What The Bible Has The Others Don't...

[Free]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

But again, pushing the moral code up to the level of God doesn't solve any of the above stated problems; it just puts them into a theological area that can't be rationalized against.

Not at all. Because something is theological doesn't mean that it is beyond the reach of rational discussion.

For instance, is good and wrong quantities that exist outside of God? Likely you will say no because God is the ultimate power and there can not be a set of rules that are above his authority.

Well, because God is the Creator, nothing is above or beyond him nor is he subject to anything since everything that is is created. If God were subject to rules, then he wouldn't be God, at least, not the Judeo-Christian God.

Or does God set the rules humans are to follow. If he does that, then we are back to relativism. There is no good but what God says to be good. And if he can choose what is right or wrong and rationalize it, why are we not allowed the same ability? What if he changes his mind tomorrow and decides that murder is good, and feeding the poor is evil? Would we feel differently about the two? If evil and good are defined by God, and there is no reasoning as to why they are that way except but his command, which would certainly be the implication. Evil is just defying his command.

I think the answers are found in God's nature. Morality doesn't come from commands of what we are to do and what we are not to do. Morality comes from who God is; they derive from his nature. So because the Bible says that God is love, and since every man is made in the image of God, we ought to treat everyone with love and this would include not murdering someone and taking care of the poor.

Certainly God speaks commands of what is right and what is wrong but that is only for our benefit. Those things would still be right or wrong regardless of whether or not God told us.

There is nothing intrinsically different from me stabbing you to death, or lending you a helping hand.

Since morality is derived from God's being, good and evil are both objective which means that stabbing me to death would really be evil just as lending me a helping hand would really be good. However, if morality is relative then, no, there would be no difference. But I think if you really, really sat there and thought about it, you would feel that stabbing me to death would really be wrong--not because the law says so, not because your momma says so, and not because God says so, but because deep down you would feel it was so.

Or the other way I have heard it is that evil is the absence of God.

This is the stance I agree with.

But, if evil is the absence of good and good is God, how can evil exist if God is omnipresent?

That is a good question. We can make the argument that God is good. We can also say that God is omnipresent but that does not mean that God is inside of everyone. Real evil does exist and in large part it is in the heart of humans and other created beings (demons, the Devil and so forth).

As dissatisfying as it may be, and despite what many Christians argue, the origin of evil and why God lets evil exist are questions that the Bible does not give answers to. What we do know from Scripture is that evil does exist and that God has a final plan get rid of evil. That plan includes using humans who continually have to make the choice between good or evil. So, even though we are a part of the solution, we are also a part of the problem.

Note: these last thoughts are derived from "Evil and the Justice of God" by N. T. Wright.[i/]

Does God choose how much he wishes to grace a particular place? As in: he is concentrated in one place more than another?

I am not sure although I think such a case could be made. In the end, evil still has only as much free reign as God lets it. This isn't dualism where good and an equally powerful evil are in a constant struggle. Evil is likely a byproduct of Creation--God gave man, and presumably angels, the ability to choose to love God or reject him. Thus if one rejects God, God removes his presence and/or favour from them.

Like he is most potent in Heaven and least present in hell (although he still has to be in hell because he is omnipresent)? Hmm, this surely cannot be the case because if that were true then God would decide how evil hell is by choosing how much he wishes to grace hell.

I don't think that God is more potent in any one place more than another but he certainly seems to be able to remove his favour over individuals or even countries which allows evil to have more control.

I just think that neither can claim a victory over the moral issue.

But both cannot be right. If relativism were true then just what is it that you are calling evil? Does one not have to have some sort of notion of what good is in order to be able to call something evil? If evil is relative from person to person or culture to culture, then the difference between good and evil vanishes.

What we are left with then is that in order for any meaningful discussion on morality to be able to take place or for morality to even make sense to begin with, there must be an absolute which is the standard by which something can be understood to be good or evil. It might have been C. S. Lewis who stated that one cannot judge the crookedness of a line without an idea of what a straight line is.

