Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Mr. Magoo on March 24, 2011, 03:25:37 AM
-
I sent this in a PM to Butterbean but I think I'll post it here to ask others, and also reply to her answer here.
I think it'll be easier to do it this way. According to Christianity, the following premises are true:
P1: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
P2: All who die in their sins go to hell
P3: Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior become saved
P4: All and only the saved go to heaven when they die
Isn't it true, by definition, that babies who die must go to hell? They were alive human beings, born in their original sin, came short of the glory of God, yet never accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and they died. I'm using babies here as an example, but you can put in mental patients (although I'm pretty sure back in bible times they would have understood a mental patients someone who was evil and had "demons") or babies that die in the womb, etc etc.
If babies who die DO go to heaven, then one of the above premises must be false. If Premise 1 is true, and the baby was born into sin, and the baby still went to heaven, then Premise 2 and 4 have to be false. But if sinners can go to heaven, then why become saved? If the baby was NOT born into sin, then premise 1 has to be false, and the idea of "original sin" is false.
It seems to me that accepting the above premises to be true, and then saying that young babies, babies that die in the womb, mental patients, etc etc all go to heaven is inconsistent. Saint Augustine said that of course babies who die go to hell, because we all deserve hell due to original sin so we're in no position to complain. Even if Saint Augustines is consistent with the above premises, can we really make ourselves believe this is fair?
Butterbean replied in part of her PM response to this question, that if babies go to hell, what kind of just God is that? I think this is why Christians don't believe babies go to hell. They think it would be fair if babies did not go to hell. But I think most people only believe this because they want it to be true, not because they have evidence to believe it is true. I don't think most people, apart from St. Augustine, can say with full 100% confidence that it is okay for dead babies to go to hell. Then once you get into the whole "why aren't they held responsible like others are?" then that can get into a huge sociological argument about why others should not be held responsible (other religion followers, those who never heard of Jesus, those who have not had good teachers of Jesus, parents are anti-christian, etc etc)
Perhaps I've steered off track, but maybe this makes sense somewhat.
-
"Listen, mother," said the elder. "Once in olden times a holy saint saw in the Temple a mother like you weeping for her little one, her only one, whom God had taken. 'Knowest thou not,' said the saint to her, 'how bold these little ones are before the throne of God? Verily there are none bolder than they in the Kingdom of Heaven. "Thou didst give us life, O Lord," they say, "and scarcely had we looked upon it when Thou didst take it back again." And so boldly they ask and ask again that God gives them at once the rank of angels. Therefore,' said the saint, 'thou, too, O Mother, rejoice and weep not, for thy little son is with the Lord in the fellowship of the angels.' That's what the saint said to the weeping mother of old. He was a great saint and he could not have spoken falsely. Therefore you too, mother, know that your little one is surely before the throne of God, is rejoicing and happy, and praying to God for you, and therefore weep, but rejoice."
Feodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Hope this helps
-
"It is regrettable that no Dostoevsky lived near him." -- Nietzsche on Jesus ::)
-
You see, sir, when the Son of God was nailed on the Cross and died, He went straight down to hell from the Cross, and set free all sinners that were in agony. And the devil groaned, because he thought that he would get no more sinners in hell. And God said to him, then, ‘Don’t groan, for you shall have all the mighty of the earth, the rulers, the chief judges, and the rich men, and shall be filled up as you have been in all the ages till I come again.’ Those were His very words...”
Feodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
-
You have in no way addressed my concern :-\
-
You have in no way addressed my concern :-\
You have written it all wrong in 1'st place. Why?
-
Also in my PM was about King David and his baby that died...here is the scripture:
2 Samuel 22-23
He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
-
Magoo, you may want to read this:
(from www.gotquestions.org)
Question: "Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?"
Answer: The concept of the "age of accountability" is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the "age of accountability,' that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into Heaven. Is the concept of an age of accountability biblical? Is there such a thing as an "age of innocence"?
Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam's original sin.
Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.
What about babies and young children who never reach the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is a concept that teaches those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved, by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.
With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ's death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus' death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ's death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.
The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David's mourning ended. David's servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David's response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David's response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.
Although it is possible that God applies Christ's payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ's payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever He does is always right and good.
-
From the same site:
Question: "Do mentally ill people go to heaven? Does God show mercy to those who are mentally retarded, challenged, disabled, or handicapped?"
Answer: The Bible does not specifically say whether or not mentally ill people go to heaven. However, there is some biblical evidence that anyone who is not able to make a decision for salvation is covered by Christ’s death. This is similar to how it is commonly believed that children are automatically taken to heaven when they die until they reach the point in which they are able to make a decision for or against Christ. David had a child die, and he comforted himself with the thought, “Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). David knew that he would see his child in heaven one day. From that statement, we can assume that babies and young children were, by God's grace, covered for salvation by Christ’s death.
We can postulate from this that mentally retarded people are covered by this principle as well. The Word of God does not specifically say this, however. Knowing the love, grace, and mercy of God, this would seem consistent with His character. Any person who is mentally challenged to the extent that he could not be aware of his sinful state and believe in Christ for salvation, is in the same category as a child and it is not unreasonable to assume that person is saved by the grace and mercy of the same God who saves babies and small children.
As in everything, however, we must be careful not to be dogmatic about any issue the Bible does not specifically address. We do know that Jesus receives as His own all that the Father has given to Him and He will lose none of them along the way (John 6:39). Jesus said of these “And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand” (John 10:28). We can take comfort in knowing that our God’s plan is always perfect, He always does what is right and just, and His love and mercy are infinite and everlasting.
Recommended Resource: Safe in the Arms of God: Words from Heaven About the Death of a Child by John MacArthur.
-
I've quoted below the key points that I took from the articles posted by Butterbean, if I've misinterpreted then please correct me and I'll reread them closer. The first two quotes are from the first article, the third is from the 2nd article. And the quote after my first response is from the first article.
"A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ"
"It is our position that God applies Christ's payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior"
"there is some biblical evidence that anyone who is not able to make a decision for salvation is covered by Christ’s death"
Response: This contradicts the notion that we need missionaries to tell the world about Jesus. If responsibility for salvation ONLY comes once someone hears about Jesus, then isn't it best to never tell anyone about Jesus? That way, nobody will have heard, therefore nobody will reject, and therefore everyone will go to heaven. Why tell your children about Christ if it is better if they never hear it, as opposed to hearing it along with the option of them rejecting it once they hear it?
2nd issue
"Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this"
Response: Did David hear from God that this was so? It does appear to be comforting, but that doesn't mean it is true. I believe that's why people automatically assume that the type of God that they believe in wouldn't do it, therefore God wouldn't do it. I believe David, along with others, are comforted by this, but I have yet to see any truth than just intuition that a loving God wouldn't allow it.
-
If i made a creation and automatically damned 90 percent to a hell because they could not find the right religion wouldn't that make me worse than hitler? If i wipe out 90000 japanese people in a single day when i could have stopped it doesn't that make me not a god of love. If i have the power to stop evil and do not, does that not make me a coward. If i take my best servant and torture him for life just to prove to my worst enemy that he will stay with me does that make me a terrible friend and a gullable enemy? There is no proof whatsoever that the bable is true and in fact it leans towards suggestions that the world is flat, slavery is o.k, and women shouldn't have rights!! He's a fucking tyrant this yaweh!
-
IF GOD IS LOVE, AND LOVE IS NOT JEALOUS, AND GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD, Then God must not be love, therefore a liar, therefore not righteous.
-
Response: This contradicts the notion that we need missionaries to tell the world about Jesus. If responsibility for salvation ONLY comes once someone hears about Jesus, then isn't it best to never tell anyone about Jesus? That way, nobody will have heard, therefore nobody will reject, and therefore everyone will go to heaven. Why tell your children about Christ if it is better if they never hear it, as opposed to hearing it along with the option of them rejecting it once they hear it?
I don't see how that accountability theory applies to people like you and me...that are able to understand.
And we are commanded to preach the Gospel.
I also believe that God can reach people w/o using other people as well. He is God after all! I can't remember the name of the book..a true story where a guy and some missionaries went to a remote tribe and the tribe killed them all..and later the guy's family and the other familiy members went in to the same tribe and told them about Jesus. They said, "Jesus. That's what you call Him." So it was that they knew Jesus before anyone shared Him w/them ...He will reveal Himself to people if He wants imo.
Romans talks about how nature reveals God's majesty as well.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
-
2nd issue
"Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this"
Response: Did David hear from God that this was so? It does appear to be comforting, but that doesn't mean it is true. I believe that's why people automatically assume that the type of God that they believe in wouldn't do it, therefore God wouldn't do it. I believe David, along with others, are comforted by this, but I have yet to see any truth than just intuition that a loving God wouldn't allow it.
David had access to Nathan who was a Prophet. I don't know about you, but I would be asking all kinds of questions to get answers about my baby as well as other things.
-
I don't see how that accountability theory applies to people like you and me...that are able to understand.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I think it applies directly. Babies and mental patients aren't held accountable because they aren't capable of rejecting Jesus, correct? (according to the two articles you posted). That means that if someone isn't capable of rejecting Jesus, then they are not held accountable. Therefore someone who has never heard of Jesus are also not capable of rejecting Jesus, therefore are not held accountable. So why tell someone about Jesus? The Native Americans did not believe in Jesus, so they did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, therefore they were not saved. IF they were allowed entrance into heaven, then unsaved people can go into heaven, but this is false isnt it? If they were allowed entrance into heaven, then why should anyone have told them about Jesus. If they were not allowed entrance into heaven, then how is it fair considering that they never got a chance to reject Jesus?
