Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

Let’s not forget the key point. Love is tied to forgiveness of one who is sorry for their wrong doing. If one isn’t sorry, then forgiveness isn’t given.

Was Jesus’ command, “Love those who have asked your forgiveness” or was it “Love your enemy”?

How commonly might one consider another to be an enemy if he/she has begged for pardon? Additionally, was Jesus concerned about the sincerity of the apology?

God has already, and continues to show, his unbelievably great love for all of creation. That doesn’t mean He takes away consequences in this life, or that consequences mean a lack of love on His part. Same with the next life… I see this life as one big test of free will.

“Today I put before you life and death blessings and curses…choose life”

Every decision we make has this quality to it. We really can choose which to take each and every decision we make. God has His own desire for us, but He also gave us free will. It’s in the end what makes us culpable for what we do. Without it we’re not guilty of anything, and responsible for nothing. God didn’t incarnate, live in this life, then die for a creation that has no free will.

I would suggest, if you as a parent just let your children run wild, with no guidance and punishments along the way, that is not loving them at all.

Fair enough.

All things being considered there, if both child and abductor died in their present state, and the child went to heaven for all eternity and the abductor went to hell for all eternity, how would you judge that scenerio? Is it just? Is it fair?

No.

When one considers what heaven is, is there room for reprobates i.e. ones who have done terrible wrongs and aren’t sorry for any of it, next to saints? In my view, that wouldn’t be heaven.

Might you find it strange if I were to conclude that that would be Heaven in its fullest sense? May I clarify before aspersions are cast my way?

When might one consider that they are closest to Heaven while here on Earth? Could it not be suggested that they reach this state most often when they are fully offering themselves to another in as selfless a manner as possible–either through time, effort, or material means?

Now consider the reality of Heaven for a moment. Might one go therein who still may harbor enmity with another? Might they be able to be at peace while still feeling such hatred?

If not, might it be considered that all in Heaven are truly, truly at peace with their former enemies? If so, who among them would be pleased to imagine said enemy in Hell? If none would be pleased by this prospect, why would they not offer to sponsor the villain themselves in a perfect act of loving charity? Would Heaven not resonate more truly if its full purpose were selfless to the end?

Consider more carefully still. Is not one’s time on Earth spent cultivating such virtues as would make the above scenario plausible? Patience, selflessness, kindness, and love must surely have little impact when lavished upon a god who requires nothing, but used towards one’s former enemies might they not have true and profound effect? Would this not necessarily bring about decided and purposeful interactions in an infinite afterworld in which the purpose may be to cultivate ever stronger relationships among one another? Ties of charity and love?

Would this not help to explain Jesus’ teachings that the last may be first and the first last? His explanations regarding the good shepherd? His comments on how we are to serve one another? How one is to love their enemies? How one is to turn the other cheek? Why Jesus naturally gravitated towards sinners?

…and yet it is such a pity that it is likely not true.

 

[SonCatcher]

I mean no offense, but is it better then to imagine him a murderer?

All life belongs to God. Therefore, if He ends it, it has come to the conclusion He has determined.

Is “Do my will or die!” necessarily better than “You are not doing my will when you kill children, as I shall clearly demonstrate…”?

We don’t have access to the full dealings of that time, only the commands given to the Jews. Those peoples may well have had ample warning as Nineveh had when Jonah preached through their streets and the entire city repented.

 

[SonCatcher]

Might you find it strange if I were to conclude that that would be Heaven in its fullest sense? May I clarify before aspersions are cast my way?

When might one consider that they are closest to Heaven while here on Earth? Could it not be suggested that they reach this state most often when they are fully offering themselves to another in as selfless a manner as possible–either through time, effort, or material means?

Now consider the reality of Heaven for a moment. Might one go therein who still may harbor enmity with another? Might they be able to be at peace while still feeling such hatred?

If not, might it be considered that all in Heaven are truly, truly at peace with their former enemies? If so, who among them would be pleased to imagine said enemy in Hell? If none would be pleased by this prospect, why would they not offer to sponsor the villain themselves in a perfect act of loving charity? Would Heaven not resonate more truly if its full purpose were selfless to the end?

