Why Easter is s...

124678

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'm not talking doubt. I'm talking "I wish I had faith, I wish I thought this was real, but I'm unfortunately pretty sure it's not". This is not about me for once.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not talking doubt. I'm talking "I wish I had faith, I wish I thought this was real, but I'm unfortunately pretty sure it's not".

    Really?

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 12
    Eutychus wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not talking doubt. I'm talking "I wish I had faith, I wish I thought this was real, but I'm unfortunately pretty sure it's not".

    Really?

    OK, you're going to have to spell out the connection.

    Especially in the light of my final sentence.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    First tell me why you thought here that I was referencing you in particular in my previous comment.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    First tell me why you thought here that I was referencing you in particular in my previous comment.

    Because you linked to one of my threads?

    For God's sake man just make your point rather than playing silly buggers with me.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Hi @Eutychus your first link (‘Really?’) in response to KarlLB just goes to the top of the first page of the ‘Church of England vicar shortage’ thread and your second just goes to his profile. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that may not be what you intended.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Christianity is an opt in belief. Some denominations say you opt in when you understand, some say you confirm your belief when you are older. This means that Countries with a Christian heritage are more open to discussion like we are having. Muslim countries are not as open. How does this, if at all affect our thinking
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    The rich man (in Hell/Hades) 'looked up and saw Abraham far away..' (NIV). I think Jesus is here just using vivid imagery to make the point that even resurrection will not convince people to have compassion for the poor.

    Upthread the Sheep and the Goats (Mat 25) was mentioned in relation to whether there is a literal hell. Again I think this is just vivid imagery to make the radical point that there are sins of *omission* eg failing to feed or clothe the poor or care for those in prison. Of course we are not told how much caring for the poor we have to do to avoid ending up like the 'goats' with 'eternal punishment'. So a moral warning, not a piece of systematic theology.

    While I was in Matthew I thought I'd have a look there at the Sermon on the Mount;
    2 references to hell: 'Anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell'. A call for reconciliation really. And 'It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell'. I don't think Christians have ever taught that fornicating men should emasculate themselves to avoid hell!
    Also 'You are the salt of the earth' must have been the subject of a million sermons. Who's to say it doesn't mean that the 'elect' are 'saved' as gift-bearers (the gift being grace) for the whole of humanity who will ultimately be saved (I got this idea from the mission theology of the late Lesslie Newbegin).
    And while we are in the Sermon on the Mount how about the Beatitudes:
    To be called 'sons of God' 'all' we have to do is be peacemakers. And to be shown mercy 'all' you have to do is -be merciful! etc etc.

    Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. It's more than doing the right stuff, it's being the believing people. Fruitfulness will only come through faithfulness.

    The hubris is breath taking. And de rigueur. On my biweekly stint, giving 1% of my time to a 'good cause' I hang my head at the swollen words in the prayers before we open the doors. We are sooooo fruitful aren't we. And faithfulness is an interesting if not serendipitous word there isn't it? Faithfulness being the steps we take in, on faith. My faith has never been so tenuous. Serving the poor, no matter how helplessly from privilege, is seeking the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness. What other way is there?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Sorry for the confusion. @KarlLB, at the top of this page you appear to take my previous post about Mt 28 and doubt personally, though I made no indication of it being directed at you personally. I was wondering why that was.

    That said, the "vicar shortage" thread suggests to me that you personally have a lot more invested in faith than a stance of "being pretty sure it's not real" - despite a lot of your posts elsewhere giving the latter impression (at least to me). That thread also happens to offer a good passing example (to me) of the difference between following along despite doubt and wilfully not following along, which I would characterise as unbelief.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 12
    @Eutychus You did start the Matt 28 post quoting me, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable.

    Given that I clarified that the "can't believe at all although wants to" isn't about me (although there are days that I come close to that), my congregation's leadership and numbers problems aren't really relevant.

