|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 31, 2017 15:23:15 GMT
I think the general line of reasoning by Christians should be: It's retroactive to include EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED.
The book of Revelation speaks of a resurrection of both "the righteous and the unrighteous"... That means EVERYBODY... and, that means those who were born before Jesus... and only made possible by Jesus' sacrificial life/death.
Doesn't that argument undermine the importance of the Bible? If God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to the Bible, then why bother producing and distributing Bibles? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 15:32:48 GMT
The point is... given the option after resurrection pretty much guarantees that Jesus is the Savior, so what fool would opt for hell? Isn't the point to come to Jesus through faith? If your definition of faith is that it can't be based on any facts or evidence at all... Then, sure, that option might seem kinda weird. Faith as anything other than noun is pretty much understood to be such. Should I dig up the poll, or merely create a new one? True or not, non sequitur to the point... though it's apparent you still harbor issues from our past discussions on this. I know no one that would opt for damnation, given the option after death by a divine being. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 31, 2017 15:42:42 GMT
I think the general line of reasoning by Christians should be: It's retroactive to include EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED.
The book of Revelation speaks of a resurrection of both "the righteous and the unrighteous"... That means EVERYBODY... and, that means those who were born before Jesus... and only made possible by Jesus' sacrificial life/death.
Doesn't that argument undermine the importance of the Bible? If God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to the Bible, then why bother producing and distributing Bibles? According to the story: You are not judged at the moment of your death. We don't die because we are bad. We die because we are naturally born "in sin", We all do: The good, the bad, the ugly... the Apostles, the liars, cheaters and thieves... the saints and the sinners. We are judged AFTER we are resurrected.. All of us. There is a period of time (1,000 years according to The Bible) for people to live and learn... and, then, we are judged according to how we choose to live. That resurrection is made possible by Jesus' life - a life not born "in sin" - being sacrificed. Well... I suppose that's it nice to know what gonna happen... and that there really is a purpose to life and the universe. And who knows?... Maybe those who already have a head-start in knowing what's what and have already begun living a "good Christian" life by actually reading the book and living accordingly might have some greater role in that learning period? Who the hell knows?.. It hasn't happened, yet... If it happens at all..
If it does...  Here's to changing a lot of my bad habits. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 15:45:12 GMT
@eddyhops
I'm saying that time to make an informed choice matters in relation to that choice. The premise becomes more ridiculous the more immediate the choice becomes which would add weight to your argument. However, your argument becomes moot if someone is given the time to make an informed choice.
Except that it wouldn't. It has never worked whether we are talking about within the confines of Scripture or within our modern day existence.
People do what they wish to do since most people are convinced that their way of doing things is either the correct way or the way that works best for them. Perception is reality.
This is the part you don't get about faith. It's not just belief.
There is no opt-in for it. You either want to agree to the conditions, all of them, or you don't. One of those conditions is loving God. I couldn't love God if he tortured people for all eternity...Although I would try to fake it.
It is irrelevant that God tosses you manna from heaven if the miracle doesn't move you to appreciate it.
Maybe resurrections would move people to that appreciation but there is no evidence whatsoever that would be automatic or a foregone conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 31, 2017 15:51:28 GMT
If your definition of faith is that it can't be based on any facts or evidence at all... Then, sure, that option might seem kinda weird. Faith as anything other than noun is pretty much understood to be such. Should I dig up the poll, or merely create a new one? True or not, non sequitur to the point... though it's apparent you still harbor issues from our past discussions on this. I know no one that would opt for damnation, given the option after death by a divine being. Do you? You can dig up the poll. It wasn't the landslide that you think that it is... Also, a bunch of morons agreeing with each other on an internet website doesn't really define reality. Have you read any threads on this board??? There are a ton of "I'd rather be dead than follow God" people here. But, as for the reality of it all... We'd just have to wait and see.
Not really.. You can be as ignorant as you want to be... It doesn't really bother me.  - "FAITH HAS TO BE BLIND!!! IT CAN'T BE BASED ON ANYTHING!! IT HAS TO BE!!! HAS TO BE!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 15:52:57 GMT
u mad, bro?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 31, 2017 15:54:29 GMT
 I was waiting for it..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 15:55:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 31, 2017 16:37:17 GMT
I think the general line of reasoning by Christians should be: It's retroactive to include EVERY HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED.
The book of Revelation speaks of a resurrection of both "the righteous and the unrighteous"... That means EVERYBODY... and, that means those who were born before Jesus... and only made possible by Jesus' sacrificial life/death.
