Is it moral?

[cvanwey]

belief has always been more than knowledge

Matt 21:28-32 (ESV2011)
“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same.

And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.

For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

belief equates to righteousness. belief is to BE the divine destiny one has.

Jas 2:14-20 (ESV2011)
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Can't any religious person use 'faith'? Can't any religious person apply 'works', according to their revered holy book? Yes.

If a Muslim has 'faith', and applies 'works' to demonstrate their 'faith', does this then mean he/she is now validated or justified in their 'faith', by applying their 'works', for their specific 'belief'? I doubt you would agree....

So why are such provided passages relevant exclusively to Christianity? Don't you already have to select your specific deity first? Yes.

The 'faith/works' relationship comes (after) the 'belief' in which God you actually believe in.

********************

Aside from all the above, you failed to address my prior scripture provided post (Mark 16:15-16)

 

[cvanwey]

just gave you a few bible verses. I can quote scriptures for you all day but I get sick of people not understanding.

If someone disagrees with you, it's because they don't 'understand'????

Here's a thought... If God is the ultimate author of scripture, shouldn't the author provide the actual clarification of the message (if the Word is really all that important)? Or, is it your job to 'correct' everyone else's 'mis-translations'?

 

[Noxot]

Can't any religious person use 'faith'? Can't any religious person apply 'works', according to their revered holy book? Yes.

If a Muslim has 'faith', and applies 'works' to demonstrate their 'faith', does this then mean he/she is now validated or justified in their 'faith', by applying their 'works', for their specific 'belief'? I doubt you would agree....

So why are such provided passages relevant exclusively to Christianity? Don't you already have to select your specific deity first? Yes.

The 'faith/works' relationship comes (after) the 'belief' in which God you actually believe in.

********************

Aside from all the above, you failed to address my prior scripture provided post (Mark 16:15-16)

God is one and thus his promises are universal in nature. the bible is a book that describes conditions of being and the correct modes of spiritual life.

Mark 16:15-18 (ESV2011)
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

"proclaim to all of creation" can't be taken literally but only understood spiritually as it can only be understood from a spiritual pov. unless you think God wants us to tell butterflies that "Jesus saves". being baptized means to repent and turn to God and die to your evil nature.

 

[Noxot]

If someone disagrees with you, it's because they don't 'understand'????

Here's a thought... If God is the ultimate author of scripture, shouldn't the author provide the actual clarification of the message (if the Word is really all that important)? Or, is it your job to 'correct' everyone else's 'mis-translations'?

he does as much as someone is willing. it is our job to make sure we are receptive via repentance and forsaking lesser things and clinging to good things, because "only God is good".

it's not Gods fault if people want to listen to doctrines from demons. but God removes the veil in Christ.

 

[cvanwey]

God is one and thus his promises are universal in nature. the bible is a book that describes conditions of being and the correct modes of spiritual life.

Mark 16:15-18 (ESV2011)
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

"proclaim to all of creation" can't be taken literally but only understood spiritually as it can only be understood from a spiritual pov. unless you think God wants us to tell butterflies that "Jesus saves". being baptized means to repent and turn to God and die to your evil nature.

I'm aware of hermeneutics, in the sense that 'all' means 'humans', and not 'butterflies', or anything besides humans.

My point is that without belief in this specific deity, you are furnace fuel. One could have 'faith' and perform 'works', in accordance to 'Allah', and is doomed, if they picked the wrong 'belief'. So belief in the actual 'correct' God is step one.

Simply asserting that 'Yahweh' is the 'correct one' is your burden of proof to actually bare. And quoting Bible verses, to demonstrate the 'truth' of 'Yahweh', is no more valid than a Muslim quoting verses from the Qur'an, to 'prove' the absolute existence of 'Allah'.

My point is that, if one reads the Bible, it appears quite clear that belief is first, if what is said from the Bible actually is to be true

*********************

Therefore, the belief is primary, and the works/faith stuff is secondary.

 

[cvanwey]

he does as much as someone is willing. it is our job to make sure we are receptive via repentance and forsaking lesser things and clinging to good things, because "only God is good".

it's not Gods fault if people want to listen to doctrines from demons. but God removes the veil in Christ.

So when Jesus states preach in my name, and all whom believe are saved, and all whom don't believe will fry in hell.... Paraphrasing Mark 16:15-16

Great, you just further validated my point. If the Bible is true, belief is primary, and 'morality' may not even be relevant (for the reasons expressed prior).