Some of my thoughts are muddled and a little confused, so let me know if something doesn't make sense.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Not at all. Because something is theological doesn't mean that it is beyond the reach of rational discussion.

Some theology may not be out of rational discussion, but when you attribute things to God, they are no longer in the rational range. God is an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being. As such, He defies logic.

I think the answers are found in God's nature. Morality doesn't come from commands of what we are to do and what we are not to do. Morality comes from who God is; they derive from his nature. So because the Bible says that God is love, and since every man is made in the image of God, we ought to treat everyone with love and this would include not murdering someone and taking care of the poor.

But the question is why is it that way. Why is his nature good?

Is good some quantity outside of God? I think you said no to that.

So, is good just what belongs to God? Than how does his nature decide good? Is it random, or did he rationalize things in the beginning as to what is good?

Since morality is derived from God's being, good and evil are both objective which means that stabbing me to death would really be evil just as lending me a helping hand would really be good. However, if morality is relative then, no, there would be no difference. But I think if you really, really sat there and thought about it, you would feel that stabbing me to death would really be wrong--not because the law says so, not because your momma says so, and not because God says so, but because deep down you would feel it was so.

That’s the point. How is it objective if it is wrapped up in God’s nature? You are telling me that evil is evil because it is without God.

My point earlier in regards to this, is what if murder was God’s nature, and giving was not? In your reasoning, they would switch. Murder would be good and vice versa.

You have provided no method of what’s evil except for what is of God.

That is a good question. We can make the argument that God is good. We can also say that God is omnipresent but that does not mean that God is inside of everyone. Real evil does exist and in large part it is in the heart of humans and other created beings (demons, the Devil and so forth).

Yes it does. If he is omnipresent, he is infinitely everywhere, including inside of everyone.

There are no other alternatives, except to remove the omnipresent aspect.

But both cannot be right. If relativism were true then just what is it that you are calling evil? Does one not have to have some sort of notion of what good is in order to be able to call something evil? If evil is relative from person to person or culture to culture, then the difference between good and evil vanishes.

You are correct there would be no set rule that reaches out across all societies of all times to label things.

I couldn’t look back at slave owners in Rome and label them “evilâ€Â. Their society accepted it, therefore each slave owner was not doing anything against his societal beliefs.

Now, as a slave I could say that it is not right, and that I am being treated unfairly as opposed to other members of the society. I could also advocate for a change (of course I would be beaten by my slave owner if he found out).

Think about it this way. Where the Israelites “evil†in your opinion because they owned slaves? Is the Bible evil because rather than chastising the Jews for slavery, it gave them rules on how to treat the slaves properly?

I think you would say no because, as I have heard many argue, it was commonly accepted as ok.

But what would you say to me if I told you that I view red heads as being inferior and I have 3 red heads that are my slaves against their will? You would likely say that I am doing something bad, and likely want me to be arrested. Yet, I am not doing anything unbiblical, just something that isn’t accepted by our current society in the Western world. Seems like moral relativism is rearing its head in there somewhere.

It might have been C. S. Lewis who stated that one cannot judge the crookedness of a line without an idea of what a straight line is.

Correct. There has to be a measure of what we consider to be right and wrong. I am not advocating that we can’t set the measure. I just believe that the God solution does not solve the problem any differently.

 

[turnorburn]

This is just to refresh the topic from the beginning with one omission, no scared rat but instead
being replaced with......

The Truth about Hell
by Terry Watkins

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments. .. ." Luke 16:23

What you're about to read is hard to believe.. . .

We're going to examine the place the Bible calls hell. We'll present documented evidence for a place called hell. Don't take what you're going to read lightly. If what you read is true - YOU COULD BE IN SERIOUS DANGER!

