How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 Viewers)

[TennesseeJed]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

?

@BobbyLayne provided some source materials above on this very issue.

I think you could both be correct - I don't think the "traditional" notions of heaven and hell are in the bible. I was listening to an interesting piece on this from a religious scholar at U of North Carolina who was on Fresh Air.

I think the gist was - early converts believed the second coming was imminent after Jesus. that was judgement day - not when you died. And that Jewish tradition held that the body and soul were inextricably connected - such that dead body = dead soul. It was not until Greek influence entered the picture that the idea of an independent soul came to be part of the christian faith.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Heaven And Hell Are 'Not What Jesus Preached,' Religion Scholar Says

NPR transcript

Video link:

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

www.youtube.com

 

[dgreen]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

Is it the question that drove you to atheism or is it that you've accepted the answer you were given as the correct interpretation of the "rule"? If you can't "reconcile such a 'rule' and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just", why is the belief "in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just" discarded? Why not re-evaluate the "rule"?

 

[dgreen]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

 

[TennesseeJed]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

Depends on your perspective.

I like to ask questions from different perspectives.

What is god's motivation here? I don't think its an unreasonable question to ask/ponder.

 

[Zow]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

Is it the question that drove you to atheism or is it that you've accepted the answer you were given as the correct interpretation of the "rule"? If you can't "reconcile such a 'rule' and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just", why is the belief "in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just" discarded? Why not re-evaluate the "rule"?

I'd be happy to evaluate the "rule" (and I kind of have - but just in doing so concluded that the Christian notion of God probably doesn't exist) but based on my studies and what has been taught to me it does appear to nonetheless be there rule. In other words, I'd like to think that God isn't so rigid and unfair, but utilizing biblical sources and reviewing scholarly work/interpretation on the Bible I haven't been able to get there.

If I have some time I'd be happy to lay out my path from devout Catholic to atheist. It obviously didn't happen overnight and was not even a proactive choice. Instead, it spanned probably 10-15 years with some notable events that are too long to type out now and I'm not trying knock off some work to make a tee time. Nonetheless, I am grateful for this thread as it's gotten me to do some self-introspection on the issue and if I have time I'd be happy to lay out this path and describe the more notable events, incidents, any doctrinal fallacies that led to my current state of belief.

 

[Scoresman]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

?

@BobbyLayne provided some source materials above on this very issue.

If it's the post I think it is, I'm looking for a little bit better historical source than gotquestions.org or even the bible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

Depends on your perspective.

I like to ask questions from different perspectives.

What is god's motivation here? I don't think its an unreasonable question to ask/ponder.

That's easy. God's motivation is looking out for us. The law was established for the benefit of us, not the benefit of God. Although God likes to see us do well. Our interests are aligned.

 

[-fish-]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

what do you think Christians are being "saved" from? This is a basic tenet of Christianity. The very purpose of ministry. They ain't selling cleaning products.

 

[-fish-]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

?

@BobbyLayne provided some source materials above on this very issue.

If it's the post I think it is, I'm looking for a little bit better historical source than gotquestions.org or even the bible.

You want a better source than the bible to explain salvation?

 

[TennesseeJed]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

Depends on your perspective.

I like to ask questions from different perspectives.

What is god's motivation here? I don't think its an unreasonable question to ask/ponder.

That's easy. God's motivation is looking out for us. The law was established for the benefit of us, not the benefit of God. Although God likes to see us do well. Our interests are aligned.

I am glad you have everything figured out.

Unfortunately, I am not as smart as you, and don't find anything about the bible, or god, to be easy or straightforward - or even consistent. Its the journey of a lifetime.

 

[Zow]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

Depends on your perspective.

I like to ask questions from different perspectives.

What is god's motivation here? I don't think its an unreasonable question to ask/ponder.

That's easy. God's motivation is looking out for us. The law was established for the benefit of us, not the benefit of God. Although God likes to see us do well. Our interests are aligned.

Respectfully, did you read my analysis above and the logistical fallacy (at least as I opine it to be)? If so, can you please further explain why you reach the conclusions you state that I have put into bold? Since I cannot rationally get to these conclusions myself I'm very interested to hear how you are able to get there given the dogmatic premise established above.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

Depends on your perspective.

I like to ask questions from different perspectives.

What is god's motivation here? I don't think its an unreasonable question to ask/ponder.

That's easy. God's motivation is looking out for us. The law was established for the benefit of us, not the benefit of God. Although God likes to see us do well. Our interests are aligned.

I am glad you have everything figured out.

Unfortunately, I am not as smart as you, and don't find anything about the bible, or god, to be easy or straightforward - or even consistent. Its the journey of a lifetime.

Okay, time for ignore. Have a good weekend.

 

[dgreen]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

Is it the question that drove you to atheism or is it that you've accepted the answer you were given as the correct interpretation of the "rule"? If you can't "reconcile such a 'rule' and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just", why is the belief "in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just" discarded? Why not re-evaluate the "rule"?

I'd be happy to evaluate the "rule" (and I kind of have - but just in doing so concluded that the Christian notion of God probably doesn't exist) but based on my studies and what has been taught to me it does appear to nonetheless be there rule. In other words, I'd like to think that God isn't so rigid and unfair, but utilizing biblical sources and reviewing scholarly work/interpretation on the Bible I haven't been able to get there.

If I have some time I'd be happy to lay out my path from devout Catholic to atheist. It doesn't didn't happen overnight and was not even a proactive choice. Instead, it spanned probably 10-15 years with some notable events that are too long to type out now and I'm not trying knock off some work to make a tee time. Nonetheless, I am grateful for this thread as it's gotten me to do some self-introspection on the issue and if I have time I'd be happy to lay out this path and describe the more notable events, incidents, any doctrinal fallacies that led to my current state of belief.

Thanks. I'd love to read that whenever you have time.

I'd also be interested in hearing what variety of sources you've used. I'm wondering how broad or narrow things are for you when you say things like "the Christian notion of God" and "it does appear to nonetheless be their rule." You seem to speak about this as if all Christianity is in sync on this. I'd definitely agree that the faith many of us were handed and the one that probably dominates the culture around us tends to see this "rule" as you have laid it out. However, 21st Century American Christianity doesn't get the final say on interpretation, much less particular sects within that culture. Christianity spans across the world in many cultures over many centuries.

I posted a video up thread of someone who talked about Heaven and Hell from his perspective of the story the Bible is telling and it doesn't perfectly line up with this "rule". You might be able to detect some overlap, but he takes the focus elsewhere.

 

[TennesseeJed]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

Is it the question that drove you to atheism or is it that you've accepted the answer you were given as the correct interpretation of the "rule"? If you can't "reconcile such a 'rule' and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just", why is the belief "in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just" discarded? Why not re-evaluate the "rule"?

I'd be happy to evaluate the "rule" (and I kind of have - but just in doing so concluded that the Christian notion of God probably doesn't exist) but based on my studies and what has been taught to me it does appear to nonetheless be there rule. In other words, I'd like to think that God isn't so rigid and unfair, but utilizing biblical sources and reviewing scholarly work/interpretation on the Bible I haven't been able to get there.

If I have some time I'd be happy to lay out my path from devout Catholic to atheist. It doesn't didn't happen overnight and was not even a proactive choice. Instead, it spanned probably 10-15 years with some notable events that are too long to type out now and I'm not trying knock off some work to make a tee time. Nonetheless, I am grateful for this thread as it's gotten me to do some self-introspection on the issue and if I have time I'd be happy to lay out this path and describe the more notable events, incidents, any doctrinal fallacies that led to my current state of belief.

Thanks. I'd love to read that whenever you have time.

I'd also be interested in hearing what variety of sources you've used. I'm wondering how broad or narrow things are for you when you say things like "the Christian notion of God" and "it does appear to nonetheless be their rule." You seem to speak about this as if all Christianity is in sync on this. I'd definitely agree that the faith many of us were handed and the one that probably dominates the culture around us tends to see this "rule" as you have laid it out. However, 21st Century American Christianity doesn't get the final say on interpretation, much less particular sects within that culture. Christianity spans across the world in many cultures over many centuries.

I posted a video up thread of someone who talked about Heaven and Hell from his perspective of the story the Bible is telling and it doesn't perfectly line up with this "rule". You might be able to detect some overlap, but he takes the focus elsewhere.

Was this the Mackie video? Where he discusses heaven = earth, and "hell" is our inviting sin into the world (paraphrasing)?

 

[TennesseeJed]

Okay, time for ignore. Have a good weekend.

See, this is why I believe in god.

 

[dgreen]

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

Is it the question that drove you to atheism or is it that you've accepted the answer you were given as the correct interpretation of the "rule"? If you can't "reconcile such a 'rule' and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just", why is the belief "in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just" discarded? Why not re-evaluate the "rule"?