    @Hugal Faith is not in my experience 'opt in' because you cannot make yourself believe things. If they don't seem to be true then you can't opt in to them. It would only be truly 'opt in' if the facts were obvious but your participation voluntary.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Missed edit window to add:

    "I think this is in part why I lean towards Universalism or at the very least post-mortem opportunity which virtually anyone would take up. The vast majority of people, I think, if they actually knew God was real and valued them, would be inclined towards him. The big problem IME is that most people think one of the following (or a variation or mixture thereof):

    1. He isn't real;
    2. He might be, but you can't really know;
    3. He is, but why should I believe Christianity has him worked out rather than Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or None Of The Above?

    Some people seem to have little difficulty believing. Lucky them."
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    @Eutychus You did start the Matt 28 post quoting me, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable.

    Given that I clarified that the "can't believe at all although wants to" isn't about me (although there are days that I come close to that), my congregation's leadership and numbers problems aren't really relevant.

    Well, for the general case, I think "I believe, help thou mine unbelief", as opposed to wilful unbelief, could work.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    @Eutychus You did start the Matt 28 post quoting me, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable.

    Given that I clarified that the "can't believe at all although wants to" isn't about me (although there are days that I come close to that), my congregation's leadership and numbers problems aren't really relevant.

    Well, for the general case, I think "I believe, help thou mine unbelief", as opposed to wilful unbelief, could work.

    Wouldn't it be nice if it did?

    To be honest, I find the concept of choosing not to believe as meaningless as choosing to believe.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Some people seem to have little difficulty believing. Lucky them.
    The Matthew 28 account certainly suggests that, but I think the operative word is nonetheless "seem".

    My guess is that those projecting the least difficulty in believing are very often actually the ones with the most doubts and anxieties and the least well-formed faith. Their judgementalism towards others and those suffering from adverse circumstances is a defence mechanism designed to shield themselves from these anxieties.

    I think that's what's going on with Job's comforters. Job asked the hard questions; his comforters had never evolved that far in their faith. They dared not.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well, for the general case, I think "I believe, help thou mine unbelief", as opposed to wilful unbelief, could work.

    Wouldn't it be nice if it did?
    What makes you think it doesn't? (In terms of ending up in the right place?).
    To be honest, I find the concept of choosing not to believe as meaningless as choosing to believe.
    Nevertheless that seems to be what the guards and religious authorities did, if Matthew's account is to be believed.

    And I don't really find that surprising. The dwarfs are for the dwarfs. Perhaps there is a "vast majority" of those who you think "if they actually knew God was real and valued them, would be inclined towards him", but I fear there might be a non-insignificant minority, at least, stuck there in the stable with them.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    The rich man (in Hell/Hades) 'looked up and saw Abraham far away..' (NIV). I think Jesus is here just using vivid imagery to make the point that even resurrection will not convince people to have compassion for the poor.

    Upthread the Sheep and the Goats (Mat 25) was mentioned in relation to whether there is a literal hell. Again I think this is just vivid imagery to make the radical point that there are sins of *omission* eg failing to feed or clothe the poor or care for those in prison. Of course we are not told how much caring for the poor we have to do to avoid ending up like the 'goats' with 'eternal punishment'. So a moral warning, not a piece of systematic theology.

    While I was in Matthew I thought I'd have a look there at the Sermon on the Mount;
    2 references to hell: 'Anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell'. A call for reconciliation really. And 'It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell'. I don't think Christians have ever taught that fornicating men should emasculate themselves to avoid hell!
    Also 'You are the salt of the earth' must have been the subject of a million sermons. Who's to say it doesn't mean that the 'elect' are 'saved' as gift-bearers (the gift being grace) for the whole of humanity who will ultimately be saved (I got this idea from the mission theology of the late Lesslie Newbegin).
    And while we are in the Sermon on the Mount how about the Beatitudes:
    To be called 'sons of God' 'all' we have to do is be peacemakers. And to be shown mercy 'all' you have to do is -be merciful! etc etc.

    Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. It's more than doing the right stuff, it's being the believing people. Fruitfulness will only come through faithfulness.

    Tough for all those people who desperately want to believe but can't.

