1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipAt first glace, your account doesn't seem to make much sense. You quote something that implies that each person is judged by their works. Then you go on to quote something that implies each person is judged (condemned or not condemned) on the basis of whether or not they believe in the son of god. Which is it? How are these two accounts consistent?No you did not adequately answer my question.
I will not be put into the position to decide in the Last Judgment for you.
I don't presume that I know what God will say to you. I will honestly tell you this what I believe:
[b]"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scolls were opened; and anot ades, Schoettle Publishing, pg. 11 ]
Let's go back to my hypothetical. Suppose the atheist in my hypothetical demonstrates characteristically good, praiseworthy works. But, of course, he lacks belief in God based on his best interpretation of the evidence at his disposal. What is his fate, according to your account? Do you have any reasons to think God would be justified in providing for this person's eternal suffering?
Another thing that makes your response even more ambiguous as it relates to my hypothetical is that you stated that you think the quote regarding condemnation and lack of belief is in regards to willful disbelief. Well, that has nothing to do with my hypothetical: suppose, for example, that this atheist has been brought passively into belief that God does not exist (or just lack of belief in God's existence), based on his best evidential interpretations.
Originally posted by sonshipI think your Jesus god-man was no closer ...
So Jesus died and rose for you whom He loves. But you respond with insults to call the Son of God a zombie - Someone who has far more self control than you do.
I know you are less of an opponent of the Gospel than Saul of Tarsus. And he latter wrote 13 of the 27 New Testament books.
[b]" ... formerly was a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insulting person; ..." [/b]
So Jesus died and rose for you whom He loves. But you respond with insults to call the Son of God a zombie - Someone who has far more self control than you do.
Yeah, Jesus died and rose again for me. Uh, but you apparently forgot to mention that's only according to your cherished accounts, which as I already told you, within my honest take have no business being taken literally and hold no actual historical veracity. So, are you even paying attention to what I have been saying? How many times do I need to spell this out for you: my honest take doesn't accord with yours, so I am not committed to the idea that some water-walker died and rose again (in conjunction with some extremely bizarre doctrine whereby the killing and blood-spilling of an innocent somehow conduces to cosmic justice and the magical righting of ostensibly totally unrelated wrongs).
By the way, are you worried about the possible consequences of your lack of belief in Horus? Or Dionysus? Of course not, since you take them as mythological figures. Well, that's how I take your Jesus god-man, according to my best ability to ferret out the facts of the matter. Do you get it now?
3 edits
Yeah, Jesus died and rose again for me. Uh, but you apparently forgot to mention that's only according to your cherished accounts, which as I already told you, within my honest take have no business being taken literally and hold no actual historical veracity.
In other words, you don't believe that. I knew that.
According to your cherished unbelief that Jesus of Nazareth doesn't "even come close" to being a Savior God, you neither need saving or will know anything other than melting peacefully into the dust of the earth.
At this point all we can agree upon is that we'll just have to see what happens.
So, are you even paying attention to what I have been saying?
I paid attention. You think no good reasons have been given why a man should be condemned when he honestly cannot believe the Bible.
I got it.
You have your freedom to totally reject my indicating to you, at least, what some words from the mouth of Jesus and His apostles say related to disbelief.
I will not expect you to say "I'll explain to God that He didn't give enough evidence." You don't think any such thing will happen.
And you should not expect me to say "Well, according to my dubious traditional mythology you should be concerned."
I don't think either of us are going to do any better than that.
Time will simply tell whose right and probably to what degree.
I do not think all my opinions are infallible.
I do think there is an approvedness about Jesus which impresses me that His integrity should be taken seriously.
I mean He seemed absolute not for Himself, but for the will of His Father (as He believed was God). I think His belief was right.
And while not commiting a fallacy of popularity, there is something to consider that history has been divided in the much of the world as "Before Christ" and "In the Year of Our Lord".
But you say "No, no, no .... didn't even come CLOSE" to expressing Divinity become a man. Well, a some of us think the birth of this man somehow changed it all forever. Things have not been the same since "Before Christ"
Maybe that's because no man ever expressed Truth and the Divine as this man Jesus. But you say (honestly you say) "Nay! Didn't even come CLOSE! "
How many times do I need to spell this out for you: my honest take doesn't accord with yours, so I am not committed to the idea that some water-walker died and rose again (in conjunction with some extremely bizarre doctrine whereby the killing and blood-spilling of an innocent somehow conduces to cosmic justice and the magical righting of ostensibly totally unrelated wrongs).
Redemption is admittedly not easy to understand.
But notice this. And notice it well.
Paul did not say "If you understand redemption you shall be saved." What he said was "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
Now I got it. You don't believe the Bible. I got that.
But just consider what Paul is saying here.