I'd be happy to evaluate the "rule" (and I kind of have - but just in doing so concluded that the Christian notion of God probably doesn't exist) but based on my studies and what has been taught to me it does appear to nonetheless be there rule. In other words, I'd like to think that God isn't so rigid and unfair, but utilizing biblical sources and reviewing scholarly work/interpretation on the Bible I haven't been able to get there.

If I have some time I'd be happy to lay out my path from devout Catholic to atheist. It doesn't didn't happen overnight and was not even a proactive choice. Instead, it spanned probably 10-15 years with some notable events that are too long to type out now and I'm not trying knock off some work to make a tee time. Nonetheless, I am grateful for this thread as it's gotten me to do some self-introspection on the issue and if I have time I'd be happy to lay out this path and describe the more notable events, incidents, any doctrinal fallacies that led to my current state of belief.

Thanks. I'd love to read that whenever you have time.

I'd also be interested in hearing what variety of sources you've used. I'm wondering how broad or narrow things are for you when you say things like "the Christian notion of God" and "it does appear to nonetheless be their rule." You seem to speak about this as if all Christianity is in sync on this. I'd definitely agree that the faith many of us were handed and the one that probably dominates the culture around us tends to see this "rule" as you have laid it out. However, 21st Century American Christianity doesn't get the final say on interpretation, much less particular sects within that culture. Christianity spans across the world in many cultures over many centuries.

I posted a video up thread of someone who talked about Heaven and Hell from his perspective of the story the Bible is telling and it doesn't perfectly line up with this "rule". You might be able to detect some overlap, but he takes the focus elsewhere.

Was this the Mackie video? Where he discusses heaven = earth, and "hell" is our inviting sin into the world (paraphrasing)?

Yes, that's the video.

I'd paraphrase as heaven = God's kingdom and hell = the result of things done that goes against the will of the king within that kingdom. He doesn't completely disregard the idea of there being an eternal heaven and eternal hell, but he focuses more on the here and now. Mackie does that because he doesn't think the Bible is trying to tell the story of the afterlife. The Bible isn't a book all about "HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN AFTER YOU DIE". It's not trying to answer the question of the "rule" as Zow calls it.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Was this the Mackie video? Where he discusses heaven = earth, and "hell" is our inviting sin into the world (paraphrasing)?

One of the things I liked about that video was the distinction he drew at the very beginning - challenging the notion of the bible/christianty as a "Me" story - so its not a book/law/story about how "I" (or anyone) can get to heaven but its a story about god.

I think he draws some sketchy conclusions about how/why earth is really the same as heaven - but I found both videos posted above to be engaging. (I have since gone on to watch a couple of his more recent videos - mostly to see if he was still active, and he is).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

One of the challenges, to me, is in how we tend to ascribe human like conditions and thoughts to a god, who very likely is not bound by such human conditions.

Emotions like anger, or even love, seem more likely to be how a human would react, rather than a "perfect" supreme being - who would not be bound by such restrictions.

And, then that opens the door to questions like - Why does god need a sacrifice? What is god getting from that? What is god getting from humans who build altars and worship said god?

Again, those seem to be human needs that we might expect from Pharaohs or kings - that need for adulation or gratification - that runs close to sins of envy, lust, pride or wrath. On one hand we believe that god is without sin, and on the other hand we ascribe these sins to god. I mean the bible is full of stories about god's wrath.

Yep. I posted a quote before that I recently read and love: "Divine revelation is analogous to human communication." The idea is that any divine interaction with humanity must lower itself to the level of the human.

Great question about sacrifices. We can even ask this question way before Leviticus. As early as Cain and Abel, there were offerings/sacrifices. Why? God hadn't asked, much less commanded, them. So what were Cain and Abel doing? I'd say they were acting as humans in their culture. That was standard for their culture in how they related to gods. This is an accommodation theory; that God accommodates himself to us. He "meets us where we are" as we like to say in our culture today.

Yeah, "What does God get out of this?" isn't the right framing. The right way to approach this issue is "What do humans get out of this?"

Depends on your perspective.

I like to ask questions from different perspectives.

What is god's motivation here? I don't think its an unreasonable question to ask/ponder.

That's easy. God's motivation is looking out for us. The law was established for the benefit of us, not the benefit of God. Although God likes to see us do well. Our interests are aligned.

Respectfully, did you read my analysis above and the logistical fallacy (at least as I opine it to be)? If so, can you please further explain why you reach the conclusions you state that I have put into bold? Since I cannot rationally get to these conclusions myself I'm very interested to hear how you are able to get there given the dogmatic premise established above.

I agree with the general point that @dgreen made earlier. I don't think that God sends people into a lake of fire for "critical thinking."

For example, consider the notion of the trinity. I studied this issue a while ago. I don't remember any of the details, but what I do distinctly remember was being informed that pretty much every way I can make sense of the trinity is technically a heresy of some form or another. The "official" view of the trinity is one that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. If I thought that I was going to hell because I disagree with the church's teaching on this topic, that would bother me. But I've never believed that. I think God probably understands that we don't "get" him (he made that point quite memorably in Job), and so it's unlikely that he's going to give us a theology exam to determine how our afterlife goes.

And as others have noted, I'm very uncertain that we're even thinking about "heaven" and "hell" in the right way. I know "heaven" doesn't involve sitting in clouds while we strum our harps, but beyond that I don't have much. I know that "hell" is worse than the alternative, but I don't know that it any way resembles the world described by Dante.

In other words, I just trust that God is looking out for me, and all this stuff will work out in the end. The overarching narrative of the Bible, in my view, is that God is looking out for us and wants good things for us. Everything else should be interpreted from that frame of reference, IMO.

 

[Scoresman]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

?

@BobbyLayne provided some source materials above on this very issue.

If it's the post I think it is, I'm looking for a little bit better historical source than gotquestions.org or even the bible.

You want a better source than the bible to explain salvation?

I'm looking for the source of the belief.

Where I'm coming from is, if I were to develop faith in a higher power and looked to the religions of the world for community and guidance, I would want some sort of reassurance that the dogma of whatever faiths are out there weren't created by man for the purpose of controlling the masses. "Believe in God (the church) or you will spend eternity in hell" reeks of this.

It's why I think very poorly of most organized religions, mainly Christianity. I honestly look at Christianity and wonder why more people don't question this stuff. As I mentioned, I think so many of the beliefs held today were put in place by people of power for who knows what reasons.

In contrast, I think very highly of people who have faith, but define their own relationship with a higher power instead of just adopting unquestioned beliefs in whatever they've been told they need to believe by "the Church".

 

[dgreen]

Was this the Mackie video? Where he discusses heaven = earth, and "hell" is our inviting sin into the world (paraphrasing)?

One of the things I liked about that video was the distinction he drew at the very beginning - challenging the notion of the bible/christianty as a "Me" story - so its not a book/law/story about how "I" (or anyone) can get to heaven but its a story about god.

I think he draws some sketchy conclusions about how/why earth is really the same as heaven - but I found both videos posted above to be engaging. (I have since gone on to watch a couple of his more recent videos - mostly to see if he was still active, and he is).

Yes, definitely still active. The bulk of his work is through the Bible Project. I actually haven't spent nearly as much time on BP as other people I know, but I'd guess this podcast series would probably unpack more deeply how he reached that conclusion (or maybe reframe that conclusion a little differently).

My guess is that it's based on the idea that God has a desire to dwell with humanity. Since gods dwelled in the "heavens" (the sky) and we dwelled on "earth" (the land), the Bible is telling a story on how we can dwell together (bring together heaven and earth).

 

[-fish-]

I've googled extensively and cannot find the source of the "non-believers/critical thinkers go straight to hell" dogma. In fact, it seems to be common belief that most of what Chtistians believe about hell isn't even in the bible. Sorry, but if you turn to Occam's Razor here, it reeks of something powerful men made up to rule over non-powerful men and keep them in line.

?

@BobbyLayne provided some source materials above on this very issue.

If it's the post I think it is, I'm looking for a little bit better historical source than gotquestions.org or even the bible.

You want a better source than the bible to explain salvation?

I'm looking for the source of the belief.

Where I'm coming from is, if I were to develop faith in a higher power and looked to the religions of the world for community and guidance, I would want some sort of reassurance that the dogma of whatever faiths are out there weren't created by man for the purpose of controlling the masses. "Believe in God (the church) or you will spend eternity in hell" reeks of this.

It's why I think very poorly of most organized religions, mainly Christianity. I honestly look at Christianity and wonder why more people don't question this stuff. As I mentioned, I think so many of the beliefs held today were put in place by people of power for who knows what reasons.

