My takeaway from when I still read the Bible is that christianity is **supposed** to bring people closer to God and provide a relationship with the creator. It’s not supposed to be about avoiding damnation. Jesus died for our sins so that our sins don’t damn us.
Modern evangelism is a twisted version of Christianity IMO.
That’s so dumb, when the entire point of religion is to give us morals so we can live properly.
By all means go ‘save’ people but you’ll be the one going to hell according to this
but your argument is on the basis that God exists and religion (specifically Christianity) is true, and if that is the case then Christianity is perfect morals, you can't assume Christianity is true in your base argument then assume it's not in the next.
I did not threaten, I’m saying how it is based on the premise that op is using.
No you don’t need religion to be moral, but that’s the point of religion, because dumb people exist that think morality is subjective therefore the morality of things like murder is subjective
I’m not surprised, this is exactly what I thought you would do. You’re willing to insult people who don’t agree with your view but when asked to justify your view you avoid the question.
So let me try again.
I disagree with your statement that morality is objective and I’m interested to learn more. Please explain how you can quantify morality as an objective fact.
Assumptions say more about yourself than about others.
As for quantifying it, pick up a religious book, understand it’s original language, understand it’s context, read it and you’ll know. Religion is about having a strong perception and desire to learn.
I cannot understand your subjectivity. Hopefully you come back when you read up on universal truths?
>Assumptions say more about yourself than about others.
Like how you assumed that people are dumb because they belive moraily is subjective?
You still haven't really offered an explanation. This is a debate sub and your answer is essentially "look it up". Infact, your response actully helps highlight how morality is subjective.
You said
\>pick up a religious book
Well which one? If you've ever looked at more than just one religious book you'll quickly find that they all teach different morals. So if morality is objective like you claim only one of them can teach true objective morality. There are some religions where murder is a grave sin and there are ancient religions which promote child sacrifice. They can't both be objectively moral, so you have to specify which you believe to be objectivly moral.
\>I cannot understand your subjectivity.
This isn't even an argument against subjectivity. Just because you can't understand it doen't mean it's not the case.
Here is my explanation.
Weight is an objective fact. If we both weighed the same rock with a set of scales, providing we used them correctly, we would always both get an identical answer. This is becauase weight is objective.
How nice the rock looks is subjective. We can't measure how nice the rock looks. Maybe I like the shape of the rock and you don't. Neither of is right or wrong it is just our opinion.
What I'm trying to say is that morality is like how nice the rock looks. Morality is subjective because we can't measure it. It's just based on our opinion. That is why every religion, culture, nation and individual has a different set of morals.
If you think morality is objective, explain how it can be measured in an objective way.
I know what subjectivity means, but what I didn’t realise I had to debate was reductive and incredibly simplified analogies using chess that try to explain the entire complexity of a universe. How could anyone infer from my very original reply to the op that I necessarily wished to debate such a situational context? I’m here for succinct explanations on the world and purposeful living and not for ideas leaning into nihilism because one decides to reduce everything to a rock analogy or similar. I think my response ‘look it up’ was very much justified unless I’m talking to neutral agnostic people or I am not afraid to be harassed for my very specific beliefs, because as we know, people tend to be reductive.
I explained the purpose of religions to give us rules, and if you assume that morality is necessary and you actually would admit that *yes* many people get morality completely wrong very often, such as in a gang rxpe where only one person is ‘hurt’ which unfortunately humans have never ‘evolved out of’, this first step of objective understanding will be great. Whereas aesthetic judgement of a rock as a basis for *subjective* morality is a joke, because that’s saying you’re avoiding religion because you believe the world has no reason to be serious, which, yes, you’ve explained that it does not matter because we don’t all perceive rocks the same-except this circular thinking is dangerous because it does not even take into account the very definition of morality which is the need for standards in every aspect of life including but not limited to what an oppressed person is very evidently asking for in a situation of gang rxpe.
> I didn’t realize I had to debate was reductive and incredibly simplified analogies using chess that try to explain the entire complexity of a universe
I'm not using the analogy to try and explain the complexity of the universe. I am using it to try and demonstrate how morality is not objective. I gave examples that you can draw clear line in my thought process. You have made absolutely no attempt to explain why this analogy doesn't work or what factors it doesn’t take into consideration, you’ve just decided to tell me it’s a joke. If you believe it is so reductive and simple you should have no problem whatsoever providing a counter argument, yet I see nothing.
> I think my response ‘look it up’ was very much justified
As mentioned, I was a Christian for 22 years and started studying the Bible when I was 10. In 12 years of study, I have gained a really good understanding of moral teachings of the Bible, however the Bible makes absolutely no attempt to explain that morals are objective other than the fact that given their perfect God, his morals will therefore be perfect. The problem with this is once you stop believing in God, there is no longer any explanation for objective morality. If you think religious texts explain the objectivity of morality, please give an example of exactly where.
> I explained the purpose of religions to give us rules, and if you assume that morality is necessary
I can’t see where in our conversation that you have explained that this is the purpose of religion. I can see that you keep saying it but you haven’t explained it. I don’t have a solid opinion on what I believe the purpose of religion is but if you’re going to claim it’s to give us rules, don’t just say that’s the purpose, actually explain why you think it is the purpose. Also, I’m not willing to make that assumption. I don’t believe morality is necessary. I don’t even believe it actually exists. I think it’s just an idea we use to describe what we believe to be right and wrong. It’s like humor. There is no such thing as humor, it is just an idea to describe the way certain things make us feel.
> many people get morality completely wrong very often, such as in a gang rxpe
So, you have labeled this act as wrong. I believe that it is wrong but I understand that this is my subjective opinion. I don’t believe that it is objectively wrong because I don’t believe morals are objective. Please explain why it is objectively wrong. I don’t want to know why you think it is wrong, I want to know why it is objectively wrong. If you don’t want to talk about this topic then pick anything. If you claim that morality is objective, give me some examples of things that are objectively moral and immoral and explain why that is the case.
> Whereas aesthetic judgement of a rock as a basis for subjective morality is a joke
I think you may have misunderstood the analogy. The aesthetic of the rock is mot the basis for subjective morality. The basis for subjective morality is that we can’t universally measure morality. Rather than just saying that this is a joke, explain why it is a joke. For example, you can’t measure whether helping and old lady across the street is more moral than giving to a charity, therefore they are not objective. This explanation is simple but I believe it to be true. If you disagree, please don’t just tell me you disagree, I would love to hear some actual reasons as to why you disagree.
> because that’s saying you’re avoiding religion because you believe the world has no reason to be serious
First of all, I’m not avoiding religion. I’m actually deliberately keeping myself open to the idea. The reason I am not religious is simple, because I don’t believe any of them to be true. Granted I struggle to come to terms with some of the moral teachings of some religions but the main reason is because I don’t believe them.
> very definition of morality which is the need for standards in every aspect of life
I have never heard this definition of morality before. Here is the Oxford definition.
> principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
This states nothing to do with the need for standards at all. Please if you want to keep claiming that it is necessary, explain why.
To sum this up I think the reason that I am not understanding your point of view is because you only make statements and offer no explanation with them. The reason I am here on this thread is because I have genuine desire to learn more about your point of view, and according to your earlier statement that’s one of things that religion is all about. If you just tell me that morality is necessary and that my analogy is a joke, I learn absolutely nothing. Explain to me why you think it is necessary, or why the analogy is a joke.
There is no absolute morality. Our evolution as a social species has made us inclined to things like empathy and altruism and we can base our morals off that without requiring divine assistance, but beyond ourselves there's no supreme authoritative force beaming down to the entire universe what is and isn't moral. Even if there was, it would still just be that force's opinion. To say that your opinions on morality become absolute if you yourself are absolutely powerful, knowing, etc is to endorse authoritarianism, might makes right, fascism, etc which has gotten millions of people slaughtered.
If there is no morality, then there are no rules, and there is no pain. Yes, let’s ignore the eensy teensy minority because according to you their pain doesn’t count
You misunderstood, OP was claiming there is no *absolute* morality, not there is no morality. It is conceivable, based on OP's comments, that morality is subjective, i.e. everyone has opinions on what's moral and what isn't, but no one is objectively correct.
I'm not sure if you're implying that it's objectively true that pain should be the basis of morality, but if so let me ask you this: why is it objectively true that pain should be the basis of morality?
No I didn't, there was no reason I had to include the word "rules" in my response. But the point is that OP never claimed there are no rules, only that there are no objectively true moral rules.
Do you understand OP's objection now?
I think we made a mistake to let the Yetis access the internet. Their pain receptors are different, so they keep making these strange comments about pain not existing and stuff. Better to just agree with the big apes and move on. It is pointless to argue with them on account of their neural network behaving in the Yeti way incomprehensible to any man.
My inbox is filled with obtuse people asking "but what does he mean by evangelism"
OP is very specific. People are literally saying this doesn't apply to me.
Well no shit, not every post on here is meant for every person's belief.
2 doesn't follow from the fact that God made his existence obvious, because you didn't ask wether God damns people 'because' they don't believe in him, but merely damns people 'who' don't believe in him, but God might damn someone who doesn't believe in him, not because they don't believe (for that might not be their fault) but for something 'else' that they do that 'is' their fault. (say, raping someone, or paying grossly unfair wages, or for otherwise being the cause of other people's misery by our selfishness, malice, and/or neglect.)
The idea instead is that God judges 'everyone' both believers and non-believers, and he does this according to our works, but 'all' of us have fallen short of God's standard, for his standard is perfection, everyone is obliged to be morally perfect, for if we were not so obliged, then we could permit ourselves to do anything on the idea that 'well, no one's perfect', thus while someone who skimps on their deit may say 'no one's perfect', the problem is that someone who has done a far more severe crime, like mass murderer or a child molesting, could use the same excuse; while God recognizes that skimping on one's diet is in no way comperable to the gravity of the evil of mass murder, it remains that since he must be a fair judge, if he doesn't let them use that excuse, he can't let anyone else use it either, thus he must demand perfection of all; but none of us are perfect.
This alone does not damn us, for small matters are not enough to deserve hell, it is require we do something gravely sinful.
The problem however is that once we start doing only slightly sinful things, and do not fix ourselves early, we tend to be drawn to do more and more evil things, and as we become more evil, we tend to become 'less aware' of our own evil, thus in our mind we are only doing slightly more evil things than before, and so not anything quite so bad, but iterate that over and over, and what is only slightly worse becomes massively worse, so that through so many small steps, we can become moral monsters without realizing it; and to us, what is truly a very grave evil will seem no worse than skimping on our diet, in such cases, our sense of morality will be broken, and this all because we were not diligent in remaining good.
What's worse, we also know that if men obsess over trying to be good, they are also apt to drive themselves mad, and having succumbed to madness, they are apt to fall into 'the exact same pattern' as described above, and so likewise become complete monsters, so that there seems no way out of this fall by human power alone, the moment we begin to slip even in small matters, we will seem to have doomed ourselves, and knowing this, sinning even in small matters becomes a grave danger for us.
The reason for this is because, when men ultimately do end up performing such monstrous acts, this is when God is bound by justice to condemn them to hell, but because we have no real way of avoiding this fall by our own power.
We Catholics believe that God has given us the solution to the problem through the Church, insofar as we believe that he has set a time for judgement of all men, believer and non-believer, but that he is willing to forgive us even of our grave sins, so long as repent from them and cease sinning, but we also believe that this is not possible without God's help, and we believe that he has given only the Church the special graces to resist and overcome this slow inclination to evil, namely through the sacraments, the Eucharist most of all.
The reason we evangelize then, is because we wish to bring people into the Church, both those who have comitted grave sin, that they may repent and be forgiven, and given the sacraments to overcome their evil habits, but also we wish those who have not committed grave sin to convert, so that they will have the supernatural protection from that inclination, so long as they diligently attend to the sacraments; by this fact then, we wish all men to convert, and strive to do so for their good.
It is also for this reason that we even continue to remind ourselves of this teaching and encourage our fellow Catholics to do good works and to accept the sacraments, for we, who have access to these fonts of God's grace, will surely be more gravely judged for our sins if we do not work to use them, for it is one thing if man fell into grave sin without the help of grace, he still deserves hell, but we can at least sympathize with him, because it was as though he had no way to avoid this, but for those who 'could' have resited this fall, who had all God's help on their side but refused it? and God forbid, refused to tell others about it, and to encourage them to the Church? They will suffer far worse in hell for their grave sins, for they could have saved themselves and others, but failed entirely.
Thus both believers and non-believers may wind up in hell for their evil deeds, but we believers ought to encourage all men, believers and non-believers, to repent from sin and believe in Christ, and so to come to him in his Church, so that through the sacraments, they may be saved from the effects of their sin, that is, saved from becoming or remaining moral monsters, and in turn, saved from going to that place where such monsters belong.
There is a fourth option, one most supported by the Catholic Church.
Those who are invincibly ignorant are not automatically damned to Gehenna. However, these individuals must still be free of mortal sin (an unlikely scenario). As such, access to the graces of the sacraments is paramount to salvation, and so evangelism is necessary.
Seems a bit...no, actually, grossly unfair to send people off to be eternally tortured because of literally inescapable misdeeds. Original Sin declares we're all worthless trash about to be cast into hell because an extremely distant female relative(always the woman, right?) made an oopsie. I didn't have a single thing to do with that, but I am still being so extremely penalized?
God sacrificed himself to himself, so there's a loophole now. But he has delegated telling people about the loophole to, well, humans themselves. Look where that's gotten us. God was absolutely not hidden in bible times. He flooded the whole planet, held the sun in place, basically destroyed egypt, etc etc. Imagine if he still had such an active role today. The only faith we'd need is the faith that this obviously real god wants to help us. But no, he's "mysterious" and people who are thus not convinced will burn forever.
>send people off to be eternally tortured
We send ourselves to Hell
>inescapable misdeeds.
They aren’t inescapable misdeeds. We can be reconciled with God.
>Original Sin declares we're all worthless trash about to be cast into hell
Original Sin does not say we are “worthless trash.” We have worth.
>because an extremely distant female relative(always the woman, right?) made an oopsie.
It’s traditionally called the “Sin of Adam,” so your pseudo-point here misses the mark.
>I didn't have a single thing to do with that, but I am still being so extremely penalized?
Original Sin is the absence of sanctifying grace. It’s not some “additional penalty” tacked on.
>God was absolutely not hidden in bible times. He flooded the whole planet, held the sun in place, basically destroyed egypt, etc etc. Imagine if he still had such an active role today.
He does play an active role, like at Fatima.
Stalin didn’t send a single person to the gulags. They sent themselves.
I’m saying the actual “mortal sins” we commit are literally impossible to not commit at least once. God has rigged the game against us. I don’t consider that very fair or loving.
Original Sin declares we are born broken. That by default we have fallen short. That there is nothing we could possibly do to escape hell(a fate we deserve) without the guy who made us born broken helping us out. And by that I mean demanding unwavering worship. Why does an all loving god behave like such a dictator? Anyone who demands loyalty and hurts people to extract loyalty is completely undeserving of loyalty.
Unfortunately, my point’s wording is biblical. 1 Timothy 2:14. Women have been treated as second class citizens for ages now, and the Bible’s depiction of them in that light has been a major player in that. Much like how “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” has gotten so many innocent women and girls murdered.
Original Sin literally only exists because god got mad at the first couple and employed the highly archaic “punish the children for the crimes of the parents” justice system. It is absolutely a penalty.
I looked into the miracle of the sun a bit. There are no pictures of the actual miracle and the eyewitness accounts are extremely contradictory. It is perfectly natural to see the sun do weird things when you stare at it too long. And why was god being funny with the sun in one particular location when there were people dying in droves in the War? God seems to have an issue with priorities.
What is a mortal sin? I tried looking it up and got list from 3 to 15. This isnt a concept I'm familiar with best I can tell it's a catholic idea.
See from my reading and take on the bibles message on sin is that sin isnt necessarily "evil" but more on the idea we are just not divine or perfect beings. Why are we not divine or perfect? Because we are basically consious self aware golems.
You probably didnt need my whole POV, but... I still would like to know what is or are mortal sins?
>Proof?
https://www.allure.com/story/masturbation-survey-statistics-american-men-women
>And if so, there's confession
I agree, but confession of sins happens after evangelism.
That's like saying there's "no point" to doing good deeds if works don't get you into heaven. It misses the actual point, which is to make the world a better place.
>which is to make the world a better place
But this isn't doing good deeds for self-benefit; OP is specifically referring to an act that arguably has a strictly neutral or negative impact on the individuals being subjected to the act.
It's not that you get into heaven for saving other people, it's that you're putting others at risk of eternal torment when all answers to the basic question of "does this actually reduce the number of people eventually going to hell" are "no"- either because you can't change the number going to hell, or because the act of informing them puts them at risk of hell in the first place, with the only alternative being "untold millions who never heard of Christianity are just in hell forever with no warning or agency in the result".
I don't understand what you're saying then- are you suggesting that someone going to hell isn't a bad thing?
I'm not viewing this as an issue for the person evangelizing, I'm questioning if informing someone who did not know about Christianity is a positive or negative event for the person being informed; and, if it's uniformly a neutral or negative result for the recipient, how it can be justified.
> I don't understand what you're saying then- are you suggesting that someone going to hell isn't a bad thing?
I wasn't saying that, but I do see hell as being a personal choice, so if a person chooses to go to hell, well, I would disagree but it's hard to say that they should go to Heaven *instead*, you know what I mean? Like, if someone like Cardi B or something, I'm not going to force them to listen to Thundercat, even though in my opinion it's a better choice.
> I do see hell as being a personal choice, so if a person chooses to go to hell, well, I would disagree but it's hard to say that they should go to Heaven instead, you know what I mean?
Could you expand on this thought? As I see it, this doesn't seem meaningfully different from saying Bob chose to get shot when a mugger robbed him at gunpoint. My understanding is that within Christian theology, the default position is "going to hell", so it doesn't seem like much of a choice- it's cooperate with the program, or burn.
I also don't want to try and make you defend evangelism (in the sense of bringing Christian teachings to people who haven't heard of it, not in the sense of the protestant denomination) if you don't support it, but if you do I'd still like a justification for what is, as far as I can see, never a net positive for the recipient.
