What's better? This world or the "world to come"?

[Jagella]

Christian apologists, being evangelists, want to convert people to Christianity. And since the inception of Christianity, Christians have tried to entice people to convert to their religion by offering what Christians think people will want, a better world. Obviously, what constitutes a better world is a matter of opinion.

Question for Debate: Is the Christian heaven your idea of a better world, a world you would want to live in, or would you rather live in this world?

I prefer this world. Yes, it can be terrible at times, but I've managed to survive for fifty seven years in it. I've even had a lot of fun at times. I enjoy all the different kinds of people from all the different cultures including Christians. We've built an amazing world-wide civilization that supports billions of people. Surely no other species in all of the history of the earth has accomplished anything nearly as awesome as we have.

As for the world promised by Christianity, at the least it looks boring, and at most it looks horrible to me. Yes, streets of gold might be novel for a day or two, but it would get old after that time. In other ways it would be terrible. I would hate eternally praising a cosmic devil that I know murdered billions of people and engaged in world-wide destruction.

[Jagella]

Should an afterlife exist, no one has any idea what it might be like, it might be much worse than the life we have on Earth.

Yep. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know." I've often wondered why Christians are so confident that they'll like heaven when they've never been there. Heaven might really suck.

[Jagella]

Yes! Thank you for highlighting that fact. Because the sheep and the goats from the sheep and the goats parable (as well as the dead - great and small - from the resurrection of the dead, there in Revelation)... are NOT Christian.

They are non-Christians who are ALSO given eternal life in the Kingdom - based upon their deeds (how they had treated even a least one of the brothers of Christ... because whatever one does for even a least one of His brothers, one does for Christ.)

Well, great, Tam; if you're right, then we don't need Christ to get to heaven. All we need do is be good people. There's no need to fret over that "Christ crucified" stuff. Thanks for the tip!

[Imprecise Interrupt]

[Replying to post 15 by Imprecise Interrupt]

This is very simple: where did Jesus ever say he was not needed for salvation and that all we need to do is be good, kind people? You're ignoring passages like Mark 16:16 which clearly stipulates that we "believe" to be saved.

Mark 16:9-20 is not original. It is snippets from other scriptures provided by unknown parties at a later date to address the problem of Mark’s abrupt ending. It is not the only add-on ending around. It does not appear in the important Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus witnesses. And it is totally unlike Mark’s style.

The particular verse you mentioned is:

Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This is a reference to the Gospel of John.

John 3
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Is not believing in the name of Jesus a rather odd phrasing? Of course the name exists. Let us look at the Greek words John uses and what they mean.

The word translated as ‘believed’ is ΠΕΠΙΣΤΕΥΚΕ� (Indicative, Perfect, 3rd person singular of ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ)
This is Strong’s G4100. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon presents this as the primary meaning of G4100 is: “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in� Ref

The word translated as ‘name’ is Ο�ΟΜΑ. This is Strong’s G3686. Strong’s Concordance for G3686 says that “the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.� ref

To believe in the name of Jesus is to think what he stands for is true. What is it that Jesus stands for? Look at the immediately following verses.

John 3
19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.�

This is amplified here.

John 5
28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment .

You're also ignoring what Jesus immediately said in the verses after the passage you quoted. Here they are from Matthew 19:20-21:

The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?� Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.�

I do not see what that has to do with having faith. It is in fact about doing things But notice that Jesus did not mention this until the man said he wanted to do more. The implication is that doing what Jesus had already said is sufficient and anything else is if you want to do more.

The ‘come follow me’ part is an interesting one. Exactly what does that mean? If you imagine this scene as something really happening, how would the man have understood “come follow me�? Jesus had a band of disciples that traveled with him on the road. Sometimes he sent them off on their own to prepare the way for him as in Mission of the 72. Jesus wants them to be fully committed to his mission and not have any distractions. ‘Come follow me’ would have been understood as literally to follow Jesus on the road with the other disciples. But first sell all those possessions that would distract you from total commitment and put the proceeds to good use.

That Jesus demanded total commitment from his (real life on the road) followers can be seen from a number of other passages.

Matthew 8
18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.� 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.� 21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.� 22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.�

Being on the road means not having a fixed place to sleep. And Christians are not supposed to bury the dead?

Luke 14
25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

Do you really have to hate your family and your own life to be a Christian? Hyperbole of course. But you have to be willing to set them aside to follow Jesus on the road. Peter says that the disciples “have left everything and followed you� (Mt 19:27) And Jesus refers to “everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands�. (Mt 19:29) This is shortly after the rich man has declined the invitation.

In the Luke 14 passage quoted above, Jesus can be seen to be discouraging the crowds from following him. In the Matthew 8 passage it is also in the context of crowds. Jesus is telling the crowds that unless any of them are willing to drop everything and follow him on the road, stop following us. (And hogging all the food?)

