There are several options for what happens to us after we die, I’ll list a few and go from there.
1. We cease to exist.
2. Reincarnation/Karma/Nirvana
3. Eternal reward for believers (heaven)
4. Eternal punishment (hell)
5. Eternal separation from God
6. Eternal reward for everyone (Universalism)
I’m sure there are more, but these should be sufficient to make the point. In terms of what most people would consider "fair" #'s 1&2 are probably the most fair. 1. We're all equally gone. 2. We're all equally trying to achieve something that really doesn't seem well defined.
#'s 3 & 4 seem like they need to be connected if we're talking about fairness. It seems reasonable that if reward is eternal, then punishment should be also. (For purposes of this example, I'm choosing to set aside the Calvinist perspective)
#5 seems pointless to me, although some would argue that it is preferable to #4.
6. Honestly, this seems to be the least fair of all of the options. The thought that Hitler and Mother Theresa will both be rewarded seems grotesquely unfair.
I suspect that part of the problem is that most humans tend to define fair, as what benefits me more, which means that it's possible that we're using the wrong measurement.
87 comments:
Craig... " It seems reasonable that if reward is eternal, then punishment should be also."
I'm sorry. Could you clarify? What are some behaviors that you think deserve Eternal punishment and that this is fair? For instance, if your child still look cookie, should they be punished eternally? Fairness Demands a reasonable punishment is punishment as needed. Eternal punishment is the problem in your theory oh, it seems to me.
Can you make more sense of this?
What merits, in your mind, something worthy of Eternal punishment?
Are you simply being obtuse here.
I guess the concept of balancing eternal reward and eternal punishment never crossed your closed little mind.
You’re obsession with trying to avoid the question as asked, and jump ahead without answering the first question is still intact.
If the reward for good is eternal, why wouldn’t the punishment for sin also be universal?
"If the reward for good is eternal why wouldn't the punishment for sin also be Universal?"
Because you framed this in terms of justice and fairness. Any punishment must be commensurate to the crime for the punishment to be just or fair.
What crime or crimes can someone do in 20-60 years where a just punishment is an eternity of torture, for instance?
As to the suggestion that I'm being obtuse? I'm just trying to understand your position. Since I don't understand your position, I'm asking what seems to be a reasonable question. Is that okay?
Are you saying that there are some wrongs that could be done that a fair and just punishment will last forever? Like eternal torture, for instance?
Let's make it easy, let's set aside the really horrendous sins. Most people don't murder, kill, rape, torture, abuse, cause physical harm to others. Agreed?. For most people who have not done any of those serious harm crimes, what wrongs can they do where a just and fair punishment would be an eternity of torture?
Of course I did, you idiot. If reward is eternal, then fairness would suggest that punishment also be eternal.
Let’s not jump ahead, if you can’t answer one simple question, why would you think it’s reasonable to move on?
If I understand you correctly, and please be patient if I'm not, I think you could say ilthere would be equilibrium in the balance of your construct... But not fairness or Justice.
If you're just talking in regards to EUR example, fairness is not the right word, I don't think. I think equilibrium is. Fairness to whom? The construct itself?
If I may, let me expand on your example. If there is a God who says if anyone commits even just one good deed, then the reward is an eternity of good, but the reward for just one misdeed is an eternity of torture..., there's balance in that construct, but not fairness.
Am I understanding your construct correctly? If so, have I answered the question to your satisfaction? Once again, my answer is, no it's not fair. It is balanced... but fairness doesn't make sense, in my opinion.
Craig... "You’re obsession with trying to avoid the question as asked..."
What first question?
The first clear question I see from you is this one...
"If the reward for good is eternal, why wouldn’t the punishment for sin also be universal?"
In order to answer that question, I would need some clarification.
If the reward for good is eternal... by that, do you mean that you receive $1000000 everyday for eternity for doing a good act, for instance?
By the punishment for bad being Universal, did you mean to say eternal? And if by that you meant that you would receive 10 spankings from the principal everyday for eternity, but otherwise you're also enjoying your million dollars a day?
... do you see how the question as it is stated is a little confusing? Would you mind clarifying? I can't answer the questions without knowing with means.
And I would ask you to withhold the active hostility. I'm just asking reasonable questions and doing so politely, in a Goodwill effort to understand your position.
So your answer is to bitch about semantics.
I’ll stick fair, balanced, equitable, whatever nit picky word makes you happy,
Are you agreeing that IF reward is eternal, then punishment would also be eternal?
It’s a really simple question.
"Are you agreeing that IF reward is eternal, then punishment would also be eternal?"
No. I'm not agreeing.
It's a really simple answer.
I could answer better if the question were more clear. If you could answer my questions, for instance and clear up my confusion on your example, I could probably give you a better answer. But the question as asked requires either no, or the question is nonsensical reply.
If red is eternal then is blue also Eternal? Not necessarily. If up is eternal is down also Eternal? No. Not necessarily. My direct and clear answer to your question is no. At least not given the data you provided so far. It does not necessarily follow that if reward is eternal then punishment is eternal. It just doesn't.
I honestly can’t believe that you are this obtuse without choosing to be so. Yet, you make my point very well.
If you can’t agree that both sides of the equation are equal (eternal punishment/eternal reward), then why would you immediately start in with next level questions.
If there’s no agreement that both sides are eternal, none of the rest matters.
So, are both eternal, are neither eternal, or is one or the other eternal?
"So your answer is to bitch about semantics."
Words have meanings. You shouldn't complain about reasonable request for clarification. It's not about semantics. It's about understanding. Balanced and fair are not the same words.
If you're asking me is it balanced equal that everybody taking a test has to do so with I test written out on paper, it's balanced in that everybody has access to the same test paper, but it's not fair to the blind person, for whom.the paper is worthless.
If someone is trying to understand you and ask questions, I would counsel a bit more patience and a little bit less vitriol.
"If there’s no agreement that both sides are eternal, none of the rest matters.
So, are both eternal, are neither eternal, or is one or the other eternal?"
Again, without clarification, I don't know what any of this means. It's nonsensical.
You offered a scenario, with reward being eternal and with punishment being eternal. YOU established the scenario. In YOUR scenario, both are eternal as you established the scenario.
Are you asking, beyond your hypothetical scenario..., in reality, are punishment and reward eternal?
I don't know the answer to that question. No one does authoritatively. If I understand your question, which I don't know, because I find it confusing. Which is why I asked for some clarification. Perhaps if you answered the clarifying questions I could give you more complete the answers.
Dan demands to know which sinful behavior is worthy of eternal punishment, but never even considers what behavior is worthy of eternal reward. That's as relevant a requirement as the other if one insists on dodging the point with the demand. "Equilibrium"? Give me a break!
It should be pointed out that Dan's questions about such thing supports a works-based salvation. It ignores that one can be a vile human being and repent with far less time left on his life to undo all the evil he perpetrated, and still find himself in God's presence for all eternity. What better example could there be than the thief on the cross next to Christ, with his end hours away, having admitted his own culpability yet receiving the promise of Christ which washed it all away? The death bed conversion has always troubled people when the notion of justice comes up. It would suggest that salvation is not about stealing a cookie, mass murder or never having committed a sinful act. Conversely, none of that could then matter with regard to eternal punishment.
Why in the name of God would you waste all this time arguing about a question that you claim you can’t answer. Of course you hide behind the authoritatively excuse, as if anyone is asking for an authoritative answer.
I suspect you know exactly what’s being asked, you just don’t want to answer it.
So let’s get really basic.
Do you believe that there is anything that we experience after death?
If no, then you have nothing to contribute.
If yes, then do you believe that there is some degree of God passing some sort of judgement on humans?
If yes, do you believe that the results of that judgement are eternal?
This is why having a conversation with you is like talking to a JW or a Mormon. It’s like you have no desire to acknowledge what Christians have historically believed and what terms mean.
Art,
While I suspect that you’re on the right track, we clearly need to get Dan to lay some foundation before jumping to that conclusion.
I just re read my original post, and I’m no convinced that his first comment was more or less intentionally “misunderstanding” the point of the post.
Craig... "Why in the name of God would you waste all this time arguing about a question that you claim you can’t answer. "
Arguing? You're yelling at me demanding I answer some question I don't understand. I've respectfully requested more information/clarity so that I can answer the question. How is that arguing?
As the question is asked, it's not making sense to me. Nonetheless, I'm TRYING to answer because it's important to you, it appears, seeing as how you keep belittling me for not answering it. And so, I'm asking for clarity. Don't clarify if you don't want, but I can't answer it if I don't understand it.
What's hard to understand about that?
Craig...
1. "Do you believe that there is anything that we experience after death?"
Yes.
2. "If no, then you have nothing to contribute."
If no, I might still have questions about your position. What's wrong with that?
3. "If yes, then do you believe that there is some degree of God passing some sort of judgement on humans?"
Sure. Yes.
4. "If yes, do you believe that the results of that judgement are eternal?"
Not necessarily. Again, it depends on what you mean by "the results of that judgment..."
IF you mean, "Dan, do you think God will torture you for an eternity IF you don't get saved the right way?"
Then no, I don't think THAT "result" is eternal, because I don't believe that result is rational or believable.
If you mean, "Do you think that a judgment will be passed on you for your sins and there will be some sort of "punishment" or limitation of some sort - not necessarily eternal torture, but some limited punishment...?"
Then the answer is, I just don't know. Maybe. Who knows? I do affirm that I believe in grace, but how that looks in eternity, I simply don't know, any more than you do. Not authoritatively.
As you can see, I'm endlessly and patiently trying to answer your questions, even the ones you won't answer clarifying questions about.
Why not answer some questions yourself? Help me understand.
Do you think that there is a sin or set of sins that "deserve" an eternity of torture with no release, if you don't "get saved," and do so in the right way? If so, what are those sins?
Do you think that if a person ONLY SINNED ONE TIME (say they died young, not long after coming to understand the notion of sin) and that the sin was stealing a cookie, AND that this person didn't repent of that one sin and "get saved..." do you think that ONE SIN "deserves" a punishment of an eternity of torture?
