Playing God - the afterlife

[Undone]

knapp - Again, I think it's the whole "better left for the bar" element to these conversations via keyboard. Labels don't have to be an end game, you're right. But they sometimes help with basic understanding.

 

Since I've spent quite a bit of time on this board at this point, I consider these interactions more or less as "between friends." Internet friends, I suppose. So my inquiry was merely to try to ascertain a backdrop for the OP, and to get to know you better as well, I guess.

[knapplc]

Yeah, no problem. I just don't have an answer to that question.

[Undone]

Cool.

 

I have to admit that it spikes my imagination with your intent of the OP. Obviously, you're under no obligation to answer that. But I am curious.

[knapplc]

It was a question I saw on Reddit, of all places, and I thought it was intriguing. My criteria are much less stringent than God's, and I find that fascinating that the supreme being of love would make it so difficult for his children to get to heaven.

[Undone]

I see.

[Landlord]

It was a question I saw on Reddit, of all places, and I thought it was intriguing. My criteria are much less stringent than God's, and I find that fascinating that the supreme being of love would make it so difficult for his children to get to heaven.

 

 

 

I still think it's remarkably simple, as evidenced by my first answer and as read in Scripture. Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 

Really, believe in Jesus and be free/saved/inherited/adopted/bound for heaven.

[knapplc]

But it's not simple. We are guilty - why? Because of a sin committed thousands of years before we were born. Because of that sin, we are born into a world of sin, and we can't not sin.

 

But God sent his Son to atone for sins for all time by dying on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. So if Adam's sin makes us guilty for all time, why doesn't Jesus' sacrifice make us guiltless for all time? Why are we still here in this world, still guilty at birth 2,000 years after Christ's sacrifice?

 

If Adam's sin made us guilty, God's atonement should obviate that, right? Why aren't we living in Eden again after Christ's death and resurrection? Was Adam's sin stronger than Christ's sacrifice? Apparently so, since we're still sinning, still guilty of Adam's crime at birth.

[sd'sker]

I would peruse internet message boards, with an eye towards those who bad mouthed me or claimed I didn't exist. That would be a good start for the list of those who would not be joining me in the afterlife.

for an all-powerful, superior being, that sounds awfully petty and vindictive.

(this was the only response i have read. i know this thread is two pages long, so i missed a lot of the conversation.)

[Landlord]

But it's not simple. We are guilty - why? Because of a sin committed thousands of years before we were born. Because of that sin, we are born into a world of sin, and we can't not sin.

 

But God sent his Son to atone for sins for all time by dying on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. So if Adam's sin makes us guilty for all time, why doesn't Jesus' sacrifice make us guiltless for all time? Why are we still here in this world, still guilty at birth 2,000 years after Christ's sacrifice?

 

If Adam's sin made us guilty, God's atonement should obviate that, right? Why aren't we living in Eden again after Christ's death and resurrection? Was Adam's sin stronger than Christ's sacrifice? Apparently so, since we're still sinning, still guilty of Adam's crime at birth.

 

 

Re: bolded - It does, but it's not forced upon us. Otherwise we would just be automatons. I know your response to that will be "but sin was forced upon us", which is a valid counterpoint to which I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to refute.

 

Jesus does obviate Adam's sin - that's the entire message of the gospel. The reason it didn't immediately happen in a poof of smoke and glory, I would imagine, is a combination of God's concern for His own glory, which I have no idea as to the means or process behind, and God not being slow as we understand slowness, but being patient that all would repent and accept His free will offering.

 

You say that the presence of evil flies against the idea of a loving Father, but I don't think that's the case at all. I don't have one so I can't say from personal experience, but isn't it good parenting to not smother and be over-protective of your children, but to let them grow and make right choices for themselves instead of having you make all of their choices for them? I've seen the results of children who's parents, especially mothers, were entirely obsessed with their well-being and safety and took every single precatuion imaginable, and the result is that those kids don't really get to live their lives.

 

 

Either way, your arguments all operate from a position of authority over God's actions. If God were to exist the way the Bible defines Him, then He is the source and definition of logic, transcending all of creation as superior and right, if only for no other reason than the definition of what is right is a manifestation of His nature. Therefore, regardless of how 'logical' arguments refuting God are, if He were to exist, the logical conclusion would be that He has infinitely greater understanding than you or I, and it would be highly illogical to question or call wrong His actions or will.

[Lil' Red]

Personally, I would allow everyone into heaven as I don't believe that anyone is deserving of eternal suffering. When you examine a person's background it is difficult to deny them entrance into heaven because they never truly learned about Christianity, had abusive parents, suffered from mental illness, were taught a different religion and etc. It just seems cruel and irrational to do so.

[Undone]

If God were to exist the way the Bible defines Him, then He is the source and definition of logic, transcending all of creation as superior and right, if only for no other reason than the definition of what is right is a manifestation of His nature.

Yes, agreed. And a pretty concise summary of that concept, too.

 

As I alluded to above, there is (and has existed throughout Christianity) a contingency of Christians who interpret verses saying that "Christ died for all" to literally mean all, similar to the devil's advocate position that knapp proposed. And here's one man's opinion - I don't think we as Christians can entirely rule that out. Could it be heresy? Yes, it could. But if heresy is defined as interpreting/believing something incorrect about Scripture...then it follows that most likely, every single Christian harbors some kind of "heresy" in their heart...be it an intricately 'small' heresy, or a 'big' one.

 

But your point is good, Landlord. And it's generally why I like to start these topics with Intelligent Design theory (which I believe is currently quantifiable, yes - quantifiable) in science, and then from that base move on to apologetics itself.

