It's always made me wonder why it says they were jusdged according to their works... Anyone have any thoughts on that?

If we're talking about the non-believers, I had it explained to me that non-believers go through their own sort of judgment in which different severities of punishment are meted out based upon what kind of people they were in general on Earth. So for instance, a serial killer and a paramedic are both not found in the Book of Life. They are each then judged on their works...who was in general the less...I guess sinful/destructive/bad, etc? In this fashion the severity of the judgment is meted out on a smaller scale. It may well be wrong, but it does make sense when one thinks about it. Either way though it's still Hell and the worst place in the universe to be.

I saw on this news this outfit putting up billboards all over Charlotte, NC. I was rather surprised that folks were still doing things like this, let alone still falling for it. They're ostensibly saying that Christ will return on 5/21 of this year. *sigh*

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Christ Himself did not know when the exact date would be...how do these folks reckon they've got it figured out?

To note, the same people who are claiming that the world will end this month have made other predictions of "World Ending" dates that have come and gone.

5/21? Haven't heard that one yet I know of 12/21/12... and I think Newton made some claim for 2060ish... but frankly I believe that Bible quote means more than any of those...

Funny, I just took a picture on Sunday of a billboard near us that proclaims the same thing.

Um.. yeah.

One thing I love about the dates predicting the world is going to end: that is when I know it's NOT going to happen. I honestly don't care when the world is going to end. If it happens during my lifetime, I'm ready and I'm going to be with my Lord. If not, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing. And if I knew when the world was going to end, I would continue doing what I'm doing: serving my Lord.

I think Jesus gave us warning about the end of the age so we will know that we are living in the times. But it is completely foolish to set an exact date. You can't map out these things. Even guessing the month or year is going too far.

Shadowlander said:

If we're talking about the non-believers, I had it explained to me that non-believers go through their own sort of judgment in which different severities of punishment are meted out based upon what kind of people they were in general on Earth. So for instance, a serial killer and a paramedic are both not found in the Book of Life. They are each then judged on their works...who was in general the less...I guess sinful/destructive/bad, etc? In this fashion the severity of the judgment is meted out on a smaller scale. It may well be wrong, but it does make sense when one thinks about it. Either way though it's still Hell and the worst place in the universe to be.

So take the case of a nun who has lived her whole life in poverty, chastity, and service to others. In fact she has founded from scratch, in the face of great obstacles, an international organisation which supplies relief teams for earthquakes, floods, hurricanes etc; which feeds hundreds of thousands of children and refugees, which builds schools, hospitals and clinics open to people of all races, creeds and colors without prosletyzing; which inspires and calls out thousands of volunteers who dedicate their life to the service of others.

A woman who does more good for humanity in a day than most people will do in their lifetimes- and as a reward your God will not torment her for eternity quite as badly as Stalin or Hitler.

Because her name is Chen Yen, the organisation she founded is Chu Tzi, and having been born and raised among Buddhists, she devoted her life to serving people through that religion.

So burn in Hell forever. Sweet.

I was just about to post a question - and then I saw Graymouser's post above, and I realized my question wouldn't be *quite* so much out of context.
Can people come to know God through another name?
Yes, I'm thinking about The Last Battle here, Emeth and Aslan's talk. I really have no clue what I think about this - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Is that in the context to show that unless you are a confessing Christan, you won't go to heaven? Thoughts about this?

So burn in Hell forever. Sweet.

I don't think any single one of us relishes this kind of fate for anyone. Even for the most despicable of persons to endure this for even a tiny fraction of the time they will spend serving their times this is considered overkill. The thing you need to bear in mind is that this is the fate originally conceived for the Devil and his fallen followers. Upon Man's fall every single human being by default is headed to Hell. It is only through God's grace that some of us are saved and pulled out of the fire at all.

CS Lewis had a quote on this very topic which I cannot find right now, but which basically says that he hates the very idea of Hell and it would be the first thing he'd get rid of were it up to him, but that it has the support of Scripture and is a real place and thus must be dealt with.

