Zeta-Flux Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 During the most recent Republican debate, the moderator asked a question of Mitt Romney about what he would do if Castro passed away. Romney said something about Castro meeting his Maker, and after his response Gingrich responded that Castro wouldn't meet his Maker but hinted that he would be in hell.I found these remarks, which were meant in humor, to actually serve as a microcosm into the respective belief systems. We believe that all men, after they depart this mortal life, are taken home to that God who gave them life, then God gives them a preliminary judgement, and so forth. We also, in my experience, don't attempt to judge the eternal state of others. But it seems an easy thing for others to judge our eternal state. I would have thought a serial adulterer would avoid such judgements.Anyway, other comments on this dichotomy of belief are welcome.
Storm Rider Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Dichotomies among groups are too much of a broad brush stroke to be meaningful. There are just too many exceptions too often. Religion is a personal matter and given that we are all sinners, there will be those who follow Christ that have not moved beyond judging others; other followers have not moved beyond the insistent demands of our carnal nature, while others, in all religions, have moved to a wonderful state of Christ-like love and service to their fellowman.
frankenstein Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Is there any support in the bible for a waiting period before judgement? The LDS have Alma 42, but without the mention in Alma what would the LDS believe happens at death and when judgment occurs
bluebell Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 What was Castro's big sin? Not pandering to US business interests to the detriment of his own people?
LeSellers Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Is there any support in the bible for a waiting period before judgement? Yes; there are several passages in support of this truth.Peter tells of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison. There was a waiting period between their deaths and their judgments, else why bother preaching to them?There are two judgments: the "Bema" and the "Great White Throne". The first is quasi-immediate, and the second comes after the resurrection: a waiting period. The bema judgment separates the wicked from the righteous, and they go to spirit prison or paradise, respectively. The great white throne judgment determines our final rewards.The oft-repeated, (and badly understood) passage in Hebrews that says it is appointed for men to die, and then the judgment does not say what our enemies believe of it. They quote half a sentence and fail to see the connection between the two clauses: ~28'] 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.It is in a passage that compares death and judgment to other things that happen thousands of years apart. Given Apollos (or whoever) was comparing the two, it only makes sense that the two in their "example" would (or could) be separated by a signfiicant interval. "After this the judgment" does not mean "immediately after this the judgment".Lehi
frankenstein Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 The Hebrews verses seem a stretch and do not seem to support the notion offered bin Alma.But as for Romney saying "met his maker" its a commomn phrase applicable to who have died. Al so one stand before the bar before being sent to hell. Meet (blasted auto correct on android) Newt, provided nothing of substance, he (newt) panders to an angry, bitter, itchy eared crowd, God help us if he is elected POTUS
frankenstein Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 What was Castro's big sin? Not pandering to US business interests to the detriment of his own people? Yes his sin was not US corporate interests, and for that sin the benevolence of the US requires the Cuban people to suffer and deem any one who travels to Cuba a traitor.
BCSpace Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 We also, in my experience, don't attempt to judge the eternal state of others. But it seems an easy thing for others to judge our eternal state. I would have thought a serial adulterer would avoid such judgements.We know which actions/beliefs are good or bad in the sense of eternal life so we tend to see the actions/beliefs of others and use them as examples of how or what to be or not to be. This is not unreasonable. We should point out the negative examples, those who are indeed on the highway to hell, just as much as we should point out the captain Moroni's. Lehi's dream did this, and the scriptures are full of examples of both sides.
Zeta-Flux Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 frankenstein,Keep politics out of this thread please. This thread is not about Cuba or politics, or presidential candidates.Thanks,Zeta-Flux
Zeta-Flux Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 We know which actions/beliefs are good or bad in the sense of eternal life so we tend to see the actions/beliefs of others and use them as examples of how or what to be or not to be. This is not unreasonable. We should point out the negative examples, those who are indeed on the highway to hell, just as much as we should point out the captain Moroni's. Lehi's dream did this, and the scriptures are full of examples of both sides.What differentiates this behavior from when people in other churches judge us as all going to hell? Or, from their point of view, is that a good thing that they do?
