Don't all roads led to heaven?

[2ndRateMind]

Hey Zaac, thanks for replying.

Here is what I have to say about sin: http://www.christianforums.com/t7364133/#post51559030

And here is where I discuss with Epiphoskei the relationship between sin, grace and salvation:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7426561-3/

I hope it helps, and I'll get back to you on the rest.

Best, 2RM.

 

[Zaac]

Hey Zaac, thanks for replying.

Here is what I have to say about sin: http://www.christianforums.com/t7364133/#post51559030

And here is where I discuss with Epiphoskei the relationship between sin, grace and salvation:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7426561-3/

I hope it helps, and I'll get back to you on the rest.

Best, 2RM.

2RM, that's a nice theory. But God deals in absolutes. Part of the problem with the Body of Christ is that we will not just deal with what God says. Sin ain't as complicated as you're making it.

I've said this several times in the past and this situation warrants repeating it. whenever osmeone puts forth something that authors confusion as to something God says, it's because it's their words and not His and inconsistent with what HE says.

If it authors confusion, it is not of God.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Except that our perceptions are flawed because we are flawed. We can perceive justice and crave justice, and most of the time we may be either spot-on or really close, but when it comes to who is saved and who is not, the eternal workins of the Great Eternal, we need to let God be God, and not try to make our assumptions be God's justice, for our flaws never trump God's perfection.

Edit to add:
Personally, I WANT the universalists to be right, but I am far from sure that they are. But just because I want everyone to go to heaven, regardless of belief or anything else, doesn't mean it will be so.

Oh! I so agree! And it is so refreshing! I commend to you the Christian grace of hope. Of course, if we love our fellow man, we will want heaven for them. The thing is though, that Justice demands some atonement, from all of us, to greater or lesser degrees, according to the degree to which we are (in your words) 'short'. And belonging to no religion, not even Christianity, can provide escape from that necessity. But even as God is just, He is merciful, and I think the price of being short will be limited to the repentance required to render us whole, the way God first intended us to be when He arranged the world to teach us.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Don't all roads lead to heaven?

Apparently not. The apostle John was given a vision of the end of the world and he saw people whom he labeled "the dead" being incinerated in a reservoir of liquefied flame.

†. Rev 20:12-15 . . And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

John also reported that people who commit specific kinds of acts are destined for that same reservoir. (Rev 21:8)

1) Dishonesty

2) Promiscuity

3) Alchemy (sorcery, voodoo, necromancy, witchcraft, potions)

4) Idolatry

5) Repulsive practices (e.g. homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia, bestiality, and incest)

6) Murder

People who receive the mark of the beast will be incarcerated in the reservoir too.

†. Rev 14:9-11 . . And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice: If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name.

Universalists have made several futile attempts to invalidate Rev 14:9-11. First off they say it's not literal but rather symbolic, so that nobody really knows what it means.

Then they say that since a Day/Night cycle won't exist in the future (Rev 22:5) then the lake of fire is only temporary. However, it won't work because the absence of night is a condition existing only inside the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven, rather than all the land. Passages like Rev 21:9-27 and Rev 22:1-5 easily bear that out. Though the city itself will have no "need" of either sun or moon (Rev 21:23) that lack of need within the city doesn't preclude the necessity of a sun or of a moon, nor of a normal Day/Night cycle for the remainder of the new earth outside the city's limits.

But even if Day were the only condition existing in the entire cosmos: then since there is no rest either Day or Night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name; then they would suffer in the Day for as long as a Day condition exists, whether 24 hours or 24 Billion centuries.

Then they say that the conditions of Rev 14:11 will exist for only an age. But the literal of that passage reads like this: "and the smoke of their torment doth go up to ages of ages" (Young's Literal)

A plural phrase like "ages of ages" clearly indicates a whole lot more ages than just one age. Some people's minds construe that to say "the end of the ages". But the literal of course won't support it. And they conveniently overlook that the kingdom age itself is an era that according to Daniel will never end (Dan 7:13-14). Ergo: the most anyone can safely ascertain from Rev 14:11 is that the torment will go on indefinitely, 24-7, with no let up.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[2ndRateMind]

2RM, that's a nice theory. But God deals in absolutes.

Zaac, how can you possibly say that when it is quite clear that the world God made is (absolutely!) not a matter of absolutes, but of shades of grey and spectra of subtle distinctions? Whether we talk of physical matters, such as light wavelengths, or of biological matters, such as species differentiation or sexuality, or of ethical matters such as degrees of culpability or of relative virtue, it is quite clear that God made a world in which graduation is the rule, not the exception.

People who want absolutes want simple answers; there aren't any. Ancients may have thought there were, and written scriptures on that basis, but, frankly, the ancients were wrong. Christianity is a challenge to deal with life, not a refuge from it. And deal with it we must, on the basis of what we know to be true about the world, and by extension, the God who built it for us. Any other attitude is doomed from inception.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To 2ndRateMind,
No, the links you make are not Biblically sound either, it is mostly your views and thoughts. Please dont rush on from one contended issue to many others.

