christians have made up the ability of God to allow others into heaven without believe, since they were faced with the quite reasonable question as to what happens to babies that were never baptised, or the billions of people born in places without knowledge of God. But that is all it is, made up. There is nothing said by Jesus to indicate this is the reality.
Does hell exist? Well it seems a very strange concept. If one believes that God is all powerful, for one to believe in hell one must believe that even though Satan knew of Gods existence, not just having to use faith to believe but actually having concrete proof, he still choose to defy God. Given that Heaven is supposed to be perfect, one needs to wonder what exactly Satan had a problem with.
When we get past that, we need to answer the question as to why God was powerless to do anything about Satan? Why is God seemingly impotent in the face of the challenge. Adn not only the direct challenge, but he was powerless to prevent Satan from having such an impact on his created world. Surely God could have simply cast Satan to hell with no ability to access Earth? That he didn't, and given that Adam and Eve faced temptation right from the start, one can only conclude that God was unable to prevent Satan from getting involved.
Next why is Satan's punishment for turning his back on God is the same as our punishment when clearly his 'crime' is totally premeditated. People who don't believe in God do so not out of malice but out of a lack of evidence or even a lack of knowledge of the story itself. It would seem totally unfair to give the same punishment to both these.
The concept of heaven is that it is perfect. But how can one be happy in heaven knowing that your loved ones, or even just the billions of other people that lived, are not there with God? Do we simply forget about our life on earth? In which case why bother with sending us on this trial on Earth if we cannot remember it? So we are told that to follow God is to love one another, but once in heaven we lose all compassion?
But the final question. Is hell does indeed exist, for what purpose? If we are cast there for all eternity, what does that achieve? Why not simply, when those not welcomed into heaven die, just let them die? There is nothing achieved by sending them to an eternity of pain and suffering.0 -
You cannot be a christian without believing in Jesus...
Let me halt you right there with a word: Abraham.
Abraham is described in the NT as the father of the faith. His example, the way in which he was saved, is given as the example of how all are saved.
Abraham didn't believe in Jesus (in the sense you seem to be propagating as necessary). Yet he was saved.
So, not a Christian (in the "I believe in Jesus" sense). But saved.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Let me halt you right there with a word: Abraham.
Abraham is described in the NT as the father of the faith. His example, the way in which he was saved, is given as the example of how all are saved.
Abraham didn't believe in Jesus (in the sense you seem to be propagating as necessary). Yet he was saved.
So, not a Christian (in the "I believe in Jesus" sense). But saved.
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
My line that you quoted was
.You cannot be a christian without believing in Jesus
Not sure what Abraham has to do with that concept. Do you think a person can be a christian without believing in Jesus? I think you might be mixing up a belief in God with being Christian. Whilst a Christian does believe in God, one can believe in God without being Christian.0 -
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
You were concluding:
"then it must be that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven."
By introducing Abraham that idea is refuted. You don't need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven. At least, Abraham didn't and he's "in heaven"Do you think a person can be a christian without believing in Jesus? I think you might be mixing up a belief in God with being Christian.
What is a Christian? To me, a Christian is one who is in Christ. Abraham was in Christ. I'm in Christ. How one gets "in Christ" can differ.
The issue is less about believing in Christ and more about believing Christ. If you believe him (that is, believe what he says) then you'll believe in him.
If you believe Jesus you believe God.
Abraham believed God too.
Common denominator.Whilst a Christian does believe in God, one can believe in God without being Christian.
As I say, the issue is less about belief in God and more about believing God.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »You were concluding:
"then it must be that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven."
By introducing Abraham that idea is refuted. You don't need to believe in Jesus to get into heaven. At least, Abraham didn't and he's "in heaven"
You are taking me totally out of context. This is the full quoteYou cannot be a christian without believing in Jesus, and you can't believe in Jesus unless you believe in God. Hence, if christians believe heaven and hell exist, and that God resides in heaven with Jesus at his right hand, and that only through Jesus can you gain entrance to heaven (and thus believe in him) then it must be that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven.
I am talking specifically about christians here. Not about religion overall, or even heaven itself.antiskeptic wrote: »What is a Christian? To me, a Christian is one who is in Christ. Abraham was in Christ. I'm in Christ. How one gets "in Christ" can differ.
The issue is less about believing in Christ and more about believing Christ. If you believe him (that is, believe what he says) then you'll believe in him.
Sorry, are you really trying to make the argument that christianity is not based on a belief in Jesus Christ? How can one be in Christ, if one doesn't even believe that Christ ever existed? Maybe you don't understand Christianity to have a belief in Jesus at its core (although I would wonder why you would consider yourself a christian when you don't believe in the entire NT), but it is understood generally that Christians believe in Jesus. I am not going down this rabbit hole on a definition of a Christian. It is the generally accepted position of Christians that they believe in Jesus Christ (hence the name), I am not going to get into a definition battle.antiskeptic wrote: »If you believe Jesus you believe God.
Abraham believed God too.
Common denominator.