    Is can't an explanation for not being prepared/not able to accept that change is required to believe? ISTM that we often want the best of both worlds and aren't prepared to walk the long yards.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    The rich man (in Hell/Hades) 'looked up and saw Abraham far away..' (NIV). I think Jesus is here just using vivid imagery to make the point that even resurrection will not convince people to have compassion for the poor.

    Upthread the Sheep and the Goats (Mat 25) was mentioned in relation to whether there is a literal hell. Again I think this is just vivid imagery to make the radical point that there are sins of *omission* eg failing to feed or clothe the poor or care for those in prison. Of course we are not told how much caring for the poor we have to do to avoid ending up like the 'goats' with 'eternal punishment'. So a moral warning, not a piece of systematic theology.

    While I was in Matthew I thought I'd have a look there at the Sermon on the Mount;
    2 references to hell: 'Anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell'. A call for reconciliation really. And 'It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell'. I don't think Christians have ever taught that fornicating men should emasculate themselves to avoid hell!
    Also 'You are the salt of the earth' must have been the subject of a million sermons. Who's to say it doesn't mean that the 'elect' are 'saved' as gift-bearers (the gift being grace) for the whole of humanity who will ultimately be saved (I got this idea from the mission theology of the late Lesslie Newbegin).
    And while we are in the Sermon on the Mount how about the Beatitudes:
    To be called 'sons of God' 'all' we have to do is be peacemakers. And to be shown mercy 'all' you have to do is -be merciful! etc etc.

    Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. It's more than doing the right stuff, it's being the believing people. Fruitfulness will only come through faithfulness.

    Tough for all those people who desperately want to believe but can't.

    If you can't trully believe, just try and follow the 2nd of Jesus's commandments

    That does not turn one into a believer, which @ExclamationMark makes the requirement.

    Not me. The scriptures
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Not me. The scriptures
    What about what the Scriptures have to say in Mt 28?

    @KarlLB another way of looking at it is to say that belief/unbelief isn't binary. Some of the disciples in Mt 28 doubted in the presence of the risen Christ. That's a pretty high level of doubt. And yet they believed enough, or hoped enough, to obey the instruction passed on to them to proceed to the rendez-vous point. And were marshalled for the Great Commission and the accompanying promise. I think many of us find ourselves in good company with them.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 12
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    The rich man (in Hell/Hades) 'looked up and saw Abraham far away..' (NIV). I think Jesus is here just using vivid imagery to make the point that even resurrection will not convince people to have compassion for the poor.

    Upthread the Sheep and the Goats (Mat 25) was mentioned in relation to whether there is a literal hell. Again I think this is just vivid imagery to make the radical point that there are sins of *omission* eg failing to feed or clothe the poor or care for those in prison. Of course we are not told how much caring for the poor we have to do to avoid ending up like the 'goats' with 'eternal punishment'. So a moral warning, not a piece of systematic theology.

    While I was in Matthew I thought I'd have a look there at the Sermon on the Mount;
    2 references to hell: 'Anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell'. A call for reconciliation really. And 'It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell'. I don't think Christians have ever taught that fornicating men should emasculate themselves to avoid hell!
    Also 'You are the salt of the earth' must have been the subject of a million sermons. Who's to say it doesn't mean that the 'elect' are 'saved' as gift-bearers (the gift being grace) for the whole of humanity who will ultimately be saved (I got this idea from the mission theology of the late Lesslie Newbegin).
    And while we are in the Sermon on the Mount how about the Beatitudes:
    To be called 'sons of God' 'all' we have to do is be peacemakers. And to be shown mercy 'all' you have to do is -be merciful! etc etc.

    Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. It's more than doing the right stuff, it's being the believing people. Fruitfulness will only come through faithfulness.

    Tough for all those people who desperately want to believe but can't.

    Is can't an explanation for not being prepared/not able to accept that change is required to believe? ISTM that we often want the best of both worlds and aren't prepared to walk the long yards.

    No it bloody isn't. I'm talking about people I know or knew very well. If your explanation were correct they'd have to be liars and I know they're not. It would also struggle to explain how people can be believers and then lose that faith entirely.