Consider more carefully still. Is not one’s time on Earth spent cultivating such virtues as would make the above scenario plausible? Patience, selflessness, kindness, and love must surely have little impact when lavished upon a god who requires nothing, but used towards one’s former enemies might they not have true and profound effect? Would this not necessarily bring about decided and purposeful interactions in an infinite afterworld in which the purpose may be to cultivate ever stronger relationships among one another? Ties of charity and love?

Would this not help to explain Jesus’ teachings that the last may be first and the first last? His explanations regarding the good shepherd? His comments on how we are to serve one another? How one is to love their enemies? How one is to turn the other cheek? Why Jesus naturally gravitated towards sinners?

…and yet it is such a pity that it is likely not true.

An interesting picture.

No one in Heaven desires for anyone to be in Hell and I am sure your supposition is correct that if a person in Heaven could do something to help a soul escape Hell, he most certainly would. However, there is another side to the coin.

How would the soul in Hell respond to such an offer? That one sees an enemy extending a hand while still harboring hatred (which those in Hell are certainly not free of). It does not seem a harbinger of success to me.

BTW - it would be more correct to say that sinners naturally gravitated toward Jesus than the reverse.

 

[steve_b]

You have certainly put some real effort into these answers and for that I thank you.

Here are some considerations:

If the Bible is a combination of truths, half-truths, and outright misrepresentations (however accidentally), why is God so unconcerned with it standing as a reference to his commands?

I don’t agree with your “if”. So the conclusion I disagree with also.
J:

A child’s picture of his family might be inaccurate, but still acceptable to the parent; however, would said parent place it in the family album instead of a more accurate photograph?

I think you’re still refering back to the “if” which I didn’t agree with. So any conclusion from that I wouldn’t agree with either.
J:

Alternately, would a parent provide a child’s self-portrait to the police should the child go missing in order that he be found? What parent might be so unconcerned as to the safety of his child that he might choose to use the child’s own substitute for reality to stand as a means of bringing him safely home?

Sorry, I’m not following. In the original example, neither the child nor the parent are guilty as I can see of anything. The abductor was the predator. And predators can be extremely good at what they do.
J:

Further, considering the different stages available in spiritual development, what dedicated teacher might assemble in a class all his/her students and then allow them to muddle through their lessons without providing clear direction in areas of confusion, but instead allowing each to argue with one another over the rightness or wrongness of their interpretation of said teacher’s vaguely written outline? What teacher would do so knowing that the graduate students were approaching their year-end finals and that their understanding of the information would be paramount to their looming success or failure? Would a graduate of this class be correct in assuming that this teacher was as deeply interested in his future as was suggested in the lesson outline?

Not all teachers are the same level of competence…agreed? But to the issue of scripture, which you brought up, those books were written in, by and for the Catholic Church. The writers of those texts wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So bottomline, the reason we have confidence in the scriptures is because we believe and have confidence in the Catholic Church which gave us those scriptures. So the Church therefore also gives clear direction, and interpretation to the faith based on Tradition handed on to her and the scriptures, her book. All the materials for the faith, are extremely easy to access. It’s never been in all of history easier to access that information than it is today. From any computer with internet access, one can access everything. I remember my college days. Nobody had computers back then. You had to go to the library and do things the old fashioned way, you had to go through the stacks of books, maybe over multiple floors, pour through book after book hoping to find what you needed. What a giant pain… just being transparent
J:

Finally, if one were to occupy a position of authority, such as the top general in an army, would one allow any given instructions to subordinates to be open to broad interpretation? Particularly if one were responsible for the outcomes and the fate of many followers might hang in the balance?

In the secular realm as In the spiritual realm, you’re correct. However, in the spiritual realm, it calls for a little more patience as well. iow, work with a teacher to see if they can be changed before lowering the boom if change doesn’t happen.
J:

Is one to consider that God is sloppy? Disinterested? Preoccupied? Naive? Or just not a very good communicator?

I’d say, It’s a good thing He’s patient and isn’t so quick to pull the trigger.
J:

Would he not seemingly make a challenging husband?