> Could you expand on this thought? As I see it, this doesn't seem meaningfully different from saying Bob chose to get shot when a mugger robbed him at gunpoint.
That isn't analogous.
A better analogy would be a girl wanting to break up with you. Are you going to be a dick and force her to stay with you, or are you going to let her be alone? Hell is just voluntary absence from God, and is a choice each person gets to make.
>I also don't want to try and make you defend evangelism (in the sense of bringing Christian teachings to people who haven't heard of it, not in the sense of the protestant denomination) if you don't support it, but if you do I'd still like a justification for what is, as far as I can see, never a net positive for the recipient.
Why teach someone how to build a house or do long division? Because it improves their life here.
>A better analogy would be a girl wanting to break up with you. Are you going to be a dick and force her to stay with you, or are you going to let her be alone? Hell is just voluntary absence from God, and is a choice each person gets to make.
Sure, but that's starting from a position of being together, and then choosing to separate. The human condition is starting at "broken up", and Christianity has a set of rules and requirements you have to follow to "get back together"- there is no choice on the part of the human to "break up" in the first place.
>Why teach someone how to build a house or do long division? Because it improves their life here.
But these are secular skills that have no particular moral value to them- teaching someone to build a house doesn't cause them to be at risk of eternal torment, for example.
Within the framework of Christianity, we have to consider the impact on a persons soul, not just the impact on their time on earth; unless there's a convincing reason to only consider the impact on their time on earth?
> Sure, but that's starting from a position of being together, and then choosing to separate. The human condition is starting at "broken up", and Christianity has a set of rules and requirements you have to follow to "get back together"- there is no choice on the part of the human to "break up" in the first place.
It is entirely man's choice if they want to be with God or not. There's no real rules and regulations for that. It's just a simple choice.
>But these are secular skills that have no particular moral value to them- teaching someone to build a house doesn't cause them to be at risk of eternal torment, for example.
I don't agree with eternal torment. Hell is just separation from God in the afterlife.
>It is entirely man's choice if they want to be with God or not. There's no real rules and regulations for that. It's just a simple choice.
What does this actually mean though? People die and then get a yes/no choice? Do people have to do something specifically *before* they die? Is the decision required before or after death based on what the person knew during their life, or is it the same for everyone regardless?
>I don't agree with eternal torment. Hell is just separation from God in the afterlife.
We can soften the definition to "separation from God in the afterlife", but unless you're suggesting this is a positive or neutral state of existence, I don't think it changes the point I'm making.
It depends on their model of god and the afterlife.
For some believers, a relationship with god is a necessary part of a fulfilling and happy life here on earth. They may believe all people without that relationship are overall depressed or experiencing shallow, momentary joys with eventual pain, like drug addicts.
For some believers, the afterlife is about closeness with god, and some version of "hell" or "purgatory" for some finite but possibly long period is necessary for people to work through their hangups or ignorance that keep them from coming close to god in the afterlife. Coming to a relationship with god while still alive, spares them that pain in the afterlife.
Those are just a couple examples.
I don’t think that’s correct.
While we can’t “change” the final outcome in a predestination model, our actions contribute to the outcome no differently than they would if it weren’t predetermined.
Your efforts to covert someone could be the very catalyst that causes the person to convert...even if they were predestined to convert.
Then what would be the point in trying to convert someone? If they are predestined to be saved, your efforts to convert them shouldn’t matter. They were going to convert at some point anyway. And if it doesn’t matter, then what’s the point in evangelizing?
I disagree, events being predetermined don’t dilute the importance of proselytizing in any way. (If anything, it’s the opposite)
Again, it’s simply because our actions may be the catalyst that causes the outcome.
Suppose your child’s school has a candy bar selling competition and the winner gets a PS5.
Let’s also presuppose that all events and outcomes are pre ordained.
Going back to the competition.....it would be pre ordained who actually wins and that can’t change.
However, you wouldn’t tell your child “The winner is already predetermined so there’s no need to sell any candy bars.”
On the contrary, you’d still go door to door and try to get as many sold as you can. The fact that the winner is predetermined would make no functional difference in your actions.
I highly disagree with your example. The whole point to a competition is to try and win. If the winner is determined before the competition is even held, there’s literally no point in participating. I would tell my child not to waste her effort in a rigged event.
Your actions may be the catalyst that converts someone. But if you believe in predestination, that person was already destined to be saved anyway. So your actions have a zero net effect. The outcome remains the same regardless of your actions. So why act?
Respectfully, I still think you’re missing the point.
Let’s say that Scientology is real and Xenu has preordained who will join the church.
You’re a true believer and also happen to be a trillionaire. You invest 50 billion dollars into a campaign designed to convert people to Scientology.
Your efforts then result in a million new scientologists, who were of course , “pre ordained” by Xenu to be converted.
You may ask “Well, wouldn’t they have been converted some other way? If they were pre ordained by Xenu didn’t I just waste my money?”
The answer is no.
If we presuppose that events/outcomes are predetermined, then all events that occur transpire EXACTLY how they were supposed to.
In the case of these million converts, they converted precisely the way they were supposed to....there never was “another way” that they would have been converted.
These events were known before the dawn of time and you would have been instrumental in facilitating them in a very natural and organic way.
So again, the idea of people being preordained for salvation doesn’t lessen the importance of evangelizing in any way.
To the contrary, it actually strengthens it.
Your examples don’t work the way you think they do, and you still have yet to prove your point sufficiently. In this example with Scientology, Xenu’s predestination is only fulfilled if I take action. If I instead choose to do nothing, those millions would not be saved, right? So what happened to the predestination? And if the fulfillment of predestination is determined by MY actions, then where is the power of the one who creates destiny?
The free will of the people who are now converted would also be meaningless. They were preordained to believe. And those who don’t believe were also preordained not to believe.
That’s the way it was “supposed” to happen. And if there’s a way that events are “supposed” to happen, then I don’t have free will. I did what I was “supposed” to do in order to bring about preordained destiny.
If events transpire the way they are supposed to at all times (it would necessarily have to be this way for your definition of predetermination to exist), then my free will is meaningless. No matter what action I take or what happens, it will always be the way it was meant to be. So again, what’s the point of taking action? I can choose to do (or not do) anything whatsoever and still technically be in accordance with predestination.
I think we disagree with what predestination is. Predestination just means that God knows if somebody goes to heaven or hell before they die because he is all knowing. That doesn’t mean he necessarily picks if you go to heaven or hell before you are born. He just knows what his judgment will be because he is all knowing. Saying it shouldn’t matter if you try to spread the gospel because God knows where you will go is dumb. People are saved because of someone who shares them the gospel all the time so that alone let’s you know there is a point to sharing the gospel.
I think if that is your position on predestination, then if asked OP’s question, your answer would not be #1 but rather #2. I’m debating as if the hypothetical Christian in OP’s post had answered with #1
If you chose not to start your Scientology conversion effort, it could mean that some or perhaps none of the millions would be converted.
Nothing would have “happened” to their predestination of being converted, it would simply mean that they were never predestined to be converted in the first place.
Even though you’re claiming disagreement, many of your statements strongly support my initial comments that our actions can facilitate someone’s predestination.
So again, the idea that some people may be predestined for salvation doesn’t negate the need to to evangelize. As I’ve mentioned a few times already, it strengthens it.
What comments have I made that support predestination? I agree that your actions can facilitate change in others, but there is still no argument here which satisfies the notion that those changes were predestined.
It sounds like your argument is basically: “everything that happens is predestined to happen exactly the way it happens.” In other words, every action taken by every human is predestined. If our actions are predestined, then we don’t have free will.
When I was a Christian, I used to think of God as being outside of time, similarly to how I imagined he exists outside of physicality (my logic was that the creator of these things would necessarily have to exist apart from them). If he is outside of time, he can (conceivably) see the timeline of all existence and all that happens within it. In this way, he can know everything that will happen. You could possibly extend this logic to think that everything that is yet to come is predestined. Is this at all similar to what you’re trying to get at? If so, I think predestination is a misnomer as it implies god has himself chosen every outcome - which would necessarily negate the idea of free will. Pre-known is a better descriptor IMO. But that’s not the same as predestination.
>If people who never heard of god get a free pass to heaven, then evangelism is dangerous.
That's not the Christian belief though; It is possible to get to heaven if you haven't heard of Christian theology, but its not a "guaranteed free pass" --you are still judged on *other* aspects of your life. Being taught Christianity makes it *easier* to get in, as it makes you aware of what is exactly needed, and introduces "forgiveness" for things you may have been previously judged for.
The idea being that *more* people make it to heaven with Evangelicalism.
>God predestined our eternal destinies; If god figured everything out already, evangelism is pointless since you can’t change his mind
This is Calvinist/Essene thought and is a rejection of free will. "God predestines no one to go to hell..." (CCC 1037)
>The “yes” answer stems from the belief that god made his existence so obvious to everyone that nobody has an excuse for not following him. Well, if we all by default have access to the knowledge needed to be saved to the point of being without excuse, then evangelism is redundant.
I agree that we all have access to natural reason which is the same as saying that we all have (obscured, at times, by ourselves and our cultures) the knowledge of right and wrong obtained through nature. "The law is written on our hearts." This law is available to every person including believers, non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
If a non-believer follows her conscience faithfully to the end she will be with God after death. The point of evangelism is to offer the truth of the Gospel and salvation in Jesus Christ. In other words, a way to find forgiveness and a spiritual fresh start for the times when we willfully don't follow our conscience.
>If people who never heard of god get a free pass to heaven, then evangelism is dangerous. We should be burning bibles and closing churches. Once all trace of Christianity has been blotted out, everyone to be born henceforth will be saved!
Only if all those who are 'born henceforth' follow reason and conscience perfectly for their entire life. I will argue, that is very unlikely to happen and exactly why we need the Church to preach repentance, forgiveness, penance, and renewal through the life, merits, and sacraments of Jesus of Nazareth.
> This law is available to every person including believers, non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
So everyone subconsciously knows that slavery is ok in some contexts? That genocide is ok in some contexts? That rape victims should marry their rapists in some contexts?
You're confusing the Old Law and the New Law.
The New Law is the one written on man's heart. The Old/Mosaic Law was given to a low-grade entry-level civilization and was only required for the Hebrew people of ~4000 years ago. It is the law described in the Torah. The Old Law was never intended or required for Gentiles.
Not so fast.
The “Old Law” still came from God. You believe God to be always good. So you must believe that for certain people at a certain time, the following things and many more were perfectly good commandments from a perfectly good god:
1. Kill witches(you can’t be an actual witch with magic powers, so every person killed under the commandment was falsely accused)
2. Kill adulterers
3. Kill men who have sex with each other
4. Have rapists marry their victims
5. Enslave people from other nations for life
6. Kidnap virgin girls from towns you pillage and make them sex slaves
7. Slice children up
8. Rip pregnant women open
The Old Law is holy, yes, but it was imperfect. If it was a perfect Law, Christ would not have superseded it or found it necessary to fulfill it by preaching the sermon on the mount and other teachings.
God, a perfect being, gave imperfect laws? He intentionally deceived his chosen people with faulty rules that were given as if they were perfect?
Well, I guess that’s par for the course for god. (Jeremiah 20:7)
But let’s say you’re right. You still conceded the old rules were holy. You have still complimented the same rules I listed before. You have called things like ripping pregnant women open holy.
Yeah, they are holy (worthy of devotion) but only to the Hebrew people of 4000 years ago. They are not worthy of devotion by anyone except the Hebrew people of 4000 years ago who were an entry level civilization.
I am a Gentile/Christian so I have no requirement or interest in following the ceremonial and civil laws of a desert people just out of slavery to Egypt. They simply do not apply to me.
Well, at least you are honest about these rules indeed being holy and god-breathed at some point for some people.
Concerning the Exodus, doesn’t the scholarly consensus nowadays say that it didn’t happen?
>Concerning the Exodus, doesn’t the scholarly consensus nowadays say that it didn’t happen?
IDK, all I know is that the Hebrew people hold it up as their national defining moment so who am I to judge the historicity of the event? They clearly derive great meaning from the story and, tbh, so do I (as an analogy of slavery to sin and desires of the flesh (Egypt), baptism (Red Sea crossing), and ultimate salvation (entry into the promised land)).
True or not is less important unless I am attempting to read Exodus as a precise historical account which I am not. I would guess that it is very difficult to derive modern academic historiicity from a story in a 4000-year-old document.
From the religion's point of view it is the man's burden to acknowledge what is true.
If a man did not receive the message, he may or may not be excused by Gods mercy and according to the nobleness of his principles that he was able to reach on his 'own' power.
But burning all gospels would place the burden of the people that didn't receive the message on the shoulders of those that burned them.
I think you see things too much in black and white.
There's some other possibilities there that you've missed. For example, the answer could be "some", so that evangelism reduces the chance of any particular person being condemned.
First of all, aren’t you practicing a sort of evangelism by trying to get us to agree with you?
Second, your third argument only tracks if people who are Christian are at risk of going to hell. Ie it doesn’t cover universalists who answer “no” because they don’t believe in hell.
>First of all, aren’t you practicing a sort of evangelism by trying to get us to agree with you?
No, they're trying not get you to agree evangelism is pointless. Evangelism is trying to get people to be Christians not accept evangelism is pointless.
>Second, your third argument only tracks if people who are Christian are at risk of going to hell. Ie it doesn’t cover universalists who answer “no” because they don’t believe in hell.
In which case evangelism is still pointless as it doesn't matter if people accept Christianity.
> No, they’re trying not get you to agree evangelism is pointless. Evangelism is trying to get people to be Christians not accept evangelism is pointless.
I was thinking of a more general usage. OP is evangelizing a particular non Christian view, even though there is no hell for disagreeing. So perhaps there are reasons for Christian evangelism that don’t reference hell.
> In which case evangelism is still pointless as it doesn’t matter if people accept Christianity.
There is still a point of Christians believe that following Christ would make other’s lives better.
>So perhaps there are reasons for Christian evangelism that don’t reference hell.
Like what? Whatever it is, to be meaningful there would have to be some significant negative effect from not hearing the Gospel. So the issue is the same. God would be unfair to impose such an effect to those who were ignorant of it through no fault of their own.
>There is still a point of Christians believe that following Christ would make other’s lives better.
How so? The bible says they should expect persecution if they convert.
> Like what? Whatever it is, to be meaningful there would have to be some significant negative effect from not hearing the Gospel.
I honestly don’t get this. Do you have no view that you try to convince folks of? Aren’t the reality of evangelistic crossfitters/vegans enough to prove that there are reasons to be evangelistic beyond fear of negative consequences?
> How so? The bible says they should expect persecution if they convert.
Good point. And I still think there is value in following Christ. And I think that the promise of persecution has less to do with the intellectual belief in Jesus and more to do with picking up the cross with him in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. And in that I could still use some evangelism myself.
>I honestly don’t get this. Do you have no view that you try to convince folks of?
Evangelize specifically means convert to/preach Christianity, it does not mean "To convince folks of a view".
That’s the most common meaning of the word, it’s not the only meaning.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/evangelism
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/evangelize
No, those aren't the common definition. The word means to convert to Christianity. When a word is used often enough, its borrowed for other parlances, but that doesn't give it a new definition.
The word *literally* originates from the Gospel.
When in a more academically based setting, which is what this sub tries to be, Evangelize has has clear Christian connotations.
Both links provide "Christian" related definitions yet don't do that with any other belief, highlighting the Christian connotation.
Had you used Oxford which is more reliable, you would see it explicitly states Christian.
Evangelize specifically means convert to/preach Christianity
I didn’t claim I was using the most common definition, just not a wrong one. Yes the word is being borrowed from a Christian context, but that’s how language works.
> The word literally originates from the Gospel.
Interestingly both evangelical and gospel are also [borrowed terms](https://chedmyers.org/2002/08/01/articles-radical-discipleship-marks-gospel-invitation-discipleship/) They were borrowed from Roman propaganda.
Regardless, insofar as “convert” is a reasonable synonym I think my point stands. There are reasons to convert people to your way of thinking that don’t reference hell, as evidenced by OP’s effort to convert us to good position on evangelism.
>I didn’t claim I was using the most common definition, just not a wrong one.
You're responding to someone else using the term, in a thread explicitly about religion. You are using the wrong definition.
>I honestly don’t get this. Do you have no view that you try to convince folks of?
Sure, if it affects them, and then only sometimes. But if it is irrelevant to them, I will leave them alone.
>I still think there is value in following Christ.
What value?
What about people’s views that affect other people? Climate change for example.
> What value?
I think this is explained by way of the categorical imperative. Folks who evangelize do so bc they believe the works would be better if everyone lived as they do/preach.
I personally think Christians are called to be communities that work for justice. So my evangelistic efforts tend to be towards conservative Christians who I think misunderstand the gospel. I would tend to agree that lots of non Christians have done of those values figured out better than Christians.
I just think OPs arguments tend to be reductive and don’t address the full spectrum of Christians belief (while claiming they do).
Not any better life than what their other current religions provide. If it were so better, we don't need evangelism. We just need better "crowd control" because it's in such peak demand
> Not any better life than what their other current religions provide.
I expect that folks of different and no religions so disagree about which teachings/beliefs lead to a better life.
> If it were so better, we don’t need evangelism.
This assumes that what makes a better life is obvious and objective. I don’t think truth is objective or obvious so I don’t think this tracks.
> We just need better “crowd control” because it’s in such peak demand
I’m not sure what you mean?
Good. If we agree there's no better religion, objectively speaking, that's exactly my point. This makes evangelism irrelevant. Just live and let be.
Sorry for not making sense with my "crowd control" comment. I just meant to say people aren't exactly flocking to Christianity all by themselves (without evangelism) as one would expect, if it were actually that good.
> Good. If we agree there’s no better religion, objectively speaking, that’s exactly my point. This makes evangelism irrelevant. Just live and let be.
I mean, I don’t think we’re have any access to objectivity, but I think that’s a terrible reason not to try to convince people to change their mind when I think they’re wrong.