If so, do you think that this punishment for stealing one cookie is fair and rational? Can you explain why?
Craig... "I suspect you know exactly what’s being asked, you just don’t want to answer it."
Craig... " I’m no convinced that his first comment was more or less intentionally “misunderstanding” the point of the post."
Marshal... "It should be pointed out that Dan's questions about such thing supports a works-based salvation."
Whatever you all may think you think you know, you're mistaken.
IF I tell you that I'm not understanding your question as it is asked, then it's because I don't understand your question as it's asked. WHY would I go through all this if I DID understand it?
And Marshal, your misunderstanding of my questions is NOT evidence that I support a works-based salvation. I will say, however, that it sounds oftentimes like you all do support it. Which is, in part, why I ask these sorts of questions. You all appear to be falling back to a "you must think a certain way, repent a certain way, agree with certain things we evangelicals believe in order to be saved..." which sounds like works-salvation, not grace.
Craig... "This is why having a conversation with you is like talking to a JW or a Mormon. It’s like you have no desire to acknowledge what Christians have historically believed and what terms mean."
That's an impressive charge. Help me out, please. WHERE specifically have I said or done anything that makes you think I have "no desire to acknowledge what Christians have historically believed..."?
Where have I done this? If you point it out to me, then I can repent, correct it and learn from my mistake. If you can't point anything out, maybe it would be more gracious for you not to say things like that.
"You're yelling at me demanding I answer some question I don't understand. I've respectfully requested more information/clarity so that I can answer the question. How is that arguing?"
No yelling and no demands from me. Perhaps arguing wasn't the perfect word, but that's just semantics.
"What's hard to understand about that?"
What's hard to understand about your previous behavior having consequences?
"1. "Do you believe that there is anything that we experience after death?"
Yes."
Thank the lord a simple direct answer.
"What's wrong with that?"
Nothing, it still would mean that you have nothing to contribute.
"3. "If yes, then do you believe that there is some degree of God passing some sort of judgement on humans?"
Sure. Yes."
May not be as unequivocal as one would hope, but two simple direct answers in a row.
"4. "If yes, do you believe that the results of that judgement are eternal?"
Not necessarily. Again, it depends on what you mean by "the results of that judgment...""
It's really quite simple, you're likely overthinking it. For example, in Matt 25 Jesus speaks of a division between sheep and goats. Once the division is made, do the sheep remain eternally sheep? Do the goats remain eternally goats?
Try that. If you can answer that, we'll move on.
Craig... "t's really quite simple, you're likely overthinking it."
I agree it's potentially really quite simple, but I don't think I'm overthinking it. I think you're refusing to answer clarifying questions to make it clearer.
Craig... "For example, in Matt 25 Jesus speaks of a division between sheep and goats. Once the division is made, do the sheep remain eternally sheep? Do the goats remain eternally goats?"
In the parable, it suggests that the sheep remain sheep and the goats remain goats. The question is, does this parable suggest that it's just to punish people for an eternity of torture for relatively minor mistakes, even just one "sin..."? Or is that not the point the parable is trying to get across.
I don't think that's the point of the parable at all and if that's what you're focusing on, you're missing the point.
"In the parable, it suggests that the sheep remain sheep and the goats remain goats. The question is, does this parable suggest that it's just to punish people for an eternity of torture for relatively minor mistakes, even just one "sin..."? Or is that not the point the parable is trying to get across."
Only one comment in and you make my point about you overthinking things in your first comment. Thank you so much.
The ONLY questions for the purposes of this discussion is; "Do the sheep remain sheep", "Do the goats remain goats?".
If you can't come up with a simple, direct, answer for those questions, then you are hopeless. Just answer the simple questions, with a simple answer. IF we can lay that foundation of agreement, then we can build from that.
Your hunches about what things mean are simply getting in the way at this point, because you're overthinking things.
"I don't think that's the point of the parable at all and if that's what you're focusing on, you're missing the point."
1. I don't care what you think the point of the parable is.
2. I'm trying to get your (as much as possible) agreement on one small point.
3. I you asserting that I'm missing the point is a claim of fact, which you can't prove.
4. I'm actually trying to use one facet of the Matt 25 story is AN EXAMPLE of an entirely different point.
Once again. Stop overthinking and rushing ahead. I'm trying to build point by point and you jumping ahead based on your assumptions and bringing extraneous elements in is just making things harder.
Dan,
i deleted your comment because this conversation IS NOT the place for your eisegesis of Matthew 25. You've spouted the same crap ad nauseum-ad infinitum and it's not pertinent here.
You've never been able to explain why you assert the fact claims about the text that you do, and I don't care.
FOCUS. I've literally asked two simple questions (do sheep eternally=sheep?, goats=goats)
Please answer those two questions and then shut up.
If your next comment isn't some version of; yes/yes. no/no, idk/idk, It'll get deleted until you figure out that I'm serious.
How about: I'll pass. I've answered your questions, you've refused to answer mine. My answers have been reasonable and, where possible, factual. Yours have been nonsensical.
I'm willing to go only so far with trying to get answers from you to reasonable questions, politely asked. You bring up questions, unrelated to the post, I answer them and then you get angry that I'm answering them and fail to see how my answers are direct and clear. You're asking questions that I'm answering without responding in a like manner.
You are clearly not interested in engaging in respectful conversation. Should that change, let me know.
I don't know if you're meaning to come across as bullying and irrational and hyper-emotional, but that's what's happening.
Good luck.
Then you'll pass. If you can't answer two simple questions in order to establish a foundation of agreement in order to move forward, then I guess you're choosing to pass will tell me something about you, about your willingness to make yourself clearly understood, and about your ability to have a conversation where you aren't able to move on until a foundation for moving on has been established. So, you do what you want.
"I've answered your questions, you've refused to answer mine."
No, you really haven't. I'll give you credit for trying, but no you haven't answered the two currently on the table.
The second is factually untrue. (especially if one looks at the your track record in the recent past) As virtually always, I've answered some of your questions, I've responded to some of your questions, I've explained why I won't answer some of your questions, and I haven't answered some of your questions YET. I get that you get impatient, but I think you'd agree that if the answers to questions B,C,and D require agreement on the answer to question A, then it would be supremely stupid to answer B,C,&D while A was still in doubt.
"My answers have been reasonable and, where possible, factual. Yours have been nonsensical."
If I haven't answered your questions, what answers are you bitching about? Contradict yourself much? Oh, you THINK your answers have been amazing, maybe you're not the most objective judge.
"You are clearly not interested in engaging in respectful conversation. Should that change, let me know."
I've always been interested in respectful conversation, I'm sorry that you find being asked to respect that foundation I'm trying to build and being patient with the process so difficult to accept. While I'm sure my frustration shows through more than I'd like, I'm not sure that you're the best example of "respectful conversation". Somehow, I'm not sure that continuously mis-characterizng others and making false claims about them constitutes "respectful".
"I don't know if you're meaning to come across as bullying and irrational and hyper-emotional, but that's what's happening."
From someone who's directed multiple vitriolic, expletive laden, personal attacks at me over the years, that's quite a leap. Again, I'm sorry if being asked to focus (increasingly strongly) and to be patient before I answer some of your questions, is too irrational. I deeply apologize if my frustration over having to reword the same question over and over until you think it's just right for you to answer is "bullying", or if my annoyance over your penchant to introduce something completely off topic and then expect everyone to follow your lead, has shown though. I didn't think it quite rose to "hyper-emotional", but I guess it could have.
I'd suggest that you consider how your words and actions affect others, just consider the tiny possibility that you might be part of the problem. Just consider that showing respect, is an excellent way to get respect. Open your mind to the possibility that maybe the right move is to trust the other, accept that they might not automatically be wrong, and go along with their request, especially when it's something as benign as answering two simple questions before going any further.
So, you comment or not, it's your choice. Just don't bitch when your silence draws conclusions that you might not like.
Craig... " If you can't answer two simple questions"
sigh.
Dan... "In the parable, it suggests that the sheep remain sheep and the goats remain goats."
Answered directly. Already.
Good luck.
Up here, we call that sort of thing "Minnesota Nice", everywhere else in the world they call it passive aggressive. It's not necessarily a compliment.
Thank you ever so much for going the extra mile and answering these difficult questions as unequivocally as you are capable of.
For the purposes of my moving forward, I'm going to treat the answers as yes and yes.
Now that we've agreed that the results of God's judgement are eternal. Sheep eternally=sheep and goats eternally=goats.
We can move on from there.
Since God's judgement results in eternal consequences, then by what standard would one assume that the punishment side and the reward side would not be equally eternal?
"Could you clarify?"
I've been trying.
"What are some behaviors that you think deserve Eternal punishment and that this is fair?"
If we can't agree that ANY results of God's judgement are eternal, how can we jump immediately to specific acts? This is called jumping ahead based on your assumptions.
"For instance, if your child still look cookie, should they be punished eternally?"
Since this leaves out so many alternative factors and assumes a standard of human perfection never achieved, it's a silly and extreme example that is of no use in a serious discussion.
"What crime or crimes can someone do in 20-60 years where a just punishment is an eternity of torture, for instance?"
In court they'd object because this assumes facts not in evidence. It's an example of jumping past agreeing on foundational points, in order to disagree on something else.
"As to the suggestion that I'm being obtuse?"
Do you know what a question actually is?
"Is that okay?"
Sure, but if you could do so without inserting your assumptions about others positions and jumping ahead to things that haven't had a foundation laid for it would help.
"Are you saying that there are some wrongs that could be done that a fair and just punishment will last forever? Like eternal torture, for instance?"
No, I'm trying to get you to agree to the foundational premise that the results of God's judgement are eternal.
"Let's make it easy, let's set aside the really horrendous sins. Most people don't murder, kill, rape, torture, abuse, cause physical harm to others. Agreed?. For most people who have not done any of those serious harm crimes, what wrongs can they do where a just and fair punishment would be an eternity of torture?"
I'm trying to be patient and not "hyper-emotional", but you've literally asked this same question 4 times in the same comment. Do you understand that I can't answer a question before I see it, and that asking it 4 times/comment won't get you an answer any faster?
