Morality exists without your God.

[Flying Pig]

That's certainly the traditional view, and the one borne out by the New Testament:

Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Now the Biblical verses suggest that only through belief in Christ can one be saved, but I believe that it really goes further (clearly, those writing the Bible had an agenda to push) and that God forgives everything, even up to disbelief in him. The simple reason for this is that I cannot understand how a just god who loves his people would condemn somebody simply for having grown up in a society where Christianity was not practiced, or for rejecting Christianity as Christians reject the missionaries of other faiths.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The bolded part is both true and untrue. Who defines "Moral"?

Good point. Who does define morality? Not God. I've never heard it define morality. Some say it's defined in the Bible. But different people give different interpretations. So, again, not God, but a subjective interpretation of a general claim.

For the Bible to be the standard of morality as defined by God, we need 2 things.

- Divine Morality is defined in the Bible.
- The interpretation has to be the one as intended by God.

Both claims are more subjective than a reasonable morality. Since there is direct support for reasoned morality in the reasoning which is lacking in case of divine claims. A characteristic of a divine claim is that only God knows the reasoning behind it. I am supposed to take someone's word instead of a reasoning.

Example: Murder.

If you argue that allowing murder without consequences or limitations is quite obviously detrimental to society, I can see the reasoning behind it. If you argue murder shouldn't be allowed because God said so by means of the Bible I cannot.

Furthermore, you have to deal with contra-dictionary claims for both those things. Not everyone agrees that Divine Morality is to be found in the Bible. So confronted with two non-rational claims, I have no way to decide which one is the right one. Second is the interpretation of those who claim Divine Morality is to be found in the Bible, since again I have no way to decide between claims.

All I can do is judge each claim against a reasoned one and use that to either side with or against that claim. And that is the only moral choice to make from my point of view.

This is why it might be that there is a God who holds the Absolute Standard of Morality, but if all I have to go on is absolutely subjective, I think I have a good moral cause to reject any unsupported religious claim in favour of a supported secular one.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's certainly the traditional view, and the one borne out by the New Testament:





Now the Biblical verses suggest that only through belief in Christ can one be saved, but I believe that it really goes further (clearly, those writing the Bible had an agenda to push) and that God forgives everything, even up to disbelief in him. The simple reason for this is that I cannot understand how a just god who loves his people would condemn somebody simply for having grown up in a society where Christianity was not practiced, or for rejecting Christianity as Christians reject the missionaries of other faiths.

Even what Jesus himself says disagrees with this:

Matthew 7:14- But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

John 14:6- I am the way, the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me.

John 3:5- Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter heaven

John 6:54- Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last.

Matther 11:23- And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (In fact, Luke 10:15 also says the same thing.)

Luke 13:28- In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.


There are probably more, but that's my ten minute search on the subject (The unpardonable sin section is another, but I'm done for now.)

Considering there were four different gospel writers, three of which I quoted here, there's simply no good reason to assume that Jesus said anything to the effect of "All men will be saved" especially when there are so many quotes from Jesus himself to the contrary. There simply isn't any good reason to suppose that Jesus taught a universalist gospel.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Good point. Who does define morality? Not God. I've never heard it define morality. Some say it's defined in the Bible. But different people give different interpretations. So, again, not God, but a subjective interpretation of a general claim.

For the Bible to be the standard of morality as defined by God, we need 2 things.

- Divine Morality is defined in the Bible.
- The interpretation has to be the one as intended by God.

Both claims are more subjective than a reasonable morality. Since there is direct support for reasoned morality in the reasoning which is lacking in case of divine claims. A characteristic of a divine claim is that only God knows the reasoning behind it. I am supposed to take someone's word instead of a reasoning.

Example: Murder.

If you argue that allowing murder without consequences or limitations is quite obviously detrimental to society, I can see the reasoning behind it. If you argue murder shouldn't be allowed because God said so by means of the Bible I cannot.

Furthermore, you have to deal with contra-dictionary claims for both those things. Not everyone agrees that Divine Morality is to be found in the Bible. So confronted with two non-rational claims, I have no way to decide which one is the right one. Second is the interpretation of those who claim Divine Morality is to be found in the Bible, since again I have no way to decide between claims.

All I can do is judge each claim against a reasoned one and use that to either side with or against that claim. And that is the only moral choice to make from my point of view.

This is why it might be that there is a God who holds the Absolute Standard of Morality, but if all I have to go on is absolutely subjective, I think I have a good moral cause to reject any unsupported religious claim in favour of a supported secular one.

This is exactly why Jesus says "Unless you make yourself like a little child you cannot enter heaven." The reality is every instinct in our mind tells us to "Define morality for ourselves" but we have to find a way not to do so if we ever want to reach Heaven.