He is not saying we should go out of our way to misunderstand Redemption. But he is not saying understanding redemption is a requirement to being saved.
He is saying what is required is to confess "Jesus is Lord" and believing in the heart that God raised Him from the dead. It really doesn't even say "You have to understand what being SAVED is." It just says you will BE saved ... and that whether you understand this or not.
Actually, it is rather not difficult to enter into this door of being saved. Now if you don't believe God raised Jesus from the dead, you have a problem. If you are unwilling to confess Jesus as the Lord, you have a problem.
You do not necessarily have a problem if you still have lots a questions about the blood, the atonement, and what it means to be purchased by the blood from the curse of the law.
Jesus is Lord (implying of course that Jesus IS ... NOW ... Still alive) and that God raised Jesus from the dead - this Paul says, leads to being saved.
I think God has opened the initial door of being saved quite wide - not making it a requirement that you be conversant in the nature of Justification, grace, the redeeming blood.
Now I would like to talk to you about the blood and perhaps help you to understand why the blood of Jesus is meaningful. But I don't think you want to know anything about it to begin with.
And now if you have nothing really new to add I think I will go on to other discussions.
Jesus loves you.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipYeah, Jesus died and rose again for me. Uh, but you apparently forgot to mention that's only according to your cherished accounts, which as I already told you, within my honest take have no business being taken literally and hold no actual historical veracity.
In other words, you don't believe that. I knew that.
According to your ch I will go on to other discussions.
Jesus loves you.
At this point all we can agree upon is that we'll just have to see what happens.
I doubt we can agree on that. Is this also the stance you take toward Horus or Dionysus? That you'll just have to wait and see if your non-belief in them accords with the facts of the matter? Are you just waiting around to see if your non-belief in Zeus or Baal has disastrous consequences upon your death? No? Then why would you presume that I would take some such attitude toward your articles of what I take to be mythology? Don't flatter yourself that your particular brand of mythology is so much more special than others. I think it was Twain who said "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to expect that my own is also." You could simply replace "another man's" here with "past generations' ".
You have your freedom to totally reject my indicating to you, at least, what some words from the mouth of Jesus and His apostles say related to disbelief.
This tells me that you are just not paying attention. I addressed this already: you claimed that those words are in reference to willful disbelief, or willful rejection; and that's irrelevant to my hypothetical, as I already took the time to explicitly point out.
And you should not expect me to say "Well, according to my dubious traditional mythology you should be concerned."
Right. So why do you keep admonishing me, rather than simply answering my question? If you asked me hypothetically whether or not I had any good reasons to think Zeus, supposing he existed, would be justified in providing for some non-believer's eternal suffering, I would simply answer the question rather than wasting time admonishing you about your non-belief in Zeus, which is irrelevant to the original question. Right? So, give over.
He is not saying we should go out of our way to misunderstand Redemption.
Why would one want to go out of his way to misunderstand something? Paul is not saying we should go out of our way to understand it either, nor is he attempting to provide any understanding for it, which is the real crime. In fact, this seems to be rather unfortunately systemic to your religion: the devaluation and subversion of critical thought and the stifling of questioning attitude. Problem is, these types of questioning attitudes are healthy and conduce to intellectual freedom and maturity.
It's sufficient here for you to say you don't understand it. You can spare me the nonsense about how it's best to put your brain on a dusty shelf somewhere and just go with it anyway. You also have no reason to think it makes sense that you ought to kill your children while they sleep tonight and spill their fresh blood around the perimeter of your house. But, verily I say unto you on the authority of some all-powerful sky fairy, you'll be sorry if you don't. So, I expect you to just send your brain away on vacation and carry out the deed, chop-chop.
6 edits
I doubt we can agree on that. Is this also the stance you take toward Horus or Dionysus?
Could you show us where Horus or Dionysus claimed to be God ?
Where?
About when?
Who was there?
Who denied it ?
Scattershot comparison is not an easy way to dismiss Jesus.
Sure, I can also list Jesus with Johnny Appleseed and Jack and the Beanstalk. Sure, I can put Jesus of Nazareth in the same list with Mithras and Horus.
You can say the sun in the sky is just like the night light in the bathroom.
Wild comparisons may impress you. They have underwhealmed me.
The New Testament doesnt at all read like the legends you speak of.
That you'll just have to wait and see if your non-belief in them accords with the facts of the matter?
Okay.
Are you just waiting around to see if your non-belief in Zeus or Baal has disastrous consequences upon your death?
Show me in the tale of Zeus something approaching this kind of investigative jounalism before you spout on further:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Ceasar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness" (Luke 3:1,2)
These are people known to "secular" historians.
These are geopolitical situations which historians can verify outside of the Bible.
Could you please quote for me from the stories of Zeus or Horus or Dionysus or Baal some simalar jounalistic style investigatory prose relating to the times of those dieties ?