I already addressed this point. Jewish do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. But they believe in God. God is the common denominator not Jesus. Yet Christianity is different from Jewish mainly because of the belief in Jesus.antiskeptic wrote: »As I say, the issue is less about belief in God and more about believing God.
How can one believe God but not believe he exists?
But this is getting way off the point, the point was whether hell exists. Do you have anything to say on that point.0 -
Does hell exist? Well it seems a very strange concept. If one believes that God is all powerful, for one to believe in hell one must believe that even though Satan knew of Gods existence, not just having to use faith to believe but actually having concrete proof, he still choose to defy God. Given that Heaven is supposed to be perfect, one needs to wonder what exactly Satan had a problem with.
Satan's decision to defy God his creator, was not because Heaven was less perfect. It was because of his greed or wish to become like The Almighty God. The Capital sin= Pride. Basically, this Pride conquered him and he did not want to worship God, but become God!
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit." (Isaiah 14: 12-15)
When we get past that, we need to answer the question as to why God was powerless to do anything about Satan?
God his creator, gave Satan and the angels the same choice He gave Adam and Eve, to obey Him or not. The decision was theirs own to make. The angels had a free-will choice to make. God did not force or encourage any of the angels to sin. Satan and the fallen angels sinned of their own free will and therefore are worthy of God's eternal wrath in the lake of fire.
"I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose." (Romans 9:15 )
Why is God seemingly impotent in the face of the challenge. Adn not only the direct challenge, but he was powerless to prevent Satan from having such an impact on his created world. Surely God could have simply cast Satan to hell with no ability to access Earth? That he didn't, and given that Adam and Eve faced temptation right from the start, one can only conclude that God was unable to prevent Satan from getting involved.
According to The Bible, temptation is not caused by God. When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1: 13:15)
Next why is Satan's punishment for turning his back on God is the same as our punishment when clearly his 'crime' is totally premeditated. People who don't believe in God do so not out of malice but out of a lack of evidence or even a lack of knowledge of the story itself. It would seem totally unfair to give the same punishment to both these.
The Biblical explanation of Faith is to believe without lack of evidence! That is what Christ himself said.
"Blessed are those who have not seen & yet believed" (John 20:29).
(John 11:25) Jesus told, “I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die, but have eternal life." (Eternal life in union with Christ)
There will be reward of eternal life for those who choose to believe in Christ and condemnation, for those who do not believe in Christ.
"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
The concept of heaven is that it is perfect. But how can one be happy in heaven knowing that your loved ones, or even just the billions of other people that lived, are not there with God?
The concept of Heaven according to the Bible
is a place in union with Christ for eternity, where there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)
"God will reward each person according to his/her deeds." (Romans 2:6)
The billions of people, whom you say who are not with God, may be due to the reason that they disobeyed God & his commandments (sinned) during their life on earth and died unrepentful.
It is their unrepentant sins that seperated them from God. The compassionate and forgiving God did send his only beloved Son Jesus Christ, as a ransom for people's sin. But, those who choose not to believe in him rejected their own salvation and life eternal. They are only to blame.0 -
Satan's decision to defy God his creator, was not because Heaven was less perfect. It was because of his greed or wish to become like The Almighty God. The Capital sin= Pride. Basically, this Pride conquered him and he did not want to worship God, but become God!
So sin is more powerful than god. Even in heaven, even with a direct relationship with god, sin was more powerful in its ability to turn Satan. The only logical conclusion from that position is that God is impotent against the power of sin.
When we get past that, we need to answer the question as to why God was powerless to do anything about Satan?God his creator, gave Satan and the angels the same choice He gave Adam and Eve, to obey Him or not. The decision was theirs own to make. The angels had a free-will choice to make. God did not force or encourage any of the angels to sin. Satan and the fallen angels sinned of their own free will and therefore are worthy of God's eternal wrath in the lake of fire.
Fine, so your position is either than god was powerless to do anything or that what god was offering, remembering that they are in heaven and with god at the time, was not sufficient.
It also raises the prospect of heaven not being eternal. And thus hell cannot be eternal"I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose." (Romans 9:15 )
Why would an all merciful and loving god chose not show mercy? On what basis do you think he chooses to choose to not show mercy?According to The Bible, temptation is not caused by God. When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1: 13:15)
But if god is the creator, then he created temptation. What other power do you believe created temptation? If temptation is inherent in man, it must be because God created man that way. Going back to Satan, your position is that each person is dragged away by their own evil. So in his case, that evil was more powerful than the perfection and relationship with god.The Biblical explanation of Faith is to believe without lack of evidence! That is what Christ himself said.
"Blessed are those who have not seen & yet believed" (John 20:29).
(John 11:25) Jesus told, “I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die, but have eternal life." (Eternal life in union with Christ)
There will be reward of eternal life for those who choose to believe in Christ and condemnation, for those who do not believe in Christ.
