God, justice, fairness and perfection

[Justin108]

For this debate, I need you to answer each of these questions in order.

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

2. If God is not perfectly fair and just, does that mean God is by definition imperfect?

3. Does everyone have an equal chance in getting into heaven?

4. If everyone does not have an equal chance in getting into heaven, is God still perfectly fair and just?

[Justin108]

And what about the matter of belief? According to Mark 16:16 and Revelation 21:8, those who do not believe are condemned and cast into the lake of fire.

But it doesn't mean that those who didn't believe in Jesus in this life will be condemned in the next life if they got the opportunity to see the truth in death.

The truth in death? Do you mean seeing God after we die? Doesn't everyone see God after we die? If everyone sees God after they die, no one will be an unbeliever and no one will be condemned for it, making Mark 16:16 a waste of space in the Bible. Why is Mark 16:16 in the Bible if literally everyone will be a believer and literally no one will be condemned for unbelief?

Is the litter girl in deepest, darkest Africa going to hell for not ever knowing who Jesus was?

According to Mark 16:16, yes. Mark 16:16 makes no exception and so it is unjustified to assume such an exception exists.

I believe it all depends on how one interprets things.

Yes, and you interpret it by completely disregarding Mark 16:16

Therefore, if the uncircumcision (the Unbelievers)

Stop right there. "Uncircumsized" does not mean "unbeliever". Not even close. Not even remotely close. You are forcing Romans 2 (not Galatians 2) to fit your desired interpretation so much that you redefine "circumcision" as "belief". All Romans 2 is telling us here is that it's okay to not be circumcised. The lengths some theists would go to to force the Bible to say what they want it to say... honestly...

In fact, Jesus said in Matthew 7:

21Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.

So the Lord will tell some believers to depart!

When did I ever say "all believers go to heaven"? All this proves is that some believers do not go to heaven. So what? My claim is that, according to the Bible, all
non-believers are condemned. I have never once claimed that all believers go to heaven.

Who's to say that this wouldn't be the case with an atheist today should they know Him?

"An atheist" or "all atheists"? If it happens to an atheist, then good for him. But unless it happens to all atheists, it is unfair that this one atheist is lucky enough to receive proof from God

If the Canaanite woman had never met Jesus, thus could never have the chance to believe, would she be sent to hell? How can a lack of opportunity be held against someone?

Hey, I think it's just as unfair as you do. But that's what the Bible suggests. Mark 16:16 makes no exceptions.

Babies can't go to hell. They have never committed sin.

So all babies go to heaven? Well that's not fair. I wish I died when I was an infant. But because I was unlucky enough to not die as an infant, I stand a chance of going to hell one day

The irony is that God doesn't send us to hell. People do.

Nope. A criminal does not "send himself to prison", the court does. In this case, God is the judge, jury and executioner.

Hell is the complete separation from God from what I understand and if someone clings onto their sin, what can God do about it?

I don't know... maybe prove to us he exists?

I think you'd consider it very unfair if the evil went unpunished.

Yes I would, but being a non-believer is not evil. So why is it punished?

Then why did Jesus die for all of us?

Here's an old post I made addressing the issue of Jesus dying for our sins
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22367

[JehovahsWitness]

Restructured? Wait, will heaven undergo change? Isn't heaven perfect as is? .

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I apologize, I'll try and explain the terminolgy I have been using a little better. I beleive the following:

Heaven: The location where God lives. The place where all the angels (intelligent spirits) were created to live. The order and structure of which the bible doesn't give much information but what it does give indicates that angels have rank and position and that there is indeed order (which indicates to me some kind of rules or reluglations). God is the supreme ruler of the universe and "King of Heaven" and although they (the spirit world) have had their fair share of problems, wars and upheaval, the bible doesn't speak of any "restructuring" there - although silence on the matter doesn't mean there never has been.


When I was refering to "restructure" I was refering to : A new earthly society. Millions of people living under a new world government* on earth.

