God's choice: quick question for Christians

[DaveM]

There is absolutely nothing in the passage that indicates that this judgment does not apply to the whole of humanity. What you are doing is trying to reconcile the Pauline view of salvation by faith as a sine qua non, and apply it to a passage that directly contradicts that view. It may indeed be a view that has been traditionally accepted in your church, but that does not make it a particularly well-researched view derived from objective critical scholarship.

Sorry but you are incorrect.  Perhaps you should start by looking at that other famous judgement - the Great White Throne Judgement found in Revelation 20.  If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised.  These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ.  Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised.  Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period.  But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others.  And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement.  And the basis for the judgement handed down to them?  On the basis of what they had done!  This is a judgement according to works.  Not surprising there are no Christians here, we already have been granted salvation and that by grace and not works.

Once this judgement is correctly understood we discover perhaps the most important truth emerging from this passage.  There are those whose names do appear in the book of life and they are granted salvation.  The implications of that are worth thinking about.

Now the Judgement of the Nations found in Matthew 25 is set on the contest of the Olivet Discourse.  Jesus Olivet teachings are found in Matthew 24 & 25, Mark 13 portion of Luke 17 and Luke 21.  If one takes the time to study these carefully (preferable together with many other passages on eschatology) one comes to the inevitable conclusion that there are no Christians here either and thus, once again nor surprising it is again a judgement by works and not grace.

[DaveM]

There are no actual records of what Jesus  said. All is hear-say and written down only quite a bit later, having been translated, re-translated, etc..

One hears so often so many Bishops, Revs and others stating  what Jesus said. None of them ever remembers to say, 'we believe that..'and they get away with it too. I wish more presenters would challenge them, at least  occasionally.

Evening Susan, 

There is a little booklet written quite a few years ago by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the finest Christian scholars of recent times.  It is entitled, 'The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?'  Well worth a read if you can get it in a format suited to your situation.

[SusanDoris]

Evening Susan, 

There is a little booklet written quite a few years ago by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the finest Christian scholars of recent times.  It is entitled, 'The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?'  Well worth a read if you can get it in a format suited to your situation.

Can you cite one objective fact about Christ from that book? No doubt there are documents wwhich are reliably dated to the first century AD, but by the time anything came to be written down the narrative had been passed on orally and as we all know all such stories are embellished by the tellers. There's a  booktitled 'Nation' by Sir Terry Pratchett which illustrates, particularly in the last few chapters,  how such things happen.

[ippy]

Just read your posts Sriram, bugger it, I was going to rob several banks, collect the usual protection money, do a few more murders and I thought that was enough for this week, just planed some good frauds for next week.

Good job I read your posts Sriram, I thought the above was the norm until you explained that the various religions don't approve, I wouldn't have known otherwise.

Good job the various religions instruct us about these things, the sort off things we couldn't possibly work out for ourselves.

Well I never?

Regards ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If one more forum atheist backswivels onto science or tries to justify his position on religion by means of methodological naturalism I think I'm going to Upchuck.

[jeremyp]

Sorry but you are incorrect.  Perhaps you should start by looking at that other famous judgement - the Great White Throne Judgement found in Revelation 20.  If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised.  These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ.  Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised.  Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period.  But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others.  And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement.  And the basis for the judgement handed down to them?  On the basis of what they had done! 

So your answer to the question posed in the OP is the the hateful Christians get preferential treatment.

[Walter]

If one more forum atheist backswivels onto science or tries to justify his position on religion by means of methodological naturalism I think I'm going to Upchuck.

on you go you silly upchucker.

[Walter]

Evening Susan, 

There is a little booklet written quite a few years ago by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the finest Christian scholars of recent times.  It is entitled, 'The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?'  Well worth a read if you can get it in a format suited to your situation.

I'm guessing he didn't use the scientific method when he  wrote that booklet!

[Sassy]

Compared to the garbage you spout Sass, I think I am reasonably well informed!

You mean you it is reasonable to assume you are deluded too.

[Sebastian Toe]

If one more forum atheist backswivels onto science or tries to justify his position on religion by means of methodological naturalism I think I'm going to Upchuck.

There's a nice restaurant there, run by big Hughie, I hear that the Clam Chunder is popular.