"If you're just talking in regards to EUR example, fairness is not the right word, I don't think. I think equilibrium is. Fairness to whom? The construct itself?"
Fine, equilibrium then. For the purposes of this thread, I'm focusing purely on the eternal aspect of God's judgement. I'd argue that eternal reward against 5 seconds of punishment isn't fair. Mostly I'd say that it's not fair to God, perhaps. But, that's a topic for another thread. Perhaps, you could host that and allow unlimited comments by those you disagree with, and police your troll while your at it.
"Am I understanding your construct correctly? If so, have I answered the question to your satisfaction?"
Lord knows, and no.
"Are you asking, beyond your hypothetical scenario..., in reality, are punishment and reward eternal?"
I'm not sure that laying out some of the options constitutes a "scenario", (it's why I separated reward and punishment), but yes the hope was that you would assent to the options you agreed with.
"If the reward for good is eternal... by that, do you mean that you receive $1000000 everyday for eternity for doing a good act, for instance?"
No, I'd have guessed that the term "heaven" might have given you a teensy, tiny clue where I was going. Clearly too obscure of a reference.
"By the punishment for bad being Universal, did you mean to say eternal?"
Yes.
"And if by that you meant that you would receive 10 spankings from the principal everyday for eternity, but otherwise you're also enjoying your million dollars a day?"
No.
"... do you see how the question as it is stated is a little confusing?"
No, but I'm always willing to help when specific problems are pointed out and not just stupid examples.
"Would you mind clarifying"
Sure, I'll try to re word some questions that might help. I
"So, are both eternal, are neither eternal, or is one or the other eternal?"
That's what I'm asking. Perhaps you could answer.
"Are you asking, beyond your hypothetical scenario..., in reality, are punishment and reward eternal?"
Yes, I'm asking if either or both are eternal. Clearly if I expected an authoritative answer I wouldn't be asking here. But, since you've been quite free with your certainty about what is NOT the case, why not take a shot is what you think IS the case?
"Arguing? You're yelling at me demanding I answer some question I don't understand. I've respectfully requested more information/clarity so that I can answer the question. How is that arguing?"
I can't imagine this is a sincere question, but I'd call disputing, asking the same question 4 times/comment, and moving beyond the limited focus tantamount to arguing. Of course, I'd suggest that one more semantic argument isn't helpful either. Yelling, really? Have I chosen to emphasize things, yes, yelling no. FYU, for the master of ALL CAPS to get this bent from a few emphasized words tells me something.
"What's hard to understand about that?"
The confrontational nature of your responses, and your lack of trust or humility.
"F you mean, "Dan, do you think God will torture you for an eternity IF you don't get saved the right way?""
Again, no. Perhaps you'd get better answers if you accurately represented the positions you were asking about.
"If you mean, "Do you think that a judgment will be passed on you for your sins and there will be some sort of "punishment" or limitation of some sort - not necessarily eternal torture, but some limited punishment...?""
Or put another way, "Do you believe that the results of God's judgement are eternal?"
"Then the answer is, I just don't know. Maybe. Who knows?"
Well, God should, and I'm not asking you for authoritative, all encompassing knowledge, I suspect that you just don't want to "let your yes be yes..."
"Why not answer some questions yourself?"
Why not start with specific questions without adding in your assumptions and opinions? Do you understand that by moving on to other questions before we determine if we agree on the basic questions, will lead to more confusion and frustration?
"Do you think that there is a sin or set of sins that "deserve" an eternity of torture with no release, if you don't "get saved," and do so in the right way? If so, what are those sins?"
What a great example of exactly what I was just talking about. You can't even affirm or deny that ANY sense of God's judgement is eternal, but you want to go down this ridiculous road.
"Do you think that if a person ONLY SINNED ONE TIME (say they died young, not long after coming to understand the notion of sin) and that the sin was stealing a cookie, AND that this person didn't repent of that one sin and "get saved..." do you think that ONE SIN "deserves" a punishment of an eternity of torture?"
Because asking one question based on an your unrealistic assumptions isn't quite enough, you feel the need to repeat yourself. Assuming facts not in evidence, show some damn patience.
"If so, do you think that this punishment for stealing one cookie is fair and rational? Can you explain why?"
I don't think anything about your absurd hypothetical is rational, so no.
"That's an impressive charge. Help me out, please. WHERE specifically have I said or done anything that makes you think I have "no desire to acknowledge what Christians have historically believed..."?"
Not really. You frequently make the same sorts of arguments that the JW's or Mormons do, or you sometimes use terms that have historically meant something in the context of Christianity, while pouring your own meaning into them. In this case, historically the term "heaven" has been a term for the "place" of reward, while "hell" has been a term for the place of punishment. I'm sorry if those references are to obscure or it's to ridiculous to suspect that you know how they are used.
"Where have I done this?"
I don't have time to list them all, but see above.
"If you point it out to me, then I can repent, correct it and learn from my mistake. If you can't point anything out, maybe it would be more gracious for you not to say things like that."
You really shouldn't tell lies like this.
Since I finally got the answer, you got what the answer unlocked. Too bad you aren't patient enough to do what you're asked and wait.
"What crime or crimes can someone do in 20-60 years where a just punishment is an eternity of torture, for instance?"
This is an excellent question, let's dig in a little shall we?
1. What possible good can someone do in 20-60 years where a just reward is an eternity of anything?
2. For starters, I'd argue that someone who was directly responsible for the death, wounding, and destruction of ten's of millions of people and their property might be worthy of consideration.
3. What is the deciding factor isn't the specific type of sin, but who one sins against?
4. Name one person who's been good enough to receive and eternal reward (or to get into heaven if that's an easier concept)?
5. What if we perceive sin to be closer to breaking the rules in monopoly, but in reality it's much more severe?
6. What if it's true that all sin is rebellion against God and our attempt to put ourselves in the position of deciding right and wrong?
"How about: I'll pass. I've answered your questions, you've refused to answer mine. My answers have been reasonable and, where possible, factual. Yours have been nonsensical."
In the 50 minutes since the above pronouncement, I've gotten 9 comments.
I could hope that this means that Dan acknowledges his impatience and apologizes, but that would truly be an absurd hope.
I'll deal with them later, I suspect it's just re hashing the same old crap and asking the same question for the 13th time.
Dan,
I'm sorry, but additional eisegesis of Matthew 25 is not helpful and isn't going to make it out of moderation. I, foolishly, used ONE ASPECT of Matthew 25 as a limited example in the hopes that I could lead to to the one specific thing I was trying to get an answer to. Apparently that was the stupidest possible choice I could have made because you now can't understand that it was a specific example, not an entirely new topic where you made assertions of fact about the parable.
If the notion that the entirety of Matthew 25 and your hunches about it are not part of this discussion, something that you are having trouble understanding? If so, I'll try to make it simpler, although it will probably not be as polite if I do.
Craig... 1. What possible good can someone do in 20-60 years where a just reward is an eternity of anything?
Why is just an average relatively decent life not worthy of an eternity of good? I would propose in a Kingdom based upon forgiveness, love, grace and justice, grace is a sufficient reason for living in such a realm.
"2. For starters, I'd argue that someone who was directly responsible for the death, wounding, and destruction of ten's of millions of people and their property might be worthy of consideration.
Maybe so, I'm not arguing against the very worst of sinners - those who kill, rape and harm with abandon - being punished. Maybe even for an eternity. I don't know, though, that's above my pay grade.
3. What is the deciding factor isn't the specific type of sin, but who one sins against?
So, if someone steals a cookie from their parents' kitchen, they've sinned against the parents and presumably God. How does that affect the "deciding factor?"
The parents are able to forgive the child and restore them to family by grace. Are you suggesting God can't/won't do so?
4. Name one person who's been good enough to receive and eternal reward (or to get into heaven if that's an easier concept)?
You.
5. What if we perceive sin to be closer to breaking the rules in monopoly, but in reality it's much more severe?
Someone would have to make that case. I don't know of anyone who is as trivial about sin as to think it's board game misdeeds, nor do I know of any rational case that normal sins (stealing a cookie, lying about something, etc) that are "eternal torture" level sin.
Would you like to make that case?
6. What if it's true that all sin is rebellion against God and our attempt to put ourselves in the position of deciding right and wrong?
A. One would have to be aware of a sin and its "rebellion against God" nature (if that were the case), for starters. For instance, if someone was unaware of a God (or didn't believe in a god) and that this God wanted them to not say "shit," then it's not really rational to say that they are rebelling against a God they don't know by breaking rules they were not aware of. Rationally speaking.
B. I think a case can be made that sin is at least potentially rebelling against God, at times, but even so, are you arguing that God is so ruthless as to be unable to forgive such a person?
C. What if? Many questions remain unanswered to be able to address this hypothetical meaningfully, it seems to me. NOT because I'm dodging, but because there are questions that have to be answered first in order to meaningfully answer.
"You'll only offer up your opinion if I AGREE with your presuppositions ahead of time?"
No, no, no,no,no,no, I see no point in moving forward with anything until you can simply affirm your best, expert Bible interpreter, guess about the eternal nature of God's judgement.
If you suspect that God's judgement is not eternal, simply say so clearly and forthrightly. I thought, foolishly, that you had given this answer, apparently you didn't.
Do the results of God's judgement have eternal repercussions?
The fact that this simple notion confounds you so is becoming increasingly frustrating, but I'm really trying to be patient.
You seem to have acknowledged that God will somehow judge everyone after death, so let's try it this way.
Does that judgement that we all experience after death result in eternal consequences or less than eternal consequences?
Since your obsessed with this idiotic question, and cling to the misrepresentation it represents, I'll offer you a deal. I'll answer it right here and now, if you'll acknowledge that it's based on a misrepresentation, acknowledge that this singular answer counts for the hundreds of times you've asked the question, and promise to never ask it again.
"Which gets us back to the questions: IS your view of God one that this god will punish people for an eternity of torture for no chance of redemption, even for relatively minor offenses? Do you think this god will punish for an eternity for even ONE single misdeed, like stealing a cookie?"
No.
