Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For the first question: One is not evil if they accept God's judgment of others, not their own, but God's judgment, for only he can truly judge correctly... We might even mourn them for a short period of time, but in the end it will be accepting and trusting in God's judgment call...
As for the second: One has to be a sycophant towards and with Jesus Christ in mind, otherwise they will not be accepted, he who rejects the Son, rejects the Father also... And not everyone is comfortable being a sycophant towards Jesus Christ, or any authority figure in life... My guess is that, "I" trust God's judgment, if someone is deemed deserving of Hell, then I won't question him, will you?
It is my belief, that some who just simply don't believe, might just go to permanent rest in the grave (ground, dirt) never to be recalled, or resurrected or remembered ever again...
UNLESS, (and this is the purpose of others spreading the gospel around the world), they reject belief, even after being exposed to what should be irrefutable proof, (and only God knows whether or not this is true in an individuals case or not)
If you are unaware of anything but paradise, then you aren't yourself, and it is some mock human in heaven.
Do you imagine we shall have these physical bodies as we occupy Heaven for all time?
Do you imagine we shall have these physical bodies as we occupy Heaven for all time?
So if your child was in Hell, suffering eternal torment, you could be happy in heaven?
You would only mourn that for a short period of time?
Of course I'll question God, and rightly so. According to the bible:
If Hitler was saved before he died, he will be in heaven. A child who grew up a Muslim and dies young, because of where they were born, goes to Hell and suffers eternal torment.
That is immoral. So, if God turns out to be real, I will ask him why he is immoral.
That makes no sense. If anyone is offered irrefutable proof, they will believe in God. So clearly God hasn't offered irrefutable proof to all the non-believers.
Who determines what is just and what isn´t?You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. We shall be required to answer for our wrongs, or God is not just, and if not just, not good, and if not good, not God.
It´s undisputed that these are the requirements according to Christianity (or your brand of Christianity, for that matter).The very process of becoming sinless requires the acknowledgement of our sinfulness, the acceptance of our own responsibility for that, the repentance of it, and the atonement for it.
1. Your "ordinary, decent people" are all sinners, according to Christianity.It is hard enough for ordinary, decent people to go through this process; for truly evil people, I fear it to be nigh on impossible.
Well, you learn something new every day.I can't believe that you think justice is not an end in itself.
Doesn´t follow. No concept ceases to be the concept it is just because it is not considered the absolutely first priority to which all other ideals are subjected.As soon as you relegate justice as expedient to some other end, it ceases to be justice, and becomes arbitrary caprice.
As I said: I can totally see how people of your mind set are completely happy and content with the idea that in the end justice will be done - at whatever cost.To be justice, justice requires to be an end in itself, an ideal to strive for, and even if it is a goal we might never quite reach in this world, we can be absolutely certain that it is the adamantine justification for God's judgement in the next.
Who determines what is just and what isn´t?
It´s undisputed that these are the requirements according to Christianity (or your brand of Christianity, for that matter).
Now, how did these become the requirements? Did God have no choice in making them the requirements, or did God arbitrarily determine these requirements?
1. Your "ordinary, decent people" are all sinners, according to Christianity.
2. According to Christianity, a person can sin until the moment they die - yet arrive sinless in Heaven. Consequently, the process is not their making, but God changes something about them between their departing from earth and arrival at Heaven. God could make those changes with everyone.
Well, you learn something new every day.
(Just so we´re clear: personally, I do not only feel that justice is not an end in itself but that it is a stupid an inhumane concept altogether. )
Doesn´t follow. No concept ceases to be the concept it is just because it is not considered the absolutely first priority to which all other ideals are subjected.
As I said: I can totally see how people of your mind set are completely happy and content with the idea that in the end justice will be done - at whatever cost.
You are free to sense whatever you can´t help sensing - but the Euthrypho Dilemma (as interesting as it is) wasn´t the point of my comment.Ha Ha. I sense a disguised Euthyphro dilemma. Is the good good because God wills it, or does God will the good because it is good?
