Religion, Parenthood, Brainwashing and Branding

[inocente]

Yes, rejection of the Gospel is rejection of salvation.

Its not accurate to preach the negative, but the hope of the Gospel. I never said its wise to threaten kids with hell. I conveyed the necessity to believe the Gospel (if properly understood) to be saved.Read the new Testament. It’s in there. I’m surprised your Baptist church doesn’t teach this.

A few questions then.

What do you mean by “not accurate to preach the negative”? Do you mean not true?

Do you mean “properly understood” as you understand it?

Where in the CCC does your Church teach “the necessity to believe the Gospel (if properly understood) to be saved”?

Here’s what my church teaches about this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_competency

I’m referring the the baby being branded image.

My view is it’s nonsense to talk of a Baptist child or Catholic child, just as it is to talk of a Republican child. Baby is not a lifestyle accessory, baby is a person, and when baby is old enough to form her own views, she will decide for herself.

 

[rcwitness]

A few questions then.

What do you mean by “not accurate to preach the negative”? Do you mean not true?

Do you mean “properly understood” as you understand it?

Where in the CCC does your Church teach “the necessity to believe the Gospel (if properly understood) to be saved”?

First of all, those who do not know the Gospel message or the knowledge of God also have the ability of faith and following their conscience.

“In the first place we must recall the people [the Jews] to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”[32]

Paragraph 16 ofLumen gentiumtakes a step further and declares:

“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel”

Now, before I find some Catechism Teachings (only because I don’t have easy access right now), I will show some passages from John. These deal with those who have heard the Gospel and are aware of Jesus and His Church.

“Those who believe in him are not condemned; butthose who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believedin the name of the only Son of God.” (3:18)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life;*whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.” (3:36)

“Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice / and will come out–those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and*those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (5:28-29)

“…andyou do not have his word abiding in you, becauseyou do not believehim whom he has sent.” (5:38)

“Very truly, I tell you,unlessyou eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,*you have no life in you.” (6:53)

“I told you that you would die in your sins, foryou will die in your sins unless you believethat I am (he).” (8:24)

“But*you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep.” (10:26)

“Theone who rejects meand does not receive my wordhas a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge,” (12:48)

“And when he [the Paraclete] comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: / about sin, becausethey do not believe in me; / about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; / about judgment, becausethe ruler of this world has been condemned.” (16:8-11)

 

[rcwitness]

A few questions then.

What do you mean by “not accurate to preach the negative”? Do you mean not true?

I mean it’s better to focus on the good news, rather that dwell on the consequences of those who reject Him. It has its place. But the Gospel is about the joyful good news. It is not a threat!

Do you mean “properly understood” as you understand it?

No. I mean as the Church understands it. Most all Christian churches agree on the basic Gospel message.

 

[benhur]

No, I fully understand the problem inherent in this discussion. At least from the atheist view. It’s in the nature of the difference between, in this example, Christianity, and atheism. The first is active whereas the second could be described as passive.

Hi B,

The other aspect is that the child will also inherently follow the parents…nothing passive here (the ugly duckling story comes to mind). Disagree that “atheism” is passive. Passive in terms of spirituality but not passive in its imprinting.

There is nothing one does that is required to be an atheist. It’s just a non-belief in gods. Or in God in this instance.

Disagree for above reasons. Non belief in one thing is belief in another . Inescapable.

And I do appreciate that my not encouraging my children to share my lack of belief is not the same as you not encouraging your children to follow your faith.

Yes and no. It is inherent (up to a certain stage) to do as a parent, regardless of what they “say”.
As far as “lack of belief” , well that might fit an agnostic but not an atheist position.

That said, I would reiterate my statement above that it is incorrect to refer to any child as being Christian (or Muslim or Hindu etc). They are children of Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) parents.

Agree, yet at some point a child indeed can be a “child of God” , born again. we would have to further describe "stages’’ . I would not limit experiencing a real spiritual Christ , and then "following’’ Him (being a “Christian”) to an adult.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Here’s my thought.

In Matt 23 Jesus repeatedly calls those Pharisees hypocrites. They are legalists, they follow the law to the letter “but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence”. If they were blind then they would be conscious of their blindness, and would seek for spiritual light. But they pretend to see, for they think spiritual light is about following rules and not about what is in the heart. And by denying grace, they deny God in the most profound way possible.

So I think we need to be careful about “Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth”, because Christ doesn’t look at outward profession of faith, he sees what’s inside us, and may not judge as we would judge.

The Pharisees were a brand. All show, “like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean”. Christ, imho, is against branding.

Hi i,

One thing is discussing religion(s) and another is discussing people/adherents.