In contrast, I think very highly of people who have faith, but define their own relationship with a higher power instead of just adopting unquestioned beliefs in whatever they've been told they need to believe by "the Church".

The source of the belief is the teachings of Jesus and the contents of the New Testament. Fun fact--Jesus refers to Hell more than he does to Heaven. If you could get to Heaven by some other method than through salvation, there really wouldn't be a need for Jesus, would there? That would make his sacrifice actually pretty pointless.

Christianity relies heavily on the carrot and the stick for its basis. If you could get to Heaven (or avoid Hell) through stoicism, there wouldn't be a need for a church at all.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

To those less cryptic than our friend Bobby, can you please confirm whether the general Christian dogmatic belief is that a non-believer (particularly, one that chose not to believe) goes to Hell for eternity?

ETA: Paddington! Great time for you to shine here!

As someone who studied the bible extensively both as part of my former churchgoing and as a piece of literature, I'll give you my take:

You have hit on a grey area. Non-believers go to Hell under the Christian worldview if they reject the opportunity they are given; however, there is significant debate about the outlier--the person who never had the opportunity to hear the word of God and therefore could not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Some people cite to the fact that God's presence is inherent in all of creation, so no one is truly ignorant, but others argue that those that never heard the Gospel can and will be judged by God alone. This view creates a whole host of problems, since works without faith is expressly stated to be not enough to get you into heaven.

I appreciate the clarification of the issue and your breaking down the issue into two sub-issues (somebody who chooses to not believe as distinguished from somebody who never had the opportunity to make such a decision). I frankly agree with everything you say here as I studied the Catechism a ton in high school and college and, as described earlier in this thread, the Catholics focus more on the second issue and provide what I do think are rational "outs" as to that issue.

My main point/issue that I've tried to raise in good faith in this thread is, consistent with your statement that I highlighted in bold,* whether it is sensible and/or reasonable for God to grant us the ability to engage in free thinking (as an extension of good will) and then simultaneously impose a rigid rule whereby if somebody exercises that critical thinking in good faith but nonetheless comes to the "wrong' conclusion that God doesn't exist (at least as laid out in the Bible and through the Jesus story) that the critical thinker (who assuming arguendo otherwise lives a life in line with Christian moral principles) gets the same very harsh punishment of eternal damnation that say, a murderer or a child rapist. Put differently or perhaps as an extension of the issue, is it reasonable to conclude that a truly just and benevolent God would instill such a rule that seems rationally disproportionate to the "crime."

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about. Speaking for me personally, this has been the primary question that has caused me from going from a devout Catholic to an atheist over time because I frankly just don't believe that a benevolent God can be so cruel and unreasonable to impose such a "rule." Nonetheless, having identified the issue, I am genuinely intrigued by and find it meaningful discussion and discourse for discussing this issue and learning from those that reached a different conclusion than I have as to how they could reconcile such a "rule" and still believe in the Christian God whom is benevolent, loving, and just. I'm now hoping some believers can engage in this discussion and explain their perspective because I am anxious to hear it and I say that without any intention to ridicule such a position (just giving that disclaimed now so nobody feels attacked).


*My efforts earlier in this thread, especially with @BobbyLayne, were solely to nail down the issue to the dogmatic principle that you succinctly stated that I highlighted in bold. I don't know why Bobby got so coy about answering the question and thought I was engaging in some "gotcha" exercise when I absolutely was not. I would urge all believers (especially those who proselytize) to not be so defensive when a non-believer simply asks you to clarify a dogmatic principle so we are all working on the same base idea and can then engage in meaningful discussion and discourse about that principle. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that we all agree that the Christian dogma is that God sends a person who chooses to not believe in him to eternal damnation.

Just when I thought I was out…

John 3:1-21

You Must Be Born Again

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. [2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” [3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [4] Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” [5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ [8] The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

[9] Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” [10] Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? [11] Truly, truly, I say to you, [z]we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. [12] If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? [13] No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, [15] that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

For God So Loved the World

[16] “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. [20] For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. [21] But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

 

[BobbyLayne]

In my previous post, I quoted a conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, a Pharisee - a rabbi & scholar, and a member of the Sanhedrin, which was the Jewish high council and supreme legislative body in ancient Israel.

Nicodemus defended Jesus to other Pharisees at one of the six trials that took place between 1a.m. and 9a.m. on the day He was crucified. After His death, he assisted Joseph of Arimathea with his burial.

This conversation took place well before Christ’s arrest, though. Nicodemus was not a believer at the time. He was curious…he also had a reputation to protect, so he visited Jesus at night, so as to not be seen.

Just posting this passage - which includes the most widely quoted and known verse of the Bible, John 3:16 - because I don’t want anyone to think this is just some narrow interpretation someone came up with; this is red letter text, said by the fully human man who claimed to be the only Son of God.

Don’t want to be obtuse or dodgy here; Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.

I do hope whoever reads this is able to understand what they have just read. It seems quite direct, succinct, and not open to another interpretation, does it not?

If we wish to be saved, we must believe God is offering us salvation. It’s free - we can do nothing to earn it or add to it. It does require faith. We’re in luck there, because God supplies the faith we will need. It doesn’t come from within us.

Our role in salvation? We provide the sin that made it necessary. Everything else, the glory - the credit - belongs to whom it is worthy, God the Father.

 

[TennesseeJed]

If we wish to be saved, we must believe God is offering us salvation. It’s free - we can do nothing to earn it or add to it. It does require faith. We’re in luck there, because God supplies the faith we will need. It doesn’t come from within us.

Matthew suggests its a bit more complicated:


31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”




This parable, is pretty clear that faith alone is insufficient - and in fact, does not mention faith at all as a prerequisite to passing judgement.

 

[BobbyLayne]

If we wish to be saved, we must believe God is offering us salvation. It’s free - we can do nothing to earn it or add to it. It does require faith. We’re in luck there, because God supplies the faith we will need. It doesn’t come from within us.

Matthew suggests its a bit more complicated:


31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”




This parable, is pretty clear that faith alone is insufficient - and in fact, does not mention faith at all as a prerequisite to passing judgement.

One of my favorite passages, thanks for posting it @TennesseeJed. I am really glad you responded with this, because I think it's crucial to correctly understand what the parable is saying.

Five solae of the Protestant Reformation

1. Sola scriptura - by scripture alone. The Bible, as God's inspired Word recorded and preserved by man, is sufficient for all we need for life and godliness.
2. Sola fide - by faith alone (not by works, but we are saved by faith and faith alone; works are evidence of faith, not a requirement - an important distinction.)
3. Sola gratia - by the grace of God alone; we are not to be glory thieves, claiming that we are co-equal with God, that we "found Him." He wasn't lost, we were.
4. Solus Christus - through Christ alone. No man comes to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6).
5. Soli Deo gloria - to the glory of God alone. God saves you. You don't save yourself through works, or obeying rules, or being more good than bad. The best we do is filthy rags to a holy God.

But when we are saved, God no longer sees our flawed lives. He sees the righteousness of Christ. That is the Great Exchange: Jesus took upon himself all the sins of mankind, past, present and future. In exchange for taking upon Himself the wrath of God, we are credited with the spotless, blameless life of Christ as our own as it pertains to salvation. We do not do anything to receive that status, that right standing before God. We don't deserve to be commended for following God's plan. He does all the heavy lifting.

We do good works and help the less fortunate out of the gratitude we feel because of what God did. We didn't do it. God did it.

God blesses us, so that we in turn can be a blessing to others. It has nothing to do with whether anyone goes to heaven or hell. If it did, or if anyone claims it does, then it can no longer be called the Gospel. If you can earn it through works, that is not by the grace of God. It is not through Christ alone. Anyone who does that, believes that - is being a glory thief. That belongs to the Lord, because He is the one who did it.

It most certainly is not what the Bible teaches.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast".

his passage means that salvation is a gift from God, not the result of one's own actions or efforts. It is a demonstration of God's love for humanity, even though all people are sinners.

Works are a crucial evidence of faith, but the works themselves do not determine salvation.

Further reading on this Bible passage:

Matthew 25:31-46: Salvation by Works?