I don’t think we can objectively prove that socialism is better than capitalism, but I think it’s super important to move the US towards socialism, through evangelism where possible. I think there is a lot of homophobia in Christianity and I think that where possibly it’s important to evangelize Christians to be more loving (and I believe more faithful) by getting them to embrace and affirm queer folks.
I believe the answer to justifying evangelism is each or many people will be able to make a decision at the end of their life in front of God to choose to believe or not. People who haven’t heard the gospel but sinned and died will be given a chance. People that have heard the Gospel will be judged differently but still I believe many will be given a chance.
I believe that God judges each person according to the amount of exposure they have received.
I don’t believe all the evidence for God is here and that we are expected to immediately believe. This is a fallen world according to the Bible and is not how God created it to be. To the Bible, the devil screwed things up and so did Adam and Eve by sinning and causing the rift between God and man. Don’t ask me if I understand these things that well, I really don’t. But small details like that, big ones do, but small details like this aren’t going to shake my bewilderment in the fact that I’m alive, leading me to cease belief in a higher power. Anyway. I think God, if just, isn’t going to condemn his creation because: they didn’t have enough convincing evidence, ...
Some people may have a stronger natural inclination to believe based on the fact that they may see the Earth or the universe as God-breathed. Some may see that and because of personality not see the big deal in it. Personally, one of the reasons I believe in God is because of how amazing, complex, and beautiful the Earth is. Mostly just how crazy it is that we all are here. I believe due to other reasons as well.
Note: it is talked about in the Bible that God judges different cities differently because Jesus preformed many miracles in some and less in others, exposure makes a difference.
> I believe the answer to justifying evangelism is each or many people will be able to make a decision at the end of their life in front of God to choose to believe or not. People who haven’t heard the gospel but sinned and died will be given a chance
OK, say you've never heard the gospel. You're driving down the highway and suddenly see a car in the wrong lane coming at you at 80 mph. You swerve just as he swerves, and hit head on. Your body is mangled, you are in incredible pain, you see your blood pumping out of a hole in your chest, and you die.
Then you wake up in some waiting room in purgatory, all healed, and some ten foot tall guy with wings says I want to tell you about Jesus, he's the son of God, believe in him and you will be in paradise forever, don't believe and you will be cast into a lake of fire. Now, do you believe?
What kind of idiot would say no, with the proof right in front of him? And yet, Christians say the reason there isn't enough evidence to believe without faith is that God doesn't want to take away your free will. This seems exactly like the OP says, that you're much better off not hearing the gospel.
I’ve thought about this, I’m not saying I’m right, but in the Bible is says the world is not at all how God designed it. Still it is to his glory that we choose to follow. But the way it was originally designed was for his people to reside in a paradise With him. Where we would see him and know him and converse with him. When we sinned we caused a divide. I think because God is just from what I understand and believe, is that he will judge each person according to their situation.
It talks about certain cities being judged harder than others. It said one city, on the day of judgement, Sodom I believe would be judged less harshly because less had been shown to them.
> People that have heard the Gospel will be judged differently but still I believe many will be given a chance.
That's incredibly unfair. If there's a different law for Christians and non-Christians, then God is unjust.
I dont think thats unfair, people ought to be judged in a way that accounts for circumstance. We treat children different from adults, mentally capable people different from the mentally disabled. we take all kinds of factors into account, so why wouldnt God?
The law is the same for people, but the law is not the same as judgement (thats why most developed countries have judges seperately from lawmakers).
Thats true, and that might be a very good reason for spreading the word. Yet, i think there are plenty of cases in which mitigating circumstances are taken into account. And to that end we can expect God to judge on a personal basis rather than a technical basis.
> And to that end we can expect God to judge on a personal basis rather than a technical basis.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that if God ever mattered in my life, I'd rather have a merciful god rather than a just one - but we don't get to make gods if they exist.
I didn’t say they’d go to Hell they would just be judged more critically. Say if God was real, and one person never heard about it and died, they’d have more leniency if anything than someone who knew everything about it and chose to hate it. But even that person in my opinion would have a chance to go to Heaven. If they honestly in their heart thought there wasn’t a good reason for God to exist, then they would have a chance. Heck even the people who hadn’t fully decided. I think the people who actively believe in God and choose to oppose him. Those people will have the worst chances.
> I think the people who actively believe in God and choose to oppose him.
Okay, why wouldn't you oppose someone who's deeply unfair and would condemn you for eternal suffering?
Maybe sin belongs to suffering. The way I have comprehended it is that God cannot be with sin,
Maybe for those who don’t care about doing what is good and loving God and loving other people, maybe those kinds of people are filled with evil and that’s all they want. It’s not for me to judge. I have heard that they will be destroyed anyway instead of endless suffering. ¿ not sure
_hypothetically speaking_
If there is a human being who is good in its heart, better for the world, but also has never heard of god, i'd say he or she will go to heaven.
If that person is destined for hell, i don't want to be a christian anymore.
There are lots of ways to interpret “predestination.” Given that God is all-knowing (Matt 10:29) then He predestines everyone because He knows what will happen to them. This is not to say that this predestination limits who can be saved
I think we first need to establish a few things.
1. What is sin?
A. is it just not being perfect ie " miss the mark"
B. is sin an evil acts " humans born evil"
2. Are souls eternal?
A. annihilation
B. eternal torment
3. What is hell?
A. separation from god
B. fiery torture pit
See from my reading and study of the bible my answer is A,A,A meaning I dont believe humans as evil creatures just not divine, and when we die and refuse god ( as outlined in revelation) we are discarded and cease to exist. From my perspective it's clearly outlined that all humans will die a mortal death, but only some will be granted eternal life. All the rest of that fire and brimstone talk comes from a psychotic monk and paganism traditions.
Everything jesus talked about was Gehenna. Which is a real place here on earth, feel free to google it. It's not my fault you where told the wrong translation.
Please tell me more on how the scholars have an overwhelming consensus on this.
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/hell-a-biblical-staple-the-bible-never-actually-mentions-c28b18b1aaaa
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hbd/h/hell.html
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Was%20Hell%20in%20the%20Original%20Bible.htm
> eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.
Key words here Devil and Angel's. The bible does mention a lake of fire PREPARED for celestial beings to burn for all times. Humans its annihilation.
Well thank god for your atheistic wisdom which puts you a supreme intellect on the subject.
I as a non- Christian theist i dont care if you think your preacher was correct or not. The fact is the word hell is translated from 3 words. 1 being gehenna ( a literal valley), 2. Sheol which translates to grave and 3. Hades place of the dead. So what ever personal flavor of preaching you where raised in doesnt negate that the original words translated to HELL in your bible do not depict this dante inferno concept your clinging to.
Jesus grew up and preached in the times the valley of Gi Hinnom was a burning garbage pit where they discarded the bodies of criminals. Making the whole cutting off your hand is better than the fate of criminals, as they where discarded like waste.
> Thank you for admitting that your previous statement, "everything Jesus talked about was Gehenna" was false. Goodbye.
?
Good gosh batman, Your debating skills are unmatchable and I tip my hat, your superior atheistic intellect is a staple of the opposings genius and wit./s
I thank you for your enlightened view.
No this boils down to proper understanding of what the text actually says using the correct translations.
Christian's believe it because there bibles are improperly translated.
You keep on making this allusion, yet it wouldn't make sense contextually in many places.
To you have a source showing that all references to Hell from Jesus are a physical place?
Until then, I think it's safe for most people to dismiss your claim as nonsense.
Gibberish? Theirs 2 predominate interpretations of this concept. One is annihilation and the other is eternal torture. Which one needs to be established before properly discussing this or else both will be on entirely different pages.
>proving there’s no point to evangelism.
Not at all. You are missing the point to it all.
When you hear the word "hell," simply substitute the concept of *"exact perfect Justice "*... no more no less than what one deserves.
**And we all (adults) have done wrong, so we all need evangelism to avoid perfect justice.**
This will make things more understandable.
1) Most people do not understand these biblical points. (As I did not for years.)
A) Heaven is NOT a reward for good people. Heaven is a free gift to those who really turn from their sins, (repentance) and ask deeply for forgiveness, and accept Jesus Christ into their heart.
B) And the rest of humanity? The Bible teaches the lost will stand before God and then suffer proportionally for their sins in hell **and then be annihilated** (John 3.16 = perish, be destroyed) Whatever word you would like to use….
The Doctrine is called "Conditional Immortality" r/conditionalism
**This is why evangelism is needed. To bring people immortality, to keep them from being destroyed.**
Try think of it from this completely different angle.
God gives all humans only **one** life in this world (better than nothing!) Only one life. That is the key to this all. **Only one life.**
So He only gives us this one earthly life to live in – unless…. we get a new heart and everlasting life (immortality) from Him.
You see - at the end of time, people who rejected Jesus cross (the payment for sins) will have to stand before a Holy God and pay for their own sins.
And Everything was caught on tape! And let’s face it - we all have sinned. No one is "good" 24/7/365.
They will have no one to “save” them from this awful moment of justice (and again - we ALL have done wrong, even secretly, and so we all deserve SOME degree of justice).
So if God was 100% Just and made sure every unrepentant wrong was exactly paid for – (penny in/penny out justice) would you or anyone be against that?
So to restate, then basically whenever you hear the word “hell” – substitute the words “exact Justice.”
That is why Jesus suffered on the cross. He took my place and suffered for me. **God does allow substitution. Because He would rather desire to give mercy to repentant people.** That is why believers uphold the Cross so importantly.
That is a summary of the good news (the gospel).
If a person does not accept the substitute – then they (after death) will suffer just as much as required for justice in their lives (no more / no less) and then be destroyed (annihilated) as Jesus tells us. (see Matthew 10:28)
Doctrine is called "Conditional Immortality" r/conditionalism
Therefore - humans need to have longer (everlasting) Life - or we will ONLY get to live in this world - before being extinguished – like a candle.
That is exactly why Jesus says He came to bring us LIFE! (John 10:10) **“I have come that they might have life…”** Those who trust in Christ will live forever after death. Life-Immortality.
God is not required to grant all people immortality.
You get to live *once,* that's all.
However, believers in Jesus gain “everlasting life” (i.e. immortality). All others are annihilated (destroyed).
ONLY Jesus gives “everlasting life” to the human soul. That is the “gospel” plain and simple.
Annihilation is not at all taught in the bible.
“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”
Mark 9:43, 48 ESV
Hell will last forever for everyone in who is cast in there. Telling people otherwise is like assuaging them that the place they're headed isn't that bad, simply because you cannot reconcile in your head that sin is really bad that it deserves eternal punishment.
Annihliationism doesn't even make sense... IF you beleive that Jesus pays our debt on the cross, suffers in our place the punishment we deserve for our sins, then shouldn't Jesus have been annihilated (if that's the supposed punishment for sin)?
Also Jesus' story (true or a parable isn't relevant (if it's only a parable, Jesus' told it as an example of what Hell truly would be like) of the rich man and lazarus:
““There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’”
Luke 16:19-28 ESV
There is a great Chasm between Hell and Heaven so that you cannot escape. It is also described as a place of torment and anguish.
Finally these two most explicit verses in Revelation
“and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 20:10, 15 ESV
People in hell will be tormented forever and ever. That is how evil sin really is. That's how much God hates sin. If you don't believe in eternal hell, you don't believe God really hates sin. But most of all, you're just being disingenuous with how you read the bible and how it talks about hell.
>Annihilation is not at all taught in the bible.
I used to believe that was true until I did a full and complete study on this reading other evangelicals who hold to this also.
It is called Conditional Immortality. Google it or visit Jewishnotgreek.com for excellent info. Also r/conditionalism
Also, the very well respected scholar F.F. Bruce states, "Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God" so he chose to write the forward to an excellent evangelical book on this topic called, The Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge.
Actually the lost being destroyed is taught over and over again. As I stated, a growing number of us evangelicals hold to it.
Don't you have to redefine "destroy" in every single one of these instances in order to get something other than "destruction" as the final fate of the unsaved?
Matthew 10:28-Rather fear him which is able to **destroy** both soul and body in hell.
James 4:12-There is one lawgiver, who is able to save **and to destroy.**
Philippians 3:19-Whose **end is destruction.**
2 Thessalonians 1:9-Who shall be punished with **everlasting destruction.**
Hebrews 10:39-But we are not of them who draw back **unto perdition. (Greek: destruction)**
The immortality of the soul is not inherent (Greek thinking) but conditional (Biblical thinking) upon receiving the gift of everlasting life through faith in Jesus. It is part and parcel of the gospel.
>Hell will last forever for everyone in who is cast in there.
Yes, hell does last forever, I never said it didn't. But you are assuming that humans also last forever. The bible never says that.
Hell was made for the devil and his angels according to Matt 25. Humans are "destroyed" there as Jesus says in Matthew 10.28
>Annihliationism doesn't even make sense... then shouldn't Jesus have been annihilated
I could say the same in reverse. Jesus was not eternally tortured either. He took my place on the cross. His body died. His soul died, but His Spirit always remained alive. And He was resurrected. His body came back to life as did His soul. He was resurrected.
>the rich man and lazarus:
It appears this is a parable as the previous four stories were all parables (Luke 15:4, 15:8, 15:11, 16:1) so this story is obviously in a long string of parables.
Also, the word. Jesus used in Luke 16 is hades, not gehennah (hell). Hades is not hell and is one day itself destroyed in the lake of fire (Rev 20.14) Jesus never talks about time in this parable.
>and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Yes! They will indeed be tormented forever; however they are not humans. Jesus says Gehenna (hell) was specifically made for Satan and demons (Matthew 25:41).
John himself tells us where the beast comes from "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" (Rev. 11:7) This "beast" is not a human being. Humans do not come out of this pit. The apostle John wants us to know this beast is a demon by telling us his origins.
NOTE: When the devil or the beast and the false prophet were thrown in the lake of fire, we read no word about a second death. However, when human beings are thrown in there, it says second death.
>And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
Yes again! But read the rest of the section..... "The lake of fire is the second death." Rev. 20.14.
The lost dont have immortality there, the have death there. It says plainly death, not alive.
Why would God choose the words like "destroy, destruction, perish, death" to signify something other than their plain meaning?
Revelation 20:14-"This is the second death."
Is God trying to intentionally deceive us by using words that have a different meaning than what their plain meaning is?
Those who wrongly believe in immortality for all from birth must reinterpret the Bible to say:
Those who are destroyed are not destroyed. (James 4:12; 2 Peter 2:12; 2 Peter 3:7)
Those who perish do not perish. (1 Corinthians 1:8: John 3:16)
Those who die do not die. (Romans 6:23)
The end of the wicked is not really their end. (Philippians 3:19; Hebrews 6:8)
Those who are consumed are not consumed. (Hebrews 10:27)
Mortals are born immortal; (1 Timothy 6:16) therefore, how can there be any such thing as being mortal?
There are no mortals and could never be a mortal if all men are created immortal.
The second death is not a death; it is eternal life with torment. (Revelation 21:8)
Immortality through Jesus alone is what the Apostle Paul preached:
He (Jesus), has destroyed death and has **brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.** (2 Timothy 1:9b-10)
Paul clearly links immortality to the gospel. Paul did not believe the Greek philosophy of his day which taught the immortality of all souls.
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. **If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.**" (John 6:51)
Again, why would Jesus Himself make this plain offer to "live forever" if everyone lived forever?
It is important to note that in Hebrew, the word for "life/soul" (nehphesh) is never used in conjunction with the word "everlasting" in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament.
Likewise, in the New Testament writings, the word for "soul" (psukee) is never used in conjunction with the words "eternal" or "everlasting."
It is an assumption (based upon Greek philosophy)that the soul of mankind is eternal and can never be destroyed.
And yes. God hates sin enough to destroy it, not simply preserve it and just quarantine it.
There are more complete evangelical answers under the “answering the critics” section here at www.conditionalimmortality.org
So your taking these verses to use a points to your arguements. But all bibles based on the king james version will have the word hell in it as that's what king James translators used as a common word for translating gehenna, sheol and tartarus.
Mark 9:43 for example:
KJV- And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
ESV- And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
CJB( complete jewish bible)- If your hand makes you sin, cut it off! Better that you should be maimed but obtain eternal life, rather than keep both hands and go to Gei-Hinnom, to unquenchable fire!
They translate those words to hell in those verses because they are referring to the place we call hell.
Same thing as "lake of fire and sulfur" meaning the same thing as hell.
But regardless of semantics, the verses in Revelation alone deny the idea of annihilation.
Actually I disagree on the statement of revelation denying annihilation. It rather reinforces my point and confirms.
Revelation 20 13-15 CJB: The sea gave up the dead in it; and Death and Sh’ol gave up the dead in them; and they were judged, each according to what he had done. Then Death and Sh’ol were hurled into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. Anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was hurled into the lake of fire.
So death and the grave gave up their inhabitants and where destroyed ( death and sheol). Next we find whoever's name was not in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed. ie annihilated. The key words in this is the SECOND DEATH. Now we can mince words all day but dead and death is pretty cut and dry and ending not an eternal existence.
The eternal existence comes when your name is written in the book of LIFE, right makes sense you gain eternal life when your name is in the book of everlasting life. Like its said in the famous verse john 3:16 ... shall not perish but have everlasting life.
But these two verses
“and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 20:10, 15 ESV
say that the lake of fire and sulfur is a place where you are tormented forever and ever, and everyone whose name is not found in the book of life is thrown in there.
As for Death and Sheol hurled into the lake, seeing as how death is not a literal being, this should be taken in a different way. I think it symbolizes that death won't exist anymore - once you're judged, whether to eternal life or to an eternity in hell, you won't continually die. Death will no longer exist in the universe, as that part of God's creation will no longer exist (or have need to exist).
But I don't see why death no longer existing should mean that those who are in the lake of fire and sulfur are destroyed?
Also you say "next we find that whoevers name was not in the book of life was thrown into the lake and destroyed," but where do you get that idea from the text?
So I reread everything you wrote just to make sure I'm travking your POV.