Presently our human society is organized under human governments, rulerships - business religion and politics interact to create the structure we all live under. The bible says that this present human society is ultimately controlled by Satan the Devil who is identified in scripture as being the "god of this world". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that soon this world order will change, the wicked will be destroyed and the survivors organized under the new heavenly government with a territory not over one country or continent but earthwide.*


The heavenly government is not be confused with "heaven" or "the angels". We (JWs) believe this is a recently formed group of individuals (144,000) that will be the ruling authority over the earth for 1000 years after the destruction of the wicked. This government is often refered to in scripture as "God's kingdom".


Hope that helps clarify some of the terms I have been using,


JW

[Justin108]

That may well be your idea of a perfect world but it is not the biblical one.

This is special pleading. My definition of a perfect world is based on logic. If something is perfect, it requires no work. Work implies actions needed in order to improve something or achieve a certain goal that is missing. If the world is perfect, there is no room for improvement. There is nothing missing. This is not my idea of perfection, this is the literal meaning of perfection.

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "perfect". In the bible the word "perfect" means complete, as in "completely fulfilling/doing what it was created to do"; a perfect fish cannot fly and a perfect ant cannot crush an elephant.

Were men created to sin? To be disorderly? No. Then a perfect man would neither sin nor be disorderly. Therefore, no leaders are needed to keep them in check.

"Perfect" in every definition means "without flaw". Humans that completely lose control and become disorderly the moment they are no longer supervised is flawed. A person that can function without a leader is better than one that cannot. Since there is no "better than perfect" it is necessary to conclude that a perfect human is one that can function without a leader.

Sure, according to scripture God doesn't "need" anything or anyone to achieve his purpose. However evidently he has chosen to delegate responsibilities. This scripturally speaking is because he knows this will be viewed as the recients as a great joy and privilege.

So God makes us leaders just so we can feel useful...?

I a similar way, I believe personally that the God of the bible dignifies his intelligent creation with work, authority, responsibilities and works along with them to reenforce their unity and give them pleasure.

He dignifies his creation by making them feel useful when they actually aren't?

Humans were not created to successfully rule themselves and left to their own devices (without suitable rulership) will go "downhill" and the result will be suffering in one form or another.

Were humans created to be greedy?
- Yes? Then why does God judge us for it?
- No? Then we will not be greedy in the afterlife and will need no rulers to keep us from being greedy

Were humans created to be wrathful?
- Yes? Then why does God judge us for it?
- No? Then we will not be wrathful in the afterlife and will need no rulers to keep us from being wrathful

Were humans created to be lazy?
- Yes? Then why does God judge us for it?
- No? Then we will not be lazy in the afterlife and will need no rulers to keep us from being lazy

I can repeat this for every sin. A perfect human will not suddenly become rebellious lunatics the moment they lose their leaders. If they did, they would not be perfect.

The gist of it is men will do nothing "wrong" without leadership if they were perfect. Men who do no wrong are by definition better than men who do wrong. A man who does wrong is by definition imperfect.

[JehovahsWitness]

The gist of it is men will do nothing "wrong" without leadership if they were perfect.

This would be hard to prove since biblically, humans have always had leadership of one kind or another and have, since the first man Adam, always been imperfect. In the light of the above I personally accept the biblical view that even perfect (in the biblical sense) man needs God to be successful*

I suppose the edenic issue raised is a reflection of this fundamental question


* I use the word successful according to what I believe to be God's standards.

[Justin108]

This would be hard to prove since biblically, humans have always had leadership of one kind or another

This is not a matter of proof, this is the matter of what "perfect" means. If something is perfect, it cannot do anything wrong. If it does something wrong, it is not perfect.

[Claire Evans]

And what about the matter of belief? According to Mark 16:16 and Revelation 21:8, those who do not believe are condemned and cast into the lake of fire.

But it doesn't mean that those who didn't believe in Jesus in this life will be condemned in the next life if they got the opportunity to see the truth in death.

The truth in death? Do you mean seeing God after we die? Doesn't everyone see God after we die? If everyone sees God after they die, no one will be an unbeliever and no one will be condemned for it, making Mark 16:16 a waste of space in the Bible. Why is Mark 16:16 in the Bible if literally everyone will be a believer and literally no one will be condemned for unbelief?

I believe we see Jesus. We can't see God. Satan believes in God yet he is condemned. There's a difference between believing in God and accepting Him.

Is the litter girl in deepest, darkest Africa going to hell for not ever knowing who Jesus was?

