Question For The Christians

[DesertBob]

I think the appeal was that people thought Jesus was going to lead the world into the Jewish Messianic Age.

Right. Which is not the same as the Christian gospel. That's my point. Whatever reason Jesus led the cult, and whatever reasons the disciples followed him, they were not the same reasons people converted to Christianity. Jesus must have had a different message, something that was attractive to the Jews, which Christianity is not.

I'm going to inject an idea here and I'd be particularly interested in dethl's reaction to it given his Jewish heritage. Particularly if he was a fairly conservative Jew.

 

If what Jesus in fact claimed back in the day (as opposed to what was portrayed in the Gospels) was that the Jews no longer had to fulfill the Torah, would that have appealed, or simply been unthinkable blasphemy? In other words what if he abolished the legalistic system of do's and don'ts, sacrifices and rituals, etc., without introducing the concept of hell? Would that have gotten any traction with even a decent minority of the man on the street? Put another way: are Jews so identified with the Torah as part of their national / cultural identity that at least some would not be relieved to be free of its demands?

 

My guess is that the Jews were quite proud of their Law and felt it was the glue that held them together as a society as well as maintained a cohesive ethnic identity for them. In other words not only was the absence of a Christian-style hell positive, but I don't think that they found the Law particularly odious to follow, did they?

 

The only reason being free of the law appealed to me as a Christian was because I wasn't used to it anyway and because the guilt-ridden teachings of the church would have caused stringent rules to just intensify the guilt and self-loathing and frustration.

 

Do modern conservative Jews browbeat themselves with how unworthy and unable they are to fulfill the Torah?

[dethl]

I think the appeal was that people thought Jesus was going to lead the world into the Jewish Messianic Age.

Right. Which is not the same as the Christian gospel. That's my point. Whatever reason Jesus led the cult, and whatever reasons the disciples followed him, they were not the same reasons people converted to Christianity. Jesus must have had a different message, something that was attractive to the Jews, which Christianity is not.

I'm going to inject an idea here and I'd be particularly interested in dethl's reaction to it given his Jewish heritage. Particularly if he was a fairly conservative Jew.

 

If what Jesus in fact claimed back in the day (as opposed to what was portrayed in the Gospels) was that the Jews no longer had to fulfill the Torah, would that have appealed, or simply been unthinkable blasphemy? In other words what if he abolished the legalistic system of do's and don'ts, sacrifices and rituals, etc., without introducing the concept of hell? Would that have gotten any traction with even a decent minority of the man on the street? Put another way: are Jews so identified with the Torah as part of their national / cultural identity that at least some would not be relieved to be free of its demands?

 

My guess is that the Jews were quite proud of their Law and felt it was the glue that held them together as a society as well as maintained a cohesive ethnic identity for them. In other words not only was the absence of a Christian-style hell positive, but I don't think that they found the Law particularly odious to follow, did they?

 

The only reason being free of the law appealed to me as a Christian was because I wasn't used to it anyway and because the guilt-ridden teachings of the church would have caused stringent rules to just intensify the guilt and self-loathing and frustration.

 

Do modern conservative Jews browbeat themselves with how unworthy and unable they are to fulfill the Torah?

 

I was not raised Conservative so I can't answer from that perspective. I can only give my own subjective answer based upon my experiences within the Reform movement.

 

Considering that Conservative and Orthodox (and the even more strict Jewish followers) continue to follow the Law of the Torah to this day I'm guessing they don't find it hard to continue doing so. The Torah was the founding basis for the Jewish faith and for many they believe their faith in strictly following it helps them continue to be written into the Book of Life.

 

I'm not sure how much Conservatives browbeat themselves if they are unable to fulfill the Torah, sorry.

[dethl]

I have no edit power yet so one more addition:

 

There will always be people who reject one faith and jump to another based upon their own personal beliefs - it's nothing new and I'm sure it wasn't an exception back then. Though what the carrot at the end of the stick was that Jesus held out remains an unknown for the most part.

[DesertBob]

There will always be people who reject one faith and jump to another based upon their own personal beliefs - it's nothing new and I'm sure it wasn't an exception back then. Though what the carrot at the end of the stick was that Jesus held out remains an unknown for the most part.

Good point. Although I suspect in most Western societies people are much freer to "jump about" than they were then -- people don't live in religious and intellectual ghettos as much as they once did, although when you're talking about Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and some fundamentalist sects, particularly in the South, such things still exist. One might be personally inclined to change their faith but if your extended family shames and shuns you for it, maybe you'll decide not to pick that battle, or you'll keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

In any case ... thanks for the perspective.

 

It may be that Jesus didn't hold out that much of a carrot and wasn't all that successful in his day. It wouldn't be the first time that an idea catches on, perhaps with adjustments and not in the way the originator envisioned, after the originator's death.

[dethl]

It may be that Jesus didn't hold out that much of a carrot and wasn't all that successful in his day. It wouldn't be the first time that an idea catches on, perhaps with adjustments and not in the way the originator envisioned, after the originator's death.

 

Maybe there were Jews who wanted the messiah to come so bad that they followed anyone who claimed to be and that their fervor was intensified further by Jesus' martyrdom?

[Ouroboros]

It may be that Jesus didn't hold out that much of a carrot and wasn't all that successful in his day. It wouldn't be the first time that an idea catches on, perhaps with adjustments and not in the way the originator envisioned, after the originator's death.

 

Maybe there were Jews who wanted the messiah to come so bad that they followed anyone who claimed to be and that their fervor was intensified further by Jesus' martyrdom?

As you probably know, there were a lot of Messiah at that time already. Barabbas was one (presumably), the criminal set free instead of Jesus.

 

I think, based on what you told me about Jewish faith, and the ensuing discussion here, that if Jesus did exist, it is much more likely he was another one of the Messiah pretenders and had a religious/political message rather than a claiming that he was God's son or saving people from a hell they were not going to anyway. It makes a lot more sense. Now I understand why some scholars claim that Jesus existed, but as a revolutionary.

[dethl]

It may be that Jesus didn't hold out that much of a carrot and wasn't all that successful in his day. It wouldn't be the first time that an idea catches on, perhaps with adjustments and not in the way the originator envisioned, after the originator's death.

 

Maybe there were Jews who wanted the messiah to come so bad that they followed anyone who claimed to be and that their fervor was intensified further by Jesus' martyrdom?

As you probably know, there were a lot of Messiah at that time already. Barabbas was one (presumably), the criminal set free instead of Jesus.

 

I think, based on what you told me about Jewish faith, and the ensuing discussion here, that if Jesus did exist, it is much more likely he was another one of the Messiah pretenders and had a religious/political message rather than a claiming that he was God's son or saving people from a hell they were not going to anyway. It makes a lot more sense. Now I understand why some scholars claim that Jesus existed, but as a revolutionary.