Considering the Church is His bride, and we are His children, I agree, God is a challenger, and He challenges us constantly.
J:

Thank you so much for your patient efforts.

:tiphat: no problem

 

[steve_b]

Was Jesus’ command, “Love those who have asked your forgiveness” or was it “Love your enemy”?

How commonly might one consider another to be an enemy if he/she has begged for pardon? Additionally, was Jesus concerned about the sincerity of the apology?

Fair enough.

No.

Might you find it strange if I were to conclude that that would be Heaven in its fullest sense? May I clarify before aspersions are cast my way?

When might one consider that they are closest to Heaven while here on Earth? Could it not be suggested that they reach this state most often when they are fully offering themselves to another in as selfless a manner as possible–either through time, effort, or material means?

Now consider the reality of Heaven for a moment. Might one go therein who still may harbor enmity with another? Might they be able to be at peace while still feeling such hatred?

If not, might it be considered that all in Heaven are truly, truly at peace with their former enemies? If so, who among them would be pleased to imagine said enemy in Hell? If none would be pleased by this prospect, why would they not offer to sponsor the villain themselves in a perfect act of loving charity? Would Heaven not resonate more truly if its full purpose were selfless to the end?

Consider more carefully still. Is not one’s time on Earth spent cultivating such virtues as would make the above scenario plausible? Patience, selflessness, kindness, and love must surely have little impact when lavished upon a god who requires nothing, but used towards one’s former enemies might they not have true and profound effect? Would this not necessarily bring about decided and purposeful interactions in an infinite afterworld in which the purpose may be to cultivate ever stronger relationships among one another? Ties of charity and love?

Would this not help to explain Jesus’ teachings that the last may be first and the first last? His explanations regarding the good shepherd? His comments on how we are to serve one another? How one is to love their enemies? How one is to turn the other cheek? Why Jesus naturally gravitated towards sinners?

…and yet it is such a pity that it is likely not true.

The one who breaks the commandments of God, isn’t sorry for what they’ve done, and dies in that state, is by definition absent of grace and love. Therefore, they aren’t equipped to be in heaven, a place where grace and love reigns.

The one who makes heaven available, told us what is required of us to be there for all eternity.

 

[minkymurph]

You have certainly put some real effort into these answers and for that I thank you.

Here are some considerations:

If the Bible is a combination of truths, half-truths, and outright misrepresentations (however accidentally), why is God so unconcerned with it standing as a reference to his commands?

A child’s picture of his family might be inaccurate, but still acceptable to the parent; however, would said parent place it in the family album instead of a more accurate photograph?

Alternately, would a parent provide a child’s self-portrait to the police should the child go missing in order that he be found? What parent might be so unconcerned as to the safety of his child that he might choose to use the child’s own substitute for reality to stand as a means of bringing him safely home?

Further, considering the different stages available in spiritual development, what dedicated teacher might assemble in a class all his/her students and then allow them to muddle through their lessons without providing clear direction in areas of confusion, but instead allowing each to argue with one another over the rightness or wrongness of their interpretation of said teacher’s vaguely written outline? What teacher would do so knowing that the graduate students were approaching their year-end finals and that their understanding of the information would be paramount to their looming success or failure? Would a graduate of this class be correct in assuming that this teacher was as deeply interested in his future as was suggested in the lesson outline?

Finally, if one were to occupy a position of authority, such as the top general in an army, would one allow any given instructions to subordinates to be open to broad interpretation? Particularly if one were responsible for the outcomes and the fate of many followers might hang in the balance?

Is one to consider that God is sloppy? Disinterested? Preoccupied? Naive? Or just not a very good communicator?

Would he not seemingly make a challenging husband?

Thank you so much for your patient efforts.

Is this a response to my posts, or the poster above?

 

[jmvizanko]

The term “implausible” seems to me a synonym for “misunderstood”.

How does thinking something is unlikely equate to not understanding it? Once again, you are just too confident in your own belief to accept that fact that somebody could look at it from the outside, understand at at least a basic level, and find it implausible.

I never inferred such a thing. Those who never heard the Gospel are certainly accountable to their own beliefs insofar as those are compatible with the Gospel.