A better question regarding whether or not babies automatically go to heaven. If they do automatically go to heaven, and it's a good thing to go to heaven. Then whynot kill all the babies? They all will go to heaven. If we don't kill all the babies, then only a small portion of them will go to heaven with the majority going to hell.
One of the premises that I posted in my first post must be false if babies go to heaven. Which one is false?
-
Then whynot kill all the babies? They all will go to heaven. If we don't kill all the babies, then only a small portion of them will go to heaven with the majority going to hell.
"You are talking and speechifying away, but tell me, would you kill 154 or 356 babies yourself?"
"Of course not! I was only arguing the justice of it... It's nothing to do with me...":
"But I think, if you would not do it yourself, there's no justice about it... Let us have another game."
"Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
-
I think it applies directly. Babies and mental patients aren't held accountable because they aren't capable of rejecting Jesus, correct? (according to the two articles you posted). That means that if someone isn't capable of rejecting Jesus, then they are not held accountable. Therefore someone who has never heard of Jesus are also not capable of rejecting Jesus, therefore are not held accountable. So why tell someone about Jesus?
Until it is proven, the theory of Age of Accountability is just that..a theory. It makes sense to me though.
We are commanded to spread the Gospel.
The Native Americans did not believe in Jesus, so they did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, therefore they were not saved. IF they were allowed entrance into heaven, then unsaved people can go into heaven, but this is false isnt it? If they were allowed entrance into heaven, then why should anyone have told them about Jesus. If they were not allowed entrance into heaven, then how is it fair considering that they never got a chance to reject Jesus?
How do you know the Native Americans did not believe in Jesus?
-
A better question regarding whether or not babies automatically go to heaven. If they do automatically go to heaven, and it's a good thing to go to heaven. Then whynot kill all the babies? They all will go to heaven. If we don't kill all the babies, then only a small portion of them will go to heaven with the majority going to hell.
Who (other than abortion doctors) and crazy people are going to kill all these babies?
I doubt you really are saying you want to end human life on earth which is what would happen eventually if you killed all the babies.
I can see that you are saying it would be better to die as a baby and go to heaven than live a full life and reject Christ and be separated from God for eternity, but you are also saying that you want to take people's choice away to accept or reject Christ as Savior.
Do you choose to reject Him as Savior? If so, do you want that choice to be taken away from you?
-
One of the premises that I posted in my first post must be false if babies go to heaven. Which one is false?
Magoo, I think we all assume that babies are incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ or even acknowledging their sin nature.
I think we also assume things along the lines that they have the attention spans of goldfish for awhile and don't have a real clue to the world around them in the way we do.
But how do we know for sure what anyone other than ourselves are thinking?
Yes, the bible seems clear about original sin to me.
But here is a passage that might give you some comfort regarding John the Baptist:
Luke 1:14-15:
He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.
This helps me to see that God could be filling whatever infants He wants w/His Holy Spirit while they are still in the womb if He wants.....maybe He does it for all the ones that He knows will die before having the opportunity to accept/reject Christ.
-
Until it is proven, the theory of Age of Accountability is just that..a theory. It makes sense to me though.
How do you know the Native Americans did not believe in Jesus?
I think the age of accountability is inconsistent with the "All have sinned and come short of the glory of god", "Due to original sin, all are condemned to hell since birth", "Unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you will die in your sins and go to hell". If age of accountability is true (meaning that all humans under age X (as in babies) or all humans who have conditions W, Y, or Z (mental patients, those who have not heard, etc) automatically get a free pass), then unsaved people can go to heaven, not all have come short of the glory of God, not all are condemned to hell since birth, and a person does not have to accept Jesus to go to heaven. However, most Christians are unwilling to admit these to be true.
I know Native Americans did not believe in Jesus because I've read about their religions. Now if you want to get into Bertrand Russell's "The only certainty in life is uncertainty" then yes I'm willing to admit that it is only not probable that they believed in Jesus. The native Americans were killed unless they "converted"; the Spanish in the early 1500s would get off their ships, read a passage in Spanish to the native Americans saying "Unless you convert to Christianity, you will be killed" leading obviously to the slaughter of millions of non-spanish speaking people. Also going by the few that learned to speak both english and their native tongues who translated their tribes creation stories obviously did not lead to the conclusion that a man by the name of Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind in Jerusalem. Since they had their own creation story and their own dieties, by definition then, they had to believe in "false gods", according to Christianity. Anyone who believes in false gods goes to hell, right?
-
Who (other than abortion doctors) and crazy people are going to kill all these babies?
I doubt you really are saying you want to end human life on earth which is what would happen eventually if you killed all the babies.
I can see that you are saying it would be better to die as a baby and go to heaven than live a full life and reject Christ and be separated from God for eternity, but you are also saying that you want to take people's choice away to accept or reject Christ as Savior.
Do you choose to reject Him as Savior? If so, do you want that choice to be taken away from you?
There was a woman a couple of years ago, who said a voice in her head told her to kill her 3 children (all under the age of 5 I believe) because if she didn't then they would grow up to be evil, but if she did, then her babies would go to heaven. Let's imagine that 1 out of the 3 children would have said at the age of 14 "Screw it, i like being evil, i'm going to reject it". If what she believed was true, and she obviously did what she did out of love, then was it morally permissible for her to do that?
In response to your last line. This is a separate issue that I would like to keep separate from this thread but I will answer it. If people's choice prevents them from being saved, then what good is the choice? I've said this before. If free will is the end result of people being unsaved and going to hell, then yes by all means let's remove free will. Why should we respect free will when it's that horrible? It's more important to go to heaven than to have the pride in saying "I have chosen option B", right?
-
Magoo, I think we all assume that babies are incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ or even acknowledging their sin nature.
I think we also assume things along the lines that they have the attention spans of goldfish for awhile and don't have a real clue to the world around them in the way we do.
But how do we know for sure what anyone other than ourselves are thinking?
Yes babies are incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ, and acknowledging their sin nature. That's not the dispute.
The question is, According to Christianity, is the fact that a person is incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ or acknowledging their sin nature, take away the responsibility they have to be saved to go to heaven? I'm saying according to the teachings in the Bible that I know, the answer is no. All have original sin, all are born in original sin, all who die in their sins without accepting Jesus go to hell. Now some might wish to add a huge clause to that saying "well...it's only fair if babies, or mental patients, or those that never heard about Jesus, or those that were told false things about Jesus, or those who were otherwise misled about Jesus (by other religions for example), etc all get free passes" but that is highly inconsistent to the use of the word "all" in the bible.
I think most people will admit that it is not fair if ________ go to hell while _______ go to heaven. Those blanks can be filled with hundreds of things. If Christianity is true, consider the following. Is it really fair that me and you butterbean were born in a country with a church on every corner while a native american male aged 18 who died in 1500 haiti trying to protect his children from the invading army, who happened to believe in the sun god or an array of gods, or the turtle creation story, all because of the fact that he was told this by his peers and parents since the day he was born and never had any conflicting stories from the outside, went to hell?
Most of us would say "no that's not fair, so he'll go to heaven because a fair god would put him in heaven." St. Augustine would say "We are in no position to judge what is fair or not, that is God's domain and not ours. We all deserve eternity of hell due to original sin so we are in no position to complain who goes where. "
-
Magoo, I did a google on "do babies go to hell" and this site (www.essentialchristianit y.com) has an interesting commentary regarding original sin versus sins the person actually commits.....
Check this out:
We believe that Scripture does indeed teach that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect. This must not be based only in our hope that it is true, but in a careful reading of the Bible. We start with the biblical affirmations we have noted already. First, the Bible reveals that we are "brought forth in iniquity,"(1) and thus bear the stain of original sin from the moment of our conception. Thus, we face squarely the sin problem. Second, we acknowledge that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. We do not deserve salvation, and can do nothing to earn our salvation, and thus it is all of grace. Further we understand that our salvation is established by God’s election of sinners to salvation through Christ. Third, we affirm that Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the sole and sufficient Savior, and that salvation comes only on the basis of His blood atonement. Fourth, we affirm that the Bible teaches a dual eternal destiny – the redeemed to Heaven, the unredeemed to Hell.
What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body."(2) That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done,"(3) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.
One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers."(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."(5) The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.
We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
"But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not."
"Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."
I disagree with the first line. I think children below the age of 13 can commit sin. Saint Augustine said that even he was over greedy when being breastfeed and he felt this was a sin. I think any parent of more than one children under the age of 5-6 will admit to seeing jealously, anger, and pride existing in those children.
In regard to the second line. I think children are capable of committing sins in the body, regardless of whether they understand what they are doing is considered "sin" in the moral sense. Even if they are not moral agents, I think it can be said they are still capable of being immoral. "If someone is immoral without the knowledge of being immoral, are they still responsible for being immoral" I believe opens the can of worms that has already been opened.
I would like to say thank you for spending the time to actually look this stuff up from sources, as opposed to me who do nothing but sit around and think to myself all day lol.
-
If you would like, I believe that I can answer some, if not all of your questions. Being atheist I can readily understand why you might not desire this.
-
If you would like, I believe that I can answer some, in not all of your questions. Being atheist I can readily understand why you might not desire this.
Sure. Start at the beginning if you don't mind and be sure to state which points in which posts you are addressing.
I guess I should say that in all my posts in this thread I have assumed that Christianity is true (I think I have anyways).