"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
You quote a few passages there, none of which actually deal with the question. I didn’t ask what faith is. Satan was in heaven, therefore he didn’t need faith to believe, he had a direct relationship with god. How can you equate a person (Satan) turning their back on god with someone that has no evidence. The two cannot be considered equal. But not only does god see them as both bad, he sees mans rejection of faith as worse as Satan gets to torture them forever.The concept of Heaven according to the Bible
is a place in union with Christ for eternity, where there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)
"God will reward each person according to his/her deeds." (Romans 2:6)
So in heaven we will not all be equal?The billions of people, whom you say who are not with God, may be due to the reason that they disobeyed God & his commandments (sinned) during their life on earth and died unrepentful.
It is their unrepentant sins that seperated them from God. The compassionate and forgiving God did send his only beloved Son Jesus Christ, as a ransom for people's sin. But, those who choose not to believe in him rejected their own salvation and life eternal. They are only to blame.
But what about all those people that never get to hear about God, or even Jesus? What about muslims, or Jews? What about babies?
And an all-powerful god can do whatever he wishes. He doesn’t have to send people to eternal damnation. What purpose does it serve? The person in hell cannot do anything about it. The person in heaven must have forgotten about his life otherwise they will feel unhappy that their loved ones are in hell (even if they accept that they deserve it, then still cannot be happy).0 -
Advertisement
-
B is referred to as ‘invincible ignorance’. I did not claim that A is the same as B, but I did use the umbrella term of ignorance for both.
Well, the poster may have a point, if that is indeed what he said. Belief in God is of paramount importance in both the Old and New Testaments. To illustrate the point, the Ten Commandments begin by stressing that one better have one’s house in order with reference to one’s relationship to God; in the New Testament, we have Jesus saying in Matthew 22:37 that the greatest commandment is to love God with heart, soul and mind. The links I provided above also support the idea that if one does not believe in God (unless one is of types A and B above, of whom we shall regard as irrelevant to this forum as I doubt there are many here who come into those categories), then one will not gain entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Can you provide examples of Christian doctrines that will permit entry to Heaven even if they don’t believe?
I must admit that I am unable to find the post where you give the context for the quote that was given. Could you show me the post where you gave the context, please? I am sorry to keep repeating the request, but I would very much like to know what you consider the correct context of that quote to be.
You’re asking me to engage in your hypothetical question, but you’re asking me to do all the heavy lifting? The context here matters; as pointed out by another poster above, if this encounter is taking place after I have shuffled off this mortal coil and I am standing in front of the Good Shepard awaiting judgment, then the time for belief has long past. If I am meeting Him now, then I would need to ask how I know that He is indeed Jesus (it might also be useful to clarify which Jesus I am being presented with).
I've already posted the context and your own link gives the actual Christian doctrine. I'm not sure who you think you're fooling with the straw manning and pretending what Christians believe, what Christian doctrine is and pretending what people post, but the only one you're kidding here is yourself.
0 -
You are taking me totally out of context. This is the full quote
I am talking specifically about christians here. Not about religion overall, or even heaven itself.
The full quote ends with a conclusion. As a Christian, I disagree with that conclusion and give a reason why. Abraham isn't a different faith, he gains entry the same way I do.Sorry, are you really trying to make the argument that christianity is not based on a belief in Jesus Christ? How can one be in Christ, if one doesn't even believe that Christ ever existed?
In Christ is a place one is put when one is saved. Abraham was put into Christ when he believed (God). You don't , the case of Abraham shows, have to believe in Christ to be put into Christ.
A Christian has a fuller understanding about God and his way of salvation but the way has always been the same: believe God.Maybe you don't understand Christianity to have a belief in Jesus at its core (although I would wonder why you would consider yourself a christian when you don't believe in the entire NT), but it is understood generally that Christians believe in Jesus.
Of course they believe in Jesus but in terms of salvation, they are no different to Abraham and the way he entered into it.I already addressed this point. Jewish do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. But they believe in God.
Even the demons believe in God. So what if someone believes in Jesus (given the demons also do) - that doesn't make them a Christian.
The issue isn't primarily belief in God, the issue is believing God (or to put it another way) believing what God says. Abraham believed God - not believed in God.
How can one believe God but not believe he exists?
But this is getting way off the point, the point was whether hell exists. Do you have anything to say on that point.[/QUOTE]0 -
OK, so now we are in a place where Christians don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved, despite Jesus saying that he is the path to heaven.
the conclusion to my quote was
. This is based on the bible itself, Jesus's own wordsthen it must be that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven.John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Are you claiming that Jesus was lying, that actually Jesus is not the path to God. Surely then the whole basis for the church, for Christianity itself, is under question. A commandment is that no other Gods, yet people pray to Jesus, which you are claiming is unnecessary. So why does the Chirstian faith even exist, why didn't it continue with the Abrahamic faith and ignore Jesus?
With logic like that it is impossible to have a discussion. If even a belief in Jesus is open to question in christianity then that religion is in more trouble that I imagined.
But like I said, that is not the point of the thread, that being whether hell exists.