Plus, no matter how many good things a person has done, they are still, at the center of their heart, wicked. Everyone has sin, and the punishment for sin is death. Every one of us falls under that category, including those of us who helps others and does great things. We all deserve Hell. That's why we need Christ's blood to cover our sins. We are saved by grace through faith. We can't be saved by works, because works doesn't cover over the evil that is in all of our hearts.

EDIT: Elanor, I think it would depend on the heart of the individual. The Bible says it has been made clear to everyone that God exists.

Think of people who live in wilderness or places that aren't taught about God yet. They too would know God exists, but they might not know His Name. Or they might have their own name for Him. But if they know it's Him, and truly in their hearts are accepting Him, and want Him, then I believe they would be saved.

That might also be the case with people who know of God and want Him, but are told by their parents He has a different name. Because really, it's who they're worshipping in their hearts that matters.

However, I don't believe it would apply to people are actually worshipping other gods.

That's my take on it, anyway.

~Riella

A woman who does more good for humanity in a day than most people will do in their lifetimes- and as a reward your God will not torment her for eternity quite as badly as Stalin or Hitler.

Because her name is Chen Yen, the organisation she founded is Chu Tzi, and having been born and raised among Buddhists, she devoted her life to serving people through that religion.

So burn in Hell forever. Sweet.

Hold on a minute.

If I recall correctly, you are an atheist/agnostic. Where are you getting your concept of "good for humanity", and where are you getting the idea that suffering is bad? Where are you getting the notion that we are all innocent and don't deserve to burn in hell? Why do you think there is even something that could be considered "bad" or "good"? I'm certainly not saying that atheists and agnostics can't have these concepts or can't have morality, because I've met plenty of atheists who do have these concepts and do have morality.

However, I often question where they could possibly have morality, these concepts, and indeed even judge someone else on their morality, since there is no real standard except their own personal opinion (in an atheist/agnostic's view). Atheists and agnostics often adopt the Utilitarian view of "the most happiness for the most people is good", though I wonder what evidence they have for happiness constituting good.

Why does it matter if someone has done any amount of "good" (whatever that is) and is tormented forever? It seems like you're working off lots of your own assumptions and personal opinions and view of justice which is certainly bound to change over time.

Thank you, Ithie - that about answers my question, and I would agree with you!

Plus, no matter how many good things a person has done, they are still, at the center of their heart, wicked. Everyone has sin, and the punishment for sin is death. Every one of us falls under that category, including those of us who helps others and does great things. We all deserve Hell. That's why we need Christ's blood to cover our sins. We are saved by grace through faith. We can't be saved by works, because works doesn't cover over the evil that is in all of our hearts.

This is where I have to profoundly disagree. I will not use words like good, or just, or merciful, unless I use those words in the same way when I apply them to my fellow humans.

I have three sons, and I love them with all my heart and all my soul and all my breath, and they (so I believe, and after their fashion- heck, they're teenage boys, they're busy) love me too.

But even if one of them hated me, even if he stood in front of me and cursed me and the day he was born and every drop of my DNA in him, I would grieve, I would be angry, but I would never- never- curse him to eternal damnation.

Would you do that to your own child?"- knowing he or she would be tormented forever, would you look upon the eternal sufferings of your child, and say , yes, that is good, that is just, that is righteous.

Say you had a beloved son or daughter, but they came home one day and told you that they had become an atheist- or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Jew- you, being a Christian, would go to Heaven , and there you would rejoice in the presence of the Lord while your child was being tortured forever, screaming and begging for mercy- and you would be happy, and nod and say, "It is good my child burns in Hell forever"?

Hold on a minute.

If I recall correctly, you are an atheist/agnostic. Where are you getting your concept of "good for humanity", and where are you getting the idea that suffering is bad? Where are you getting the notion that we are all innocent and don't deserve to burn in hell? Why do you think there is even something that could be considered "bad" or "good"? I'm certainly not saying that atheists and agnostics can't have these concepts or can't have morality, because I've met plenty of atheists who do have these concepts and do have morality.

