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?

[marco]

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

You didn't for me. It is utterly clear that the apostles were told to go into all the world and preach; those who don't believe will be damned.

It is further added:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink a deadly thing it shall not hurt them; and they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover."

One would wonder why anyone would want to pick up a deadly serpent in the first place. This is an exercise in rubbish. Given these verses are nonsensical it is safe to assume that there is no truth in Mark 16:16.

[Justin108]

duplicate

[Justin108]

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:

I will repeat myself as apparently it is necessary: Mark 16:16 specifically talks about belief and not acceptance. If Mark 16:16 meant to say "those who do not accept" then why did it not say those who do not accept? Again, in the context of Mark 16:15, the text is referring to the disciples preaching the gospels to the world. Then follows Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes (the gospels) and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe (the gospels) will be condemned." Mark 16:15 talks about the preaching of gospels. The very next verse talks about believing these gospels. I am perfectly within context.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?

All this tells us is that Corinthians considers unbelief as unrighteous. I fail to see how this supports your interpretation

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

Again, all this does is call unbelief evil.

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.

I'll remind you for the umpteenth time, this is not about what rights God has, this is about whether it is fair. Is it fair for God to condemn unbelievers when not everyone has the same chance of being a believer?

2. Man has no claim on him for heaven.

Still does not address the issue of fairness...

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

The unbeliever does not know that God exists, nor does he know that salvation exists, therefore this rejection cannot be considered "knowingly". An unbeliever may have heard claims from theists that God exists and that he offers salvation, but since the unbeliever has no reason to believe, his rejection of this claim is perfectly justified. If I told you you were invited to the Queen's birthday, you would probably not believe me. Would this be considered a knowing and deliberate rejection of the invitation? No. It would be considered you simply not believing the invitation is real. Unless I have good reason to believe that God exists and that salvation is real, you cannot accuse me of knowingly and deliberately rejecting it.

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

What reason does he have to regard the Gospels as special? How is the Gospels any better than any other religious text?

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

This claim is worthless. I became an atheist because I did not believe the Bible deserves to be believed. This had nothing to do with my love for sin. Your accusation is meaningless. What if I said that you're only a Christian because you fear death? Would my assumption be fair? If you are free to make assumptions about my character then I can do the same to you. So let's keep this civil and set all character-based assumptions out of this.

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

- How can I be expected to love someone I never met?
- What does unbelief have to do with a love for eternity? What does that even mean?

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

Can you be a bit more specific?

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

Suppose it is about acceptance and not ignorance. In the context of Mark 16:15, the disciples are told to preach the Gospels and those who do not believe what they hear are then condemned (as per Mark 16:16).

Let's imagine the scenario. A Christian approaches a Hindu. The Christian preaches the Gospel. The Hindu does not believe the Gospel. The Hindu is thereby condemned. The Hindu is no longer ignorant as he had just heard the Gospel, but the situation hardly changes. It is because of him being raised a Hindu that he rejects the Gospel. Other Christians, however, were taught the Gospels as a child and are not asked to abandon their faith like the Hindu. This situation is unfair as it was not his fault that he was born into a Hindu family

I am just saying that you don't know the context of the meaning of unbeliever.

Oh but you do? You know for a fact that my interpretation is incorrect and that your interpretation is correct?

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

It does, as those who do not know who Jesus is is an unbeliever by default. But I'll meet you half way... suppose they did know who Jesus was (as most people today do). What if they know who he was, but rejected him because they were raised under a different religion? How is it fair to expect them to abandon their own religion and substitute it with Christianity? You aren't expected to abandon your faith and family, but a Muslim or a Hindu is?

I am not referring to Romans 2 but Galatians 2!

This is your quote in post 156.

“Behold, you are called a Jew (Judean – Believer) and you rest in the law, and make your boast of God, (You claim to be a follower of God)"

This is not Galatians 2. This is Romans 2
http://biblehub.com/romans/2-17.htm

“And are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness. . . (You claim to be teaching the truth of God) "

http://biblehub.com/romans/2-19.htm

Anyway...

"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!

Okay so Galatians 2 tells us that he was entrusted the task of preaching the gospels to the gentiles. As he preaches to these gentiles, if they do not believe (as per Mark 16:15 - 16) they will be condemned. Galatians 2 does not say anything to the contrary. Galatians 2 does nothing to prove your point. All Galatians does is tell us that Paul preached to the gentiles. That's it

The unbelievers therefore in this context refer to those who witnessed these miracles done in the name of Jesus yet did not accept Him.

Mark 16:17 says nothing about this. Mark 16:17 says "And these signs will accompany those who have believed...". Notice the last bit: those who have believed. That means that once you believed you will have these signs, drive out demons, handle serpents, etc. So basically you need to believe first and then you will get signs. But what reason do I have to believe before getting these signs?