Craig... "If you suspect that God's judgement is not eternal, simply say so clearly and forthrightly..."
I've answered. It really really really depends on what you mean by, "is God's judgement eternal?"
If by that question, you mean, will God punish us for an eternity for committing even one sin and failing to correctly repent for it? My answer is no. That would be inconsistent with a rational understanding of a just and loving God. As taught in the Bible and reckoned by good common sense and reason.
If by that question you mean, will there always be negative consequences for bad behavior? My answer would be probably yes. That's rational.
Do you understand why I can't answer the question as it's asked? That I need more clarity on what you mean by the question and the circumstances leading up to the question?
"Why is just an average relatively decent life not worthy of an eternity of good?"
Didn't anyone ever tell you not to answer a question with a question? This is why. You haven't in any way shape or form explained what "good" is sufficient for an eternity of reward. Try again.
"I would propose in a Kingdom based upon forgiveness, love, grace and justice, grace is a sufficient reason for living in such a realm."
I really don't care what you would propose, it has no bearing on anything. If you're going to try the "I'm not God" dodge, then don't think you can play God when it suits you.
"Maybe so, I'm not arguing against the very worst of sinners - those who kill, rape and harm with abandon - being punished. Maybe even for an eternity. I don't know, though, that's above my pay grade."
At least it's an answer, not a question. If you can't agree that tens of millions of deaths isn't enough, then why wouldn't you just forgive them and let them into your utopia?
"So, if someone steals a cookie from their parents' kitchen, they've sinned against the parents and presumably God. How does that affect the "deciding factor?"
I actually already addressed this, but let's just say that maybe sin against an infinite God results in an infinite punishment. FYI, please point me to the actual person who's just "stolen cookies" one time in their life? Also, can you point me to the cookie exemption for "Thou shall not steal"?
"You."
What in the hell are you talking about? Given the fact that you don't know a damn thing about me this is simply an absurd claim. Although, if you want to prove your claim, this would be a good time. I guess it's a good thing that your pride isn't so large that you said that it was yourself.
"Someone would have to make that case. I don't know of anyone who is as trivial about sin as to think it's board game misdeeds, nor do I know of any rational case that normal sins (stealing a cookie, lying about something, etc) that are "eternal torture" level sin."
Which doesn't really answer the question.
"Would you like to make that case?"
Not here and now, maybe not ever. I actually think you made my point by seeming to suggest that we as humans define the severity of sin. But, after thinking about it, my answer is no. It would be a waste of my time, and then I'd expect you to provide proof of all of your claims and it wouldn't end well.
"A. One would have to be aware of a sin and its "rebellion against God" nature (if that were the case), for starters. For instance, if someone was unaware of a God (or didn't believe in a god) and that this God wanted them to not say "shit," then it's not really rational to say that they are rebelling against a God they don't know by breaking rules they were not aware of. Rationally speaking."
You're assuming that it's possible to be 100% unaware that any behavior is sinful, but (and you'd need to prove your claim) in theory it's possible.
"B. I think a case can be made that sin is at least potentially rebelling against God, at times, but even so, are you arguing that God is so ruthless as to be unable to forgive such a person?"
No, maybe you've heard of this this we Christians call The Gospel, it's all about God offering forgiveness for sin. It's a great story. Hell, even Calvin got this one right, it's too bad you get so hung up on misrepresenting one of the points that you ignore the rest,
"C. What if? Many questions remain unanswered to be able to address this hypothetical meaningfully, it seems to me. NOT because I'm dodging, but because there are questions that have to be answered first in order to meaningfully answer."
Since I've answered everything published in this thread, that can't be stopping you. Of course, if your beliefs about something so significant are limited by questions you have for me about other topics, then I'll tell you right now that I can't answer your questions well enough for you to determine what you believe? I apologize, but I don't want that kind of power over you. Your answer to "What if?" shouldn't depend on anyone but you.
I know you can do it.
One more before I have to stop.
You seem to have some trouble with the notion of "eternal repercussions", so I'll try to make this as simple as I know how.
"eternal" extending into the infinite future.
"repercussions" the effects that follow a cause.
I suspect that you think I'm using "repercussions" in a negative sense, when it's neither positive or negative. I'm not trying to trap you into agreeing with eternal punishment. I'm simply trying to find a neutral word to explain the simple concept of cause and effect.
To be short, I'm using both words according to their primary MW definitions. For someone with all of your expertise, figuring out the standard meaning of two common English words and combining them shouldn't be that hard.
Again, I'm trying to be gracious and patient.
Because you can sometimes be dense, and bitchy when you don't think your questions have been answered, I'll try this.
"Does my answer, it depends on what you mean by Eternal repercussions, not make sense to you?"
No.
"What is confusing about that?"
Because you should be smart enough to understand the meanings of two common words.
But thanks, you are definitely pushing my conclusions about you in one particular direction, and I appreciate that.
Craig... "Because you should be smart enough to understand the meanings of two common words."
Indeed. I understand the meaning of the words. And I understand that repercussions depend upon what happened in the first place.
The repercussions of killing someone might be receiving the death penalty, in our system. Or it might be going free and not getting in trouble if you're a police officer who shoots somebody in their own home because you all made a mistake.
In this world, the repercussions when we're talking about penalties are always dependent upon the circumstances.
Thus, killing someone might have a lifelong repercussion if you get sent to jail for life or receive capital punishment. Or it may have temporary repercussions if you are found justified in that killing.
Thus, my answer to you is, it depends. It is an entirely reasonable response.
Craig... " I'll answer it right here and now, if you'll acknowledge that it's based on a misrepresentation..."
You know, right, that you have to actually support the claim that it's a misrepresentation? That making the claim that it's a misrepresentation is not enough?
What about the QUESTION is a misrepresentation?
And as always, I truly want to know. I don't know the answer or why you'd make that claim, and so I'm asking the question to try to get an answer. It is, of course, not an intentional misrepresentation and, as far as I know, it's not a misrepresentation at all.
You know why?
Because it's a QUESTION. A reasonable question, respectfully asked, in trying to get an answer and, as I've already explained, for entirely rational reasons.
Maybe some other questions might help, if they got answered:
Do you think that people don't commit a sin in a meaningful way UNTIL such time as they deliberately choose to do so? That a toddler who gets angry and throws a ball that knocks a candle over that burns down a house is NOT guilty of arson and any attempt to prosecute that toddler would fail because the toddler did not "sin" in trying to burn down a house?
OR, do you think that people "inherit" a sin burden and come in to the world, already somehow functionally "guilty" of thousands of sins, before they ever actually committed a sin on their own? (I don't think that's your position, just clarifying).
Dan... "Why is just an average relatively decent life not worthy of an eternity of good?"
Craig... "Didn't anyone ever tell you not to answer a question with a question? This is why. You haven't in any way shape or form explained what "good" is sufficient for an eternity of reward. Try again."
1. Who says heaven/eternity has to be "earned?" You're making a presumption that you have not proven.
2. But okay, I'll answer your question: There's a woman who is an imperfect human being, prone to make mistakes, to not knowing all the facts, to not knowing the right thing to do in all circumstances, to getting tired and not feeling like doing the right thing all the time.
And she doesn't. She tells her mother she doesn't have time to visit her this weekend, when she just didn't feel like it (a lie). She gets an extra dollar in change from McDonald's and doesn't go back to report the overage (stealing?) and otherwise, sins throughout her life. Sometimes, pretty serious (by normal standards) sins.
And, in spite of her failings and imperfections, she lived a relatively good life. She adopted stray dogs and cats. Later in her life, she adopted some children who were struggling and homeless. She worked as a social worker, helping hundreds - maybe thousands of human beings. In spite of her meager social work salary, she gave to organizations to help the environment, the homeless, public radio (and thus, Democracy). She marched in honor and solidarity with her black neighbors and her gay neighbors. Her meager efforts, joined with the efforts of others, saved thousands of lives and made life better for thousands of others.
And she lived a life of grace, embracing the teachings of Jesus by the way she lived.
This is a life worthy of the grace of God, informed by the grace of God. This is a life worthy of the realm of God, or heaven, if you prefer.
I personally know dozens, if not hundreds of such saints.
Do you rebuke that assessment?
Again, it depends on the measuring criteria.
Does heaven have to be earned? I don't think so.
Do you have to be perfect (even though we were not designed to be perfect)? I don't think so.
"1. Who says heaven/eternity has to be "earned?" You're making a presumption that you have not proven."
Not at all, I'm simply rephrasing a question you asked to look at the other side. If anyone is suggesting that heaven is earned, it's you. But thanks for not acknowledging the problems with answering a question with a question.
"Do you rebuke that assessment?"
Do I "rebuke" that assessment, no. Will I point out the obvious that it's a contrived example intended to reinforce your point that a person's good behavior is what makes her "worthy" of heaven. Will I also point out that this concept you assume of "minor sins", is something that you haven't proven or defined.
"Does heaven have to be earned?"
Since no one (except possibly you) is suggesting that heaven is earned, I'm not sure who you are arguing against. You've repeatedly argued that an eternity of punishment isn't deserved (based on your perceptions), why would an eternity of reward be fair.
"You know, right, that you have to actually support the claim that it's a misrepresentation? That making the claim that it's a misrepresentation is not enough?
What about the QUESTION is a misrepresentation?"
1. That there has ever been anyone who committed only one sin.
2. That I have ever claimed that one sin is "sufficient" to send someone to hell.
3. Please show me where I have ever said anything remotely similar to the assumption in your question.
"And as always, I truly want to know. I don't know the answer or why you'd make that claim, and so I'm asking the question to try to get an answer. It is, of course, not an intentional misrepresentation and, as far as I know, it's not a misrepresentation at all."
And you got your answer, yet you still bitch to protect your misrepresentation.
You know why?
Because it's a QUESTION. A reasonable question, respectfully asked, in trying to get an answer and, as I've already explained, for entirely rational reasons.
It's a question that you've gotten answered.
"Do you think that people don't commit a sin in a meaningful way UNTIL such time as they deliberately choose to do so?"