    Moreover it seems to me to be arse about face. We change in response to things we believe. We don't generally change in order to believe things.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    To be honest, I find the concept of choosing not to believe as meaningless as choosing to believe.
    I don't know that either are meaningless. People believe in things like Qanon, that Trump is the Lord's anointed, that Ayn Rand makes ethical or logical sense, that Boris Johnson is basically honest, that covid-19 is a hoax, that seem to me impossible to believe or disbelieve as appropriate without a certain amount of willed commitment.
    It is of course only people unlike me who do that.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 12
    I put that down rather to cognitive bias - assigning more weight to evidence that confirms rather than contradicts existing beliefs. Especially where that evidence consists of a trusted authority.
  • I haven't been part of this conversation lately, but reading through I am struck that on Sunday we had Thomas - 'unless I see the nail marks...'. I very much admire Thomas. His commitment to Truth means he is unwilling to accept some BS about Jesus that he might want to believe - because Jesus was not about BS, and Jesus is Dead. My experience is that God (who I am able to believe in, again) still honours that commitment to Truth, in the same way that He did for Thomas - that is, there is Faith to be found on the far side of Doubt, and Doubt in the cause of Truth is an honourable thing.

    In my case, rather like when I was a lab researcher, lights started to come on when I worked out what was really making me uneasy. That took years rather than weeks, and in my case the duration was I think intrinsic to the whole thing.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I haven't been part of this conversation lately, but reading through I am struck that on Sunday we had Thomas - 'unless I see the nail marks...'. I very much admire Thomas. His commitment to Truth means he is unwilling to accept some BS about Jesus that he might want to believe - because Jesus was not about BS, and Jesus is Dead. My experience is that God (who I am able to believe in, again) still honours that commitment to Truth, in the same way that He did for Thomas - that is, there is Faith to be found on the far side of Doubt, and Doubt in the cause of Truth is an honourable thing.

    In my case, rather like when I was a lab researcher, lights started to come on when I worked out what was really making me uneasy. That took years rather than weeks, and in my case the duration was I think intrinsic to the whole thing.

    Doubting Thomas was very well named
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Doubting Thomas was very well named
    By whom? He is not named Doubting in the Bible. Didymus means "twin" - or "bollock".
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doubting Thomas was very well named
    By whom? He is not named Doubting in the Bible. Didymus means "twin" - or "bollock".

    Just the one?

    Returning to The Mauritanian/Guantanamo:

    It’s impossible for God to “make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” if the New Heaven/Earth still maintains an old Hell/lake of fire/God’s Guantanamo. So an obvious solution is annihilationism. Death is simply annihilated rather than burned for all eternity (what would be the point of the latter for Death?). Hell is annihilated before anyone has a chance to be thrown into it. Atheists are, in a sense, correct in their view of the afterlife: their insistence that there isn’t one is true. From a Christian perspective, annihilation means that people are truly “lost” and it matches the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol. Zealots who think that some people will/should burn and burn and burn need Jesus more than most.

    The parable of the Rich Man/Lazarus is just another stick in the necessary carrot/stick “encouragement” for a rebellious population of the planet to choose salvation. The lake of fire “cannot be put out” not in the sense that it burns forever but simply that it cannot be smothered.

    John states in Revelation 20 that it is only the personifications of an unholy trinity that gets to burn forever and ever, but you could argue that’s just for show. Just as there is no more need for death after the events of the day of judgement so there is no need for the enemy either. After judgement there is no more enemy, death or hell.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 13
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doubting Thomas was very well named
    By whom? He is not named Doubting in the Bible. Didymus means "twin" - or "bollock".

    Just the one?

    Returning to The Mauritanian/Guantanamo:

    It’s impossible for God to “make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” if the New Heaven/Earth still maintains an old Hell/lake of fire/God’s Guantanamo. So an obvious solution is annihilationism. Death is simply annihilated rather than burned for all eternity (what would be the point of the latter for Death?). Hell is annihilated before anyone has a chance to be thrown into it. Atheists are, in a sense, correct in their view of the afterlife: their insistence that there isn’t one is true. From a Christian perspective, annihilation means that people are truly “lost” and it matches the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol. Zealots who think that some people will/should burn and burn and burn need Jesus more than most.