 

 

The Jews were already having enough trouble with the Romans as-is without the messiah mess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora). Jews claiming to be the messiah presented a danger to the Roman government as the messiah was to unite the world under one ruler. Given the oppression at the time it's no surprise that some of the Jews would cling to anyone who claimed to be a messiah.

[LNC]

I think I understand your argument, however, I feel that it's nothing but a clever way of spinning it.

 

You're saying: faith in Jesus will take you to Heaven, but God's wrath over you and your sin will bring you to Hell.

 

My interpretation is: faith in Jesus will take you to Heaven, lack in faith means that you will go to Hell.

 

It might not be the reason in itself that you go to Hell, but it is most definitely one of the attributes of a person who goes to Hell. What will be the main characteristics of the person going to Hell besides having God's wrath over them or them being sinful? They will all be unbelievers.

 

Yes, not trusting in Jesus for his act of forgiveness would be a factor in a person going to hell; however, it is not the cause of the person's condemnation. Not trusting in or taking medicine may be a contributing factor in a person's death; however, it is the disease that kills the person. In this case, it is sin.

 

How about the people in Heaven? They will also have God's wrath over them, but it won't apply. And they will all be sinners too, because we are supposedly all sinners, but the main difference between them and the sinners in Hell is that they believe.

 

Really, the way that the Bible explains it, people in heaven are sinners whose wrath was taken by Jesus on the cross. Each person deserved that wrath and punishment, but Jesus took it on their behalf. They trusted in Jesus for that redemption from punishment.

 

Put it in some shorter way:

1. Heaven people are sinners, and so are the Hell people.

2. Heaven people have God's wrath hanging over them (but it won't affect them), and the wrath is over the Hell people (affecting them).

3. Heaven people have faith in Jesus, the Hell people do not.

 

So what is the big difference between them? Not the wrath, not the sin, but the belief (faith, trust...).

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that God's wrath, Jesus's salvation, are all extraneous. The only thing that accounts for anything that happens to a person's eternal situation is faith.[/] Anything else is superfluous.

 

Point 2 would be a false statement. People in heaven no longer have God's wrath hanging over them, that was taken care of on the cross by Jesus. People in hell are experiencing the wrath of God for their sins. In both cases, the wrath was meted out, it is a matter of who takes it: Jesus (for those who trust in him) or the person who chooses to take it upon him or herself. Heaven is filled with people who trusted in Jesus during their lifetimes. In heaven there will be no further need for faith as faith is turned to site. In hell, people will not need faith either as that will turn to site; however, they will have no more trust in Jesus in hell than they did on earth. There will be no more love for Jesus in hell than there was on earth either. The rejection will be eternally solidified within each person eternally.

 

You are simply looking at one aspect of the difference. The main aspect is that those in heaven loved Jesus during their lifetimes and those who are in hell rejected Jesus during their lifetimes. God sends people away from Jesus who have rejected him and draws near those who loved him. Separation from Jesus is eternal wrath in itself. So, salvation and wrath are actually intrinsic to the who telos of life rather than accidental properties as you seem to think. Our purpose or telos is to reflect God's nature in whose image we have been created. When we choose to reject that telos and to reflect our sinful nature instead, then we have rejected God in the process and sealed our fate to live eternally apart from him. It is in that rejection of our purpose that we choose a new destiny of darkness, loneliness and bitterness.

 

LNC

[dethl]

Yes, not trusting in Jesus for his act of forgiveness would be a factor in a person going to hell; however, it is not the cause of the person's condemnation. Not trusting in or taking medicine may be a contributing factor in a person's death; however, it is the disease that kills the person. In this case, it is sin.

So we have to follow your kosher lich otherwise some made up concept of "sin" is going to kill us spiritually? Again - Christians show their passive aggressive nature. Ultimately you need to prove we have a soul in the first place, otherwise your threats are EMPTY and MEANINGLESS. You may as well tell us the gun you're attempting to hold us hostage with has no bullets in it.

Really, the way that the Bible explains it, people in heaven are sinners whose wrath was taken by Jesus on the cross. Each person deserved that wrath and punishment, but Jesus took it on their behalf. They trusted in Jesus for that redemption from punishment.

Again your passive aggressive nature shines. You have an all-compassionate god who demands that everyone follow his "son" (which is actually god in mortal form) otherwise your soul gets sent to the bad place (hell) and cut off from god (spiritual death). Why would a Jew attempt to convert other Jews with this line of bullshit when the Jews of the time already believed they didn't need to do anything more to get into heaven? Methinks your Christ was indeed a compassionate rabbi, just his followers (you know, the ones who wrote the Bible) decided to borrow ideas from the surrounding religions and amalgamate it into what is now called Christianity and used his supposed martyrdom as a rallying cry.

Your kosher lich is no different than the story of Attis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis) being resurrected through Cybele (hey, you Christians decided to merge it with Passover and named it Easter - you know, after the Germanic name for the month of March named after the goddess Ēostre (http://en.wikipedia....iki/%C4%92ostre)), or the story of the Egyptian god Horus being born of the goddess Isis. You know that tree you guys put up at Christmas? It was originally a symbol of the god Attis as that is what he was reborn as every year. EDIT - I should mention that Cybele and Isis were both virgins - but if you read up on it you'd know that too.

 

tl;dr - Christianity - different name, same bullshit (just combined from other religions during the time to assimilate them).

[Ouroboros]

I think I understand your argument, however, I feel that it's nothing but a clever way of spinning it.

 

You're saying: faith in Jesus will take you to Heaven, but God's wrath over you and your sin will bring you to Hell.

 

My interpretation is: faith in Jesus will take you to Heaven, lack in faith means that you will go to Hell.

 

It might not be the reason in itself that you go to Hell, but it is most definitely one of the attributes of a person who goes to Hell. What will be the main characteristics of the person going to Hell besides having God's wrath over them or them being sinful? They will all be unbelievers.

 

Yes, not trusting in Jesus for his act of forgiveness would be a factor in a person going to hell; however, it is not the cause of the person's condemnation. Not trusting in or taking medicine may be a contributing factor in a person's death; however, it is the disease that kills the person. In this case, it is sin.

So it's the sin, not God's wrath? It seems like the goal post keeps on moving around.

 

How about the people in Heaven? They will also have God's wrath over them, but it won't apply. And they will all be sinners too, because we are supposedly all sinners, but the main difference between them and the sinners in Hell is that they believe.

 

Really, the way that the Bible explains it, people in heaven are sinners whose wrath was taken by Jesus on the cross. Each person deserved that wrath and punishment, but Jesus took it on their behalf. They trusted in Jesus for that redemption from punishment.