So while the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs, many not born again, sons of satan, foxes etc., they could still speak from Moses seat, and were to be listened/obeyed to as such, for “salvation is of the Jews”.

Of course God looks at inside , of all humans. Look at the Roman centurion who had faith in Christ for healing, or at the king who apparently feared God enough not to take Abrahams supposed sister or Rahab etc. And of course God knows how to judge according to the light a man has received , so not to worry about infants passing on , or folks who were never reached with the gospel etc etc…

So again it is ok to discuss religions as Christ would (truth being exclusive of falsehoods). There is good news to proclaim, how be it thru man, hopefully infilled with the Holy Ghost, and exclusive from other “news/ways”

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You keep talking about degrees of punishment but have never said where we can confirm this. It cannot be self imposed because all sinners go to hell unrepentent. The woman who commits adultery and the man who commits mass murder are equally unrepentant.

Where is the justice in having the same pu ishment for these two people?

Hi B,

Perhaps a paradigm shift might help. Instead of thinking of laws and breaking them, think of rejecting a "message’’ or receiving the "message’’ as the real pivot point .

Christ does say if you break one law you have broken them all.

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” James 2

He then says, “Be ye perfect like the Father” or that “your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees”(think Mother Teresa or Billy Graham etc). That we will be judged for every jot and tittle, that intent is as bad as the action (lust, anger, coveting in the heart).

Bottom line…“we all have sinned and fall short of His glory.”

Yet Christ says all manner of sin is forgivable , save one , blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is the messenger with the "message’’ (forgiveness of all sin and peace and union with God).

So the end is just like the beginning (Genesis), where you have two kinds of people, believers in the "message’ and non believers. The believers who are given the gift of desire to be at peace and one with God, per His “message” will be with the God they have met in this life, in heaven also. The unbelievers , who did not want to be with God in this life, get their wish and will not be with Him in the next.

Jesus says several times, “Depart from me , I never knew you”.

So it is not how many commandments you broke and how "bad’’ you were, but whether you knew Him, or whether you rejected such advances (the million dollar sin).

Hell being a place does not mean it all has the same terrain.

Some say hell is partly here on earth , yet you would agree that torment is not equally distributed here just because we are all in the same place. Why can’t hell be the same, a place of differing weeping and gnashing of teeth/regret ?

Blessings

 

[Bradski]

Okay…so my child is not a Christian but a child of a Christian mother…then my child is also not American but a child of American parents regardless that she was born on a peace of land “owned” by an American Government. Also, now with gender…whatever, my child is a thing with female genitalia not a female. Oh right and with the animal thing happening now too I suppose I should also add that my “thing” which is not a child because that imposes that it is a human…may actually be some animal…

Maybe you haven’t grasped the fact that when she is a child your daughter has no choice about her nationality, her gender and certainly not her species. As much as religion IS decided by an accident of birth, as are nationality, gender and species, it should not be considered as being so.

Hiding information from your child is no better than China and North Korea keeping their people in the dark. They know what they are doing is wrong, that is why they hide. The truth sets you free. The peoole who have or believe to their core that they know the truth have nothing to hide. Yes even atheist who believe they have the truth will not hide that religion do exist.

Quite right. You may have seen (but ignored) previous posts where I actually encourage the teaching of religion to children. So that (and this is the bit you seem to dislike) they can make their own minds up about the matter.

Non belief in one thing is belief in another.

It’s simply the other side of the same coin. ‘I don’t believe in God’ and ‘I believe there is no God’, although subtly different, are, to all intents, the same. Similarly ‘I don’t believe there is a purpose in the universe’ and ‘I believe there is no purpose in the universe’. They all mean the same thing.

Some say hell is partly here on earth , yet you would agree that torment is not equally distributed here just because we are all in the same place. Why can’t hell be the same, a place of differing weeping and gnashing of teeth/regret ?

Personal guesswork doesn’t cut it, Ben. Everyone gets the same. There is no variance in the punishment even though there could be a difference in wrong doing of gargantuan proportions. Unless you want to point to something that says otherwise…

 

[inocente]

Now, before I find some Catechism Teachings (only because I don’t have easy access right now), I will show some passages from John. These deal with those who have heard the Gospel and are aware of Jesus and His Church.

Yes OK, but I didn’t ask for your personal interpretation of scripture, I asked “Where in the CCC does your Church teach “the necessity to believe the Gospel (if properly understood) to be saved”?”

The CCC is online at vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM and scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I mean it’s better to focus on the good news, rather that dwell on the consequences of those who reject Him. It has its place. But the Gospel is about the joyful good news. It is not a threat!

