That was one of my earliest thoughts. But there are problems with it.
Like what?
OK, I can see for one thing, it gets a bit scary to think about.
One thing that is intereting to me as I have read through this thread again, is your willingness to think about God seriously. It is uncommon to see people who identify as atheist to think like that. I remember you have told me before that you identify as an ignostic atheist. You also seem to be fairly agnostic in this sense, is that a fair observation for me to make?
So I see there's been a lot going on in this thread, and I would like to pick up a couple of loose ends:
This was a question I asked in a thread which was shut down some time after. Some people wished to answer it.
How is God just?
Let's suppose two men murder two women. Let's further suppose that one man is Christian, one man is not. Now, based on what I have been told the Christian man receives Grace and is allowed to enter heaven, while the non-Christian is sent to hell for all eternity.
Here's where I have problems:
First, if both men are guilty of the same crime, how is it just that they receive different punishments?
It seems that the concept of salvation you are investigating here, is qualified by the definition that whoever is to be saved must have a given belief. This point of view always makes me ask whether it is important to have that belief at the moment of death, or at any one moment prior, or at the moment when not having the belief will prevent an act of condemnation. My own feeling is that because there is no need for justice where there is no sin, then beliefs are only useful or good when they are preventing sin. This leaves me to wonder what good does it do to repent of one's sin when they are on their death bed (besides perhaps providing some sense of peace at a time when it matters most). Also, if someone has a good and useful belief at some time in their life, but later on becomes backslidden where their beliefs are now causing them to be sinful, are they considered saved or not?
No doubt there will be lots of different and valid ideas about this, but it is what I see as being the most important issue to address before other assumptions about eternal justice can be made.
If the punishment for this crime is eternal punishment then God allows the Christian to escape justice rather than enforce it. Furthermore, one woman's killer sees justice the other's does not.
This makes me wonder that if two people have done the same thing but are treated differently for it, what is the reason one might be forgiven while another will not, if the action was the same? Is motive and intent the main consideration when determining relative innocence or guilt?
If the punishment for the crime is that one must confess and repent, the non-Christian's punishment is a few leagues beyond excessive and not just. The non-Christian is punished for eternity, the Christian is punished for relative moments.
..Confessing and repenting for a sin happens once in an eternity? I would never have expected that! What information is this based on?
Also, it assumes that the Christian confesses and repents but the non-Christian does not.
I don't see how such an assumption is made.
So, what defines someone to be Christian (as a person who is forgiven their sin compared to others who are not), if not the confession and repentance of sin?
Furthermore, if confession and repentance makes the balance of justice, what is the significance of Jesus' sacrifice?
Jesus said we do not understand what heaven is like. He said there is no concept of husband and wife in heaven, which I take to mean there is no human reproduction. When this is put beside the parables of how life on earth is a crop which is harvested, then if the crop was never harvested, the farmer had suffered a total loss. Jesus' sacrifice is significant today, because His resurrection proves that a human can have everlasting life.
Well, two things on this:
1. From what I understand, a sin like lying is no better than a sin like murder. That is to say that lying carries the same weight of sin as murder. Basically, if a True Christian is capable of a "minor sin" they just are capable of a "major sin" as sin is sin.
Though I do have to wonder whether that is true. Jesus did speak of different degrees of sin, and it is obvious to see that not all sin causes equal harm. If sin is defined as transgressing law, then He even permitted and defended His disciple's own sin (breaking heads off grain on the Sabbath). What is the reason that you would suggest lying is a sin as bad as murder? If during the holocaust, one provided refuge to a Jew, and was asked if he was assisting a Jew, he would be compelled to lie because he believes the lie is necessary to perform a higher moral action, which is the opposition of murder. If he failed to lie, and did in fact tell the truth (notice too, that chosen words may appear to have both meanings without proper emphasis), then the one who is asking, knowing the truth, must choose whether to murder or to in fact begin the lie themselves, to uphold their own moral obligation. Why then do you say lying is as bad a sin as murder?
2. I'm purposely using what I perceive as a "major sin" to illustrate this point. Murder is to stand in for those "little sins" that a Christian does commit like lying or hate. If my example is true for murder, then it is equally true for lying, lust, hate, rape, or what have you.
When I think about this, I see that Christians who do those things are having a greater negative impact on the world than those who confess openly that they are not associated with God. It is difficult to see that a Christian deserves greater forgiveness for sin than a non-Christian, but it easy to see that they need it. I also have shown a handful of scriptures to support this view, and this brings to mind another one that I haven't given you here.
JGG quotes from Col 3)
[...]without partiality[...]
.. so, exactly what is the free ticket idea, and where did it come from? St Paul does not seem to believe in it, if you remember these words as you read this passage.
Is it possible God chose love and mercy over justice?
It definitely does seem that way, or at least we can say that Jesus did.
God was unable to create perfect non-automatons? God was unable to create a human to His standards? When you get to heaven do you become an automaton?
If someone gets to heaven, is it not evidence that the person has been made to His standards? Perfection means complete, not lacking and fully functional. No single human is complete ever, so they must all be lacking, and regardless what anyone believes human should be, every human is going to be less than fully functional. It sure does seem that God chose this way because it would produce a special result.
Can you imagine a type of world that would produce perfect non-automatons? (I would like to know what that is like), Isn't perfection something we can only assume of God? Is there a single perfect thing in this world?