-
I know Native Americans did not believe in Jesus because I've read about their religions. Now if you want to get into Bertrand Russell's "The only certainty in life is uncertainty" then yes I'm willing to admit that it is only not probable that they believed in Jesus.
What else principles do you know except that of Bertrand Russell's??? You seem like a very educated man since you know the principle or two? :-X
-
What else principles do you know except that of Bertrand Russell's??? You seem like a very educated man since you know the principle or two? :-X
I don't get the point of your post (along with every other post of yours in this thread). Butterbean was asking how could I know for a fact that the Native Americans who were never taught Jesus did not believe in Jesus. Of course it's always possible, but its not probable, considering the evidence we have.
-
I don't get the point of your post (along with every other post of yours in this thread). Butterbean was asking how could I know for a fact that the Native Americans who were never taught Jesus did not believe in Jesus. Of course it's always possible, but its not probable, considering the evidence we have.
You're the kind of a guy who end without knowing what hit him!
-
I sent this in a PM to Butterbean but I think I'll post it here to ask others, and also reply to her answer here.
I think it'll be easier to do it this way. According to Christianity, the following premises are true:
P1: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
P2: All who die in their sins go to hell
P3: Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior become saved
P4: All and only the saved go to heaven when they die
Isn't it true, by definition, that babies who die must go to hell? They were alive human beings, born in their original sin, came short of the glory of God, yet never accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and they died. I'm using babies here as an example, but you can put in mental patients (although I'm pretty sure back in bible times they would have understood a mental patients someone who was evil and had "demons") or babies that die in the womb, etc etc.
If babies who die DO go to heaven, then one of the above premises must be false. If Premise 1 is true, and the baby was born into sin, and the baby still went to heaven, then Premise 2 and 4 have to be false. But if sinners can go to heaven, then why become saved? If the baby was NOT born into sin, then premise 1 has to be false, and the idea of "original sin" is false.
It seems to me that accepting the above premises to be true, and then saying that young babies, babies that die in the womb, mental patients, etc etc all go to heaven is inconsistent. Saint Augustine said that of course babies who die go to hell, because we all deserve hell due to original sin so we're in no position to complain. Even if Saint Augustines is consistent with the above premises, can we really make ourselves believe this is fair?
Butterbean replied in part of her PM response to this question, that if babies go to hell, what kind of just God is that? I think this is why Christians don't believe babies go to hell. They think it would be fair if babies did not go to hell. But I think most people only believe this because they want it to be true, not because they have evidence to believe it is true. I don't think most people, apart from St. Augustine, can say with full 100% confidence that it is okay for dead babies to go to hell. Then once you get into the whole "why aren't they held responsible like others are?" then that can get into a huge sociological argument about why others should not be held responsible (other religion followers, those who never heard of Jesus, those who have not had good teachers of Jesus, parents are anti-christian, etc etc)
Perhaps I've steered off track, but maybe this makes sense somewhat.
Mr. Magoo,
I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I have read the Bible from cover to cover several times, in Spanish and in English, in different versions.
I still don't know for sure whether or not babies and the mentally ill go to hell, but I personally believe from what I read in the Bible that they do not go to hell. This is based on what we Christians read in the Bible, and it is not wishful thinking.
David's baby dies:
2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
Like Butterbean said, David had access to the prophets Samuel and Nathan, whom God spoke directly to. God also inspired David to write many parts of the Bible.
Age of accountability?
Isaiah 7:16
for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
As for the above contradicting Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
It does not contradict Romans 3:23. Saying that ALL are this or that ALL are that is an expression, a figure of speech. This verse is directed not at babies or at mental patients. This verse is directed at those who believe that they have not sinned, that they are good enough, that they deserve heaven. Romans 3:23 is making it clear to them that they are wrong.
The Bible is the "perfect" word of God, written by imperfect men, inspired by God, written on imperfect "paper" with imperfect "ink", written in imperfect human languages with imperfect expressions and imperfect figures of speech like the one in Romans 3:23. We ourselves use this expression to make a point when we really don't mean ALL.
God could have written the Bible himself, on perfect paper or stone, in a perfect heavenly language. But then we would not be able to read it at all.
But what if we Christians are wrong and babies and the mentally ill go to hell. What if Romans 3:23 does include them when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? Would this make God evil and unjust? NO!
The Bible is very clear that when we sin, even if we are forgiven, there can be eternal consequences of our sin for generations to come. Because of Adam and Eve, sin and death entered the world and we all have suffered the consequences of their sin. And after Adam and Eve, humans have committed sins and made poor choices that have made many generations suffer because of it.
But likewise, when we obey God and make the right choices, not only are we blessed, but also our children and their children and many people around us can be blessed too even if they had nothing to do with our obedience to God or with our right choices.
So no, I do not believe that if babies and the mentally ill go to hell because of sin, that this would make God evil or unjust. God would continue to be good and just even then. But like I said above, based on what I read in the Bible, babies and the mentally ill do go to heaven when they die.
-
What is Certain Loco that is all uncertain - Bertrand Russel!!! Ehh??? Love it? Chill. So Mr Magoo says!!!
-
What is Certain Loco that is all uncertain - Bertrand Russel!!! Ehh??? Love it? Chill. So Mr Magoo says!!!
What is certain is that God is good and just! :)
-
What is Certain Loco that is all uncertain - Bertrand Russel!!! Ehh??? Love it? Chill. So Mr Magoo says!!!
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Am i the only one that doesn't know why theonlyone posts? ???
-
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Am i the only one that doesn't know why theonlyone posts? ???
We all have a hard time understanding theonlyone. Unless he is a gimmick, he seems to be a Russian who is a Christian, who doesn't know English very well.
-
We all have a hard time understanding theonlyone. Unless he is a gimmick, he seems to be a Russian who is a Christian, who doesn't know English very well.
Just to let you know while you're still here, I'm working on responding to your post. I'm trying to break it up into different sections so it'll be easier to read my response. Stupid me is trying to work out the quote function while my screen keeps jumping on long posts. Thanks for you're response though, you addressed the points I was talking about.
-
Just to let you know while you're still here, I'm working on responding to your post. I'm trying to break it up into different sections so it'll be easier to read my response. Stupid me is trying to work out the quote function while my screen keeps jumping on long posts. Thanks for you're response though, you addressed the points I was talking about.
Thanks Mr. Magoo! I updated my post a little bit. Please make sure you quote the latest one. I'll leave it alone now. :)
-
David's baby dies:
2 Samuel 12:23
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
Like Butterbean said, David had access to the prophets Samuel and Nathan, whom God spoke directly to. God also inspired David to write many parts of the Bible
I’ve thought about this since yesterday. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, isn't it only true that David said this, and that he was comforted by his belief that this was true? It's a quote isn't it, so it's only true that he said it. I'm not trying to split hairs here but part of me is skeptical to automatically assume that just because David is quoted as saying what he believed, and David is generally regarded as a good dude, that belief is automatically true. I believe it's a mistake to assume that Samuel or Nathan told him this if it's not said in the Bible, or to assume that everything Samuel and Nathan said was 100% accurate even though God did speak to them about some things. Again this is just my first reaction, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Age of accountability?
Isaiah 7:16
for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste
Is this referring to heaven? Even if it is, which I don't think it is but I could be misinterpreting the context. It seems that the sentence is focused more on “before they know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right”, and I don’t think that thought is applied directly to and only to children. Couldn’t someone expand that to say anyone who “doesn’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right” gets a free pass? If that’s the reason why children get a free pass, it should automatically be applied to non-children who have the same lack of capability. Correct? So I’m afraid that this opens the door that anyone who hasn’t heard of Jesus, or were told lies about Jesus, or were coerced by social instructions to not believe in Jesus, etc, all don’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. It seems contradictory to traditional Christian belief (which I won’t waste time explaining since you know already) to say that someone can go to heaven who doesn’t know of Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say “no one comes to the father but by me”?
Saying that ALL are this or that ALL are that is an expression, a figure of speech. This verse is directed not at babies or at mental patients
written in imperfect human languages with imperfect expressions and imperfect figures of speech like the one in Romans 3:23
In response to the first part: I think you are trying to shun the idea that all are condemned to hell. If you are saying that All are not condemned to hell, doesn’t this contradict the idea of original sin? I think you are also dancing around the notion that Romans 3:23 is wrong, by saying it is “imperfect”. I think it gets tricky if you start to say that some passages are wrong while others are right.
So no, I do not believe that if babies and the mentally ill go to hell because of sin, that this would make God evil or unjust
I’m not saying it would. I’m saying I think it is the fear of God seeming injust that prevents people from saying that babies who die go to hell. I’m saying that it seems at first glance that the beliefs contradict each other.
-
I disagree with the first line. I think children below the age of 13 can commit sin. Saint Augustine said that even he was over greedy when being breastfeed and he felt this was a sin. I think any parent of more than one children under the age of 5-6 will admit to seeing jealously, anger, and pride existing in those children.
I don't agree w/the 13 point either in the accountability theory. Agree it should be lower.
St. Augustine remembers breastfeeding? How old was he when he stopped? Weird!lol
I would like to say thank you for spending the time to actually look this stuff up from sources, as opposed to me who do nothing but sit around and think to myself all day lol.
;D
-
Thanks for your post loco!
We all have a hard time understanding theonlyone. Unless he is a gimmick, he seems to be a Russian who is a Christian, who doesn't know English very well.
I have a very hard time understanding theonlyone...sorry onlyone! If his posts are at all long I usually skip them entirely because I get very confused. Again, no offense to onlyone! His English as a second language is still much better than my extremely limited knowledge of French.
