you will be judged even if decieved

[ScottA]

For a long time I believed God will never judge those who don't know about him.

but given the law of nature* innate in our mental instincts.

Even if we are deceived it appears God will still judge* us.

source: (adam and eve being deceived still rejected from the garden).

so this motive that satan can deceive man in a way that makes God curse his creation, has been the motive of satan for thousands of years.

But I used to try to sugar coat my ideas, that the pigmi's in africa never heard the Gospel and would be safe.

but the truth is, that via deception of the prince of the air, the chances are not looking good for them.

hence this motive led one of the greatest missionary movements of our time.

1789-1914 the great missionary era.

We are no longer in a missionary era, and that is unfortunate.

what are your thoughts.

Footnotes:

*law of nature, as explained by CS lewis (explanation of this is allowed on this thread)
**Judgement - great white throne judgement, of all wrong doings: Revelation 20:12-14: "12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."


(note:now, one can argue that eve was the one deceived and not adam. Meaning that either He KNEW what was happening, and chose to do it anyway. Which begs the question when we are deceived, if deep inside, if we REALLY are suppressing the truth for a lie.)

see truth decay in OP

It is all much simpler than that really:

Life in the flesh and in the spirit...are both a gift from God: There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body 1 Corinthians 15:44. But the natural man comes to his end and is no more. Like the world, he is fading away - a finite creation, for a time. The end is the end. Only those born again of the spirit of God shall inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Verv]

And what is the origin of the choice to sit down? Your brain, right? Let's say you've been loading furniture. Lactic acid builds up in your muscles. Receptors in the muscles send nerve impulses to your brain. It processes this information and as a result you feel sore and tired. Your visual cortex receives input from your eyes that an object is nearby. The size and shape are characteristic of what your brain has learned is a chair. All this information is ultimately analyzed by your pre-frontal cortex, and it makes the decision to sit down and rest. It's all a function of neural networks in the brain responding to internal and external stimuli. Which are natural, physiologic processes. And being attracted to another person, and developing feelings of affection and love is the same thing. It originates in the brain as a response to receiving stimuli related to that person.

All I'm saying is that these are functions of the brain that have natural physiologic mechanisms. Do you disagree?

There is a human will, and a soul. A purely physicalist interpretation of these things and the argumentation that the "Brain" and not the person, not the human will, not the soul is the decider is the error of your statements.

I can feel sentiments of love towards someone, but after I have found out that they have betrayed me I can extinguish these feelings. Perhaps I fail to extinguish these feelings because my heart is soft and I still have an idyllic view of our lives together before, and then I pursue having a relationship with them again.... Or, perhaps I hold my ground and we separate forever.

Here the point simply is that I have a choice in how we proceed.

I cannot abide by referring to myself as 'my brain.' I am myself, and while my 'brain' could be said to be the 'seat' of my self, I feel I also exist as a history, as a continuation, as a process, as a complex being that is better boiled down into my name & my identity than it is boiled down into the different conditions of my brain.

If I experienced a phenomena that left me with brain damage like Phineas Gage, would I now be a different person because I havea different brain, since the 'totality' of the person is within the brain? I do not believe so. I doubt Phineas believed so either, and as he lived he was able to fully recover and have a normal l ife.

Mainly that you just make Christianity look bad.

Blaming people for an honest difference of opinion just makes God look like a moral monster.

Imagine that an alien species loves direct democracy. We on Earth don't practice direct democracy. The alien species decides to exterminate the human species because obviously we deserve it for not practicing direct democracy. Nevermind that there might be honest disagreement over that issue, and in many cases people don't even know what direct democracy is.

But that isn't an accurate description of what God is doing.

God is providing people with His Word, and the people which consciously reject it will face condemnation because they deny the primacy of God and have lived a sinful life...

But who even goes to hell? That is a decision far above my pay grade, and to what extent faith & mercy interact is not even something that I can attest to. I am also not sure if the doctrine of 'annihilationism' is true.