BCSpace Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 We know which actions/beliefs are good or bad in the sense of eternal life so we tend to see the actions/beliefs of others and use them as examples of how or what to be or not to be. This is not unreasonable. We should point out the negative examples, those who are indeed on the highway to hell, just as much as we should point out the captain Moroni's. Lehi's dream did this, and the scriptures are full of examples of both sides.What differentiates this behavior from when people in other churches judge us as all going to hell? Or, from their point of view, is that a good thing that they do?For you and I, the difference is that we are right and they are wrong (as our doctrine and scripture expressly notes). The behavior itself is not unreasonable and is to be expected. Christians are commanded to judge and they are christians (usually). If you want them to judge better and more righteously, then do more missionary work.
frankenstein Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 frankenstein,Keep politics out of this thread please. This thread is not about Cuba or politics, or presidential candidates.Thanks,Zeta-FluxIncase you did not notice I did not bring politics into this thread, I responded to the politics that were already here.Since we are on the subject though, that a disparaging remark would be made towards Castro and suggest that he is going to outer darkness - hell to nonlds, is not surprisingly.g since the older conservative voters are byproducts of the era of the red scare I.e. those godless communists. Like I said just more pandering.
LeSellers Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 The Hebrews verses seem a stretch and do not seem to support the notion offered bin Alma.I disagree about their being a stretch. But, since I came up with the idea after hours of study and reflection, you'd expect that. No one thinks he's wrong. If he did, he'd change his mind.You asked for biblical support for the idea of a waiting period between death and final judgement. I gave you three passages. You don't like the Hebrews verses, what about the others? And, please note, no one has said there is "proof" of any doctrine in the Bible (or any scripture). There's only "evidence". I believe that all three of my examples provide the evidence you asked for.Lehi
frankenstein Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 I disagree about their being a stretch. But, since I came up with the idea after hours of study and reflection, you'd expect that. No one thinks he's wrong. If he did, he'd change his mind.You asked for biblical support for the idea of a waiting period between death and final judgement. I gave you three passages. You don't like the Hebrews verses, what about the others? And, please note, no one has said there is "proof" of any doctrine in the Bible (or any scripture). There's only "evidence". I believe that all three of my examples provide the evidence you asked for.LehiWhat other three? How would you show or teach only from the bible using only nonlds Christian beliefs prefinal judgment placement in a post Christ died on the cross world. That Christ spoke to people in prison, well I do not know how the nonlds world views that verse. And given what Christ said on the cross, it is not surprisingly.g that Christians think judgment is final.
Zeta-Flux Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 For you and I, the difference is that we are right and they are wrong (as our doctrine and scripture expressly notes). The behavior itself is not unreasonable and is to be expected. Christians are commanded to judge and they are christians (usually). If you want them to judge better and more righteously, then do more missionary work.My view of how we are taught to act is that we are not to condemn--which is (my interpretation) of what Christ meant when He said "Judge not that ye be not judged." From my experience, we as a people are also not prone to claim someone is going to hell. For me, this is a good thing. I find it surprising that you think condemning others to hell is an appropriate practice. How do you square that with Christ's admonition?Thanks,Zeta-Flux
LeSellers Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 What other three? How would you show or teach only from the bible using only nonlds Christian beliefs prefinal judgment placement in a post Christ died on the cross world. That Christ spoke to people in prison, well I do not know how the nonlds world views that verse. I did not say three others, I said the three, which included Hebrews 9:27~28.The other two were Peter and the two judgmenets, Bema and the Great White Throne. I can count, inspite of your insinuation.And given what Christ said on the cross, it is not surprisingly.g [sic] that Christians think judgment is final.To do so, they must reject at least three strong passages to the contrary.They have to assume that "Paradise" is "Heaven", an assumption for which there is little evidence in the Bible.They have to reject the many mansions in the house of the Father.They must also invent some reason for the claim that all who do not accept Christ in this life are damned, even if they had no opportunity to do so. (Some modern Christians do not accept this damnable doctrine from their fathers, but it still permeates apostate Christian theology.)But all that aside, there is, in 1 Peter, an explicit teaching that Christ preached those in prison. He did so so they could live even though judged according to their works. The implication of this passage is that they could repent, and that they could accpt Him as their Savior. Some among our enemies imagine that He did so to taunt them. But the passage says otherwise: they were given the opportunity to live according to God. And these were disobedient people, those who had persecuted Noah and his family while they built the barge God told them to construct (which took a hundred years). How unjust a god do they worship who would preach to those who disobeyed (implying they knew the law they were breaking), and yet condemn millions who never had received the law in the first place?Where's the beef®? It's in there®!Lehi
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 What was Castro's big sin? Not pandering to US business interests to the detriment of his own people? Well obviously Castro screwed up. I mean the U.S. controls Cuba's neighbor Puerto Rico and we have turned that into a shining paradise of......oh......oops.