I can provide other relevant examples if needed.... Such as...

If one is a true blue believer in Christ, and repent regularly of their continued sins, will they still not continue to 'sin', all the way up to their natural death? The answer is yes. So are 'morals' really all that relevant? No. Belief in Christ is primary And as stated prior, belief does not encompass 'morality'.

 

[Noxot]

So when Jesus states preach in my name, and all whom believe are saved, and all whom don't believe will fry in hell.... Paraphrasing Mark 16:15-16

Great, you just further validated my point. If the Bible is true, belief is primary, and 'morality' may not even be relevant (for the reasons expressed prior).

I can provide other relevant examples if needed.... Such as...

If one is a true blue believer in Christ, and repent regularly of their continued sins, will they still not continue to 'sin', all the way up to their natural death? The answer is yes. So are 'morals' really all that relevant? No. Belief in Christ is primary And as stated prior, belief does not encompass 'morality'.

2Cor 3:14-4:4 (ESV2011)
But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.

But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.

For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[cvanwey]

2Cor 3:14-4:4 (ESV2011)
But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.

But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.

For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I'm sorry to say that providing various Bible passages, without explaining what they are to actually demonstrate or prove, on your behalf, is not really effective.

But from the passages, it seems to look as if you need to again read my prior post, where I stated:

'Simply asserting that 'Yahweh' is the 'correct one' is your burden of proof to actually bare. And quoting Bible verses, to demonstrate the 'truth' of 'Yahweh', is no more valid than a Muslim quoting verses from the Qur'an, to 'prove' the absolute existence of 'Allah'.'

Furthermore, I have spoken to many whom profess as much faith and belief in their chosen God, whom differs from Yahweh.

But the point is, that belief takes precedence first, which does NOT involve morals.

But again, just firing off scripture, with no context or background, is not that helpful.

But thanks

 

[Noxot]

I think I tried many times to explain to you but you want to keep repeating your disgust for the same evils and I agree with you that they are evil. the only real difference is that I accept the scriptures because I see them in a saner light.

 

[cvanwey]

I think I tried many times to explain to you but you want to keep repeating your disgust for the same evils and I agree with you that they are evil. the only real difference is that I accept the scriptures because I see them in a saner light.

You never addressed my actual point though...

Belief does not involve 'morality'. Regardless of if Yahweh is the correct God or not, is not even the point here....

The point is...

If the Bible IS the true and correct word of God, "belief" takes precedence over all, which has nothing to do with 'morality'. If I don't believe something, is that moral or immoral? It's neither. Belief does not fall upon the 'morality' spectrum. Belief is amoral.

I even acknowledged that the belief ultimately 'drives' the 'faith' and the 'works'. However, the belief comes first. To use passages, speaking about 'faith' and 'works', is placing the cart before the horse

Nothing you have provided has touched this observation.

 

[Noxot]

You never addressed my actual point though...

Belief does not involve 'morality'. Regardless of if Yahweh is the correct God or not, is not even the point here....

The point is...

If the Bible IS the true and correct word of God, "belief" takes precedence over all, which has nothing to do with 'morality'. If I don't believe something, is that moral or immoral? It's neither. Belief does not fall upon the 'morality' spectrum. Belief is amoral.

I even acknowledged that the belief ultimately 'drives' the 'faith' and the 'works'. However, the belief comes first. To use passages, speaking about 'faith' and 'works', is placing the cart before the horse

Nothing you have provided has touched this observation.

I already explained to you that belief is not what you or many of the church thinks it is.

 

[cvanwey]

I already explained to you that belief is not what you or many of the church thinks it is.

All you states about what 'many of the church thinks' is that they are 'ignorant'. First of all, this is a severe straw man. Second of all, you have not validated that (you) are the actual correct one, in (your) interpretation. And third of all, you hardly, in fact, didn't address my observations at all. Instead, you just cut/pasted random Bible verses (without your own validated interpretation of such).

Even you-yourself stated that 'many' interpret scripture incorrectly. If you are placing (me) in that same camp, that I too interpret scripture incorrectly, then why post scripture to me, without your own interpretation of it?

So I will reiterate my main point, yet again, for complete clarification....

Belief - 'an acceptance that something exists or is true' - Oxford Dictionary

- If I don't believe something exists, is that moral, immoral, or amoral? It's amoral.

- If I don't love someone or something, is that moral, immoral, or amoral? It's amoral.

- If I do believe something, will I not act as though it is true and apply characteristics, attributes, and even works, in support of such a belief? Yes.