Part of your statements here depends on a cartoonish interpretation of the Bible: that people for honest differences of opinion (with an omnipotent being) will be condemned to eternal hellfire. Mark, you sure got a heck of a lot of theological obstacles to overcome before you can say that this is a substantial argument.

 

[jayem]

I cannot abide by referring to myself as 'my brain.' I am myself, and while my 'brain' could be said to be the 'seat' of my self, I feel I also exist as a history, as a continuation, as a process, as a complex being that is better boiled down into my name & my identity than it is boiled down into the different conditions of my brain.

I respect your opinion, but I will put it this way. Within our brains is the totality of our personalities. I don't think that diminishes our humanity or personhood in any way. To me, it's surpassingly awesome that a 3 pound organ, composed of 85 billion neurons, electrochemically communicating with each other through 100 trillion synapses, contains all of our memories, thoughts, desires,and emotions. Why do you need more?

If I experienced a phenomena that left me with brain damage like Phineas Gage, would I now be a different person because I havea different brain, since the 'totality' of the person is within the brain? I do not believe so. I doubt Phineas believed so either, and as he lived he was able to fully recover and have a normal l ife.

Depending on the nature of your injury, your personality certainly could change. Your cognitive abilities, and how you interact with others could be quite different. Consider the effects of Alzheimer's Disease. Patients lose memory, even to the point of inability to recognize a spouse or child. There's loss of language function. There can be marked personality change. A previously calm person can be highly excitable, irritable, and often combative. One who was always sociable, gregarious, and upbeat can become sullen, withdrawn, and depressed. I work in health care, and I've seen this with my own eyes. That doesn't make an Alzheimer patient a different person, or a non-person. He's the same person he was, but has now lost some brain function. Just like a paraplegic is the same person he was before injuring his spinal cord. But he's now lost some lower extremity function.

BTW: Phineas Gage's surgeon later wrote that he did show some undesirable behavioral traits after his injury. But little is known of his pre-injury state. And there are a lot of unverifiable legends associated with the case. The article is kinda long, but interesting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...rue_story_of_famous_frontal_lobe_patient.html

 

[Verv]

Right, Phineas Gage is tricky, but I think it is appropriate because his behavior eventually normalized which seems to be an agreed upon point. I do not think it was a conspiracy.

There is the soul, and there is both the physical and the spiritual body... I reviewed 1 Corinthians 15 to gain some insight on this, and there appears to be nothing which says that the 'soul' as we know it must be co-located with the physical body, or that the soul necessarily is not co-located with the physical body during the lifetime. The soul is perhaps a reference to the imperishable spirit which is restored by God after death. Thus, the soul would be transcendent of the body -- whether it is co-located with it or not.

Perhaps this goes well with the predestination aspects of thought... predestination would take away issues of free will that can be under threat by aspects of physicalism. But IDK.

I do not think that boiling everything down to the brain is necessarily correct, nonetheless, because if the brain is even equivalent to the complete & full mental life of a human being then it is more appropriate to refer to the brain as the 'person' than it is to refer to it as the mere organ. This is semantics. But it is important semantics -- we shouldn't refer to the whole of a person's existence by the name of a physical organ, but rather, we should refer to it as their person so as to not denigrate it in quality.

What a big topic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But that isn't an accurate description of what God is doing.

I'm not trying to do that.

First, I was asked for my thoughts.

Second, I'm saying that the OP makes Christianity look bad. There's not much to defend here. I'm not writing a disproof of Christianity.

Third, I'm making an analogy to the argument I see presented here in this thread. In the analogy, the aliens take the view that there can be no honest disagreement with them about the virtues of direct democracy. That is why they are keen to destroy humanity.

Fourth, the whole point I am making (about how this makes Christianity look bad) is the counter-intuitive notion that there can be no honest disagreements on some ethical issue, such as the moral worthiness of direct democracy.

God is providing people with His Word, and the people which consciously reject it will face condemnation because they deny the primacy of God and have lived a sinful life...

And you, sir, have rejected direct democracy, which in your heart you know is correct, and that you deserve destruction when you don't support it with every fiber of your being.