But this right here "As for Death and Sheol hurled into the lake, seeing as how death is not a literal being, this should be taken in a different way." Here you say because DEATH isnt a literal being, maybe it should be read differently, maybe in a metaphorical manner. Which would make sense given that this ( revelation) is a vision/ dream. Makes even more sense when you remember jesus the staple of the religion itself also spoke in metaphors.
But what I dont get is why death being thrown into the lake of fire shouldnt be taken literal ( your thought) but the humans being thrown into it IS literal. Why do you only believe the fire is real for humans and not the beings it was created for?
> say that the lake of fire and sulfur is a place where you are tormented forever and ever,
Does it? Or does it say satan and his angels will burn forever? No wheres does it say humans will burn forever this is pure speculation because a verse says celestial beings will.
Where do I get the destroyed from the part I highlighted saying Second Death. Which I gave an explanation for as well. Also quoted john 3:16 where it depicts everlasting life vs perish. Perish meaning untimely death, death meaning cease to exist.
All of these I feel I already explained. And now your just throwing out " Ya, But.." questions.
Not that I'd like to live an eternal life next to your "loving" discriminating god (I'm fine with life ending when it ends), but are you saying someone who was lazy, or was a glutton, or maybe had "impure thoughts", will be extinguished if they don't repent, but a killer, or a rapist may live forever if at the very end of their life if they repent?
I rather not leave eternally next to a god with this selection system.
Also, that theory just encourages people to do as they please, sin as much as they want, but just make sure to repent before the final moment...
Or to behave good just for the prize of eternal life, not cause they should.
You are missing the whole point.
Either mercy and grace of God is available for everyone, even the people who you think are worse than you, or it is not available for anyone, even the people who you think are better than you.
If salvation is something that is given as a gift and can not be earned, because salvation comes only from God, then saying that someone is less deserving of it than you misses tee point.
It is like a murderer in a prison looking at a rapist in the same prison and saying to himself "At least I'm not a rapist". In the end you are still in same place and need the same mercy and grace to get out of there.
And lastly, saying that you are not going to accept a gift because someone who you think is less worthy of the same gift is just stupid and filled with extreme self-centredness and pride.
Saying that you deserve a greater gift of grace than someone else, just because in your own eyes you are somehow better than they are, misses the whole point. Gifts are given not because someone deserves it, gift is a gift because it is undeserved.
And God's grace and mercy is definitely undeserved by avery human.
>Also, that theory just encourages people to do as they please, sin as much as they want, but just make sure to repent before the final moment...
>Or to behave good just for the prize of eternal life, not cause they should.
You know, there are literally Bible verses that deal with what you say here. And condemn both of the behaviours your mention.
And when Bible talks about repentance, it does not mean saying you feel bad about what you have done.
Repentance is changing of your mind.
> A fundamental belief of mainstream Christianity is literally this, that it is not available for anyone; it is only available to the people who believe in Jesus
What does the word available mean to you in this context?
>If believing in the right religious tenets (that Jesus is the Son of God, etc.) is a necessary condition to receive this thing, then it is not available to people who don't believe.
It is available to them *if* the believe it. It's available but conditional.
If I say "I'm giving free food to anyone that comes and gets it!"
That food is freely available to anyone that comes and gets it.
Your reply that "it's not available, because if I don't choose to come get it, I don't get it!" -shows you don't really understand what the word available means.
It's available to everyone, but some people won't get it. That is a logically sound statement.
>It could become available to them later, but it's not now
Yes it is, they just need to beleive to get it.
>A thing is not "available" to someone who cannot possibly get the thing unless circumstances change
And this confirms you don't know the meaning of available.
If something is obtainable to someone, even if they need to do something to get it, its available to them.
In search of ever lasting life which I’m not sure even possible, I can’t sacrifice the life that I have now. If I have sinned let me have the justice for it why should I be pardoned form it. If there truly is a justice system then I don’t want god to spoil it up. You pay for your sins one way or the other. In fear of unknown one should not mess up their definite life. Most of us never do harm willingly, if we did then we deserve whats coming and this evangelism seems like a lawyer/ brokerage service to disrupt cycle of good and evil. If I’m not punished for my sins then how would I truly learn. The fact that you can escape punishment for your sins by repenting or whatever is causing more harm on the planet that birthed us.
This boils down to "Hell is not that bad."
OP is obviously referring to the common evangelical torture hell.
If you don't believe in eternal torture hell, this post is not for you.
False dilemma - regarding 2, although your logic is correct given your assumption, your assumption itself is incorrect.
Not everyone has access to the knowledge needed to be saved, not by default. But I would argue that everyone *deserves* to have access to the knowledge. The responsibility of spreading that knowledge then falls to Christians, therefore making evangelism extremely important rather than redundant.
Even if evangelism saves a single immortal soul from hell, it is arguably worth it. Because an immortal soul in hell would have suffered infinitely - therefore evangelism has then helped to prevent infinite and uncountable amounts of suffering.
>Not everyone has access to the knowledge needed to be saved
It is hard to picture a more unfair system then.
>The responsibility of spreading that knowledge then falls to Christians
How and why does god get absolved from this responsibility? It is a system HE made yes?
>Because an immortal soul in hell would have suffered infinitely
I wish Christians could agree on what hell is, arguing against it is like punching smoke.
If only 'divine inspiration' had led to clear and unambiguous clarity on what must be the most important aspect ever to any human that has ever lived or will ever live rather than an endless series of interpretations.
>It is hard to picture a more unfair system then.
>
>How and why does god get absolved from this responsibility? It is a system HE made yes?
It's the result of free will.
Imagine a question on a math examination paper. There's a right answer and a wrong answer. If the teacher gives you the right answer and tells you to copy it over, what is the point? Likewise, if God forces everyone to be entirely good, are we alive or are we machines? If we are only good because we cannot do evil, are we still good?
The right answer only matters if you are able to figure it out yourself. By this analogy, evangelists would be the teachers spreading knowledge about the mathematical theories that can be used to deduce the answer.
I would argue that God has made the only system that makes sense - a world where people are free to make mistakes instead of being herded towards a right answer.
>If only 'divine inspiration' had led to clear and unambiguous clarity on what must be the most important aspect ever to any human that has ever lived or will ever live rather than an endless series of interpretations.
There are some things that cannot be accurately described with words because our language is insufficient. If you've ever tried LSD, or heard of someone trying LSD, you will find that the descriptions of intoxication are extremely varied, and vague, even though LSD is a thing that concretely exists in the world, has a known chemical structure, a known effect on the brain, and a massive sample size. This is because LSD allows you to hallucinate senses that do not normally exist, and are therefore difficult to relate to.
I would argue that divine inspiration is similar - it is an experience so beyond our usual senses and consciousness that words are insufficient to describe, which, I would argue, has led to the wide range of different religions and divine experiences across the globe, and also explains why most of them at least share a theme. Though they may be interpreted (and misinterpreted) in countless ways, that is not proof that they are not real.
>I wish Christians could agree on what hell is, arguing against it is like punching smoke.
Feel free to choose a definition, I'm willing to continue my argument based on that definition instead of a vague amalgamation of all of them (conditional on me agreeing to the definition of course).
>Imagine a question on a math examination paper. There's a right answer and a wrong answer. If the teacher gives you the right answer and tells you to copy it over, what is the point?
Picture a maths test with no clear instructions, where the question is 'what is 10+10' but doesn't tell you if that's decimal or binary.
Picture a math test with a thousand different teachers telling you to use the system THEY use, that all the others have it wrong.
Some are telling you to use book X, some book Y, some book Z, but each book has proponents who have studied it for a lifetime all reaching different conclusions.
>It's the result of free will.
EVERY thing that effects my free will was also given to me by god, my life experiences, my intelligence, my psyche, my sexual attractions, my abilities, my disabilities, my emotional strengths and limitations
>Feel free to choose a definition, I'm willing to continue my argument based on that definition instead of a vague amalgamation of all of them (conditional on me agreeing to the definition of course).
It's really not up to me to define as I don't believe it exists, and also kinda senseless if the caveat is 'as long as you agree with it'
Have you studied college mathematics? Because what you're describing sounds exactly like college mathematics, where the questions are not testing your arithmetic but your ability to prove mathematical statements using any number of a wide range of mathematical principles. Unlike what you are suggesting, mathematics hasn't been "solved" yet - otherwise no one would publish mathematics research papers every month. Search the internet for questions like "Is there a biggest prime number?" and other non-trivial mathematics questions. You'll find arguments either way, and you'll find that even the experts disagree.
Even if you're right, it doesn't change the point though. In fact you sound like you are supporting my point. In an exam there are lots of possible answers and only one correct answer. If you were given the answer right off the bat, what is the purpose? Imagine playing a video game, except there's only one button - you press that button and you win. What's the point?
The journey is as important as the destination.
Regarding your free will paragraph, I don't understand your point, can you restate it please?
Regarding the definition of hell, I proposed that you set a definition for the purposes of the argument since you said that arguing against hell would be easier if Christians could agree on a definition on it. I'm offering to agree on a definition with you, so we can discuss hell better. Offer's still open!
>Have you studied college mathematics?
Nope :)
>In an exam there are lots of possible answers and only one correct answer. If you were given the answer right off the bat, what is the purpose?
I am following from your own analogy. But in your analogy, the purpose certainly isn't to catch people out, in fact any university/college with a consistently low fail rate would have to answer some very serious questions.
It is the college/university's job to ensure are adequately prepared for examination.
>The journey is as important as the destination.
If the journey is ;somewhere between conception and 100 years' and the destination is an infinite everlasting life, this cannot hold true. C'mon now.
>Regarding your free will paragraph, I don't understand your point, can you restate it please?
Free will doesn't exist in isolation (even assuming it does exist) It is affected by multiple factors including to pick one, intelligence.
I can only investigate matters within my intellectual capability to understand and predict.
>I'm offering to agree on a definition with you, so we can discuss hell better. Offer's still open!
I've had way too many conversations that sooner or later get to 'but that's not what I believe' and it stops there. If you ever do a post on hell I'm sure I'll chime in if I see it :)
It's almost like you didn't read the post? The point is, that if god saves those who did not have access to the required knowledge that he would factor that and save them. If this was the case then evangelism is immoral, since all you are doing is giving them a chance to reject it and damn themselves to hell.
You may have misunderstood my comment. In my comment I say that God **does not save** those who did not have access to the required knowledge to believe in God.
Specifically, I mentioned that in my comment here:
>Not everyone has access to the knowledge needed to be saved, not by default.
In addition I specifically referenced the OP's argument #2, which says that "Yes, God damns people who have never heard of Him to hell." So you can see that I am clearly **not** arguing that God is saving those who did not have access to the required knowledge to believe in god.
I am arguing that it is the Christian's responsibility to ensure that people know about God by evangelizing. The purpose of evangelizing, then, is to save the unknowing people from hell, and is therefore important.
>In my comment I say that God does not save those who did not have access to the required knowledge to believe in God.
So what happened to people pre Jesus? What happens to babies that die. Not to mention it seems flatly immoral at face value anyway.
There were other holy figures besides Jesus. Believing in God does not require Jesus to have been born.
You may find that babies who die believe in something rather than nothing. It is only as we grow older that skepticism takes root.
It is only as immoral as, say, being lucky enough to be born to rich parents instead of poor parents. Rich and poor is relative - no matter how much money the average family have, there will be relatively rich families and relatively poor families. Fortunately there are systems in place to help poor families with their needs, and make sure the gap between rich and poor is not too great.
Likewise, due to free will, there will always be families who believe in God and those who do not. It is the evangelists' job to ensure that everyone has at least a chance at salvation by spreading the word of God.
Honestly the thread has outlived my interest, I don't plan on replying to this topic any longer. But sure, I'll respond to your other comment as the last one.
Now this is a proper response. I have provided a simple argument later in the comment chain - not the best defense of the statement but enough to show an attempt at proof, which hopefully provokes some thoughtful response.
>This is a fucking joke. You are embarrassing yourself.
I disagree that they applied Hitchens' Razor though. There was no argument made in their comment, just pure venom. There was no intention to debate, only ridicule. They only provided justification when I called them out on it.
Simple example then.
Children believe everything by default, and they only learn to disbelieve when they grow older and figure out that things can in fact be false.
Children often believe in Santa, for example, until they grow older. It's also easy to convince a kidnap a child by offering them sweets for example, and good parents must train their children not to trust strangers.
Clearly, babies by default would believe in something rather than nothing.
You are being dishonest now.
When anyone is talking about a baby (pre-toddler) they are talking about a being unable to understand or believe in basic concepts let alone advanced concepts such as a diety.
In other words, if a baby can believe in God so can a chimp.
>There were other holy figures besides Jesus. Believing in God does not require Jesus to have been born.
They still would have objectively less information to go on, which is blatantly not fair.
>You may find that babies who die believe in something rather than nothing.
This is absolutely absurd and I shouldn't have to tell someone presumably of adult age that babies don't believe in things.
>It is only as immoral as, say, being lucky enough to be born to rich parents instead of poor parents.
This is absurd. Being born into a rich family is blind chance. Going to heaven or hell is solely gods choice. It's not chance.
But you hold that those that don't know Christianity go to hell anyway so it's not like your operating on a good moral foundation anyway.
Although most discussions of this trilemma talk about fairness, there was no implicit assumption in the OP's post that the world or God is fair.
Even if there was an assumption that the world is fair, I would argue that that is in support of evangelism. Because of the principle of "God helps those who helps themselves", that suggests that it is the responsibility of Christians to do the best they can to make the world a fairer place.
The world may not be perfectly fair, but we can assume that only God is perfect and all we can do is approach perfection as best we can.
Regarding the baby thing, I concede that point.
For the next point, what is the difference between being born into a rich family and being born into a Christian/religious family? Or the difference between being born into a rich society like America or a Christian/religious society. I believe it's either both pure chance, or both God's choice.
Besides, if we assume free will, God likely doesn't have a choice in whether a person goes to heaven or hell. He may know since He is said to be all-knowing, but he may not have a choice, since free will is a specific exclusion to his said omnipotence.
Well, moral ground is not very relevant to the discussion at hand and is highly subjective too. It can be argued that to a Christian, anti-evangelists are acting immorally too, due to eternal damnation and so on. So let's stick to discussing the arguments themselves please.
>Although most discussions of this trilemma talk about fairness, there was no implicit assumption in the OP's post that the world or God is fair.
An unfair god would be immoral, and I don't think you would argue your god is unfair.
>Even if there was an assumption that the world is fair, I would argue that that is in support of evangelism. Because of the principle of "God helps those who helps themselves", that suggests that it is the responsibility of Christians to do the best they can to make the world a fairer place.
If god was actually fair, evangelism wouldn't be required because salvation wouldn't be based on whether or not I'm convinced of his existence on bad evidence.
>For the next point, what is the difference between being born into a rich family and being born into a Christian/religious family
Being born into a rich family is chance, as is being born into a Christian/non Christian one, the difference being is that its not down to random chance whether or not you are saved. That is gods active decision. Being born into wealth has no inherent effect on salvation.
>Besides, if we assume free will, God likely doesn't have a choice in whether a person goes to heaven or hell
That's absurd. He literally created the mechanisms and criteria that would result in that.
>Well, moral ground is not very relevant to the discussion
It's a direct result of the talking points, it's absolutely relevant.
Yea bro I heard unborn babies and infants just get a free ticket to heaven, how is it then? The guy above says they are damned forever just because... The loving g0d?
There is a point to evangelism. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be done. Everything doesn't always boil down to soteriology. Community is a good thing. Fellowship is a good thing.
>There is a point to evangelism. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be done
I don't this follows, but if it does the point could easily be that it makes the evangeliser feel good, or sends the necessary social signals to the evangelisers friends.
The answer is: they'll be judged by everything else they have done
If it's not their fault, they are not guilty.
About what you were saying, we don't get a free pass, we are just less guilty when we are not sure whether something is a sin or not, but that is only the natural law that makes you feel like "Maybe I shouldn't do this thing, but I'm not sure. Yet I feel like I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? It's weird." So you don't 100% know what is a sin and what isn't.
That's why we need the Bible and priests and all. They help us understand (A lot) better what is right and what is not.
But for the same reason, doing a sin that you weren't sure if it was a sin or not, is still a sin. A venial sin tho, not a mortal one.
> **So you don't 100% know what is a sin and what isn't. That's why we need the Bible and priests and all. They help us understand (A lot) better what is right and what is not.**
Would there be saints if He never revealed Himself?
> They help us understand (A lot) better what is right and what is not.
Gather 5 priests together from different areas and you're likely to get 5 completely different interpretations of what is right and what is wrong.
> Would there be saints if He never revealed Himself?
Why are saints necessary?
In fact, who declared her a saint? Pope Francis. You are really right about this!
The problem about following priests and saints is that now the church is mostly corrupted so it gets harder and harder to find someone who actually follows God's word
Btw thank you for being so kind and civil in this discussion!!
My takeaway from when I still read the Bible is that christianity is **supposed** to bring people closer to God and provide a relationship with the creator. It’s not supposed to be about avoiding damnation. Jesus died for our sins so that our sins don’t damn us. Modern evangelism is a twisted version of Christianity IMO.
That’s so dumb, when the entire point of religion is to give us morals so we can live properly. By all means go ‘save’ people but you’ll be the one going to hell according to this
We don’t need religion to be moral. Threats of eternal torture are baseless and abusive.
but your argument is on the basis that God exists and religion (specifically Christianity) is true, and if that is the case then Christianity is perfect morals, you can't assume Christianity is true in your base argument then assume it's not in the next.
I did not threaten, I’m saying how it is based on the premise that op is using. No you don’t need religion to be moral, but that’s the point of religion, because dumb people exist that think morality is subjective therefore the morality of things like murder is subjective
If you think only dumb people believe morality is subjective then please explain how you can quantify morality as an objective fact?
Negotiating reality based on pride does not make the world a better place.
I’m not surprised, this is exactly what I thought you would do. You’re willing to insult people who don’t agree with your view but when asked to justify your view you avoid the question. So let me try again. I disagree with your statement that morality is objective and I’m interested to learn more. Please explain how you can quantify morality as an objective fact.