Do you think hell exists and how do you square a merciful and loving god with a vengeful and sadistic punishment regime. And to what purpose is this punishment regime undertaken since it is eternal and thus cannot lead to any repentance.
How did Satan, who both believed in God and what he said, have the ability to defy God, given that God created Satan? Why would he create a being that could bring such misery and pain into the world that he had created? Was Satan already in hell when God created the world and if so why did he allow man to have the ability to be tempted? Why did he give Satan access to this new creation, he could have easily barred him just as he did from heaven?
Why does God hand over the souls of those on earth that rejected him to Satan for eternal punishment, when surely Satan committed the greater offence by defying God?
Do those that get into heaven know of the pain and suffering that those in hell are in?
Do they know the pain and suffering of their lived ones still on Earth?
If so, how can they be happy knowing that. If not, then do they lose all memory of earth, in which case why not let everyone in since everyone starts from a blank canvas?0 -
So sin is more powerful than god. Even in heaven, even with a direct relationship with god, sin was more powerful in its ability to turn Satan. The only logical conclusion from that position is that God is impotent against the power of sin.
No, it's not the only logical conclusion at all. A perfectly logical conclusion is that God created free moral agents with the free will to choose good or evil. The fact that they might choose sin rather than righteousness has nothing to do with whether sin or righteousness, or God, is more powerful.
Since God was not powerless, the question is meaningless.When we get past that, we need to answer the question as to why God was powerless to do anything about Satan?
There are so many logical fallacies and misunderstandings of Christian doctrine in one paragraph here that it's hard to know where to begin.Fine, so your position is either than god was powerless to do anything or that what god was offering, remembering that they are in heaven and with god at the time, was not sufficient.
It also raises the prospect of heaven not being eternal. And thus hell cannot be eternal
Heaven is not an eternal place where people live for ever. 'Heaven' is simply being in the presence of God.
Satan was not in 'heaven' in the sense that he was in the same place where believers will spend eternity. Believers will, according to the New Testament, spend eternity in their resurrected bodies in God's presence in a re-created universe - not floating around in a place called heaven.
Even if the believers' final destination was not eternal, it would not logically follow that hell was not eternal.Why would an all merciful and loving god chose not show mercy? On what basis do you think he chooses to choose to not show mercy?
If people choose to reject mercy. God is not going to force his mercy down our throats saying, "You ungrateful little wretch, I'll force you to receive my mercy whether you want it or not!"
Temptation isn't a 'thing' that someone created. It is simply the desire to choose something that is wrong. it is difficult to see how any kind of free will could exist without the ability to choose, and the ability to choose between two alternatives is meaningless unless both alternatives are attractive to at least some degree.But if god is the creator, then he created temptation. What other power do you believe created temptation? If temptation is inherent in man, it must be because God created man that way. Going back to Satan, your position is that each person is dragged away by their own evil. So in his case, that evil was more powerful than the perfection and relationship with god.
You don't seem to understand the concept of free will. It's not about which alternative is more powerful. If making a choice was simply down to which alternative was more powerful then free will would not be free.
The Bible says Christians will receive different rewards.So in heaven we will not all be equal?
Above my pay grade. I trust God to sort that out righteously.But what about all those people that never get to hear about God, or even Jesus? What about muslims, or Jews?
I see no reason to doubt that babies, having not sinned, are perfectly accepted by God.What about babies?And an all-powerful god can do whatever he wishes. He doesn’t have to send people to eternal damnation. What purpose does it serve? The person in hell cannot do anything about it. The person in heaven must have forgotten about his life otherwise they will feel unhappy that their loved ones are in hell (even if they accept that they deserve it, then still cannot be happy).
It serves the purpose of accepting our freely chosen wishes. If we don't want to be with God for eternity, then it seems better to me that he treats us as grown ups and doesn't force us to be with Him anyway.0 -
No, it's not the only logical conclusion at all. A perfectly logical conclusion is that God created free moral agents with the free will to choose good or evil. The fact that they might choose sin rather than righteousness has nothing to do with whether sin or righteousness, or God, is more powerful.
Since God was not powerless, the question is meaningless.
There are so many logical fallacies and misunderstandings of Christian doctrine in one paragraph here that it's hard to know where to begin.
Heaven is not an eternal place where people live for ever. 'Heaven' is simply being in the presence of God.
Satan was not in 'heaven' in the sense that he was in the same place where believers will spend eternity. Believers will, according to the New Testament, spend eternity in their resurrected bodies in God's presence in a re-created universe - not floating around in a place called heaven.
Even if the believers' final destination was not eternal, it would not logically follow that hell was not eternal.
If people choose to reject mercy. God is not going to force his mercy down our throats saying, "You ungrateful little wretch, I'll force you to receive my mercy whether you want it or not!"
Temptation isn't a 'thing' that someone created. It is simply the desire to choose something that is wrong. it is difficult to see how any kind of free will could exist without the ability to choose, and the ability to choose between two alternatives is meaningless unless both alternatives are attractive to at least some degree.
You don't seem to understand the concept of free will. It's not about which alternative is more powerful. If making a choice was simply down to which alternative was more powerful then free will would not be free.