But who even goes to hell? That is a decision far above my pay grade, and to what extent faith & mercy interact is not even something that I can attest to. I am also not sure if the doctrine of 'annihilationism' is true.

We can change the analogy so that Earth simply doesn't get membership into the heavenly Galactic Community. Still, hell in Christian doctrine is usually presented as very bad, not as something neutral, even if it is not annihilationism.

Part of your statements here depends on a cartoonish interpretation of the Bible

It is the thread's thesis that is the cartoon. My analogy only reveals this.

that people for honest differences of opinion (with an omnipotent being) will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

Do you think that people can't be honestly mistaken about the truth of Christian doctrine? That is the issue I am focusing on here. That is the absurdity that I am trying to highlight. That is the crux of the matter about how such a view makes Christianity look bad.

Mark, you sure got a heck of a lot of theological obstacles to overcome before you can say that this is a substantial argument.

I can only comment on the main thesis of the thread and how it makes Christianity look bad.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

is the difference of opinion honest though?

Only God knows.

Well, no. The individual knows as well.

So his judgment is right.

It seems to me that your judgment is working its way into this argument. You were the one making a judgment about Adam and Eve and how their judgment works into Christian doctrine. And you are appealing to the authority of C.S. Lewis (which would make far more sense regarding Narnia), who is also a human being exercising his own judgment.

We know by His written words. The Bible.

And what we have in the OP is your interpretation of the Bible, something other well-meaning Christians have disagreed with over the centuries.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

It is all much simpler than that really:

Life in the flesh and in the spirit...are both a gift from God: There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body 1 Corinthians 15:44. But the natural man comes to his end and is no more. Like the world, he is fading away - a finite creation, for a time. The end is the end. Only those born again of the spirit of God shall inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

in your way God is cursing people for NOT knowing something.

in my version God IS cursing them for not doing a law.....the natural law.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not trying to do that.

First, I was asked for my thoughts.

Second, I'm saying that the OP makes Christianity look bad. There's not much to defend here. I'm not writing a disproof of Christianity.

Third, I'm making an analogy to the argument I see presented here in this thread. In the analogy, the aliens take the view that there can be no honest disagreement with them about the virtues of direct democracy. That is why they are keen to destroy humanity.

Fourth, the whole point I am making (about how this makes Christianity look bad) is the counter-intuitive notion that there can be no honest disagreements on some ethical issue, such as the moral worthiness of direct democracy.



And you, sir, have rejected direct democracy, which in your heart you know is correct, and that you deserve destruction when you don't support it with every fiber of your being.



We can change the analogy so that Earth simply doesn't get membership into the heavenly Galactic Community. Still, hell in Christian doctrine is usually presented as very bad, not as something neutral, even if it is not annihilationism.



It is the thread's thesis that is the cartoon. My analogy only reveals this.



Do you think that people can't be honestly mistaken about the truth of Christian doctrine? That is the issue I am focusing on here. That is the absurdity that I am trying to highlight. That is the crux of the matter about how such a view makes Christianity look bad.



I can only comment on the main thesis of the thread and how it makes Christianity look bad.


eudaimonia,

Mark

the appearance of Christianity is not of pivotal concern to Christ, the author and finisher of the movement.

what does matter, is the quality, not the quantity of the christian.

I remember after Jesus said a very difficult thing to the multitudes, He then turned to his very own 12 apostles and said "will you leave me too."

John 6:67-69New King James Version (NKJV)
67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”


so again you have said numerous times that Christianity is looking bad. But it's not Christians God wants, God wants quality.

if He wanted numbers, HE could just prove himself to everyone right now and we would all be reluctant believers, but not by choice. He desires our faith, without faith it's actually impossible to please Him.

It is easier to believe a fact that it is to trust someone with your life.

it is the trust that He desires, not the factuality.

but on the other hand, His methodology should not be anti-intellectual either. So it goes both ways.

 

[createdtoworship]

And, according to the devotees of Norse mythology, Thor will cave your head in with his mighty hammer for eternity, due to your brazen blasphemy...