Doesn't that argument undermine the importance of the Bible? If God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to the Bible, then why bother producing and distributing Bibles? The resurrection of the unrighteous has nothing to do with their heart condition. It's simply a merciful and just way to deal with the problem the OP thought wasn't dealt with. They could be straight up evil, but if they are ignorant hey have a shot. That said, the Bible probably isn't going to be terribly significant in regards to this resurrection. Now I will say that belief in Jesus is not the standard at which righteousness s determined. There are plenty of faithful people in the Bible that don't know who Jesus is. It's faith in God and obedience to his standards that makes one worthy of salvation. Once gained, these ones will likely accept whatever arrangement is inn lace since their main goal all along was to worship God. The overwhelming majority of people will likely have never heard anything about the Bible or learned it wrong during times that the message was stifled which amounts to centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 31, 2017 16:51:04 GMT
Excellent point, and one I made back in the old days before I split from the fold. And it was always met with a raised eyebrow, a scowl and one of several deflections that made me sorry that I had asked a question in the first place. And eventually all that piled up into something so big I just couldn't ignore it anymore. I changed sects, hoping the new one would be more enlightening, and it wasn't I looked at other religions, especially Eastern ones, and while they were more soothing (Buddhism) and older than Christianity (Hinduism), I just couldn't shake that feeling of "why is one religion the right one, and every other religion is wrong?" Why wasn't there just one from the beginning? And, of course, I ended up an agnostic atheist. There were other factors involved, I had been raised to think that believing things without evidence was a virtue, but finally reason, logic and science took over. It will be interesting to see what the theists on this board have to say. First, just fixing the technical glitch that put your response in with my post. Second, I don't say that there is a supreme being called god. I am an atheist, that says "I believe there is no god", but since that is a belief, I also say I am agnostic, that says "It is not possible to KNOW (prove) whether or not a god exists, and if a god exists, the nature of that god." I don't know what the definition of a nihilist is. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Oct 31, 2017 17:55:21 GMT
Well... I suppose that's it nice to know what gonna happen... and that there really is a purpose to life and the universe. And who knows?... Maybe those who already have a head-start in knowing what's what and have already begun living a "good Christian" life by actually reading the book and living accordingly might have some greater role in that learning period? Who the hell knows?.. It hasn't happened, yet... If it happens at all..
If it does... Here's to changing a lot of my bad habits. Ah, a sort of advanced placement program for the afterlife, so you get into the express line and reach judgement in 250 years instead of 1000.  |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 31, 2017 18:25:09 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Excellent point, and one I made back in the old days before I split from the fold. And it was always met with a raised eyebrow, a scowl and one of several deflections that made me sorry that I had asked a question in the first place. And eventually all that piled up into something so big I just couldn't ignore it anymore. I changed sects, hoping the new one would be more enlightening, and it wasn't I looked at other religions, especially Eastern ones, and while they were more soothing (Buddhism) and older than Christianity (Hinduism), I just couldn't shake that feeling of "why is one religion the right one, and every other religion is wrong?" Why wasn't there just one from the beginning? And, of course, I ended up an agnostic atheist. There were other factors involved, I had been raised to think that believing things without evidence was a virtue, but finally reason, logic and science took over. It will be interesting to see what the theists on this board have to say. This theist says that there are many paths up the mountain, Christianity is what suits me best but may not suit others. I tend to think of the example of Jesus to be the portrayal of what is possible, that he showed us a way rather than being the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Oct 31, 2017 18:30:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Nov 1, 2017 4:07:39 GMT
@eddyhops I'm saying that time to make an informed choice matters in relation to that choice. The premise becomes more ridiculous the more immediate the choice becomes which would add weight to your argument. However, your argument becomes moot if someone is given the time to make an informed choice. Except that it wouldn't. It has never worked whether we are talking about within the confines of Scripture or within our modern day existence. People do what they wish to do since most people are convinced that their way of doing things is either the correct way or the way that works best for them. Perception is reality. This is the part you don't get about faith. It's not just belief. There is no opt-in for it. You either want to agree to the conditions, all of them, or you don't. One of those conditions is loving God. I couldn't love God if he tortured people for all eternity...Although I would try to fake it. It is irrelevant that God tosses you manna from heaven if the miracle doesn't move you to appreciate it. Maybe resurrections would move people to that appreciation but there is no evidence whatsoever that would be automatic or a foregone conclusion. Very informative. Cooljgs, you said: “Maybe resurrections would move people to that appreciation but there is no evidence whatsoever that would be automatic or a foregone conclusion.” you know, I think it will, when they see their dead loved ones coming back to life! I know my Dad, although he was an agnostic....when he himself comes back to life and is reunited with his Mother and aunts and uncles, he will be moved to appreciate it! You could always reason with him, to a point. |
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Nov 1, 2017 4:13:52 GMT
Doesn't that argument undermine the importance of the Bible? If God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to the Bible, then why bother producing and distributing Bibles? According to the story: You are not judged at the moment of your death. We don't die because we are bad. We die because we are naturally born "in sin", We all do: The good, the bad, the ugly... the Apostles, the liars, cheaters and thieves... the saints and the sinners. We are judged AFTER we are resurrected.. All of us. There is a period of time (1,000 years according to The Bible) for people to live and learn... and, then, we are judged according to how we choose to live. That resurrection is made possible by Jesus' life - a life not born "in sin" - being sacrificed. Well... I suppose that's it nice to know what gonna happen... and that there really is a purpose to life and the universe. And who knows?... Maybe those who already have a head-start in knowing what's what and have already begun living a "good Christian" life by actually reading the book and living accordingly might have some greater role in that learning period? Who the hell knows?.. It hasn't happened, yet... If it happens at all..