The Bible says Christians will receive different rewards.
Above my pay grade. I trust God to sort that out righteously.
I see no reason to doubt that babies, having not sinned, are perfectly accepted by God.
It serves the purpose of accepting our freely chosen wishes. If we don't want to be with God for eternity, then it seems better to me that he treats us as grown ups and doesn't force us to be with Him anyway.
My goodness, where to begin with all that. It is eternal, it isn't eternal, it is in our resurrected bodies, we are not floating about.
Basically, you haven't a rashers. That's fine, neither do I, but don't dress it up as if you know.
God didn't create temptation, but he created everything. Which is it? You then go on to say that to create free will without temptation wouldn't be right, so you agree he created temptation.
Your position is that free-will exists in heaven. But it is a place free from pain, free from sin, free from suffering. If all that is possible with free-will in heaven then why not on Earth?
Whether god let Satan choose free-will or whether he was powerless to stop him is a pointless argument. God, by creating free-will, became powerless against its effects. Free-will, by your own argument, God is unable to deal with the consequences, you could almost say powerless.
Satan wasn't in heaven? Where was he? It said he was cast out, from where?
Why can't God force his mercy on us? We are dead at that stage, what possible reason could he have for continuing with the charade?
Temptation is very much created (if you believe that God created everything). Temptation is not just to select what is wrong, it is to select one alternative from another.
You claim that I mustn't understand free-will, and I think it is a position that everyone struggles with. But my understanding is that we really don't have free-will. We are destined, by our bias, our circumstances, our experiences etc to have certain wants. Decisions are based on what we want. But we have no control over what we actually want.
Did you choose to be born? No, so straight off the bat the single biggest decision of your life is not yours. Do you choose when to die? In most cases (apart from the unfortunate situation of suicide) people don't decide that either. So the next big decision of your life is not your own either. Free-will, except for the very core decisions.
You say that the bible says christians will receive different rewards. SO the person who lives live as close to Jesus as possible will receive a different heaven than the serial killer that repents on the death chair? Do those that sin, but confess, receive less that those that never sin?
Babies are born with original sin, they are born sinners. Without repentance, on your own view, they receive less reward than those that sinned and repented. That pretty harsh on them.0 -
-
Sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss Christian beliefs. I was obviously mistaken.
So far on this thread I have been told that Christians don't have to believe in Jesus, only have to believe what God says but not in God, that heaven isn't a place but our resurrected bodies will be there, Satan wasn't in heaven, everyone who believes goes to heaven but some get 1st class whilst others get coach, god didn't create temptation because...something.
The problem with discussion Christian beliefs is that there is no such thing. There is a myriad of them, all based on peoples interpretations.
If one trrlirs to discuss them you end up being accused of not knowing or understanding them.
I pointed out some pretty glaring contradictions in your post but rather than explain them you accuse me of not partaking in a duscussion.0 -
I pointed out some pretty glaring contradictions in your post but rather than explain them you accuse me of not partaking in a duscussion.
If you're just going to dismiss posts with a 'you haven't got a rashers' comment then don't be surprised if others conclude that you are trolling rather than genuinely seeking to discuss Christian beliefs.
But you haven't pointed out any contradictions, glaring or not.God didn't create temptation, but he created everything. Which is it? You then go on to say that to create free will without temptation wouldn't be right, so you agree he created temptation.
Temptation is not a 'thing' as part of creation. It's like arguing nonsense such as did God create volleyball, or quadrilateral equations.
I don't see how we can have a discussion if you just ignore what I post. I've already pointed out that 'heaven' simply means to be in the presence of God. Christians have never understood the place where Satan existed with God long ago as being the same place where Christians will spend a future eternity with God.Your position is that free-will exists in heaven. But it is a place free from pain, free from sin, free from suffering. If all that is possible with free-will in heaven then why not on Earth?
So the free will that Satan had in the beginning, or the free will we have now, does not necessarily equate to our condition in the future. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that we have the free will to choose to sin or not now, but that we can choose to relinquish that choice for the future.
Think of it as being given the key to a house and told you can use it to enter anytime you like. But you then choose to hand the key back to the landlord. it was important that you were given the key in the first place, and that you had the freedom to use it, but your voluntarily returning the key is not a diminution of your free will, in fact it is you exercising your free will not to go there any more.
So, no contradiction there.
It's a particularly silly use of the word 'powerless'. When Christians refer to God's omnipotence they don't mean that God can do things that are inherently self-contradictory.Whether god let Satan choose free-will or whether he was powerless to stop him is a pointless argument. God, by creating free-will, became powerless against its effects. Free-will, by your own argument, God is unable to deal with the consequences, you could almost say powerless.
So, when we say that God cannot create a square circle, or create an irresistible force that bangs into an immovable object, or grant us free will while simultaneously maintaining absolute control over our actions, that in no way contradicts the doctrine of his omnipotence.
To try to characterise that as 'powerlessness' certainly doesn't fall under the heading of reasonable discussion.