I think that's an epistemological stalemate....

Elijah the prophet called the mystic prophets of baal to pray and call down fire from heaven. (200 prophets to be exact). And heaven was quiet. Because baal was not in heaven. nor thor or any other God. Elijah prayed one time...and after pouring water on thw bon fire till it was dripping (the bible accounts). Then fire came down and consumed the fire and the altar and even so much as to lick up all the water. Needless to say the prophets which were false were judged even though they were decieved. They were slain that day as per Gods commands. If their God was real then why didnt He answer the honest prayer? God sometimes says no and or wait. But if you pray "to consume it upon your lust" God may not even reply at all. But elijah the man od God and full of faith.... prayed for God to show up the counterfeits. And He did.

 

[createdtoworship]

Does it sound like a reasonable opinion?

That we evolved from a rock.... Or that our universe was a result of forces that happened to have no cause for existing whatsoever..."other than to prove God could not have created the universe"???


No...not so reasonble when you look at the whole picture.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That we evolved from a rock....

If you really were looking at the whole picture, you'd realize that that is a straw man. No one is suggesting that anyone "evolved from a rock".

Or that our universe was a result of forces that happened to have no cause for existing whatsoever...

God has no cause for existing either. What is the problem here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

the appearance of Christianity is not of pivotal concern to Christ, the author and finisher of the movement.

I never suggested otherwise. I'm not speaking to Christ at the moment. I'm speaking to human beings in this thread.

so again you have said numerous times that Christianity is looking bad.

Not precisely. I said that you were making Christianity look bad with the ideas in your OP. Christians have taken different positions on these issues, so some Christians may be making Christianity look good.

But it's not Christians God wants, God wants quality. if He wanted numbers, HE could just prove himself to everyone right now and we would all be reluctant believers, but not by choice. He desires our faith, without faith it's actually impossible to please Him.

You seem to be saying here that "quality" believers have no reason to believe. It's just something arbitrary on their part, like a gamble at a roulette wheel. They could just as easily believe in Thor or Vishnu, and insist that they are of superior quality because they are "not reluctant believers" since they don't actually know for sure that either of those deities exist. But how does that produce "quality" persons? Doesn't it produce gamblers?

it is the trust that He desires, not the factuality.

Normally, trust is based on fact. Otherwise, trust has no basis. It is just an empty choice -- a gamble where you aren't even sure of the game you are playing.

I do get that you want people to trust God, and that that is more than simply believing that God exists. I get that. But it isn't either-or.

Also, if some trusting person simply doesn't happen to have arbitrarily or almost arbitrarily decided to trust specifically the Christian God, then that seems like an odd waste of "quality".

but on the other hand, His methodology should not be anti-intellectual either. So it goes both ways.

What methodology are you talking about? What room for intellect do you see in such a methodology?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Verv]

I'm not trying to do that.
Third, I'm making an analogy to the argument I see presented here in this thread. In the analogy, the aliens take the view that there can be no honest disagreement with them about the virtues of direct democracy. That is why they are keen to destroy humanity.

One of the things that makes honest disagreements possible is the sense that we are beings limited in scope. God is not like that.

And you, sir, have rejected direct democracy, which in your heart you know is correct, and that you deserve destruction when you don't support it with every fiber of your being.

But perhaps you do not know the truth of God's word because you are inherently not of the Elect. Would it be bad that some people are flawed.

Still, hell in Christian doctrine is usually presented as very bad, not as something neutral, even if it is not annihilationism.

So? If very bad things receive strong punishments, that is merely justice.

Do you think that people can't be honestly mistaken about the truth of Christian doctrine? That is the issue I am focusing on here. That is the absurdity that I am trying to highlight. That is the crux of the matter about how such a view makes Christianity look bad.

The New Tesatment emphasizes people will be judged according to their heart and knowledge.

 

[bhsmte]

I gave my evidence.

it's an argument from silence yes, but it is better than believing love can evolve in a testube under the right conditions.

you still have yet to describe where exactly love comes from (if not from God)

The evidence you provided is lacking, which is why it is opinion.