I guess I'd have to know how you are defining "sin", "meaningful" and "deliberately chose" before I could answer that. But, I'd suggest that it's not very likely that someone would accidentally tell a lie.
"That a toddler who gets angry and throws a ball that knocks a candle over that burns down a house is NOT guilty of arson and any attempt to prosecute that toddler would fail because the toddler did not "sin" in trying to burn down a house?"
You seem to be confusing crime with sin. I'd suggest that trying to pin something that is a lifelong situation down to one single contrived incident, is both pointless and annoying.
"OR, do you think that people "inherit" a sin burden and come in to the world, already somehow functionally "guilty" of thousands of sins, before they ever actually committed a sin on their own? (I don't think that's your position, just clarifying)."
No.
I don't reacall an answer to this ever.
Do people sin because they are sinners, or are the sinners because they sin?
"Indeed. I understand the meaning of the words. And I understand that repercussions depend upon what happened in the first place."
"In this world, the repercussions when we're talking about penalties are always dependent upon the circumstances."
Yet, we're not talking about "in this world".
"The question is not if stealing something, even something as small as a cookie, is wrong."
Really, you are now the sole arbiter of what "the question" is? Where did you get this power? Why are all other questions subject to your whims?
"The question is does that crime merit an eternity of torture?"
No, that's your question based on your unsupported assumptions. I've answered it, and you're too damn obtuse to stop asking it.
"Let me take a guess here."
Why would I indulge your guesses? Why would you bother to waste time with guesses? Who the hell cares about your guesses?
Is that a correct guess?"
No.
"If so, I would just ask you, who, upon seeing a cookie and sort of wanting it and knowing that it's not theirs..., who takes it thinking I'm going to rebel against God. I'm going to spit in God's face and say I want this cookie?"
Once again, you keep asking me to explain the motives of other people. Do you understand that I'm not a clairvoyant, and that I can't speak for others?
"Does anybody do that in the real world?"
Use those exact words, probably not. Engage in behavior they know is wrong, daily. Justify their reasons why it's not wrong for them, regularly.
Are you really suggesting that people steal without consciously knowing that they are taking something that belongs to someone else? That they just accidentally hot wire a car and sell it to a chop shop? That people don't knowingly and intentionally do things that are wrong on a regular basis?
"Can you?"
No I can't figure out why this simple phrase confounds you and sends you to such lengths to avoid the answer.
"Allow me to explain why it's not at all in the least in any way possible and idiotic question but is, in fact, a very pertinent question."
Oh, please waste a bunch of time with a load of crap about a question that I already answered.
"1. You and I both agree that people sin, make mistakes, fall short of perfection. 2. You and I both agreed that there are no doubt thousands of sins in our lives. Maybe tens of thousands. Maybe more. 3. It is reasonable, then, that at some point in our lives, we committed our first sin, our first act of wrong doing. Do you agree?"
Sure, but it's still stupidly obsessing over one sin out of millions, so what.
"4. And in all of humanity, sometimes, someone will have died after only committing one sin. Further, even more people will die after committing 2, 3, 10, 20 sins. Is this not completely rational and factual?"
Please provide proof of this claim/assumption/hunch? In the absence of proof, I'd agree that it's theoretically possible at best.
"5. Thus, if we can answer the question, will God punish this person who committed one sin with an eternity of torture if they don't properly repent of it, will we not be establishing a principle?"
Well, since I've given my answer, why are you beating this dead horse?
"6. You answered No, to the question. You do not believe that God will punish all those who commit one sin before they die with an eternity of torture. What about the people who commit 10 sins?"
This is your solution, to ask the same question again with a slight difference. I've answered "the question" and I'm done with this silliness.
"7. I suspect that when you say no, what you're probably trying to get at is, no, God won't punish them forever for stealing one cookie. God will punish them for some other crime. Is that correct?"
Good lord. If you're going to bitch and moan wherever someone takes a quote of yours literally, why would you think it appropriate to "suspect" and "guess" about others views? Oh, the horse is already dead.
"Or do you truly think that those who commit just a few sins do not deserve an eternity of torture?"
If you can't prove that these people exist, I see no reason to help you beat this horse. How about this. How about you tell me what is the "number of sins", that tips the scales? How about if you tell me what happens to these "minor" sinners? How about you provide support for your hunches.
"Don't you see why this line of questions is very pertinent to this discussion?"
No.
"We are trying to establish what merits an eternity of torture and what doesn't?"
No, we're not. You're already on record that you don't believe that killing tens of millions of people isn't quite evil enough for you, so no, we're not trying to do that at all. You are, and you're trying to do it by focusing on one aspect of the problem.
"It's a reasonable thing to try to figure out. Do you disagree?"
No.
"Does my answer, it depends on what you mean by Eternal repercussions, not make sense to you?"
Not since I've clarified.
"What is confusing about that?"
Your inability to answer a simple question or understand a two word phrase.
"If we were operating under a system of love and grace and Justice, then yes, you. If we're operating under a system where even one sin merits Eternal torture, then no one."
OK, except your original "answer" was predicated on being "good enough" to get into heaven. You haven't explained what "good enough" means an what one has to do to be "good enough". If you are positing the notion of "grace" as the answer, then that negates "good enough". Again, please provide the actual quote of anyone saying that "one sin merits eternal torture"?
hell, you can't even unequivocally agree that any outcome is eternal.
"I've answered. It really really really depends on what you mean by, "is God's judgement eternal?"
How about the plain obvious meaning, try that. Then stop trying to add your own prejudices and assumptions into the mix.
"...rational understanding of a just and loving God."
Please explain how you have a "rational" understanding of a being that you can't begin to fully comprehend and that you have no objective experience with. Just do it somewhere else, not in this thread.
"If by that question you mean, will there always be negative consequences for bad behavior?"
No, I literally mean "Will there always be consequences for behavior?". You keep assuming that I'm suggesting bad behavior. I'm literally asking, "Does an eternal God, pass judgement that lasts eternally. Maybe, it's because your not focused on the eternal part. Or, "Will those consequences determine where/how we spend eternity?"
"Do you understand why I can't answer the question as it's asked?"
Yes, because your pouring things into the question based on your assumptions, prejudices, and hunches.
"That I need more clarity on what you mean by the question and the circumstances leading up to the question?"
The circumstances leading up to the question are.
1. People live.
2. People die.
3. People stand before God and He judges them.
4. The results of that judgement are eternal.
or
5. The results of that judgement are not eternal.
"Which gets us back to the questions: IS your view of God one that this god will punish people for an eternity of torture for no chance of redemption, even for relatively minor offenses?"
Well, it depends on if you are suggesting that there will be an opportunity for redemption after death and judgement. But, with the example of this new wrinkle (damn, "the question" certainly doesn't stay either"the" or "question" does it? I just morphs into whatever you need it to be.
"Do you think this god will punish for an eternity for even ONE single misdeed, like stealing a cookie?"
Asked and answered. Still absurd.
"I'm not God, nor are you."
Yet you so often speak authoritatively on what God "will" or "will not" do. Even with that, no one is asking to you speak authoritatively, or speak for God. Just asking for your best simple direct answers. It's not like we have absolutely zero basis to form conclusions, nor is it like we need someone to return from the grave with an eyewitness account. I'll note that your announcement that no one has come back to tell us, seems to be based on your conclusion that every single person who's claimed to have done so is wrong. I'd like to see your proof to back up your claim. FYI, me asking you to prove your claim, isn't the same as me making the opposite claim.
"1. I literally don't know."
Yet you seem so certain about so much.
"2. My guess is that we will not be punished an eternity for ONE sin (or for 10,000)."
That's quite a guess. Although, you've already said that mass murder and genocide doesn't cross the eternal threshold, so 10K is just a pittance.
"3. And especially as I believe in grace, I don't believe in an eternal punishment."
So, do you believe in eternal anything? In eternal reward?
"4. I DO believe that people can choose self-imposed isolation from God, which is a self imposed hell that God would allow, as God allows for freedom of choice. That seems like a punishment to me. Eternal?"
Interesting that you think that humans get to choose their outcome and that God just meekly goes along.
"...which we have NO data on which to form opinions upon.:
Really, you are suggesting that we have absolutely zero "data" to form any conclusions about the afterlife?
"What I'm doing is forming opinions based upon the notion of a good, loving and just God, what is in the character of such a God?"
Got you. You're hunch is based on what you think God should do if He's as you imagine Him to be.
"Do you disagree?"
Disagree with what, you've thrown out at least tow hunches. Do I agree that babies are born 100% pure and sinless, no. Do I think it matters, no.
"1. That there has ever been anyone who committed only one sin." ? Do you truly believe that? How does one become a sinner if one does not first commit their first sin?"
So your answer is, everyone has to start somewhere. Great answer, but it doesn't actually answer the question. One's first sin, is simply that. One's first sin, it's not all sins, it's not the lase, it's just the first. But, please show me the person who stopped at just one.
" believe the point is that IF you are suffering hell/punishment for an eternity, THEN you are not enjoying Heaven/reward. Is that how you are envisioning your scenario? Or is there the possibility for both reward and punishment (as in this world, as in my salary/fine scenario)?"
As in my original post, I am suggesting that the belief in an eternal punishment (hell) and and eternal reward (heaven) are two of many options that people have suggested for what happens after death. The two are generally considered mutually exclusive. So, I am simply going with the view that most people who subscribe to those two options holds. I see no scenario for a revolving door between the two. Your hypothical didn't make any sense.
"As to "eternal reward," I don't know that I'm arguing that, but there, too, it would depend upon the circumstances, wouldn't it?"
No. Unless you can offer something that demonstrates that both reward and punishment are NOT eternal, then I see no reason to accept that either is variable or that excuses make a difference.
"I'm asking YOU if YOU think there are some behaviors that deserve eternal punishment and, if so, if this is fair. We do not NEED to agree for you to tell me your opinion. What am I missing?"
You're missing the fact that if it's impossible to agree that any possible results of God's judgement are eternal, then trying to apply your standards of "fair" to others and God is a waste of time. If you can't acknowledge that mass murder/genocide/wounding/maiming/mass destruction is worthy of an eternity of punishment (I'm not even going to torture/torment, just any degree of punishment), then the only point in your question is to paint others as worse than you.