According to Mark 16:16, yes. Mark 16:16 makes no exception and so it is unjustified to assume such an exception exists.

I think that is very unreasonable. Jesus was speaking to a specific audience and about specific people. How can He condemn those in China, for example, for not knowing who He is?

I believe it all depends on how one interprets things.

Yes, and you interpret it by completely disregarding Mark 16:16

I think you are the one who is not understanding Mark 16:16

Therefore, if the uncircumcision (the Unbelievers)

Stop right there. "Uncircumsized" does not mean "unbeliever". Not even close. Not even remotely close. You are forcing Romans 2 (not Galatians 2) to fit your desired interpretation so much that you redefine "circumcision" as "belief". All Romans 2 is telling us here is that it's okay to not be circumcised. The lengths some theists would go to to force the Bible to say what they want it to say... honestly...

It's symbolic. We know that those who weren't Jewish, the unbelievers, were uncircumcised.

In fact, Jesus said in Matthew 7:

21Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.

So the Lord will tell some believers to depart!

When did I ever say "all believers go to heaven"? All this proves is that some believers do not go to heaven. So what? My claim is that, according to the Bible, all
non-believers are condemned. I have never once claimed that all believers go to heaven.

Go back to Mark16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Therefore we know that it was nothing to do with believing because they know Jesus' exists. Therefore, non believers in the context of the Bible does not mean those who are ignorant of Jesus are unbelievers who go to hell.

Who's to say that this wouldn't be the case with an atheist today should they know Him?

"An atheist" or "all atheists"? If it happens to an atheist, then good for him. But unless it happens to all atheists, it is unfair that this one atheist is lucky enough to receive proof from God.

Not all atheists, of course. As I said, no one is sent to hell for ignorance. However, one must ask the question, "How badly did they want to find the Lord?"

If the Canaanite woman had never met Jesus, thus could never have the chance to believe, would she be sent to hell? How can a lack of opportunity be held against someone?

Hey, I think it's just as unfair as you do. But that's what the Bible suggests. Mark 16:16 makes no exceptions.

I hope I cleared by Mark 16:16 to you.

Babies can't go to hell. They have never committed sin.

So all babies go to heaven? Well that's not fair. I wish I died when I was an infant. But because I was unlucky enough to not die as an infant, I stand a chance of going to hell one day.

So you still believe ignorance is a ticket to hell?

The irony is that God doesn't send us to hell. People do.

Nope. A criminal does not "send himself to prison", the court does. In this case, God is the judge, jury and executioner.

Wrong analogy. The court is not the source of all that is holy. Let's say that I was doing something destructive and you came to me to tell me not to do it because I am harming others and myself. You warn me of the consequences of my action but I just do not care. Is it you who is at fault for failing to convince me or is it my fault for just not wanting to change? What is God to do when someone rejects Him knowing who He is? You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink it. Therefore rejecting God means He has to retreat from that person. And I believe the definition of hell is the complete separation from God.

Hell is the complete separation from God from what I understand and if someone clings onto their sin, what can God do about it?

I don't know... maybe prove to us he exists?

God proving He exists does not mean someone will automatically repent.

I think you'd consider it very unfair if the evil went unpunished.

Yes I would, but being a non-believer is not evil. So why is it punished?

It just seem that you are determined to believe that someone who was ignorant of Jesus automatically goes to hell. I think this is because other Christians have drilled this into your head.

Then why did Jesus die for all of us?

Here's an old post I made addressing the issue of Jesus dying for our sins
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22367[/quote]

This is arguably the core of the Christian faith that Jesus died for our sins and made it possible for us to live for eternity in heaven... but why did Jesus have to die in order for us to have our sins forgiven?

God makes the rules. There is no "God HAD to sacrifice Jesus" because God can do anything.

No, God can't do everything. There was no other way to save us otherwise if Jesus could not redeem sin by taking responsibility for ours, Satan would continue to torment humanity forever.

Christians often say that God cannot let sin go unpunished as it would be unjust; but is it any more just to sacrifice an innocent man on behalf of a guilty man? If a man rapes a little girl and the man's brother offers to go to prison on his behalf, would this be justice?