​

​

 

[BobbyLayne]

THE CHALLENGE OF MATTHEW 25:31-46​

Does Matt 25:31-46, which describes the judgment of the “sheep and goats,” teach salvation by works? According to NT scholar D. A. Carson, most Bible teachers would answer that question with an unhesitating “yes.” Carson claims that “the great majority of scholars understand” the judgment described in Matt 25:31-46 to determine “the basis of acceptance into the kingdom,” determined by “deeds of mercy and compassion” to those “who are hungry, distressed, needy.”1 Clearly, this “majority” view promotes salvation by works, a position Carson also holds.2

Carson seems to be correct in his assessment of the number of leading evangelical leaders and teachers who view Matt 25:31-46 in that way. Among the many seeing it as a works-salvation passage is popular award-winning author and speaker John Piper,3 who has had a significant influence on the church.4 Also, count Brian McLaren among this majority assemblage,5 a prominent Christian pastor, author, activist, speaker, and leading figure in the emerging church movement who believes that one’s eternal destiny hinges on performing works of love and mercy toward others.6 In addition, the Roman Catholic Church, which influences a billion Catholics, sees Matt 25:31-46 in this same way.7 Even dispensationalists tend to fall into the works-salvation trap on this passage.8

But does Matt 25:31-46 truly teach a works-based salvation? This is a serious and critical question. For if Matt 25:31-46 teaches a works-based salvation, all of us in the free-grace community need to re-think our view of the gospel, and we need to abandon any notion of assurance of eternal life.

Fortunately, a proper understanding of Matt 25:31-46 will show that this passage does not teach a gospel of works. In addition, correctly viewing Matt 25:31-46 will clarify critically important issues, such as the gospel, eternal reward, eternal justice, and the prominence of Israel to God’s kingdom plan. Because of its critical nature, the Enemy seeks to blind people to the true message of Matt 25:31-46. However, comprehending what God is seeking to communicate to us through this vital passage is critical to Free Grace Theology, and it is paramount to enhancing, enabling, and even empowering our ability to faithfully participate in God’s kingdom plan. Thus, it is imperative that we take another well-deserved look at this most misunderstood passage.​

II. THE SETTING FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONS​

Matthew 25:31-46 describes a future judgment beginning with this scene: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.”9 It is important to note that this event occurs immediately after Jesus’ return to the earth, as signaled by the phrase, the Son of Man comes in His glory. In comparing this expression with Dan 7:13-14 and Matt 24:29-31, we see that this scenario refers to Christ’s return to the earth to establish God’s kingdom.

This eschatological timing is also evidenced by the contextual flow of Matthew chapters 24 and 25 which serve as a unit, commonly referred to as the Olivet Discourse. These chapters feature Jesus’ response to the apostles’ questions posed in 24:310 and provide detailed information of Daniel’s seventieth week, also known as the Tribulation period. Jesus concludes the Olivet Discourse with the description of the judgment of Gentile Tribulation survivors in verses 31-46 of Matthew 25.​

III. THE IDENTITY OF THOSE JUDGED​

As seen in v 31, the prelude to this appraisal of the nations is the enthronement of Jesus as Judge. Then, according to vv 32-33:​

“All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.”​

The word for nations can also be translated Gentiles.11 In fact, Biblically, from the time of Abraham onward, the nations have referred to Gentiles. It is also important to understand that the nations always refer to people who are concurrently alive on the earth.12 Since Jesus’ return follows the Tribulation period,13 this judgment of the nations, then, is an assessment of Gentiles who survive that horrific seven-year period.​

IV. THE BLESSED: BELIEVING GENTILE SURVIVORS​

Following this gathering before the King, Gentiles are separated into two groups for judgment. The first assemblage (the sheep) is gathered to the right of Jesus, the place of honor. To members of this group He proclaims: “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

The word blessed in this verse is a participial form of eulogeō. Since Matthew is a distinctively Jewish Gospel14 which relies on the Hebrew Scriptures for its foundation, the Septuagint usage of eulogeō15 can inform its meaning in Matthew.

Interestingly, eulogeō is grouped with kataraomai (“cursed”) in Matt 25:31-46. Kataraomai is the same term with which eulogeō is grouped in almost every OT and apocryphal text.16 This combination of terms generally refers to individuals being blessed or cursed based on their obedience or disobedience to God,17 which comports with the usage of these terms in Matthew 25.

The reason these sheep in Matthew 25 are blessed to inherit the kingdom is because they were attendant to Jesus’ needs—feeding Him when He was hungry, giving Him drink when He was thirsty, clothing Him when He was in need of clothes, attending to Him when He was sick, and visiting Him in prison. In fact, Jesus proclaims: “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.”​

 

[BobbyLayne]

V. CLARIFYING THIS JUDGMENT: ENTRANCE VS. INHERITANCE​

By the awarding of inheritance in the kingdom, many understand Jesus to be promising this group entrance into the kingdom.18 However, Jesus does not declare: “Enter the kingdom.” Instead, He proclaims: “Inherit the kingdom!” There is the greatest of differences between those two statements.19

Entering the kingdom no more means inheriting the kingdom than entering a house means inheriting a house.20 One can certainly enter a house without inheriting that house, which refers to possessing or owning it. In fact, “possessing, owning, or ruling over” is the principal meaning of inheritance in the OT.21

There is no doubt that, in Matt 25:34-40, inheriting the kingdom results from good works, not from faith in Christ.22 Thus, to inherit the kingdom is to obtain a reward for faithfulness to Christ. In fact, based on the OT usage of inheritance, this reward refers to rule in the kingdom.23

While vv 34-40 surface the sheep’s good works resulting in their kingdom inheritance, it is important to understand that these good works occur during the latter half of the Tribulation period, the “Great Tribulation.”24 In addition, these good works will be performed for the benefit of “the least of these My brethren.”​

VI. “THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN”​

The demonstrative pronoun these (“these My brethren”) indicates there is yet another group present at this judgment.25 But who are these brethren of Jesus?

As mentioned earlier, “the great majority of scholars understand ‘the least of these brothers of mine’ to refer to all who are hungry, distressed, and needy,”26 while other commentators limit “My brethren” to believers in Christ,27 and a few specify the identification as Jewish believers in Christ during the Tribulation period.28

As noted, both groups to be judged at this assessment are Gentiles. In fact, since these two groups—the sheep and the goats—represent all of the Gentile Tribulation survivors, the demonstrative pronoun “these” must consist of Jews,29 as there is no other alternative.30

Since Jesus refers to them as His brethren, it would make sense that they are His brethren in both a physical and a spiritual sense.31 This fits with the presentation earlier in Matthew where Jesus indicated that Jewish believers who are obedient to God are His brethren.32 Since the assessment of Matt 25:31-46 concerns the Great Tribulation, these brethren are Jewish disciples of Jesus who survive that extremely difficult era. So, let us consider how these Jewish survivors relate to this judgment.​

VII. “RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!”​

Though the entire Tribulation period will be arduous for the world, the persecution of Jewish followers of Christ will not commence until the occurrence of the abomination of desolation, revealed by Jesus in Matt 24:15ff. This event will occur when the man of sin (the beast of Revelation) will enter the rebuilt temple of God to be worshipped as god by the world at large.33
Satan will empower this man to “make war” against Jewish believers in Christ and to overcome them.34 Upon abominating the temple, this “man of sin” will issue the command for his army to desolate Jewish believers in Christ35—that is, to hunt them down to arrest or kill them.

In order for Jewish followers of Christ to survive, they will need to flee immediately upon the occurrence of the abomination of desolation36; they will not even be afforded the time to grab anything to take with them—no possessions, money, extra clothing, etc.; nor will they be able to buy or sell anything since they will not receive the mark of the beast.37​

VIII. THE NEEDS OF “THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN”​

As a result, these Jewish disciples will need others to meet their basic needs throughout the Great Tribulation. These necessities are addressed in Matt 25:35-36 in which Jesus declares His brethren will be hungry, thirsty, strangers, and in need of clothing. In addition, some will require medical attention, while others, captured by troops sent out by Satan’s world ruler,38 will need people to attend to their necessities in prison. They will be in desperate need of help!​

​

 

[BobbyLayne]

IX. THE REWARD FOR HELPING JESUS’ BRETHREN​

However, the risk for helping these followers of Jesus will be enormous! Because the beast of Revelation will seek to carry out Satan’s desire to wipe out God’s chosen people, particularly those who faithfully follow Christ,39 giving aid to any of these brethren will be tantamount to risking one’s life. For the willingness of Gentile believers to take that kind of risk for Christ’s brethren, Jesus will greatly reward their obedience by granting them the privilege of inheriting the kingdom (ruling with Christ in God’s kingdom).40​

X. A MISSING GROUP: UNFAITHFUL BELIEVERS​

Three groups of people are surfaced in Matt 25:31-46 who will physically survive the Tribulation period—faithful Jewish believers in Christ, faithful Gentile believers, and Gentile unbelievers. It is important to note that unfaithful believers will not survive the Tribulation period.

The evidence for this last statement is found in Matthew 24, part of the same discourse that runs through chapter 25.41 Specifically, the key to this understanding is located in Matt 24:13 where Jesus reveals: “He who endures to the end shall be saved.”