    The parable of the Rich Man/Lazarus is just another stick in the necessary carrot/stick “encouragement” for a rebellious population of the planet to choose salvation. The lake of fire “cannot be put out” not in the sense that it burns forever but simply that it cannot be smothered.

    John states in Revelation 20 that it is only the personifications of an unholy trinity that gets to burn forever and ever, but you could argue that’s just for show. Just as there is no more need for death after the events of the day of judgement so there is no need for the enemy either. After judgement there is no more enemy, death or hell.

    'Christian' annihilation is a greater admission of failure than conscious damnation. Your take I like. And on Dives. The salvation to be chosen is not in the next life. It's in this one. From our innate fascism.

    And yes, have you not felt your epididymides?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate

    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    The rich man (in Hell/Hades) 'looked up and saw Abraham far away..' (NIV). I think Jesus is here just using vivid imagery to make the point that even resurrection will not convince people to have compassion for the poor.

    Upthread the Sheep and the Goats (Mat 25) was mentioned in relation to whether there is a literal hell. Again I think this is just vivid imagery to make the radical point that there are sins of *omission* eg failing to feed or clothe the poor or care for those in prison. Of course we are not told how much caring for the poor we have to do to avoid ending up like the 'goats' with 'eternal punishment'. So a moral warning, not a piece of systematic theology.

    While I was in Matthew I thought I'd have a look there at the Sermon on the Mount;
    2 references to hell: 'Anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell'. A call for reconciliation really. And 'It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell'. I don't think Christians have ever taught that fornicating men should emasculate themselves to avoid hell!
    Also 'You are the salt of the earth' must have been the subject of a million sermons. Who's to say it doesn't mean that the 'elect' are 'saved' as gift-bearers (the gift being grace) for the whole of humanity who will ultimately be saved (I got this idea from the mission theology of the late Lesslie Newbegin).
    And while we are in the Sermon on the Mount how about the Beatitudes:
    To be called 'sons of God' 'all' we have to do is be peacemakers. And to be shown mercy 'all' you have to do is -be merciful! etc etc.

    Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. It's more than doing the right stuff, it's being the believing people. Fruitfulness will only come through faithfulness.

    Tough for all those people who desperately want to believe but can't.

    If you can't trully believe, just try and follow the 2nd of Jesus's commandments

    That does not turn one into a believer, which @ExclamationMark makes the requirement.

    I hope that God appreciates the effort anyway

    I think it's likely. 'When did we see you naked, hungry in prison etc, Lord, and visited you, or clothed you or fed you?' Jesus seems to think that the unconsciously good-hearted who do what God wills even without knowing God wills it are up for a nod of appreciation.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited April 13
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.

    Yes there will be mourning in heaven. Why would we assume that God wiping away tears is a task for Week One only? It is ongoing for as little or as much as is needed. Jesus wept for the loss of Lazarus.

    We forget that the only thing which will be preserved or carried over from the old creation are God’s own injuries from the crucifixion. All things are made new but He remains clearly identifiable as the Lamb who was slain. Following His example, heaven is a place for the walking wounded.

    If God is allowed to remember and grieve for those lost, then so will we.
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.

    Yes there will be mourning in heaven.

    Ahem:
    "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

    I think if you're going to claim the opposite you should unpack your case a bit.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited April 13
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.

    Yes there will be mourning in heaven.

    Ahem:
    "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

    I think if you're going to claim the opposite you should unpack your case a bit.

    Thank you for pointing that out.

    I don’t believe the new heaven/earth to be a place where we are so changed as to be unmoved or indifferent since that is no fulfilment to growing in Christ-likeness.

    And it would be strange indeed if Christ continues to carry the scars of His crucifixion but now, in the new creation, He is unmoved by the events that made them necessary.

    I trust that we can hang our hopes on that word “more”.

    There will be no more death to add to the mourning, crying, pain which we have brought with us.

    God wipes away tears, not memories or the pain they may bring.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.

    Yes there will be mourning in heaven. Why would we assume that God wiping away tears is a task for Week One only? It is ongoing for as little or as much as is needed. Jesus wept for the loss of Lazarus.