So contrary to what you argue, being a good person isn't enough: we need faith in Jesus too. Paul spent much time telling us that only through Jesus could we be righteous (Romans 4:13, Romans 5:17, Romans 10:4). Therefore, as far as Christianity is concerned, anybody who doesn't follow Jesus is "lacking," and the only righteous people are Christians!

Romans is mostly about convincing the Jewish segment of the Christian community in Rome that Gentiles need not convert to Judaism in order to be Christians.

Romans 4
13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

Paul is telling the Jews that following Jewish Law is not required to be a Christian. Gentiles are eligible as well.

Romans 5
17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous

None of this refers to faith. It is saying that the sacrifice of Jesus reversed the sin of Adam that everyone was under. It is reversed for everyone.

Romans 10
1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Paul is talking about Jews. They should not look to the Law for salvation. Jesus is the end of the law. Righteousness cannot be obtained by the law. They should give up the law and believe in Jesus instead. Recall my comments above about what it means to believe in Jesus.

Consider what Paul says about how one is saved.

Romans 2
6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being ]who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Even Paul says it is about what you do.

I am well aware that there is a lot of confusion over the "works versus faith" controversy in Christian theology. Yes, Jesus is quoted in some places as demanding good deeds, but he also insisted he be part of the mix. By inserting himself, he led many people to think that after a lifetime of cruelty and vice, they could be forgiven and saved.

Where does Jesus insert himself? Book, chapter and verse please.

So what do you believe, II? Can a person go to heaven after a life of evil if that person accepts Jesus on her or his deathbed?

Me? I do not believe any of it. I am presenting what the NT really says and not what some people want it to say. Not being a believer allows me to read for actual content and not according to what I am supposed to believe. According to what the NT says, there is no reason to think that ‘accepting Jesus’ on one’s deathbed wipes out a life of evil. Genuine repentance could help. The Gospels refer to repentance. So does Paul. But just “Hallelujah! I Believe!� does not cut it.

[Zzyzx]

.

They are non-Christians who are ALSO given eternal life in the Kingdom - based upon their deeds (how they had treated even a least one of the brothers of Christ... because whatever one does for even a least one of His brothers, one does for Christ.)

Most of us are probably aware of the ‘faith vs. works’ controversy in Christendom. Some claim that ‘faith’ is all that is required for ‘salvation’ (‘Believe and go to heaven’), while others claim that one’s deeds / actions / works are the deciding factors.

According to many, Protestants say we’re saved by faith while Catholics say we’re saved by good works.
But what does Scripture say?
The Bible is clear – it’s neither.    And it’s both.   At the very same time.
https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/me ... -vs-works/

It is not surprising that Christians are confused and continue to argue among themselves.

As the sheep (in the sheep and the goats parable) are indeed declared righteous. And the law (of the new covenant) is LOVE.

Domesticated sheep are docile and are fleeced regularly

[1213]

Accordingly, every parent has the right to decide how long their children will be allowed to live. What a concept.

Parents don’t give life. I recommend reading biology and how people reproduce. You have life that you have not given to you. And if you reproduce, it is because your germ cell that has life is connected to other germ cell that has life continues to grow in right conditions.

But apparently people think they have right to decide how long their children live, because abortion is commonly accepted. I think people don’t have that right, because they are not the ones who give life. People are only able to give death, not life.

[1213]

…Why do you prefer the Christian heaven?

Perhaps best way is to use Lee Marvin words from song Wand’rin’ Star:

“…Mud can make you prisoner, and the plains can bake you dry
Snow can burn your eyes, but only people make you cry…�

Biblical Heaven, or eternal life is for righteous. Righteous people do good things and love others. To me, the righteous company and love makes it heaven. Without love no place would be good and with love the streets don't matter much. For me, golden streets are not the point, all though I like the idea of no need to constantly repair things.

In any case, the gospel's promises of a wonderful world meant to entice converts doesn't entice me. Is that the best the Bible god can do? Promise us streets of gold?

I think it is not even the point to try to entice you. Eternal life is for righteous. If you would try to pretend to be righteous just to get the golden streets, you wouldn’t get it anyway. I think there is no reason to try to make heaven look enticing to anyone. I think disciples of Jesus should live by the example of Jesus. If people do so, heaven is close, in my opinion and everybody can see is it something they want or not.

Based on what I've read in the Bible about God, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near him. Why would you want to be with God? Aren't you afraid he will kill and torture you too? If he hurts other people, then he might hurt you as well.

I know God is good, righteous and loving and doesn’t do anything evil. So, I have no reason to fear Him. I understand also that if I am unrighteous and evil, God doesn’t allow me to live eternally and I think it is good.

Your parents gave you life. Do they then have the right to kill you?