Three vital terms in this verse grant insight into the judgment of the nations in Matthew 25. The first is the word endure (hypomenō), often used in the NT of believers remaining faithful to Christ through difficult times (such as persecution, trials, and suffering).42 This is how Jesus uses endure in Matt 24:13, as He speaks specifically of remaining faithful through the Great Tribulation, the ultimate difficult period for believers in Christ.43

The second critical expression in Matt 24:13 is the end, which, in Matthew 24, refers to the end of the age, which is also the end of the Tribulation period.44 Thus, Matt 24:13 refers to remaining faithful until the end of the “Great Tribulation,” not until the end of one’s life (as some teach).

The final significant expression in Matt 24:13 is saved, which is the same Greek word (sōzō) found nine verses later in v 22, announcing: “And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved [emphasis added].” Clearly, Jesus’ point in v 22 is that if this horrific seven-year era were much longer, no one would physically survive. Thus, v 22 informs us that the word save in this context refers to physical survival.45

Putting it all together, Jesus’ declaration in Matt 24:13 communicates this: Only believers who remain faithful through the persecutions of the Tribulation period will physically survive that difficult era. While this verse does not promise that all faithful followers of Christ will survive the Great Tribulation,46 it does unequivocally say this: Unfaithful believers will not physically survive the Great Tribulation. For this reason, no unfaithful believers are represented in the judgment of the nations.47​

XI. THE CURSED: UNBELIEVING GENTILE SURVIVORS​

Armed with this understanding, we are now prepared for the next declaration in the judgment of Matt 25:31-46:​

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Jesus then explains that the goats will receive this verdict because they turned their backs on Him in need. They respond by asking: “Lord,48 when did we see You [in need] and did not minister to You?” His answer to them shows the basis of this entire judgment: “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” As a result, “these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

XII. JUDGED FOR TREATMENT OF JEWISH BELIEVERS​

It is critical to keep in mind that the assessment in Matt 25:31-46 is based on how Tribulation survivors treated Jewish disciples of Christ during the Great Tribulation.49 The sheep will be rewarded for risking their lives to give aid to Jewish believers, while the goats will be cast “into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”​

XIII. ETERNAL EXPERIENCE BASED ON WORKS?​

Note that Jesus does not say in these verses that the goats will enter into “the everlasting fire” because of their refusal to help His Jewish brethren, for, in that case, their eternal condemnation would be based on works.50 However, Jesus clearly announced in the Gospel of John51 that eternal condemnation is experienced only by those who have not believed in Him for eternal life;52 one’s works do not determine where one spends eternity.
However, one’s works do determine one’s experience in eternity,53 which includes all relegated to the lake of fire. While all unbelievers will enter into the everlasting fire, their eternal experience will vary one from another.​

XIV. WHY THE CURSED WILL EXPERIENCE ETERNAL RECOMPENSE: THE PARALLEL FACTOR​

Since the sheep are recompensed for how they treated Jewish followers of Christ (v 34), it is only logical that, within this same judgment, the goats would also be remunerated for their treatment of Jesus’ brethren (v 41). This logical relationship is also indicated by the parallelism in vv 34 and 4154 which assigns respective eternal experiences to the sheep and the goats based on their conduct toward Jesus’ brethren in time of need. This parallelism underscores the same basis of adjudication for both sheep and goats.​

XV. WHY THE CURSED WILL EXPERIENCE ETERNAL RECOMPENSE: THE PURPOSE FACTOR​

In addition, the purpose of this judgment demonstrates restitution for the goats. As we have seen, the result of this judgment for the sheep is recompense for their sacrificial aid to Jesus’ brethren. This result also demonstrates the purpose of the judgment—to pay back Gentiles based on how they responded to the needs of Jesus’ brethren during the Great Tribulation. Like the sheep, the goats will be repaid for their response to the needs of the brethren.55​

XVI. WHY THE CURSED WILL EXPERIENCE ETERNAL RECOMPENSE: THE PUNISHMENT FACTOR​

Another significant clue in this passage indicates that recompense is dispensed to the goats for their treatment of the Jewish faithful. This indicator resides in the declaration: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment.”

The Greek word translated punishment in v 46 is kolasis. According to BAGD, kolasis refers to “punishment.”56 Specifically, its meaning in v 46 is assigned “divine retribution.”
According to J. Schneider, this retribution is allocated to those “who fail the practical ethical task.”57 Colin Brown reveals that this term was used in Greek inscriptions of “the deity punishing violations of cultic laws.”58

Thus, Jesus is not using kolasis to simply refer to the destiny of all who never received eternal life; instead, He is announcing “divine retribution”59 for the goats’ failure to extend mercy to Jesus’ brethren. Because these Gentiles turned their backs on the Lord’s chosen people during a time of great need, their punishment in eternity will be greater than that of many other unbelievers.​

XVII. VARYING EXPERIENCES OF ETERNAL JUDGMENT?​

That truth is further displayed in the latter half of v 41 in which Jesus announces that the cursed will be cast “into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Jesus could have simply revealed that this group would be cast into “the everlasting fire,” but He adds the description “prepared for the devil and his angels.” By inserting this descriptive of the cursed, Jesus is revealing that their eternal experience will be the kind of “fate that was not meant to be theirs.”60 It is a way of saying the goats will experience a punishment more severe than that of other unbelievers,61 one that achieves the level of punishment due “the devil and his angels.”

The corollary to this is that believers will also have varying eternal experiences depending on their works (faithfulness).62 Thus, when the sheep go “into eternal life” (v 46), they begin their eternal experience, but their experience will be far more fulfilling than that of many other believers.63​

​

 

[BobbyLayne]

XVIII. WRAPPING IT UP​

By wrapping up the end of this present age64 with this unique assessment of Gentile Tribulation survivors, Matt 25:31-46 reveals that the Lord will make all things right. He will vindicate Jewish believers. He will reward Gentile believers who risked their lives to aid believing Jews. He will bring retribution upon unbelieving Gentiles who turned their backs on Jewish believers in need. In addition, this judgment reminds us there will be differing eternal experiences for all people based on their varying responses to what is important to God.
One thing Matt 25:31-46 clearly does not present is salvation by works, as many unwittingly teach. Where one spends eternity is not determined by this eschatological assessment, as Matt 25:31-46 is not exhibiting the final judgment for all of mankind.65

Instead, this appraisal only assesses Gentile Tribulation survivors. Furthermore, Matt 25:31-46 discloses recompense for these survivors based on their treatment of Jewish followers of Jesus during the Great Tribulation.

This leads us to the emphasis of Matt 25:31-46. Here we learn how very important the Jews are to God and His plan. As a result, this passage implicitly exhorts us to provide mercy for God’s chosen people. Therefore, if there is one application from Matt 25:31-46, it would be this: Extend mercy to the Jews.66
We can do so by praying regularly for the salvation of Israel, as per Rom 10:1.67 In addition, we can apply this passage by taking the defense of Jews before those who castigate them. Finally, we should teach fellow believers the importance of Jews to God and His plan.68

There is immense benefit in applying the emphasis of Matt 25:31- 46. Since God’s heart aligns with Israel, extending mercy toward God’s chosen people aligns the believer’s heart with God’s concern, opening him to a greater understanding of and obedience to God’s word. This, in turn, prepares the believer for a greater experience in His kingdom. These benefits certainly make the emphasis of Matt 25:31-46 vital to understand and to heed.

​

 

[BobbyLayne]

Footnotes

1 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984): 8:519. While Carson believes this judgment represents the final judgment to ascertain who enters the kingdom, he simply takes exception to the view of “the great majority of scholars” that this assessment is based on compassion “to all who are hungry, distressed, needy”; instead, Carson believes “the fate of the nations will be determined by how they respond to Jesus’ followers” (Carson, 520).

2 In defense of his view, Carson explains that “good deeds done to Jesus’ followers, even the least of them, are not only works of compassion and morality but reflect where people stand in relation to the kingdom and to Jesus himself” (Carson, 8:520). See also R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 355.

3 See http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...the-brothers-of-jesus-and-the-broken-neighbor. Accessed March 5, 2011.​

4 Piper’s influence was displayed by a Festschrift published in his honor, For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, including contributions from D.A. Carson, John MacArthur, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiner, William Mounce, Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, and G.K. Beale.

5 See, for example, Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), 348-52. Though Albright and Mann maintain that Mt 25:31-46 does not portray the final judgment, they come around to saying that it “is in anticipation of the End,” and “the separation [of the sheep and goats] is final.” See W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1971), 306-310.

6 This is illustrated by Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2011), 204.

7 See http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25.​

8 For examples, see Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 2:80, where Barbieri asserts that this judgment is an assessment “to determine who will and who will not enter the kingdom”; J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 157-60, where Pentecost claims the works surfaced at this judgment reveals who has believed in Jesus Christ; Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 288-92; and Ray Stedman’s remarks on who is an authentic Christian, based on Matt 25:31-46, at http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/matthew/the-unconscious-test. Accessed April 04, 2017.