"You skip the context and move on to a conclusion that we have not agreed upon."
Really, you didn't agree that sheep=sheep and goats=goats eternally, my bad.
"Now, how about apologizing for saying that I didn't answer them?"
How about you god first and not demand that others do what you won't?
"Since God's judgement results in eternal consequences, then by what standard would one assume that the punishment side and the reward side would not be equally eternal?" We don't know that God's judgment results in eternal consequences."
Do you understand the concept of an "if/then" statement? My point has always been that IF reward is eternal, THEN it logically follows that punishment is also eternal. If you want to argue something else, go right ahead.
"For instance, if your teenager stole a cookie, would you insist upon spanking them for an eternity?"
Really, this stupid trope again. Yes, let's base everything on one out of context hypothetical.
"When someone steals a cookie from me, then I have the option of forgiving them for it, with NO eternal consequences. If I, a mere mortal, can forgive with no eternal consequences, are you suggesting God is unable to do so?"
You seem to be suggesting that you and God are somehow on an equal level. I'm pretty sure that as an eternal being, that pretty much everything God does has eternal consequences. Are you suggesting that God forgives, then unforgives? That God is powerful enough to act against His nature?
"As to "the punishment and the reward side would not be equally eternal..." what do you MEAN by that?"
That both are eternal.
"That if God is going to punish us, God will do so for an eternity?"
That both punishment and reward would seem to be two sides of the same coin and that both share an eternal component.
"Or what do you mean?"
That both are eternal.
"Do you see how explaining your meaning will help to deal with your question?"
At this point, no.
" Two more questions for you to answer to help me understand your opinions:"
But it'll never be just two, and you'll never answer commensurately.
"1. Is it your opinion that the vast majority of humanity "deserves" an eternity in torment?"
No.
"2. Do you think they deserve this eternal punishment with no escape due to their sins and their failing to repent correctly?"
No.
"3. If so, how "bad," how many sins, what sorts of sins does it take IN YOUR OPINION to justify an eternity of torture with no possibility of escape?"
Since I've asked you virtually the same question with no answer, I'll show you how it's done.
A lifetime, with no repentance and no salvation.
"Given what I think your position is, these are reasonable questions."
Why not trying not to guess about what others positions are? Or, stop bitching when others draw rational conclusions from the words you choose to use.
"For the record, I'm just saying I don't know what God's position is on someone who'd kill millions of people - clearly it's wrong, clearly deserving of punishment... but does God think such a person should be tortured for an eternity?"
Great, finally a relatively clear answer. So, if not eternity, then how long? Why not just forgive them? What are the points where the punishments get repreived?
"I DO NOT KNOW. Do I think there might be extenuating circumstances (what if they were mentally ill/unbalanced?"
This question suggests that you've guessed that those who agree with you are solely focused on actions and that they believe that God can't do more than simply keep score of what we do, without regard to why we do it. It's almost like you're ignoring that justice administered by God will be perfectly just. Strange hunch.
"What if they truly didn't understand - somehow - the great magnitude of their evil?)?"
What if they didn't? Could it be possible that someone would kill tens of millions and somehow be unaware that it was somehow not appropriate? That it was just an accident?
What if God is able to look beyond people actions and understand their motivations as well.
"That is what I'm asking YOU?"
Then should;t you answer as well?
"So, your answer is no. IF someone lives and dies young and they only have the chance to commit one sin, then they should not go to hell, in your opinion?"
On what level is it rational for me to have answered this question, and for you to ask it over and over again?
"What if they only sin 20 times? One hundred times? What level of sin is, in your mind, rationally and justly due a penalty of an eternity of torture?"
Asked and answered. Yet you can't come up with what level of good behavior earns heaven. Nor the point at which one loses their get out of jail free card.
"Whether you understand it or not, these are exceedingly reasonable questions. Why not just answer them?"
I have. But you're going to live in a fantasy world where you think I haven't and repeat yourself.
"How about this, to help clarify: Do you think a one day old who dies HAS already sinned?"
No.
"Do you think that newborn's sin (or sin nature) warrants an eternity of torture?"
Again, no.
"How about the two year old who has certainly grown and begun to understand at some level the notion of right and wrong and has done some "wrong" things, including stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. Do you think that child has meaningfully "sinned?""
Possibly.
"Do you think their "sins" are rightly punished by an eternity of torture?"
No.
"How about the average 12 year old?"
No idea.
"Does that 12 year old and their hundreds of sins "deserve" a punishment of eternal torture?"
Possibly. Does he "deserve" to go to heaven?
"If so, why?"
"All have sinned", might be a reasonable place to start. "Wages of sin is death, might be germane?
"And if so, how is that punishment in any way fair or just, given the level of "crimes..."?"
If all you want to do is look at sin as a bunch of random accidents, divorced from any and all motivation, it's probably not.
"...it STILL depends on what you mean "pass judgment that lasts eternally." IF you mean, "Will God beat a person for an eternity with a fiery log for committing 100 sins?""
Well, I don't so why posit a stupid hypothetical, then burn the straw man.
"If you mean, "Does my sin have repercussions that go on for all of eternity...?" I don't know, but wouldn't think so."
Really, why not? Of course, I didn't limit my question to just sin, so you could answer the whole question. Or you could prove your point.
"If you mean, "Does God judge the good and the evil person on the day of their death and that "judgment" means there's no chance for redemption for the evil person?" I would say that doesn't sound reasonable or biblical."
OK, well if you say so without any actual support for your position or even the attempt to provide support, then I should uncritically believe you. Of course, your still hiding from answering about the eternality of the reward side of things.
"It depends is a simple two word answer. I'm not sure why it confounds you so."
Because it's seemingly intended to confound and distract from answering the question.
"Are you saying that you hold to a theory where circumstances don't matter?"
"Thay god rewards and punishes everyone the same way regardless of circumstances?"
No. Although I suspect that both reward and punishment are equal in duration.
"And that those rewards and punishments must be eternal or they don't matter?"
No.
"In the rational human world, flawed though it may be, we are able to distinguish between the violent man who has a history of violence and and who has beat and murdered his wife and children, between that man and the other man who has developmental delays and mental conditions that limits his understanding who accidentally kills a woman in a fit of anger. Humans aren't perfect, but we recognize that there's a distinct difference between those circumstances and any punishment would be measured according to the circumstances and intent. If you don't believe in that kind of Grace and reason, that sounds like a rather hellish worldview."
Since I've never said anything close to this, it's simply one more instances of you basing your argument on a "guess" not reality.
"You got me. I believe in the theory that humans have free will and that God does not Force God's self on anyone. Crazy, I know. Other people have written about it though. You might want to read about it."
OK, God doesn't force Himself on humans, but humans force themselves and impose their will on God. Gotcha. Good to know who you think is in charge of things.
"That both punishment and reward would seem to be two sides of the same coin and that both share an eternal component." And so, does that mean that if God chooses to punish us that God is limited to only punishing us for all of eternity that's the only option that God is able to come up with?"
No.
"And that said punishment must continue for an eternity with no hope of Escape from that punishment?"
I see nothing that indicates that there is an opportunity for repentance after death. But please show me where there is even a hint of an alternative?
I believe that you problem is that you've confused my proposal of an "if/then" proposition to try to determine of there was an agreement on that basic proposition, for an assertion that both sides are objectively true, and that we need to argue over your caricatures and guesses about what I meant, other than simply exploring the agreement or disagreement to the original if/then proposition.
But the fact that you could churn out around 20 comments after you claimed it was time to run away is quite impressive.
"Because we're able to move on. Because we're able to forgive. Tosser able to forgive and forget."
This is the first thing that you've been definitive and unequivocal on that I can remember in this thread. How interesting that you have such certainty, with so little data.
"I'm quite certain my kids have done some wrong things in their 20 years living in our house. But other than one or two, I could not tell you what a single one of them was. Do you know why?"
No, and I really don't care because you aren't God. But you're going to tell me whether I care of not, whether it's germane or not, because God acts like you.
"Cuz they weren't that critical, because of more serious ones were forgiven, and because we moved on. That's true of their good behaviors and their bad behaviors. The good behavior is did serve to reinforce the love in the family oh, but I don't necessarily remember them all. And the bad behaviors were forgiven and forgotten, by and large. I think it is that of God within humans that lets us have the grace to be able to forgive and forget. Do you disagree?"
That your family is a reasonable analogue for how God looks at us, not a chance in hell. That you've constructed some sort of utopian "memory" of your family and think it has some value as proof, no. The real question is, "Do I care?", to which the answer is no.
Craig... "No. Although I suspect that both reward and punishment are equal in duration."
So, if I understand correctly, your theory is that God looks at us at the end of our lives after we die, and for the twenty-year-old who died young, God says, "You did not repent sufficiently and you committed those 10,000 sins. Therefore you will be punished for an eternity with no chance of redemption."
That's your theory?
It doesn't matter if it was 1,000 or 10,000 sins, or that the worse sins were like lying, gossip, cheating on a test, etc, that THAT 20 year old "deserves " an eternity of punishment/torture with no hope for escape?
Do you think this is just or fair?
"Craig... "No. Although I suspect that both reward and punishment are equal in duration."
"So, if I understand correctly, your theory is that God looks at us at the end of our lives after we die, and for the twenty-year-old who died young, God says, "You did not repent sufficiently and you committed those 10,000 sins. Therefore you will be punished for an eternity with no chance of redemption.""
"That's your theory?"
No. My if/then proposition is that both reward and punishment are equal in duration. You could have seen that if you'd read what you copy/pasted.
Now, I'd suggest that you've offered a slightly twisted and skewed view of a position that is supported by scripture. I'd also suggest that there is a significant between "repent" and "repent sufficiently". You've chosen to add the modifier where it wasn't before.
"It doesn't matter if it was 1,000 or 10,000 sins, or that the worse sins were like lying, gossip, cheating on a test, etc, that THAT 20 year old "deserves " an eternity of punishment/torture with no hope for escape?"