[Sriram]

You talk lot of sense sririam, from a believer-in-God point of view. Like your posts v much.

Thanks a lot Robbie! 

If you are interested, please try my blog at the link to the left. There are several articles I have written that you may like. Start with the earlier ones.

And never mind these guys on here. They are just harmless, insecure chaps trying hard to find meaninglessness in a meaningful world! 

Cheers.

Sriram

[DaveM]

I'm guessing he didn't use the scientific method when he  wrote that booklet!

I just love your posts.  They are so erudite and profound and make such a major contribution towards enhancing the quality of discussion on this Forum. 

[DaveM]

So your answer to the question posed in the OP is the the hateful Christians get preferential treatment.

No.  As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.  That claim remains unchallenged.  It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.

[SusanDoris]

No.  As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.  That claim remains unchallenged.  It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.

You talk of some 'only one' before whom, presumably,  you expect to stamd and be judged? Do you feel you are subservient to this 'one'? Do you feel confident that your life will have qualified you to be let in?
If someone named Peter is there to ask you questions, would you dispute the decision if it was not to your liking? He is/was an ordinary person, after all, and therefore you are equally human.
P.S. Your first post was approx. 210 words which tended to hide meaning.
 

[torridon]

No.  As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.  That claim remains unchallenged.  It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.

I would argue that there is no such thing as a hateless christian either.  All christians are humans and all humans experience both love and hate in some degree.  We can all try to live our lives by a 'love your neighbour' injunction, and we all fail to some or other degree, being human, being realistic, being pragmatic.  What we do in reality is to try to get along without impinging on other people's territory.

I suppose some infinitely wise judge could tot up the credits and debits of a person's whole life taking into account mitigating factors, but I don't see how a person could be judged on their beliefs as these change over time.  A person's beliefs are only valid for a moment in time and it would be less easy to measure a person's beliefs over a lifespan to come up with some sort of average belief.

[Stranger]

If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised.  These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ.  Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised.  Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period.  But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others.  And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement.  And the basis for the judgement handed down to them?  On the basis of what they had done!  This is a judgement according to works.  Not surprising there are no Christians here, we already have been granted salvation and that by grace and not works.

So, basically, this god of yours is giving believers a free pass. In other words, your god is unjust. Doubly so as it has given us no evidence and no rational reasons to actually become believers.

It appears to be a very nasty fairytale.

[Walter]

I just love your posts.  They are so erudite and profound and make such a major contribution towards enhancing the quality of discussion on this Forum.

that's very kind of you DaveM, I Think we are going to get along fine.

This is how it works ,you make religious claims and I ask you to prove it.
Up to now, in the history of human kind, no -one has ever been able to . So, you're  on a looser to start with , however I look forward to watching you tie yourself in knots attempting to . Good luck.

btw I'm prepared and willing to change my mind as soon as you do .

[Gordon]

No.  As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.  That claim remains unchallenged.

Not so - I challenged you the other day to explain on what basis you've excluded the risks of these scriptures containing propaganda for Jesus - you declined to accept the challenge. 

It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.

All very circular and self-referential, as well as being yet another fallacious argument from authority. However, unless you can meaningfully exclude the risks of human artifice then these 'scriptures' are indistinguishable from fiction.

[DaveM]

You talk of some 'only one' before whom, presumably,  you expect to stamd and be judged? Do you feel you are subservient to this 'one'? Do you feel confident that your life will have qualified you to be let in?
If someone named Peter is there to ask you questions, would you dispute the decision if it was not to your liking? He is/was an ordinary person, after all, and therefore you are equally human.
P.S. Your first post was approx. 210 words which tended to hide meaning.
 

Hi Susan, Some interesting questions.  Let me try and respond as best as I can but, with your final comment in mind, perhaps I should split the answers across several posts.

First it comes as a surprise to many that Christians do not get judged (John 5:24).  The Greek word Jesus uses here for judgement can be written phonetically as 'krisis; a word used to convey the concept of legal trials, of verdicts and judgements and sentences.  Christians have already been declared 'not guilty' and do not stand before any such heavenly tribunal. 