The text box bouncing is very irritating. We've brought it to Ron's attention but someone said it is a program problem.
-
I don't agree w/the 13 point either in the accountability theory. Agree it should be lower.
St. Augustine remembers breastfeeding? How old was he when he stopped? Weird!lol
;D
It wasn't that he remembered exactly I don't think. I think his point was mainly "even babies breastfeeding can be over greedy, and this is a sin."
-
I’ve thought about this since yesterday. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, isn't it only true that David said this, and that he was comforted by his belief that this was true? It's a quote isn't it, so it's only true that he said it. I'm not trying to split hairs here but part of me is skeptical to automatically assume that just because David is quoted as saying what he believed, and David is generally regarded as a good dude, that belief is automatically true. I believe it's a mistake to assume that Samuel or Nathan told him this if it's not said in the Bible, or to assume that everything Samuel and Nathan said was 100% accurate even though God did speak to them about some things. Again this is just my first reaction, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Maybe loco can help but I'm pretty sure Prophets from God are 100% accurate. That is one way to know they are from God.
I think it's safer to assume that David did speak to them about a lot of stuff, including about his baby. Wouldn't you?
The bible doesn't have every single conversation between the "key players" recorded.
-
It wasn't that he remembered exactly I don't think. I think his point was mainly "even babies breastfeeding can be over greedy, and this is a sin."
Well that just sounds weird to me. Seems like they'd finish eating if they were full and not be purposefully gluttonous but what do I know.
-
I’ve thought about this since yesterday. Even if the Bible is 100% accurate, isn't it only true that David said this, and that he was comforted by his belief that this was true? It's a quote isn't it, so it's only true that he said it. I'm not trying to split hairs here but part of me is skeptical to automatically assume that just because David is quoted as saying what he believed, and David is generally regarded as a good dude, that belief is automatically true. I believe it's a mistake to assume that Samuel or Nathan told him this if it's not said in the Bible, or to assume that everything Samuel and Nathan said was 100% accurate even though God did speak to them about some things. Again this is just my first reaction, so I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
At this point, it comes down to faith. You can believe that what David said was wishful thinking, while I'll believe that what David said is accurate. And David wasn't just generally regarded as a good dude. David was regarded as a man after God's own heart, by God himself. And like I said, David was inspired by God to write large parts of the Bible.
Is this referring to heaven? Even if it is, which I don't think it is but I could be misinterpreting the context. It seems that the sentence is focused more on “before they know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right”, and I don’t think that thought is applied directly to and only to children. Couldn’t someone expand that to say anyone who “doesn’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right” gets a free pass? If that’s the reason why children get a free pass, it should automatically be applied to non-children who have the same lack of capability. Correct? So I’m afraid that this opens the door that anyone who hasn’t heard of Jesus, or were told lies about Jesus, or were coerced by social instructions to not believe in Jesus, etc, all don’t know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. It seems contradictory to traditional Christian belief (which I won’t waste time explaining since you know already) to say that someone can go to heaven who doesn’t know of Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say “no one comes to the father but by me”?
It is referring to a child's "age of accountability", confirming that there is an age before which children can't knowingly choose right from wrong.
In response to the first part: I think you are trying to shun the idea that all are condemned to hell. If you are saying that All are not condemned to hell, doesn’t this contradict the idea of original sin? I think you are also dancing around the notion that Romans 3:23 is wrong, by saying it is “imperfect”. I think it gets tricky if you start to say that some passages are wrong while others are right.
Why would I be trying to shun the idea that all are condemned to hell when I already told you that I have no problems if God sent babies and the mentally ill to hell because of sin, if that were true? I already told you that even then, to me God would still be good and just. In other words, the answer to your main question makes no difference to me one way or another. It might if I had ever had a baby who died, or a loved one who was born mentally ill and died.
I never said that Romans 3:23 is wrong. It isn't. I never said that Romans 3:23 is "imperfect." It is the word of God and it is perfect. What I said is that English, Spanish, etc. are not perfect.
I’m not saying it would. I’m saying I think it is the fear of God seeming injust that prevents people from saying that babies who die go to hell. I’m saying that it seems at first glance that the beliefs contradict each other.
Maybe there are Christians who feel that way, but I have no such fears. And I personally don't believe there is a contradiction here. Yours is a very good question which has been asked for a thousand plus years. And the reason is that the Bible is very clear on certain things, but in others, such as this, it isn't. The way that I personally approach these things is: I am neither a baby nor a person who was born mentally ill, so I am without excuse and the answer to this question, though it is worth discussing, does not affect me one way or another.
-
Maybe loco can help but I'm pretty sure Prophets from God are 100% accurate. That is one way to know they are from God.
I think it's safer to assume that David did speak to them about a lot of stuff, including about his baby. Wouldn't you?
The bible doesn't have every single conversation between the "key players" recorded.
Si! :)
-
Maybe loco can help but I'm pretty sure Prophets from God are 100% accurate. That is one way to know they are from God.
I think it's safer to assume that David did speak to them about a lot of stuff, including about his baby. Wouldn't you?
The bible doesn't have every single conversation between the "key players" recorded.
I'll respond to the other stuff later when I have more time. But I'll reply to this.
Prophets from God are only accurate about what God tells them right? If they were 100% accurate about everything, then they would be perfect, and nobody was perfect except Jesus, correct? So even IF Nathan and Samuel told David that about his baby, one still has to assume (without evidence) that God told Nathan and Samuel this information. Just because Nathan and Samuel might have said it, does not make it true.
It is also assuming without evidence that David did speak to Nathan and Samuel about his baby. It might make sense to us to say that they did, but we cannot go by the Bible to say that this in fact did happen. That's adding to the Bible, which Revelation explicitly says we shouldn't do, correct?
Therefore IF the Bible is 100% accurate, all the information that we can say is certain is that David said the quote, and that he was comforted by the belief that he expressed in the quote.
-
I'll respond to the other stuff later when I have more time. But I'll reply to this.
Prophets from God are only accurate about what God tells them right? If they were 100% accurate about everything, then they would be perfect, and nobody was perfect except Jesus, correct? So even IF Nathan and Samuel told David that about his baby, one still has to assume (without evidence) that God told Nathan and Samuel this information. Just because Nathan and Samuel might have said it, does not make it true.
It is also assuming without evidence that David did speak to Nathan and Samuel about his baby. It might make sense to us to say that they did, but we cannot go by the Bible to say that this in fact did happen. That's adding to the Bible, which Revelation explicitly says we shouldn't do, correct?
Therefore IF the Bible is 100% accurate, all the information that we can say is certain is that David said the quote, and that he was comforted by the belief that he expressed in the quote.
At this point, it comes down to faith. You can believe that what David said was wishful thinking, while I'll believe that what David said is accurate. And David wasn't just generally regarded as a good dude. David was regarded as a man after God's own heart, by God himself. And like I said, David was inspired by God to write large parts of the Bible.
-
At this point, it comes down to faith. You can believe that what David said was wishful thinking, while I'll believe that what David said is accurate.
x2
-
Sure. Start at the beginning if you don't mind and be sure to state which points in which posts you are addressing.
I guess I should say that in all my posts in this thread I have assumed that Christianity is true (I think I have anyways).
Allow me to address your concerns regarding children.
"But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
That does not sound like condemnation to this little atheist.
Let us examine this from a regular guys (i.e., me) point of view. Who among us would condemn an innocent child to an eternity of hell, whatever that may be? Not a single one of us. If we, being just regular people are capable of rational and fair judgement as regards an innocent child, how much more so an eternal and all knowing God?
It really is that simple.
-
You're coming from every angle possible, in vain attempt to design a wheel and it's getting you nowhere.
Accountable age??? 7 years 235 days 3 hours 57 min etc or?????? Jesus! Keep typing...I love Americans!!!!
-
People are held accountable for what they know: "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17. Babies don't fall in that category.
-
I could respond to any of the replies above. If anybody is wanting a reply then ask, but I'm afraid I'll be repeating what I've already said.
New Question:
Everybody knows the story of when Jesus told Peter that Peter would betray him. "Before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice"
So the question is, "Did Peter really have a choice whether to deny Jesus, once Jesus said that?"
Let's say that Peter lived to be 100, and never denied Jesus after that time when Jesus said it. That means that what Jesus said was false. If Jesus knows all things, then Jesus had to have known what he said would be false (if peter never denied knowing Jesus). If Jesus had said something to be true that he knew was false, then this is a lie. But Jesus cannot lie, right?
So that means that Peter had to have denied Jesus in order to prevent Jesus from telling a lie. If Peter could not not deny Jesus, then Peter could not have done otherwise except denying Jesus. If peter could not have done otherwise, then peter had to have denied Jesus.
If peter had to deny Jesus, then why should we hold him accountable or blameworthy? It was impossible for Peter to do otherwise than what he did, so why blame him?
If Jesus did not want Peter to deny him, then why would he say to Peter that peter would deny him? If Jesus had instead said "peter, you will never deny knowing me" then by definition of Jesus knowing the future, and Jesus not being able to tell a lie, Peter could never had denied knowing Jesus, right?
???
-
I could respond to any of the replies above. If anybody is wanting a reply then ask, but I'm afraid I'll be repeating what I've already said.
New Question:
Everybody knows the story of when Jesus told Peter that Peter would betray him. "Before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice"
So the question is, "Did Peter really have a choice whether to deny Jesus, once Jesus said that?"