So if say an Eskimo’s beliefs, the only beliefs they have ever known existed, didn’t match up with your beliefs, God is just going to send them to hell, even if they were a good person?

We’re not talking about Earth, here. However, the Christian does indeed have potential for higher reward and for greater punishment.

How is it fair that the Christian has a potential for higher reward, when he arbitrarily had the chance to believe in Christianity while the “Eskimo” arbitrarily did not?

 

[SonCatcher]

How does thinking something is unlikely equate to not understanding it? Once again, you are just too confident in your own belief to accept that fact that somebody could look at it from the outside, understand at at least a basic level, and find it implausible.

How is a basic understanding of anything adequate? By definition, a basic understanding lacks deep understanding.

So if say an Eskimo’s beliefs, the only beliefs they have ever known existed, didn’t match up with your beliefs, God is just going to send them to hell, even if they were a good person?

If the Eskimo were a “good person” then he may well have had some principles he lived by which are compatible with the Gospel. E.g. the Golden Rule (variants of which exist in multiple religions, philosophies, etc.). It is on these he is judged.

How is it fair that the Christian has a potential for higher reward, when he arbitrarily had the chance to believe in Christianity while the “Eskimo” arbitrarily did not?

It isn’t fair that anyone should get into Heaven at all, so this issue is rather moot.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Is this a response to my posts, or the poster above?

I apologize for the confusion. Yes it was in response to your post, although it did generate some interesting insights from Steve as well so some positives did result from the error. If you do not mind I will now re-post it to you properly so as to have your response as well.

@minkymurph:

You have certainly put some real effort into these answers and for that I thank you.

Here are some considerations:

If the Bible is a combination of truths, half-truths, and outright misrepresentations (however accidentally), why is God so unconcerned with it standing as a reference to his commands?

A child’s picture of his family might be inaccurate, but still acceptable to the parent; however, would said parent place it in the family album instead of a more accurate photograph?

Alternately, would a parent provide a child’s self-portrait to the police should the child go missing in order that he be found? What parent might be so unconcerned as to the safety of his child that he might choose to use the child’s own substitute for reality to stand as a means of bringing him safely home?

Further, considering the different stages available in spiritual development, what dedicated teacher might assemble in a class all his/her students and then allow them to muddle through their lessons without providing clear direction in areas of confusion, but instead allowing each to argue with one another over the rightness or wrongness of their interpretation of said teacher’s vaguely written outline? What teacher would do so knowing that the graduate students were approaching their year-end finals and that their understanding of the information would be paramount to their looming success or failure? Would a graduate of this class be correct in assuming that this teacher was as deeply interested in his future as was suggested in the lesson outline?

Finally, if one were to occupy a position of authority, such as the top general in an army, would one allow any given instructions to subordinates to be open to broad interpretation? Particularly if one were responsible for the outcomes and the fate of many followers might hang in the balance?

Is one to consider that God is sloppy? Disinterested? Preoccupied? Naive? Or just not a very good communicator?

Would he not seemingly make a challenging husband?

Thank you so much for your patient efforts.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

All life belongs to God. Therefore, if He ends it, it has come to the conclusion He has determined.

Might this not suggest that his true and abiding love might not actually be all that true and abiding, but instead more conditional and whimsical?

We don’t have access to the full dealings of that time, only the commands given to the Jews. Those peoples may well have had ample warning as Nineveh had when Jonah preached through their streets and the entire city repented.

Would one not have considered their failure to heed warnings to be instructive in this matter? Would it not have been important to have made that point, if indeed a point it was?

But supposing that these warnings might have been offered, what percentage of the population would have been required to heed them before God changed his mind about having them put to the sword?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

An interesting picture.

No one in Heaven desires for anyone to be in Hell and I am sure your supposition is correct that if a person in Heaven could do something to help a soul escape Hell, he most certainly would. However, there is another side to the coin.

How would the soul in Hell respond to such an offer? That one sees an enemy extending a hand while still harboring hatred (which those in Hell are certainly not free of). It does not seem a harbinger of success to me.