Dying for our sins does not mean automatic redemption. Dying for ours sin means being given the opportunity to repent. It does not mean we are exempt from punishment if we do not repent. Often to get to the point of repentance is hell in itself. So unlike the rapist, no one gets off scot-free for a crime they are not remorseful for.

If god is satisfied by punishment without guilt (Jesus), why is he not satisfied with guilt without punishment?

Being guilty and actually repenting can be completely different things. For example, if a criminal feels guilty about committing a crime but still doesn't want to go to prison, then he truly isn't repentant. A truly repentant person will take their punishment.

[JehovahsWitness]

If something is perfect, it cannot do anything wrong. If it does something wrong, it is not perfect.

That is correct, after having done something wrong it isn't perfect. But according to the scriptural definition, that which is perfect is capable of doing wrong. Satan and Adam are I believe examples of that.

JW

[Justin108]

That is correct, after having done something wrong it isn't perfect.

If it does something wrong, then it was never perfect to begin with. Someone that is perfect will never do anything wrong. If it ever does, then it wasn't perfect to begin with.

But according to the scriptural definition, that which is perfect is capable of doing wrong.

This is special pleading. This is no different from saying "according to the scripture, 2 + 2 = 5"

[Justin108]

Satan believes in God yet he is condemned. There's a difference between believing in God and accepting Him.

Yes, but Mark 16:16 specifically talks about belief and not acceptance. The unbelieving is condemned. Yet according to you, we all see Jesus and become believers in the end, so no one will be condemned for not believing, making Mark 16:16 an utterly pointless verse.

I think that is very unreasonable. Jesus was speaking to a specific audience and about specific people. How can He condemn those in China, for example, for not knowing who He is?

You are essentially saying that you do not agree with the Bible. But your disagreement does not suddenly mean that Mark 16:16 doesn't exist. If you interpret the Bible based on what you want to be true, then you are guilty of selective interpretation.

I think you are the one who is not understanding Mark 16:16

I look at what Mark 16:16 says. You look at what you want Mark 16:16 to say. Mark 16:16 specifically condemns all non-believers and makes no exceptions. It is quite clear on that. Mark 16:16 does not say "all those who do not accept Christ", it does not say "all those who do not follow Christ", it says "whoever does not believe". Interpreting this verse any other way is dishonest

It's symbolic. We know that those who weren't Jewish, the unbelievers, were uncircumcised.

You cannot run to "it's symbolic" whenever you want the Bible to say something! There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this verse was meant to be symbolic at all. This verse deals with a very literal discussion on circumcision. I meet theists half way whenever they tell me Genesis is symbolic, because Genesis is rather bizarre. But a discussion on circumcision in Romans is a very literal discussion. What suggests (other than your desire for it to be symbolic) that Romans 2 was meant to be symbolic and not literal?

"Uncircumcised" can not be used as a metaphor for "unbelieving" as many non-Jewish cultures practiced circumcision. There are many circumcised non-believers. A lot of African cultures practice circumcision yet have no connection to Judaism at all. "Circumcised" can therefore, by no stretch of the imagination, be used as a symbol for "believers" and so "uncircumcised" can also not be used to mean "unbeliever".

Therefore we know that it was nothing to do with believing because they know Jesus' exists. Therefore, non believers in the context of the Bible does not mean those who are ignorant of Jesus are unbelievers who go to hell.

Let's use some context, shall we?

Mark 16:15 - 16
15 He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

So in context, whoever does not believe in the gospels will be condemned.

However, one must ask the question, "How badly did they want to find the Lord?"

How badly do you want to find the Philosopher's Stone? How badly do you want to find the Fountain of Youth? I'm guessing not at all because you don't believe either of those exist? Well the same applies to Jesus. But is it your fault that you do not believe in the Philosopher's stone? Of course not. There is no proof for its existence.

The fact of the matter is a Christian will always want to find the Lord more than a non-Christian simply because they believe "the Lord" exists. If I do not believe God exists, then logically I will not "want to find him" any more than I want to find the Philosopher's Stone. But since many people are not born into Christian homes, they will obviously be far less likely to believe in God and so far less likely to "want to find him".

Lastly, this "you obviously didn't want to find Jesus" is a cop-out. I was a Christian. I wanted to find Jesus. I never did. And you have no right to say "you didn't want it enough" because you don't know anything about me.

