Christianity

[Lacewing]

We were talking about an afterlife, were we not?

We were.

But "were" is the operative word. You took it in a personal direction...

Oh, like here where you appear to distort what I meant by 'everything', and where you jump to telling me what I believe?

What's your reasoning for taking that assumption?

Everything I observe.

That doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine what you "observe" that conduces to such a belief on your part, let alone that it's "everything."

Yet you believe it.

Or, here where you falsely characterize me of not believing anything at all (although I was talking about an afterlife)?

I thought you didn't "believe" anything.

I don't.

Well, since every human being believes things, it's pretty funny you think you believe you don't.

Or, here...

You've lost track of the conversation...

Well, to be honest, you don't do "conversations." You do "creative rewrites."

Is that how I was re-writing and taking it in a personal direction?

[Harbal]

But I want to make sure I hear you fully, and hear you aright. So may I ask, when you say it's a "stumbling block," what particular concern would bother you? Would it be the lack of universalism, the lack of everybody simply being let off the hook? Or would it be the fact that you don't believe God should allow people to make bad choices? Or would it be the cartoonish idea of a kind of Purgatorio of flames and devils that we get from popular-culture depictions of Hell, or maybe from Hieronymus Bosch paintings? Or...?

People take different kinds of issues with that idea, and depending on how they happen to see it, and what they've come to believe that "Judgment" means or entails. I can't know beforehand what the precise nature of your concern is. Can you help me out, there?

My concern is with this "judgement", but without knowing what it does -or is supposed to- entail, I have no way of knowing what to make of it. It isn't satisfactory to say that non-believers will face something really bad; that is too vague. If Christians don't actually know what is in store for those on the wrong side of God's judgement they should remain silent. Otherwise, one is left wondering whether the thing is an empty bluff. This is the aspect of Christianity I find the most disturbing.

[Immanuel Can]

...you jump to telling me what I believe?

Good example here, of why you're a lousy discussion partner.

I didn't tell you WHAT you believe. I pointed out to you the fact THAT you believe. And either you didn't even know the difference, or pretended not to know.

So boring.

[Immanuel Can]

My concern is with this "judgement", but without knowing what it does -or is supposed to- entail, I have no way of knowing what to make of it.

Okay, well maybe we start with the question, "Is judgment a bad thing?"

And in one sense, the answer is obvious: it's bad for whomever ends up on the wrong side of it, obviously. But is it bad for those who have been treated unjustly, or victimized...and is it morally bad? That's obviously quite a different issue.

If God does not judge...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jinping, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Putin, etc., can we speak of there being any justice, ultimately? But is it less egregious if He fails to judge the Bernie Madoffs and Epsteins? And is it okay if a just God deals with them, but lets some (as we perceive things) less-eggregious offenders slide...pedophile teachers and priests, or embezzlers of smaller amounts, or adulterers, or petty thieves, or slanderers and gossips...

You can see that it's a slippery slope, isn't it? Somewhere between Hitler and gossip, everybody has a point where they DO expect justice to be brought to bear, and a point at which they are prepared to say, "But we can let that slide."

However, if God is truly righteous, truly just, what is the outcome of that? Can a truly righteous judge deal with the perceived "great crimes" only, and then become more of a libertine on the question of what we choose to regard as "lesser" offences? Or does compromise of that sort make a mockery of justice itself, and call into question the seriousness of God in dealing with sin?

What do you think?

If Christians don't actually know what is in store for those on the wrong side of God's judgement they should remain silent.

Well, they can certainly be forthcoming about what the Bible promises in that regard, can't they? And the first step is judgment...namely, that the Christian believes that God is just, and that justice requires actual, thorough, righteous dealing.

There's lots more said, of course, but chronologically, this is the first thing to expect post mortem. As Hebrews says, "...it is appointed unto a man once to die, and then the judgment." So we can at least start with that issue, no? Christians could, at the very least, tell people that, surely.

And if they didn't, it wouldn't be a very "Christian" thing of them to do, would it?

So if that's clear, we can move on to more specifics. Or if that's hazy, feel free to put a further problem to me to try to respond to.

[Belinda]

I hear people say that, and I understand what gives that impression. Those who have only the OT can easily get focused on matters of sin, alienation, judgment and so on, because the OT really identifies the problems, but gives the solutions only in a shadowy, anticipatory way. So it can come across as very negative -- especially if one has no part of its fulfillment in the NT in view.

But the longer I study the Bible, the more convinced I am of its wholeness. I don't find two Gods there...just one. But I do find two different periods of history, two different states of human affairs relative to God, a much more explicit revealing of spiritual dynamics, and a lot more of the solutions are worked out in the NT.

However, I think it takes both testaments to get a real sense of that. So what you're saying makes some sense.

But even with the NT there is the matter of what happens to non-believers. I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to happen to them, and there seems to be quite some disagreement among Christians about it,

Not really. But that impression depends on how far you widen your understanding of who a "Christian" really is. If you include Universalist "churches," like, then there are some who do, indeed, disagree with both Christians and the Bible about what is going to be the lot of unbelievers, and yet who style themselves as "Christians" nonetheless.