Perhaps not, but how long might one remain apart from Heaven before the awareness strike them that harboring anger and hatred is a futile endeavor? Accepting that it might be different periods for different individuals, would it be erroneous to assume that over the course of infinity it would be a certainty to occur in the vast majority (if not all) at some point?

BTW - it would be more correct to say that sinners naturally gravitated toward Jesus than the reverse.

OK

 

[SonCatcher]

Might this not suggest that his true and abiding love might not actually be all that true and abiding, but instead more conditional and whimsical?

Not at all. Life deteriorates in our fallen world. Death is a kind of grace in that regard. Can you imagine growing up in 18 years, living productively for the next 45 or so and then being in a nursing home for the rest of time?

Would one not have considered their failure to heed warnings to be instructive in this matter? Would it not have been important to have made that point, if indeed a point it was?

But supposing that these warnings might have been offered, what percentage of the population would have been required to heed them before God changed his mind about having them put to the sword?

In a discussion with Abraham, God agreed to spare the entire city of Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous people. I’m guessing that was a fairly small percentage.

 

[SonCatcher]

Perhaps not, but how long might one remain apart from Heaven before the awareness strike them that harboring anger and hatred is a futile endeavor? Accepting that it might be different periods for different individuals, would it be erroneous to assume that over the course of infinity it would be a certainty to occur in the vast majority (if not all) at some point?

That supposition is not compatible with Christian doctrine. :sad_yes:

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sorry for the confusion caused by my mis-posting. Still, it did bring up something which I found interesting below.

Not all teachers are the same level of competence…agreed? But to the issue of scripture, which you brought up, those books were written in, by and for the Catholic Church. The writers of those texts wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So bottomline, the reason we have confidence in the scriptures is because we believe and have confidence in the Catholic Church which gave us those scriptures. So the Church therefore also gives clear direction, and interpretation to the faith based on Tradition handed on to her and the scriptures, her book. All the materials for the faith, are extremely easy to access. It’s never been in all of history easier to access that information than it is today. From any computer with internet access, one can access everything. I remember my college days. Nobody had computers back then. You had to go to the library and do things the old fashioned way, you had to go through the stacks of books, maybe over multiple floors, pour through book after book hoping to find what you needed. What a giant pain… just being transparent

 

[minkymurph]

I apologize for the confusion. Yes it was in response to your post, although it did generate some interesting insights from Steve as well so some positives did result from the error. If you do not mind I will now re-post it to you properly so as to have your response as well.

Not a problem. I just didn’t want to jump in and answer a post directed towards another poster.

If the Bible is a combination of truths, half-truths, and outright misrepresentations (however accidentally), why is God so unconcerned with it standing as a reference to his commands?

I don’t think I said the bible is combination of truths, half truths and outright misrepresentations.

Is the bible a book of commands? The only commands I know of in the OT are the Ten Commandments. The only command I know of in the NT is the command to celebrate the Eucharist - The Lord’s Evening Meal. There may be others I can’t think of at the moment, but the bible is not merely a book of commands. It is believed to be God’s Revelation to the human race. What the means is God was not merely telling the authors of the bible what they should and shouldn’t do, but He was revealing his very nature. The authors of the bible on occasion intentionally record misunderstandings concerning God’s Revelation. Why would God want them to do that? The reason being they were as human as we are, and faced the same struggles and difficulties, they had the same human fragility we do, and sometimes their relationship with God was good and sometimes it wasn’t. While the bible is God’s Revelation, it was also written to tell us others who followed God had the same experiences we do, and doubted, struggled and misunderstood as we do to give us hope - the hope that God is always there and does not give up on us. We can identify with people in the bible and have a common denominator with them. Who could identify with someone who is always right, always does the right thing, and writes a record of it? Someone like that would get on your nerves.

A child’s picture of his family might be inaccurate, but still acceptable to the parent; however, would said parent place it in the family album instead of a more accurate photograph?

Yes. I have kept those pictures and treasure them. You know those green blobs that represent ‘my family?’ I didn’t expect a Michael Angelo, and I’m as proud of them as if they were. I’ve got other pictures I keep in a ‘memory box.’ It’s a record of their life and development, which is pretty much what the bible is in terms of the development of the relationship between the human race and God.