 

Put it in some shorter way:

1. Heaven people are sinners, and so are the Hell people.

2. Heaven people have God's wrath hanging over them (but it won't affect them), and the wrath is over the Hell people (affecting them).

3. Heaven people have faith in Jesus, the Hell people do not.

 

So what is the big difference between them? Not the wrath, not the sin, but the belief (faith, trust...).

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that God's wrath, Jesus's salvation, are all extraneous. The only thing that accounts for anything that happens to a person's eternal situation is faith.[/] Anything else is superfluous.

 

Point 2 would be a false statement. People in heaven no longer have God's wrath hanging over them, that was taken care of on the cross by Jesus.

You said in a post a few days or weeks ago that it was God's wrath that made people go to hell. Now you're saying that the wrath is gone.

 

If the wrath was removed by Jesus on the cross, then we don't need faith. It's done. Is it not? Have you moved the whole issue now to sin and away from God's wrath? Ok. Let's say it's sin instead. The same problems still apply.

 

(It's like trying to fix a point on a yoyo. The argument's goal posts keep on moving around...)

 

People in hell are experiencing the wrath of God for their sins.

What wrath? The wrath was taken care of on the cross by Jesus. You said it, just a few lines up. Was it done, or was it not done?

 

In both cases, the wrath was meted out, it is a matter of who takes it: Jesus (for those who trust in him) or the person who chooses to take it upon him or herself. Heaven is filled with people who trusted in Jesus during their lifetimes. In heaven there will be no further need for faith as faith is turned to site. In hell, people will not need faith either as that will turn to site; however, they will have no more trust in Jesus in hell than they did on earth. There will be no more love for Jesus in hell than there was on earth either. The rejection will be eternally solidified within each person eternally.

Mumbo-jumbo. Nothing here of value.

 

Is it belief that makes the difference or not? You keep on changing the target here. Is it wrath? No, because Jesus took care of it. No wait, it's still there, he didn't take care of it. Is it sin? Yes, it's not. Is it belief? Only if you believe it is... And on and on it goes.

 

So, let's get it straight. You have to believe that it was done and completed 2,000 years ago for the wrath to be completely removed from you. But if you don't believe, then it was not completed 2,000 years ago, and the wrath is still hanging over you.

 

Did I get it right this time?

 

This means that what you are suggesting is that the facts and history changes depending if the person believes or not. If he doesn't believe, then Jesus didn't do anything. But if you believe, then suddenly Jesus did something in the past and the wrath is gone.

 

It's pure fucking magic.

 

You are simply looking at one aspect of the difference. The main aspect is that those in heaven loved Jesus during their lifetimes and those who are in hell rejected Jesus during their lifetimes. God sends people away from Jesus who have rejected him and draws near those who loved him. Separation from Jesus is eternal wrath in itself. So, salvation and wrath are actually intrinsic to the who telos of life rather than accidental properties as you seem to think. Our purpose or telos is to reflect God's nature in whose image we have been created. When we choose to reject that telos and to reflect our sinful nature instead, then we have rejected God in the process and sealed our fate to live eternally apart from him. It is in that rejection of our purpose that we choose a new destiny of darkness, loneliness and bitterness.

 

LNC

So how about a person like me? I used to believe that I was saved and that Jesus died for me. Now I believe it's just bunk, pure bunk. So did God put his wrath back on me, and did suddenly history change for me only and Jesus now suddenly never died for me in the past? It sounds like every person lives in his own magical quantum time line, and never will your history meet my history, because our histories are different depending on what we believe.

 

Seriously. You need to use your fucking brain because you're wasting it, big time.

 

Again, you are saying that Jesus did something. He removed God's wrath. But then you say that the wrath is only removed if I believe. So Jesus didn't remove it then. It's my belief that removes it, as a final step. It's not enough that Jesus died. I have to believe it too. You can't say you win a race by running up to 5 feet before the finish line, and then ask people to believe that you crossed it. You don't win a race that way. Sorry! Play again pal, and use your head this time.

 

It would be nice to work for you, because you would never ask anyone to finish their jobs. I would only have to tell you, it's done, it's finished, and show you something incomplete. When you ask why it's incomplete, I'd tell you, it's 100%, you just have to believe it.

 

I feel really bad for you because you've been had, you've been punk'd by the biggest scam in history, and still refuse to see it. You got a better brain than that. But you have to start using it.

[Phanta]

So how about a person like me? I used to believe that I was saved and that Jesus died for me. Now I believe it's just bunk, pure bunk. So did God put his wrath back on me, and did suddenly history change for me only and Jesus now suddenly never died for me in the past? It sounds like every person lives in his own magical quantum time line, and never will your history meet my history, because our histories are different depending on what we believe.

 

Sounds like, according to the post you're responding to, you get frozen in whatever state you die.

[Antlerman]

These arguments remind me very much like theologians of the Middle Ages having debates about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Sophisticated nonsense, and it never occurs to LNC the simple absurdity of it. It's like arguing out of a Child's Bible about the animals on the ark and how on earth Noah could have fed all them, only it's an adult getting a Master's Degree in Storybook arguments. It never occurring that the specifics are vehicles for the story's message, and not about the facts of the events, that the reality beyond the wrappers look quite different than the wrappers themselves.

 

This is why I don't engage in this with him. "What we are, that only can we see." The world of myth and magic to a child is all they can see. How can you talk about the adult world to someone living in that world? Yes, sight does come, but it looks very different than that magical world we imagined it would look like when we were still a child, mythologizing that imagined future for us. Until then, the child will deny what he hears that doesn't fit within in mythological framework of the future. He's not ready to leave behind the childish things.

[Ouroboros]

So how about a person like me? I used to believe that I was saved and that Jesus died for me. Now I believe it's just bunk, pure bunk. So did God put his wrath back on me, and did suddenly history change for me only and Jesus now suddenly never died for me in the past? It sounds like every person lives in his own magical quantum time line, and never will your history meet my history, because our histories are different depending on what we believe.

 

Sounds like, according to the post you're responding to, you get frozen in whatever state you die.

Right.

 

You can switch God's wrath on and off during your life by belief or unbelief. And even change a historical even in the past by faith. Mysterious. But after you die? Tough luck. Then it's too late. And I always wondered why?

 

Now I know, after the conversation with Dethl, the Jewish faith is that the sinners go to Hell for cleansing. They're there for a time, but eventually the go to Heaven. Honestly, that makes actually a lot more sense. I can even see that as a justified act by God. "You did some bad stuff, sorry, but well drag that sin out of you first, then you come here like everyone else."

[Ouroboros]

These arguments remind me very much like theologians of the Middle Ages having debates about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Sophisticated nonsense, and it never occurs to LNC the simple absurdity of it. It's like arguing out of a Child's Bible about the animals on the ark and how on earth Noah could have fed all them, only it's an adult getting a Master's Degree in Storybook arguments. It never occurring that the specifics are vehicles for the story's message, and not about the facts of the events, that the reality beyond the wrappers look quite different than the wrappers themselves.