In the absence of a sliding scale or some definition of what are objectively "minor sins", what is "sufficient", I really can't speak to your caricature. That's what you're saying.
"Do you think this is just or fair?"
I don't think that my opinion about what's just and fair really caries much weight. I'm hesitant to suggest that my opinions supersede what God might do or think.
"Of course, God is better than me. And even I, an imperfect human, know how to do good for my children, how much more so does God? Sounds almost Jesus-like, doesn't it?"
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that. That's an excellent question, I guess some of that comes down to how much value we put on our own opinions about what constitutes "good" in a semi objective sense, and how accurate our views on our won goodness are.
But you go ahead and take pride in how good you are and maybe you'll be good enough to deserve heaven.
Craig... "I'm hesitant to suggest that my opinions supersede what God might do or think."
And how do you know what God thinks or does? Do you form opinions about that based on what you read and experience? But then, if your opinions are pretty meaningless, then it really doesn't matter what opinions you form, does it? It's all meaningless and unknowable, to you... Is that what you're saying?
"And how do you know what God thinks or does?"
I don't, I do however grant that they supersede mine.
"Do you form opinions about that based on what you read and experience?"
Sure.
"But then, if your opinions are pretty meaningless, then it really doesn't matter what opinions you form, does it?"
I never said meaningless, why would you not accurately represent what I said?
"It's all meaningless and unknowable, to you... Is that what you're saying?"
No.
"Then your hunches about how God may or may not punish people for eternity of torture in hell doesn't really Terry much weight, either? Fair enough. Duly noted."
No, I've never claimed that they did. Nor have I really gone into detail as you can't seem to grasp the simple "if/then" proposition. The difference, I think, is that I'm hoping for agreement on one small piece of a large puzzle, and you're more interested in jumping ahead.
"What pride?"
The pride overflowing in your glowing recitation of how your family is such a great model of what God is like.
"I'm not saying I'm good enough to deserve heaven."
You don't believe that you deserve heaven? Are you not good enough?
"I'm saying I believe in grace, therefore, good enough?"
Then why ask it and waste more time.
"The question is, are we living under grace?"
I'm confused, you've been nattering on about score keeping, and how much sin is ok, and now you introduce grace. I brought this up quite a while ago as the piece your obsessive focus on enumerating "too much" sin, was missing. Good lord, this is like the 5th or 6th "The question" in this thread. I'd argue that the answer is yes, but it depends on how you view the outworking of God's grace.
"And the question for those who are arguing that there are some sins or lives that are rightly deserving of an eternity of torture, is what level of wrongdoing deserves Eternal torture?"
You do realize that the term "The question" is singular, therefore there can't be multiple "The question"s at the same time. But, as I pointed out before, from someone who doesn't believe that the genocide of millions reaches the threshold of eternal punishment, the point is moot. Further, your substitution for the word "torture" for the term "punishment" reinforces my conclusions about your hunch. I suspect that you think that by pushing things to extremes, that you can avoid anything that might undermine your assumptions. Unless you are saying that all punishment is torture.
contd
"And whether or not they have anything to support that hunch."
The problems you have with this pathetic shot is that you've failed to support or prove any of your hunches, and it's absurd to expect others to do what you won't. As well as the fact that I really haven't advanced anything close to a theory or a claim. I'm still trying to get a sense of the eternity piece of things. The fact that you've constructed some fantastical theory on my behalf doesn't require me to defend your theory. I've answered your questions, while you're still wallowing in fantasy land.
"I guess some of that comes down to how much value we put on our own opinions about what constitutes "good" in a semi objective sense" Jesus is the one who said "even we mere humans know how to do good for our children..." That claim from Jesus is predicated on the assumption that we DO know how to do good, right?"
Jesus also said that "No one is good", so I guess you'll have to explain why "No one" really doesn't mean "No one". But, feel free to hang your entire argument on one verse.
Before, you start down that road, multiple people have made the scriptural case for "No one" being good multiple times. If you can't show proof that you've refuted that case before, then don't bother digging deeper here and now. Anything on this topic other than a link to your affirmative case that "No one is good." means something else, don't waste your time. It'll get deleted.
Dan,
One last thought. You've alluded to several things, without actually defending them. So, if you aren't prepared to make a case for the following, you'd probably be wise to just stop.
1. That there is a point, post death, where people will have the opportunity to repent.
2. That our free will allows us to choose separation from God, and that people willingly choose that path.
3. That there is some degree of major and minor sins and that there is some threshold that denotes the point where responsibility and punishment are appropriate.
4. That we can be good enough to deserve heaven.
There are more, but since the practical likelihood of you even addressing these in detail is virtually zero, I won't add any further things for you to ignore.
"Not sure if I understand. Do you think we do not have the free will to choose separation from God? That we can't say, no God I don't want to listen to you?"
No.
"If so, what do you base that on?"
Nothing.
"To support it, I would just point to the reality of people choosing not to follow God. It happens. I'm not sure of your point here. As to the second part, again, we see people willingly choosing to separate themselves from God, to not accept God's ways. Are you saying you doubt that it happens?"
If you're arguing that people can lose their salvation, yes I doubt that happens. I also doubt that our free will can overcome God's sovereignty.
"Or are you only talking about in the afterlife?"
You brought up people imposing their will on God and choosing separation, not me. I'm not sure what you meant. I see no reason to suspect that there will be the option of making a choice post death.
"I don't know what people do in the afterlife. Will people choose to separate themselves from God for eternity? I don't know. I find that hard to imagine."
Yet there is so much you are so certain about in terms of what God does.
"1. That there is a point, post death, where people will have the opportunity to repent."
"I'm not making this case."
Really, the paragraph below sure sounds like you are.
"However, if I was, it would be along the lines of reasonable understandings of Justice include proportionate punishment, that a punishment would be commensurate to the crime. It is horribly wrong and evil to cut off a child's hand for stealing a cookie. That is an unjust because it's so far beyond rational or Justice. I think you'll agree to that. The same is true for an eternity of torture. For normal sins, an eternity of torture is over kill in the same way. You would agree with this in a human Court, I'm sure. It's just a reasonable position to take. So if you disagree with that, then you really need to make your case as to what crimes deserve eternal torture and support it. But you can't. Because it's irrational and unjust. Evil, even."
Sure sounds like you trying to make a case based on how you feel and your personal hunches about God and justice. It sounds like your not willing to take a stand against something you call irrational and evil, or at least to leave yourself room to weasel out if it's convenient.
"1. That there is a point, post death, where people will have the opportunity to repent." I haven't said that. I don't know if it's true. God has not told either one of us."
"What I have said is that common reason says that punishment of an eternity with torture for relatively minor offenses is not rational or consistent with notion of Justice."
1. The fact that you appeal to "common" reason to make judgements about a God who "common" is probably an inadequate adjective is interesting. The fact that you consider your "common", flawed, and limited reason up to the task is kind of cute.
2. Still obsessed with the word "torture". It's just too much to acknowledge the possibility that there or possibilities of punishment without torture. The joy of using loaded words to bolster one's hunches.
3. Although you've always been cavalier about capitalizing, it's always interesting when you selectively pull the capital letter out to try to give something more gravitas. As if justice is a something other than a part of God's nature. Unless you're trying to imply that Justice is exclusive to God, in which case your undercutting your argument that there's no such thing as God's Justice and that we've got a reasonably perfect handle on it.
"Do you understand that?"
You say it like you believe that it's a fact and beyond disagreement. If so, then proof is needed.
"Do you actually disagree?"
With what you pass of as Reason, frequently.
"That is, does it make sense to you that it is just to torture Someone For Eternity for telling a thousand lies and stealing a thousand cookies?"
Show me this person and this result. Or give me the explanation to understand your "minor" sin hunch and tell me what the thresholds are.
"2. That our free will allows us to choose separation from God, and that people willingly choose that path." I don't know if people do or don't. I suspect they do. I think I can see people doing it every day. Whether or not they would choose to do so for an eternity, I'm doubtful. But again, we can't say anything about eternity with any kind of certainty because, how could we? Do you disagree?"
You're absolutely right, we have absolutely zero basis to reach any possible conclusions about what happens after death. Hell, you can't even be unequivocal about the possibility that we exist into eternity.
"3. That there is some degree of major and minor sins..." As far as impact, I think that fairly universally reasonable people would agree that there is a huge distinction between stealing a cookie and taking a life. Do you disagree?"
As far as the impact that is limited to the immediate, temporal consequences, sure. As far as to this "minor sin" exception you keep dancing around and it's eternal outworking, probably not because you won't give details.
"... and that there is some threshold that denotes the point where responsibility and punishment are appropriate." You recognize that in this world, there is a threshold where people decide punishment is appropriate for some more serious offenses. Right? What is it you're asking me to prove? That it should be so?"
No, I'm asking you to prove that your hunches about this category of "minor sins" that you get a pass for is true. That you hunch about God being tied to your hunch about proportionate justice is true.
"4. That we can be good enough to deserve heaven..." I've never said this."
Yes, you actually did. I've posted the quote once, and will again later.
"I believe in grace, not being good enough to go to heaven. Not in deserving heaven. I do think that the notion of Justice, fairness and reason dictates against being bad enough to deserve and Eternity of torture. Especially for talking about relatively minor sins that most of us live with. Do you disagree?"
Since you can't explain what "minor sins" are (maybe a list), why they are minor, and why they get an exception, I have nothing to agree/disagree with.
"Do you think there was some sins that are so bad that they deserve an eternity of torture as a matter of Justice? Which ones are they?"
Asked and answered, but your just going to keep asking because it's easier than admitting that you could possibly be wrong, and than answering the questions you've dodged.
"why do you think that? do you have any support for that?"
Why do I think that your caricature is wrong, because it is? Why would I support your caricature instead of reality? You do realize that asking me why I "support" something I've already said I don't support, and asking it repeatedly fits the classic definition of insanity.
Craig... "I'm asking you to prove that your hunches about this category of "minor sins" that you get a pass for is true."