    We forget that the only thing which will be preserved or carried over from the old creation are God’s own injuries from the crucifixion. All things are made new but He remains clearly identifiable as the Lamb who was slain. Following His example, heaven is a place for the walking wounded.

    If God is allowed to remember and grieve for those lost, then so will we.

    Ah, so you are talking annihilation of people, not just sin, death, Hell?

    God is just incompetent then. And a murderer.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.

    Yes there will be mourning in heaven.

    Ahem:
    "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

    I think if you're going to claim the opposite you should unpack your case a bit.

    Thank you for pointing that out.

    I don’t believe the new heaven/earth to be a place where we are so changed as to be unmoved or indifferent since that is no fulfilment to growing in Christ-likeness.

    And it would be strange indeed if Christ continues to carry the scars of His crucifixion but now, in the new creation, He is unmoved by the events that made them necessary.

    I trust that we can hang our hopes on that word “more”.

    There will be no more death to add to the mourning, crying, pain which we have brought with us.

    God wipes away tears, not memories or the pain they may bring.

    In which case that pain could as much be caused by knowledge of eternal torment as annihilation.

    The problem you've got here is to explain why loss to torment breaks the promise of "no more death or mourning or crying or pain" whilst loss to annihilation doesn't.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 13
    Hang on a moment

    “God wipes away tears but not the memories or pain they may bring.”

    Just so I really understand what you mean @Bill_Noble , do you mean in/ at heaven ( or whatever it is called) there is memories and pain but no tears?
    Surely I ve got something wrong in my understanding of what you are saying here?

    Please help me out?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    The most bothersome verses in the Bible I can find about how things go down in the new creation are right at the end of Isaiah (66:22-24):
    “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the Lord, “so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the Lord. “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
    :open_mouth:
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    What does "rebelled against me" even mean? You can't rebel against someone you think doesn't exist, and everyone I know who believes in God also thinks they're on his side.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doubting Thomas was very well named
    By whom? He is not named Doubting in the Bible. Didymus means "twin" - or "bollock".

    You haved never heard the expression 'Doubting Thomas' ?
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Isaiah forgot there was a New Covenant on the way?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doubting Thomas was very well named
    By whom? He is not named Doubting in the Bible. Didymus means "twin" - or "bollock".

    You haved never heard the expression 'Doubting Thomas' ?

    It's a phrase that's no longer common although still in use. But can you provide a direct reference to where it appears in the Bible - which is Eutychus's point.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doubting Thomas was very well named
    By whom? He is not named Doubting in the Bible. Didymus means "twin" - or "bollock".

    You haved never heard the expression 'Doubting Thomas' ?

    It's a phrase that's no longer common although still in use. But can you provide a direct reference to where it appears in the Bible - which is Eutychus's point.
    OK. John Chapter 20
    26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
    27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.

    This is why he's known as Doubting Thomas
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I know why he's known as doubting Thomas. Whether that is a good summary of his persona is debatable. What you haven't told us is who, in your opinion, named him 'Doubting Thomas'. That certainly isn't mentioned in Scripture.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I know why he's known as doubting Thomas. Whether that is a good summary of his persona is debatable. What you haven't told us is who, in your opinion, named him 'Doubting Thomas'. That certainly isn't mentioned in Scripture.

    Exactly what I was getting at.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Ah, so you are talking annihilation of people, not just sin, death, Hell?

    God is just incompetent then. And a murderer.

    Yes I am talking about the annihilation of people. In an instant they become truly lost. As in gone. And yes it is a horrifying prospect.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Ah, so you are talking annihilation of people, not just sin, death, Hell?

    God is just incompetent then. And a murderer.

    Yes I am talking about the annihilation of people. In an instant they become truly lost. As in gone. And yes it is a horrifying prospect.

    So why would a good and loving God threaten people with it?

    Love, which, we are also told, keeps no record of wrongs, always protects, always perseveres, never fails?

    Damnation doesn't add up.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Ah, so you are talking annihilation of people, not just sin, death, Hell?