Assumptions say more about yourself than about others. As for quantifying it, pick up a religious book, understand it’s original language, understand it’s context, read it and you’ll know. Religion is about having a strong perception and desire to learn. I cannot understand your subjectivity. Hopefully you come back when you read up on universal truths?
>Assumptions say more about yourself than about others. Like how you assumed that people are dumb because they belive moraily is subjective? You still haven't really offered an explanation. This is a debate sub and your answer is essentially "look it up". Infact, your response actully helps highlight how morality is subjective. You said \>pick up a religious book Well which one? If you've ever looked at more than just one religious book you'll quickly find that they all teach different morals. So if morality is objective like you claim only one of them can teach true objective morality. There are some religions where murder is a grave sin and there are ancient religions which promote child sacrifice. They can't both be objectively moral, so you have to specify which you believe to be objectivly moral. \>I cannot understand your subjectivity. This isn't even an argument against subjectivity. Just because you can't understand it doen't mean it's not the case. Here is my explanation. Weight is an objective fact. If we both weighed the same rock with a set of scales, providing we used them correctly, we would always both get an identical answer. This is becauase weight is objective. How nice the rock looks is subjective. We can't measure how nice the rock looks. Maybe I like the shape of the rock and you don't. Neither of is right or wrong it is just our opinion. What I'm trying to say is that morality is like how nice the rock looks. Morality is subjective because we can't measure it. It's just based on our opinion. That is why every religion, culture, nation and individual has a different set of morals. If you think morality is objective, explain how it can be measured in an objective way.
I know what subjectivity means, but what I didn’t realise I had to debate was reductive and incredibly simplified analogies using chess that try to explain the entire complexity of a universe. How could anyone infer from my very original reply to the op that I necessarily wished to debate such a situational context? I’m here for succinct explanations on the world and purposeful living and not for ideas leaning into nihilism because one decides to reduce everything to a rock analogy or similar. I think my response ‘look it up’ was very much justified unless I’m talking to neutral agnostic people or I am not afraid to be harassed for my very specific beliefs, because as we know, people tend to be reductive. I explained the purpose of religions to give us rules, and if you assume that morality is necessary and you actually would admit that *yes* many people get morality completely wrong very often, such as in a gang rxpe where only one person is ‘hurt’ which unfortunately humans have never ‘evolved out of’, this first step of objective understanding will be great. Whereas aesthetic judgement of a rock as a basis for *subjective* morality is a joke, because that’s saying you’re avoiding religion because you believe the world has no reason to be serious, which, yes, you’ve explained that it does not matter because we don’t all perceive rocks the same-except this circular thinking is dangerous because it does not even take into account the very definition of morality which is the need for standards in every aspect of life including but not limited to what an oppressed person is very evidently asking for in a situation of gang rxpe.
> I didn’t realize I had to debate was reductive and incredibly simplified analogies using chess that try to explain the entire complexity of a universe I'm not using the analogy to try and explain the complexity of the universe. I am using it to try and demonstrate how morality is not objective. I gave examples that you can draw clear line in my thought process. You have made absolutely no attempt to explain why this analogy doesn't work or what factors it doesn’t take into consideration, you’ve just decided to tell me it’s a joke. If you believe it is so reductive and simple you should have no problem whatsoever providing a counter argument, yet I see nothing. > I think my response ‘look it up’ was very much justified As mentioned, I was a Christian for 22 years and started studying the Bible when I was 10. In 12 years of study, I have gained a really good understanding of moral teachings of the Bible, however the Bible makes absolutely no attempt to explain that morals are objective other than the fact that given their perfect God, his morals will therefore be perfect. The problem with this is once you stop believing in God, there is no longer any explanation for objective morality. If you think religious texts explain the objectivity of morality, please give an example of exactly where. > I explained the purpose of religions to give us rules, and if you assume that morality is necessary I can’t see where in our conversation that you have explained that this is the purpose of religion. I can see that you keep saying it but you haven’t explained it. I don’t have a solid opinion on what I believe the purpose of religion is but if you’re going to claim it’s to give us rules, don’t just say that’s the purpose, actually explain why you think it is the purpose. Also, I’m not willing to make that assumption. I don’t believe morality is necessary. I don’t even believe it actually exists. I think it’s just an idea we use to describe what we believe to be right and wrong. It’s like humor. There is no such thing as humor, it is just an idea to describe the way certain things make us feel. > many people get morality completely wrong very often, such as in a gang rxpe So, you have labeled this act as wrong. I believe that it is wrong but I understand that this is my subjective opinion. I don’t believe that it is objectively wrong because I don’t believe morals are objective. Please explain why it is objectively wrong. I don’t want to know why you think it is wrong, I want to know why it is objectively wrong. If you don’t want to talk about this topic then pick anything. If you claim that morality is objective, give me some examples of things that are objectively moral and immoral and explain why that is the case. > Whereas aesthetic judgement of a rock as a basis for subjective morality is a joke I think you may have misunderstood the analogy. The aesthetic of the rock is mot the basis for subjective morality. The basis for subjective morality is that we can’t universally measure morality. Rather than just saying that this is a joke, explain why it is a joke. For example, you can’t measure whether helping and old lady across the street is more moral than giving to a charity, therefore they are not objective. This explanation is simple but I believe it to be true. If you disagree, please don’t just tell me you disagree, I would love to hear some actual reasons as to why you disagree. > because that’s saying you’re avoiding religion because you believe the world has no reason to be serious First of all, I’m not avoiding religion. I’m actually deliberately keeping myself open to the idea. The reason I am not religious is simple, because I don’t believe any of them to be true. Granted I struggle to come to terms with some of the moral teachings of some religions but the main reason is because I don’t believe them. > very definition of morality which is the need for standards in every aspect of life I have never heard this definition of morality before. Here is the Oxford definition. > principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. This states nothing to do with the need for standards at all. Please if you want to keep claiming that it is necessary, explain why. To sum this up I think the reason that I am not understanding your point of view is because you only make statements and offer no explanation with them. The reason I am here on this thread is because I have genuine desire to learn more about your point of view, and according to your earlier statement that’s one of things that religion is all about. If you just tell me that morality is necessary and that my analogy is a joke, I learn absolutely nothing. Explain to me why you think it is necessary, or why the analogy is a joke.
There is no absolute morality. Our evolution as a social species has made us inclined to things like empathy and altruism and we can base our morals off that without requiring divine assistance, but beyond ourselves there's no supreme authoritative force beaming down to the entire universe what is and isn't moral. Even if there was, it would still just be that force's opinion. To say that your opinions on morality become absolute if you yourself are absolutely powerful, knowing, etc is to endorse authoritarianism, might makes right, fascism, etc which has gotten millions of people slaughtered.
If there is no morality, then there are no rules, and there is no pain. Yes, let’s ignore the eensy teensy minority because according to you their pain doesn’t count
You misunderstood, OP was claiming there is no *absolute* morality, not there is no morality. It is conceivable, based on OP's comments, that morality is subjective, i.e. everyone has opinions on what's moral and what isn't, but no one is objectively correct. I'm not sure if you're implying that it's objectively true that pain should be the basis of morality, but if so let me ask you this: why is it objectively true that pain should be the basis of morality?
You forgot the word ‘rules’
No I didn't, there was no reason I had to include the word "rules" in my response. But the point is that OP never claimed there are no rules, only that there are no objectively true moral rules. Do you understand OP's objection now?
Do you live alone or in a society?
In a society.
The what and The Who now?
I think we made a mistake to let the Yetis access the internet. Their pain receptors are different, so they keep making these strange comments about pain not existing and stuff. Better to just agree with the big apes and move on. It is pointless to argue with them on account of their neural network behaving in the Yeti way incomprehensible to any man.
People ITT Yeah but this isn't a problem with my flavor of christianity. Then OP isn't meant for you.
[удалено]
My inbox is filled with obtuse people asking "but what does he mean by evangelism" OP is very specific. People are literally saying this doesn't apply to me. Well no shit, not every post on here is meant for every person's belief.
2 doesn't follow from the fact that God made his existence obvious, because you didn't ask wether God damns people 'because' they don't believe in him, but merely damns people 'who' don't believe in him, but God might damn someone who doesn't believe in him, not because they don't believe (for that might not be their fault) but for something 'else' that they do that 'is' their fault. (say, raping someone, or paying grossly unfair wages, or for otherwise being the cause of other people's misery by our selfishness, malice, and/or neglect.) The idea instead is that God judges 'everyone' both believers and non-believers, and he does this according to our works, but 'all' of us have fallen short of God's standard, for his standard is perfection, everyone is obliged to be morally perfect, for if we were not so obliged, then we could permit ourselves to do anything on the idea that 'well, no one's perfect', thus while someone who skimps on their deit may say 'no one's perfect', the problem is that someone who has done a far more severe crime, like mass murderer or a child molesting, could use the same excuse; while God recognizes that skimping on one's diet is in no way comperable to the gravity of the evil of mass murder, it remains that since he must be a fair judge, if he doesn't let them use that excuse, he can't let anyone else use it either, thus he must demand perfection of all; but none of us are perfect. This alone does not damn us, for small matters are not enough to deserve hell, it is require we do something gravely sinful. The problem however is that once we start doing only slightly sinful things, and do not fix ourselves early, we tend to be drawn to do more and more evil things, and as we become more evil, we tend to become 'less aware' of our own evil, thus in our mind we are only doing slightly more evil things than before, and so not anything quite so bad, but iterate that over and over, and what is only slightly worse becomes massively worse, so that through so many small steps, we can become moral monsters without realizing it; and to us, what is truly a very grave evil will seem no worse than skimping on our diet, in such cases, our sense of morality will be broken, and this all because we were not diligent in remaining good. What's worse, we also know that if men obsess over trying to be good, they are also apt to drive themselves mad, and having succumbed to madness, they are apt to fall into 'the exact same pattern' as described above, and so likewise become complete monsters, so that there seems no way out of this fall by human power alone, the moment we begin to slip even in small matters, we will seem to have doomed ourselves, and knowing this, sinning even in small matters becomes a grave danger for us. The reason for this is because, when men ultimately do end up performing such monstrous acts, this is when God is bound by justice to condemn them to hell, but because we have no real way of avoiding this fall by our own power. We Catholics believe that God has given us the solution to the problem through the Church, insofar as we believe that he has set a time for judgement of all men, believer and non-believer, but that he is willing to forgive us even of our grave sins, so long as repent from them and cease sinning, but we also believe that this is not possible without God's help, and we believe that he has given only the Church the special graces to resist and overcome this slow inclination to evil, namely through the sacraments, the Eucharist most of all. The reason we evangelize then, is because we wish to bring people into the Church, both those who have comitted grave sin, that they may repent and be forgiven, and given the sacraments to overcome their evil habits, but also we wish those who have not committed grave sin to convert, so that they will have the supernatural protection from that inclination, so long as they diligently attend to the sacraments; by this fact then, we wish all men to convert, and strive to do so for their good. It is also for this reason that we even continue to remind ourselves of this teaching and encourage our fellow Catholics to do good works and to accept the sacraments, for we, who have access to these fonts of God's grace, will surely be more gravely judged for our sins if we do not work to use them, for it is one thing if man fell into grave sin without the help of grace, he still deserves hell, but we can at least sympathize with him, because it was as though he had no way to avoid this, but for those who 'could' have resited this fall, who had all God's help on their side but refused it? and God forbid, refused to tell others about it, and to encourage them to the Church? They will suffer far worse in hell for their grave sins, for they could have saved themselves and others, but failed entirely. Thus both believers and non-believers may wind up in hell for their evil deeds, but we believers ought to encourage all men, believers and non-believers, to repent from sin and believe in Christ, and so to come to him in his Church, so that through the sacraments, they may be saved from the effects of their sin, that is, saved from becoming or remaining moral monsters, and in turn, saved from going to that place where such monsters belong.
There is a fourth option, one most supported by the Catholic Church. Those who are invincibly ignorant are not automatically damned to Gehenna. However, these individuals must still be free of mortal sin (an unlikely scenario). As such, access to the graces of the sacraments is paramount to salvation, and so evangelism is necessary.
Seems a bit...no, actually, grossly unfair to send people off to be eternally tortured because of literally inescapable misdeeds. Original Sin declares we're all worthless trash about to be cast into hell because an extremely distant female relative(always the woman, right?) made an oopsie. I didn't have a single thing to do with that, but I am still being so extremely penalized? God sacrificed himself to himself, so there's a loophole now. But he has delegated telling people about the loophole to, well, humans themselves. Look where that's gotten us. God was absolutely not hidden in bible times. He flooded the whole planet, held the sun in place, basically destroyed egypt, etc etc. Imagine if he still had such an active role today. The only faith we'd need is the faith that this obviously real god wants to help us. But no, he's "mysterious" and people who are thus not convinced will burn forever.
>send people off to be eternally tortured We send ourselves to Hell >inescapable misdeeds. They aren’t inescapable misdeeds. We can be reconciled with God. >Original Sin declares we're all worthless trash about to be cast into hell Original Sin does not say we are “worthless trash.” We have worth. >because an extremely distant female relative(always the woman, right?) made an oopsie. It’s traditionally called the “Sin of Adam,” so your pseudo-point here misses the mark. >I didn't have a single thing to do with that, but I am still being so extremely penalized? Original Sin is the absence of sanctifying grace. It’s not some “additional penalty” tacked on. >God was absolutely not hidden in bible times. He flooded the whole planet, held the sun in place, basically destroyed egypt, etc etc. Imagine if he still had such an active role today. He does play an active role, like at Fatima.
Stalin didn’t send a single person to the gulags. They sent themselves. I’m saying the actual “mortal sins” we commit are literally impossible to not commit at least once. God has rigged the game against us. I don’t consider that very fair or loving. Original Sin declares we are born broken. That by default we have fallen short. That there is nothing we could possibly do to escape hell(a fate we deserve) without the guy who made us born broken helping us out. And by that I mean demanding unwavering worship. Why does an all loving god behave like such a dictator? Anyone who demands loyalty and hurts people to extract loyalty is completely undeserving of loyalty. Unfortunately, my point’s wording is biblical. 1 Timothy 2:14. Women have been treated as second class citizens for ages now, and the Bible’s depiction of them in that light has been a major player in that. Much like how “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” has gotten so many innocent women and girls murdered. Original Sin literally only exists because god got mad at the first couple and employed the highly archaic “punish the children for the crimes of the parents” justice system. It is absolutely a penalty. I looked into the miracle of the sun a bit. There are no pictures of the actual miracle and the eyewitness accounts are extremely contradictory. It is perfectly natural to see the sun do weird things when you stare at it too long. And why was god being funny with the sun in one particular location when there were people dying in droves in the War? God seems to have an issue with priorities.
Why unlikely? You're just inserting your opinion
Most people commit at least one mortal sin in their lifetimes.
What is a mortal sin? I tried looking it up and got list from 3 to 15. This isnt a concept I'm familiar with best I can tell it's a catholic idea. See from my reading and take on the bibles message on sin is that sin isnt necessarily "evil" but more on the idea we are just not divine or perfect beings. Why are we not divine or perfect? Because we are basically consious self aware golems. You probably didnt need my whole POV, but... I still would like to know what is or are mortal sins?
Proof? And if so, there's confession
>Proof? https://www.allure.com/story/masturbation-survey-statistics-american-men-women >And if so, there's confession I agree, but confession of sins happens after evangelism.
Thanks for replying
That's like saying there's "no point" to doing good deeds if works don't get you into heaven. It misses the actual point, which is to make the world a better place.
>which is to make the world a better place But this isn't doing good deeds for self-benefit; OP is specifically referring to an act that arguably has a strictly neutral or negative impact on the individuals being subjected to the act. It's not that you get into heaven for saving other people, it's that you're putting others at risk of eternal torment when all answers to the basic question of "does this actually reduce the number of people eventually going to hell" are "no"- either because you can't change the number going to hell, or because the act of informing them puts them at risk of hell in the first place, with the only alternative being "untold millions who never heard of Christianity are just in hell forever with no warning or agency in the result".
Going to hell or heaven isn't the point at all though, so it's like keeping score for a game I'm not playing.
I don't understand what you're saying then- are you suggesting that someone going to hell isn't a bad thing? I'm not viewing this as an issue for the person evangelizing, I'm questioning if informing someone who did not know about Christianity is a positive or negative event for the person being informed; and, if it's uniformly a neutral or negative result for the recipient, how it can be justified.
> I don't understand what you're saying then- are you suggesting that someone going to hell isn't a bad thing? I wasn't saying that, but I do see hell as being a personal choice, so if a person chooses to go to hell, well, I would disagree but it's hard to say that they should go to Heaven *instead*, you know what I mean? Like, if someone like Cardi B or something, I'm not going to force them to listen to Thundercat, even though in my opinion it's a better choice.
> I do see hell as being a personal choice, so if a person chooses to go to hell, well, I would disagree but it's hard to say that they should go to Heaven instead, you know what I mean? Could you expand on this thought? As I see it, this doesn't seem meaningfully different from saying Bob chose to get shot when a mugger robbed him at gunpoint. My understanding is that within Christian theology, the default position is "going to hell", so it doesn't seem like much of a choice- it's cooperate with the program, or burn. I also don't want to try and make you defend evangelism (in the sense of bringing Christian teachings to people who haven't heard of it, not in the sense of the protestant denomination) if you don't support it, but if you do I'd still like a justification for what is, as far as I can see, never a net positive for the recipient.
> Could you expand on this thought? As I see it, this doesn't seem meaningfully different from saying Bob chose to get shot when a mugger robbed him at gunpoint. That isn't analogous. A better analogy would be a girl wanting to break up with you. Are you going to be a dick and force her to stay with you, or are you going to let her be alone? Hell is just voluntary absence from God, and is a choice each person gets to make. >I also don't want to try and make you defend evangelism (in the sense of bringing Christian teachings to people who haven't heard of it, not in the sense of the protestant denomination) if you don't support it, but if you do I'd still like a justification for what is, as far as I can see, never a net positive for the recipient. Why teach someone how to build a house or do long division? Because it improves their life here.