From God's presence.Satan wasn't in heaven? Where was he? It said he was cast out, from where?Why can't God force his mercy on us? We are dead at that stage, what possible reason could he have for continuing with the charade?
I didn't say He can't, I said He doesn't.
It is not a charade for God to treat us as free moral agents who make meaningful choices for our futures, and then to respect those choices.
Personally, I'd rather be treated as a grown up and allowed to make my own decisions, rather than have a God who pretends to let me choose to spend eternity or not with Him, but then says "Never mind what you chose, I'll do what I want with you.". Now that would be a charade.
So, still no contradictions.You claim that I mustn't understand free-will, and I think it is a position that everyone struggles with. But my understanding is that we really don't have free-will. We are destined, by our bias, our circumstances, our experiences etc to have certain wants. Decisions are based on what we want. But we have no control over what we actually want.
That may be your opinion, but I wasn't discussing your opinion. I was discussing Christian beliefs, which is the purpose of this forum. Not your soapboxing of your different beliefs.
You are of course free to believe what you want about free will. But your believing that you don't actually have any free will at all, while perhaps depressing, does not demonstrate a contradiction in Christian beliefs or in anything I have posted.Did you choose to be born? No, so straight off the bat the single biggest decision of your life is not yours. Do you choose when to die? In most cases (apart from the unfortunate situation of suicide) people don't decide that either. So the next big decision of your life is not your own either. Free-will, except for the very core decisions.
Now you're descending into nonsense. I don't think anyone in the history of philosophy has ever been silly enough to argue that if you don't have free will in absolutely every circumstance of your life then you don't have free will in anything at all.
It is perfectly consistent to recognise that we lack free will in many areas, but still to argue that we possess the free will to make moral choices.
Still no contradictions.You say that the bible says christians will receive different rewards. SO the person who lives live as close to Jesus as possible will receive a different heaven than the serial killer that repents on the death chair? Do those that sin, but confess, receive less that those that never sin?
I made no comment as to whether someone will receive more or less rewards. What I said was that we will receive different rewards.
Jesus Himself told a parable to the effect that people might receive different rewards, but, since they got what they were promised, they really didn't have any grounds for complaint if someone else received a different wage. In eternity we will all receive far more rewards than we actually deserve. Hopefully, in eternity we will not be so intellectually or morally weak as to see that as harsh or unjust.
Personally, I'd be happy with no rewards at all - just to be in the presence of God will be plenty for me. But the bible does say we will receive different rewards.
Now you're just making stuff up. I never mentioned about babies receiving less rewards than anyone. If you really want to try to find contradictions in what I post (something you have failed to do) then perhaps you could engage with what i actually post?Babies are born with original sin, they are born sinners. Without repentance, on your own view, they receive less reward than those that sinned and repented. That pretty harsh on them.
Btw, you should be careful about assuming that all Christians share the RC concept of how original sin works.0 -
As I noted in an earlier post, it is pointless trying to debate someone on their beliefs, as there is no set system of beliefs. Everyone has their own interpretations and devise their beliefs off that and what they have been taught and on the research they did.
What I try to do is to work out the logical destination of someone’s beliefs. If one believes, as another posted stated, that belief in Jesus is not needed to get into heaven, then the logical extension to that is what is the purpose of Jesus? We already had God, he was already known about. Why would God create another layer?
It is not up to me to decide on what you happen to believe in regards to heaven and hell. Rather if you have a belief, for example you state that different people will get different rewards but that doesn’t mean better or worse, what does that mean to you. Our only ability to consider things is in the context we have now, in that that context we can clearly see if things are better or worse. So, for example, if you got to be in the presence of God 1 day a week but I get 2 days a week would you be happy. And if it makes no difference to you then why would it make a difference to me and as such why not treat everyone the same?Temptation is not a 'thing' as part of creation. It's like arguing nonsense such as did God create volleyball, or quadrilateral equations.
I agree about those things like volleyball, but temptation is not something that we made up. It is a part of all of us, part of our nature. One cannot rid oneself of temptation, only our ability to withstand it. As such it is part of our being, and therefore part of what god created us as. Do you think somebody invented temptation?
And the contradiction is not whether we can have free-will but why it is taken back. God has the ability to whatever he likes. The issue arises due to the point of free-will in the first place. If god is to remove free-will in heaven then why have us judged on it here, why even give it to us on Earth. Free-will seems to be a very strong cornerstone to humans yet he removes it as soon as we die? Have you asked yourself why? And the reason free-will must not be available in heaven is the non-existence of pain, suffering etc. Free-will, as we understand it, means people can choose what they want and that impacts on others. The free-will to take what you have. And with that comes pain for some. So if no pain exists in heaven, then free-will mustn't either.
If you disagree with the premise what lack of pain and suffering necessarily means lack of free-will, then one must reconsider why god allows pain and suffering on Earth, since that logic would suggest that the existence of free-will does not mean pain. So God decided we should suffer.
There is your contradiction.