I hope I cleared by Mark 16:16 to you.

All you keep telling me is that Mark 16:16 does not refer to non-believers when it obviously does in a very direct manner.

So all babies go to heaven? Well that's not fair. I wish I died when I was an infant. But because I was unlucky enough to not die as an infant, I stand a chance of going to hell one day.

So you still believe ignorance is a ticket to hell?

Your question does not address my dead infant dilemma. If all babies go to heaven, it is unfair to those who did not die as an infant as they stand the chance of going to hell

Let's say that I was doing something destructive and you came to me to tell me not to do it because I am harming others and myself. You warn me of the consequences of my action but I just do not care. Is it you who is at fault for failing to convince me or is it my fault for just not wanting to change?

A few flaws in this analogy

1. God sending us to hell is not a "natural consequence". God designed the system. He designed the system to have the immoral and the unbelieving go to hell. God controls everything. If he wanted, he could have designed hell to be a huge, luxurious beach. Your analogy suggests a lack of control over the situation. God has no "lack of control". This is why a prison analogy is more fitting. I will not go to prison as a natural consequence of committing a crime. I will go to prison as a legal consequence. This involves someone actively sending me there. I do not "send myself to prison". I may deserve prison, but I didn't send myself there.

2. If I warn you without any proof whatsoever, you cannot be blamed for not believing my warning. If I said "leave your house and don't come back! The aliens are attacking!" if you chose to not heed my warning, no one could blame you as you had no reason to believe me.

What is God to do when someone rejects Him knowing who He is?

We do not know who he is. That's the problem

God proving He exists does not mean someone will automatically repent

No, but it will automatically make them a believer and can thereby escape the condemnation of Mark 16:16

It just seem that you are determined to believe that someone who was ignorant of Jesus automatically goes to hell.

Actually, I am neutral on the issue. A neutrality that you lack. I am determined to look at the Bible objectively and without bias. I am determined to read what the Bible says rather than what I want it to say. Your accusation of me just being determined to believe the unbelieving go to hell has no weight as my interpretation has solid support whereas your interpretation is 95% what you want it to say rather than what it actually says. Simply put, if you did not personally dislike the notion of unbelievers going to hell, you would not have interpreted the Bible the way you do. Your interpretation is affected by your preferences. You interpret the Bible according to what you prefer rather than what is most likely.

I think this is because other Christians have drilled this into your head.

No, it's because the Bible says this in a clear, direct and very literal way.

No, God can't do everything. There was no other way to save us otherwise if Jesus could not redeem sin by taking responsibility for ours, Satan would continue to torment humanity forever.

Psalm 135:6 " The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.

Revelation 19:6 - "Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns"

almighty
"lmti/Submit
adjective
1.
having complete power; omnipotent.

Dying for ours sin means being given the opportunity to repent.

And it's impossible to give us an opportunity to repent without killing Jesus?

So unlike the rapist, no one gets off scot-free for a crime they are not remorseful for.

So if the rapist is remorseful, but his brother goes to prison on his behalf, then the rapist deserves to get off scot-free?

For example, if a criminal feels guilty about committing a crime but still doesn't want to go to prison, then he truly isn't repentant. A truly repentant person will take their punishment.

So only people who want to go to hell are truly repentant? So if a Christian asks "please God, forgive me for my sins" that person is not repentant. The person needs to say something like "God, I deserve hell. Please send me there"?

[Claire Evans]

Satan believes in God yet he is condemned. There's a difference between believing in God and accepting Him.

Yes, but Mark 16:16 specifically talks about belief and not acceptance. The unbelieving is condemned. Yet according to you, we all see Jesus and become believers in the end, so no one will be condemned for not believing, making Mark 16:16 an utterly pointless verse.

Being an unbeliever in the context of the Bible are those who didn't accept Jesus and continued to live in sin:

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (Read More...)