Then you lost me when you made all those out of context quotes from John, and when you said “rejection of the Gospel is rejection of salvation” and when you said “The Lake of Fire is created for those who reject Him and do not seek His reconciliation”.

Surely those are threats, attempts to coerce children into your religion by frightening them with a deity intent on taking away their free-will?

No. I mean as the Church understands it. Most all Christian churches agree on the basic Gospel message.

My church doesn’t agree that the Gospel contains any message about a child burning in a lake of fire if she doesn’t become a Christian. We don’t even allow her to join the church until she is mature enough to make her own decision about what she believes.

UDHR Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Do you agree?

 

[inocente]

inocente;14395165:

Here’s my thought.

In Matt 23 Jesus repeatedly calls those Pharisees hypocrites. They are legalists, they follow the law to the letter “but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence”. If they were blind then they would be conscious of their blindness, and would seek for spiritual light. But they pretend to see, for they think spiritual light is about following rules and not about what is in the heart. And by denying grace, they deny God in the most profound way possible.

So I think we need to be careful about “Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth”, because Christ doesn’t look at outward profession of faith, he sees what’s inside us, and may not judge as we would judge.

The Pharisees were a brand. All show, “like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean”. Christ, imho, is against branding.

Hi i,

One thing is discussing religion(s) and another is discussing people/adherents.

So while the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs, many not born again, sons of satan, foxes etc., they could still speak from Moses seat, and were to be listened/obeyed to as such, for “salvation is of the Jews”.Of course God looks at inside , of all humans. Look at the Roman centurion who had faith in Christ for healing, or at the king who apparently feared God enough not to take Abrahams supposed sister or Rahab etc. And of course God knows how to judge according to the light a man has received , so not to worry about infants passing on , or folks who were never reached with the gospel etc etc…

So again it is ok to discuss religions as Christ would (truth being exclusive of falsehoods). There is good news to proclaim, how be it thru man, hopefully infilled with the Holy Ghost, and exclusive from other “news/ways”

Blessings

I think we’re agreeing, but just in case, what I meant is that Jesus didn’t distinguish righteousness by any outward profession of belief, as in “Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth”:

In a parable (Luke 10), Jesus makes a Samaritan his hero, knowing His audience detested them, and He makes the outwardly righteous priest and Levite the villains.

Jesus sees what’s in the heart. Updated, it’s perfectly possible that an atheist is closer to the mind of Christ in her thoughts, motives and acts, than a bible-thumping Christian.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hi B,

Perhaps a paradigm shift might help. Instead of thinking of laws and breaking them, think of rejecting a "message’’ or receiving the "message’’ as the real pivot point .

Christ does say if you break one law you have broken them all.

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” James 2

He then says, “Be ye perfect like the Father” or that “your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees”(think Mother Teresa or Billy Graham etc). That we will be judged for every jot and tittle, that intent is as bad as the action (lust, anger, coveting in the heart).

Bottom line…“we all have sinned and fall short of His glory.”

Yet Christ says all manner of sin is forgivable , save one , blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is the messenger with the "message’’ (forgiveness of all sin and peace and union with God).

So the end is just like the beginning (Genesis), where you have two kinds of people, believers in the "message’ and non believers. The believers who are given the gift of desire to be at peace and one with God, per His “message” will be with the God they have met in this life, in heaven also. The unbelievers , who did not want to be with God in this life, get their wish and will not be with Him in the next.

Jesus says several times, “Depart from me , I never knew you”.

So it is not how many commandments you broke and how "bad’’ you were, but whether you knew Him, or whether you rejected such advances (the million dollar sin).

Hell being a place does not mean it all has the same terrain.

Some say hell is partly here on earth , yet you would agree that torment is not equally distributed here just because we are all in the same place. Why can’t hell be the same, a place of differing weeping and gnashing of teeth/regret ?

Blessings

Great explanation. Also let’s not forget the penitent vs the unrepentant. That is were God’s mercy really lies.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes OK, but I didn’t ask for your personal interpretation of scripture, I asked “Where in the CCC does your Church teach “the necessity to believe the Gospel (if properly understood) to be saved”?”

The CCC is online at vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM and scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Thanks, I do use those. Here’s a couple:
183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16)

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Then you lost me when you made all those out of context quotes from John, and when you said “rejection of the Gospel is rejection of salvation” and when you said “The Lake of Fire is created for those who reject Him and do not seek His reconciliation”.

Not sure why?

Surely those are threats, attempts to coerce children into your religion by frightening them with a deity intent on taking away their free-will?

That’s rediculous! Just because not believing in the Gospel has a consequence doesn’t mean it’s coercing.