Let's say that Peter lived to be 100, and never denied Jesus after that time when Jesus said it. That means that what Jesus said was false. If Jesus knows all things, then Jesus had to have known what he said would be false (if peter never denied knowing Jesus). If Jesus had said something to be true that he knew was false, then this is a lie. But Jesus cannot lie, right?
So that means that Peter had to have denied Jesus in order to prevent Jesus from telling a lie. If Peter could not not deny Jesus, then Peter could not have done otherwise except denying Jesus. If peter could not have done otherwise, then peter had to have denied Jesus.
If peter had to deny Jesus, then why should we hold him accountable or blameworthy? It was impossible for Peter to do otherwise than what he did, so why blame him?
If Jesus did not want Peter to deny him, then why would he say to Peter that peter would deny him? If Jesus had instead said "peter, you will never deny knowing me" then by definition of Jesus knowing the future, and Jesus not being able to tell a lie, Peter could never had denied knowing Jesus, right?
???
What? Is you joking or something? :)
-
What? Is you joking or something? :)
no i'm serious.
It was, by default, impossible for Peter to not deny Jesus after Jesus had told him that he would.
if peter never denied Jesus, then that means Jesus lied, and Jesus cant lie.
Right?
-
Peter did deny Jesus, and would have denied Jesus either way because Peter was a weak believer at the time. Jesus simply knew the future. Denying Jesus, then repenting, was actually a good thing since it made Peter a very strong and brave believer, and a leader among the apostles.
-
Peter did deny Jesus, and would have denied Jesus either way because Peter was a weak believer at the time. Jesus simply knew the future. Denying Jesus, then repenting, was actually a good thing since it made Peter a very strong and brave believer, and a leader among the apostles.
I don't think it's fair to say that Peter "would have done it anyway." Peter was never given a chance not to do it. It was predetermined for him to do it. Do you think it's fair to peter for Jesus to manipulate peter's guilt over something peter could not have avoided?
A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus. This is because if he did accept Jesus, then that means that Jesus lied to me, and Jesus can't lie. Jesus can't lie like the Oracle from the Matrix and only tell Neo what he needs to hear. So why should my great great grandson be held responsible for not believing in Jesus, if it was never possible to begin with? You can't say that my great great grandson is a weak person and wouldn't believe in Jesus anyways, because my great great grandson doesn't exist right now.
In the case of Peter denying Jesus, we have a similar case to the example I gave in the previous paragraph. In both cases, Jesus decides to answer and tell what the future will be. I used the example of Peter because it is a real case of blame being assigned to a deterministic reality. Most people blame peter for denying Jesus, I haven't heard anyone praise Peter for it.
-
A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus.
How does this mean he "will never have the chance to accept Jesus?"
Isn't it true that he could have had the chance and rejected it?
-
How does this mean he "will never have the chance to accept Jesus?"
Isn't it true that he could have had the chance and rejected it?
my great great grandson has not yet rejected Jesus, because my great great grandson does not yet exist.
-
my great great grandson has not yet rejected Jesus, because my great great grandson does not yet exist.
How is that relevant ???
Jesus knowing the future and saying your great great grandson will not be saved does not exclude the possibility that the reason he was not saved is not that he didn't ever have the chance to accept Him, but that he could have had the chance and rejected Him.
-
How is that relevant ???
Jesus knowing the future and saying your great great grandson will not be saved does not exclude the possibility that the reason he was not saved is not that he didn't ever have the chance to accept Him, but that he could have rejected Him.
I think it does. It's not that he's predicting the outcome of a future free will event. The free will part is erased before the person is even born. The great great grandson never, at any point in his lifetime, has free will to accept Jesus if Jesus answers me like that. Jesus isn't telling about an event that happened in the past as a result of free will, which I think is how you're interpreting this. Jesus is telling about a future event. My great great grandson denying Jesus has not already happend when I ask Jesus whether or not he will be saved. That would mean that my great great grandson would have to exist before he comes to exist, which is impossible.
-
I don't think it's fair to say that Peter "would have done it anyway." Peter was never given a chance not to do it. It was predetermined for him to do it. Do you think it's fair to peter for Jesus to manipulate peter's guilt over something peter could not have avoided?
A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus. This is because if he did accept Jesus, then that means that Jesus lied to me, and Jesus can't lie. Jesus can't lie like the Oracle from the Matrix and only tell Neo what he needs to hear. So why should my great great grandson be held responsible for not believing in Jesus, if it was never possible to begin with? You can't say that my great great grandson is a weak person and wouldn't believe in Jesus anyways, because my great great grandson doesn't exist right now.
In the case of Peter denying Jesus, we have a similar case to the example I gave in the previous paragraph. In both cases, Jesus decides to answer and tell what the future will be. I used the example of Peter because it is a real case of blame being assigned to a deterministic reality. Most people blame peter for denying Jesus, I haven't heard anyone praise Peter for it.
You are accusing Jesus of making Peter deny him. That is false. And Peter did not feel guilty about denying Jesus before denying Jesus. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus, Peter did not believe that he would. Peter assured Jesus that he would never deny him.
-
You are accusing Jesus of making Peter deny him. That is false. And Peter did not feel guilty about denying Jesus before denying Jesus. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus, Peter did not believe that he would. Peter assured Jesus that he would never deny him.
Why is it false that Jesus didn't make Peter deny him? You didn't explain why it was false.
Let's assume that free will exists. Then it would have been best for Jesus to never tell Peter that Peter would deny him, right? If Jesus had never said anything at all, then Peter either A) Could have denied Jesus or B) Could have not denied Jesus. BUT Because Jesus told peter that he would deny him, option B was eliminated. Why was it eliminated? Because it became impossible for Peter to do Option B. Why was it impossible for peter to do option B? Because if Peter did do option B, then Jesus would have knowingly told a lie, but Jesus cannot lie. Therefore, Option B was impossible for Peter to do, which leaves only Option A. Therefore, Peter HAD to deny Jesus once Jesus told him that he would.
In regard to your 3rd sentence. I never said Peter felt guilty about denying Jesus before he did it. That would mean Peter knew it beforehand, which he didn't. I'm saying that Peter DID feel guilty AFTER denying Jesus, and it is this guilt that led him to become a better leader and better apostle. That's what you said earlier. But this guilt should not have existed in Peter, because Peter could not have done otherwise than what he did. I asked you if you thought it was fair for Jesus to put false guilt into Peter in order to get Peter to become a better person.
-
Why is it false that Jesus didn't make Peter deny him? You didn't explain why it was false.
Let's assume that free will exists. Then it would have been best for Jesus to never tell Peter that Peter would deny him, right? If Jesus had never said anything at all, then Peter either A) Could have denied Jesus or B) Could have not denied Jesus. BUT Because Jesus told peter that he would deny him, option B was eliminated. Why was it eliminated? Because it became impossible for Peter to do Option B. Why was it impossible for peter to do option B? Because if Peter did do option B, then Jesus would have knowingly told a lie, but Jesus cannot lie. Therefore, Option B was impossible for Peter to do, which leaves only Option A. Therefore, Peter HAD to deny Jesus once Jesus told him that he would.
In regard to your 3rd sentence. I never said Peter felt guilty about denying Jesus before he did it. That would mean Peter knew it beforehand, which he didn't. I'm saying that Peter DID feel guilty AFTER denying Jesus, and it is this guilt that led him to become a better leader and better apostle. That's what you said earlier. But this guilt should not have existed in Peter, because Peter could not have done otherwise than what he did. I asked you if you thought it was fair for Jesus to put false guilt into Peter in order to get Peter to become a better person.
Magoo, God (Jesus) is not bound by time and space.
You probably know that the book of Revelation focuses much on the future. Do you think since it is written like that, that is the reason that the forces will gather at the Mount of Megiddo because it says so?
It is known to God...Who knows all...past, present and future. And so He has told us in the book of Revelation.
-
Magoo, I've heard some people say that God sees time (and occasions that it envelops) as sort of a "parade"....He sees the beginning, the middle, the end and everything in between ...while we are in the middle somewhere only being able to see that which is immediately surrounding us....
Not sure if that helps or not.
-
Magoo, God (Jesus) is not bound by time and space.
You probably know that the book of Revelation focuses much on the future. Do you think since it is written like that, that is the reason that the forces will gather at the Mount of Meggido because it says so?
It is known to God...Who knows all...past, present and future. And so He has told us in the book of Revelation.
Yes I do. For example, if 10 Billion years ago, someone (lets assume someone existed) asked God what kind of shirt you would be wearing today at whatever time you posted that post on getbig. Let's say God says a black plain tshirt. Did you freely choose this morning what shirt you put on? Are you saying that you could have just as easily wore a red shirt, or a blue shirt, etc? I'm saying no. Those options were not available to you. They might seem available to you in real time in your world. But in the grand scheme of things, ever since you was born, even long before you was born, you was going to wear a black shirt today. It wasn't up to you. It was determined before your free will existed. Your free will didn't exist before you were born. No matter what choices you made, no matter what you did or how you acted, you were going to be wearing a black plain tshirt when you typed that post.
-
Magoo, I've heard some people say that God sees time (and occasions that it envelops) as sort of a "parade"....He sees the beginning, the middle, the end and everything in between ...while we are in the middle somewhere only being able to see that which is immediately surrounding us....
Not sure if that helps or not.
I don't think God is merely watching a parade. God made and designed the parade.