There is nowhere in the Bible that says "Thou shall interpret every word of this book correctly, or though shall be damned." In fact, Paul does not seem to be necessarily concerned about those that may not totally agree with him on what he says, saying "If any of you disagree with me God will reveal this to you also," (Philippians 3:15.) The Bible is interpreted through the power of the Holy Spirit, something an unsaved person cannot do.

Here's what is a concern, disbelief. Its very simple, if you believe Jesus Christ is God and that God raised him from your dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9.) Getting every detail right is not essential to salvation, repentance and belief is.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did you read my post, or just clicked reply and started talking?

 

[El_Machinae]

Even what Jesus himself says disagrees with this:

Matthew 7:14- But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

John 14:6- I am the way, the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me.

John 3:5- Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter heaven

John 6:54- Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last.

Matther 11:23- And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (In fact, Luke 10:15 also says the same thing.)

Luke 13:28- In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.


There are probably more, but that's my ten minute search on the subject (The unpardonable sin section is another, but I'm done for now.)

Considering there were four different gospel writers, three of which I quoted here, there's simply no good reason to assume that Jesus said anything to the effect of "All men will be saved" especially when there are so many quotes from Jesus himself to the contrary. There simply isn't any good reason to suppose that Jesus taught a universalist gospel.

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.

Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

Luk 6:20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed [be ye] poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Looks like according to Matthew and Luke, you just need to be a good person or be poor in spirit. :shrug:

He also talks about those who give to charity will receive an overflowing reward ("pressed down, shaken together, running over"), but we all know that that there're plenty of people who give a lot, but never receive an Earthly reward. To suggest that they get no "overflowing" reward in the hereafter suggests that they did not receive a reward at all.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm not going to break this down piece by piece, and I haven't read the replies to this, but I think there are a few strawmen in here, as well as things that need to be addressed.

First of all, while the age of the earth could be debated (And I will freely admit that I'm not really interested in doing so or intelligent enough to do so, and I will freely admit my personal belief is in a young earth, although probably a little older than 6,000 years, probably closer to 10) the age of humans, or at least, humans as we know them today, I don't think anyone believes they've been around more than ten or fifteen thousand years or so. If I recall correctly, Catholics who accept Evolution (I've seen very, VERY few who accept Evolution without going liberal on how they take the rest of the Bible as well) also believe that the first humans as we know them today, Adam and Eve, were also the first ones with souls. They don't believe (Again, if I recall correctly) that any of the creatures that were on the evolutionary ladder up to man had souls. And obviously, a creature without a soul isn't really under any obligation to believe in God, and moral concerns don't really apply to them either, theologically speaking. So we're really only dealing with a few thousand years (At the most, we're dealing with five digits, not six) in which there were humans (Again, full humans who had souls) to make any of this relevant, at least if you accept enough of the Scripture that this discussion would even be relevant (And for those that would not, well, they would probably be too liberal to say that "There's no morality without our God" anyway, so we can disregard them for now.) So you're "99% of human history" is certainly inaccurate. At most, it perhaps applies to ten thousand years of human history, where arguably people did not believe in Jehovah.

Secondly, this isn't necessarily true either. I think "A majority of people didn't believe in Jehovah for all that time" is a possibility, but not that nobody did. At the very least we'd insist that the likes of Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and the like believed in Jehovah even if they didn't have a written book in which to learn about him. This is based on an acceptance of the Biblical record, but again, the people in question who are saying these sorts of things are GOING to accept the Biblical record, no matter how ridiculous you personally feel that it is.

[snipped the rest]

I'm not going to break this down piece by piece, but I think there are a few strawmen in here, as well as things that need to be addressed.

First of all, the age of the earth cannot really be debated. Well, at least the order of magnitude isn't - there is still a little quibbling around the margins to the tune of tens of millions of years, but 4.5x billion years is how old the earth is. There isn't debate on that. If you choose to reject that, you're rejecting accepted settled science. Do so at your own risk.

As for humans, we've been around significantly longer than 10 or 15k years. More like 200,000. There is a little debate about this, but again it's not like the debate is 'Are humans 20k or 200k?' It's more like 220k vs. 180k. So you should treat your adam and eve as having been inspired with their souls a couple hundred thousand years ago. Of course, I think it's silly to take genesis literally, but if you're going to shoe-horn it into the world we see around us, then adam and eve lived about 200,000 years ago. So you're very wrong to claim that nobody really thinks humans have only been here for 10,000 years or so. No honest anthropologist or paleontologist or archaeologist would agree with you on that.