    God is just incompetent then. And a murderer.

    Yes I am talking about the annihilation of people. In an instant they become truly lost. As in gone. And yes it is a horrifying prospect.

    So, the God who does that has to edit our minds to forget them, right? Or worse, delight in their murder. Or both, in reverse order. The thing is, if it's so joyous, why would we want to forget?
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 14
    @Bill_Noble , quick reminder

    Can you explain twelve posts up on this thread?

    Only I m not at all being sarcastic , merely would love to understand what you mean!

    Cheers
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I'm not sure that annihilation solves the '“make all things new” and to “wipe away every tear” ' problem.

    People with no belief in the afterlife already believe their dead friends and relatives are annihilated. They still mourn them. So there would still be mourning in heaven, over the loss if not over current torment.

    Yes there will be mourning in heaven.

    Ahem:
    "There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

    I think if you're going to claim the opposite you should unpack your case a bit.

    Thank you for pointing that out.

    I don’t believe the new heaven/earth to be a place where we are so changed as to be unmoved or indifferent since that is no fulfilment to growing in Christ-likeness.

    And it would be strange indeed if Christ continues to carry the scars of His crucifixion but now, in the new creation, He is unmoved by the events that made them necessary.

    I trust that we can hang our hopes on that word “more”.

    There will be no more death to add to the mourning, crying, pain which we have brought with us.

    God wipes away tears, not memories or the pain they may bring.

    In which case that pain could as much be caused by knowledge of eternal torment as annihilation.

    The problem you've got here is to explain why loss to torment breaks the promise of "no more death or mourning or crying or pain" whilst loss to annihilation doesn't.

    Even in the new creation, Jesus continues to live with the scars of His crucifixion. He remains the Lamb who was slain. So the injuries of this age, whatever they are and however caused, will have a place in the new creation. Even the people who live through the events of the day of judgement carry the baggage from their earthly lives as well as the trauma of witnessing the events of the day itself, however they unfold.

    God’s promise is not to add to the death toll or to the tally of pain already suffered, which will be impossible if the new creation still contains the same old hell. Hence hell is destroyed along with death and the enemy. The annihilation of Sheol is more merciful than eternal torment in a lake of fire, for everyone. But there is still much pain, mourning and crying from the knowledge of all these events. We have to live with that knowledge just as Christ continues to live with His injuries.

    God promises healing, but that will take time.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited April 14
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Hang on a moment

    “God wipes away tears but not the memories or pain they may bring.”

    Just so I really understand what you mean @Bill_Noble , do you mean in/ at heaven ( or whatever it is called) there is memories and pain but no tears?
    Surely I ve got something wrong in my understanding of what you are saying here?

    Please help me out?


    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Bill_Noble , quick reminder

    Can you explain twelve posts up on this thread?

    Only I m not at all being sarcastic , merely would love to understand what you mean!

    Cheers

    The reference is to God’s promise in Revelation 21:4 which @Arethosemyfeet reminded me about:

    “ There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

    God promises not to ADD to the death toll or to the tally of pain or crying, but the people who get to reach the new creation will still carry the scars from their previous lives just as Christ still carries the scars from His crucifixion. They will also have been surviving eyewitnesses of the day of judgement.

    There seems to strange assumption that life in the new heaven/earth starts off as “party central”. I don’t think so. I think the first few years (decades?) of the new creation will bear a closer resemblance to a hospital. After all, the leaves on the tree of life are for healing (Rev 22:1-2). If everyone is supposed to be perfectly happy, why is there still a need for healing?

    The new heaven/earth can still be perfect even if the inhabitants are still healing.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited April 14
    I think we need a ruling from our Greek scholars as to whether "no more" means it ceases, or it won't be added to. I think a lot of us on this thread are assuming it means that pain etc. will cease. Imagine telling someone who is in constant pain (say from a spinal injury), "Well your pain won't go away in the next life, but at least it won't get worse."
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Bill_Noble God promises healing, but that will take time.

    No, it won't! Time is a function of the creation that has passed away. Eternity is a different state altogether.
Sign In or Register to comment.