What are you unable to understand? I'm saying that there is a vast Chasm of difference between someone stealing a cookie and someone raping and murdering a child. Do you actually disagree? Do you think they are morally equivalent? If so, how evil are you?
If so, do you recognize how vastly out of step with the majority of rational moral people you are?
Just to make clear what should be clear to any reasonable and moral person...
1. Humans recognize that not all wrongdoing is equal in value. Not all crimes are equal.
2. Rape and murder, for instance, have horrendous, evil, devastating, sick, pathetic, life-changing, community-destroying impacts. Of course.
3. On the other hand, sneaking a cookie out of somebody's cookie jar when you're visiting their house has almost no serious impact. No horrendously evil repercussions.
4. Looking at these two separate groups of sins, we can easily distinguish that stealing a cookie is a minor sin and rape and murder are major crimes. Because, of course they are. No rational moral person would disagree.
The question is, do you disagree? Are you rational and moral?
"We, neither of us, can prove what God thinks about minor and major sins (if they exist as distinctions at all). But clearly, for the rational person, there ARE minor and major sins."
What's interesting is that you have a hunch about some arbitrary divining line between minor and major sins, so it's clearly not we here, and you won't share what the dividing lines are, I wonder why. You can't say (or even guess at) the point where these lines are, yet you try to make it sound like this is anyone but you. Now, if you're trying to say that you have a hidden personal line that divides the sins your OK with from the other, that's cool too.
"Now, if YOU have a theory that God thinks that EVEN ONE relatively minor sin like stealing a cookie "deserves" an eternity of torture, make that clear. Say so."
You keep repeating some form of this idiocy (insanity) over and over as if repetition makes it true.
"If you don't think that, then perhaps we agree that there are "minor sins" that are not rationally punished by an eternity of torture. But you tell me. I KNOW you have said that you don't think that stealing one cookie deserves an eternity of torture as punishment, but you've also indicated that you believe in the notion of an eternal hell where people are tortured for their sins, or for their "lifetime of sins" or for that AND for not repenting properly."
What an impressive example of you claiming to "KNOW" some things yet those things you know are filled with falsehoods and misrepresentations. At some point the "I'm asking questions to understand" schtick gets old, when you clearly show an inability or unwillingness to understand. How could I possibly agree, or you expect me to agree, to something you won't explain or define?
"Perhaps this will help: Why don't YOU clearly delineate IF you believe in the notion of an eternal punishment for sin?"
Interesting that once again, you expect me to do something that you won't do. I wonder what possesses someone to expect that others will do what they won't.
In my case, it's because I try to extend you grace. So, from everything I can gather, I would be mist inclined to agree that BOTH reward (heaven) or punishment (hell) are of equal durations. My best guess is that the duration is eternity, but I'm open to anything scriptural that suggetst otherwise.
"And IF so, what leads one to deserving such a punishment?"
Sin.
"Is it even just one sin? Is it 1000 sins? Some specific sins or just any sins?"
Sin.
"If YOU'D clearly delineate and explain what YOU think leads one to deserving an eternal torture punishment, then we could skip past my trying to get you to answer.
See above. If you won't give the sort of clear detailed answers you demand, why would you expect them from others. Until this last I wasn't sure if this was a joke or not. Definitely a joke.
"Then help me understand, because you seem to be equivocating and being deliberately vague. You SEEM to be saying, no, you can't name any sin that deserves eternal torture. And at the same time you appear to be saying that you DO believe that eternal torture is a reality and reasonable and just."
Actually, I'm saying neither of those things.
"Please clarify directly, because I'm not understanding."
If you won't, why should I?
"A. Do you believe that eternal punishment/torture is a just and reasonable response to a lifetime of sins, if not correctly repented for?"
This notion of "correctly repented for" is simply idiotic. If by "correctly repented for" you mean; acknowledging ones sin, asking for forgiveness, and turning away from sin. Sure. What a stupid construct. I'd say that we're not talking about my standards, but that if I could repent, be forgiven,avoid ANY length of post death punishment, and know that I was a new person, that I would take that deal.
"B. Even if that lifetime is just 1 year, you think this?"
No.
"C. Do you think this regardless of whatever sins may have happened in that person's life?"
I don't think it's about keeping score, but you're certainly obsessed with it. It's almost like you just want to squeak by with 70.1% to pass the class, but aren't interested in anything more than that.
"D. Does it matter to you how many sins, or the degree of harm of those sins? Even if they only sinned a hundred times with relatively minor sins, no sins like murder, assault, rape, stealing, embezzling, abuse? Please make yourself clear. I've tried long enough."
It's not my call, and since God is God (you know Sovereign and all that), I'll stick with His decisions.
Although I know that you're on the "You answer my questions, regardless of my answering your questions." train, but I'll leave you with this one.
Let's say your (hypothetical) granddaughter asked you what she needed to do to go live with Jesus in heaven, what would the list of sins you think she could get away with and still get in look like.
"What are you unable to understand?"
Where you draw the line and by what standard do you draw the line? Are 1,000,000 minor sins equal to 1 major sin? What makes you think that the minor sins are no big deal?
"I'm saying that there is a vast Chasm of difference between someone stealing a cookie and someone raping and murdering a child. Do you actually disagree?"
No, in the impact of the action on the victim and the victims family, the two are different. Please show me the person who's only sin was murdering a child, or stealing a cookie? If you can't it remains a stupid and pointless hunch.
But, let's take your hypothetical cookie stealer. Let's say that because Dan told him that stealing a cookie was ok, that he started stealing other things. Let's say that moved on to stealing cookies from illegal immigrants, then to stealing the rest of their food? What if they stole life saving meds from a sick child and that child died?
Or, Let's take your child murder. Are you suggesting that she just all of a sudden decided to murder a child? Or was it an accident because she didn't know it was a sin? What if she started by destroying dollies first, then torturing cute, fuzzy, bunnies? Then moved up to cats, dogs, etc, before finally murdering a child, maybe had someone pointed out her sin earlier, the hypothetical child would still be alive?
I don't expect answers, I just wanted to show you that absurd, extreme, hypotheticals work both ways.
"Do you think they are morally equivalent?"
Given the fact that you can't agree to any sort of universal, objective moral code. I fail to see how this question has any grounding in your worldview.
"If so, how evil are you?""
Not as evil as I could be, less evil than I'd like to be.
"If so, do you recognize how vastly out of step with the majority of rational moral people you are?"
If you mean the people who can't define or articulate an objective moral standard and therefore lack the grounding to make moral judgements on others, those people? Or the people who insist that morality is grounded in the social mores of the clan, society, or group and who can therefore declare either action to be moral, those people? Or the people like Peter singer and his acolytes who advocate for the right to kill children up to three years of age or so, those people? I'll gladly be out of step with those sorts.
"Just to make clear what should be clear to any reasonable and moral person...", if you say so.
"1. Humans recognize that not all wrongdoing is equal in value. Not all crimes are equal."
We're not talking about humans and we're not talking abut crimes...
"2. Rape and murder, for instance, have horrendous, evil, devastating, sick, pathetic, life-changing, community-destroying impacts. Of course."
Yes, that's entirely likely.
"3. On the other hand, sneaking a cookie out of somebody's cookie jar when you're visiting their house has almost no serious impact. No horrendously evil repercussions."
Please prove this statement, after you provide proof of the person who's only sin was stealing a cookie.
"4. Looking at these two separate groups of sins, we can easily distinguish that stealing a cookie is a minor sin and rape and murder are major crimes. Because, of course they are. No rational moral person would disagree."
I see what you're doing, you're conflating sin with crime.
Are you really suggesting that when "Thou shalt not steal" came down that it came with exceptions? What are they?
"The question is, do you disagree?"
You've thrown out more things than I care to count, if you aren't fluent enough in English to figure it out on your own, I'm not going back to count.
"Are you rational and moral?"
Occasionally. I try to stay humble about those sorts of things because I'm not objective enough to give the best answer. I'd tell you to ask people who know me, but I like them too much.
"Actually, I'm saying neither of those things..." You're saying that you CAN name a sin deserving everlasting torture?"
Actually no I'm not.
"Please do so."
Are you really demanding that I do something to "support" something that I don't believe to be true? What a bizarre and petty place you're in. Trying to demand that I help you mis-represent myself. That's low even for you.
"You DON'T believe that internal torture is fair or just?"
I would not say that I believe in eternal torture, as I've said quite clearly at least once before.
"So, you don't believe in hell that is an everlasting torment?""
This tracks the most closely with what scripture teaches.
"Talking with you is really too difficult."
Really, simple direct answers are too difficult for you? Or my continuously reminding you that mis-representing my positions, and that asking questions based on those mis-representations. isn't going to change how false they are?
Came across these two essays that are very relevant to this discussion. Between the two they address both how punishment is eternal as well as there being different degrees of punishment.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/95-the-doctrine-of-eternal-punishment
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/514-are-there-degrees-of-blessedness-and-punishment-in-eternity
Whether one chooses to "buy" any of the Scripture supported positions depends, I guess, on how much value one places on the teachings of Scripture, or if one chooses to play games with regards interpretations and "hunches". I don't expect an intelligent response to counter them, but felt them relevant to the discussion.
"No. Because when I give you simple clear direct answers, you can't see them and when I point out them, you still don't see them. And when you say you think you've given direct answers, you haven't. Trying to get you to understand that you have not directly answered is time and energy consuming."
You do realize that this makes no sense, don't you? That "yes" or "no", are simple, direct, clear answers? That you've dodged plenty of questions recently and you choosing to bitch about me answering questions, makes you look delusional.
"I've never said this."
As usual, not in those exact words, but the equivalent.
"Why is just an average relatively decent life not worthy of an eternity of good? I would propose in a Kingdom based upon forgiveness, love, grace and justice, grace is a sufficient reason for living in such a realm."
You literally said that a "relatively simple decent life" is "worthy" of heaven and a "sufficient reason" to end up there.
I'm sure we'll see much more creativity from you trying to demonstrate that you didn't say what you said, or that you really meant something else, that we have in you choosing to answer questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzzfSq2DEc4&feature=youtu.be
Should be an interesting take on morality.
Post a Comment