Several years ago a book was published, entitled Beyond Death's Door by Dr. Maurice Rawlings. Dr. Rawlings, a specialist in Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease, resuscitated many people who had been clinically dead. Dr. Rawlings, a devout atheist, "considered all religion "hocus-pocus" and death nothing more than a painless extinction". But something happened in 1977 that brought a dramatic change in the life of Dr. Rawlings! He was resuscitating a man, terrified and screaming - descending down into the flames of hell:
"Each time he regained heartbeat and respiration, the patient screamed, "I am in hell!" He was terrified and pleaded with me to help him.. I was scared to death. . . Then I noticed a genuinely alarmed look on his face. He had a terrified look worse than the expression seen in death! This patient had a grotesque grimace expressing sheer horror! His pupils were dilated, and he was perspiring and trembling - he looked as if his hair was "on end."
Then still another strange thing happened. He said,"Don't you understand? I am in hell. . . Don't let me go back to hell!" . . .the man was serious, and it finally occurred to me that he was indeed in trouble. He was in a panic like I had never seen before."
(Maurice Rawlings, Beyond Death's Door,(Thomas Nelson Inc., 1979) p. 3).
Dr. Rawlings said, no one, who could have heard his screams and saw the look of terror on his face could doubt for a single minute that he was actually in a place called hell!

The Bible continually warns of a place called hell. There are over 162 references in the New Testament alone which warn of hell. And over 70 of these references were uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ!

In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell:

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)

HELL IS A PLACE OF FIRE

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

There is nothing more apt in refreshing a thread as the smell of sulfur and brimstone.

 

[Drew]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

There is nothing more apt in refreshing a thread as the smell of sulfur and brimstone.

Besides, I think a very strong case can be made that the Luke 16 account of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable which does not deal with the after-life at all. I think that the rich man represents national Israel, or at least its leadership, and Lazarus represents the Gentiles.

On the subject of "God defying logic", I think that if we attribute something to God that does extreme violence to globally held and deeply-ingrained notions of justice (I pick the area of justice only as an example), we are really saying nothing about God at all in that respect.

Let's say that someone asserts the following:

1. Fred is born with a nature that makes it impossible for him to not sin;
2. Fred sins;
3. God is just to sentence Fred, in virtue of his being morally accountable, to eternal torment.

My point is that one can always say this, and claim that the Bible says it also, but it is so nonsensical to us that it is effectively a position that can be of no practical consequence to us - it is "non-knowledge", it is incoherent.

One reason for this is that such a position violates the conceptual boundaries of the very terms in which it is expressed. If I say "man is morally accountable for doing X", the very meaning of the phrase "morally accountable" necessitates that I cannot then also claim that the man "had no choice" but to do X.

So while we can say something mysterious about God and get somewhere - for example, creation ex nihilo - but we cannot say something that is utterly incoherent and self-contradictory (such as the 1-2-3 argument above).

 

[turnorburn]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

:crazyeyes: You lost me, a whole lot of fancy words and I didn't understand what the point is.
So what is the point and who is Fred?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

His pointing out the inconsistency of the belief of hell.

Using our own reasoning, for a man to be accountable for what happens, he had to have a choice in the action.

Adam and Eve being damned to hell may make sense. They had a choice to not partake of the fruit of knowledge. We are damned because of their action. We had no choice, and were not given the same chance.

Now, the argument is that we have a choice to accept Christ. But refer to my previous examples of the many more people in history who were not given the same privilege of the knowledge of Christ. (Mayans, Native Americans, all non-Jews pre-Christ, babies, mentally challenged, etc.)

Again, you can take the concept of implied grace for them, but that puts them at an advantage to me. They would have not had to make the choice and just be born and die to make it to heaven. I would not have the same luxury.

Some body has to get shafted and treated unfairly within the concept of eternal damnation.