[ZRod]

I would peruse internet message boards, with an eye towards those who bad mouthed me or claimed I didn't exist. That would be a good start for the list of those who would not be joining me in the afterlife.

for an all-powerful, superior being, that sounds awfully petty and vindictive.

(this was the only response i have read. i know this thread is two pages long, so i missed a lot of the conversation.)

I think the better stuff is on the second page here, real philosophical and all that jazz.

[knapplc]

But it's not simple. We are guilty - why? Because of a sin committed thousands of years before we were born. Because of that sin, we are born into a world of sin, and we can't not sin.

 

But God sent his Son to atone for sins for all time by dying on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. So if Adam's sin makes us guilty for all time, why doesn't Jesus' sacrifice make us guiltless for all time? Why are we still here in this world, still guilty at birth 2,000 years after Christ's sacrifice?

 

If Adam's sin made us guilty, God's atonement should obviate that, right? Why aren't we living in Eden again after Christ's death and resurrection? Was Adam's sin stronger than Christ's sacrifice? Apparently so, since we're still sinning, still guilty of Adam's crime at birth.

 

 

Re: bolded - It does, but it's not forced upon us. Otherwise we would just be automatons. I know your response to that will be "but sin was forced upon us", which is a valid counterpoint to which I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to refute.

 

Jesus does obviate Adam's sin - that's the entire message of the gospel. The reason it didn't immediately happen in a poof of smoke and glory, I would imagine, is a combination of God's concern for His own glory, which I have no idea as to the means or process behind, and God not being slow as we understand slowness, but being patient that all would repent and accept His free will offering.

 

You say that the presence of evil flies against the idea of a loving Father, but I don't think that's the case at all. I don't have one so I can't say from personal experience, but isn't it good parenting to not smother and be over-protective of your children, but to let them grow and make right choices for themselves instead of having you make all of their choices for them? I've seen the results of children who's parents, especially mothers, were entirely obsessed with their well-being and safety and took every single precatuion imaginable, and the result is that those kids don't really get to live their lives.

 

 

Either way, your arguments all operate from a position of authority over God's actions. If God were to exist the way the Bible defines Him, then He is the source and definition of logic, transcending all of creation as superior and right, if only for no other reason than the definition of what is right is a manifestation of His nature. Therefore, regardless of how 'logical' arguments refuting God are, if He were to exist, the logical conclusion would be that He has infinitely greater understanding than you or I, and it would be highly illogical to question or call wrong His actions or will.

 

Regarding the bold, it doesn't, as you predicted I'd say. And I know it doesn't because I'm not in Eden right now. If Jesus' sacrifice freed me from sin, I wouldn't have been born sinful, guilty of a crime that predates the obviation of that crime.

 

It's that very "I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to refute" that was my final straw. I shouldn't have to stretch my imagination or delve so deeply into the Scripture or Christian doctrine to find the answer for that. For something so utterly crucial as my immortal soul, the answer should be printed in bright, bold, glowing letters right on the cover of every Bible.

 

You go to a building construction site and the first thing you see, five times across one block of wire barrier, are the warning signs and the "how not to get killed here" signs. That's the kind of readily apparent stuff that we should have, not esoteric in the least, not open to interpretation. There are no factions among construction workers - they either wear a hard hat, tie off and know the safety issues by heart or they don't work there. But humanity doesn't have that - and before you tell me it's in the Bible, the Bible isn't readily accessible to the entirety of humanity, each person doesn't have the same chance at reading/understanding what's in the Bible, and better than half of today's residents of Earth will live and die without having any idea what's in there, and according to Christian doctrine, since they don't believe, they're damned. And that's 2,000 years after they were "saved."

 

And yes, I do argue from a position of authority over God's actions. If God has given me logic, and through that logic I can understand that the Biblical God is controvertible, then what use is that logic? I have asked my father for a loaf of bread, and he has given me a stone. The very logic God created and gave to me is the vehicle for my damnation. So how is that love? And being "not love," but irresponsible behavior, how can I trust that the God of the Bible is real? Clearly I cannot.

 

The conclusion I have come to is that, all things in your final paragraph being true, God cannot exist. The very rules he makes me live by show that.

[Undone]

...each person doesn't have the same chance at reading/understanding what's in the Bible, and better than half of today's residents of Earth will live and die without having any idea what's in there, and according to Christian doctrine, since they don't believe, they're damned. And that's 2,000 years after they were "saved."

Actually, I completely disagree with that statement. Romans makes it clear that God has implanted his moral law in the hearts of all persons so that they are held morally accountable to Him. See: Romans 1:20, Romans 2: 14-15. There's also a promise of salvation to anyone who responds affirmatively to this self-revelation of God (Romans 2:7). How that works, exactly? I can't explain that, but just because I can't, doesn't make it evidently untrue.

 

Also, it's my understanding that by and large, the very early church "fathers" didn't largely subscribe to "eternal torment." You can check out annihilationism for more information on that topic.

 

Ultimately, the basic idea is that it's not about whether or not we "like" the doctrine of hell - it's whether or not that doctrine could possibly be true.

[JJ Husker]

I would peruse internet message boards, with an eye towards those who bad mouthed me or claimed I didn't exist. That would be a good start for the list of those who would not be joining me in the afterlife.

for an all-powerful, superior being, that sounds awfully petty and vindictive.

(this was the only response i have read. i know this thread is two pages long, so i missed a lot of the conversation.)

 

My first response was just me trying to be funny. You should read through the thread. Lots of more serious, interesting stuff than my smart ass answer.