I hope you don't think my discussion here is a waste though.

 

Even though I think LNC is more or less crazy, I do believe there is a somewhat intelligent being hiding under the shell of ideology and childish belief. I just hope that some day the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place, and he wakes up one day and say, "Oh, shit. Now I get it!"

 

This is why I don't engage in this with him. "What we are, that only can we see." The world of myth and magic to a child is all they can see. How can you talk about the adult world to someone living in that world? Yes, sight does come, but it looks very different than that magical world we imagined it would look like when we were still a child, mythologizing that imagined future for us. Until then, the child will deny what he hears that doesn't fit within in mythological framework of the future. He's not ready to leave behind the childish things.

He's not ready now, but hopefully the seed is planted. The day when all that weed of religious blindness dies out, perhaps the real tree of knowledge will break through.

[bornagainathiest]

To Ouroboros, Phanta, Antlerman, DesertBob, Dethl, et al....

 

Tell me to butt out of this if you want... (it's not my turn yet) ...but I think I can provide some help here.

 

Please don't get mad at me - just stick with what I'm trying to clarify, ok?

 

I think I understand your argument, however, I feel that it's nothing but a clever way of spinning it.

 

You're saying: faith in Jesus will take you to Heaven, but God's wrath over you and your sin will bring you to Hell.

 

My interpretation is: faith in Jesus will take you to Heaven, lack in faith means that you will go to Hell.

 

It might not be the reason in itself that you go to Hell, but it is most definitely one of the attributes of a person who goes to Hell. What will be the main characteristics of the person going to Hell besides having God's wrath over them or them being sinful? They will all be unbelievers.

 

Yes, not trusting in Jesus for his act of forgiveness would be a factor in a person going to hell; however, it is not the cause of the person's condemnation. Not trusting in or taking medicine may be a contributing factor in a person's death; however, it is the disease that kills the person. In this case, it is sin.

So it's the sin, not God's wrath? It seems like the goal post keeps on moving around.

 

How about the people in Heaven? They will also have God's wrath over them, but it won't apply. And they will all be sinners too, because we are supposedly all sinners, but the main difference between them and the sinners in Hell is that they believe.

 

Really, the way that the Bible explains it, people in heaven are sinners whose wrath was taken by Jesus on the cross. Each person deserved that wrath and punishment, but Jesus took it on their behalf. They trusted in Jesus for that redemption from punishment.

 

Put it in some shorter way:

1. Heaven people are sinners, and so are the Hell people.

2. Heaven people have God's wrath hanging over them (but it won't affect them), and the wrath is over the Hell people (affecting them).

3. Heaven people have faith in Jesus, the Hell people do not.

 

So what is the big difference between them? Not the wrath, not the sin, but the belief (faith, trust...).

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that God's wrath, Jesus's salvation, are all extraneous. The only thing that accounts for anything that happens to a person's eternal situation is faith.[/] Anything else is superfluous.

 

Point 2 would be a false statement. People in heaven no longer have God's wrath hanging over them, that was taken care of on the cross by Jesus.

You said in a post a few days or weeks ago that it was God's wrath that made people go to hell. Now you're saying that the wrath is gone.

 

No. I believe that LNC has covered this.

The wrath of God is only gone for those who have believed in and trusted that Jesus has deflected/removed/taken it away from them. Not for all. It's a matter of individual choice.

How about this thought experiment?

 

Q. If God's wrath rests on everyone on Planet Alphabet, from Mr.A to Mr.Z, but Mr.K believes and trusts in Jesus, how many of the original 26 Alphabetans does the wrath remain on?

A. 25. Jesus' sacrifice was and is effective for Mr.K, but not for everyone else - because Alphabetans A thru J and L thru Z did not believe and trust in the sacrifice.

 

So God's wrath against Mr.K's is gone, but it remains on A - J and L - Z.

 

LNC is not saying that all the wrath, due to everyone, is gone. What he's saying is that the wrath due to the individual who believes and trusts is gone. That is why all those in heaven (who did believe in and trust Jesus) no longer have the wrath hanging over them. The key to understanding is not to confuse a blanket removal of wrath/sin with an individual removal of it. Try looking at it from a plague vs. antidote angle.

 

Let's suppose that a virulent new virus rapidly infects everyone on Earth. This plague is 100% fatal. Everyone has it and it's going to kill everyone. These are certainties. The only unknown is when.

Now, if someone discovers the perfect cure that's 100% effective every time it's administered, let's ask ourselves some questions.

 

Q. How many of the Earth's population who take the cure will be cured?

A. 100%. It's always effective, but you have to take it.

 

Q. How many of the Earth's population who don't take the cure will be cured?

A. 0% The plague is always fatal.

 

Q. What is the one action that will always prevent the plague from killing you?

A. Taking the cure, because it's always 100% effective.

 

Q. What is the one action that will always let the plague kill you?

A. Not taking the cure, because the plague is always 100% fatal.

 

Q. If the cure has been freely dispensed to everyone in the world, who's responsibility is it some choose not to take it?

A. Their own. They can't blame the person who discovered the cure, those who distributed it or anyone else. If the choice to be cured rests with the individual, then the outcome rests with them too. It's in their hands, nobody else's.

 

(Please note folks, that here is where my understanding breaks down!

I'm not saying that I agree with LNC on any of this. I just think that I've got a bit of insight into how he sees it all. For instance, I really, REALLY don't understand how those who can't make the choice to trust and believe in Jesus can be spared whatever wrath is due to them. Here I'm talking about the likes of my stillborn sister and the billions of 'innocent' souls that, in my book, don't deserve eternal hellfire. The mentally impaired too. I'm still waiting on LNC for his take on their ultimate fate, so I'm not taking his side, ok?)

 

If the wrath was removed by Jesus on the cross, then we don't need faith.

 

The wrath was removed by Jesus for all, but not all choose to accept that fact. So, God honors their choice. Jesus' sacrifice did not result in an 'en-masse' removal of wrath for everyone. As you say below, if that were the case, then what would be the point of faith? No. It gives everyone the choice to have it removed individually - or not. You want your individual burden of wrath removed? Then it's your choice. Not God's. Not anyone else's. You. You and you alone.

 

It's done. Is it not? Have you moved the whole issue now to sin and away from God's wrath? Ok. Let's say it's sin instead. The same problems still apply.

(It's like trying to fix a point on a yoyo. The argument's goal posts keep on moving around...)

 

No. Sin and wrath are inextricably intertwined in LNC's theology. A simple re-phrasing of the Alphabetan thought-experiment will demonstrate this.