But the elasticity of inclusiveness always has limits. If a man calls himself "faithful" while sleeping around, he's exceeded the limits of the definition of "faithful," no matter how he self-identifies. If an Atheist believes in God, he's exceeded the definition of "Atheist," even if he keeps using the word. If a woman styles herself a Rhodes scholar, while having no Rhodes scholarship, she's exceeded the definition of "Rhodes scholar." And so on.

So the question becomes, are Universalists, since they deny both the Christian consensus and, far more importantly, the explicit teachings of the Word of God, still entitled to be considered speaking as "Christians"? And that's for you to say, not me...since you'll have your own functional definition of what a "Christian" is, no doubt. But they wouldn't make mine.

...but you always imply that it is something pretty bad. Now that would be a real stumbling block for me, were I considering becoming a Christian.

Alright, I hear you on that. Lots of folks, I think, find that troubling.

But I want to make sure I hear you fully, and hear you aright. So may I ask, when you say it's a "stumbling block," what particular concern would bother you? Would it be the lack of universalism, the lack of everybody simply being let off the hook? Or would it be the fact that you don't believe God should allow people to make bad choices? Or would it be the cartoonish idea of a kind of Purgatorio of flames and devils that we get from popular-culture depictions of Hell, or maybe from Hieronymus Bosch paintings? Or...?

People take different kinds of issues with that idea, and depending on how they happen to see it, and what they've come to believe that "Judgment" means or entails. I can't know beforehand what the precise nature of your concern is. Can you help me out, there?

Immanuel, you would still be welcome and included with your fellow seekers despite you are so sure about the metaphysical what's what.

I agree with Immanuel "-------study the Bible, the more convinced I am of its wholeness. I don't find two Gods there...just one. But I do find two different periods of history, two different states of human affairs relative to God, a much more explicit revealing of spiritual dynamics, and a lot more of the solutions are worked out in the NT."

[Alexis Jacobi]

If God does not judge...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jinping, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Putin, etc., can we speak of there being any justice, ultimately?

::: raises hand :::

I have a question. If Hitler and Stalin (and any symbol of extreme ontological malevolence) got down on their knees and sincerely said to Jesus: “Forgive me” — is that all it takes? Is that the end of it?

Does that seem just to you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It seems far more just that ‘sinful karmic reactions’ must result from bad actions — if our human, all too human sense of ‘justice’ is really to be served. To be let off the hook by a mere sincere confession (sentimental declaration) does not conform to a sense of what justice should be.

That karma (accrued debt) must be paid down in one way or another. Hence the necessity of further existences. To reap what was sown.

I must agree with Father Nietzsche: the Christian concept of forgiveness and justice is rather pathological.

[Lacewing]

I didn't tell you WHAT you believe. I pointed out to you the fact THAT you believe.

I said I do not subscribe to any afterlife theory because I think the potential is beyond human comprehension.

In other words, I think potential is more likely than particular theories/beliefs!

Your response suggested I had a belief that shocked you.

I can't imagine what you "observe" that conduces to such a belief on your part...

Yet you believe it.

I've repeatedly asked you 'what belief'?

You don't even know how much you are making up to support all that you make up.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've repeatedly asked you 'what belief'?

Immanuel is lodged within a predicate dilemma: If one says ‘there is no truth’ one is making a truth-declaration. Those who declare ‘no truth’ cannot make any statement at all. They undermine themselves right at the start.

Only women can make both statements and be right! (joke).

Immanuel is ‘locked’ into specific truth declarations that he is certain are absolutely true. There are no truth allusions or general truth-ish propositions.

Jesus came. Offered redemption. Left. But when he returns absolute judgement returns with him. This is not a metaphor of ‘possibilities’ but a strict & tight diagram that will take place. More or less exactly as presented in Revelations.

His absolute certainty operates within an absurd ‘child’s story’.

If there is no ‘soul’ and no divinely orchestrated judgement, then the existential problem ends there.

But if there is a soul and if there is a divine aspect or dimension to existence: with that assertion (phantasy or truth) whole other dimensions of possibility necessarily open up.

[promethean75]

Pop quiz question.

What does an Energizer battery and this thread have in common.

Hint: something they both do.

[iambiguous]

He has said several times that he does not want to be attacked.

But you are going to attack him if he says anything remotely 'incorrect'.

I'm a stooge for pointing this out??

I don't think so.

You're an idiot because you can't recognize and admit to what you are doing.

Right. And in no way has he ever attempted to attack me in turn?

What happens is ‘you-plural’ get overwhelmed by hysteria. Personally, I think you’ve been trained (brainwashed) so that certain topics push you over an internal edge. It is really amazing to me. And I have nothing more to say on the topic at this time.

Why don’t you pass the time playing a little solitaire?