2 Corinthians 6:14 - Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 - I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:


Hebrews 3:12 - Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

This is a good summary of an unbeliever:

It may be asked how it can be just in God to condemn men forever for not believing the gospel? I:answer:

1. God has a right to appoint his own terms of mercy.

2. Man has no claim on him for heaven.

3. The sinner rejects the terms of salvation, knowingly, deliberately, and perseveringly.

4. He has a special disregard and contempt for the gospel.

5. His unbelief is produced by the love of sin.

6. He shows by this that he has no love for God, and his law, and for eternity.

7. He slights the objects dearest to God and most like him; and,

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/16-16.htm

So the belief is about acceptance of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with ignorance.

I think that is very unreasonable. Jesus was speaking to a specific audience and about specific people. How can He condemn those in China, for example, for not knowing who He is?

You are essentially saying that you do not agree with the Bible. But your disagreement does not suddenly mean that Mark 16:16 doesn't exist. If you interpret the Bible based on what you want to be true, then you are guilty of selective interpretation.

I am just saying that you don't know the context of the meaning of unbeliever. That is why you must do research.

I think you are the one who is not understanding Mark 16:16

I look at what Mark 16:16 says. You look at what you want Mark 16:16 to say. Mark 16:16 specifically condemns all non-believers and makes no exceptions. It is quite clear on that. Mark 16:16 does not say "all those who do not accept Christ", it does not say "all those who do not follow Christ", it says "whoever does not believe". Interpreting this verse any other way is dishonest.

It also does not say that those who don't know who Jesus is will go to hell.

It's symbolic. We know that those who weren't Jewish, the unbelievers, were uncircumcised.

You cannot run to "it's symbolic" whenever you want the Bible to say something! There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this verse was meant to be symbolic at all. This verse deals with a very literal discussion on circumcision. I meet theists half way whenever they tell me Genesis is symbolic, because Genesis is rather bizarre. But a discussion on circumcision in Romans is a very literal discussion. What suggests (other than your desire for it to be symbolic) that Romans 2 was meant to be symbolic and not literal?



"Uncircumcised" can not be used as a metaphor for "unbelieving" as many non-Jewish cultures practiced circumcision. There are many circumcised non-believers. A lot of African cultures practice circumcision yet have no connection to Judaism at all. "Circumcised" can therefore, by no stretch of the imagination, be used as a symbol for "believers" and so "uncircumcised" can also not be used to mean "unbeliever".

I am not referring to Romans 2 but Galatians 2!

"On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised."

Who are the uncircumcised? The Gentiles, the unbelievers! This is what I originally referred to then you introduced Romans 2. Romans 2 is not symbolic. It is a literal discussion on circumcision.

Therefore we know that it was nothing to do with believing because they know Jesus' exists. Therefore, non believers in the context of the Bible does not mean those who are ignorant of Jesus are unbelievers who go to hell.

Let's use some context, shall we?

Mark 16:15 - 16
15 He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

So in context, whoever does not believe in the gospels will be condemned.

Let us look at the full text:

17"And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

The unbelievers therefore in this context refer to those who witnessed these miracles done in the name of Jesus yet did not accept Him. It most certainly is not referring to ignorant people.

However, there is contention whether Jesus even said this at all.


"There is dispute over Mark 16:9-20 and whether or not it should be included in the New Testament. It is found in many old manuscripts but is omitted in two of the earliest complete copies of the Bible known as the Vaticanus (350 AD) and Sinaiticus (375 AD). Additionally, there is another ending to Mark in some old manuscripts that is substituted for 9-20. The alternate ending reads as follows:

"And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

Some scholars have asserted that the ending is in a different style than the rest of the gospel and that it contains 16-22 "non-marcan" words used in a "non-marcan" sense. It seems to suggest that Jesus appeared in a different form (v. 12) which could be problematic since Jesus rose in the same body He died in (John 2:19-21). Also, Mark 16:16 can be interpreted to mean that baptism is part of salvation. It isn't, as is testified by verses that teach justification by faith Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). Whichever the case, the dispute is not settled and may never be."

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matt ... -scripture

The murderer on the cross repented and was saved yet was not baptized.

I believer Jesus would say a similar thing but in a different context. However, it appears as if it is likely Mark 16:16 isn't authentic at all.

However, one must ask the question, "How badly did they want to find the Lord?"

How badly do you want to find the Philosopher's Stone? How badly do you want to find the Fountain of Youth? I'm guessing not at all because you don't believe either of those exist? Well the same applies to Jesus. But is it your fault that you do not believe in the Philosopher's stone? Of course not. There is no proof for its existence.