"There is dispute over Mark 16:9-20 and whether or not it should be included in the New Testament...

So a moment ago, you believed Mark 16 to be a valid inclusion in the Bible as you defended the interpretation literally a few lines up, and now you're ready to just cut it out of the Bible?

Anyway, this doesn't change anything as Revelations 21:8 still clearly states that unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire. So unbelievers still go to hell

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

Mark 16:16 doesn't say "those who aren't baptized are condemned". It just says "those who do not believe". Yes, Mark does say that people should be baptized, but he doesn't say that the unbaptized are condemned. He does say this about the unbeliever though.

I'm actually referring to those who were once Christian but turned to atheism because they claimed they had no proof.

Okay but what about the Hindu who was told about Jesus but preferred to stay with their own religion?

I think it is very unfair that those infants didn't get to live at all.

Well there you go. God is unfair. Case closed

This is the thing. I don't believe God is omnipotent

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
ɔ�lˈmʌɪti/Submit
adjective
1.
having complete power; omnipotent.

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.

If I say aliens are attacking and you should leave your house and never come back. If you do not heed my warning, is it because
1. You do not value your life? You do not want to live and you choose to stay with your house?
2. You do not believe me?

I believe we will get it in death and then we can choose whether we want salvation or not

Who will not choose salvation? What sane person would not choose salvation?
[/quote]

However, I believe all will have the opportunity to know in the next life

Then Revelations 21:8 is pointless in mentioning the unbelieving in its list of those doomed to be cast into the fiery lake as literally no one will be unbelieving.

Therefore Satan can escape condemnation by just saying Jesus exists.

For the billionth time I NEVER SAID ALL BELIEVERS GO TO HEAVEN!! I understand that there are immoral believers! I understand that immoral believers do not go to heaven! Can you please not bring this up again as I have addressed it over and over already! When I said "escape the condemnation of Mark 16:16" I was specifically referring to those condemned for not believing. Satan is innocent of not believing, but is guilty for numerous other sins. That is what Satan is condemned for

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

I did look up the context and referenced it as support for my claim. Mark 16:15 refers to the preaching of Gospels whereas Mark 16:16 refers to those who do not believe what was preached in Mark 16:15. This is the context and it does not change the meaning. Unbelievers (of the Gospels as per the context of Mark 16:15) are condemned.

This insinuates confirmation bias.

My interpretation involves repeating what the Bible literally says, word for word and in context. How is this confirmation bias?

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

Oh so I need to keep looking until I find the one I liked best? Is that your process of interpretation? At what point to I stop and go "this is the right context"?

The context of Mark 16:15 - 16:16 is perfectly fitting. In Mark 16:15, the disciples preach the Gospels. In Mark 16:16, Mark explains what happens to those who believe and those who do not believe. There is nothing out of context here. The only reason you reject this is because you don't like the conclusion, but since when is interpretation a matter of what we like most?

As I said, if he is remorseful, he would not even consider letting his brother go to prison on his behalf.

But we are supposed to accept that Jesus died on our behalf? You're contradicting yourself...

No, nobody wants to go to hell.

And no one wants to go to prison! You JUST said that "A remorseful person would accept their punishment and take full responsibility for it" and now you're telling me that no one is willing to accept the responsibility and punishment of hell... so then no one is remorseful? Do you plan on making sense any time soon?

Getting to a stage of remorse is hell in itself.

So the person who is remorseful of rape doesn't need to go to prison because he's already in hell by being remorseful...?

Because Judas repented, he was saved.

And you know for a fact that Judas was saved? Verse?

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

Wait, aren't you supposed to be defending the Bible..? You are basically telling me the Bible is wrong and that God sucks at being God.

Satan is co-creator.

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Wait a minute... I remember you now... Excuse me but this is where I end our discussion. This is going nowhere.

For anyone wondering why, I refer you to this:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#748780

I see enough bizarre theologies on this sight, but satanic aliens is where I draw the line

[tam]

Peace Justin! Sorry I was away for a few days.

[Replying to post 140 by Justin108]

This is relevant enough to the topic at hand. We don't need to start a new thread as your claim applies to this one. So please, support your claim that unbelievers are not condemned despite what Mark 16:16 and Revelations 21:8 says

I am going to agree with JW that unbeliever does not specifically refer to an atheist. The Jews that rejected Christ were called unbelievers, but they were not atheists as we would define an atheist (someone who does not believe in God or gods).

This was my claim just so that we are clear:

I realize that some of your argument is resting upon the (incorrect) teaching that unless one is in Christ, one is doomed to eternal hell. - tam



So I hope you don't mind, but I am going to mostly copy-paste from what I was given and wrote on the thread "Would a good god send a decent atheist to hell?"