If free-will can lead to pain and harm and sin, and there is no pain and hard and sin in heaven (be that a physical place or state of one with God) then why bother to have it on Earth with all the pain and suffering that goes with it? Why do people have to suffer such terrible deaths, why do babies die in their parents arms, why does a tsunami wipe out entire families?
The point is not whether free-will exists or not, and not to what extend it even exists, the point is why?It's a particularly silly use of the word 'powerless'. When Christians refer to God's omnipotence they don't mean that God can do things that are inherently self-contradictory.
But it is only self-contradictory based on your own assumptions. Why are you placing any limits on God? God created the heavens and the Earth, hell, people, plants and all living things. We pray to him for help and praise him when things work out for us.
But that is your definition of hell. You stated earlier that it is not a place but being in the presence of God. So he was cast out of ‘heaven’.Satan wasn't in heaven? Where was he? It said he was cast out, from where?
From God's presence.
I totally agree that a discussion about free-will is not for this thread. However, I fail to see why people are expected to be respectful to your beliefs but you can class my as nonsense or that I am being silly.
I am very careful about assuming anything about Christian and their beliefs. The mere existence of some many streams of Christianity tells you that there is no agreed definition even under the umbrella.
Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, just as I am free to question those beliefs.
But lets us try a different tack. I am not looking to either discount or ignore your beliefs. The thread is on hell and whether it exists or not. If ones believes in hell, then one must think through the extension of that belief.
Is hell the opposite of heaven?
Is it the fire and brimstone that was previously thought?
Do people know they are in hell, and why?
Can you get out of hell?
Do people in heaven know that others are in hell?
What is the criteria for going to hell? Is it rejection of God, rejection of Jesus? Is it the deeds you do? Can you commit any sin and repent and still get in? If you die before getting a chance to repent what happens?
These are just some of the questions that follow from a belief in hell. It is not important to me whether you know these answer, it should be something that you have considered before deciding that you believe in anything. Otherwise you are simply believing without even knowing what it is you believe in.0 -
As I noted in an earlier post, it is pointless trying to debate someone on their beliefs, as there is no set system of beliefs. Everyone has their own interpretations and devise their beliefs off that and what they have been taught and on the research they did.
What I try to do is to work out the logical destination of someone’s beliefs. If one believes, as another posted stated, that belief in Jesus is not needed to get into heaven, then the logical extension to that is what is the purpose of Jesus? We already had God, he was already known about. Why would God create another layer?
It is not up to me to decide on what you happen to believe in regards to heaven and hell. Rather if you have a belief, for example you state that different people will get different rewards but that doesn’t mean better or worse, what does that mean to you. Our only ability to consider things is in the context we have now, in that that context we can clearly see if things are better or worse. So, for example, if you got to be in the presence of God 1 day a week but I get 2 days a week would you be happy. And if it makes no difference to you then why would it make a difference to me and as such why not treat everyone the same?
I agree about those things like volleyball, but temptation is not something that we made up. It is a part of all of us, part of our nature. One cannot rid oneself of temptation, only our ability to withstand it. As such it is part of our being, and therefore part of what god created us as. Do you think somebody invented temptation?
And the contradiction is not whether we can have free-will but why it is taken back. God has the ability to whatever he likes. The issue arises due to the point of free-will in the first place. If god is to remove free-will in heaven then why have us judged on it here, why even give it to us on Earth. Free-will seems to be a very strong cornerstone to humans yet he removes it as soon as we die? Have you asked yourself why? And the reason free-will must not be available in heaven is the non-existence of pain, suffering etc. Free-will, as we understand it, means people can choose what they want and that impacts on others. The free-will to take what you have. And with that comes pain for some. So if no pain exists in heaven, then free-will mustn't either.
If you disagree with the premise what lack of pain and suffering necessarily means lack of free-will, then one must reconsider why god allows pain and suffering on Earth, since that logic would suggest that the existence of free-will does not mean pain. So God decided we should suffer.
There is your contradiction.
If free-will can lead to pain and harm and sin, and there is no pain and hard and sin in heaven (be that a physical place or state of one with God) then why bother to have it on Earth with all the pain and suffering that goes with it? Why do people have to suffer such terrible deaths, why do babies die in their parents arms, why does a tsunami wipe out entire families?
The point is not whether free-will exists or not, and not to what extend it even exists, the point is why?
But it is only self-contradictory based on your own assumptions. Why are you placing any limits on God? God created the heavens and the Earth, hell, people, plants and all living things. We pray to him for help and praise him when things work out for us.
But that is your definition of hell. You stated earlier that it is not a place but being in the presence of God. So he was cast out of ‘heaven’.
I totally agree that a discussion about free-will is not for this thread. However, I fail to see why people are expected to be respectful to your beliefs but you can class my as nonsense or that I am being silly.
I am very careful about assuming anything about Christian and their beliefs. The mere existence of some many streams of Christianity tells you that there is no agreed definition even under the umbrella.
Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, just as I am free to question those beliefs.