The fact of the matter is a Christian will always want to find the Lord more than a non-Christian simply because they believe "the Lord" exists. If I do not believe God exists, then logically I will not "want to find him" any more than I want to find the Philosopher's Stone. But since many people are not born into Christian homes, they will obviously be far less likely to believe in God and so far less likely to "want to find him".

Lastly, this "you obviously didn't want to find Jesus" is a cop-out. I was a Christian. I wanted to find Jesus. I never did. And you have no right to say "you didn't want it enough" because you don't know anything about me.

I'm actually referring to those who were once Christian but turned to atheism because they claimed they had no proof. A person who grew up an atheist is not going to seek the Lord. However, they may convert by the influence of others by seeing how the Lord has affected their lives.

Often those who say they have looked yet did not find got proof but didn't accept it as it didn't suit them. I have come across people who say they couldn't find proof but soon I realized that it was their ego that blocked God out. Of course, I don't know anything about you.

So all babies go to heaven? Well that's not fair. I wish I died when I was an infant. But because I was unlucky enough to not die as an infant, I stand a chance of going to hell one day.

So you still believe ignorance is a ticket to hell?

Your question does not address my dead infant dilemma. If all babies go to heaven, it is unfair to those who did not die as an infant as they stand the chance of going to hell

I think it is very unfair that those infants didn't get to live at all. So be grateful you have life. Be grateful that you can experience joy and love. Only those who deserve to go to hell, go to hell.

Let's say that I was doing something destructive and you came to me to tell me not to do it because I am harming others and myself. You warn me of the consequences of my action but I just do not care. Is it you who is at fault for failing to convince me or is it my fault for just not wanting to change?

A few flaws in this analogy

1. God sending us to hell is not a "natural consequence". God designed the system. He designed the system to have the immoral and the unbelieving go to hell. God controls everything. If he wanted, he could have designed hell to be a huge, luxurious beach. Your analogy suggests a lack of control over the situation. God has no "lack of control". This is why a prison analogy is more fitting. I will not go to prison as a natural consequence of committing a crime. I will go to prison as a legal consequence. This involves someone actively sending me there. I do not "send myself to prison". I may deserve prison, but I didn't send myself there.

This is the thing. I don't believe God is omnipotent. Satan is co-creator. That is why there is a battle between good and evil because we have two very powerful beings at war with each other. If God was in control of everything, then why did the devil exist at all? Why does evil exist at all? Why doesn't God strike him dead now?

2. If I warn you without any proof whatsoever, you cannot be blamed for not believing my warning. If I said "leave your house and don't come back! The aliens are attacking!" if you chose to not heed my warning, no one could blame you as you had no reason to believe me.

What I was trying to say is that God cannot be blamed if someone doesn't want Him and chooses to stay with their sin. It is a warning that a person knows about, not that they didn't know the warning was legitimate or not. I say the warning must be heeded when we know the full truth. I believe we will get it in death and then we can choose whether we want salvation or not

What is God to do when someone rejects Him knowing who He is?

We do not know who he is. That's the problem.

Yes, that is why one doesn't go to hell out of ignorance. However, I believe all will have the opportunity to know in the next life.

God proving He exists does not mean someone will automatically repent

No, but it will automatically make them a believer and can thereby escape the condemnation of Mark 16:16

Therefore Satan can escape condemnation by just saying Jesus exists.

It just seem that you are determined to believe that someone who was ignorant of Jesus automatically goes to hell.

Actually, I am neutral on the issue. A neutrality that you lack. I am determined to look at the Bible objectively and without bias. I am determined to read what the Bible says rather than what I want it to say. Your accusation of me just being determined to believe the unbelieving go to hell has no weight as my interpretation has solid support whereas your interpretation is 95% what you want it to say rather than what it actually says. Simply put, if you did not personally dislike the notion of unbelievers going to hell, you would not have interpreted the Bible the way you do. Your interpretation is affected by your preferences. You interpret the Bible according to what you prefer rather than what is most likely.

You think you had a solid case because you didn't look up the context or even know that Mark 16:16 is contentious. This insinuates confirmation bias.

I think this is because other Christians have drilled this into your head.