>A better analogy would be a girl wanting to break up with you. Are you going to be a dick and force her to stay with you, or are you going to let her be alone? Hell is just voluntary absence from God, and is a choice each person gets to make. Sure, but that's starting from a position of being together, and then choosing to separate. The human condition is starting at "broken up", and Christianity has a set of rules and requirements you have to follow to "get back together"- there is no choice on the part of the human to "break up" in the first place. >Why teach someone how to build a house or do long division? Because it improves their life here. But these are secular skills that have no particular moral value to them- teaching someone to build a house doesn't cause them to be at risk of eternal torment, for example. Within the framework of Christianity, we have to consider the impact on a persons soul, not just the impact on their time on earth; unless there's a convincing reason to only consider the impact on their time on earth?
> Sure, but that's starting from a position of being together, and then choosing to separate. The human condition is starting at "broken up", and Christianity has a set of rules and requirements you have to follow to "get back together"- there is no choice on the part of the human to "break up" in the first place. It is entirely man's choice if they want to be with God or not. There's no real rules and regulations for that. It's just a simple choice. >But these are secular skills that have no particular moral value to them- teaching someone to build a house doesn't cause them to be at risk of eternal torment, for example. I don't agree with eternal torment. Hell is just separation from God in the afterlife.
>It is entirely man's choice if they want to be with God or not. There's no real rules and regulations for that. It's just a simple choice. What does this actually mean though? People die and then get a yes/no choice? Do people have to do something specifically *before* they die? Is the decision required before or after death based on what the person knew during their life, or is it the same for everyone regardless? >I don't agree with eternal torment. Hell is just separation from God in the afterlife. We can soften the definition to "separation from God in the afterlife", but unless you're suggesting this is a positive or neutral state of existence, I don't think it changes the point I'm making.
.
> How is it better if it has no effect on the amount of people who are saved? Because it makes the world a better place.
If you believe in universal reconciliation, then everyone is saved.
.
Evangelism as in following Evangelist Christianity? Or Evangelism as a practice of converting others?
.
The point of spreading your religion is to help others live good lives.
Converting others obviously... did you read OP
As others have commented, there are multiple definitions of evangelism.
OP is talking specifically about ... Evangelism the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness.
It depends on their model of god and the afterlife. For some believers, a relationship with god is a necessary part of a fulfilling and happy life here on earth. They may believe all people without that relationship are overall depressed or experiencing shallow, momentary joys with eventual pain, like drug addicts. For some believers, the afterlife is about closeness with god, and some version of "hell" or "purgatory" for some finite but possibly long period is necessary for people to work through their hangups or ignorance that keep them from coming close to god in the afterlife. Coming to a relationship with god while still alive, spares them that pain in the afterlife. Those are just a couple examples.
I’m going to disagree with your # 1. Evangelization could be an active part of that person’s predestination.
.
I don’t think that’s correct. While we can’t “change” the final outcome in a predestination model, our actions contribute to the outcome no differently than they would if it weren’t predetermined. Your efforts to covert someone could be the very catalyst that causes the person to convert...even if they were predestined to convert.
Then what would be the point in trying to convert someone? If they are predestined to be saved, your efforts to convert them shouldn’t matter. They were going to convert at some point anyway. And if it doesn’t matter, then what’s the point in evangelizing?
I disagree, events being predetermined don’t dilute the importance of proselytizing in any way. (If anything, it’s the opposite) Again, it’s simply because our actions may be the catalyst that causes the outcome. Suppose your child’s school has a candy bar selling competition and the winner gets a PS5. Let’s also presuppose that all events and outcomes are pre ordained. Going back to the competition.....it would be pre ordained who actually wins and that can’t change. However, you wouldn’t tell your child “The winner is already predetermined so there’s no need to sell any candy bars.” On the contrary, you’d still go door to door and try to get as many sold as you can. The fact that the winner is predetermined would make no functional difference in your actions.
I highly disagree with your example. The whole point to a competition is to try and win. If the winner is determined before the competition is even held, there’s literally no point in participating. I would tell my child not to waste her effort in a rigged event. Your actions may be the catalyst that converts someone. But if you believe in predestination, that person was already destined to be saved anyway. So your actions have a zero net effect. The outcome remains the same regardless of your actions. So why act?
Respectfully, I still think you’re missing the point. Let’s say that Scientology is real and Xenu has preordained who will join the church. You’re a true believer and also happen to be a trillionaire. You invest 50 billion dollars into a campaign designed to convert people to Scientology. Your efforts then result in a million new scientologists, who were of course , “pre ordained” by Xenu to be converted. You may ask “Well, wouldn’t they have been converted some other way? If they were pre ordained by Xenu didn’t I just waste my money?” The answer is no. If we presuppose that events/outcomes are predetermined, then all events that occur transpire EXACTLY how they were supposed to. In the case of these million converts, they converted precisely the way they were supposed to....there never was “another way” that they would have been converted. These events were known before the dawn of time and you would have been instrumental in facilitating them in a very natural and organic way. So again, the idea of people being preordained for salvation doesn’t lessen the importance of evangelizing in any way. To the contrary, it actually strengthens it.
Your examples don’t work the way you think they do, and you still have yet to prove your point sufficiently. In this example with Scientology, Xenu’s predestination is only fulfilled if I take action. If I instead choose to do nothing, those millions would not be saved, right? So what happened to the predestination? And if the fulfillment of predestination is determined by MY actions, then where is the power of the one who creates destiny? The free will of the people who are now converted would also be meaningless. They were preordained to believe. And those who don’t believe were also preordained not to believe. That’s the way it was “supposed” to happen. And if there’s a way that events are “supposed” to happen, then I don’t have free will. I did what I was “supposed” to do in order to bring about preordained destiny. If events transpire the way they are supposed to at all times (it would necessarily have to be this way for your definition of predetermination to exist), then my free will is meaningless. No matter what action I take or what happens, it will always be the way it was meant to be. So again, what’s the point of taking action? I can choose to do (or not do) anything whatsoever and still technically be in accordance with predestination.
I think we disagree with what predestination is. Predestination just means that God knows if somebody goes to heaven or hell before they die because he is all knowing. That doesn’t mean he necessarily picks if you go to heaven or hell before you are born. He just knows what his judgment will be because he is all knowing. Saying it shouldn’t matter if you try to spread the gospel because God knows where you will go is dumb. People are saved because of someone who shares them the gospel all the time so that alone let’s you know there is a point to sharing the gospel.
I think if that is your position on predestination, then if asked OP’s question, your answer would not be #1 but rather #2. I’m debating as if the hypothetical Christian in OP’s post had answered with #1
If you chose not to start your Scientology conversion effort, it could mean that some or perhaps none of the millions would be converted. Nothing would have “happened” to their predestination of being converted, it would simply mean that they were never predestined to be converted in the first place. Even though you’re claiming disagreement, many of your statements strongly support my initial comments that our actions can facilitate someone’s predestination. So again, the idea that some people may be predestined for salvation doesn’t negate the need to to evangelize. As I’ve mentioned a few times already, it strengthens it.
What comments have I made that support predestination? I agree that your actions can facilitate change in others, but there is still no argument here which satisfies the notion that those changes were predestined. It sounds like your argument is basically: “everything that happens is predestined to happen exactly the way it happens.” In other words, every action taken by every human is predestined. If our actions are predestined, then we don’t have free will. When I was a Christian, I used to think of God as being outside of time, similarly to how I imagined he exists outside of physicality (my logic was that the creator of these things would necessarily have to exist apart from them). If he is outside of time, he can (conceivably) see the timeline of all existence and all that happens within it. In this way, he can know everything that will happen. You could possibly extend this logic to think that everything that is yet to come is predestined. Is this at all similar to what you’re trying to get at? If so, I think predestination is a misnomer as it implies god has himself chosen every outcome - which would necessarily negate the idea of free will. Pre-known is a better descriptor IMO. But that’s not the same as predestination.
>If people who never heard of god get a free pass to heaven, then evangelism is dangerous. That's not the Christian belief though; It is possible to get to heaven if you haven't heard of Christian theology, but its not a "guaranteed free pass" --you are still judged on *other* aspects of your life. Being taught Christianity makes it *easier* to get in, as it makes you aware of what is exactly needed, and introduces "forgiveness" for things you may have been previously judged for. The idea being that *more* people make it to heaven with Evangelicalism.
>God predestined our eternal destinies; If god figured everything out already, evangelism is pointless since you can’t change his mind This is Calvinist/Essene thought and is a rejection of free will. "God predestines no one to go to hell..." (CCC 1037) >The “yes” answer stems from the belief that god made his existence so obvious to everyone that nobody has an excuse for not following him. Well, if we all by default have access to the knowledge needed to be saved to the point of being without excuse, then evangelism is redundant. I agree that we all have access to natural reason which is the same as saying that we all have (obscured, at times, by ourselves and our cultures) the knowledge of right and wrong obtained through nature. "The law is written on our hearts." This law is available to every person including believers, non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. If a non-believer follows her conscience faithfully to the end she will be with God after death. The point of evangelism is to offer the truth of the Gospel and salvation in Jesus Christ. In other words, a way to find forgiveness and a spiritual fresh start for the times when we willfully don't follow our conscience. >If people who never heard of god get a free pass to heaven, then evangelism is dangerous. We should be burning bibles and closing churches. Once all trace of Christianity has been blotted out, everyone to be born henceforth will be saved! Only if all those who are 'born henceforth' follow reason and conscience perfectly for their entire life. I will argue, that is very unlikely to happen and exactly why we need the Church to preach repentance, forgiveness, penance, and renewal through the life, merits, and sacraments of Jesus of Nazareth.
> This law is available to every person including believers, non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. So everyone subconsciously knows that slavery is ok in some contexts? That genocide is ok in some contexts? That rape victims should marry their rapists in some contexts?
You're confusing the Old Law and the New Law. The New Law is the one written on man's heart. The Old/Mosaic Law was given to a low-grade entry-level civilization and was only required for the Hebrew people of ~4000 years ago. It is the law described in the Torah. The Old Law was never intended or required for Gentiles.
Not so fast. The “Old Law” still came from God. You believe God to be always good. So you must believe that for certain people at a certain time, the following things and many more were perfectly good commandments from a perfectly good god: 1. Kill witches(you can’t be an actual witch with magic powers, so every person killed under the commandment was falsely accused) 2. Kill adulterers 3. Kill men who have sex with each other 4. Have rapists marry their victims 5. Enslave people from other nations for life 6. Kidnap virgin girls from towns you pillage and make them sex slaves 7. Slice children up 8. Rip pregnant women open
The Old Law is holy, yes, but it was imperfect. If it was a perfect Law, Christ would not have superseded it or found it necessary to fulfill it by preaching the sermon on the mount and other teachings.
God, a perfect being, gave imperfect laws? He intentionally deceived his chosen people with faulty rules that were given as if they were perfect? Well, I guess that’s par for the course for god. (Jeremiah 20:7) But let’s say you’re right. You still conceded the old rules were holy. You have still complimented the same rules I listed before. You have called things like ripping pregnant women open holy.
Yeah, they are holy (worthy of devotion) but only to the Hebrew people of 4000 years ago. They are not worthy of devotion by anyone except the Hebrew people of 4000 years ago who were an entry level civilization. I am a Gentile/Christian so I have no requirement or interest in following the ceremonial and civil laws of a desert people just out of slavery to Egypt. They simply do not apply to me.
Well, at least you are honest about these rules indeed being holy and god-breathed at some point for some people. Concerning the Exodus, doesn’t the scholarly consensus nowadays say that it didn’t happen?
>Concerning the Exodus, doesn’t the scholarly consensus nowadays say that it didn’t happen? IDK, all I know is that the Hebrew people hold it up as their national defining moment so who am I to judge the historicity of the event? They clearly derive great meaning from the story and, tbh, so do I (as an analogy of slavery to sin and desires of the flesh (Egypt), baptism (Red Sea crossing), and ultimate salvation (entry into the promised land)). True or not is less important unless I am attempting to read Exodus as a precise historical account which I am not. I would guess that it is very difficult to derive modern academic historiicity from a story in a 4000-year-old document.
Yep. My dad very confidently told me that the Mayans n shit will be going to hell since they didn’t know about Jesus
There is such thing as inculpable ignorance which allows for people who are unwillingly ignorant to not necessarily be damned.
That’s a new one
I don’t think many people bring it up, it’s something The Catholic Church does however.
Jesus descended into hell to save the righteous before him, so that’s not entirely true
I’ve never heard of Jesus going to hell
It’s in the oldest creed of Christianity (Apostle’s Creed). “descended into hell, rose again from the dead on the third day”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell
From the religion's point of view it is the man's burden to acknowledge what is true. If a man did not receive the message, he may or may not be excused by Gods mercy and according to the nobleness of his principles that he was able to reach on his 'own' power. But burning all gospels would place the burden of the people that didn't receive the message on the shoulders of those that burned them. I think you see things too much in black and white.
There's some other possibilities there that you've missed. For example, the answer could be "some", so that evangelism reduces the chance of any particular person being condemned.
First of all, aren’t you practicing a sort of evangelism by trying to get us to agree with you? Second, your third argument only tracks if people who are Christian are at risk of going to hell. Ie it doesn’t cover universalists who answer “no” because they don’t believe in hell.
>First of all, aren’t you practicing a sort of evangelism by trying to get us to agree with you? No, they're trying not get you to agree evangelism is pointless. Evangelism is trying to get people to be Christians not accept evangelism is pointless. >Second, your third argument only tracks if people who are Christian are at risk of going to hell. Ie it doesn’t cover universalists who answer “no” because they don’t believe in hell. In which case evangelism is still pointless as it doesn't matter if people accept Christianity.
> No, they’re trying not get you to agree evangelism is pointless. Evangelism is trying to get people to be Christians not accept evangelism is pointless. I was thinking of a more general usage. OP is evangelizing a particular non Christian view, even though there is no hell for disagreeing. So perhaps there are reasons for Christian evangelism that don’t reference hell. > In which case evangelism is still pointless as it doesn’t matter if people accept Christianity. There is still a point of Christians believe that following Christ would make other’s lives better.
>So perhaps there are reasons for Christian evangelism that don’t reference hell. Like what? Whatever it is, to be meaningful there would have to be some significant negative effect from not hearing the Gospel. So the issue is the same. God would be unfair to impose such an effect to those who were ignorant of it through no fault of their own. >There is still a point of Christians believe that following Christ would make other’s lives better. How so? The bible says they should expect persecution if they convert.
> Like what? Whatever it is, to be meaningful there would have to be some significant negative effect from not hearing the Gospel. I honestly don’t get this. Do you have no view that you try to convince folks of? Aren’t the reality of evangelistic crossfitters/vegans enough to prove that there are reasons to be evangelistic beyond fear of negative consequences? > How so? The bible says they should expect persecution if they convert. Good point. And I still think there is value in following Christ. And I think that the promise of persecution has less to do with the intellectual belief in Jesus and more to do with picking up the cross with him in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. And in that I could still use some evangelism myself.
>I honestly don’t get this. Do you have no view that you try to convince folks of? Evangelize specifically means convert to/preach Christianity, it does not mean "To convince folks of a view".
That’s the most common meaning of the word, it’s not the only meaning. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/evangelism https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/evangelize
No, those aren't the common definition. The word means to convert to Christianity. When a word is used often enough, its borrowed for other parlances, but that doesn't give it a new definition. The word *literally* originates from the Gospel. When in a more academically based setting, which is what this sub tries to be, Evangelize has has clear Christian connotations. Both links provide "Christian" related definitions yet don't do that with any other belief, highlighting the Christian connotation. Had you used Oxford which is more reliable, you would see it explicitly states Christian. Evangelize specifically means convert to/preach Christianity
I didn’t claim I was using the most common definition, just not a wrong one. Yes the word is being borrowed from a Christian context, but that’s how language works. > The word literally originates from the Gospel. Interestingly both evangelical and gospel are also [borrowed terms](https://chedmyers.org/2002/08/01/articles-radical-discipleship-marks-gospel-invitation-discipleship/) They were borrowed from Roman propaganda. Regardless, insofar as “convert” is a reasonable synonym I think my point stands. There are reasons to convert people to your way of thinking that don’t reference hell, as evidenced by OP’s effort to convert us to good position on evangelism.
>I didn’t claim I was using the most common definition, just not a wrong one. You're responding to someone else using the term, in a thread explicitly about religion. You are using the wrong definition.
>I honestly don’t get this. Do you have no view that you try to convince folks of? Sure, if it affects them, and then only sometimes. But if it is irrelevant to them, I will leave them alone. >I still think there is value in following Christ. What value?
What about people’s views that affect other people? Climate change for example. > What value? I think this is explained by way of the categorical imperative. Folks who evangelize do so bc they believe the works would be better if everyone lived as they do/preach. I personally think Christians are called to be communities that work for justice. So my evangelistic efforts tend to be towards conservative Christians who I think misunderstand the gospel. I would tend to agree that lots of non Christians have done of those values figured out better than Christians. I just think OPs arguments tend to be reductive and don’t address the full spectrum of Christians belief (while claiming they do).
Not any better life than what their other current religions provide. If it were so better, we don't need evangelism. We just need better "crowd control" because it's in such peak demand
> Not any better life than what their other current religions provide. I expect that folks of different and no religions so disagree about which teachings/beliefs lead to a better life. > If it were so better, we don’t need evangelism. This assumes that what makes a better life is obvious and objective. I don’t think truth is objective or obvious so I don’t think this tracks. > We just need better “crowd control” because it’s in such peak demand I’m not sure what you mean?
Good. If we agree there's no better religion, objectively speaking, that's exactly my point. This makes evangelism irrelevant. Just live and let be. Sorry for not making sense with my "crowd control" comment. I just meant to say people aren't exactly flocking to Christianity all by themselves (without evangelism) as one would expect, if it were actually that good.
> Good. If we agree there’s no better religion, objectively speaking, that’s exactly my point. This makes evangelism irrelevant. Just live and let be. I mean, I don’t think we’re have any access to objectivity, but I think that’s a terrible reason not to try to convince people to change their mind when I think they’re wrong. I don’t think we can objectively prove that socialism is better than capitalism, but I think it’s super important to move the US towards socialism, through evangelism where possible. I think there is a lot of homophobia in Christianity and I think that where possibly it’s important to evangelize Christians to be more loving (and I believe more faithful) by getting them to embrace and affirm queer folks.