 

Q. If everyone, from Mr.A to Mr.Z, on the planet Alphabet is a sinner, but Mr. K believes in and trusts in Jesus, how many of the original 26 Alphabetans will remain sinners after Judgement Day?

A. 25. Mr.K is no longer a sinner, because he trusted that Jesus' sacrifice could remove his burden of sin. Jesus, having no sin can join God the Father in heaven. Mr.K, having accepted Jesus' sacrifice, now shares in Jesus' 'sinlessness', so he can be in heaven too.

 

The end result of both thought experiments is the same.

Mr.K has God the Father's wrath removed from his individual 'life' account (if I can use the banking metaphor again) because he now shares in Jesus' sinless, perfect and pure 'life' account. The other Alphabetans, A thru J and L thru Z had the opportunity to have God's wrath against their sin removed, because Jesus' offer was open to them all too. But they didn't take it.

Who's choice was it? Theirs. So who's to blame? God? Jesus? Somebody else? No. Remember the plague vs. cure argument? The same parameters apply. There's a cure waiting for you to use it, so if you don't you'll just have to live (or die) with the consequences.

Who's responsibility was it when you were alive, to take the cure and rid yourself of that plague? God's? Jesus'? Somebody else's? No. Yours.

 

God is respecting your choice and fairly giving to you what opted for. Don't blame Him or anyone else if you don't like the consequences of your decisions.

 

People in hell are experiencing the wrath of God for their sins.

What wrath? The wrath was taken care of on the cross by Jesus. You said it, just a few lines up. Was it done, or was it not done?

 

It was done for all, but not everyone will accept it. That's why LNC says that God sends nobody to hell. That's why he says they send themselves. That's why God hasn't sent Anne Frank to hell. If she goes there, it'll be her choice - which God will honor.

In both cases, the wrath was meted out, it is a matter of who takes it: Jesus (for those who trust in him) or the person who chooses to take it upon him or herself. Heaven is filled with people who trusted in Jesus during their lifetimes. In heaven there will be no further need for faith as faith is turned to site. In hell, people will not need faith either as that will turn to site; however, they will have no more trust in Jesus in hell than they did on earth. There will be no more love for Jesus in hell than there was on earth either. The rejection will be eternally solidified within each person eternally.

Mumbo-jumbo. Nothing here of value.

 

Is it belief that makes the difference or not? You keep on changing the target here. Is it wrath? No, because Jesus took care of it. No wait, it's still there, he didn't take care of it. Is it sin? Yes, it's not. Is it belief? Only if you believe it is... And on and on it goes.

 

So, let's get it straight. You have to believe that it was done and completed 2,000 years ago for the wrath to be completely removed from you.

 

Yes.

 

But if you don't believe, then it was not completed 2,000 years ago, and the wrath is still hanging over you.

 

No. As explained, it was completed 2,000 years ago and the wrath is still hanging over you UNTIL you believe that it was completed 2,000 years ago. The event is not changed by your belief. Your fate is changed by your belief in the event.

Did I get it right this time?

 

This means that what you are suggesting is that the facts and history changes depending if the person believes or not. If he doesn't believe, then Jesus didn't do anything. But if you believe, then suddenly Jesus did something in the past and the wrath is gone.

 

It's pure fucking magic.

 

This is not quantum mechanics, where observing an event changes the outcome of an experiment. Nor is it magic. LNC is not talking about probabilities, he's talking about certainties.

 

To LNC it is absolutely certain that...

2,000 years ago Jesus completed the act that will remove God's wrath from those who trust that it can, no matter which century they are born in. (No. I don't understand how this can be backdated to Enoch, Abraham or Elijah! I'm waiting to find out.)

The act did not remove the wrath from everyone. If that were the case, everyone born after that date would be born 'sinless', which is not what the Bible says.

The act did not remove the wrath from everyone. If that were the case, then what would be the point of faith? Individual faith is (so to speak) the signature that opens your individual 'life' account. Without it, no account can be opened.

Your act of faith does not change the historical event. What is done is done. What the act of faith does do is change your relationship with God from one of wrath to one of love.

 

You are simply looking at one aspect of the difference. The main aspect is that those in heaven loved Jesus during their lifetimes and those who are in hell rejected Jesus during their lifetimes. God sends people away from Jesus who have rejected him and draws near those who loved him. Separation from Jesus is eternal wrath in itself. So, salvation and wrath are actually intrinsic to the who telos of life rather than accidental properties as you seem to think. Our purpose or telos is to reflect God's nature in whose image we have been created. When we choose to reject that telos and to reflect our sinful nature instead, then we have rejected God in the process and sealed our fate to live eternally apart from him. It is in that rejection of our purpose that we choose a new destiny of darkness, loneliness and bitterness.

 

LNC

So how about a person like me? I used to believe that I was saved and that Jesus died for me. Now I believe it's just bunk, pure bunk. So did God put his wrath back on me, and did suddenly history change for me only and Jesus now suddenly never died for me in the past? It sounds like every person lives in his own magical quantum time line, and never will your history meet my history, because our histories are different depending on what we believe.

 

Seriously. You need to use your fucking brain because you're wasting it, big time.

 

Again, you are saying that Jesus did something. He removed God's wrath. But then you say that the wrath is only removed if I believe. So Jesus didn't remove it then. It's my belief that removes it, as a final step. It's not enough that Jesus died. I have to believe it too. You can't say you win a race by running up to 5 feet before the finish line, and then ask people to believe that you crossed it. You don't win a race that way. Sorry! Play again pal, and use your head this time.

 

It would be nice to work for you, because you would never ask anyone to finish their jobs. I would only have to tell you, it's done, it's finished, and show you something incomplete. When you ask why it's incomplete, I'd tell you, it's 100%, you just have to believe it.

 

I feel really bad for you because you've been had, you've been punk'd by the biggest scam in history, and still refuse to see it. You got a better brain than that. But you have to start using it.

 

Like most people in this forum, I'm an ex-Christian. So I'm in the same boat as you Ouroboros. All of us ex-Xians are. So I want the same question (What about a person like me?) answered too. I want some resolution on this and I'm getting mightily frustrated that LNC seems to be drip-feeding us the answers in super-slow motion, yielding the absolute bare minimum of information every so often.

 

I've got an aircraft hangar-full of questions I want him to answer. So I wish he'd hurry the **** up!

 

Anyway, are we cool? No crossed wires here? You get that I'm not taking his side, right? I'm just trying to see where he's at, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

These arguments remind me very much like theologians of the Middle Ages having debates about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Sophisticated nonsense, and it never occurs to LNC the simple absurdity of it. It's like arguing out of a Child's Bible about the animals on the ark and how on earth Noah could have fed all them, only it's an adult getting a Master's Degree in Storybook arguments. It never occurring that the specifics are vehicles for the story's message, and not about the facts of the events, that the reality beyond the wrappers look quite different than the wrappers themselves.