So the OP's 99% of human history is spot on. 1% of humanity's time on this planet is 1/100 of 200,000 = 2000 years. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that until around 3000 years ago nobody believed in jehovah (or whatever name you ascribe to the semitic god-head). Oh, unless you're going to have a 200kyo adam...

Actually, I just realized something interesting - Methuselah couldn't have lived for 969 or howevermany years - he must have lived quite a lot longer! Along with everyone else back then. I think people must have lived closer to 6,000 to 8,000 years. Otherwise the math doesn't work out.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, and honestly, it's a little offensive to downplay the suffering and struggles of my ancient ancestors. To say that the pain, misery, love, and heroism of 99% of human history are theologically un-important is rather dismissive.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm attempting to stay out of the debate as I've already made all my points, and I find it interesting to watch who takes the ball and runs with it.

That said, GhostWriter, you really need to know and understand what claims are made by modern science before you begin to debate them.

I've done you the courtesy of knowing and understanding what claims Christianity makes. To properly debate, you gotta know what the other side actually believes.

And keep in mind, when I say believes, I don't mean "Takes it on faith that they're correct". I mean they have the entirety of human knowledge backing them up on it to an astonishing degree of accuracy, to the point where we know it's not going to be disproved. Unlike belief in a geocentric universe, there's enough data to be more than conclusive. Many different branches of independent science, from geology to biology to chemistry to physics, all point to the same independent answer of billions of years, not thousands.

Stating that "I don't think anyone thinks humans have been around longer than" shows that you don't know the subject matter.

You're more than welcome to have an opinion and you're more than welcome to the debate, but if I were in a debate with Stephen Hawking, even knowing I'd lose such a debate, I'd try to read a book on physics first so I could ask the right questions and at least have a solid understanding of what I'm being skeptical of.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.

Mat 5:3 Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

Luk 6:20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed [be ye] poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

Looks like according to Matthew and Luke, you just need to be a good person or be poor in spirit. :shrug:

He also talks about those who give to charity will receive an overflowing reward ("pressed down, shaken together, running over"), but we all know that that there're plenty of people who give a lot, but never receive an Earthly reward. To suggest that they get no "overflowing" reward in the hereafter suggests that they did not receive a reward at all.

Ah, you put some weird looking symbols in there that messed up the formating in the quote. So sorry it looks so distorted

Yes, those who give to charity will be rewarded, but to get rewarded, you have to get to Heaven first. I am not sure what verse your talking about with giving to charity receiving a huge reward. I am aware of its existance, but in the context it may well have been a promise to believers. Its the same thing with the sheep and the goats, the Bible, and even Jesus himself, makes clear that belief is necessary for Salvation, yet the sheep and the goats determines heaven solely by their works. Keep in mind however, that all of these people are claiming to be believers. The whole judgment is separating those who said they believed, but didn't really believe (They may have "Believed that God is one" in the sense that James uses the term, but they certainly didn't "Believe" in the sense that Jesus uses the term when he said "He who believes is not condemned" since if they had, according to Jesus they would not be condemned, and according to Jesus' brother James, they would in fact do works along with their faith). I don't see any good reason to think the sheep and the goats judgment really has anything to do with people who don't even claim to believe in the first place. That's the Great White Throne Judgment, where the people are judged SOLELY by works and they all fail to meet the perfect standard.

So how can you obey the will of the Father if you don't believe in him?

I'm not going to break this down piece by piece, but I think there are a few strawmen in here, as well as things that need to be addressed.

That may be true, though I assure you its unintentional. Just look at my debates with Plotinus to see how little I REALLY know

First of all, the age of the earth cannot really be debated. Well, at least the order of magnitude isn't - there is still a little quibbling around the margins to the tune of tens of millions of years, but 4.5x billion years is how old the earth is. There isn't debate on that. If you choose to reject that, you're rejecting accepted settled science. Do so at your own risk.

First off, what risk? Why does it matter anyway, from an atheistic perspective. So I'm wrong, so what? How will that affect my life? I don't really see why there's any "Risk" to it. At worst, I'm a laughable idiot. Along with 10-45 percent of America

Secondly, might I ask, why can't it be debated? If the Earth appears to be old, I don't see why that necessarily means it is old. It could appear old because an earth that appears to look young might not be able to support life. If you say "But that assumes divine intervention" well, yeah, I know. That's the whole point. We can't assume that everything happens naturally in a scientific discussion anymore than we can assume that it does not. That may just put the discussion on an impasse. But if you can assume that divine intervention might be possible and can STILL prove a young earth false, I'm willing to listen.