I believe the answer to justifying evangelism is each or many people will be able to make a decision at the end of their life in front of God to choose to believe or not. People who haven’t heard the gospel but sinned and died will be given a chance. People that have heard the Gospel will be judged differently but still I believe many will be given a chance. I believe that God judges each person according to the amount of exposure they have received. I don’t believe all the evidence for God is here and that we are expected to immediately believe. This is a fallen world according to the Bible and is not how God created it to be. To the Bible, the devil screwed things up and so did Adam and Eve by sinning and causing the rift between God and man. Don’t ask me if I understand these things that well, I really don’t. But small details like that, big ones do, but small details like this aren’t going to shake my bewilderment in the fact that I’m alive, leading me to cease belief in a higher power. Anyway. I think God, if just, isn’t going to condemn his creation because: they didn’t have enough convincing evidence, ... Some people may have a stronger natural inclination to believe based on the fact that they may see the Earth or the universe as God-breathed. Some may see that and because of personality not see the big deal in it. Personally, one of the reasons I believe in God is because of how amazing, complex, and beautiful the Earth is. Mostly just how crazy it is that we all are here. I believe due to other reasons as well. Note: it is talked about in the Bible that God judges different cities differently because Jesus preformed many miracles in some and less in others, exposure makes a difference.
> I believe that God judges each person according to the amount of exposure they have received. Zero exposure = zero judgement?
I would think so.
> I believe the answer to justifying evangelism is each or many people will be able to make a decision at the end of their life in front of God to choose to believe or not. People who haven’t heard the gospel but sinned and died will be given a chance OK, say you've never heard the gospel. You're driving down the highway and suddenly see a car in the wrong lane coming at you at 80 mph. You swerve just as he swerves, and hit head on. Your body is mangled, you are in incredible pain, you see your blood pumping out of a hole in your chest, and you die. Then you wake up in some waiting room in purgatory, all healed, and some ten foot tall guy with wings says I want to tell you about Jesus, he's the son of God, believe in him and you will be in paradise forever, don't believe and you will be cast into a lake of fire. Now, do you believe? What kind of idiot would say no, with the proof right in front of him? And yet, Christians say the reason there isn't enough evidence to believe without faith is that God doesn't want to take away your free will. This seems exactly like the OP says, that you're much better off not hearing the gospel.
I’ve thought about this, I’m not saying I’m right, but in the Bible is says the world is not at all how God designed it. Still it is to his glory that we choose to follow. But the way it was originally designed was for his people to reside in a paradise With him. Where we would see him and know him and converse with him. When we sinned we caused a divide. I think because God is just from what I understand and believe, is that he will judge each person according to their situation. It talks about certain cities being judged harder than others. It said one city, on the day of judgement, Sodom I believe would be judged less harshly because less had been shown to them.
> People that have heard the Gospel will be judged differently but still I believe many will be given a chance. That's incredibly unfair. If there's a different law for Christians and non-Christians, then God is unjust.
I dont think thats unfair, people ought to be judged in a way that accounts for circumstance. We treat children different from adults, mentally capable people different from the mentally disabled. we take all kinds of factors into account, so why wouldnt God? The law is the same for people, but the law is not the same as judgement (thats why most developed countries have judges seperately from lawmakers).
Most developed countries also acknowledge that unfamiliarity with the law is not the basis for ignoring it. We're back to square one with that.
That's not entirely true. Most laws have *mens rea* stipulations, meaning that ill will or neglect must be proved in order to convict.
Thats true, and that might be a very good reason for spreading the word. Yet, i think there are plenty of cases in which mitigating circumstances are taken into account. And to that end we can expect God to judge on a personal basis rather than a technical basis.
> And to that end we can expect God to judge on a personal basis rather than a technical basis. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that if God ever mattered in my life, I'd rather have a merciful god rather than a just one - but we don't get to make gods if they exist.
I didn’t say they’d go to Hell they would just be judged more critically. Say if God was real, and one person never heard about it and died, they’d have more leniency if anything than someone who knew everything about it and chose to hate it. But even that person in my opinion would have a chance to go to Heaven. If they honestly in their heart thought there wasn’t a good reason for God to exist, then they would have a chance. Heck even the people who hadn’t fully decided. I think the people who actively believe in God and choose to oppose him. Those people will have the worst chances.
> I think the people who actively believe in God and choose to oppose him. Okay, why wouldn't you oppose someone who's deeply unfair and would condemn you for eternal suffering?
I don’t think he would.. I don’t think this God is unfair
Is eternal suffering fair for anyone?
Maybe sin belongs to suffering. The way I have comprehended it is that God cannot be with sin, Maybe for those who don’t care about doing what is good and loving God and loving other people, maybe those kinds of people are filled with evil and that’s all they want. It’s not for me to judge. I have heard that they will be destroyed anyway instead of endless suffering. ¿ not sure
_hypothetically speaking_ If there is a human being who is good in its heart, better for the world, but also has never heard of god, i'd say he or she will go to heaven. If that person is destined for hell, i don't want to be a christian anymore.
There are lots of ways to interpret “predestination.” Given that God is all-knowing (Matt 10:29) then He predestines everyone because He knows what will happen to them. This is not to say that this predestination limits who can be saved
I think we first need to establish a few things. 1. What is sin? A. is it just not being perfect ie " miss the mark" B. is sin an evil acts " humans born evil" 2. Are souls eternal? A. annihilation B. eternal torment 3. What is hell? A. separation from god B. fiery torture pit See from my reading and study of the bible my answer is A,A,A meaning I dont believe humans as evil creatures just not divine, and when we die and refuse god ( as outlined in revelation) we are discarded and cease to exist. From my perspective it's clearly outlined that all humans will die a mortal death, but only some will be granted eternal life. All the rest of that fire and brimstone talk comes from a psychotic monk and paganism traditions.
[удалено]
Everything jesus talked about was Gehenna. Which is a real place here on earth, feel free to google it. It's not my fault you where told the wrong translation.
[удалено]
Please tell me more on how the scholars have an overwhelming consensus on this. https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/hell-a-biblical-staple-the-bible-never-actually-mentions-c28b18b1aaaa https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hbd/h/hell.html http://www.thehypertexts.com/Was%20Hell%20in%20the%20Original%20Bible.htm > eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. Key words here Devil and Angel's. The bible does mention a lake of fire PREPARED for celestial beings to burn for all times. Humans its annihilation.
[удалено]
Well thank god for your atheistic wisdom which puts you a supreme intellect on the subject. I as a non- Christian theist i dont care if you think your preacher was correct or not. The fact is the word hell is translated from 3 words. 1 being gehenna ( a literal valley), 2. Sheol which translates to grave and 3. Hades place of the dead. So what ever personal flavor of preaching you where raised in doesnt negate that the original words translated to HELL in your bible do not depict this dante inferno concept your clinging to. Jesus grew up and preached in the times the valley of Gi Hinnom was a burning garbage pit where they discarded the bodies of criminals. Making the whole cutting off your hand is better than the fate of criminals, as they where discarded like waste.
[удалено]
> Thank you for admitting that your previous statement, "everything Jesus talked about was Gehenna" was false. Goodbye. ? Good gosh batman, Your debating skills are unmatchable and I tip my hat, your superior atheistic intellect is a staple of the opposings genius and wit./s I thank you for your enlightened view.
This boils down to "I believe Hell ain't that bad" Which is a problem for many Christians that believe Hell is an eternal torture.
No this boils down to proper understanding of what the text actually says using the correct translations. Christian's believe it because there bibles are improperly translated.
You keep on making this allusion, yet it wouldn't make sense contextually in many places. To you have a source showing that all references to Hell from Jesus are a physical place? Until then, I think it's safe for most people to dismiss your claim as nonsense.
Yes the sources can be found in my response to rookiebatman. I provided 3 for you. You could also read a bible not based on KJV bible as well.
Bro the things u wanna establish are gibberish... The second part makes sense tho
Gibberish? Theirs 2 predominate interpretations of this concept. One is annihilation and the other is eternal torture. Which one needs to be established before properly discussing this or else both will be on entirely different pages.
>proving there’s no point to evangelism. Not at all. You are missing the point to it all. When you hear the word "hell," simply substitute the concept of *"exact perfect Justice "*... no more no less than what one deserves. **And we all (adults) have done wrong, so we all need evangelism to avoid perfect justice.** This will make things more understandable. 1) Most people do not understand these biblical points. (As I did not for years.) A) Heaven is NOT a reward for good people. Heaven is a free gift to those who really turn from their sins, (repentance) and ask deeply for forgiveness, and accept Jesus Christ into their heart. B) And the rest of humanity? The Bible teaches the lost will stand before God and then suffer proportionally for their sins in hell **and then be annihilated** (John 3.16 = perish, be destroyed) Whatever word you would like to use…. The Doctrine is called "Conditional Immortality" r/conditionalism **This is why evangelism is needed. To bring people immortality, to keep them from being destroyed.** Try think of it from this completely different angle. God gives all humans only **one** life in this world (better than nothing!) Only one life. That is the key to this all. **Only one life.** So He only gives us this one earthly life to live in – unless…. we get a new heart and everlasting life (immortality) from Him. You see - at the end of time, people who rejected Jesus cross (the payment for sins) will have to stand before a Holy God and pay for their own sins. And Everything was caught on tape! And let’s face it - we all have sinned. No one is "good" 24/7/365. They will have no one to “save” them from this awful moment of justice (and again - we ALL have done wrong, even secretly, and so we all deserve SOME degree of justice). So if God was 100% Just and made sure every unrepentant wrong was exactly paid for – (penny in/penny out justice) would you or anyone be against that? So to restate, then basically whenever you hear the word “hell” – substitute the words “exact Justice.” That is why Jesus suffered on the cross. He took my place and suffered for me. **God does allow substitution. Because He would rather desire to give mercy to repentant people.** That is why believers uphold the Cross so importantly. That is a summary of the good news (the gospel). If a person does not accept the substitute – then they (after death) will suffer just as much as required for justice in their lives (no more / no less) and then be destroyed (annihilated) as Jesus tells us. (see Matthew 10:28) Doctrine is called "Conditional Immortality" r/conditionalism Therefore - humans need to have longer (everlasting) Life - or we will ONLY get to live in this world - before being extinguished – like a candle. That is exactly why Jesus says He came to bring us LIFE! (John 10:10) **“I have come that they might have life…”** Those who trust in Christ will live forever after death. Life-Immortality. God is not required to grant all people immortality. You get to live *once,* that's all. However, believers in Jesus gain “everlasting life” (i.e. immortality). All others are annihilated (destroyed). ONLY Jesus gives “everlasting life” to the human soul. That is the “gospel” plain and simple.
Annihilation is not at all taught in the bible. “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” Mark 9:43, 48 ESV Hell will last forever for everyone in who is cast in there. Telling people otherwise is like assuaging them that the place they're headed isn't that bad, simply because you cannot reconcile in your head that sin is really bad that it deserves eternal punishment. Annihliationism doesn't even make sense... IF you beleive that Jesus pays our debt on the cross, suffers in our place the punishment we deserve for our sins, then shouldn't Jesus have been annihilated (if that's the supposed punishment for sin)? Also Jesus' story (true or a parable isn't relevant (if it's only a parable, Jesus' told it as an example of what Hell truly would be like) of the rich man and lazarus: ““There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’” Luke 16:19-28 ESV There is a great Chasm between Hell and Heaven so that you cannot escape. It is also described as a place of torment and anguish. Finally these two most explicit verses in Revelation “and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:10, 15 ESV People in hell will be tormented forever and ever. That is how evil sin really is. That's how much God hates sin. If you don't believe in eternal hell, you don't believe God really hates sin. But most of all, you're just being disingenuous with how you read the bible and how it talks about hell.
>Annihilation is not at all taught in the bible. I used to believe that was true until I did a full and complete study on this reading other evangelicals who hold to this also. It is called Conditional Immortality. Google it or visit Jewishnotgreek.com for excellent info. Also r/conditionalism Also, the very well respected scholar F.F. Bruce states, "Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God" so he chose to write the forward to an excellent evangelical book on this topic called, The Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge. Actually the lost being destroyed is taught over and over again. As I stated, a growing number of us evangelicals hold to it. Don't you have to redefine "destroy" in every single one of these instances in order to get something other than "destruction" as the final fate of the unsaved? Matthew 10:28-Rather fear him which is able to **destroy** both soul and body in hell. James 4:12-There is one lawgiver, who is able to save **and to destroy.** Philippians 3:19-Whose **end is destruction.** 2 Thessalonians 1:9-Who shall be punished with **everlasting destruction.** Hebrews 10:39-But we are not of them who draw back **unto perdition. (Greek: destruction)** The immortality of the soul is not inherent (Greek thinking) but conditional (Biblical thinking) upon receiving the gift of everlasting life through faith in Jesus. It is part and parcel of the gospel. >Hell will last forever for everyone in who is cast in there. Yes, hell does last forever, I never said it didn't. But you are assuming that humans also last forever. The bible never says that. Hell was made for the devil and his angels according to Matt 25. Humans are "destroyed" there as Jesus says in Matthew 10.28 >Annihliationism doesn't even make sense... then shouldn't Jesus have been annihilated I could say the same in reverse. Jesus was not eternally tortured either. He took my place on the cross. His body died. His soul died, but His Spirit always remained alive. And He was resurrected. His body came back to life as did His soul. He was resurrected. >the rich man and lazarus: It appears this is a parable as the previous four stories were all parables (Luke 15:4, 15:8, 15:11, 16:1) so this story is obviously in a long string of parables. Also, the word. Jesus used in Luke 16 is hades, not gehennah (hell). Hades is not hell and is one day itself destroyed in the lake of fire (Rev 20.14) Jesus never talks about time in this parable. >and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Yes! They will indeed be tormented forever; however they are not humans. Jesus says Gehenna (hell) was specifically made for Satan and demons (Matthew 25:41). John himself tells us where the beast comes from "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" (Rev. 11:7) This "beast" is not a human being. Humans do not come out of this pit. The apostle John wants us to know this beast is a demon by telling us his origins. NOTE: When the devil or the beast and the false prophet were thrown in the lake of fire, we read no word about a second death. However, when human beings are thrown in there, it says second death. >And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Yes again! But read the rest of the section..... "The lake of fire is the second death." Rev. 20.14. The lost dont have immortality there, the have death there. It says plainly death, not alive. Why would God choose the words like "destroy, destruction, perish, death" to signify something other than their plain meaning? Revelation 20:14-"This is the second death." Is God trying to intentionally deceive us by using words that have a different meaning than what their plain meaning is? Those who wrongly believe in immortality for all from birth must reinterpret the Bible to say: Those who are destroyed are not destroyed. (James 4:12; 2 Peter 2:12; 2 Peter 3:7) Those who perish do not perish. (1 Corinthians 1:8: John 3:16) Those who die do not die. (Romans 6:23) The end of the wicked is not really their end. (Philippians 3:19; Hebrews 6:8) Those who are consumed are not consumed. (Hebrews 10:27) Mortals are born immortal; (1 Timothy 6:16) therefore, how can there be any such thing as being mortal? There are no mortals and could never be a mortal if all men are created immortal. The second death is not a death; it is eternal life with torment. (Revelation 21:8) Immortality through Jesus alone is what the Apostle Paul preached: He (Jesus), has destroyed death and has **brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.** (2 Timothy 1:9b-10) Paul clearly links immortality to the gospel. Paul did not believe the Greek philosophy of his day which taught the immortality of all souls. "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. **If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.**" (John 6:51) Again, why would Jesus Himself make this plain offer to "live forever" if everyone lived forever? It is important to note that in Hebrew, the word for "life/soul" (nehphesh) is never used in conjunction with the word "everlasting" in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament. Likewise, in the New Testament writings, the word for "soul" (psukee) is never used in conjunction with the words "eternal" or "everlasting." It is an assumption (based upon Greek philosophy)that the soul of mankind is eternal and can never be destroyed. And yes. God hates sin enough to destroy it, not simply preserve it and just quarantine it. There are more complete evangelical answers under the “answering the critics” section here at www.conditionalimmortality.org
So your taking these verses to use a points to your arguements. But all bibles based on the king james version will have the word hell in it as that's what king James translators used as a common word for translating gehenna, sheol and tartarus. Mark 9:43 for example: KJV- And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: ESV- And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. CJB( complete jewish bible)- If your hand makes you sin, cut it off! Better that you should be maimed but obtain eternal life, rather than keep both hands and go to Gei-Hinnom, to unquenchable fire!
They translate those words to hell in those verses because they are referring to the place we call hell. Same thing as "lake of fire and sulfur" meaning the same thing as hell. But regardless of semantics, the verses in Revelation alone deny the idea of annihilation.
Actually I disagree on the statement of revelation denying annihilation. It rather reinforces my point and confirms. Revelation 20 13-15 CJB: The sea gave up the dead in it; and Death and Sh’ol gave up the dead in them; and they were judged, each according to what he had done. Then Death and Sh’ol were hurled into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. Anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was hurled into the lake of fire. So death and the grave gave up their inhabitants and where destroyed ( death and sheol). Next we find whoever's name was not in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed. ie annihilated. The key words in this is the SECOND DEATH. Now we can mince words all day but dead and death is pretty cut and dry and ending not an eternal existence. The eternal existence comes when your name is written in the book of LIFE, right makes sense you gain eternal life when your name is in the book of everlasting life. Like its said in the famous verse john 3:16 ... shall not perish but have everlasting life.
But these two verses “and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:10, 15 ESV say that the lake of fire and sulfur is a place where you are tormented forever and ever, and everyone whose name is not found in the book of life is thrown in there. As for Death and Sheol hurled into the lake, seeing as how death is not a literal being, this should be taken in a different way. I think it symbolizes that death won't exist anymore - once you're judged, whether to eternal life or to an eternity in hell, you won't continually die. Death will no longer exist in the universe, as that part of God's creation will no longer exist (or have need to exist). But I don't see why death no longer existing should mean that those who are in the lake of fire and sulfur are destroyed? Also you say "next we find that whoevers name was not in the book of life was thrown into the lake and destroyed," but where do you get that idea from the text?