When Paul says (in Romans and Corinthians) that we must, 'all appear before the 'judgement of seat Christ' he uses a very different Greek word, the 'Bhema Seat'.  Here Paul is using an illustration from the ancient Greek Games where the Bhema Seat was the podium where athletes where awarded their prizes.  So Christians are assessed for rewards and not put on trial for judgement and potential condemnation.  So while a man called Peter may be surprised to find me being allowed in free of charge he will already have seen sufficient other examples as not to ask questions.

Enjoy your day.

[DaveM]

So, basically, this god of yours is giving believers a free pass. In other words, your god is unjust. Doubly so as it has given us no evidence and no rational reasons to actually become believers.

It appears to be a very nasty fairytale.

Also a response to Walters post #116.

Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board,  Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.

As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!)  From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.

For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic.  And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.

For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.

The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion.  Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.

[Walter]

Hi Susan, Some interesting questions.  Let me try and respond as best as I can but, with your final comment in mind, perhaps I should split the answers across several posts.

First it comes as a surprise to many that Christians do not get judged (John 5:24).  The Greek word Jesus uses here for judgement can be written phonetically as 'krisis; a word used to convey the concept of legal trials, of verdicts and judgements and sentences.  Christians have already been declared 'not guilty' and do not stand before any such heavenly tribunal. 

When Paul says (in Romans and Corinthians) that we must, 'all appear before the 'judgement of seat Christ' he uses a very different Greek word, the 'Bhema Seat'.  Here Paul is using an illustration from the ancient Greek Games where the Bhema Seat was the podium where athletes where awarded their prizes.  So Christians are assessed for rewards and not put on trial for judgement and potential condemnation.  So while a man called Peter may be surprised to find me being allowed in free of charge he will already have seen sufficient other examples as not to ask questions.

Enjoy your day.

all very interesting but before any of it can be taken seriously you will have to show how you know any of it is true and not just a delightful fairy story for five year olds.

[DaveM]

that's very kind of you DaveM, I Think we are going to get along fine.

This is how it works ,you make religious claims and I ask you to prove it.
Up to now, in the history of human kind, no -one has ever been able to . So, you're  on a looser to start with , however I look forward to watching you tie yourself in knots attempting to . Good luck.

btw I'm prepared and willing to change my mind as soon as you do .

Horrors no!!  The thought of me arguing for atheism and you responding with passionate reasoning for the claims of Christianity is more than I can handle.  Time to be out of here and settle for several cups of strong coffee to recover my equilibrium.

[Walter]

Also a response to Walters post #116.

Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board,  Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.

As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!)  From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.

For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic.  And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.

For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.

The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion.  Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.

In that case why don't you start all your statements with
'this is what I believe to be true but I have no way of verifying it ' and be honest about it .

Otherwise all you are doing is repeating something you've read in an old book as if it is fact. And you do it with such authority that the hard of thinking might be fooled by it and you wouldn't want that would you?

[Walter]

Horrors no!!  The thought of me arguing for atheism and you responding with passionate reasoning for the claims of Christianity is more than I can handle.  Time to be out of here and settle for several cups of strong coffee to recover my equilibrium.

ive just re-read my post and it is misleading.
what I meant to say is, if you can produce evidence I will change my mind.

As you are aware , there is no evidence for me to produce .

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

No.  As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.  That claim remains unchallenged.

That’s not true – it was challenged, but you ignored the challenges. First, as a general concept “hate” is in some cases mandated (“love the sinner, hate the sin” etc); and second the definition of “hate” is fluid in any case – for example I find a much of Christian homophobia, misogyny etc to be hateful.

It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.

Here’s the Scripture you provided:

“If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised.  These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ.  Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised.  Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period.  But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others.  And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement.  And the basis for the judgement handed down to them?  On the basis of what they had done!  This is a judgement according to works.  Not surprising there are no Christians here, we already have been granted salvation and that by grace and not works.”

So according to you beliefs the first lot are “raised” and get a free pass even though the only criterion for their inclusion seems to be that they were believers. There’s no mention that I can see of excluding the nasty believers from that group. Your god then hangs around for an indeterminate amount of time (why?), then digs up the rest and “judges” them by some unspecified means.

And you think that to be a morally good way to carry on?

Really?