As for humans, we've been around significantly longer than 10 or 15k years. More like 200,000. There is a little debate about this, but again it's not like the debate is 'Are humans 20k or 200k?' It's more like 220k vs. 180k. So you should treat your adam and eve as having been inspired with their souls a couple hundred thousand years ago. Of course, I think it's silly to take genesis literally, but if you're going to shoe-horn it into the world we see around us, then adam and eve lived about 200,000 years ago. So you're very wrong to claim that nobody really thinks humans have only been here for 10,000 years or so. No honest anthropologist or paleontologist or archaeologist would agree with you on that.

First of all, how are we defining "Human" here. I know that evolutionists believe the evolution of humans to have begun actually millions of years ago, or at least I think this is correct. The Southern ape was supposedly the first one in the chain of evolution, correct? I'm not sure how outdated my information is, or even how much on the subject I really know. That said, if I recall correctly, humans as we know them today allegedly evolved somewhere less than 30,000 years ago. I think I might have made an error in saying 15 thousand when, if I recall correctly, it was actually that the Neanderthals died out altogether 15 thousand years ago. I could still be wrong about that. Evolution is something I have a little familiarity with, but obviously haven't studied in detail, anymore than I've studied Islam in detail.

So the OP's 99% of human history is spot on. 1% of humanity's time on this planet is 1/100 of 200,000 = 2000 years. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that until around 3000 years ago nobody believed in jehovah (or whatever name you ascribe to the semitic god-head). Oh, unless you're going to have a 200kyo adam...

3,000? I doubt it, considering the reign of King Solomon was supposedly around 900 BC, and Solomon is pretty much universally recognized as a historical figure. I see no good reason that Jewish religion would have been invented only 100 years before Solomon. Assuming (Miracles excluded) the accuracy of the Biblical account from the time of Moses, Judaism is at least 3,500 years old. If you assume back to Abraham, its at least 4,000. Even ignoring the fact that we believe "Judaism", although it wouldn't have had that name, dated all the way back to Adam. That there weren't many people that believed in it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Actually, I just realized something interesting - Methuselah couldn't have lived for 969 or howevermany years - he must have lived quite a lot longer! Along with everyone else back then. I think people must have lived closer to 6,000 to 8,000 years. Otherwise the math doesn't work out.

You mean if you are going to 200,000? Not really. Remember they often skipped generations. I'm not sure exactly how and in what way they did so, but I know "Seth begat such and such" doesn't mean it was his son necessarily, just his descendent. Unimportant names were often skipped. Now, as for HOW to determine who was important for something that happened before written history, well, God inspired the thing so he obviously knew.

 

[Dachs]

I've done you the courtesy of knowing and understanding what claims Christianity makes. To properly debate, you gotta know what the other side actually believes.

To be entirely fair, he operates off of a semi-idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity that is far off the mainstream anywhere except possibly the Internet.

 

[Ailedhoo]

@Ghost: are you suggesting that the merits and deeds of the person is secondery to the belive systems? Are you realy saying the good thinks come to not deed? A bad Christain has better chance to enter Heaven then a good non-Christain? Am I, a agnostic, condemed for not being a Christain? To answer "yes" would suggest bad priotirities of interests. Belive in a deity should not be the messure of a person's virtue. To say a person cannot seek a good reward for having a different belive is rather... immoral to say the least.

As for the morality thing... morality need not a god to exist.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Ghost: are you suggesting that the merits and deeds of the person is secondery to the belive systems?

I think the Bible is fairly clear on this. While many liberal Christians will use Jesus' statements about ethics to discredit belief being necessary for Salvation, if you read the text Jesus also talks about belief. For those who try to argue that the other Bible texts actually contradict Jesus, this isn't really true. James preaches the same message, that "Faith is completed by works." Jesus says that "He who believes is not condemned", although he later says that those who say "Lord Lord" but don't live it don't really believe. Paul is a little trickier simply due to his lengthy arguments and style of writing, but Paul never says anything about works being completely unnecessary. He does, however, make clear that Coming to Salvation is by faith. That's a confusing distinction, but important, and also answers your question about "Bad Christians" although I will continue to address it when I get to that point.

Are you realy saying the good thinks come to not deed?

Huh? What does this mean?

A bad Christain has better chance to enter Heaven then a good non-Christain?

What is a bad Christian? In Acts 11 it says "The disciples were called Christians at Antioch." Jesus makes clear the high requirements for being a disciple. Now, that doesn't mean everyone reaches the same point right away. "Growth" is a clear theme in Christianity. But here's the thing, living things grow. THe unbeliving are Biblically described as "Dead." "Christians" who don't grow are still dead in their sins and still going to Hell. Of course, there are exceptions. The thief on the cross did not ever get a chance to "Grow." He got saved, Jesus assures him of this, and he died on the same day.