 

[Rick W]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

The arguments against Hell pose man's judgment against God's. All men are condemned. It's not uncommon for the condemned to voice unfair treatment or bad judgment against them citing all sorts of rationalizations. Fact is, it's the norm. And some of the best law libraries/resources are those found in prisons.

I wouldn't worry about "Mayans, Native Americans, all non-Jews pre-Christ, babies, mentally challenged, etc.". It's not up to you or any man to decide their fate anyway regardless of belief or unbelief. But you, you've heard the Word and do indeed have that choice and will be held accountable. Your fate rests with Christ for He will judge you, not the Father.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

The arguments against Hell pose man's judgment against God's. All men are condemned. It's not uncommon for the condemned to voice unfair treatment or bad judgment against them citing all sorts of rationalizations. Fact is, it's the norm. And some of the best law libraries/resources are those found in prisons.

I wouldn't worry about "Mayans, Native Americans, all non-Jews pre-Christ, babies, mentally challenged, etc.". It's not up to you or any man to decide their fate anyway regardless of belief or unbelief. But you, you've heard the Word and do indeed have that choice and will be held accountable. Your fate rests with Christ for He will judge you, not the Father.

Even in those cases where the innocent are accused, they are at least accused of committing a crime of action. They had a choice to do or not do something.

The concept of hell is different. The receiver of punishment isn't accused of anything other than being born, a matter he had no choice in. He receives judgment based on an action performed by his very ancient ancestor. Therefore that is a false comparison.

Now, you could compare that against a man who is put on trial for a murder his great grandfather committed. For instance, the great grandson of Stalin. You will probably be inclined to be against putting him on trial for the murders his father committed. That is a closer scenario.

I would also argue that we very well should worry about what that belief has in store for those groups I cited, because it questions the legitimacy of the claim for hell. It is relevant.

Is it not proper to question the interpretation of scripture throughout history? Is that not the basis upon which Martin Luther forged his challenge against the church? He questioned their views on scripture. Should not Christians be diligent in doing the same today?

 

[Rick W]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Still not accepting the matter that regardless if one is asked to be born or not one is born with the nature of pride and rebellion to God.

Nobody had to teach me how to steal, how to lie or how not to share. I knew all these things from the very beginning. That is the nature I was born with. And to say I had no choice in the matter, that I was born that way, is no excuse NOT to seek His forgiveness or the transgression is not a sin or teach others His judgments aren't fair.

I have yet to know any newborn who grew not displaying these inherent traits of evil.
How will a newborn be judged? I don't know but I do know He WILL judge the parents of that child who have heard God's Word and refused the responsibilty to raise that child to know Him. And He will judge those who have heard and opt to foster rebellion toward God in the hearts of others.
As far as those who have not heard the Word then I believe judgment will not only fall upon them but those who knew and did nothing to tell them, especially in this day and age of technology and communication. To that end I too will be dealt with and I pray I'll not get what I deserve.

Question scripture? One must be careful. I know a lot of cults who do so and I know the trend to bend scripture to fit the ego.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Still not accepting the matter that regardless if one is asked to be born or not one is born with the nature of pride and rebellion to God.

Nobody had to teach me how to steal, how to lie or how not to share. I knew all these things from the very beginning. That is the nature I was born with. And to say I had no choice in the matter, that I was born that way, is no excuse NOT to seek His forgiveness or the transgression is not a sin or teach others His judgments aren't fair.

I have yet to know any newborn who grew not displaying these inherent traits of evil.
How will a newborn be judged? I don't know but I do know He WILL judge the parents of that child who have heard God's Word and refused the responsibilty to raise that child to know Him. And He will judge those who have heard and opt to foster rebellion toward God in the hearts of others.
As far as those who have not heard the Word then I believe judgment will not only fall upon them but those who knew and did nothing to tell them, especially in this day and age of technology and communication. To that end I too will be dealt with and I pray I'll not get what I deserve.

Question scripture? One must be careful. I know a lot of cults who do so and I know the trend to bend scripture to fit the ego.