I hope you don't think my discussion here is a waste though.

 

Even though I think LNC is more or less crazy, I do believe there is a somewhat intelligent being hiding under the shell of ideology and childish belief. I just hope that some day the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place, and he wakes up one day and say, "Oh, shit. Now I get it!"

I'm saying for him it is an exercise in futility. He is arguing for the logic of his system, but only from within a mode of thinking itself. It is like arguing why the Green Hornet is the best superhero, when to us the Green Hornet represents something behind the hero itself, and the reality of life outside hero-worship looks quite differently, and has nuance and subtleties that those figures are simple shadows of.

 

What I see all these arguments in response to be is an attempt to show the inherent flaws in the arguments are is an attempt to appeal to reason to move beyond the myth of the Green Hornet into the act of being the hero itself; to lift oneself up to our potentials free from the inherent limits that any system must superimpose in order to maintain its own functionality. I believe in a hierarchy, where each level of growth, each stage of thought, of worldview, of living, must have its own system of support. Mythological thinking, needs a mythological support system. Rationality needs a rationality system, with its own attending frameworks.

 

What I see with LNC and those like him, is being caught between two worlds (and not without some good reasons why, mind you). All these arguments are trying to make myth appeal to reason, to bridge the gap between the two. In another light, its like trying to say "don't lose sight of what it means to be a 12 year old as you become a young adult," except it comes out more as a sideways expression that playing with plastic guns in make believe battles is a valid way to retain what you feel being lost by growing up. You are 'falling away' from the 'faith', so to speak. Those who aren't playing on that level with you anymore are no longer your friends. And so you try to persuade them why they should still play Green Hornet with you, appealing to their more advanced reason and logic in order to get them to come play and validate you still finding value in it.

 

I do see a value in presenting rational thought to appeal to maturity, but it in and of itself will not prevail. We argue why the Green Hornet can't be the Savior of the world from our perspective as adults to those who still see him in that role. We point to why his magical technology of the Black Beauty can't possibly be real in the hopes of maybe getting him to no longer live in that world of mythology. And it does help in actuality to help transition to the adult world by reminding ourselves logically that they aren't facts. But these arguments are more for those who are already growing out of the need for the Green Hornet to something else, some new level of support system for a new emerging mode of thought. You can never convince Tommy the Green Hornet is a character about something in all of us, until he no longer needs that as a means of support.

 

Sadly, sometimes when we invest so much of our defense of our myths in our lives, the arguments start to become less about the myths for us, as to justify all the energies we have expended in defending them. I think that may be in part why I don't hear anything appealing behind these arguments of LNC's. I don't hear anything existential being expressed. It's just logic arguments about the gods and how they operate in their god-world. It's not about "God", as in what is in us, so to speak. It's all about the characters themselves.

 

This is why I don't engage in this with him. "What we are, that only can we see." The world of myth and magic to a child is all they can see. How can you talk about the adult world to someone living in that world? Yes, sight does come, but it looks very different than that magical world we imagined it would look like when we were still a child, mythologizing that imagined future for us. Until then, the child will deny what he hears that doesn't fit within in mythological framework of the future. He's not ready to leave behind the childish things.

He's not ready now, but hopefully the seed is planted. The day when all that weed of religious blindness dies out, perhaps the real tree of knowledge will break through.

I don't see it so much as religion, as maturity of thought. Religion has many meanings and uses, and I see it as support structures for functioning. Mythic religions were perfectly valid to support mythical thought, for instance. This is a whole other conversation for another topic. I do agree though that presenting arguments from this point of view do offer a way to help process those changes that occur, but they are never the 'reason' why people change - even if we somehow associate the arguments with that change. We change systems for much larger reasons than an argument.

[Ouroboros]

No. I believe that LNC has covered this.

The wrath of God is only gone for those who have believed in and trusted that Jesus has deflected/removed/taken it away from them. Not for all. It's a matter of individual choice.

I think you're missing my point.

 

Think of it. Something is done in the past. Is it done, or is it not done? To say that it's done, but only done if someone believes it is done, means that it didn't happen until someone believes that it happened. In other words, history, events in the past, are being done or not done depending on people's belief in the now.

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

If he used expressions like, "Jesus provided a way for us to get rid of God's wrath," or similar, it would make more sense. What doesn't make sense is to say, "God removed the wrath when Jesus died on the cross." So did God remove it, or did he not? Obviously, he didn't since you have to believe before it is removed.

 

The problem I have is the very careless and nebulous use of temporal events. If a person claims an event happened and something came as a result of it, he can't take it back by saying that it only happened if something else happens now.

 

How about this thought experiment?

 

Q. If God's wrath rests on everyone on Planet Alphabet, from Mr.A to Mr.Z, but Mr.K believes and trusts in Jesus, how many of the original 26 Alphabetans does the wrath remain on?

A. 25. Jesus' sacrifice was and is effective for Mr.K, but not for everyone else - because Alphabetans A thru J and L thru Z did not believe and trust in the sacrifice.

 

So God's wrath against Mr.K's is gone, but it remains on A - J and L - Z.

That doesn't explain the use of phrases like "God removed the wrath..." The verb "removed" is not in present form, and it's not in some conditional form either, it is presented as a fact, an event that either happened for real or not. If it happened for real, it can't be done unreal until someone in our time makes it real for him only. I would call it historical relativism. History changing on a personal basis only, based on the individuals belief about history.

 

LNC is not saying that all the wrath, due to everyone, is gone.

So what do you make about this "people in heaven are sinners whose wrath was taken by Jesus on the cross"?

 

How can the wrath be taken 2,000 years ago because someone believes today?

 

What I'm trying to get to is that Jesus didn't "take" the wrath 2,000 years ago at all. My point is that they need to use language a lot more careful. If they said, "Jesus provided a way through his actions 2,000 years ago, so that when I believe God can remove the wrath now because I believe..." I would be more happy. It's the whole idea that Jesus completed the work, but yet it's not completed until something else is done now. If something has to be done now, then it wasn't as completed to 100% in the past.

 

They need to straighten up their language. The biggest problem Christianity is facing is that it is very sloppy about its language. It's using flowery language to present very obscure things, things they can't really explain. If they can't explain them, then I can't consider they have anything of value.

 

Put it this way, I am saved. You know why? Because my pet rock saved me 8,000 years ago. I got the rock here, and I believe it fell from a magical mountain 8,000 years ago, therefor it did. You might not believe it did, therefore it didn't fall from a magical mountain in your timeline of existence. History is different depending on what you believe.