Am I, a agnostic, condemed for not being a Christain? To answer "yes" would suggest bad priotirities of interests. Belive in a deity should not be the messure of a person's virtue.

You are not condemned for being a non-Christian, but you are certainly condemned because you are not a Christian.

John 3:18 says "He who does not believe is condemned already". You seem to be objecting that "If I'm a good person, why should I be damned for not believing?" You might be surprised that I'd agree with you. However, the "If" is simply wrong. You aren't a good person, I'm not a good person. Romans 3:10 makes clear "There is none righteous, no not one." Period. We ALL deserve Hell, because of our sins, there is no exception whatsoever. But by the grace of Jesus Christ, we can be saved in spite of this. We don't deserve any chance for Salvation whatsoever. God gives it to us out of love, and he sacrificed everything to give us that chance. There is no other name under which we are saved.

To say a person cannot seek a good reward for having a different belive is rather... immoral to say the least.

Who are you, oh man, to question God (Romans 9:20) That may seem like a spiteful answer, but it is the one Paul gives when people question God's fairness, or why they are responsible for your state.

As for the morality thing... morality need not a god to exist.

Who decides?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You it seems.

Since you ignore any supporting argument and just repeat your answered question. Instead of avoiding the answer with some boring Bible babble no one was asking for, you should try discussion once.

By the way, have you been to some sort of Jesus camp during your absence? You're very keen, more than usual, to spout unprovoked Bible bollocks.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I think the Bible is fairly clear on this. While many liberal Christians will use Jesus' statements about ethics to discredit belief being necessary for Salvation, if you read the text Jesus also talks about belief. For those who try to argue that the other Bible texts actually contradict Jesus, this isn't really true. James preaches the same message, that "Faith is completed by works." Jesus says that "He who believes is not condemned", although he later says that those who say "Lord Lord" but don't live it don't really believe. Paul is a little trickier simply due to his lengthy arguments and style of writing, but Paul never says anything about works being completely unnecessary. He does, however, make clear that Coming to Salvation is by faith. That's a confusing distinction, but important, and also answers your question about "Bad Christians" although I will continue to address it when I get to that point.

So you gotta agree with a certain view or face Hell? Thats moral and fair.

Also it is hard to take your use of the word "liberal" serious when your posts tend to make consertive groups look liberal in comparisment.

Huh? What does this mean?

That a good act is worthless? That a good non-Christain cannot gain good afterlife?

What is a bad Christian? In Acts 11 it says "The disciples were called Christians at Antioch." Jesus makes clear the high requirements for being a disciple. Now, that doesn't mean everyone reaches the same point right away. "Growth" is a clear theme in Christianity. But here's the thing, living things grow. THe unbeliving are Biblically described as "Dead." "Christians" who don't grow are still dead in their sins and still going to Hell. Of course, there are exceptions. The thief on the cross did not ever get a chance to "Grow." He got saved, Jesus assures him of this, and he died on the same day.

So unbelivers, reguardless of good deed, go to Hell?

Your starting to sound like Jack Chick: Poe's Law at its fineness. Sorry but your fanatical ways are not moral.

Also: you committed the "not true Scott" falacy.



Y

ou are not condemned for being a non-Christian, but you are certainly condemned because you are not a Christian.

Evidence of fanaticism. Exstream authoritarism and other evils would adopt a "agree with us or else" approuch.

John 3:18 says "He who does not believe is condemned already". You seem to be objecting that "If I'm a good person, why should I be damned for not believing?" You might be surprised that I'd agree with you. However, the "If" is simply wrong. You aren't a good person, I'm not a good person. Romans 3:10 makes clear "There is none righteous, no not one." Period. We ALL deserve Hell, because of our sins, there is no exception whatsoever. But by the grace of Jesus Christ, we can be saved in spite of this. We don't deserve any chance for Salvation whatsoever. God gives it to us out of love, and he sacrificed everything to give us that chance. There is no other name under which we are saved.

I tranlated the bolded as "WE ARE ALL BASTARDS! WE ALL DESERVE HELL! I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG! WAHAHA!

Sorry emo but can you place that again without the wangst?

Your trying to make your own faith sound like a cult... and caused many Christains around the world to facepalm.

I also like how you say that a person committed little sin gets the same punishment as a genozidal maniac.

We are born neither of good or evil.

Also: your being the judge again. You know what Jesus said about judging?

You know not of my moral acts so you cannot judge me as a "no good person."