Ah, AngelusSax, but 'justly' is something humans decide.

Who says? Not according to God's Biblical testimony, Jesus came to proclaim justice Matthew 12:18, and He will judge the living and the dead, 2 Tim 4:1. So how can humans decide a different justice, know what it is or even suppose we can? You say it is something humans decide but I dont have faith in that, I have faith in what Christ taught and the justice according to Him.

True, God made justice first, but He chose to endow us with the ability to perceive it, to value it, even to crave it. Our 'justice' is not different from God's 'justice', or if it was, the term God's justice would have no meaning. To say that God is just, but His justice is not like our justice, would be like saying God is red, but His red is not like our red.

We do have the ability to perceive it, to make up our own is to ignore the justice Jesus proclaimed.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To 2ndRateMind,
At present a number of us are pointing you towards the Biblical testimony as what is truth here, all I see you doing is putting some of your own views. If you do accept the same benchmark of the Bible to test against as truth, please give some scriptural references, if you dont accept the Biblical testimony as the truth, then where do your ideas of God come from apart from your own thinking?

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, how can you possibly say that when it is quite clear that the world God made is (absolutely!) not a matter of absolutes, but of shades of grey and spectra of subtle distinctions?

We're talking about right and wrong, not shades of light. God deals in absolutes when it comes to right and wrong.

Whether we talk of physical matters, such as light wavelengths, or of biological matters, such as species differentiation or sexuality, or of ethical matters such as degrees of culpability or of relative virtue, it is quite clear that God made a world in which graduation is the rule, not the exception.

See above.

People who want absolutes want simple answers; there aren't any.

God makes his word simple enough that a child can understand it. Complicated doesn't make something right. Again, God does not author confusion so why , when it comes to right and wrong, would He author confusion ?

This is again why anything you put forth needs to be consistent with the WHOLE of God's word.

Ancients may have thought there were, and written scriptures on that basis, but, frankly, the ancients were wrong. Christianity is a challenge to deal with life, not a refuge from it. And deal with it we must, on the basis of what we know to be true about the world, and by extension, the God who built it for us. Any other attitude is doomed from inception.

What will dooom people from inception straight into hell is all of these newfound ideas that are inconsistent with what God's word says.

Right and wrong are absolute. And anything that anyone puts forth that complicates God's simplicity and authoring confusion is not of Him.

 

[2ndRateMind]

To 2ndRateMind,
No, the links you make are not Biblically sound either, it is mostly your views and thoughts. Please dont rush on from one contended issue to many others.

Relax, take your time. I don't mean to rush you, and I am aware that some of the ideas I present may verge on the heretical. But, what I am angling for is not necessarily your agreement with things you may find uncomfortable, but rational refutations.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

We're talking about right and wrong, not shades of light. God deals in absolutes when it comes to right and wrong.


Right and wrong are absolute. And anything that anyone puts forth that complicates God's simplicity and authoring confusion is not of Him.

Hmm, OK, Zaac. See above post, where I tried to take some pressure off brightmorningstar.

I would contend, of course, that right and wrong are not absolute. There are plenty of moral dilemmas that illustrate this. Some times, we must deal with the lesser of two evils; Was it better to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki or better to fight a prolonged conventional war? Sometimes, we must deal with the greater of two goods: is it better to champion the woman's right to choose the path of her life, or to protect the unborn from abortion?

I'm not trying to score debating points here, so just bear with me. I have some ideas that have been bubbling under the surface for the last ten years or so, and it's a great relief to give them an airing. But it's feedback I'm really after, and I value yours as much as anyone else's.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To 2ndRateMind,

Relax, take your time. I don't mean to rush you, and I am aware that some of the ideas I present may verge on the heretical. But, what I am angling for is not necessarily your agreement with things you may find uncomfortable, but rational refutations.

Yes if you were interested in rational refutations I suggest you would address and debate them.
Let me ask you again who says justice is up to humans?
Not according to God's Biblical testimony, Jesus came to proclaim justice Matthew 12:18, and He will judge the living and the dead, 2 Tim 4:1. So how can humans decide a different justice, know what it is or even suppose we can?

True, God made justice first, but He chose to endow us with the ability to perceive it, to value it, even to crave it.

False, God is justice and always will be.

Our 'justice' is not different from God's 'justice', or if it was, the term God's justice would have no meaning.

We have already seen what you think is justice is different from what the Biblical testimony says, so who do you mean by ‘our’ ?

 

[ittarter]

I do hope that remark wasn't aimed at me. When I post, I post sincerely, not just to provoke debate. The fact that I happen to disagree with many conventional Christian ideas should not be dismissed as mere trolling; if these conventional Christian ideas are, in fact, true, they should be able to withstand the criticisms of my poor 2ndRateMind; if they aren't, and can't, then the sooner we all know that the better.

Salvation depends on it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Sorry for being unclear. I would never call you a troll, 2RM. You ask tough questions, but you stick with people who try to answer them, even when they answer them poorly.

I was referring to the OP, who is (in my books) an obvious troll.

 

[Zaac]

Hmm, OK, Zaac. See above post, where I tried to take some pressure off brightmorningstar.