Your next post on this should clearly parallel in those mythologies Luke's historical jounalism. No - Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Land. Okay?
Further, produce some similar journalistic writing such as we see in Luke
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us,
Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write to you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
Would you produce a similar bit of prose concerning Horus or Dionysus or Baal or any other figure you mentioened telling us -
1.) "Many" had undertaken to draw up a narrative about it.
2.) Give confirmation to what was accomplished because of these beliefs.
3.) Draw on sources that were "eyewitnesses".
4.) Sift through the eyewitness testimony of those who were present "from the beginning" of such biographical events.
5.) Indication that the events had been "carefully investigated".
That is not just investigated but investigated CAREFULLY. IE. Not automatically jumping at every exaggeration.
Produce similar speak surrounding your candidates for worship.
6.) Show me that the things concerning Horus or Dionysus were carefull investigated "from the first". That is early history of the persons and matters. That is origins of these accounts.
7.) These investigatory findings were placed in orderly fashion for the sake of some intellectual.
8.) This investigation verifies what one has already been instructed as reinforcement of previous reports.
You see your talk is cheap LemonJello. Back up your talk now with the kind of jounalistic research indications that we find in the Gospel of Luke.
I don't go for your wild apples and oranges comparison.
No? Then why would you presume that I would take some such attitude toward your articles of what I take to be mythology?
It is very interesting that the writer of the Gospel of John seems to have had the fortitude to discriminate between what was legendary and what actually was said by Jesus. It does not read like John had no discernment and simply reported each and everything alledgedly attributed to Jesus.
Notice how John informs the reader that certain sayings went out about Jesus which in fact should not be attributed to Jesus:
"This word therefore went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you ?" (John 21:23)
In other words the gospel writer is careful to clarify not EVERYTHING the disciples thought Jesus said and meant was necessarily what He said and meant.
Your myth making generalizations about the Gospels, comparing them to Horus and Baal are not realistic.
Don't flatter yourself that your particular brand of mythology is so much more special than others. I think it was Twain who said "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to expect that my own is also." You could simply replace "another man's" here with "past generations' ".
I think your list is not so impressive. First get another list which maybe includes Mohammed or Confucius or Baha 'u' allah or Joseph Smith or some other revered person that historians actually agree lived.
Your list is only useful in displaying your contempt.
I am not interested in your contempt.
If you have a valid myth making parallel to make, you'd be better to do it with a more historically accepted figure.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThe point that apparently somehow still escapes you is this: just like you're not committed to taking seriously threats that you take to be based on fairy tales or mythology that hold no actual historical veracity, same goes for me. So quit wasting my time telling me to take seriously that which I think I have no reason to take seriously, unless you want to actually provide some relevant evidential reasons to influence my position. Even that would be sidetracking us from the discussion at hand, however. As you may or may not recall, this all started with my asking you a simple frickin' hypothetical question. All this irrelevant sideshow was ushered in by you and your failure to just answer my question directly. Hey, like I said: if you asked me some hypothetical question about whether I saw any good reasons for Zeus to provide for the eternal suffering of some non-Zeus-believer, I would simply answer "No." End of discussion. I wouldn't waste your time with Zeus-inspired threats that I know you have no reason to take seriously and that are irrelevant to your inquiry.I doubt we can agree on that. Is this also the stance you take toward Horus or Dionysus?
Could you show us where Horus or Dionysus [b]claimed to be God ?
Where?
About when?
Who was there?
Who denied it ?
Scattershot comparison is not an easy way to dismiss Jesus.
Sure, I can also list Jesus with Johnny Appleseed and J d be better to do it with a more historically accepted figure.[/b]
2 edits
The point on "threats" is superceeded long ago in place of historical realism of the figures being talked about.
No parallel investigatory prose yet proving uniformity between the reports of Jesus of Nazareth and the stories of Zues, Baal, Mithras, Dionysus, Horus, etc.
Why am I not surprised ?
So "consequences" and "threats" to me has gone on the backend of your last complaints. Regardless of your personal consequences, or mine, your alledged parallels of Christ with several mythic figures is hot air.
Your simply are not thinking soberly.
4 edits
if you asked me some hypothetical question about whether I saw any good reasons for Zeus to provide for the eternal suffering of some non-Zeus-believer, I would simply answer "No." End of discussion. I wouldn't waste your time with Zeus-inspired threats that I know you have no reason to take seriously and that are irrelevant to your inquiry.
You're imagining no answer where answer was given.
Anyone wanting to review the last answers to the specific problem can look at the quotes I provided by Robert Govette.
" 'There cannot be eternal suffering' you say. Will there not be eternal sinning among the lost ? Is God obliged to stay the endless flow of sin from the lips and acts of the lost ? 'You admit then, that it would be unjust in God to inflict eternal suffering solely because of men's past acts on earth.' By no means ! I account sin infinite.