Who are you, oh man, to question God (Romans 9:20) That may seem like a spiteful answer, but it is the one Paul gives when people question God's fairness, or why they are responsible for your state.

Should we all blindly follow? Those consumed in their own ego deserve not servace. The critical mind is vital. If God is the loving deity we are told then God would tolerate criticism. You are a vocal minority giving the rest a bad name.

Who decides?

Collective observation, "do what you must so long as no one is harmed," collective agreement, empathy, thinking, consideration on the impact of our actions... the list is big mate.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you gotta agree with a certain view or face Hell? Thats moral and fair.

John 3:18 has the Savior himself being pretty clear.

Also it is hard to take your use of the word "liberal" serious when your posts tend to make consertive groups look liberal in comparisment.

Meh. "Woe to you when all men speak well of you" (That's another quote from Jesus BTW.)

That a good act is worthless? That a good non-Christain cannot gain good afterlife?

Good people don't exist (Romans 3:10.)

So unbelivers, reguardless of good deed, go to Hell?

Once again...

Your starting to sound like Jack Chick: Poe's Law at its fineness. Sorry but your fanatical ways are not moral.

Jack Chick has a somewhat more negative view of Catholicism than I do. I think Catholicism is completely wrong and Unbiblical. But Jack Chick goes further and makes the unbiblical assumption that all Catholics are in Hell. Since Catholics do, in fact, believe in the same Savior (John 3:18) it is possible for them to be saved, provided they really believe (Which includes living in accordance with that belief as Matthew 16 24-25 and James 2:21 explain.)

Jack Chick goes farther than the Bible does, judging people not only by quoting the Scriptures but also by reading into them.

Evidence of fanaticism. Exstream authoritarism and other evils would adopt a "agree with us or else" approuch.

God has that right, and when I quote the Scriptures I am using God's own words (2 Timothy 3:16.)

But you don't have to like it. Most people CANNOT believe the gospel, because they are not part of his flock (John 10:26)

I tranlated the bolded as "WE ARE ALL BASTARDS! WE ALL DESERVE HELL! I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG! WAHAHA!

There is no greater example of total depravity than my own life.

Your trying to make your own faith sound like a cult... and caused many Christains around the world to facepalm.

No, I'm telling the truth, and quoting Bible verses to back it up. If you want to debate this from a Christian perspective, you need to use the common source of Christian morality (The Bible) in order to explain what is wrong with the gospel I'm preaching.

I also like how you say that a person committed little sin gets the same punishment as a genozidal maniac.

OK, that's not a Biblical claim. I know some Christians believe this (That all people in Hell receive the same punishment) but they do not know their Bibles.

And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

Just a quick refresher at Sodom, they are the source of the term "Sodomy." But this wasn't the worst of their sins. "All the men in the town" (Note that all does not have to mean "Every single" but it did mean a majority) came to rape the visitors of Lot (Who they didn't know were angels.) But Ezekial 16:49 says that it was actually a lack of charity, not the homosexual lifestyle, that was their sin (Note that this does not mean homosexuality is NOT a sin, in spite of the other texts that say it is, but it does mean that it is perfectly possible to focus too much on one sin and ignore others.) To add on to it, a majority of people are not homosexual, so "All the men" (Meaning a majority) means that presumably there were heterosexuals who were willing to defy their own natures in order to sin as well. So it wasn't JUST people with a homosexual inclination who were committing homosexual acts.

However, they are still going to be better off on judgment day than Capernaum. Why? Because Jesus the Son of God performed miracles in Capernaum. The more knowledge you have, the more responsible you are. Here's another text that backs this up:

Luke 12:47-48

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

I should note that Catholics disagree with my interpretation of this verse. They teach that its talking about purgatory. I disagree with their interpretation, both because of the absolute lack of other purgatory references in the Bible, and because of this verse:

Romans 8:1

There is now no condemnation for those that believe in Christ Jesus.

Period. No condemnation. Not "Well you still have to serve a little time in purgatory." No condemnation. We are free, because Jesus paid the price.

I will note in the above verses (Luke 12:47-48) that the one who doesn't know as much is still punished. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but it does lessen guilt.

The level of punishment will also apparently be affected by precisely how bad one was:

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

This is a tricky passage. I don't have time to hunt all the references down right now, but those who believe are clearly explained to have their names written "In the book of Life" in Paul's epistles. Yet people are still judged according to what they have done. There is no indication in the passage that what they had done actually matters, but they still receive judgment for it. Thus, I would argue that precisely what level of suffering faced in Hell (And I don't know what exactly the suffering in Hell will be like, we are given images both of "Fire" and of "Blows". What it will look like is something only God knows) would depend somehow on one's works. Nevertheless, apparently if your name actually IS in the Book of Life, your works don't matter (However, a person who's name is in the Book of Life WILL do works, as I've explained.)