My church doesn’t agree that the Gospel contains any message about a child burning in a lake of fire if she doesn’t become a Christian. We don’t even allow her to join the church until she is mature enough to make her own decision about what she believes.

So believing the Gospel is not necessary?

UDHR Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Do you agree?

I agree that everyone deserves the freedom of choice and religion. I also believe that no one manifests the Gospel and the Apostolic Teaching of the Apostles by themselves. The Gospel comes by hearing.

 

[goout]

I think we’re agreeing, but just in case, what I meant is that Jesus didn’t distinguish righteousness by any outward profession of belief, as in “Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth”:

In a parable (Luke 10), Jesus makes a Samaritan his hero, knowing His audience detested them, and He makes the outwardly righteous priest and Levite the villains.

Jesus sees what’s in the heart. Updated, it’s perfectly possible that an atheist is closer to the mind of Christ in her thoughts, motives and acts, than a bible-thumping Christian.

This is a common misconception about Christ.
Christ is not attacking the Pharisees, or the Levites, or the righteous (pick yer villain) per se…
Christ does not attack orthodoxy…
or the Old Testament…
or the Law…

He is correcting the self-righteous. He is correcting a disposition of the heart, not the outward profession of orthodox belief.

It’s a little bit silly to claim that an a-theist, one who explicitly rejects God, is closer to God than a “bible thumping Christian”. (nice fundamentalist caricature there )

 

[inocente]

This is a common misconception about Christ.
Christ is not attacking the Pharisees, or the Levites, or the righteous (pick yer villain) per se…
Christ does not attack orthodoxy…
or the Old Testament…
or the Law…

He is correcting the self-righteous. He is correcting a disposition of the heart, not the outward profession of orthodox belief.

The Pharisees were very dangerous to Jesus’ ministry. They were what are now known as legalists, they believed that morality was only about outward observance of the Law, and that what was in the heart was irrelevant. This attacked the very basis of Jesus’ ministry by totally denying any role for Grace. Jesus does not attack the Law, he attacks their legalism:

“Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Judaizers, and Nicolaitans. They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matthew 23. The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime example of legalism.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology

Before telling the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks the expert in the law “What is written in the Law?”, and approves the expert’s non-legalistic summary of “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”; and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”.

It’s a little bit silly to claim that an a-theist, one who explicitly rejects God, is closer to God than a “bible thumping Christian”. (nice fundamentalist caricature there )

In the parable, Jesus turned the tables on his audience’s expectations. If we are to do that in a modern retelling, bible thumping Christians take the role of priest and Levite, and the atheist takes the role of the Samaritan. After telling the parable, Jesus asks “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

And that was the Samaritan, because he had mercy. Not because he was respected, not because he believed, but because he had mercy. And Jesus said “Go and do likewise.”

God doesn’t judge by our standards. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD." - Isaiah 55

 

[rcwitness]

The Pharisees were very dangerous to Jesus’ ministry. They were what are now known as legalists, they believed that morality was only about outward observance of the Law, and that what was in the heart was irrelevant. This attacked the very basis of Jesus’ ministry by totally denying any role for Grace. Jesus does not attack the Law, he attacks their legalism:

*“Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Judaizers, and Nicolaitans. They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matthew 23. The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime example of legalism.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology

Before telling the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks the expert in the law “What is written in the Law?”, and approves the expert’s non-legalistic summary of “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”; and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”.

In the parable, Jesus turned the tables on his audience’s expectations. If we are to do that in a modern retelling, bible thumping Christians take the role of priest and Levite, and the atheist takes the role of the Samaritan. After telling the parable, Jesus asks “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

And that was the Samaritan, because he had mercy. Not because he was respected, not because he believed, but because he had mercy. And Jesus said “Go and do likewise.”

God doesn’t judge by our standards. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD." - Isaiah 55

Why do you think atheists fit the character of the Samaritan? The Samaritan could be anyone who does what is right. This still does not justify rejecting the Gospel. Good works do not earn justification.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The Pharisees were very dangerous to Jesus’ ministry. They were what are now known as legalists, they believed that morality was only about outward observance of the Law, and that what was in the heart was irrelevant. This attacked the very basis of Jesus’ ministry by totally denying any role for Grace. Jesus does not attack the Law, he attacks their legalism:

*“Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Judaizers, and Nicolaitans. They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matthew 23. The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime example of legalism.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology

Before telling the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks the expert in the law “What is written in the Law?”, and approves the expert’s non-legalistic summary of “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”; and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”.