 

What he's saying is that the wrath due to the individual who believes and trusts is gone. That is why all those in heaven (who did believe in and trust Jesus) no longer have the wrath hanging over them. The key to understanding is not to confuse a blanket removal of wrath/sin with an individual removal of it. Try looking at it from a plague vs. antidote angle.

But that's not how the use the language. They use it as absolute terms. "It is done. It is complete." In what sense? In a semi-complete sense only. They don't want to admit that it really is "it was almost complete, it only needs one more nut to work." No, they say Jesus saved the whole world, except he didn't because he only did it if your saved, but if you're not saved then Jesus did save them 2,000 years ago. It's just stupid. Either it happened, or it didn't.

 

Did Jesus save people 2,000 years ago? No! Because no one is supposedly saved until they believe it.

[Ouroboros]

Let's suppose that a virulent new virus rapidly infects everyone on Earth. This plague is 100% fatal. Everyone has it and it's going to kill everyone. These are certainties. The only unknown is when.

Now, if someone discovers the perfect cure that's 100% effective every time it's administered, let's ask ourselves some questions.

 

Q. How many of the Earth's population who take the cure will be cured?

A. 100%. It's always effective, but you have to take it.

 

Q. How many of the Earth's population who don't take the cure will be cured?

A. 0% The plague is always fatal.

 

Q. What is the one action that will always prevent the plague from killing you?

A. Taking the cure, because it's always 100% effective.

 

Q. What is the one action that will always let the plague kill you?

A. Not taking the cure, because the plague is always 100% fatal.

 

Q. If the cure has been freely dispensed to everyone in the world, who's responsibility is it some choose not to take it?

A. Their own. They can't blame the person who discovered the cure, those who distributed it or anyone else. If the choice to be cured rests with the individual, then the outcome rests with them too. It's in their hands, nobody else's.

So you're saying that Jesus provided a cure, but he didn't administer it? It's only administered when you believe God has the cure.

 

Okay, let's work with that analogy.

 

The way Christians phrase it is: Jesus cured you 2,000 years ago, but only if you believe.

 

A more proper way to say it is: Jesus provided a cure 2,000 years ago, but he will not give it to you unless you ask him for it.

 

I'm just bugged by how they keep on presenting it as a done deal. God didn't remove his wrath 2,000 years ago, he is removing the wrath from those who believe. That's the whole point here! It's belief that removes. Jesus provided a way to believe, but he didn't finish the task because it is the believers task to finish it. Does this make sense to you?

 

The whole discussion here is, is it God's wrath that sends people to Hell? Sure, it is.

 

Is it the lack of faith? Yes! That is actually also a reason. But LNC keeps on telling us that it is NOT!

 

How can that be!? It's so frigging obvious that belief is a part of the reasons why people go to Hell. It's not JUST the wrath.

 

Take the disease and the cure. Is it the disease the kills the people? Yes, absolute. But are we saying that the action of "not taking the cure" is not a reason or cause at all? If it's not part of the causal chain of events to why a person dies, then it is just bad science! Why take the cure if taking the cure has noting to do with getting well!?

 

The point is: according to Christians, people go to Hell for all these reasons: sin, God's wrath, and unbelief.

 

But since sin and God's wrath are constant, the only independent variable in the formula is unbelief. The only dividing factor between the two systems, the fork in the road, is decided by belief. But LNC refuse to admit that.

 

If the wrath was removed by Jesus on the cross, then we don't need faith.

 

The wrath was removed by Jesus for all, but not all choose to accept that fact. So, God honors their choice. Jesus' sacrifice did not result in an 'en-masse' removal of wrath for everyone. As you say below, if that were the case, then what would be the point of faith? No. It gives everyone the choice to have it removed individually - or not. You want your individual burden of wrath removed? Then it's your choice. Not God's. Not anyone else's. You. You and you alone.

But LNC claims that unbelief has NOTHING to do with people going to Hell.

 

Only wrath and sin sends people to Hell.

 

Only lack of wrath and lack of sin sense people to Heaven.

 

And belief and unbelief has nothing to do with it.

 

Except that it does. And he claims then that it does, and yet says earlier that it doesn't. But then he says that it does, and then that it doesn't. And then... Basically, he's moving the goal post to fit his argument.

 

So summarize my point again:

People go to Hell because of 1. God's wrath, 2. sin, 3. unbelief (this one LNC disagrees with)

People go to Heaven because of 1. God's wrath is gone, 2. sin is forgiven, 3. belief

 

But why is God's wrath gone? Because of belief. In other words, God's wrath is a dependent variable. (like y=x. x is independent. y dependent. y changes with x.)

 

The same for sin, it is a dependent variable, dependent on belief.

 

So again, the dividing factor here is belief. Belief changes it all. Belief is the switch. Everything else follows that switch. If switch on, or off, decides all the other factors.

 

So how can it NOT be that that switch is one of the causes for going to Hell? LNC argues early on that it doesn't. That doesn't make sense, still.

 

...

 

Whatever. I give up. I can only say it in so many hundred different ways.

[Ouroboros]

How 'bout this then, Christians?

 

If you were God, would you send Anne Frank to hell where she would suffer forever for not believing in Jesus? Yes or no.

 

(Very good question, LastKing.)

 

No, she would not suffer forever for not believing in Jesus.

 

LNC

This is what I don't understand. And I still can't understand that position. LNC's position is that people don't go to Hell for unbelief. Unbelief has nothing to do with it. That doesn't make sense. It's illogical.

 

And that's all I have to say. LNC is illogical and defends it by claiming it's logical. But he failed.

 

Person A asks: why did she die?

 

The doctor answers: she got sick, we had the cure, but she refused to take it.

 

Person A: no, she didn't refuse to take it, that's not part of why she died. That's illogical. She died because of the sickness.

 

Doctor: that's true. She died from the sickness, but part of the reasons why she died was that she didn't take the cure.

 

Person A: No, that's impossible. That's logically incomprehensible according to LNC logic. She died because of the sickness, and the sickness only, nothing else.

 

Doctor: whatever.

[Phanta]

To Ouroboros, Phanta, Antlerman, DesertBob, Dethl, et al....

 

Tell me to butt out of this if you want... (it's not my turn yet) ...but I think I can provide some help here.

 

Please don't get mad at me - just stick with what I'm trying to clarify, ok?

 

Not mad at all. I appreciate the value in clarifying positions and working forward from that point, and I think you did a great job of outlining LNC's position. That is how I understood his position as well.

 

I am also interested in answers to your questions about those incapable of deciding tings for themselves and ex-believers.

 

Nice post.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

No. I believe that LNC has covered this.

The wrath of God is only gone for those who have believed in and trusted that Jesus has deflected/removed/taken it away from them. Not for all. It's a matter of individual choice.

I think you're missing my point.