9 The word then points out to us that it will not be until His return to the earth that He will sit on the throne of His glory. In other words, He will not rule till then. In the meantime, He is seated at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2; also, 1:3; 8:1; 10:12).

10 Zane Hodges, Jesus: God’s Prophet (Mesquite, TX: Kerugma, Inc., 2006), 5. See, also, Barbieri, “Matthew,” 76.​

11 See Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), “ethnos,” 218. This is also true for the Hebrew word for nations. (See Gerard Van Groningen, “goy,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1980), 153-54.

12 Biblically, a nation refers to a people tied to specific, physical boundaries upon the earth. See the discussion by Hans Bietenhard, s.v. “ethnos,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 2:790-95.

13 See Matt 24:29-31.

14 The writing style, thought patterns, and vocabulary (terms such as kingdom of heaven, holy city, righteousness, the law, defilement, the Sabbath, Messiah, etc.) of Matthew clearly demonstrate a Jewish orientation and show a reliance on the Hebrew Scriptures. Examples of scholars who view Matthew in this way are: Barbieri, “Matthew,” 16-17; Toussaint, Behold the King, 15-18; France, Matthew, 17-18; W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1971), LIV-LXII; and D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” 8:17-25.

15 There are 450 occurrences of this term in the Septuagint.​

16 Hans-Georg Link, “Blessing, Blessed, Happy,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 1: 207.

17 Ibid.; H.W. Beyer, “eulogeō, eulogia,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 275.

18 See, for examples, Carson, “Matthew,” 521-22, and Barbieri, “Matthew,” 81, who states that “the basis of their entrance [into the kingdom] is seen in their actions, for they provided food, drink, clothing, and care for the King.”

19 See the excellent discussion of this distinction in Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Miami: Schoettle Publishing Company, 1992), 43-91. See, esp., 77-78 for Dillow’s specific statement showing agreement with this writer’s position.

20 See Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse: A Study on Eternal Rewards (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1985), 69-71.​

21 Since Jesus’ use of inheritance stems from the OT, understanding its use there clarifies its usage in Matt 25:34. For example, in Ps 2, God the Father announces to the Son that He will give to Him “the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession” (Ps 2:8). This verse employs synonymous parallelism, substituting possession for inheritance. Regarding laws of slavery, the Lord announced to Moses: “And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor” (Lev 25:46, emphasis added). Clearly, here, inheritance is synonymous with possession and rule over.

22 For excellent discussions arriving at this same conclusion, see R.T. Kendall, Once Saved Always Saved (Chicago: Moody, 1983), 119-134; and Dillow, 43-91. While some commentators, such as Barbieri, see these works as evidentiary works, they are still mistakenly making works a requirement for kingdom entrance. While some would argue that evidentiary works are not a condition for entering the kingdom but an inevitable result for entrance, Zane Hodges pointed out that those who adopt that view are “playing a word game.” For “whatever is necessary to achieve a goal is also a condition for receiving it. To call anything an inevitable result is to call it a necessary result and thus to make it a condition” (Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege [Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1992], 40).

23 See the excellent presentation of this concept in Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 67-81. Surprisingly, France views it this way, as well, for he associates this inheritance with “further authority” in God’s kingdom, “a sharing of Jesus’ authority ‘in his kingdom’” (France, Matthew, 357).

24 This expression for the final three-and-a-half years of the Tribulation period originates with Jesus (see Matt 24:21).​

25 Outos (“this”; plural, “these”) most frequently appears in the New Testament referring to someone or something actually present and near at hand. See Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Vol. III, Syntax, edited by James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978), 44; Herbert Weir Smith, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA; Harvard, 1980), 307; BAGD, “outos,” 596; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. by Robert W. Funk, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), 151; and H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1957), 127. Thus, “the least of these” refers to a group standing nearby.

 

[BobbyLayne]

26 Carson, “Matthew,” 8:519.

27 R. T. France (Matthew, 357-58) is an example of this group. Though France uses the term disciples to refer to the identification of Jesus’ brethren, it becomes plain in his discussion that he means all believers.

28 Barbieri takes this view (Barbieri, “Matthew,” 81), and so does Dwight Pentecost (see J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words & Works of Jesus Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981], 410).

29 Barbieri declares that this term “must refer to a third group that is neither sheep nor goats. The only possible group would be Jews, physical brothers of the Lord” (Barbieri, “Matthew,” 81).

30 Biblically, the great division of humanity consists of Jews and Gentiles.

31 While Israel is God’s son (Exod 4:22), it makes sense that Jews are considered brethren of the Son.​

32 See Matt 12:46-50.

33 See 2 Thess 2:3-4; also see Rev 13:4, 7, 8.

34 See Rev 13:7, where the term saints (“holy ones”) refers to Jewish believers. While Gentile believers are also “saints” (cf. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; Phil 1:1; etc.), Revelation’s reliance on OT books such as Daniel, its focus on Israel (cf. Revelation 12), and the fact that Gentile believers are removed at the rapture indicate that “saints” in Revelation refer to Jewish believers.

35 The two heinous behaviors of the abomination of the temple and the desolation of Jewish believers are connected, which is why they are joined together in the expression, the abomination of desolation.

36 See Matt 24:15-21; cf. Luke 17:28-33.

37 See Rev 13:17.​

38 See John Claeys, Impending Apocalypse (Sisters, OR: Deep River Books, 2014),117-22.

39 See Rev 12:1-6, 13-17.

40 See, also, Matt 10:16-42 which portrays the same scenario as Matthew 24-25. In both passages, Jesus predicts His Jewish disciples will experience great persecution, including death (cf. 10:21-23; 24:21-22); He calls them to flee from their persecutors (10:23; 24:15-18); and He promises reward to whoever will help His brethren during their great persecution (10:40-42; 25:34-40).

41 This discourse is typically called the Olivet Discourse since it was presented by Jesus on the Mount of Olives.​

42 Examples of hypomenō used that way in the NT include 1 Cor 4:12; Rom 12:12; 2 Tim 2:10, 12; Heb 12:7; Jas 1:12; 5:11; 1 Pet 2:20.

43 See Matt 24:21-22.

44 See Matt 24:3, 6, 14.

45 The Greek word for save (sōzō) that appears in Matt 24:13 has a number of usages in the NT, but a primary meaning of this word is “preserve or rescue from natural dangers and afflictions,” with the specific sub-meaning of “save from death” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and Wilbur F. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980], “sōzō,” 798.)

46 As Rev 20:4-6 shows, some faithful believers will be martyred during that time.​

47 Of course, unfaithful believers will be in the kingdom of God since kingdom entrance is not based on faithfulness to Christ; it is based solely on faith in Christ.

48 That they call Him “Lord” does not indicate that they have believed Jesus for eternal life, as Jesus points out earlier in Matt 7:21-23.

49 See Barbieri, “Matthew,” 81.

50 This is the quagmire into which Lordship Salvationists fall—and all who see Jesus’ reply to either group as a basis for getting into heaven or hell.​

 

[BobbyLayne]

51 The Gospel of John is the only book in the Bible with the stated purpose of being written so individuals will receive eternal life by believing in Jesus Christ for it (cf. John 20:31). This means John is the Biblical source for discovering how to receive eternal life and, conversely, how to avoid eternal condemnation.

52 See John 3:16-18; also see John 5:24; 11:25-26; etc.

53 Jesus revealed that certain Jewish religious leaders will experience a greater condemnation than that of other unbelievers because of their behavior in positions of power and influence (cf. Matt 23:14 [Majority Text]; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:46-47; etc.). In fact, all people will be judged by their works (Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Eccl 12:14; Rev 20:12-13), indicating that their eternal experience will be dependent, in some way, on their behavior.​

54 The parallelism is shown by: 1) the King’s address to those on His right / left hand; 2) “Come”/”Depart”; 3) “you blessed”/”you cursed”); 4) the announced recompense with “‘prepared for’” in the midst of the description of the recompense.

55 In addressing the judgment of the goats, Barbieri aptly states that “the basis of their judgment will be their failure to extend mercy to the remnant of Jewish believers during the Tribulation” (Barbieri, “Matthew,” 81).

56 See BAGD, “kolasis,” 441.

57 J. Schneider, s.v. “kolasis,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, edited by Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 451.

58 Colin Brown, “kolasis,” NIDNTT, 98.​

59 Ibid.

60 France, Matthew, 358.

61 Erwin Lutzer agrees with this assertion by stating that “there are degrees of punishment in hell” (Erwin W. Lutzer, Your Eternal Reward [Chicago: Moody, 1998], 12.) By this matter of fact statement, it appears Lutzer assumes this concept is so clear in Scripture that it would not be questioned.