- If I do no not happen to believe something, for whatever reason is justified to me, will I apply 'faith' and 'works' towards that non-belief? No.

- Is the belief required, prior or before the 'faith' and the 'works'? Yes.

- Is providing verses, which speaks about 'faith' and 'works', purely dependent upon first 'believing'? Yes.

- Therefore, is providing such verses placing the cart before the horse? Yes.

- Does the Bible state that without belief, you are hell bound? Yes.

Thanks

 

[Noxot]

your definition of belief is not the only one unless you think that I don't exist or that the bible and people who wrote it don't exist. so my understanding of belief is from the bible seen in the Holy Spirit.

there are many systems of morality. mine is based on God loving me and me loving God. so what is moral, amoral, and immoral might be different since I probably don't have the same kind of moral system as you have.

the conditions known as hell are actual explanations for real states of being that have actual effects on people, since the bible largely describes how reality is like. both being evil and seeing God as evil distorts and warps a persons view of God and thus causes great torments to a person.

I think that heaven and hell are pretty much embedded in our experience as humans. it's pretty easy to believe or know that evil is horrible and goodness is great.

the Holy Spirit says that belief is bound up with goodness.

 

[Chinchilla]

Is it moral to torture someone for eternity because of finite crimes?

Crime is commited against infinite being so it's infinite.
You are finite so you can't pay it .
You need somebody to pay it for you that is infinite aswell .
Ask some dude called Jesus he might know something about it .

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If I may add my 2 cents as well...

It becomes an 'amoral' pronouncement. It does not even really involve morals at all. Lack in belief does not encompass, or even involve, 'morality'.

If one does not adhere to Mark 16:15-16, they are doomed. Once presented with a specific concept, and still rejects the presented concept, due to one's own lack in 'needed' evidence, if actually true, is then doomed.

Lack in belief of something is neither moral nor immoral, but is instead an amoral conclusion.

Morals are irrelevant. Example... If I believe Jesus died for me (to deliver salvation), I will still break the ten commandments all the way up to the point of expiration, won't I?

I'll add mine as well.

Believe and believeth not in this verse are not the same word. Belief in the first part is confirmed by baptism, and is the real thing. Believeth not is betrayal of that belief, which is the unforgivable sin, and applies to those who once believed. There is yet another word for general unbelief that carries no penalty.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To the OP.

There is no eternal torment for the condemned, only death. "The wages of sin is death", not eternal life in torment.

This easily proven scripturally.

In order to be tormented forever one must live forever; have eternal life. However the judgment of condemnation precedes the granting of eternal life to those in the general resurrection, so those who are condemned are still in their mortal flesh during the judgment period. This is the second death, not eternal life in torment.

Adam and Eve were the only humans that were ever at risk for eternal life in torment, if they had eaten of the 'tree of life' in an unrepentant state.

 

[cvanwey]

your definition of belief is not the only one unless you think that I don't exist or that the bible and people who wrote it don't exist.

I actually applied the following basic definition of 'belief', as it applies to the topic at hand, (and) even in your conclusion (i.e.)

Belief - 'an acceptance that something exists (or) is true' - Oxford Dictionary

so my understanding of belief is from the bible seen in the Holy Spirit.

Your belief, or, epistemic belief structure more specifically, tells you that you not only believe the Holy spirit exist, but is also 'all good'.

Where as I am a severe skeptic to what (you) believe, as such claims from the Bible has not met (my) burden of proof. I have no proof such a specific entity even exists. Thus, can only speculate. I cannot 'will' myself to believe something I am unsure about.

My point is that 'belief', in such a case, proceeds 'faith' and 'works towards such 'beliefs.'

(i.e.) Belief -> then faith, works, acts, repentance, relationship, etc...

Hence, morals appear irrelevant, in regards to Christianity. Why? If I do not truly believe, no amounts of 'acts' would conclude heaven; even if I still decided to use Biblical tenets as (my) moral compass (i.e.): don't steal, murder, trespass, commit adultery, etc, etc, etc.... The only part which would 'screw' me, would be the first few commandments, as I could not get myself to worship something in which I'm not sure even exists. Hence, belief is first and primary.

My point is.... Without first believing something exists and is true (as the definition of 'belief' relates to above), the 'faith' and 'works' towards it cannot follow rationally. Hence, as to why I stated your prior provided verses are 'placing the cart before the horse'.

there are many systems of morality. mine is based on God loving me and me loving God. so what is moral, amoral, and immoral might be different since I probably don't have the same kind of moral system as you have.