However, I often question where they could possibly have morality, these concepts, and indeed even judge someone else on their morality, since there is no real standard except their own personal opinion (in an atheist/agnostic's view). Atheists and agnostics often adopt the Utilitarian view of "the most happiness for the most people is good", though I wonder what evidence they have for happiness constituting good.

Why does it matter if someone has done any amount of "good" (whatever that is) and is tormented forever? It seems like you're working off lots of your own assumptions and personal opinions and view of justice which is certainly bound to change over time.

My idea of good and evil is actually pretty simple: if it increases human suffering, it's bad.

I believe this is an irreducible ultimate; you can't say "why is this bad?". There is no ultimate standard of goodness in the Universe, there is just a measure of lessening the pain of humans or animals that share in consciousness.

To clarify on the last bit, you shouldn't hurt higher mammals, but to actually kill a lower one is no big deal, and may be good. Mosquitoes, die; non-pestilent bugs, okay.

Believers of course face the same problem- why is something good? If you say because God commands it (Divine Command Theory- DCT) then anything can be good.

Shoving a spear through the belly of a pregnant helpless woman captive?- yep, God says so- the word "good" has no meaning.

If, OTOH, God commands only that which is good, good has a different standard from "what God says'- so what is this standard independent from God?

Are my ideas conditioned by my times? Certainly.

Do you believe a father should put his daughter to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Probably not.

Should a slave be returned to his master?

Is homosexuality of itself bad?

What about collecting interest on money? There are few sins more heavily condemned in the Bible, yet you'll accept it because it agrees with your economic inerest.

So everyone picks and chooses their "Biblical" standards. and condemns other people for not living up to them.

Think of people who live in wilderness or places that aren't taught about God yet. They too would know God exists, but they might not know His Name. Or they might have their own name for Him. But if they know it's Him, and truly in their hearts are accepting Him, and want Him, then I believe they would be saved.

That might also be the case with people who know of God and want Him, but are told by their parents He has a different name. Because really, it's who they're worshipping in their hearts that matters.

However, I don't believe it would apply to people are actually worshipping other gods.

That's my take on it, anyway.

~Riella

I can't think of anywhere where people might worship a generic "...." without putting a name to It.

The amazing thing about "... " is that wherever It shows up It has pretty specidfic characteristeics- amazingly like if It had been developed by human beings.

Speaking of Emeth, Lewis says he actually cursed the name of Aslan, and was still accepted. I can't think of anyone- a few whacked out Satanists maybe- who actually curses the name of Jesus.

My idea of good and evil is actually pretty simple: if it increases human suffering, it's bad.

I believe this is an irreducible ultimate; you can't say "why is this bad?". There is no ultimate standard of goodness in the Universe, there is just a measure of lessening the pain of humans or animals that share in consciousness.

Why can I not say "why is this bad?"?

Killing is usually seen as a bad thing, but when killing an evil man such as a murderous dictator, it can be seen as a good thing, because it ultimately ended in a good. So, how do you know that all of humanity's sufferings won't end in an ultimate good? Would that not make all the suffering all right, because it ended in a good?

You don't know that all of humanity's sufferings might end up in an ultimate good, and you don't even necessarily know that suffering is bad in the first place. You saying, "This is an undeniable fact" is just as bad as a Christian saying that all good is God's good, and that's an undeniable fact. You're shutting off your view of "suffering is bad" to skepticism, and that makes you no better than any Church officials that you may criticize as bigots. I'm not saying you do criticize Church officials for this, but you would be no better than they.

Believers of course face the same problem- why is something good? If you say because God commands it (Divine Command Theory- DCT) then anything can be good.

Yes, technically anything can be good if God says it is. I'm not exactly sure why that is a problem, though.

Shoving a spear through the belly of a pregnant helpless woman captive?- yep, God says so- the word "good" has no meaning.

Hmm. Can I have some context on that one? And surely the word "good" does have meaning, it is whatever God says it is. Circular? Yes. I do not deny that. Though every belief is circular or goes in an infinite regression, you cannot escape it.

Do you believe a father should put his daughter to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Probably not.

Should a slave be returned to his master?