 

Think of it. Something is done in the past. Is it done, or is it not done? To say that it's done, but only done if someone believes it is done, means that it didn't happen until someone believes that it happened. In other words, history, events in the past, are being done or not done depending on people's belief in the now.

 

I think what you're saying is that, unlike us taking a prepared antidote to a disease, Jesus actually did an action at a certain point in time that supposedly took on all of God's wrath. So, how could that then be something that we can choose to accept or not.

 

This has been my question in other threads, asked as "by what mechanism?" Magic, apparently. Maybe it has to do with God having no time, so, for God, Jesus is perpetually accepting wrath any time a person believes and trusts (LNC was clear that both belief and trust were necessary, not belief alone.)

 

What I'm trying to get to is that Jesus didn't "take" the wrath 2,000 years ago at all. My point is that they need to use language a lot more careful. If they said, "Jesus provided a way through his actions 2,000 years ago, so that when I believe God can remove the wrath now because I believe..." I would be more happy. It's the whole idea that Jesus completed the work, but yet it's not completed until something else is done now. If something has to be done now, then it wasn't as completed to 100% in the past.

 

I wonder if this is how Universalism was born. "It is done".

 

Done is done. As you say here.

 

But that's not how the use the language. They use it as absolute terms. "It is done. It is complete." In what sense? In a semi-complete sense only. They don't want to admit that it really is "it was almost complete, it only needs one more nut to work." No, they say Jesus saved the whole world, except he didn't because he only did it if your saved, but if you're not saved then Jesus did save them 2,000 years ago. It's just stupid. Either it happened, or it didn't.

 

Did Jesus save people 2,000 years ago? No! Because no one is supposedly saved until they believe it.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

So again, the dividing factor here is belief. Belief changes it all. Belief is the switch. Everything else follows that switch. If switch on, or off, decides all the other factors.

 

So how can it NOT be that that switch is one of the causes for going to Hell? LNC argues early on that it doesn't. That doesn't make sense, still.

 

LNC's position is that one can believe and still reject. Trust seems to be the ultimate point, from what I'm reading of LNC. Belief is an earlier step.

 

P

[dethl]

So how about a person like me? I used to believe that I was saved and that Jesus died for me. Now I believe it's just bunk, pure bunk. So did God put his wrath back on me, and did suddenly history change for me only and Jesus now suddenly never died for me in the past? It sounds like every person lives in his own magical quantum time line, and never will your history meet my history, because our histories are different depending on what we believe.

 

Sounds like, according to the post you're responding to, you get frozen in whatever state you die.

Right.

 

You can switch God's wrath on and off during your life by belief or unbelief. And even change a historical even in the past by faith. Mysterious. But after you die? Tough luck. Then it's too late. And I always wondered why?

 

Now I know, after the conversation with Dethl, the Jewish faith is that the sinners go to Hell for cleansing. They're there for a time, but eventually the go to Heaven. Honestly, that makes actually a lot more sense. I can even see that as a justified act by God. "You did some bad stuff, sorry, but well drag that sin out of you first, then you come here like everyone else."

 

 

The idea that fire is cleansing is an old Pagan and Zoroastrian idea.

 

Also interesting enough is that Jewish "hell" (if you want to call it that considering all Jews' souls go there for a small time) is actually a dark and gloomy place - something the Greek equivocated to their Hades. It was turned into a place of fire and brimstone by Christians (and if I wasn't too lazy to look it up I'm sure it was an idea assimilated from somewhere else).

 

[Ouroboros]

I think what you're saying is that, unlike us taking a prepared antidote to a disease, Jesus actually did an action at a certain point in time that supposedly took on all of God's wrath. So, how could that then be something that we can choose to accept or not.

 

This has been my question in other threads, asked as "by what mechanism?" Magic, apparently. Maybe it has to do with God having no time, so, for God, Jesus is perpetually accepting wrath any time a person believes and trusts (LNC was clear that both belief and trust were necessary, not belief alone.)

Exactly. It must be some non-temporal event that is happening, not 2,000 years ago, but it happens now when someone is "saved" by believing. And it un-happens when someone lose their faith.

 

I wonder if this is how Universalism was born. "It is done".

 

Done is done. As you say here.

Finally! You're getting it.

 

I had Universalism in the back of my head all along, but I didn't want to bring that out. I wanted to see if the coin dropped with LNC that his phrasing of the "it is done" and "took away" etc, express that we are all saved, right now, regardless if we believe or not.

 

Consider this, if unbelief is not at all part of going to Hell, then logically (I don't want to bring up Boolean algebra here to prove it), belief wouldn't be part of going to Heaven either. Belief is a discontinuous action. There's nothing between belief and non-belief. And if belief is a deciding factor for the outcome of one side of the formula, it would surely be a deciding factor of the outcome of the other side of the formula. It can't be both directing the outcome and still not.

[Ouroboros]

So again, the dividing factor here is belief. Belief changes it all. Belief is the switch. Everything else follows that switch. If switch on, or off, decides all the other factors.

 

So how can it NOT be that that switch is one of the causes for going to Hell? LNC argues early on that it doesn't. That doesn't make sense, still.

 

LNC's position is that one can believe and still reject. Trust seems to be the ultimate point, from what I'm reading of LNC. Belief is an earlier step.

 

P

Ok. Belief or trust, I find them rather close to each other. Trust to me means that you believe something or someone to be credible. You believe in something when you trust it. I think they're pretty much go hand in hand. But that's me.

 

If faith is the switch for salvation, or belief, or trust, or eating a cherry pie, it still is the final switch that decides the fork in the road. To claim that only the active step of going to the left is a cause, while decided to go the right is not, it just doesn't make sense.

 

I can tell a story to this. We were in a big car accident many years ago. One of the parties that caused the accident drove a big semi-truck. In his deposition, he claimed that he did not cause the accident. Why? Because he closed his eyes for a few seconds and didn't see the truck in front of him. Seriously. He claimed that him closing his eyes was not part of causing the accident. It wasn't his fault because he didn't see anything. He was the one crashing into the truck in front of him. What an idiot, right?

 

Well, we could put a spin on this story. If he had had his eyes open, he would have avoided the accident. That's like the switch of faith/belief/trust LNC is talking about. But it wouldn't be logical to say that he wasn't part of the accident because he closed his eyes. If he can see and avoid the accident. Seeing was a big part (or cause) for him avoiding it. But closing his eyes is also a big part (cause) of causing an accident. It can't be just in one case and not the other.

 

Ergo, unbelief is part of the reason why people go to Hell (according to Christian belief, but not LNC's). It can't be excluded. It can however be argued that it's not the ONLY reason, but for sure, it can't be said that it has no part at all. It must. Or the whole structure is illogical. I just want him to see it. But he doesn't want to. So... whatever.