I think saying that God is merely a watcher who knows the movie of time by heart is taking a deist approach, and not a theist approach. We have to keep in mind, if talking about theism, that God carefully made the movie of time
-
I don't think it's fair to say that Peter "would have done it anyway." Peter was never given a chance not to do it. It was predetermined for him to do it. Do you think it's fair to peter for Jesus to manipulate peter's guilt over something peter could not have avoided?
A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus. This is because if he did accept Jesus, then that means that Jesus lied to me, and Jesus can't lie. Jesus can't lie like the Oracle from the Matrix and only tell Neo what he needs to hear. So why should my great great grandson be held responsible for not believing in Jesus, if it was never possible to begin with? You can't say that my great great grandson is a weak person and wouldn't believe in Jesus anyways, because my great great grandson doesn't exist right now.
In the case of Peter denying Jesus, we have a similar case to the example I gave in the previous paragraph. In both cases, Jesus decides to answer and tell what the future will be. I used the example of Peter because it is a real case of blame being assigned to a deterministic reality. Most people blame peter for denying Jesus, I haven't heard anyone praise Peter for it.
You seem have an obsession with unfairness and with accusing God of being unfair and unjust in your posts. What happened to you?
I don't know if you are an atheist, agnostic or non-Bible believing theist just trying to sound deep or just trying to stir things up, but I for one do not view God as unfair and unjust. And I have been a devout Christians for many years and have read and studied the Bible for a very long time.
You want fair? You want to get what you deserve? According to the Bible, you and I have sinned and deserve Hell, but by God's grace, He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life. I don't know about you, but I don't want what I deserve. I prefer God's grace and mercy.
-
You seem have an obsession with unfairness and with accusing God of being unfair and unjust in your posts. What happened to you?
I don't know if you are an atheist, agnostic or non-Bible believing theist just trying to sound deep or just trying to stir things up, but I for one do not view God as unfair and unjust. And I have been a devout Christians for many years and have read and studied the Bible for a very long time.
You want fair? You want to get what you deserve? According to the Bible, you and I have sinned and deserve Hell, but by God's grace, He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life. I don't know about you, but I don't want what I deserve. I prefer God's grace and mercy.
I don't think it's fair to insult those who ask questions. You overlook the fact that everything I say assumes the Bible to be 100% accurate. I never say that the Bible is false. What I do is assume the Bible is 100% accurate, and see how that matches up with our own personal beliefs. Sadly to say, those are inconsistent a lot. With everything I've said, I've started with the assumption that what the bible says is true, and then see what consequences that brings. I don't think a majority of Christians spend enough time thinking about what they believe in. It is after all, the most important beliefs they could ever have, right? I think most people just convince themselves of believing in Jesus, and then hide behind the sanctity of that belief for the remainder of their lives, and whenever any discussion comes up, they repeat over and over the main catchphrase of "Well I know that I've believed on Jesus Christ as my savior and his grace is sufficient for all things". I think taking that approach is nothing short of laziness.
-
Yes I do. For example, if 10 Billion years ago, someone (lets assume someone existed) asked God what kind of shirt you would be wearing today at whatever time you posted that post on getbig. Let's say God says a black plain tshirt. Did you freely choose this morning what shirt you put on? Are you saying that you could have just as easily wore a red shirt, or a blue shirt, etc? I'm saying no. Those options were not available to you. They might seem available to you in real time in your world. But in the grand scheme of things, ever since you was born, even long before you was born, you was going to wear a black shirt today. It wasn't up to you. It was determined before your free will existed. Your free will didn't exist before you were born. No matter what choices you made, no matter what you did or how you acted, you were going to be wearing a black plain tshirt when you typed that post.
We think very differently.
I see your scenario like this:
God said 10 billion years ago I would be wearing a black shirt when I typed that post.
You take this to mean I had no other option than to wear a black shirt.
I see the situation as God can see the future and knew I would be wearing a black shirt. Although I have many black shirts, I do have other options in my wardrobe. I personally had picked a black one that day and God, 10 billion years ago and being able to see the past present and future knew I would be wearing a black shirt and so stated.
(My shirt was actually brown ;D )
Magoo, do you think that God makes happen everything that happens? Including child abuse, etc? If so, do you not believe in the concept of personal responsibility?
-
I see your scenario like this:
God said 10 billion years ago I would be wearing a black shirt when I typed that post.
You take this to mean I had no other option than to wear a black shirt.
I see the situation as God can see the future and knew I would be wearing a black shirt. Although I have many black shirts, I do have other options in my wardrobe. I personally had picked a black one that day and God, 10 billion years ago and being able to see the past present and future knew I would be wearing a black shirt and so stated.
I understand your point, But I disagree. I think we are disagreeing about meaings of the word "determinism".
I think this article addresses the definition points we're disagreeing over. I'm reading it now so I might edit this post correcting myself, but until I finish reading it I'll leave it up here.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
-
I don't think it's fair to insult those who ask questions. You overlook the fact that everything I say assumes the Bible to be 100% accurate. I never say that the Bible is false. What I do is assume the Bible is 100% accurate, and see how that matches up with our own personal beliefs. Sadly to say, those are inconsistent a lot. With everything I've said, I've started with the assumption that what the bible says is true, and then see what consequences that brings. I don't think a majority of Christians spend enough time thinking about what they believe in. It is after all, the most important beliefs they could ever have, right? I think most people just convince themselves of believing in Jesus, and then hide behind the sanctity of that belief for the remainder of their lives, and whenever any discussion comes up, they repeat over and over the main catchphrase of "Well I know that I've believed on Jesus Christ as my savior and his grace is sufficient for all things". I think taking that approach is nothing short of laziness.
You don't think it's fair? LOL ;D
I'm not insulting you, just making an observation. By your logic, everything else you just posted is a blanket statement and an insult to Christians in general.
Nothing wrong with asking questions and having interesting discussions. I don't believe in extraterrestrials and I don't believe in ghosts, but I do enjoy discussing those two topics very much.
Back to the discussion. When you say Jesus made Peter deny him, I still don't see where you are getting that from. Are you saying that you know Jesus manipulated Peter, or are you saying that you see this as a possibility? If you are assuming that the Bible is true and 100% accurate, then please show me where it says that Jesus manipulated Peter and made Peter deny him!
-
Magoo, do you think that God makes happen everything that happens? Including child abuse, etc? If so, do you not believe in the concept of personal responsibility?
That's a very tricky question but I'll give a short answer. Leibniz believed that child abuse, although evil, is a necessary part of life in order for us to have the greatest life possible. Similar to how a particular corner of a painting might be ugly by itself, but once the whole painting is viewed, the painting is the most beautiful it could possibly be. I believe this is how most christians deal with problems such as child abuse: "Yes its evil, but God has a plan, our feeble minds can't comprehend, etc"
On the note of personal responsibility. Even in a deterministic universe, the mere fact that it is deterministic does not eliminate personal responsibility. Some believe the two are compatible. For example, I doubt you believe your dog has free will like you do. He/she has instinct and acts on those. But you would still punish your dog if he/she did something horrible. There is a paper by Harry Frankfurt (who is a compatibilist (meaning he believes both a deterministic universe and personal responsibility can exist together)) where he gives several thought experiments to show that is the case. Also, a large majority of new studies done shows that people have a natural tendency to be a compatibilist, instead of automatically thinking "well if it's predetermined, why is he held responsible?."
-
Back to the discussion. When you say Jesus made Peter deny him, I still don't see where you are getting that from. Are you saying that you know Jesus manipulated Peter, or are you saying that you see this as a possibility? If you are assuming that the Bible is true and 100% accurate, then please show me where it says that Jesus manipulated Peter and made Peter deny him!
I'm trying to explain how in a deterministic universe, one and only one outcome (D1) is possible at any given time (T1). What's the easiest way I can explain this. First of all I am not saying I know that Jesus manipulated Peter, I just asked if he did, do you think it's fair. It never says he doesn't, so it is of course a possibility right?
Let's see if this will help. Imagine that Jesus told Peter one morning that "By this time next week, you will deny me 3 times." Peter of course thinks "what? No i wont. I don't want to deny you, so why would i?" So Peter tells a friend of his later on that day about it, and the friend asks, "Well, are you going to deny him?" Peter responds "I don't want to, but he's all powerful and cant lie, so I guess i have to." The friend could say "well, why don't you try being a better person in between now and next week, maybe you can prevent it?" Peter would have to respond saying "No matter how good of a person I try to become, no matter how much I really don't want to do it, by next week I have to deny him 3 times."
I know that was a silly imaginary conversation but do you get the point? Peter could not free-will himself out of it. Peter could have spent the next 6 days locked in a room praying 20 hours a day, but at some point before the week ended, Peter had to deny Jesus 3 times. Like for example, Jesus told peter before he was arrested that peter would deny him right? But when Jesus was arrested Peter cut the soldier's ear off. It was only later that Peter denied Jesus. So, was it possible for that soldier to kill peter in the garden that night? No it wasn't, because it was determined for peter to deny Jesus 3 times, which hadn't happen yet. So it was impossible for that soldier to kill Peter in the garden. It's similar to what I was saying earlier, certain options are eliminated.
-
Let's see if this will help. Imagine that Jesus told Peter one morning that "By this time next week, you will deny me 3 times." Peter of course thinks "what? No i wont. I don't want to deny you, so why would i?" So Peter tells a friend of his later on that day about it, and the friend asks, "Well, are you going to deny him?" Peter responds "I don't want to, but he's all powerful and cant lie, so I guess i have to." The friend could say "well, why don't you try being a better person in between now and next week, maybe you can prevent it?" Peter would have to respond saying "No matter how good of a person I try to become, no matter how much I really don't want to do it, by next week I have to deny him 3 times."