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=870




We can see that more than just Christians are invited into the Kingdom. We can see this in the sheep and the goats parable, where the sheep and the goats are neither of them Christian, but the sheep are still invited into the Kingdom:

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. he will put the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left."

Christians, on the other hand, are taken up. When Christ returns, He gathers up those who belong to Him - His Bride.

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 1Thessalonians 4:16,17


Back to the parable:

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?"

The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."


1 - The sheep are invited in on the basis of what they did to even the least of Christ's brothers, thereby doing good to Him. (not knowingly, for gain, but unknowingly - because they had to ask when they did good to Him, and a Christian would know that by doing good to His brothers, they are doing good to Him - even if just from reading this parable)

2 - People have objected to this understanding because the sheep are called righteous, and they think that only those who believe in Christ and God can be righteous. But this is untrue. There is a second witness to those people who will be called righteous based on what they DO.

Paul writes,

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through [Jesus] Christ, as my gospel declares."


It is the law of love that these sheep have written upon their hearts, and they do naturally the requirements of that law, and that is why they have also done good to even the least of Christ's brothers. They are revealing a) that they are not enemies of the Kingdom; and b) that they have love upon their hearts and will not destroy the Kingdom when invited in. Because love IS the law of the new covenant.


These ones are not in Christ - so they do not rule as kings and priests with Christ in His Kingdom. But they are in love, and act from that love, and so are also declared righteous and invited into the Kingdom.


**


As for Christians:

Christ gathers all of those who belong to Him - His Bride - to rule as kings and priests with Him for a thousand years in His Kingdom. Christians sit down upon thrones with Him.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." Revelation 5:10

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. Revelation 3:21

I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. Revelation 20:4-6


The simplest question to ask here is if all Christians (not all who call themselves Christians are Christians) are kings and priests of the Kingdom, then who are the subjects of that Kingdom?

**


Then there is also the resurrection of the dead, the second resurrection (after the thousand years, after Satan has been released, the battle has been won) The dead - everyone who has ever died - small and great - are resurrected. Some to judgment, and some to life. (revelation 20:11-15)

But Christians were already gathered to Christ in the first resurrection. So how can they be among the dead now being resurrected? Yet, these dead are judged according to their individual books (the deeds and words of their lives). Same as the sheep and the goats. And any whose names are written in the lamb's book of life are also invited into the Kingdom.

Two resurrections. The first for Christians. The second for everyone else who has died, from the beginning.


**


On top of all of that, all Israel will be saved.

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

All Israel will not be kings and priests - as they would have been had they accepted their King when He came to them and called them. Some will be kings and priests (the remnant that God reserved for Himself... the 144 000 written about in Revelation), and any more than that number who accept Christ. But all will be saved, and invited into the Kingdom.


And of course God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses.



There are more than just Christians in the Kingdom.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Justin108]

I am going to agree with JW that unbeliever does not specifically refer to an atheist. The Jews that rejected Christ were called unbelievers, but they were not atheists as we would define an atheist (someone who does not believe in God or gods).

This doesn't really change anything. All it does is widen the pool of those condemned as now Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are now included on the list of condemned, making God even less fair as now being born into a Hindu family also leaves you at a disadvantage in obtaining salvation

We can see that more than just Christians are invited into the Kingdom.

Are you of the opinion that in order to accept this invitation, you need to believe in Christ?

We can see this in the sheep and the goats parable, where the sheep and the goats are neither of them Christian

How do you know neither of them are Christian? Does the Bible confirm this interpretation?

Christians, on the other hand, are taken up. When Christ returns, He gathers up those who belong to Him - His Bride.

Is it better to be gathered up than to be left behind?

2 - People have objected to this understanding because the sheep are called righteous, and they think that only those who believe in Christ and God can be righteous. But this is untrue

How do you know this is untrue? Revelations 21:8 suggests this is true as it lists "unbelieving" among other deplorable acts such as the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, etc.

Paul writes,

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Keep in mind that "You shall have no other gods before Me" is part of the law so if Paul says "those who obey the law are declared righteous" then they need to obey this law as well.

These ones are not in Christ - so they do not rule as kings and priests with Christ in His Kingdom. But they are in love, and act from that love, and so are also declared righteous and invited into the Kingdom.

Yes but they do not hold the same privileges as the kings and priests. They were never given the same chance to achieve these privileges and this lack of opportunity makes God unfair

On top of all of that, all Israel will be saved.

So if you are lucky enough to be part of Israel, you are guaranteed salvation, but if you are not so lucky, then you stand the risk of not being saved. How is this fair?

And of course God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses.