Alternately, would a parent provide a child’s self-portrait to the police should the child go missing in order that he be found? What parent might be so unconcerned as to the safety of his child that he might choose to use the child’s own substitute for reality to stand as a means of bringing him safely home?

Perhaps, if it was the only picture they had. And in this day and age who knows what modern technology and forensics could do with it in an attempt to find the child?

Further, considering the different stages available in spiritual development, what dedicated teacher might assemble in a class all his/her students and then allow them to muddle through their lessons without providing clear direction in areas of confusion, but instead allowing each to argue with one another over the rightness or wrongness of their interpretation of said teacher’s vaguely written outline? What teacher would do so knowing that the graduate students were approaching their year-end finals and that their understanding of the information would be paramount to their looming success or failure? Would a graduate of this class be correct in assuming that this teacher was as deeply interested in his future as was suggested in the lesson outline?

The operative word being ‘outline.’ A dedicated teacher wouldn’t stand over pupils and tell them exactly what to write in class, or in an exam. A dedicated teacher guides their pupils through the lesson without actually telling them the answer, because they want them to work out the answer for themselves to develop cognitive functioning and higher thinking skills. As children get older, they need less in terms of clear direction than children who are much younger. To illustrate - did Jesus not teach in parables? Was the purpose of these parables not to make people think rather than just spell it out for them?

Finally, if one were to occupy a position of authority, such as the top general in an army, would one allow any given instructions to subordinates to be open to broad interpretation? Particularly if one were responsible for the outcomes and the fate of many followers might hang in the balance?

It is a fact that clear and precise orders from top army generals have been misinterpreted and misunderstood, which consequently lead to many unnecessary deaths. Anyone who has studied wars or military history will tell you that.

Is one to consider that God is sloppy? Disinterested? Preoccupied? Naive? Or just not a very good communicator?

Would he not seemingly make a challenging husband?

On can consider whatever image of God one chooses. Belief involves choice. If everything could be irrevocably proven, one would no longer need to make choices. As a Catholic, I believe Jesus was the Incarnate God. I don’t think he was sloppy, disinterested, preoccupied or naive, and I think he would have made a good husband. :yup:

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The one who breaks the commandments of God, isn’t sorry for what they’ve done, and dies in that state, is by definition absent of grace and love. Therefore, they aren’t equipped to be in heaven, a place where grace and love reigns.

Might there not be those who have broken commandments, are not sorry for having done so, and yet would not choose to reside in Hell for any reason?

Here is a case in point: An individual may choose not to believe in God (please note I am using the word “choose” in this instance, while recognizing that many make no such choice) based on an inability to reconcile certain Biblical matters. Now, given that he may no longer be able to keep the first commandment, and no longer willing to keep the 2nd and 3rd, how might such a one ever claim to be sorry for these breaches? Assuming a moderately good life thereafter, how might God rule on this? Does God allow moderates into Purgatory who have broken his first 3 commandments?

Especially consider this in light of Jesus’ disdain for the lukewarm and his dire warning that he will fail to acknowledge before his father any who fail to acknowledge him on Earth.

The one who makes heaven available, told us what is required of us to be there for all eternity.

But are they not confusing in their sheer variety?

Consider the sermon on the mount. Does Jesus not claim several means of entering his kingdom, none of which appear to hinge on other specifics? If so, are those who are merely “poor in spirit” to gain the kingdom of Heaven regardless of any other action or outlook?

How does one go about obtaining this spiritual poverty?

 

[Searcher360]

What is a fact?

What is a belief?

Would you care to explain the difference?

Fact is what can we repeated by others on an objective basis, often using the scientific method. Example: People all over the world can freeze water at the same universal temperature, assuming consistent atmospheric pressure, etc

Faith is what one believes or hopes to be true, often with no objective or quantified proof whatsoever. Example: Christians believe Christ was the son of God, with others like Jews or HIndus in outright disagreement or skeptical.