Is homosexuality of itself bad?

As a Catholic, I do not quite take the Bible literally. I do not think there was ever really a man named Adam (and if there was he was not the only man on Earth with the only woman Eve). I of course accept the scientific fact of evolution (though I would rather not discuss its validity here).

That being said, I think that many laws in the Old Testament are not actually God's Words, but man's fallible interpretation of them. Why is it that OT laws change in the NT when God is supposed to be ever-constant? God cannot change, so it must be a problem on the other end, as it always is: Man.

I believe that many of the OT Laws are Jewish Custom, not God's Laws.

I know a homosexual couple who go to my local church, and they are some of the most kind people that I know. Their marriage is not recognized by the Church, but it is undeniable that they are a gift to the church from God. How can we simply deny that they exist and call them sinful for displaying their sexuality? I do not think we can.

I think sexuality is a gift, and I think that the "homophobic" laws of the OT and NT are not God's "homophobia", but Man's.

I have three sons, and I love them with all my heart and all my soul and all my breath, and they (so I believe, and after their fashion- heck, they're teenage boys, they're busy) love me too.
But even if one of them hated me, even if he stood in front of me and cursed me and the day he was born and every drop of my DNA in him, I would grieve, I would be angry, but I would never- never- curse him to eternal damnation.
Would you do that to your own child?"- knowing he or she would be tormented forever, would you look upon the eternal sufferings of your child, and say , yes, that is good, that is just, that is righteous.
Say you had a beloved son or daughter, but they came home one day and told you that they had become an atheist- or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Jew- you, being a Christian, would go to Heaven , and there you would rejoice in the presence of the Lord while your child was being tortured forever, screaming and begging for mercy- and you would be happy, and nod and say, "It is good my child burns in Hell forever"?

Well, while still on earth, if my child decided to become a different religion, I certainly wouldn't hate them or turn them away, but I would pray for them that they would come back to the faith and avoid Hell in the first place.

As for the matter of them actually going to Hell and myself being in Heaven, it's difficult to understand that concept while still being here on this earth. Especially because it will be such a different situation. We'll all have such a different way of thinking then. For one thing, will they even be my children anymore? The bodies they are in now certainly have my DNA in them, but their soul does not. I don't think they really would be my children anymore, but rather God's creation with which He can do as He pleases. Plus, when that time comes, we will no longer see things as we see them now, but instead the way God sees them. We will understand why God does the things He does, and why they have to take place, no matter how sad it is in an emotional sense.

My idea of good and evil is actually pretty simple: if it increases human suffering, it's bad.

Almost anything could fit into that category, depending on the situation.

Example: I have the flu. I accidentally give it to my sister. I have just increased her suffering. Have I done evil?

Example: A teacher gives her students a very difficult algebra test. Some of them will fail. Some of them have bad parents who will mistreat them after they fail. Other children have anxiety attacks, because the test is so difficult. Is the teacher doing evil by making them suffer, by giving them the test?

Example: A guy dumps his girlfriend. Now she is suffering, because her heart has been broken. Did her ex-boyfriend do evil?

Is there anyway you could be a bit clearer, so we know where you're coming from? What ways of "increasing suffering" are necessary levels, and which levels make you evil? It's an important issue if someone wants to be a good person and not an evil person. How does one tell if they are good or evil, according to your beliefs?

Believers of course face the same problem- why is something good? If you say because God commands it (Divine Command Theory- DCT) then anything can be good. Shoving a spear through the belly of a pregnant helpless woman captive?- yep, God says so- the word "good" has no meaning.

I don't see why "God's standard is the standard" would make it so the word "good" has no meaning. Especially if God is the one who created the word "good" in the first place. I'd say that pretty much gives Him the right to decide what it means and what it doesn't, if He's the creator of the word or concept. I, as a Christian, believe that the concept of "good" wouldn't exist without God. (Well, technically I don't believe anything would have existed without God, since I believe He's the Creator. ) But the point is, I also believe He Himself is good, and that He doesn't just randomly say "Oh this is good" "Oh that's bad" just so He can bully people around and do whatever He wants like a dictator. I believe He does everything for good purpose, and that not only does He decide what is good, but that it is also correct when He says something is good. (But then, where does the concept of correct come from? XD Yes, this could go on forever. And in the end, you'd most likely find I believe every concept is decided by God. He is the One who created everything, after all.)