Take pressure off him for what? Telling the truth?

I would contend, of course, that right and wrong are not absolute.

The only problem with that is that God has not based right and wrong upon YOUR CONTENTION but upon HIS HOLINESS.

There are plenty of moral dilemmas that illustrate this. Some times, we must deal with the lesser of two evils; Was it better to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki or better to fight a prolonged conventional war? Sometimes, we must deal with the greater of two goods: is it better to champion the woman's right to choose the path of her life, or to protect the unborn from abortion?

Those are moral dilemmas for YOU, not for God.

I'm not trying to score debating points here, so just bear with me. I have some ideas that have been bubbling under the surface for the last ten years or so, and it's a great relief to give them an airing. But it's feedback I'm really after, and I value yours as much as anyone else's.

Keep it coming 2RM. It's an interesting theory that you're putting forth. But it just doesn't mesh with the full of God's word.

 

[Zaac]

-

 

[Zaac]

-

 

[david_x]

I know where i stand but i want other peoples veiw, do you think that all people, no matter there faith, can go to heaven? Understanding of course the people lived a moral and just life.

I'm afraid all roads lead to Rome, not exactly heaven.

To put it lightly you are correct in that everyone CAN get to heaven. There is only one path, and if you are meant to you will find the path to take.

 

[2ndRateMind]

So far, the main criticism you have put to me, Zaac, and brightmorningstar, is that the theory I have presented is not 'biblical', not 'God's Word'. Well, you seem to think these two things are identical, and I suspect they are rather different. But you have a point, and I am not going to insult your intelligence by twisting scriptures to suit my purposes.

I rest my case on reason. The theory I present is philosophical, rather than religious. And I think one can make a good case that it is reason that is truly 'God's Word', and not scripture. Consider: the world is a far better guide to God's nature, intents, purposes and methods than any abstraction in the form of literature. And we know the world is rational; which is to say, if we interrogate it rationally, by means of scientific method, we generally get rational answers back. It conforms to the laws of biology, of chemistry, of physics, of mathematics and of logic. This speaks volumes about the nature of the creator, who, to create these laws, must first have created the basis of reason on which they depend.

So, I think one has every right, indeed, one has the duty, to question scripture when it does not conform to reason. And, it would indeed be surprising if it did, for it was written by ancients who had not developed the conceptual framework we now take for granted. These ancients did not have scientific method; they did not even have any developed notion of logic. They did not argue from premises to conclusions, because that idea had not yet occurred to humanity. Jesus did not make a logical case for His ideas, because He couldn't. He simply didn't know how, and instead He gave us parables, which are notoriously open to differences of interpretation.

Yet, Jesus lived in the same, rational world we do, created by the same, rational God. If He had the conceptual tools to hand, I have no doubt that He would have used them, as He considered appropriate.

So, to summarise, the suggestion I want to make is that:
1. The World is rational, so
2. It's Creator must be rational, so
3. Reason must be a good way of approaching Him, and understanding Him, and
4. It's probably a better way than the primitive, obsolete methods of discourse evidenced in the Bible.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[ittarter]

4. It's probably a better way than the primitive, obsolete methods of discourse evidenced in the Bible.

(This is not to offend, but I am currently waxing poetic.)

Ah, the great arrogance of the Western world. Let us throw off the burdensome past that gave us birth! We know better than our forefathers! The old way is silly and outdated. We are not so silly as they were.

I don't understand why you persist in trying to use the scientific method to solve questions of a philosophical and religious nature. It's like trying to prepare dinner using a sledge-hammer and machete.

The next serious monologue on my plate is MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Have you heard of it? It would be really cool if you could pick up a copy. Then we could read together and, you know, discuss.

As you know, we share a lot of the same questions and methodologies. I read MacIntyre's original pot-stirrer, After Virtue, over Christmas holidays, and was very impressed. I think he would be really good food for thought for you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To 2ndRateMind,

You made reference to what the ancients thought..

Ancients may have thought there were, and written scriptures on that basis, but, frankly, the ancients were wrong. Christianity is a challenge to deal with life, not a refuge from it.

This is a fundamental question about Christianity, let alone heaven and hell. If the ancients record what Jesus said on the subject it seems to me all you are doing with that statement is excluding Jesus from the argument and replacing what He said with your own ideas.

I rest my case on reason. The theory I present is philosophical, rather than religious.

Again we aren’t basing our discussion on either of those but on the benchmark of the Biblical testimony. .. a totally different fundamental worldview.

And I think one can make a good case that it is reason that is truly 'God's Word', and not scripture.

I woudl call that humanism as a common theme of the Biblical testimony of God says human reasoning and wisdom is foolishness and Jesus Christ is the truth.

 

[2ndRateMind]

And one can also say that is humanism an atheism as a common theme of the Biblical testimony of God says human reasoning and wisdom is foolishness.

Isn't that precisely what you would say, if you wanted to nip any possible criticism in the bud?

I would have thought that technology proves that human reasoning is not foolish.

I won't pretend to be wise, though!

Best, 2RM.