62 This is the result of each believer being judged by his works, whether “good or bad” (2 Cor 5:10), as demonstrated in passages on our future assessment, such as Luke 19:11-27.​

63 The term dikaios (“righteous”), describing the sheep in v 46, is not used in the Pauline sense; instead, Matt uses the term to refer to faithful believers (cf. Matt 1:19; 10:41; 13:17; etc.). In addition, eternal life in v 46 refers not to the gift of eternal life but to eternal reward. (While the Gospel of John presents eternal life only as a gift, received in the present simply [and only] by believing Jesus Christ for it, the Synoptics [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] never display eternal life as a gift, always as a future reward.) Thus, because the sheep invested their gift of eternal life (John) wisely—by aiding Jesus’ brethren in need—they are rewarded with a significantly expanded experience of eternal life (the Synoptics). (See Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989], endnote #4, 229-31.)

64 This present age refers to the rule of Satan over the earth (cf. 2 Cor 4:3-4; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 1 John 5:19)—from the fall of man through the Tribulation period. (Contrast “the end of the age” in Matt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3, 6, 13, 14; 28:20 vs. “the age to come” [the rule of Christ upon the earth]. Also, see “this [present] time” vs. “the age to come” in Mark 10:30 and compare to the parallel passage in Matt 19:28-29.)

65 The judgment of believers occurs at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:9-10), while the “final” judgment of unbelievers takes place at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:11-15).​

66 Editor’s note: Another major application is more general. The judgment of Gentile Tribulation survivors to determine their eternal rewards calls us to live in light of our coming judgment at the Bema. How we treat Jewish believers (and unbelievers) is certainly important in this regard. But since our Bema judgment will consider all our works as believers (2 Cor 5:10), Matt 25:31-46 applies to how we treat our spouses, kids, neighbors, parents, relatives, coworkers, friends, strangers, and ultimately everyone. It touches on how we use our time, talent, and treasure for Christ in all our spheres of influence.

67 Note the blessing for praying for the peace of Jerusalem as stated in Ps 122:6. Though this essentially refers to praying for the return of Christ to establish God’s kingdom on earth (as only then will Jerusalem experience peace), still, at its core, it involves praying for God’s mercy for the Jews.​

68 This last point needs to be emphasized as Satan is ever seeking to deceive Christians by making them subject to replacement theology which eliminates Israel from God’s present and future plan, “replacing” Israel with the Church. This evil teaching has far-reaching deleterious effects, which include blinding people to God’s love, mercy, grace, dependability, and loyalty, which can adversely affect how people respond to God and His plan for mankind.

 

[TennesseeJed]

THE CHALLENGE OF MATTHEW 25:31-46​

Does Matt 25:31-46, which describes the judgment of the “sheep and goats,” teach salvation by works? According to NT scholar D. A. Carson, most Bible teachers would answer that question with an unhesitating “yes.” Carson claims that “the great majority of scholars understand” the judgment described in Matt 25:31-46 to determine “the basis of acceptance into the kingdom,” determined by “deeds of mercy and compassion” to those “who are hungry, distressed, needy.”1 Clearly, this “majority” view promotes salvation by works, a position Carson also holds.2

Carson seems to be correct in his assessment of the number of leading evangelical leaders and teachers who view Matt 25:31-46 in that way. Among the many seeing it as a works-salvation passage is popular award-winning author and speaker John Piper,3 who has had a significant influence on the church.4 Also, count Brian McLaren among this majority assemblage,5 a prominent Christian pastor, author, activist, speaker, and leading figure in the emerging church movement who believes that one’s eternal destiny hinges on performing works of love and mercy toward others.6 In addition, the Roman Catholic Church, which influences a billion Catholics, sees Matt 25:31-46 in this same way.7 Even dispensationalists tend to fall into the works-salvation trap on this passage.8

But does Matt 25:31-46 truly teach a works-based salvation? This is a serious and critical question. For if Matt 25:31-46 teaches a works-based salvation, all of us in the free-grace community need to re-think our view of the gospel, and we need to abandon any notion of assurance of eternal life.​

These posts are a lot to digest - so while I do that - let me start with this:

This opening - really points to one of the criticisms of the bible - there are multiple ways to interpret the same language - and a lot of the interpretation seems to work backwards - meaning someone has a point of view, and they are looking for an interpretation to support that view.

And there are lots of serious people who have done serious studies and research and reached contradictory conclusions about the meanings of many parts of the bible. So, when anyone (and not suggesting that here) comes out with a "definitive truth" of the bible - I am immediately suspect that such a conclusion exists.


If there was a simple and straightforward answer to any of these questions - and the bible was divinely inspired - the answers would be clear and obvious to all.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Also - thanks for posting.

 

[TennesseeJed]

So - I am not sure John is as clear cut either.

Jesus issues a new commandment: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another"

Which alone, does not really add to the conversation - other than an instruction from Jesus.

But then we have this:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father."


and

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and [f]manifest Myself to him.”


9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

Again - this passage seems to suggest action over faith.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I don’t have all the answers, @TennesseeJed . No one does.

I do have a belief system which is rooted in 2000 years of orthodox (lower case o) Christianity.

I don’t believe because of my family background. God put a series of people in my life between the ages of 11 and 14 who gently guided me through a turbulent and confusing time in my life.

After I became a Jesus follower, I stumbled. I continued to revert back to my selfish, stubborn nature, and pursued pleasure apart from God. He brought me back. Like the prodigal son in Luke 15, He moved toward me when I was still far away.

I don’t normally engage people online about Jesus. My calling has always been to pour into others lives, and only move to spiritual matters if they ask. Salvation and believing that God is alive, active, in control, and has a plan for each of us as individuals - that is very personal.

Jesus did not say go out into the world and get people to repeat the sinners prayer after you explain to them the Four Spiritual Laws. He commanded us to make disciples.

That’s why I opposed to the methodology of our beloved OP. If Paddington is a real person (without much evidence, I think he’s just a misguided troll yanking our chain), then he is guilty of “drive-by evangelism” without actually getting to know his audience.

That’s between him and YHWH. I do think there are different callings placed on different people. Just like the Bible is written a diverse cast of characters, in different places, times and cultures. I find Street Preachers with a bullhorn while standing on a milk crate abhorrent. But maybe God has intention there, besides annoying people. Maybe someone is back sliding, no longer attends church, is living apart from God and no longer hears anyone preaching the gospel. They walk through Times Square, and the same guy annoying rest of us strikes a chord with him.

I remain deeply flawed. I’m just like anyone else, trying to make sense of a crazy, mixed up world which has amazing creatives, insidious disease, brutal warfare, and random acts of kindness - all alongside each other. The nature of man is an unanswerable most of us consider at one time or another.

 

[BobbyLayne]

If there was a simple and straightforward answer to any of these questions - and the bible was divinely inspired - the answers would be clear and obvious to all.

Good points in the paragraphs I parsed out. Love reading your thoughtful analysis.

To this point, I would just say that I often tell people - believers and unbelievers - is the Gospel is not an intellectual exercise. It is simple, it has been understood and accepted by the illiterate and ignorant as well as learned men with tremendous power between their ears.

If it were complex and difficult to understand, it would be a form of elitism.

With respect to challenging passages, I do believe in most cases we can usually let scripture interpret scripture. What passage says appears to contradict another. We can’t ignore that. Is there a reasonable elsewhere in the Bible.

“Come let us reason together” the Bible tells us. God doesn’t want you to think it your brain on a shelf. If someone has doubt, embrace that. See if that doubt is justified,

Where did the Bible come from? Who decided which books got in and which ones didn’t? How do we know it wasn’t altered over time? Why does God allow suffering? What about people in closed societies, or those who live in a predominantly Muslim or Hindu culture - they won’t hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. How can God condemn them? How can a God who is loving punish and condemn?

Those are questions that deserve answers.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about.

I do too, brother man. Would it be OK if I took some time in crafting an answer. I’m a little pressed for time, and I don’t think I can do it justice with a brief reply.

I’d also like you to answer my questions from early, namely how much do you still play and what’s your index?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

I’m not ignoring anything; our opinions just differ, which is OK.

But as a scientist with decent understanding of physics, I’m genuinely curious: what about my though process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything, I’m embracing entropy, while theism seeks to deny the chaos - God conveniently explains anything we don’t/can’t understand.

Just because a system becomes more chaotic with time doesn’t obviate order within it. And that order doesn’t demand a supernatural explanation imo.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

I’m not ignoring anything; our opinions just differ, which is OK.

But as a scientist with decent understanding of physics, I’m genuinely curious: what about my though process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything, I’m embracing entropy, while theism seeks to deny the chaos - God conveniently explains anything we don’t/can’t understand.