I think it is really disturbing if people really think they give life. Parents don’t give life. Parents have sex that can lead to a new human being, when the germ cells are connected. People have not given life to themselves, or any of their cells. When the cells that have life are connected, they can lead to growth. Only thing people do in that is that they give the opportunity for the cells to grow.

Anyway, why do you say giving life allows the giver of life to kill the person she gave life to? Personally, I disagree with that precept.

If you would decide to give a gift to someone, has the someone right to decide how much you must give? If you would give ten cents, but the other demands that you must give all your money, would it be right? No. If God decides to give a short life, it is ok. There is no reason why God must give more than what He wants to give. Or have you some good reason why God should give eternal life for all?

I don't categorize people as "righteous" or "unrighteous." It's obvious to me that almost all people have both good and bad in them. I should also point out that even the most "righteous" people can do harm to others, so doing away with people you think are bad doesn't guarantee that evil will go away.

If people are righteous, as Bible defines it, they don’t do anything evil. But obviously evil is also quite subjective word. Criminals may think that it is evil, if they are sent to jail. If we define, as it seems world is doing nowadays, lying, stealing, murdering is good and it is evil to be against those, then it is possible that I am evil.

Are you sure you really want to live in the Christian heaven?

If I am righteous, then I think it would be ok to live in Biblical heaven. If I am not righteous, then I hope I don’t go to there to ruin it.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

There's no need to choose even. Christians work for a better World, thus choosing "this one", and get Heaven on top of it all.

The better future World is actually The Promised Land, I guess Utopia. And Heaven even after trying to achieve Utopia on Earth as we, the truly Ecumenical Religious, enter After-Life.

"Being with God is only beautiful!"

[Zzyzx]

.

Accordingly, every parent has the right to decide how long their children will be allowed to live. What a concept.

Parents don’t give life.

Where does a new human life come from if not from parents?

I recommend reading biology and how people reproduce. You have life that you have not given to you. And if you reproduce, it is because your germ cell that has life is connected to other germ cell that has life continues to grow in right conditions.

Gee, thanks for the biology lesson.

Does the female body produce ovum and male body produce sperm?

How is that ‘given’?

But apparently people think they have right to decide how long their children live, because abortion is commonly accepted. I think people don’t have that right, because they are not the ones who give life. People are only able to give death, not life.

Yes, over a half million Christian women have abortions per year in the US – 70% of 878.713 (in 2017) = 615.099 Christian abortions.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/70-o ... finds.html
https://abort73.com/images/2017-abortion-data-table.png

Hypocrisy much?

[Zzyzx]

.

Christians work for a better World, thus choosing "this one",

Is this a true statement? Does it apply to all Christians, or just some?

and get Heaven on top of it all.

Opinion noted

The better future World is actually The Promised Land, I guess Utopia.

Kindly cite verifiable evidence that the ‘promised’ is more than imagination and/or wishful thinking.

And Heaven even after trying to achieve Utopia on Earth as we, the truly Ecumenical Religious, enter After-Life.

Opinion noted

"Being with God is only beautiful!

Opinion noted

[Aetixintro]

The better future World is actually The Promised Land, I guess Utopia.

Kindly cite verifiable evidence that the ‘promised’ is more than imagination and/or wishful thinking.

The Promised Land (Hebrew: ה�רץ המובטחת‎, translit.: ha'aretz hamuvtakhat; Arabic: أرض الميعاد‎, translit.: ard al-mi'ad; also known as "The Land of Milk and Honey") is the land which, according to the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), was promised and subsequently given by God to Abraham and his descendants, and in modern contexts an image and idea related both to the restored Homeland for the Jewish people and to salvation and liberation is more generally understood.

The promise was first made to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), then confirmed to his son Isaac (Genesis 26:3), and then to Isaac's son Jacob (Genesis 28:13), Abraham's grandson. The Promised Land was described in terms of the territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river (Exodus 23:31). A smaller area of former Canaanite land and land east of the Jordan River was conquered and occupied by their descendants, the Israelites, after Moses led the Exodus out of Egypt (Numbers 34:1-12), and this occupation was interpreted as God's fulfilment of the promise (Deuteronomy 1:8). Moses anticipated that God might subsequently give the Israelites land reflecting the boundaries of God's original promise, if they were obedient to the covenant (Deuteronomy 19:8-9).

The concept of the Promised Land is the central tenet of Zionism, whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees through whom they inherit the right to re-establish their "national homeland". Palestinians also claim partial descent from the Israelites and Maccabees, as well as all the other peoples who have lived in the region.[1]

The imagery of the "Promised Land" was invoked in African-American spirituals as heaven or paradise and as an escape from slavery, which can often only be reached by death. The imagery and term have also been used in popular culture (see Promised Land (disambiguation)), sermons and in speeches, such as the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (1968) speech by Martin Luther King Jr.:

"I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

See? Not so much wishful thinking as a definite target, also The 5 Factors in hand, in near future and the next 20 to 100 years or more.