See highlighted text. I guess this is where we disagree, can't see eye to eye. I just don't understand your logic, nothing wrong with that. We just think differently. Why would Peter or anyone say something like that? If Jesus told me that I was going to deny him a few hours into the future, I would want to prove Jesus wrong. I know, he is Jesus, right? He can't be wrong. But that is just what I would try to do anyway.
Now, if Jesus told me that in a few hours I was going to turn myself in and die with Jesus, then I would try to prove him right.
I thought that's what anyone in Peter's position would do, until reading your post.
I do get what you are saying about a deterministic universe. I have read about this a little. There was a very old movie about a tattooed man whose tattoos where magical. The tattooed man told another man not to stare at his tattoos while he slept because anyone who stared at his tattoos would see his/her near future and that was not a good thing for some reason. The tattooed man fell asleep and the other man stared at one of the tattoos. While starring, the other man saw his future. He saw the tattooed man strangling him to death. The man panicked, picked up a rock and hit the tattooed man on the head. The tattooed man woke up and strangled the other man to death because the other man was trying to kill the tattooed with a rock.
Very interesting stuff, but I don't believe it.
-
New Question (Easter Related):
Pretty simple and straightforward
I hear people talking about waiting for 2nd coming of Jesus. During the rapture, or after the rapture, before the tribulation, or whatever order of events that are going to take place. But wouldn't it be the 3rd coming of Jesus? Jesus was born (1), Jesus rose out of the tomb on the 3rd day (2), so when Jesus comes back again, wouldn't it be the 3rd time?
I've always heard people talking about the 2nd coming though.
???
-
New Question (Easter Related):
Pretty simple and straightforward
I hear people talking about waiting for 2nd coming of Jesus. During the rapture, or after the rapture, before the tribulation, or whatever order of events that are going to take place. But wouldn't it be the 3rd coming of Jesus? Jesus was born (1), Jesus rose out of the tomb on the 3rd day (2), so when Jesus comes back again, wouldn't it be the 3rd time?
I've always heard people talking about the 2nd coming though.
???
I don't remember reading in the Bible about Jesus' "second" coming, just about Jesus' return. As for some people calling it the second coming, it all depends on what they mean by that, second time his body touches the earth, second time Jesus comes from Heaven, etc. If you want to go by the number of times Jesus was alive on earth, then yes, I guess you could call it his third coming to earth.
-
I don't remember reading in the Bible about Jesus' "second" coming, just about Jesus' return. As for some people calling it the second coming, it all depends on what they mean by that, second time his body touches the earth, second time Jesus comes from Heaven, etc. If you want to go by the number of times Jesus was alive on earth, then yes, I guess you could call it his third coming to earth.
I don't remember seeing "second" coming in the bible either. But I've never heard anybody call it his third coming, have you?
Every time I've ever heard it numbered or whatever, it's always the 2nd coming.
EDIT: You said "second time Jesus comes from Heaven" (in bold). It would be his third time coming from heaven.
-
I don't remember seeing "second" coming in the bible either. But I've never heard anybody call it his third coming, have you?
Not before you said it.
Every time I've ever heard it numbered or whatever, it's always the 2nd coming.
Like I said, it depends on what the person saying it means by it. 2nd coming is accurate depending on what they mean by that.
EDIT: You said "second time Jesus comes from Heaven" (in bold). It would be his third time coming from heaven.
Please explain!
-
Please explain!
The quote was "2nd time Jesus comes from Heaven"
1. Jesus came from heaven when he was born
2. Jesus came from heaven after the 3rd day (his soul was in heaven after he died, correct? Because it couldn't have been in hell, and it couldn't have ceased to exist, so Jesus once giving up the spirit on the cross, the spirit went to heaven, it came back down to his earthly body after the 3rd day)
3. Jesus will come again from heaven during the rapture or whatever (this will be #3)
right?
-
The quote was "2nd time Jesus comes from Heaven"
1. Jesus came from heaven when he was born
2. Jesus came from heaven after the 3rd day (his soul was in heaven after he died, correct? Because it couldn't have been in hell, and it couldn't have ceased to exist, so Jesus once giving up the spirit on the cross, the spirit went to heaven, it came back down to his earthly body after the 3rd day)
3. Jesus will come again from heaven during the rapture or whatever (this will be #3)
right?
If you'd ever cracked a bible jackass, it pretty much says Jesus went to hell after he died. In any case, he certainly didn't go to heaven.
-
If you'd ever cracked a bible jackass, it pretty much says Jesus went to hell after he died. In any case, he certainly didn't go to heaven.
so a perfect being can go to hell?
why did he go to hell? ???
-
He went to the place of the dead/hades. i don't know why - but that's what it says.
-
The quote was "2nd time Jesus comes from Heaven"
1. Jesus came from heaven when he was born
2. Jesus came from heaven after the 3rd day (his soul was in heaven after he died, correct? Because it couldn't have been in hell, and it couldn't have ceased to exist, so Jesus once giving up the spirit on the cross, the spirit went to heaven, it came back down to his earthly body after the 3rd day)
3. Jesus will come again from heaven during the rapture or whatever (this will be #3)
right?
Then allow me to rephrase my quote to say the 2nd time Jesus "bodily" comes from Heaven. Again, it all depends on what 2nd coming means to the person saying it.
As for Jesus' soul going to Heaven between his death and resurrection, the Bible is not very clear on that. Maybe he went to Heaven, or maybe he went to a Hades type place that is both a paradise for the righteous on one side of a chasm and a place of torment for the unrighteous on the other side.
Luke 23:43 (New International Version, ©2011)
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
Luke 16:26 (New International Version)
"And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us."
Some Christians interpret the verses below to mean that Jesus' soul went to Hell to preach and to declare his sacrifice for humanity:
1 Peter 3:18-20 (New Living Translation)
18 Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.
19 So he went and preached to the spirits in prison—20 those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.
Ephesians 4:8-9 (New Living Translation)
8 That is why the Scriptures say,
“When he ascended to the heights,
he led a crowd of captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 Notice that it says “he ascended.” This clearly means that Christ also descended to our lowly world.
-
New Question (Easter Related):
Pretty simple and straightforward
I hear people talking about waiting for 2nd coming of Jesus. During the rapture, or after the rapture, before the tribulation, or whatever order of events that are going to take place. But wouldn't it be the 3rd coming of Jesus? Jesus was born (1), Jesus rose out of the tomb on the 3rd day (2), so when Jesus comes back again, wouldn't it be the 3rd time?
I've always heard people talking about the 2nd coming though.
???
Maybe people that refer to it as the Second Coming are referring to periods of time that He lives among us.
So the first time being that He first came and lived among us and was born to die for our sins and conquer death for those who believe. The time of what they refer to as His Second Coming is when He comes back at the end of the great tribulation and establishes His Kingdom and will live among us.
-
Maybe people that refer to it as the Second Coming are referring to periods of time that He lives among us.
So the first time being that He first came and lived among us and was born to die for our sins and conquer death for those who believe. The time of what they refer to as His Second Coming is when He comes back at the end of the great tribulation and establishes His Kingdom and will live among us.
He lived in 1 time period from his birth till the cross when he gave up his spirit
He lived in 2nd time period from the time he came back to his body in the tomb, until he rose up to heaven again
So if we're talking about time periods he lived on earth, it would still be the third
-
He lived in 1 time period from his birth till the cross when he gave up his spirit
He lived in 2nd time period from the time he came back to his body in the tomb, until he rose up to heaven again
So if we're talking about time periods he lived on earth, it would still be the third
Have you ever asked someone who refers to it as His Second Coming moreso than His Return what they mean by it?
Here I found this....focuses more clearly on the roles He fulfills....and in which case His appearing after being ressurected would still be in teh first role imo.
(www.gotquestions.org)
Question: "What is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?"
Answer: The second coming of Jesus Christ is the hope of believers that God is in control of all things, and is faithful to the promises and prophecies in His Word. In His first coming, Jesus Christ came to earth as a baby in a manger in Bethlehem, just as prophesied. Jesus fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Messiah during His birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection. However, there are some prophecies regarding the Messiah that Jesus has not yet fulfilled. The second coming of Christ will be the return of Christ to fulfill these remaining prophecies. In His first coming, Jesus was the suffering Servant. In His second coming, Jesus will be the conquering King. In His first coming, Jesus arrived in the most humble of circumstances. In His second coming, Jesus will arrive with the armies of heaven at His side.
The Old Testament prophets did not make clearly this distinction between the two comings. This can be seen in Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7 and Zechariah 14:4. As a result of the prophecies seeming to speak of two individuals, many Jewish scholars believed there would be both a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah. What they failed to understand is that there is only one Messiah and He would fulfill both roles. Jesus fulfilled the role of the suffering servant (Isaiah chapter 53) in His first coming. Jesus will fulfill the role of Israel’s deliverer and King in His second coming. Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 1:7, describing the second coming, look back to Jesus being pierced. Israel, and the whole world, will mourn for not having accepted the Messiah the first time He came.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, the angels declared to the apostles, “‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (Acts 1:11). Zechariah 14:4 identifies the location of the second coming as the Mount of Olives. Matthew 24:30 declares, “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.” Titus 2:13 describes the second coming as a “glorious appearing.”
The second coming is spoken of in greatest detail in Revelation 19:11-16, “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”
Recommended Resource: The Second Coming: Signs of Christ's Return and the End of the Age by John MacArthur.