We are born neither of good or evil.

What makes you think that? Ever thought of why everyone seems to look out for number one? If you say "Human nature" you are conceeding the point.

Also: your being the judge again. You know what Jesus said about judging?

That we will be judged by the same standard we judged others. Considering I did judge myself by the same standard, I don't see the problem.

You know not of my moral acts so you cannot judge me as a "no good person."

Moral acts do not make anyone good. Imagine a murderer saying this to a judge.

You might argue that you aren't as bad as a murderer, and in human terms we aren't. Jesus, however, uses the divine standard that anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and he who lusts commits adultery. The whole point is its IMPOSSIBLE to be good. But liberal Christians and non-Christians try to paint a picture of a loving, forgiving Jesus who doesn't judge people. The loving and forgiving part is true, but Jesus makes clear that the terms of forgiveness are BELIEF (John 3:18 for the fifth time.)

Think of it this way (I don't take credit for this analogy, someone at my church was kind enough to provide it.)

If you slapped me in the face, what kind of punishment would you receive. What if you slapped a dog? What if you slapped President Obama? Even though you did the same thing, your punishment would be greater if you slapped the President, probably significant jail time, probably a fine or very short jail sentence for slapping me, and probably no sentence at all for slapping a dog.

Now, what if you killed the dog? What if you killed me? What if you killed Obama?

Killing the dog would get you a sentence, but probably a finite one. You'd eventually be freed (Assuming you weren't within a few years of death.) If you killed me, you'd probably get twenty-five to life, but if you killed Obama, you'd be pretty much guaranteed of the death penalty.

Now, think of this, all three of the above beings I mentioned are FINITE. God is Eternal. So if you do something against God, however small, the just punishment IS eternal. The punishment might differ in intensity (Much how slapping Obama is less than killing him) but it still has to be eternal since God is eternal.

The only way to pay an Eternal punishment in a non-eternal period of time is to find someone Eternal to pay it. Enter the Son of God, God incarnate, Jesus Christ. He died so that we can live. If we will believe and become his disciples, we too can have eternal life.

Should we all blindly follow? Those consumed in their own ego deserve not servace. The critical mind is vital. If God is the loving deity we are told then God would tolerate criticism. You are a vocal minority giving the rest a bad name.

All I am doing is explaining what the Scriptures say. If you think I am giving the rest of Christians a bad name, explain how the Bible, or even Jesus Christ, agrees with your "Gospel".


Collective observation, "do what you must so long as no one is harmed," collective agreement, empathy, thinking, consideration on the impact of our actions... the list is big mate.[/QUOTE]

 

[Flying Pig]

John 3:18 has the Savior himself being pretty clear.

John 3:18 has John reporting that Jesus said that whoever does not follow him was condemned - that's not quite the same. Considering that the book was written by a missionary a significant number of years after Jesus' death, I think it's worth taking a minute to reflect on God as we know him, and ask whether he would really condemn virtuous people for the simple reason that they were not Christians. I think that's quite absurd.

 

[Ailedhoo]

John 3:18 has the Savior himself being pretty clear.

And the logic and morality behind it?

Meh. "Woe to you when all men speak well of you" (That's another quote from Jesus BTW.)

I know quotes from Jesus BTW Jack Chick.

Also what has your statement got to do with my statement? Your avoided the question.

Good people don't exist (Romans 3:10.)

Then why is a Heaven?!

Your are starting to sound like a emo...

Once again...

More examples of you being a fanatic?

Jack Chick has a somewhat more negative view of Catholicism than I do. I think Catholicism is completely wrong and Unbiblical. But Jack Chick goes further and makes the unbiblical assumption that all Catholics are in Hell. Since Catholics do, in fact, believe in the same Savior (John 3:18) it is possible for them to be saved, provided they really believe (Which includes living in accordance with that belief as Matthew 16 24-25 and James 2:21 explain.)

Jack Chick goes farther than the Bible does, judging people not only by quoting the Scriptures but also by reading into them.

So not only are you being bigoted now against Catholics (with "unbiblical," although luck be you state they "could be saved").

Jack Chick seems like you in many ways...

God has that right, and when I quote the Scriptures I am using God's own words (2 Timothy 3:16.)

And what gave him that right? He created? A bad perent has a right to treat the child as badly as possible with the child has no right to dislike the perent?

But you don't have to like it. Most people CANNOT believe the gospel, because they are not part of his flock (John 10:26)

So we are in a exlustion zones. Like South Africa durning apartied that must be fair.