Yes, but if he is merciful over some but not others, assuming they are guilty of the same crimes, then he is not fair. Merciful, but still not fair. This topic is about God's fairness specifically


Anyway, none of this explains why Mark 16:16 and Revelations 21:8 exist. Why is unbelief specifically mentioned as an act that leads to condemnation if it isn't the case? Assuming your interpretation is correct, this leads to a contradiction as Mark 16:16 specifically states that the unbelievers are condemned.

[Closingaccountreadgmailna]

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?

God is perfect.
God is fair.
God is just.

We all have free will. We can move in one direction or in other. By grace we can go in heaven. We don't give ourselves grace. Do you pray? Do you repent your sins? Do you pray for others? Do you go to Sunday mass? Do you do simple works of charity? Do you read the Bible?

These are tools we can, should, must use.

Give this a read.

[Justin108]

We all have free will. We can move in one direction or in other. By grace we can go in heaven. We don't give ourselves grace. Do you pray? Do you repent your sins? Do you pray for others? Do you go to Sunday mass? Do you do simple works of charity? Do you read the Bible?

These are tools we can, should, must use.

A person born in a Christian family in a Christian country is far more likely to pray, repent, go to Sunday mass and read the Bible than a person born in a Hindu family in India. So by no fault of their own, they just happened to be born in the "wrong" religion and will never pray, read the Bible, etc. and will not find salvation. So they have an unfair disadvantage from not being born in a Christian family. Therefore, God is unfair in allowing this.

[marco]

We don't give ourselves grace. Do you pray? Do you repent your sins? Do you pray for others? Do you go to Sunday mass? Do you do simple works of charity? Do you read the Bible?

These are tools we can, should, must use.

"Harden not your heart as you did at Meribah," you might say, but I have done all these things. In fact I tolerate an insane homily most Sundays to give my mother the chance to get the grace she seeks by going. I see vacant-faced sheep all around me, nice people believing in a bubble.

One of the loveliest parts, for me, used to be the Latin Mass with magnificent Latin hymns. A solemn requiem mass with the Dies Irae is - or was -ethereal. The text "may the angels accompany thee into heaven" and the ascension of smoke from the thurible are impressive.

You have a strong faith and in many ways that is a huge asset. But as Bernadette said, the spring is not for me.

[Closingaccountreadgmailna]

We all have free will. We can move in one direction or in other. By grace we can go in heaven. We don't give ourselves grace. Do you pray? Do you repent your sins? Do you pray for others? Do you go to Sunday mass? Do you do simple works of charity? Do you read the Bible?

These are tools we can, should, must use.

A person born in a Christian family in a Christian country is far more likely to pray, repent, go to Sunday mass and read the Bible than a person born in a Hindu family in India. So by no fault of their own, they just happened to be born in the "wrong" religion and will never pray, read the Bible, etc. and will not find salvation. So they have an unfair disadvantage from not being born in a Christian family. Therefore, God is unfair in allowing this.

You know?

Maybe you are called to be a missionary?

We don't give ourselves grace. Do you pray? Do you repent your sins? Do you pray for others? Do you go to Sunday mass? Do you do simple works of charity? Do you read the Bible?

These are tools we can, should, must use.

"Harden not your heart as you did at Meribah," you might say, but I have done all these things. In fact I tolerate an insane homily most Sundays to give my mother the chance to get the grace she seeks by going. I see vacant-faced sheep all around me, nice people believing in a bubble.

One of the loveliest parts, for me, used to be the Latin Mass with magnificent Latin hymns. A solemn requiem mass with the Dies Irae is - or was -ethereal. The text "may the angels accompany thee into heaven" and the ascension of smoke from the thurible are impressive.

You have a strong faith and in many ways that is a huge asset. But as Bernadette said, the spring is not for me.

So there are "vacant-faced sheep" you see in the church and you are what? I probably look like that too in the church. What does that have to do with anything?

You are there to listen and participate. Liturgy is a prayer. Sometimes we think we are special. The truth is, we are, but not really. Do you think yourself as more then others? Special gone wrong way. Vice, not a virtue. I know I am special, but not perfect. On the other hand, I know where I can work on. So I can turn vice in a virtue. What a gift.

[Justin108]

A person born in a Christian family in a Christian country is far more likely to pray, repent, go to Sunday mass and read the Bible than a person born in a Hindu family in India. So by no fault of their own, they just happened to be born in the "wrong" religion and will never pray, read the Bible, etc. and will not find salvation. So they have an unfair disadvantage from not being born in a Christian family. Therefore, God is unfair in allowing this.

You know?

Maybe you are called to be a missionary?

No, Rosary, this is common sense. A person born in a Hindu family is less likely to be a Christian than a person born in a Christian family. Why would a Hindu read the Bible? Have you ever read the Vedas?