-
I don't remember seeing "second" coming in the bible either. But I've never heard anybody call it his third coming, have you?
Every time I've ever heard it numbered or whatever, it's always the 2nd coming.
EDIT: You said "second time Jesus comes from Heaven" (in bold). It would be his third time coming from heaven.
Personally, I wouldn't give it much thought as it is a unfortunate truth that Jesus hasn't been seen nor heard from in just over two thousand years. However, to answer your question...He came the first time to offer himself up as a sacrifice for all mankind. The second time he comes it will be to gather believers to him as was promised, i.e., the rapture of the church.
Like I said before, it is a simple book the Bible. There is a great deal of truth within its pages, especially so the New Testament with the teachings of the Christ and his apostles. That some would make is difficult is understandable as Jesus himself taught of their kind.
"You blind guides! You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel", or a personal favorite of mine - "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."
If I, an admitted and dedicated atheist can easily see and understand the words of the one so many call "Lord", how is that some here cannot? And no, I am not picking on you or anyone here really. Just thought your question posed an opportunity to help out. Later, young man.
-
I'm sorry to disappoint you Reeves but the Bible is not a "simple book". I don't understand how anyone who knows any history at all can make that claim. The smartest men that ever lived wrestled with some of the ideas and statements that are in the Bible. Just look at all the different religions and different sects within each religion, and even different sets of beliefs within those different sects. For example, not all "baptists" believe the same thing.
I'm not calling you a liar, but if you really believe that you can "easily understand" everything the Bible says because it is a "simple book", I think you are delusional. People have too much inherit bias in them to understand 100% the intentions, goals, context, etc that authors over thousands of years ago meant when they wrote in different languages that are not always perfectly translated into 21st century English for example.
-
I'm sorry to disappoint you Reeves but the Bible is not a "simple book". I don't understand how anyone who knows any history at all can make that claim. The smartest men that ever lived wrestled with some of the ideas and statements that are in the Bible. Just look at all the different religions and different sects within each religion, and even different sets of beliefs within those different sects. For example, not all "baptists" believe the same thing.
I'm not calling you a liar, but if you really believe that you can "easily understand" everything the Bible says because it is a "simple book", I think you are delusional. People have too much inherit bias in them to understand 100% the intentions, goals, context, etc that authors over thousands of years ago meant when they wrote in different languages that are not always perfectly translated into 21st century English for example.
Agreed!
-
He lived in 1 time period from his birth till the cross when he gave up his spirit
He lived in 2nd time period from the time he came back to his body in the tomb, until he rose up to heaven again
So if we're talking about time periods he lived on earth, it would still be the third
Mr. Magoo, if you look at it that way, then I agree that to you it would be the 3rd coming of Christ. Different believers look at it differently. For example, some Christians believe that God the Son, hundreds of years before he was named Jesus the Christ, appeared to Abraham twice. That's how they interpret these verses:
Genesis 18:1-2 (New International Version, ©2011)
Genesis 18
The Three Visitors
1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.
God the Son on earth, raining down burning sulfur from God the Father up in Heaven?
Melchizedek
Genesis 14:18-19
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
Hebrews 6:20
where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:2
and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.”
"Many Evangelical Christan denominations teach that Melchizedek was actually a pre-incarnate Christophany, meaning a premonition or earlier manifestation before the virgin birth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek#Evangelical_Christian_beliefs
That would put the number at what, the 5th coming?
-
Reeves, you're the most bombastic pixie on the interweb.
-
I'm sorry to disappoint you Reeves but the Bible is not a "simple book". I don't understand how anyone who knows any history at all can make that claim. The smartest men that ever lived wrestled with some of the ideas and statements that are in the Bible. Just look at all the different religions and different sects within each religion, and even different sets of beliefs within those different sects. For example, not all "baptists" believe the same thing.
I'm not calling you a liar, but if you really believe that you can "easily understand" everything the Bible says because it is a "simple book", I think you are delusional. People have too much inherit bias in them to understand 100% the intentions, goals, context, etc that authors over thousands of years ago meant when they wrote in different languages that are not always perfectly translated into 21st century English for example.
Like I said, some will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. If Bible says do not commit adultery, what does that mean?
Do not commit adultery. That's pretty simple, isn't it? Of course it is, unless you want to interpret (or rather reinterpret) those words to your individual favor.
Me? I see a lot of wisdom in the Bible, especially so the words of Jesus and his Apostles. Unfortunately I see a lot of bullshit in mankind and lately, here in the 21st century I tend to think the bullshit is getting worse. You are either Christian or not. You cannot pick and choose from Jesus' teachings just to suit your desires and be a true follower of the Christ.
Just look at someone like Coach. He claims Christ but in his words he most definitely denies any association a lot more than just three times before the cock crows. The truth is always simple, whether or not people will follow it is something entirely different.
-
Reeves, you're the most bombastic pixie on the interweb.
Thanks. I tend to think of myself as above average intellect wise, but waaaaaaaay below average height wise. ;D
-
Like I said, some will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. If Bible says do not commit adultery, what does that mean?
Do not commit adultery. That's pretty simple, isn't it? Of course it is, unless you want to interpret (or rather reinterpret) those words to your individual favor.
Me? I see a lot of wisdom in the Bible, especially so the words of Jesus and his Apostles. Unfortunately I see a lot of bullshit in mankind and lately, here in the 21st century I tend to think the bullshit is getting worse. You are either Christian or not. You cannot pick and choose from Jesus' teachings just to suit your desires and be a true follower of the Christ.
Just look at someone like Coach. He claims Christ but in his words he most definitely denies any association a lot more than just three times before the cock crows. The truth is always simple, whether or not people will follow it is something entirely different.
Yes, there are plenty of things in the Bible that are very clear and simple, and these are the ones that I believe we should concentrate on learning and obeying. But there are also plenty of things in the Bible that are not very clear and that are very complex. They must be studied and discussed, but I personally don't lose sleep over them.
On your earlier post, you made a blanket statement about the Bible, that the Bible is simple. Much of it isn't.
-
Yes, there are plenty of things in the Bible that are very clear and simple, and these are the ones that I believe we should concentrate on learning and obeying. But there are also plenty of things in the Bible that are not very clear and that are very complex. They must be studied and discussed, but I personally don't lose sleep over them.
On your earlier post, you made a blanket statement about the Bible, that the Bible is simple. Much of it isn't.
I stand by my words. The Bible is nowhere near complex and it shouldn't be. That which is important is made simple. Why would anyone really care about that which does not concern them?
The New Testament is important to those that believe in and really follow the Christ. The Old Testament is primarily for the Hebrews although there are some things to recommend it from a historical and moral viewpoint, otherwise a great deal of it is "stories". Kinda like Aesop's fables, albeit those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God hold to them as being true as is their right.
It would be difficult to find a better atheist spokesman for the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth than myself, but then I know his words better than most that claim to follow him. Better still, my knowledge is distilled if you will, to the essence of what Christianity is, this as opposed to drivel such as is passed out by catholicism or the ass clowns of the latter day stains...errrrr..."saints".
I credit all this to a dear friend that is Christian and not some "church". What I know was told me by a man that loves the Christ.
Oh, and fuck islam. ;D
-
I credit all this to a dear friend that is Christian and not some "church". What I know was told me by a man that loves the Christ.
REeves, does your friend (or do you) happen to have a simple explanation and or good analogy for the Trinity that unbelievers could easily understand?
-
I might type out a longer reply when I have more time, but I'm busy with papers and finals so I'll just type this short post.
I still disagree with Reeves. I think he is arrogant. I've talked about the Bible to people who've spent their entire lives studying it, and these include Oxford grads and one who got his doctorate in philosophy from MIT. I find it comical that anyone would seriously claim that the bible is an easy book.
I highly doubt that "Reeves" from getbig.com knows more about the bible than any of these people.
-
Every time I've ever heard it numbered or whatever, it's always the 2nd coming.
from USA today
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/04/franklin-graham-youll-see-jesus-return-on-twitter-youtube/1
"Charge your batteries, folks. You won't want to miss the Second Coming of Christ, arriving on the clouds, on Twitter or YouTube"
-
It would be difficult to find a better atheist spokesman for the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth than myself, but then I know his words better than most that claim to follow him.
"Christian atheism is an ideology in which the God of Christianity is rejected but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. It is a belief that the stories of Jesus were meant to be related to in modern life but not taken literally. This belief is that the God of Christianity is nothing but a symbol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
-
With the caveat he always gave me that anything he has ever said has most likely already been said by others, I will be happy to young lady. Please keep in mind this is from a poor memory and as such paraphrased.
There is the sun in the sky, the light it gives off and the heat that is produced. Three distinct qualities of this heavenly body, all contained within the One.
With regard to accepting Christ and living as such, he would say this.
A person is like a glove in that the glove has been made in the image of a hand but it is nothing really until it is filled by the hand that made it. Only then does it have true purpose.
He taught me much. A lot more than some lying, money grubbing "man or woman of god", aka televangelists and the like.
I've heard the sun analogy but I don't think I've ever heard the glove one. Pretty good!
I hope you don't think that most Christians approve of many of those televangelists.
-
from USA today
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/04/franklin-graham-youll-see-jesus-return-on-twitter-youtube/1
"Charge your batteries, folks. You won't want to miss the Second Coming of Christ, arriving on the clouds, on Twitter or YouTube"
Looks like Franklin Graham called it Jesus' Return and the writer of the article called it the Second Coming....not that it matters though.