 

[ScottA]

in your way God is cursing people for NOT knowing something.

in my version God IS cursing them for not doing a law.....the natural law.

No, not at all. God has manifest those who love him, as well as those who hate Him, and given both the opportunity to rethink it with the gift of life in the world. Both receive the gift, but not all repent.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you really were looking at the whole picture, you'd realize that that is a straw man. No one is suggesting that anyone "evolved from a rock".



God has no cause for existing either. What is the problem here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

evolved from a rock, evolved from a primordial ooze puddle in a rock....it's all the same type of rationalizing.

"ever hear the saying "third rock from the sun""

 

[createdtoworship]

God has no cause for existing either. What is the problem here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

thank you for the reponse....but God is self existant and self defining.

so God in essence does not have a beginning, due to Him being outside of time and space dimensions.

thus without having a beginning, He is not necessitating a cause.

but scientists collectively state that the universe has a beginning, so it necessitates a cause for that beginning.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never suggested otherwise. I'm not speaking to Christ at the moment. I'm speaking to human beings in this thread.

ever heard the verse that says
2 Corinthians 4:4New King James Version (NKJV)
4 whose minds the god of this age (Satan) has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.


basically it's saying a veil is pulled over the eyes of the unbeliever causing more unbelief.

also the Bible says "God hardened pharoah's heart"

meaning that sometimes we reject God so many times, that He rejects us as well.

no one knows that time or location of that apostacy, but it is a real danger in Christianity as well as the world in general.

so the fact that Christianity is evil to them, matters not.

again see my signature....people have a complete reversal of thought, it's called repentance. Another saying that I heard today is that

some say

"I will believe it when I see it"

but in reality

it's more like

"when you believe it, you see it"

an athiest says "God is nowhere"

a christian says :God is now here"

it's simply one has repented and the other has not.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not precisely. I said that you were making Christianity look bad with the ideas in your OP. Christians have taken different positions on these issues, so some Christians may be making Christianity look good.

God never wants us to get people saved, so my appearance to you is not the critical thing.

He said make disciples.

not converts.

plus if you are my convert, you will stink of bias and being opinionated, as I am. But if you are God's convert you resemble what He does and says.

if you see something wrong in what I say....it's me saying it.

if you see something eternal in what I say...it's God saying it.

I long to decrease and God longs to increase, and this was the message of John the Baptist.

We are saved when we believe the sacrificial message of Jesus dying for our sin.

and we are saved when we realize that we are not bound to heaven by default and that we need to trust in His way. We are not saved by works, we are saved by His work. Yet works always come from a saved person.

(at this point you may say ...have more works and have less faith....and I would say the works are pointless without the faith)

because works don't save. But Godly repentance does.

when you come to Christ you lay down your digital God's and God's of lust and porno, and other God's of material and Gold and Girls, or Boys....and you lay them down and you Follow Jesus.

if you cannot do this...you won't make it.

do you understand?

IF you think...."who can be saved?"

then the answer is ...no one.

but with God "all things are possible"

and this is why we have faith in HIM and his way, and His cross.

Once saved we are secure in HIm.

He will not let us wander to far from the fold.

(but always be working to make your life better for God....if you don't you become stale and start to fail in pivotal life areas, and this becomes a plague of sin in your life and you simply wander away from the Cross and salvation)

Hebrews 6.

Hebrews 10.

sin decieves us, to the point where we no longer wish to believe.

and at that point even God will proclaim "All is lost"

and harden your heart further so that repentance once allowed is no longer possible.

But again we say..."with God all things are possible"

if you wish for salvation ...it's a free gift.

but you have to let go of everything you are carrying in order to take it.

carrying of idols and lust and porno and Gold and covetousness.

to follow Him.

Is all this worth it to you?

granted Hell will not be your next destination on your trip of life...

so it's important to weigh all alternatives.

 

[createdtoworship]

The evidence you provided is lacking, which is why it is opinion.

thanks for your opinion in the matter.