No, it's because the Bible says this in a clear, direct and very literal way.

It doesn't explain why you didn't find the need to find other contexts.

No, God can't do everything. There was no other way to save us otherwise if Jesus could not redeem sin by taking responsibility for ours, Satan would continue to torment humanity forever.

Psalm 135:6 " The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.


Revelation 19:6 - "Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns"

almighty
"lmti/Submit
adjective
1.
having complete power; omnipotent.

Well, the Israelites weren't worshiping the Father, but rather Yahweh who was a Canaanite god.

Yes, interesting about Almighty but is it true, though? Because if it is, then He is doing a miserable job in governing this world.

As for Revelation, there is evidence to suggest that it is laced with the occult. There is truth but it doesn't seem to have been written by John of Patmos.

"THE HISTORY BEHIND THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Christian organizations have totally ignored the history behind the book of Revelation and its author. The simple fact that all scripture has passed through the hands of the canonical decrees of the Roman Catholic Church (Satans counterfeit version of Christianity), should race a flag to proceed with caution to use our God given Spirit of discernment specially when it comes to future prophetic events.

Historian Eusebius was commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine and given the responsibility of creating the official Christian Bible and by 331 AD the first 50 bibles were created and delivered to the Churches of Constantinople. The Bibles did not contain the Apocalypse of John (Revelation).

Eusebius recorded the words of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria in the late 200s AD claiming that Revelation was a forgery. There were other scholars and writers of the first three centuries who were also on record testifying in regards to the falsehood and authenticity of the book of Revelation and to the involvement of a Gnostic Rabbi named Cerinthus .

A Christian investigative sect called the Alogi stated that it was clear that Cerinthus was the true author of the book of Revelation after analyzing and comparing his writing style to that of Johns. According to the Catholic Encyclopidia Caius: Additional light has been shown on the matter VI, p. 397 Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was the work of the Gnostic Cerinthus

Cerinthus, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, operated a school that followed and used the Gospel of Cerinthus. He denied that the Supreme God had made the physical world, and denied the divinity of Jesus. Cerinthus was a follower of the Zealot party, a group which had a strong political agenda. The Zealots taught that a military-political Messiah would soon appear to conquer the world and rule for a thousand years from Jerusalem. This concept of millennialism was promoted during the second century by Montanus who according to historian Eusebius of Caesarea entered into an ecstatic state of convulsions and began prophesying that the New Jerusalem would shortly descend out of the clouds and land in a town called Phrygia thus becoming one of the first Prophet to predict when the end of the world would occur."

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2016/ ... 81738.html

I have always wondered why Revelation had Gnostic symbolism in it.

Dying for ours sin means being given the opportunity to repent.

And it's impossible to give us an opportunity to repent without killing Jesus?

There could be no power of repentance from God's side if Jesus did not defeat sin and Satan by taking it on. Only in death could Jesus descend into hell with sin. It was a natural consequence for anyone witnessing for the truth to be put to death.

So unlike the rapist, no one gets off scot-free for a crime they are not remorseful for.

So if the rapist is remorseful, but his brother goes to prison on his behalf, then the rapist deserves to get off scot-free?

As I said, if he is remorseful, he would not even consider letting his brother go to prison on his behalf. A remorseful person would accept their punishment and take full responsibility for it. Wanting to get out of jail is not remorse.

For example, if a criminal feels guilty about committing a crime but still doesn't want to go to prison, then he truly isn't repentant. A truly repentant person will take their punishment.

So only people who want to go to hell are truly repentant? So if a Christian asks "please God, forgive me for my sins" that person is not repentant. The person needs to say something like "God, I deserve hell. Please send me there"?

No, nobody wants to go to hell. Getting to a stage of remorse is hell in itself. The guilt, the spiritual agony of realizing what they had done. Judas is a very good example of someone remorseful who goes through hell on earth because of guilt. Because Judas repented, he was saved. So punishment is not automatic hell.



That's taking the punishment. Taking the punishment is not going to hell because those who are truly repentant are saved.

The ones who are not remorseful go to hell. Just remember, the Bible says that Jesus went to hell to take on the penalty of sin so that we didn't have to if we repented. That is the punishment we should have had.