If it does... Here's to changing a lot of my bad habits. Real good explanation, vegasdevil! |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 1, 2017 11:50:30 GMT
God's standards changed drastically from before Jesus to after Jesus. So what happens if you like the standards of the OT, but not the ones in the NT? What happens if you have never even heard of God? Will you be judged by different standards? After all, if you have never heard of Jesus, then you cannot reject Jesus, and consequently the argument "you rejected salvation" cannot be used. And given that no rational person will be convinced by the Jesus stuff (because demonstrably, there is no rational cause to believe it), that makes the playing field uneven, against rational people - if they have heard of Jesus. That's not really accurate. God's standards didn't change. What changed was the way to follow those standards and the opportunities presented to others to honor those standards. That's the same thing. A nation was never needed. Why couldn't Jesus have been born by Eve? None of this makes any sense. Nothing had changed in the overall socio-political picture from before Jesus to after Jesus. All the environmental factors were the same. So why, suddenly, "no longer needed"? That implies something changed. Since nothing in the world had changed, that means God had changed his plans. Otherwise, there'd be no reason not to send Jesus sooner. What? How could they possibly? First, even the ones who had heard of Jesus, or even heard him directly, would still not know. They'd just know what the claims were, but have no better reason to believe them. Also, at that point in time, there were people all over the world: Asia, Australia, the Americas... How were they supposed to know? I don't see a similiarity between the propositions at all. People who prefer the old rules to the new ones are very different people than those who prefer the new to the old. There is a very big difference between them. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 1, 2017 11:55:12 GMT
More to the point is why God did not appear as(or send) Jesus straightway in the Garden of Eden to carefully make up for those early errors most efficiently, rather than waiting all of those thousands of years to potter around a small area of the middle east when Mankind by that time had spread all over the globe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 1, 2017 11:57:05 GMT
Doesn't that argument undermine the importance of the Bible? If God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to the Bible, then why bother producing and distributing Bibles? According to the story: You are not judged at the moment of your death. We don't die because we are bad. We die because we are naturally born "in sin", We all do: The good, the bad, the ugly... the Apostles, the liars, cheaters and thieves... the saints and the sinners. We are judged AFTER we are resurrected.. All of us. There is a period of time (1,000 years according to The Bible) for people to live and learn... and, then, we are judged according to how we choose to live. That resurrection is made possible by Jesus' life - a life not born "in sin" - being sacrificed. This doesn't even address the question: Why bother distributing the Bible, if God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to it? That's not how it works. People don't act according to the Bible because the Bible tells them to. Christians act according to how they interpret the Bible. They do not shape their morals according to the Bible, they shape the Bible according to their morals. That's the way it has always been done and there simply is no way around it. And especially seeing as in this day and age, people are less likely to convert to Christianity if in fact they do read the Bible, and Christians are more likely to leave their faith if they read it, the Bible does seem to be a failing strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 1, 2017 11:58:05 GMT
More to the point is why God did not appear as(or send) Jesus straightway in the Garden of Eden to carefully make up for those early errors most efficiently, rather than waiting all of those thousands of years to potter around a small area of the middle east when Mankind by that time had spread all over the globe. I said that before you did, so there. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 1, 2017 12:04:49 GMT
More to the point is why God did not appear as(or send) Jesus straightway in the Garden of Eden to carefully make up for those early errors most efficiently, rather than waiting all of those thousands of years to potter around a small area of the middle east when Mankind by that time had spread all over the globe. I said that before you did, so there. Blast! |
|