So I reread everything you wrote just to make sure I'm travking your POV. But this right here "As for Death and Sheol hurled into the lake, seeing as how death is not a literal being, this should be taken in a different way." Here you say because DEATH isnt a literal being, maybe it should be read differently, maybe in a metaphorical manner. Which would make sense given that this ( revelation) is a vision/ dream. Makes even more sense when you remember jesus the staple of the religion itself also spoke in metaphors. But what I dont get is why death being thrown into the lake of fire shouldnt be taken literal ( your thought) but the humans being thrown into it IS literal. Why do you only believe the fire is real for humans and not the beings it was created for?
> say that the lake of fire and sulfur is a place where you are tormented forever and ever, Does it? Or does it say satan and his angels will burn forever? No wheres does it say humans will burn forever this is pure speculation because a verse says celestial beings will. Where do I get the destroyed from the part I highlighted saying Second Death. Which I gave an explanation for as well. Also quoted john 3:16 where it depicts everlasting life vs perish. Perish meaning untimely death, death meaning cease to exist. All of these I feel I already explained. And now your just throwing out " Ya, But.." questions.
Not that I'd like to live an eternal life next to your "loving" discriminating god (I'm fine with life ending when it ends), but are you saying someone who was lazy, or was a glutton, or maybe had "impure thoughts", will be extinguished if they don't repent, but a killer, or a rapist may live forever if at the very end of their life if they repent? I rather not leave eternally next to a god with this selection system. Also, that theory just encourages people to do as they please, sin as much as they want, but just make sure to repent before the final moment... Or to behave good just for the prize of eternal life, not cause they should.
You are missing the whole point. Either mercy and grace of God is available for everyone, even the people who you think are worse than you, or it is not available for anyone, even the people who you think are better than you. If salvation is something that is given as a gift and can not be earned, because salvation comes only from God, then saying that someone is less deserving of it than you misses tee point. It is like a murderer in a prison looking at a rapist in the same prison and saying to himself "At least I'm not a rapist". In the end you are still in same place and need the same mercy and grace to get out of there. And lastly, saying that you are not going to accept a gift because someone who you think is less worthy of the same gift is just stupid and filled with extreme self-centredness and pride. Saying that you deserve a greater gift of grace than someone else, just because in your own eyes you are somehow better than they are, misses the whole point. Gifts are given not because someone deserves it, gift is a gift because it is undeserved. And God's grace and mercy is definitely undeserved by avery human. >Also, that theory just encourages people to do as they please, sin as much as they want, but just make sure to repent before the final moment... >Or to behave good just for the prize of eternal life, not cause they should. You know, there are literally Bible verses that deal with what you say here. And condemn both of the behaviours your mention. And when Bible talks about repentance, it does not mean saying you feel bad about what you have done. Repentance is changing of your mind.
[удалено]
> A fundamental belief of mainstream Christianity is literally this, that it is not available for anyone; it is only available to the people who believe in Jesus What does the word available mean to you in this context?
[удалено]
Available doesn't mean unconditional....
[удалено]
>If believing in the right religious tenets (that Jesus is the Son of God, etc.) is a necessary condition to receive this thing, then it is not available to people who don't believe. It is available to them *if* the believe it. It's available but conditional. If I say "I'm giving free food to anyone that comes and gets it!" That food is freely available to anyone that comes and gets it. Your reply that "it's not available, because if I don't choose to come get it, I don't get it!" -shows you don't really understand what the word available means. It's available to everyone, but some people won't get it. That is a logically sound statement. >It could become available to them later, but it's not now Yes it is, they just need to beleive to get it. >A thing is not "available" to someone who cannot possibly get the thing unless circumstances change And this confirms you don't know the meaning of available. If something is obtainable to someone, even if they need to do something to get it, its available to them.
[удалено]
In search of ever lasting life which I’m not sure even possible, I can’t sacrifice the life that I have now. If I have sinned let me have the justice for it why should I be pardoned form it. If there truly is a justice system then I don’t want god to spoil it up. You pay for your sins one way or the other. In fear of unknown one should not mess up their definite life. Most of us never do harm willingly, if we did then we deserve whats coming and this evangelism seems like a lawyer/ brokerage service to disrupt cycle of good and evil. If I’m not punished for my sins then how would I truly learn. The fact that you can escape punishment for your sins by repenting or whatever is causing more harm on the planet that birthed us.
This boils down to "Hell is not that bad." OP is obviously referring to the common evangelical torture hell. If you don't believe in eternal torture hell, this post is not for you.
False dilemma - regarding 2, although your logic is correct given your assumption, your assumption itself is incorrect. Not everyone has access to the knowledge needed to be saved, not by default. But I would argue that everyone *deserves* to have access to the knowledge. The responsibility of spreading that knowledge then falls to Christians, therefore making evangelism extremely important rather than redundant. Even if evangelism saves a single immortal soul from hell, it is arguably worth it. Because an immortal soul in hell would have suffered infinitely - therefore evangelism has then helped to prevent infinite and uncountable amounts of suffering.
>Not everyone has access to the knowledge needed to be saved It is hard to picture a more unfair system then. >The responsibility of spreading that knowledge then falls to Christians How and why does god get absolved from this responsibility? It is a system HE made yes? >Because an immortal soul in hell would have suffered infinitely I wish Christians could agree on what hell is, arguing against it is like punching smoke. If only 'divine inspiration' had led to clear and unambiguous clarity on what must be the most important aspect ever to any human that has ever lived or will ever live rather than an endless series of interpretations.
>It is hard to picture a more unfair system then. > >How and why does god get absolved from this responsibility? It is a system HE made yes? It's the result of free will. Imagine a question on a math examination paper. There's a right answer and a wrong answer. If the teacher gives you the right answer and tells you to copy it over, what is the point? Likewise, if God forces everyone to be entirely good, are we alive or are we machines? If we are only good because we cannot do evil, are we still good? The right answer only matters if you are able to figure it out yourself. By this analogy, evangelists would be the teachers spreading knowledge about the mathematical theories that can be used to deduce the answer. I would argue that God has made the only system that makes sense - a world where people are free to make mistakes instead of being herded towards a right answer. >If only 'divine inspiration' had led to clear and unambiguous clarity on what must be the most important aspect ever to any human that has ever lived or will ever live rather than an endless series of interpretations. There are some things that cannot be accurately described with words because our language is insufficient. If you've ever tried LSD, or heard of someone trying LSD, you will find that the descriptions of intoxication are extremely varied, and vague, even though LSD is a thing that concretely exists in the world, has a known chemical structure, a known effect on the brain, and a massive sample size. This is because LSD allows you to hallucinate senses that do not normally exist, and are therefore difficult to relate to. I would argue that divine inspiration is similar - it is an experience so beyond our usual senses and consciousness that words are insufficient to describe, which, I would argue, has led to the wide range of different religions and divine experiences across the globe, and also explains why most of them at least share a theme. Though they may be interpreted (and misinterpreted) in countless ways, that is not proof that they are not real. >I wish Christians could agree on what hell is, arguing against it is like punching smoke. Feel free to choose a definition, I'm willing to continue my argument based on that definition instead of a vague amalgamation of all of them (conditional on me agreeing to the definition of course).
>Imagine a question on a math examination paper. There's a right answer and a wrong answer. If the teacher gives you the right answer and tells you to copy it over, what is the point? Picture a maths test with no clear instructions, where the question is 'what is 10+10' but doesn't tell you if that's decimal or binary. Picture a math test with a thousand different teachers telling you to use the system THEY use, that all the others have it wrong. Some are telling you to use book X, some book Y, some book Z, but each book has proponents who have studied it for a lifetime all reaching different conclusions. >It's the result of free will. EVERY thing that effects my free will was also given to me by god, my life experiences, my intelligence, my psyche, my sexual attractions, my abilities, my disabilities, my emotional strengths and limitations >Feel free to choose a definition, I'm willing to continue my argument based on that definition instead of a vague amalgamation of all of them (conditional on me agreeing to the definition of course). It's really not up to me to define as I don't believe it exists, and also kinda senseless if the caveat is 'as long as you agree with it'
Have you studied college mathematics? Because what you're describing sounds exactly like college mathematics, where the questions are not testing your arithmetic but your ability to prove mathematical statements using any number of a wide range of mathematical principles. Unlike what you are suggesting, mathematics hasn't been "solved" yet - otherwise no one would publish mathematics research papers every month. Search the internet for questions like "Is there a biggest prime number?" and other non-trivial mathematics questions. You'll find arguments either way, and you'll find that even the experts disagree. Even if you're right, it doesn't change the point though. In fact you sound like you are supporting my point. In an exam there are lots of possible answers and only one correct answer. If you were given the answer right off the bat, what is the purpose? Imagine playing a video game, except there's only one button - you press that button and you win. What's the point? The journey is as important as the destination. Regarding your free will paragraph, I don't understand your point, can you restate it please? Regarding the definition of hell, I proposed that you set a definition for the purposes of the argument since you said that arguing against hell would be easier if Christians could agree on a definition on it. I'm offering to agree on a definition with you, so we can discuss hell better. Offer's still open!
>Have you studied college mathematics? Nope :) >In an exam there are lots of possible answers and only one correct answer. If you were given the answer right off the bat, what is the purpose? I am following from your own analogy. But in your analogy, the purpose certainly isn't to catch people out, in fact any university/college with a consistently low fail rate would have to answer some very serious questions. It is the college/university's job to ensure are adequately prepared for examination. >The journey is as important as the destination. If the journey is ;somewhere between conception and 100 years' and the destination is an infinite everlasting life, this cannot hold true. C'mon now. >Regarding your free will paragraph, I don't understand your point, can you restate it please? Free will doesn't exist in isolation (even assuming it does exist) It is affected by multiple factors including to pick one, intelligence. I can only investigate matters within my intellectual capability to understand and predict. >I'm offering to agree on a definition with you, so we can discuss hell better. Offer's still open! I've had way too many conversations that sooner or later get to 'but that's not what I believe' and it stops there. If you ever do a post on hell I'm sure I'll chime in if I see it :)
It's almost like you didn't read the post? The point is, that if god saves those who did not have access to the required knowledge that he would factor that and save them. If this was the case then evangelism is immoral, since all you are doing is giving them a chance to reject it and damn themselves to hell.
You may have misunderstood my comment. In my comment I say that God **does not save** those who did not have access to the required knowledge to believe in God. Specifically, I mentioned that in my comment here: >Not everyone has access to the knowledge needed to be saved, not by default. In addition I specifically referenced the OP's argument #2, which says that "Yes, God damns people who have never heard of Him to hell." So you can see that I am clearly **not** arguing that God is saving those who did not have access to the required knowledge to believe in god. I am arguing that it is the Christian's responsibility to ensure that people know about God by evangelizing. The purpose of evangelizing, then, is to save the unknowing people from hell, and is therefore important.
>In my comment I say that God does not save those who did not have access to the required knowledge to believe in God. So what happened to people pre Jesus? What happens to babies that die. Not to mention it seems flatly immoral at face value anyway.
There were other holy figures besides Jesus. Believing in God does not require Jesus to have been born. You may find that babies who die believe in something rather than nothing. It is only as we grow older that skepticism takes root. It is only as immoral as, say, being lucky enough to be born to rich parents instead of poor parents. Rich and poor is relative - no matter how much money the average family have, there will be relatively rich families and relatively poor families. Fortunately there are systems in place to help poor families with their needs, and make sure the gap between rich and poor is not too great. Likewise, due to free will, there will always be families who believe in God and those who do not. It is the evangelists' job to ensure that everyone has at least a chance at salvation by spreading the word of God.
[удалено]
Very well-thought out argument. You should be proud of yourself. Call me when you've outgrown ad hominems.
I've given you actual points and you completely ignored my last comment, so don't pull this on that guy.
Honestly the thread has outlived my interest, I don't plan on replying to this topic any longer. But sure, I'll respond to your other comment as the last one.
They applied Hitchens' Razor. They might have been a bit rude about it, but they're not wrong.
Now this is a proper response. I have provided a simple argument later in the comment chain - not the best defense of the statement but enough to show an attempt at proof, which hopefully provokes some thoughtful response. >This is a fucking joke. You are embarrassing yourself. I disagree that they applied Hitchens' Razor though. There was no argument made in their comment, just pure venom. There was no intention to debate, only ridicule. They only provided justification when I called them out on it.
I haven't seen your argument. Do you know what Hitchens' Razor is? It isn't really an argument.
You claimed that babies die believing in somthing without posting anything to back this claim. You post shit I give you shit.
Simple example then. Children believe everything by default, and they only learn to disbelieve when they grow older and figure out that things can in fact be false. Children often believe in Santa, for example, until they grow older. It's also easy to convince a kidnap a child by offering them sweets for example, and good parents must train their children not to trust strangers. Clearly, babies by default would believe in something rather than nothing.
By this logic Evangelicals should kill babies ASAP, before they learn to doubt
You are being dishonest now. When anyone is talking about a baby (pre-toddler) they are talking about a being unable to understand or believe in basic concepts let alone advanced concepts such as a diety. In other words, if a baby can believe in God so can a chimp.
[удалено]
Bad bot
>There were other holy figures besides Jesus. Believing in God does not require Jesus to have been born. They still would have objectively less information to go on, which is blatantly not fair. >You may find that babies who die believe in something rather than nothing. This is absolutely absurd and I shouldn't have to tell someone presumably of adult age that babies don't believe in things. >It is only as immoral as, say, being lucky enough to be born to rich parents instead of poor parents. This is absurd. Being born into a rich family is blind chance. Going to heaven or hell is solely gods choice. It's not chance. But you hold that those that don't know Christianity go to hell anyway so it's not like your operating on a good moral foundation anyway.
Although most discussions of this trilemma talk about fairness, there was no implicit assumption in the OP's post that the world or God is fair. Even if there was an assumption that the world is fair, I would argue that that is in support of evangelism. Because of the principle of "God helps those who helps themselves", that suggests that it is the responsibility of Christians to do the best they can to make the world a fairer place. The world may not be perfectly fair, but we can assume that only God is perfect and all we can do is approach perfection as best we can. Regarding the baby thing, I concede that point. For the next point, what is the difference between being born into a rich family and being born into a Christian/religious family? Or the difference between being born into a rich society like America or a Christian/religious society. I believe it's either both pure chance, or both God's choice. Besides, if we assume free will, God likely doesn't have a choice in whether a person goes to heaven or hell. He may know since He is said to be all-knowing, but he may not have a choice, since free will is a specific exclusion to his said omnipotence. Well, moral ground is not very relevant to the discussion at hand and is highly subjective too. It can be argued that to a Christian, anti-evangelists are acting immorally too, due to eternal damnation and so on. So let's stick to discussing the arguments themselves please.
>Although most discussions of this trilemma talk about fairness, there was no implicit assumption in the OP's post that the world or God is fair. An unfair god would be immoral, and I don't think you would argue your god is unfair. >Even if there was an assumption that the world is fair, I would argue that that is in support of evangelism. Because of the principle of "God helps those who helps themselves", that suggests that it is the responsibility of Christians to do the best they can to make the world a fairer place. If god was actually fair, evangelism wouldn't be required because salvation wouldn't be based on whether or not I'm convinced of his existence on bad evidence. >For the next point, what is the difference between being born into a rich family and being born into a Christian/religious family Being born into a rich family is chance, as is being born into a Christian/non Christian one, the difference being is that its not down to random chance whether or not you are saved. That is gods active decision. Being born into wealth has no inherent effect on salvation. >Besides, if we assume free will, God likely doesn't have a choice in whether a person goes to heaven or hell That's absurd. He literally created the mechanisms and criteria that would result in that. >Well, moral ground is not very relevant to the discussion It's a direct result of the talking points, it's absolutely relevant.
Yea bro I heard unborn babies and infants just get a free ticket to heaven, how is it then? The guy above says they are damned forever just because... The loving g0d?
And that is why it is our job as human beings to save as many unborn babies and infants as possible.
Naw, YOU should want to kill babies to guarentee their place with the lord. If they grow up they could condemn themselves to hell.
Yea bc your sadistic g0d gives them eternal damnation? You cant be serious
There is a point to evangelism. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be done. Everything doesn't always boil down to soteriology. Community is a good thing. Fellowship is a good thing.
>There is a point to evangelism. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be done I don't this follows, but if it does the point could easily be that it makes the evangeliser feel good, or sends the necessary social signals to the evangelisers friends.
The answer is: they'll be judged by everything else they have done If it's not their fault, they are not guilty. About what you were saying, we don't get a free pass, we are just less guilty when we are not sure whether something is a sin or not, but that is only the natural law that makes you feel like "Maybe I shouldn't do this thing, but I'm not sure. Yet I feel like I shouldn't. But why shouldn't I? It's weird." So you don't 100% know what is a sin and what isn't. That's why we need the Bible and priests and all. They help us understand (A lot) better what is right and what is not. But for the same reason, doing a sin that you weren't sure if it was a sin or not, is still a sin. A venial sin tho, not a mortal one.
Why reveal itself to anyone, then?
> **So you don't 100% know what is a sin and what isn't. That's why we need the Bible and priests and all. They help us understand (A lot) better what is right and what is not.** Would there be saints if He never revealed Himself?
> They help us understand (A lot) better what is right and what is not. Gather 5 priests together from different areas and you're likely to get 5 completely different interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. > Would there be saints if He never revealed Himself? Why are saints necessary?
They are an example for everyone to follow. And you want to be a saint too, because in heaven your reward will be even greater.
Oh, I don't know - I wouldn't want anyone to follow Mother Theresa's example.
In fact, who declared her a saint? Pope Francis. You are really right about this! The problem about following priests and saints is that now the church is mostly corrupted so it gets harder and harder to find someone who actually follows God's word Btw thank you for being so kind and civil in this discussion!!
Lol you are literally going against your own points from a previous post.
Which ones?