What about collecting interest on money? There are few sins more heavily condemned in the Bible, yet you'll accept it because it agrees with your economic inerest.

If you're referring to tithe money, that's supposed to be something done willingly, and not something you're forced into doing. And it doesn't have to go to the church or a ministry. It can go to anything - like children in Africa, or even your next-door neighbor who's having trouble paying his rent. The point is just to help people in need. And as I said, if it's not voluntary then it isn't much good.

Unless you're referring to interest on borrowed money and loans. If that's the case, no I don't believe interest is right. I never have. I don't think banks or anyone else should charge it. And I certainly wouldn't charge someone interest if they borrowed something from me.

So everyone picks and chooses their "Biblical" standards. and condemns other people for not living up to them.

If a person really is picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe/disbelieve, in the way that you're saying, then they're certainly not living like a Christian, and I would start questioning their motives. There are a lot of scammers in the world who don't actually have a relationship with Christ, but who pretend to be Christians in order to get money. There will be fakers in any group of people, because scammers will use whatever they can, whether it be religious or non-religious means. However that doesn't erase the fact that there are true Christians out there.

One real point of confusion though, is the difference between the Old and New Testaments. No, we are not supposed to stone people who commit certain sins, or avoid certain fabrics, etc. because of scriptures in the Old Testament. The Law has been fulfilled by Christ and we are no longer under it. Our goal now, after we're saved, is to try to follow the commands in the New Testament.

I can't think of anywhere where people might worship a generic "...." without putting a name to It. The amazing thing about "... " is that wherever It shows up It has pretty specidfic characteristeics- amazingly like if It had been developed by human beings.

It all depends on if they're worshipping the real God or another god in their hearts. Remember, if you believe in God, like I do, then you also believe He can do things divinely. So I don't exactly view it as a matter of luck or chance when it comes to whether they'll give him the right name or characteristics. God reveals Himself to people in a way that they'll know Who it is. And then they can choose to accept Him in their hearts, or choose to worship some other god they made up.

However, if your belief is that my God is made up too, then there's not much I can say on the matter. I don't own God, and therefore can't bring Him down here and show Him to you. I believe in Him. I believe in Him because of certain miraculous things that have proven to me He exists. But you weren't there with me when those miraculous things hapenned, and so, although they are proof to me, I can't use them as proof for you. So if you want to disbelieve in Him, that's up to you. And if God wants to reveal Himself to you, that's up to Him.

Speaking of Emeth, Lewis says he actually cursed the name of Aslan, and was still accepted. I can't think of anyone- a few whacked out Satanists maybe- who actually curses the name of Jesus.

As concerning Emeth, I don't know if Lewis was wrong or right in what he wrote about him. Especially since I'm not exactly sure what Lewis was trying to say. The Narnia books are not the Bible, but just a fictional book series. So if Lewis gets something wrong, all it means is just that - Lewis got something wrong.

Edit:

That being said, I think that many laws in the Old Testament are not actually God's Words, but man's fallible interpretation of them. Why is it that OT laws change in the NT when God is supposed to be ever-constant? God cannot change, so it must be a problem on the other end, as it always is: Man.

I believe every part of the Bible is from God and not man. That being said, the reason why it changed from the OT to NT, as I said, was because Christ fulfilled the Law of the OT. God did not change, just because the rules changed. Here's an example which I gave to MLD a while back.

Tirian is the maker of the site. Tirian changed the site. As you can see, NarniaWeb is a lot different than it was when it was first created. Not only does it look different, but there are also some different rules (Such as the banning of certain *ahem* topics ). But although the site has changed, does that mean Tirian himself has changed? No. He has only changed the way NarniaWeb works.

Similarly, God does not change. But that doesn't mean that the world can't change, or that the way He deals with the world can't change.

~Riella