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 The Nehor:Every country has its problems. With small relatively poor countries even small problems get amplified. Not saying that I want to live in Cuba or Puerto Rico. Hurricanes are no fun.
LeSellers Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Every country has its problems. With small relatively poor countries even small problems get amplified. Not saying that I want to live in Cuba or Puerto Rico. Cuba, for all its other problems under Batista, was not a poor country. Castro made it poor. And, like the Kim dynasty in North Korea, he and his brother have done diddly squat to change that, even reveling in their country's poverty while basking in wealth beyond many of our wildest dreams.Hurricanes are no fun.Yet both Mexico and USmerica have experienced hurricanes and done well in spite of their devastation. Haiti and The Dominican Republic both suffer the same hurricanes and earthquakes, but the eastern nation comes out fine, while the western part of the island can't dig itself out after years. Why? Glad you asked.One of the two is largely a socialist state, the other is more capitalist. That's the only difference.Lehi
Skylla Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 frankenstein,Keep politics out of this thread please. This thread is not about Cuba or politics, or presidential candidates.Thanks,Zeta-FluxThe title and example are political. Perhaps you should start a new thread to avoid derailments.Skylla
frankenstein Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 What was Castro's big sin? Not pandering to US business interests to the detriment of his own people? Well obviously Castro screwed up. I mean the U.S. controls Cuba's neighbor Puerto Rico and we have turned that into a shining paradise of......oh......oops.Cuba, for all its other problems under Batista, was not a poor country. Castro made it poor. And, like the Kim dynasty in North Korea, he and his brother have done diddly squat to change that, even reveling in their country's poverty while basking in wealth beyond many of our wildest dreams.Yet both Mexico and USmerica have experienced hurricanes and done well in spite of their devastation. Haiti and The Dominican Republic both suffer the same hurricanes and earthquakes, but the eastern nation comes out fine, while the western part of the island can't dig itself out after years. Why? Glad you asked.One of the two is largely a socialist state, the other is more capitalist. That's the only difference.LehiThe title and example are political. Perhaps you should start a new thread to avoid derailments.Skylla I neither started the political commentary nor have I continued political commentary. But I guess since zeta only singled me out for my response to a political comment, then surely, since I was the specific person addressed, everyone else is free to make political comments.
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Basic philosophical question for MDB.Capitalism is based on profit, without profit it doesn't work. Now the question. Do you really want our government to make a profit off of us citizens?
LeSellers Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Basic philosophical question for MDB.Capitalism is based on profit, without profit it doesn't work. Now the question. Do you really want our government to make a profit off of us citizens?It doesn't have to. It can just tax us.I'd prefer it made a capitalist profit, though, because it would have to offer something I wanted. A thing it does not do much of as things stand.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Lehi:That's fine with me. Now as capitalism is also based on making the maximum profits with the minimal outlay. What would be the appropriate tax?
LeSellers Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 as capitalism is also based on making the maximum profits with the minimal outlay. What would be the appropriate tax?We all try to get the maximum return on any iinvestment, whether it's getting the girl, eating dinner, buying a car, or choosing a church. No one spends more than he has to to get what he wants (which may include non-economic values, as well—that's the rationale for spending more money on "organic" produce when other options are available).$0 is the correct tax for any person or corporation. Taxation is based on the threat of (or actual use of) lethal force. Coercion is immoral. If it were not the state, we'd call it "extortion", which it is no matter who is doing the threatening.As you know, I do not believe in taxes. If what the state was doing were useful, and desirable, it would not have to tax: people would gladly pay for the services. As it is, ...I agree that everyone wants the services, but everyone is eager for someone else to pay. For a variety of reasons, taxes are immoral, no matter how the government uses the money (or claims to)."Don't tax me, don't tax thee. Let's tax the man behind the tree." — Huey LongLehi
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.