Yes, it´s hard to orientate in all those various Christian doctrines.Exactly. That is why, even for ordinary, decent folk, the journey is a hard one.
Perhaps. But this is not a doctrine to which I, personally, subscribe.
Your guess isn´t right - it isn´t even wrong. I don´t buy into your concept of justice - so any statement circled around justice doesn´t represent my view or feelings.So, am I take it that you feel that criminals should not face justice? That the injustices of the world should not be put right?
In my world, they are often conflicting with each other.Nowhere have I suggested that justice should be the sole ideal we pursue. The Good, the Kind, the Right, the True, the Beautiful, the Noble - all these ideals are valid objectives. But none of them should be subserved to any other, or any other expedient consideration, or they lose their pristine purity, and become corrupted.
It isn´t that hard to understand, since it´s basically circular to the point of almost being tautological: If you view justice (or what you feel is justice) as an ideal, an objective and an end in itself, justice (or what you feel is justice) coming to pass is a great thing to you. That´s not rocket science or something.Actually, I don't think you can. I think you only think you can.
The very process of becoming sinless requires the acknowledgement of our sinfulness, the acceptance of our own responsibility for that, the repentance of it, and the atonement for it. It is hard enough for ordinary, decent people to go through this process; for truly evil people, I fear it to be nigh on impossible.
It´s undisputed that these are the requirements according to Christianity (or your brand of Christianity, for that matter).
Now, how did these become the requirements? Did God have no choice in making them the requirements, or did God arbitrarily determine these requirements?
Ha Ha. I sense a disguised Euthyphro dilemma. Is the good good because God wills it, or does God will the good because it is good?
You are free to sense whatever you can´t help sensing - but the Euthrypho Dilemma (as interesting as it is) wasn´t the point of my comment.
If you want to address it, please read it again. If you have problems understanding it or further questions about it, you are welcome to ask them.
Yes, it´s hard to orientate in all those various Christian doctrines.
Maybe you could give a summary of your doctrine, describing what this "journey" from earthly death to entrance to heaven consists of, and how people change from sinful to sinless all by themselves - without God doing anythng about it.
Your guess isn´t right - it isn´t even wrong. I don´t buy into your concept of justice - so any statement circled around justice doesn´t represent my view or feelings.
In my world, they are often conflicting with each other.
It isn´t that hard to understand, since it´s basically circular to the point of almost being tautological: If you view justice (or what you feel is justice) as an ideal, an objective and an end in itself, justice (or what you feel is justice) coming to pass is a great thing to you. That´s not rocket science or something.
Heaven is supposed to be a place of eternal happiness..
I think that is a bad way to understand heaven.
Communion with God for eternity is the goal. It's the first commandment, to have no other gods. You cannot put your family or other people in the plalce of God. You have to love God more than them, to have your life properly ordered.
If one isn't stuck on a literalist reading of Scripture it is quite reasonable to think that the descriptions of Hell are not literal, but symbolic and the tortures are there to get the point cross to CHRISTAINS just how horrible for THEM to be forever cut off from their God.
Still, in asking my question I wasn´t heading to that direction.Indeed, but I think if you consider, you will see the relevance of Plato's dilemma to your point. If the journey that reconciles a sinner with God is a just one, is it just because God ordained it, or did God ordain it because it is just? If the former, justice is arbitrary, if the latter, God is the subject of something greater than Himself.
The first question to answer, however, would still be: "Who decides what is just, justice?".I have no easy answer to this, I confess, but I suspect some sort of solution may be found by insisting that God and perfect Justice are indistinguishable.
Now, that is an interesting and intriguing idea, and it answers my question quite fine. However, it doesn´t seem to go well with what you initially postulated as the benefit of Heaven-and-Hell-Justice: Us (the "decent, ordinary" people getting rid of the "truly evil" people).Well, despite the fact that I am laying out a hostage to negativity, my own belief is that heaven and hell are the same place - the presence of God. The good will rejoice in that, and be vindicated, and the evil detest it, and be lost until they can confront their sinfulness.