Mutual love is your moral system?? Would you mind elaborating?

I think that heaven and hell are pretty much embedded in our experience as humans. it's pretty easy to believe or know that evil is horrible and goodness is great.

the Holy Spirit says that belief is bound up with goodness.

Circling this back to the OP... Does lack in belief alone warrant eternal damnation (whether it arguably be finite death or eternal burning, depending on whom one asks)?

Since you seem to belief hell does exist (according to your response above), I would then assume that my prior provided verse (Mark 16:15-16) then refers to 'condemned' ultimately as 'hell'.

Is 'believe or burn' a justified solution (as expressed in Mark 16:15-16)? Is such a proposition an 'all good" solution? Or is it instead an ultimatum or a coercive approach?

ultimatum - 'a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.' - Oxford Dictionary

coercion - 'the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats' - Oxford Dictionary

(example below):

If a Christian flies to India to convert a Muslim of 40 years, and cannot convince the Muslim that Jesus is the correct path, and the person from India lives a life he/she 'feels' is as moral as can be, does it even matter? No. It would most likely take years to 'de-convert' a devout Muslim, even if the Christian path was the correct one. If the Muslim dies a natural death, prior to a Christian conversion, is eternal damnation, (second death or eternal burning - depending on whom one asks), then justified as the proper punishment?

Again, if all humans are already condemned until salvation (because of the 'original fall of man'), this further demonstrates that belief is the paramount conclusion, and further demonstrates that morals are really irrelevant, in regards to Christianity. Belief is instead key.

So until one can demonstrate that belief in a specific entity applies to 'morality' in any true sense, I'm stuck concluding that relating Christianity to 'morality' almost becomes a non sequitur.

 

[cvanwey]

I'll add mine as well.

Believe and believeth not in this verse are not the same word. Belief in the first part is confirmed by baptism, and is the real thing. Believeth not is betrayal of that belief, which is the unforgivable sin, and applies to those who once believed. There is yet another word for general unbelief that carries no penalty.

Lets explore this further...

What is God's ultimate definition of 'sin'?

Does lack in belief, due to an earnest claimed insufficient amount of evidence in existence, constitute a 'sin'?

Can one truly 'choose' or 'will' one's self in what they believe earnestly and truthfully? If so, this must mean I can 'will' myself to believe I'm a superhero.

If a non-denominational Christian goes door-to-door, and a life-long Hindu opens the door, and the Christian presents John 3:16-21 to this individual, and the Hindu states, "no thanks, I already believe in Vishnu, but thanks anyways," Is Yahweh sending such an individual to heaven or not? If not, then please tell me how (my) definition of belief provided does not correlate?

Thank you

 

[Holoman]

People are getting a bit off topic. The op raises a valid question even if they aren't really receptive to answers and are more interested in a 'gotcha' moment.

There are two assumptions in the question which need to be justified. Firstly that sin in this world is finite. Do you have a justification for that? The second seems to be that hell is a place of literal fire and torture. The second is to confuse the metaphorical descriptions of hell as literal. Most Christian denominations do not teach this. The description of hell is to convey how utterly horrible it is, beyond our comprehension in all probability. It is separation from the love of God which for those who have chosen to reject God, its the only just thing for God to do, honoring their right to self determination.

 

[cvanwey]

There are two assumptions in the question which need to be justified. Firstly that sin in this world is finite. Do you have a justification for that?

What is God's definition of 'sin'? Does lack in belief qualify? Because you cannot even attempt, or take seriously, anything stated from such an 'entity', if the party involved may or may not think such an entity even exists.

The second seems to be that hell is a place of literal fire and torture. The second is to confuse the metaphorical descriptions of hell as literal. Most Christian denominations do not teach this. The description of hell is to convey how utterly horrible it is, beyond our comprehension in all probability. It is separation from the love of God which for those who have chosen to reject God, its the only just thing for God to do, honoring their right to self determination.

Whether eternal torture actually exists or not may not even be relevant or necessary in such line of questioning. First, one must first clearly and concisely define what 'sin' actually represents. I see you are labelled a Catholic. Some of the later churches I used to attend would bring people in front of the pulpit, to provide testimonials, stating their relative was once a Catholic, but they are now saved. My point being...., until 'sin' is clearly defined universally, as some might want to conclude or state, this entire topic may turn into a 'dumpster fire.'