Just because a system becomes more chaotic with time doesn’t obviate order within it. And that order doesn’t demand a supernatural explanation imo.

Looks like I fat fingered a response without fully explaining (hence the common and incomplete thought.) Sorry about that, think I was walking around NYC when that happened.

But I agree with you - it's OK for us to have a difference of opinion. We can just leave it at that. If you're interested in where I was headed:

What Are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and How Do They Confirm Biblical Creation?​

For anyone who wants to know about the Irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade and how it could not have been produced by natural selection.

 

[Zow]

I genuinely believe the above issue and question is a fair one worth talking about.

I do too, brother man. Would it be OK if I took some time in crafting an answer. I’m a little pressed for time, and I don’t think I can do it justice with a brief reply.

I’d also like you to answer my questions from early, namely how much do you still play and what’s your index?

Sorry, was playing yesterday at the time you posted.

Average 1-2 rounds per week. Currently a 6.0 index.

 

[BlackCrowes]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

I’m not ignoring anything; our opinions just differ, which is OK.

But as a scientist with decent understanding of physics, I’m genuinely curious: what about my though process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything, I’m embracing entropy, while theism seeks to deny the chaos - God conveniently explains anything we don’t/can’t understand.

Just because a system becomes more chaotic with time doesn’t obviate order within it. And that order doesn’t demand a supernatural explanation imo.

Looks like I fat fingered a response without fully explaining (hence the common and incomplete thought.) Sorry about that, think I was walking around NYC when that happened.

But I agree with you - it's OK for us to have a difference of opinion. We can just leave it at that. If you're interested in where I was headed:

What Are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and How Do They Confirm Biblical Creation?​

For anyone who wants to know about the Irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade and how it could not have been produced by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity (and more specifically, Behe) was thoroughly embarrassed in court 20 years ago. It’s pseudoscience.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Sorry, was playing yesterday at the time you posted.

Average 1-2 rounds per week. Currently a 6.0 index.

noice

Best I ever got to was around 6 8. From h.s. to the time I joined the Navy, I was plateaued around 10. While I was in the military ('83-'89) stationed in South Carolina and Florida I played all the time, 36 -45 holes on my days off, a twilight 9 almost every day. Couldn't get below 8. Career round for 9 holes was 34, but only 75 for 18. I would always make the same mistake and add 'em up after 14 or 15 and then choke.

Since moving to NYC I am pretty much a non-golfer. It's just a big time suck when you live in the city. I'm tolerated at a couple Member-Guest outings every summer but don't have the opportunity to work on my game so it's semi-embarrassing. The year my father passed (2016), I rented a stone cabin in the woods for 5 weeks while settled his estate. There was a 27 hole public course a few miles away with a decent club pro. Summers in Michigan you can play until 9:30. Worked on my game for about a month and really started enjoying it again.

Then I went back to Manhattan and reverted to being turrible. Maybe in retirement lol...

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

I’m not ignoring anything; our opinions just differ, which is OK.

But as a scientist with decent understanding of physics, I’m genuinely curious: what about my though process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything, I’m embracing entropy, while theism seeks to deny the chaos - God conveniently explains anything we don’t/can’t understand.

Just because a system becomes more chaotic with time doesn’t obviate order within it. And that order doesn’t demand a supernatural explanation imo.

Looks like I fat fingered a response without fully explaining (hence the common and incomplete thought.) Sorry about that, think I was walking around NYC when that happened.

But I agree with you - it's OK for us to have a difference of opinion. We can just leave it at that. If you're interested in where I was headed:

What Are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and How Do They Confirm Biblical Creation?​

For anyone who wants to know about the Irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade and how it could not have been produced by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity (and more specifically, Behe) was thoroughly embarrassed in court 20 years ago. It’s pseudoscience.

yeah, I read about that. I think it's accurate to call. it pseudoscience because it wasn't peer reviewed.

then again, it was also one opinion of a single judge, and it was never tested in the courts again. I'm honestly not able to follow the argumentation but it seems at minimum there is some debate about it's validity.

 

[BlackCrowes]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

I’m not ignoring anything; our opinions just differ, which is OK.

But as a scientist with decent understanding of physics, I’m genuinely curious: what about my though process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything, I’m embracing entropy, while theism seeks to deny the chaos - God conveniently explains anything we don’t/can’t understand.

Just because a system becomes more chaotic with time doesn’t obviate order within it. And that order doesn’t demand a supernatural explanation imo.

Looks like I fat fingered a response without fully explaining (hence the common and incomplete thought.) Sorry about that, think I was walking around NYC when that happened.

But I agree with you - it's OK for us to have a difference of opinion. We can just leave it at that. If you're interested in where I was headed:

What Are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and How Do They Confirm Biblical Creation?​

For anyone who wants to know about the Irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade and how it could not have been produced by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity (and more specifically, Behe) was thoroughly embarrassed in court 20 years ago. It’s pseudoscience.

yeah, I read about that. I think it's accurate to call. it pseudoscience because it wasn't peer reviewed.

then again, it was also one opinion of a single judge, and it was never tested in the courts again. I'm honestly not able to follow the argumentation but it seems at minimum there is some debate about it's validity.

It’s pseudoscience because it’s not achieved through the scientific method. It has no testable hypotheses, and it’s not falsifiable.

There was a mountain of research presented on cross to Behe about the evolution of blood clotting. He had no reply.

Edit: and it hasn’t been challenged in court again because the judge (by all accounts a very conservative one), gave such a definitive decision.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’m keenly aware nihilism is the prevailing thought here in the FFA.

Just you tonight.

see this is where we need that laughing emoji reaction button

help me out, bubblehead* - don't we all end up there apart from God?

if we all we are is a randomly sequenced bag of bones that evolved to our current state, if there is nothing beyond the grave, what is the point?

I'm one of 8 billion on the big blue marble

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on our planet

the vastness of our existence is almost incomprehensible - how do I fit into that cosmos, what makes my life significant in any way?

not rhetorical....those are genuine questions that I have been wrestling with since junior high (for context I am 62.)

For me, the absence of an afterlife/god makes life more meaningful. Because I believe our time is so fleeting, we better make the most of it. That includes being kind/helping others, forming deep relationships, and seeking a diversity of experience. Even if short-lived, and inconsequential relative to the vastness of the universe, none of that is meaningless.

Transient fulfillment is certainly worthwhile, imo. If I simply die a happy man, and have enriched the lives of others along the way, is that pointless? Is it nihilistic?

Probably works well if you don’t spend ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy.

The universe has order. It is not random and chaotic. Although our individual lives may feel that way, everything from the distance we are from the sun, the way blood coagulation works,

I’m not ignoring anything; our opinions just differ, which is OK.

But as a scientist with decent understanding of physics, I’m genuinely curious: what about my though process violates the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything, I’m embracing entropy, while theism seeks to deny the chaos - God conveniently explains anything we don’t/can’t understand.

Just because a system becomes more chaotic with time doesn’t obviate order within it. And that order doesn’t demand a supernatural explanation imo.

Looks like I fat fingered a response without fully explaining (hence the common and incomplete thought.) Sorry about that, think I was walking around NYC when that happened.

But I agree with you - it's OK for us to have a difference of opinion. We can just leave it at that. If you're interested in where I was headed:

What Are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and How Do They Confirm Biblical Creation?​

For anyone who wants to know about the Irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade and how it could not have been produced by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity (and more specifically, Behe) was thoroughly embarrassed in court 20 years ago. It’s pseudoscience.

yeah, I read about that. I think it's accurate to call. it pseudoscience because it wasn't peer reviewed.

then again, it was also one opinion of a single judge, and it was never tested in the courts again. I'm honestly not able to follow the argumentation but it seems at minimum there is some debate about it's validity.

It’s pseudoscience because it’s not achieved through the scientific method. It has no testable hypotheses, and it’s not falsifiable.

There was a mountain of research presented on cross to Behe about the evolution of blood clotting. He had no reply.

Edit: and it hasn’t been challenged in court again because the judge (by all accounts a very conservative one), gave such a definitive decision.

hey we're just talking ball here so, ya know.....everybody calm down.

-Baldinger

 

[Terminalxylem]

It’s pseudoscience because it’s not achieved through the scientific method. It has no testable hypotheses, and it’s not falsifiable.

There was a mountain of research presented on cross to Behe about the evolution of blood clotting. He had no reply.

Edit: and it hasn’t been challenged in court again because the judge (by all accounts a very conservative one), gave such a definitive decision.

I had started a long-winded reply in response Bobby’s post, but this is far more succinct. Thank you.

I never understood why anyone thinks those types of arguments prove anything, other than we have a lot more to learn.

 

[BobbyLayne]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God