Lets expand on that a bit. You feel that we are born evil. I feel that we are born self centered. We do not understand others and how our actions affect them (much like a bird does not understand nor care how it feels for a beetle to be eaten. it just knows its hungry, and eating the beetle will solve its hunger problem.)

If we define evil as a lack of God, than people without knowledge of him should be complete nihilists and do whatever satisfies them. If we study other cultures, we do not necessarily see that effect. Ancient tribes tended to take care of their sick, they didn't murder a member of the own tribe consistently (though it did happen), and their wasn't constant robbery of each member. All of these actions were largely looked down upon by society as a whole, and preventative measures were taken to prevent them.

Now, some ancient cultures did (and even some around today) do things you consider wrong. For instance cannibalism, nudity, and human sacrifice (something that almost happened in the OT). Now your society condemns these actions and considers them evil, and evidence for the lack of God in that society.

What about the reverse? Some cultures have morals that seem to be more stringent than ours. Some believe that killing a gnat is wrong and take drastic preventative measures to prevent it (wearing nets over the face to prevent accidental eating one, or sweeping the ground in front before walking to prevent steeping on an insect). These people find these actions to be wrong. Some people within our society feel that the whole American meat industry to be entirely immoral, yet most of us on here do not.

Where would these seemingly more stringent ethics come from? Eating meat is certainly not condemned by the scripture. Accidentally killing a bug is not condemned, but these societies are against it. They must not be from God, as they would certainly be referenced within the Bible, and Christians would fit those standards. It is unlikely to be from Satan, because not eating meat is not evil, and does not hurt the Christian cause.

And to say I had no choice in the matter, that I was born that way, is no excuse NOT to seek His forgiveness or the transgression is not a sin or teach others His judgments aren't fair.

I am not arguing that. I am stating that maybe these paradoxes should cause one to research the veracity of the idea of hell. One should not just assume that the passed down interpretation of a scripture is necessarily true, but should be inclined to question others interpretation and create their own conclusions through the scripture.

 

[Rick W]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

I don't believe people are born totally and completely devoid of anything concerning God's morals but rather our nature corrupts the laws of God. The entire point of scripture is forgiveness through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And even Jesus mentions Hell many times. Through his fervent admonitions concerning Hell alone we can deduce Hell is not a place or state of being that we would want to go or be in. If He so taught then how can Hell not be the place He warns us against? If there is no Hell then His teachings are all a lie and scripture is worthless.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

I don't believe people are born totally and completely devoid of anything concerning God's morals but rather our nature corrupts the laws of God. The entire point of scripture is forgiveness through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And even Jesus mentions Hell many times. Through his fervent admonitions concerning Hell alone we can deduce Hell is not a place or state of being that we would want to go or be in. If He so taught then how can Hell not be the place He warns us against? If there is no Hell then His teachings are all a lie and scripture is worthless.

I am not saying that his scripture would be a lie. I said interpretation of those scriptures.

 

[Rick W]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

And I'm saying Jesus taught the hideousness and dire consequence of Hell, absolute.

Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

He's not talking about self-mutilation here. He's speaking of the seriousness of Hell. You can interpret that any way you like but for me I see the urgency and the seriousness of that warning to say the least. It's not a game, it's not up to the court of public opinion. It's very serious business as Jesus demonstrates in that passage. What tone of voice would you say he was using here? Pleasant and soothing? No way. But emphatic and determined to drive home His point. Pluck out your eye? Man, that's not said gently. This is a plea with passion and heartfelt concern to His audience to repent. And I'd say Christ just might know a thing or two about Hell.

 

[jsasaki06]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

Why is hell emphasized in the new testament?

 

[turnorburn]

Re: What The Biblle Has The Others Don't...

I'm going to throw caution to the wind here and ask, how long have you known Jesus?
because you emphasized hell being mentioned so often.

Thanks,
turnorburn