But lets us try a different tack. I am not looking to either discount or ignore your beliefs. The thread is on hell and whether it exists or not. If ones believes in hell, then one must think through the extension of that belief.
Is hell the opposite of heaven?
Is it the fire and brimstone that was previously thought?
Do people know they are in hell, and why?
Can you get out of hell?
Do people in heaven know that others are in hell?
What is the criteria for going to hell? Is it rejection of God, rejection of Jesus? Is it the deeds you do? Can you commit any sin and repent and still get in? If you die before getting a chance to repent what happens?
These are just some of the questions that follow from a belief in hell. It is not important to me whether you know these answer, it should be something that you have considered before deciding that you believe in anything. Otherwise you are simply believing without even knowing what it is you believe in.
Troll pretending to be an agnostic ðŸ˜0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Bob_Marley wrote: »I've already posted the context and your own link gives the actual Christian doctrine. I'm not sure who you think you're fooling with the straw manning and pretending what Christians believe, what Christian doctrine is and pretending what people post, but the only one you're kidding here is yourself. [IMG]file:///C:/Users/ADMINI~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif[/IMG]
First, my apologies for the delayed response, and for reactivating a dormant thread.
I’ll begin by pointing out that I am not straw manning. In order to fall in to the straw man fallacy, I would need to a) mispresent a position and then b) attack that misrepresentation. I have done neither. I would appreciate it if you could illustrate how you think I am straw manning.
Next, it is wrong for you to attack me for ‘pretending what Christians believe’ when I have asked you several times to give examples of Christian beliefs concerning entry to heaven. Do not refuse to enlighten and then mock ignorance, it is most uncharitable.
As for your context, I again remind you that I have been unable to find the post where you give the context and I have asked you several times to point it out to me. You did not. Looking back through the thread, I see that you have argued that the bible is a big book; this is true, but tells us nothing of the context of John 3:17-18. The other comment I could find had something to the effect of your context being Christ. Again, this may well be true, but it tells us nothing of why you thinkkumate_champ07 was posting out of context, or what that context actually should be.
If I have missed the post where you outline the context, please accept my apologies and direct me to that post.
I shall restate the argument here, to refresh our memories. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The point had been put forward that those who do not worship God through Christ will be unable to enter the kingdom of heaven. You asked for a source for this, so kc07 (forgive the abbreviation) presented a verse from the Gospel, giving Gospel, Chapter and Verse, as one should. It runs as follows:
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:17-18)
I will now present the context for this verse, and why I think kc07 was right to introduce it as a relevant point.
Nicodemus is a Pharisee, but he regards Jesus as an important teacher and comes to him at night to get a better understanding of what this is all about. Jesus is very direct about it; nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again. Poor old Nicodemus takes this somewhat literally, and Jesus explains to him that he means being born again through baptism and receiving the Spirit. He goes on to say that he didn’t come to condemn but to save, and whoever believes is not condemned. But if you don’t believe, you’re already condemned.
This is pretty heavy stuff, and Jesus is saying it to a Pharisee, no less. But the point is plain: if you do not believe, you are already condemned and will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I put it to you that KC07 did not quote out of context, as Jesus is speaking very directly and frankly about who shall be saved, and the most important requirement to being saved.
Christian dogmas do of course make exceptions to this, as for example in the links I posted giving a Catholic and an Evangelical perspective, but for the purposes of this thread (as we have few contributors who are actively denied the opportunity to worship, or who lived before the advent of Christ), we can say that contributors who are not believers will not be entering the kingdom.
Is this context and conclusion acceptable? If not, how can it be corrected?0 -
we can say that contributors who are not believers will not be entering the kingdom.
Is this context and conclusion acceptable? If not, how can it be corrected?
Believe in Jesus. What does that mean? Believe in his existance? Believe he died for your sins?
He said "I am the truth". Presumably then, if you believe in the truth you also believe in him - since he and it are one and the same thing.
I can see people who don't believe the first two options being saved - if only they believe the truth. Clearly, the truth needs to be an objective truth and it can be expected to be a specific truth. It's not something we think is the truth but which isn't nor is it believing just any truth which is true.
The biblical argument and examples therein of people who have been saved, sees God attempting to present us with the truth (a specific truth that is) and we come to either believe it or not.
Those Christians purporting to know the way of salvation must accommodate the likes of Abraham. He believed God and was saved as a result. Indeed, his case is utilised by Paul to detail the way of salvation. Not for nothing he, Abraham, is called the father of the faith. But when we look at the mechanism at work in Abrahams case:
He believed what God said (in the matter relating to his receiving an heir)
What God said came about subsequently - rendering true what God said to Abraham.
Abraham, in believing God, believed the truth (and was saved as a result)
But Christ is God, so his believing God also means his believing Christ
Yet Abraham was born before Christ.
If a person can believe God a.k.a. Christ a.k.a. the truth ... without knowing about Christ and yet be saved then the "correction" you were looking for is brought about.
It would appear that Christ (belief in his name or existence or what he did for us) need not come into it. I mean, if that was good enough for Abraham...0
Advertisement