I'm said to be hysterical here. Also straight out of the Manchurian Candidate: dangerously brainwashed?

And, what, in no way should black, brown and red folks feel attacked by him when he argues that the Northern European white stock is scientifically superior to them in intelligence? Because it's all just "theoretical"? What I am curious about is whether he avoids bringing his intellectual contraptions down to Earth because he has never given that part much thought, or if he does, we'll find out that he is a lot closer to the Nazi narrative than some here figured.

I'm not arguing that he is only that he won't clear up just what he does think ought to be done politically and legislatively to stem the "demographic crisis" in America

Now, let's get back to you responding substantively to the points I raised above...instead of popping up from time to time [as you did at ILP] in order to make me the issue. That is where the Stooge part comes in.

The only reason that I'm talking to you is to try to get you to tone it down.

Because, I think, the way you are posting is making him defensive and less likely to say anything.

Turn it down a few notches, please. And we will see what happens.

Of course, I'm assuming that you want him to open up. You may be here to shut him down.

Oh, okay. Noted.

Then back to this...

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles

...of course.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

Sadly … you don’t even have me.

[Harbal]

Okay, well maybe we start with the question, "Is judgment a bad thing?"

And in one sense, the answer is obvious: it's bad for whomever ends up on the wrong side of it, obviously. But is it bad for those who have been treated unjustly, or victimized...and is it morally bad? That's obviously quite a different issue.

If God does not judge...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jinping, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Putin, etc., can we speak of there being any justice, ultimately? But is it less egregious if He fails to judge the Bernie Madoffs and Epsteins? And is it okay if a just God deals with them, but lets some (as we perceive things) less-eggregious offenders slide...pedophile teachers and priests, or embezzlers of smaller amounts, or adulterers, or petty thieves, or slanderers and gossips...

You can see that it's a slippery slope, isn't it? Somewhere between Hitler and gossip, everybody has a point where they DO expect justice to be brought to bear, and a point at which they are prepared to say, "But we can let that slide."

However, if God is truly righteous, truly just, what is the outcome of that? Can a truly righteous judge deal with the perceived "great crimes" only, and then become more of a libertine on the question of what we choose to regard as "lesser" offences? Or does compromise of that sort make a mockery of justice itself, and call into question the seriousness of God in dealing with sin?

What do you think?

I think there is a very blurry line between justice and vengeance. I would like to think that Stalin was made to suffer in some sort of afterlife, but the satisfaction of it would not be about justice. When we think about what Stalin did we feel outrage, and our desire in inflict torture on him is purely a response to that. Justice implies a balance. How much suffering would have to be delivered to Stalin for it to be equivalent to the suffering he was responsible for? You might say that only God knows that, but I would say he can't know, because it is a question to which there is no answer.

My question was about the fate of non-believers, but you have listed "wrong doers", who may or may not be Christians. How does it work? Are sinners separated into believers and non-believers, and judged and sentenced according to different criteria? Presumably, in all cases, the "justice" metered out varies in severity, according to the weight of sin. I must say: what that amounts to in pracice certainly rouses my curiosity.

Well, they can certainly be forthcoming about what the Bible promises in that regard, can't they? And the first step is judgment...namely, that the Christian believes that God is just, and that justice requires actual, thorough, righteous dealing.

There's lots more said, of course, but chronologically, this is the first thing to expect post mortem. As Hebrews says, "...it is appointed unto a man once to die, and then the judgment." So we can at least start with that issue, no? Christians could, at the very least, tell people that, surely.

Okay, so we know there is a process of "justice", consisting of judgement followed by appropriate punishment. Is that a fair way to put it, or would you like to replace it with a more correct summary?

So if that's clear, we can move on to more specifics.

Yes, let's move on to specifics. Lets talk about the form God's justice takes.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, you would still be welcome and included with your fellow seekers despite you are so sure about the metaphysical what's what.

With the seekers-who-never-find, you mean? No thank you. They're everywhere today, and membership is no privilege.

I agree with Immanuel "-------study the Bible, the more convinced I am of its wholeness. I don't find two Gods there...just one. But I do find two different periods of history, two different states of human affairs relative to God, a much more explicit revealing of spiritual dynamics, and a lot more of the solutions are worked out in the NT."

Interesting.

[Immanuel Can]

If God does not judge...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jinping, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Putin, etc., can we speak of there being any justice, ultimately?

::: raises hand :::

I have a question. If Hitler and Stalin (and any symbol of extreme ontological malevolence) got down on their knees and sincerely said to Jesus: “Forgive me” — is that all it takes? Is that the end of it?

"The end of" what, AJ?

Do you mean could a person be forgiven -- really forgiven -- on that basis...assuming total and actual sincerity, of course?

I need not tell you. We can get the answer to that from the thief (and murderer-insurrectionist, apparently) on the cross. He had both hands nailed to a piece of wood, and so we can safely assume his chances to act were strictly circumscribed, can we not?

One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!” But the other responded, and rebuking him, said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our crimes; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39-43)