There is no greater example of total depravity than my own life.

Yer?

What makes you think that? Ever thought of why everyone seems to look out for number one? If you say "Human nature" you are conceeding the point.

I do not belive in human nature. Too much chaos for that. I belive we are born blank canvases that be painted by our actions. Surely the new born that committed no sin (let) should be shown as of this.

That we will be judged by the same standard we judged others. Considering I did judge myself by the same standard, I don't see the problem.

So you condeming people for not following Jesus, let you not follow Jesus's notions?

Moral acts do not make anyone good. Imagine a murderer saying this to a judge.

Now your going off...

You might argue that you aren't as bad as a murderer, and in human terms we aren't. Jesus, however, uses the divine standard that anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and he who lusts commits adultery. The whole point is its IMPOSSIBLE to be good. But liberal Christians and non-Christians try to paint a picture of a loving, forgiving Jesus who doesn't judge people. The loving and forgiving part is true, but Jesus makes clear that the terms of forgiveness are BELIEF (John 3:18 for the fifth time.)

So thought equals sin? That... is total bull. Sorry mate but fanatical notions like that is... unsettling. Also I like how you seem to condem "liberal" Christains. Your a exstreamist.

If you slapped me in the face, what kind of punishment would you receive. What if you slapped a dog? What if you slapped President Obama? Even though you did the same thing, your punishment would be greater if you slapped the President, probably significant jail time, probably a fine or very short jail sentence for slapping me, and probably no sentence at all for slapping a dog.

Your... in need of critism mate. That was the start of a terrible analogy.

Now, think of this, all three of the above beings I mentioned are FINITE. God is Eternal. So if you do something against God, however small, the just punishment IS eternal. The punishment might differ in intensity (Much how slapping Obama is less than killing him) but it still has to be eternal since God is eternal.

You make no sence. You answer not the question in a logical way.

Also the disriputional retribution is unwell. Heck even the "eye for an eye" anologue would find your notions of "small crime=eternal punishmen" as... unsettling.

The only way to pay an Eternal punishment in a non-eternal period of time is to find someone Eternal to pay it. Enter the Son of God, God incarnate, Jesus Christ. He died so that we can live. If we will believe and become his disciples, we too can have eternal life.

"Belive or eternal pain!"

Totally not the way of a exclusive path.

All I am doing is explaining what the Scriptures say. If you think I am giving the rest of Christians a bad name, explain how the Bible, or even Jesus Christ, agrees with your "Gospel".

I take not a Gospel but of empathy. You take a Gospel but use it in a sociopathic manner. What I gave was not a single source but of noting in answering to the point of this topic.

A simple theiv be given eternal punishment is a excessive use of judical power and immoral. To justify enternal punishments for those who are being punished for beliving not in a certain path is sociopathic.

 

[GhostWriter16]

John 3:18 has John reporting that Jesus said that whoever does not follow him was condemned - that's not quite the same. Considering that the book was written by a missionary a significant number of years after Jesus' death, I think it's worth taking a minute to reflect on God as we know him, and ask whether he would really condemn virtuous people for the simple reason that they were not Christians. I think that's quite absurd.

This is a claim that certainly needs to be discussed. For me, as a Evangelical Christian, it doesn't really matter, but it is fair to know that some secular scholars do dispute the authenticity of certain statements in John.

As far as I know, however, the Synoptics are pretty much non-disputed (Well, the miracles are, but not the stuff he said) and I demonstrated from the Synoptic gospels the same message that belief is necessary to Eternal Life. Paul's epistles were allegedly written even earlier and Paul also preaches that same message, and in spite of the disciples of Jesus (While he was on Earth) still being alive and fully able to say "That's not what he taught" there is no record of them doing so. In fact, what they DID write down about Jesus agrees with Paul.

Now, I know you could just say "All the exclusivism, both in Paul's writings and what the disciples remembered about Jesus was wrong, and Jesus never really said those things" but I see no good reason to believe this, and the only source you have for those beliefs is your own logical assumptions about God. And even Proverbs tells us "There is a way that seems good to man, but leads to destruction." To put God into our own little box is a blasphemy, in my opinion (And lest anyone assume, I'm not talking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is no longer possible to be committed IMO.)

 

[Traitorfish]

This is exactly why Jesus says "Unless you make yourself like a little child you cannot enter heaven." The reality is every instinct in our mind tells us to "Define morality for ourselves" but we have to find a way not to do so if we ever want to reach Heaven.

He also says to give all your possessions to th poor and live a life of spiritual poverty. How's that working out for ye?