This sentiment, that eternal punishment is unjust [edited], comes from a partial judge . It is man, leaning toward his own race beyond what is just. It is a sinner inwardly bribed to give a verdict on behalf of sinners.
It is a set of felons pretending to condemn the laws of felony. It is one-sided - intense appreciation of pain ; but light appreciation of sin and its desserts. It is the sentiment of the ignorant. The best little apprehend of the holiness of God. It is the result of a heart that is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." (Jeremiah 17:9)
Will you trust this sentiment of the heart? "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool" Proverbs 28:26. It is the decision of a packed jury ..."
As for "end of discussion" signals - Someone how proports to be honest and says Jesus didn't even come close .... didn't even COME CLOSE to doing anything like displaying what a possible all knowing and all powerful God might well be like, also ends the discussion.
Remember, LemonJello says Jesus didn't "even come close."
But he has to say this to assure that Christ is not on his short list of candidates for the Divine being manifest as a man.
The eradication of God and the Divine is his a priori agenda.
Originally posted by sonshipStill no actual answer to my question.
The point on "threats" is superceeded long ago in place of [b]historical realism of the figures being talked about.
No parallel investigatory prose yet proving uniformity between the reports of Jesus of Nazareth and the stories of Zues, Baal, Mithras, Dionysus, Horus, etc.
Why am I not surprised ?
So "consequences" and "threats" to me has g ...[text shortened]... f Christ with several mythic figures is hot air.
Your simply are not thinking soberly.[/b]
Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by sonshipUh, how exactly does that quote answer my question?if you asked me some hypothetical question about whether I saw any good reasons for Zeus to provide for the eternal suffering of some non-Zeus-believer, I would simply answer "No." End of discussion. I wouldn't waste your time with Zeus-inspired threats that I know you have no reason to take seriously and that are irrelevant to your inquiry....[text shortened]... s a man.
The eradication of God and the Divine is his a priori agenda.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipif you asked me some hypothetical question about whether I saw any good reasons for Zeus to provide for the eternal suffering of some non-Zeus-believer, I would simply answer "No." End of discussion. I wouldn't waste your time with Zeus-inspired threats that I know you have no reason to take seriously and that are irrelevant to your inquiry.
s a man.
The eradication of God and the Divine is his a priori agenda.
As for "end of discussion" signals - Someone how proports to be honest and says Jesus didn't even come close .... didn't even COME CLOSE to doing anything like displaying what a possible all knowing and all powerful God might well be like, also ends the discussion.
Remember, LemonJello says Jesus didn't "even come close."
But he has to say this to assure that Christ is not on his short list of candidates for the Divine being manifest as a man.
The eradication of God and the Divine is his a priori agenda.
Whatever you say, Dasa.
What you asked me is basically who alive or dead has most closely instantiated your concept 'God'. Again, my honest take is that no one alive or dead has ever come close to instantiating such a concept. And here again I'll explain the following point for you one more time. I'll go slowly so that it sinks in too. I do not take it to be the case that your Jesus god-man concept is or was ever instantiated. So, sorry, but your water-walking, sickness-healing, dead-raising zombie doesn't make my list of historical persons alive or dead. For a similar reason, I don't think Zeus or Horus or Superman are in the running either.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou could have just said that you are an unbeliever. And I would say,
[quote]As for "end of discussion" signals - Someone how proports to be honest and says Jesus didn't even come close .... didn't even COME CLOSE to doing anything like displaying what a possible all knowing and all powerful God might well be like, also ends the discussion.
Remember, LemonJello says Jesus didn't [b]"even come close."
But h similar reason, I don't think Zeus or Horus or Superman are in the running either.[/b]
"PREPARE YOURSELF FOR HELLFIRE!"
The Instructor 😏
Originally posted by sonshipI think you are under the delusion that everybody else accepts the Bible as historical accurate in all detail. They do not. And to call them 'not thinking soberly' because they do not is simply ridiculous.
The point on "threats" is superceeded long ago in place of [b]historical realism of the figures being talked about.
No parallel investigatory prose yet proving uniformity between the reports of Jesus of Nazareth and the stories of Zues, Baal, Mithras, Dionysus, Horus, etc.
Your simply are not thinking soberly.[/b]
Many of us are not even convinced that Jesus existed at all. I certainly am not convinced that there is more reliable historical evidence for Jesus than for Zues, Baal, Mithras, Dionysus, Horus, etc.
Whatever you say, Dasa.
I've been called worse.
What you asked me is basically who alive or dead has most closely instantiated your concept 'God'. Again, my honest take is that no one alive or dead has ever come close to instantiating such a concept.
[NOT] whatever you say Satan.
See? I can do that too.