Me? I tend to think there was a historical figure named Jesus, yet remain skeptical that an almighty God would resort to what I view as theatrics and the like to make his presence known. My skeptical side wonders why God would bother with having a “son”, a death & resurrection when I more direct “I am Lord” would seem, to me and at some risk of unintended offense, more logical and less like a made for TV movie. I often wonder if today’s mainstream religions became so more due to the passage of time and inertia than anything else. A few thousand years and dusty books makes yesterday’s cult more believable. Time alone can lend a veneer of credibility.

For me, modern religions tend to feel too human and not enough God.

 

[Searcher360]

First question: The authors of the bible were lying and knew they were.

Who wrote the bible, why and who put it together in the format we have today? Topic for great speculation and involves a variety of opinion. However, what is in question is the truthfulness of the authors and their intentions - irrespective of who they were.

What we do know, is the authors of the bible lived centuries apart. The scrolls and writings that have been discovered tell us that. Did they all believe what they were writing was not true? It’s possible. Let’s say they did know. We are then faced with the question why would they write it all down and go to great lengths to preserve it…

So, did the authors of the bible believe they were lying? On the balance of probabilities, given that no one can truly know what is in another’s mind, I would argue we cannot conclude every author of the bible believed they were lying. We can conclude what they wrote is not true, but we cannot conclude they did not believe it was true. That pretty much addresses the second question.

I do not think the majority of writers consciously lied or had the intent to do so. Based on my years of experience, however, I tend to think many confused fact with belief or, perhaps more accurately, expressions of hope.

In short, I have enormous trouble seeing how people who lived as little as 100 to even 2000 years after the death of Christ can have anything beyond 3rd, 4th and eventually up to 1500th hand information. Speculation and conjecture do not, to me, seem what the almighty would do. That’s a human failing.

The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, prehistoric/tribal man, Mayans and more all thought they alone knew truth and were as passionate in their beliefs as we are now. This said, they also had no more proof than we do now. Might future generations look at modern religions with the same quaint “are you serious” smirk we do towards people who once believed in Isis, Zeus and a chariot pulling the sun across the sky. They had no more proof than we do, yet history says believed just as as fervently.

 

[Ignatius]

If I might be permitted to interject for my atheistic comrade, …Now suppose this child arrived at the very door of his parent’s abode and could hear the merriment within. The child is cold and hungry and it is dark outside so he reasons with himself that he might as well recant his objections and make a civil attempt to join in the festivities for his suspicion of the love of the parent has only brought him further misery. So, boldly, he knocks at the door, but it remains locked fast. .

The scenario of the child who has rejected the father is described in the Bible. You are not familiar with the parable of the Prodigal Son? Take a look at the Gospel of Luke chapter 15 verses11-32.

The door is never locked, it is always open. The moment you turn to the Lord you are embraced. That is all it takes, the healing of the relationship then begins as long as the prodigal son continues to desire it.

 

[SonCatcher]

Fact is what can we repeated by others on an objective basis, often using the scientific method. Example: People all over the world can freeze water at the same universal temperature, assuming consistent atmospheric pressure, etc

When you put an ice cube tray in the freezer, you have faith that the water it contains will freeze. Impurities or malfunction may well cause disappointment.

Faith is what one believes or hopes to be true, often with no objective or quantified proof whatsoever. Example: Christians believe Christ was the son of God, with others like Jews or HIndus in outright disagreement or skeptical.

The Higgs boson fits in this category, too (at least for the time being). That does not negate the theory that inspires people to look for it.

Faith is stronger than “belief” or “hope” (in the modern English sense). For the one with faith, it is substantive. It is evidence. It is fact.

Me? I tend to think there was a historical figure named Jesus, yet remain skeptical that an almighty God would resort to what I view as theatrics and the like to make his presence known. My skeptical side wonders why God would bother with having a “son”, a death & resurrection when I more direct “I am Lord” would seem, to me and at some risk of unintended offense, more logical and less like a made for TV movie. I often wonder if today’s mainstream religions became so more due to the passage of time and inertia than anything else. A few thousand years and dusty books makes yesterday’s cult more believable. Time alone can lend a veneer of credibility.

For me, modern religions tend to feel too human and not enough God.

Yet, if God revealed himself in that way (which would be quite theatrical to my mind), each person would have no choice but to believe in Him. Where is the freedom in that?