I will do that with great pleasure. However, at this stage I don´t even see where you perceive the problem. So I am not sure what you would like me to explain. What do you feel I need such a concept for? What is lost without it? (It should be noted, though, that in asking and answering these questions we have left "justice" as an end in itself behind already - since we are asking: What purpose does it serve?)I confess, I'm not sure how one can get by in life without some sort of concept of justice. Perhaps you could expand on this?
I´m sorry - I don´t know what you mean by "transcendent" here. If it is just another word for "abstract", I tend to agree. But I am more of a pragmatist, and I am tending towards the notion that solving problems in the abstract always comes down to solving them semantically, and nothing but.Indeed, so it might seem. But they are all transcendent ideals, and solutions may often be found in that transcendence.
Ok. As I tried to explain before, I am not aware of any concept called "justice" that I perceive as a desirable thing to pursue, to begin with.Yes, but what I don't understand is why you think justice coming to pass might not be 'a great thing'.
Still, in asking my question I wasn´t heading to that direction.
The first question to answer, however, would still be: "Who decides what is just, justice?".
Now, that is an interesting and intriguing idea, and it answers my question quite fine. However, it doesn´t seem to go well with what you initially postulated as the benefit of Heaven-and-Hell-Justice: Us (the "decent, ordinary" people getting rid of the "truly evil" people).
I will do that with great pleasure. However, at this stage I don´t even see where you perceive the problem. So I am not sure what you would like me to explain. What do you feel I need such a concept for? What is lost without it? (It should be noted, though, that in asking and answering these questions we have left "justice" as an end in itself behind already - since we are asking: What purpose does it serve?)
I´m sorry - I don´t know what you mean by "transcendent" here. If it is just another word for "abstract", I tend to agree. But I am more of a pragmatist, and I am tending towards the notion that solving problems in the abstract always comes down to solving them semantically, and nothing but.
My ideals aren´t transcendent or abstract but attempts to deal with practical, concrete problems (even though verbalizing them necessecitates some abstraction).
Just to clarify:Well, in a sense, yes. If God is Justice, in the same way that He is Good, (and the latter implies the former) then making justice apparent in the world is making God immanent.
I have understood that. What I haven´t understood is how you reconcile the statement "eternal justice is necessary for getting us rid of the truly evil" (paraphrased, I don´t recall the exact wording) with this notion, in which heaven and hell aren´t separate places but different states of mind.Well, I don't see this heaven/hell dichotomy quite like that. I think the thing that decides whether we are in heaven or hell is our own attitudes to perfect Goodness. If we are virtuous, we will most likely glory in the presence of God. If we are vice-ridden, then we will hate it, despise it, detest it. But, even for the viceful, there will always be the option of redemption, if they can travel that path through acknowledgment, acceptance of responsibility, repentance, and atonement for their sin. It's just that, the greater your sin, the less likely you will choose redemption, and the harder the path if you do.
Well, that´s the very difference between justice being a means to an end and justice being an end in itself (it´s own purpose, as you say here).Yes, I take that point. But purpose does not imply that justice should be relegated to the service of some other end. Justice can be the purpose of justice.
The only thing that would cause me to consider any special treatment of a serial rapist is the protection of other persons (with the least possible harm done to the person in question).So, in some random, particular instance, how, without some concept of justice, might you decide how a serial rapist should be treated?
I´m not sure I understand fully what you mean here.Yes, I'm hazy on transcendence, too. All I know is, when I approach a divergent problem (ie, a situation where conflicts between principles occur) the best way forward is to 'transcend' them by appeal to reconciled ideals.
Everyone? No matter what?
And may I ask you, what did you post under your screen name that has the [bless do not curse] censor all in a tizzy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?