In the parable, Jesus turned the tables on his audience’s expectations. If we are to do that in a modern retelling, bible thumping Christians take the role of priest and Levite, and the atheist takes the role of the Samaritan. After telling the parable, Jesus asks “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

And that was the Samaritan, because he had mercy. Not because he was respected, not because he believed, but because he had mercy. And Jesus said “Go and do likewise.”

God doesn’t judge by our standards. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD." - Isaiah 55

The Samaritan isn’t an atheist for heaven sake! He is a good man, outside the mainstreamJewish faith, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he believes in God.

 

[rcwitness]

The Samaritan isn’t an atheist for heaven sake! He is a good man, outside the mainstreamJewish faith, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he believes in God.

Yep. The story is more about Faith and Works together. I agree with Inocente that the opposition is sometimes Legalists. Jesus points out that true faith is accomplished by love of neighbor.

 

[Mintaka]

Samaritans were descendants of pagan Babylonian settlers who intermarried with a remnant of Israelites who hid out in the hills of Samaria. They believed and still believe in God and the Torah, but they did not accept any later books of the Bible. They still sacrifice on Mount Gerizim every year, which is their Temple. They did favor one of the later Messianic prophets because he was from their area, and they looked for the coming of another great prophet like Moses. (Which is what the Samaritan woman at the well was on about.) Some Samaritans in the past also worshipped pagan gods. (Which is what Jesus was referring to, when he pointed out subtly that both the woman and Samaria had had five other “husbands”.)

 

[benhur]

It’s simply the other side of the same coin. ‘I don’t believe in God’ and ‘I believe there is no God’, although subtly different, are, to all intents, the same. Similarly ‘I don’t believe there is a purpose in the universe’ and ‘I believe there is no purpose in the universe’. They all mean the same thing.

Hi B,

Yes, but you were saying faith was active and atheism was passive as it relates to offspring.I said both were active. Both imprints are caught early on.

Personal guesswork doesn’t cut it, Ben. Everyone gets the same. There is no variance in the punishment even though there could be a difference in wrong doing of gargantuan proportions. Unless you want to point to something that says otherwise…

Is it not also your guesswork that suggests equal punishment ?

The “hell on earth” is an example (not being equally distributed) that I wish you would not dismiss.

But if you are genuinely asking for Christian rationale, biblical, that is fair. For sure in simple terms there are generally two places to go to after death. And as I tried pointing out one simple reason for going to each place. And maybe it is simply wrong to then say it is unfair. How do you know ? Maybe heaven is so great that who cares if some had more faith, did more glorious works than others. Maybe hell is so bad that it pales in comparison of just how bad one is relative to others. After all, it has been shown that one goes to heaven because of how good Jesus was/is (not us), and one goes to hell because our rejection of Christ (and not how bad we were).

But I am with you. We have an inner desire for justice and fairness. Our justice system ideally is a shadow of heavenly justice. Scripture is clear every deed and thought will be judged. Scripture is clear that these things are recorded in “books” and will be opened up at the great white throne judgement. It is also clear that this judgement is not to determine where we spend eternity, for that is done upon our death. So then why opening all the books ? For the believer we are told gifts/rewards will be given. Many think these are positions or roles /jobs to do in the new kingdom. For the non believer we are told one may get one stripe , others many. Beyond that may be conjecture, but for sure faith is needed either way, that just punishment will be given per a persons “works”. Otherwise can you posit why all the deliberations and scrutiny ?

Bottom line, too easy of a cheap pot shot and unsubstantiated of equal punishment/reward to then say “unfair”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Great explanation. Also let’s not forget the penitent vs the unrepentant. That is were God’s mercy really lies.

Thank you Christine…encouraging.

Blessings back

 

[benhur]

I think we’re agreeing, but just in case, what I meant is that Jesus didn’t distinguish righteousness by any outward profession of belief, as in “Christian vs non-Christian is a matter of truth”:

In a parable (Luke 10), Jesus makes a Samaritan his hero, knowing His audience detested them, and He makes the outwardly righteous priest and Levite the villains.

Jesus sees what’s in the heart. Updated, it’s perfectly possible that an atheist is closer to the mind of Christ in her thoughts, motives and acts, than a bible-thumping Christian.

Hi I,

OK agree but would qualify the last sentence.

For sure an atheist may be closer to Godly ways in some things than a Christian. But a Christian has it where it counts, he is to have the mind of Christ, and does so in at least having salvation. Indeed he may be carnal in other ways, just as the atheist is far from God in what really matters…Of course then there is a supposed Christian who is not a Christian, that is something else. And yes, some atheists are very self controlled, well mannered, just, fair, full of integrity, glory to God.

Blessings