What if God forgives everyone?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:




i, too, am very interested in NDEs, but the fact that they occur means that death was not fully achieved, though the information they provide is fascinating and an glimpse into the process of dying if not death itself.


Great point.
 
The condition for which death occurs fully is when the lack of oxygen to the brain leaves them in a permanent vegatative state - it it's a spectrum then it's bright lights to brain damage, one grounded entirely in the real world. Now this raises an interesting question for the believer, when are we dead? Is it when we are clinically dead or when we are brain dead, or is it both, a question of ethics, and to tie it back to the original point at what point are we to be judged or forgiven by God? If a person is brain dead have they met this deity - the push to "save" Terry Shiavo would suggest that many think no, which would mean that it wouldn't be until clinical death that it is supposed to occur, and in that case would a brain stem be capable of repenting for the sins the individual commited or would their conciousness be restored? If it was restored at what point? If there is conciousness restoration does it happen to everyone, is it arbitrary, is it determined?


Death happens, most of us live so far removed from it on a day to day basis - I wonder what effects that has on faith.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
the song being what happens when you die, all are explanations of the same thing, our connection to the infinite (i.e., Nirvana could also be understood as akin to an existence in heaven).
I think you're conflating "connection" to the infinite with a quest for immortality, which is not a universal characteristic of religion at all. Nirvana has nothing to do with an "existence" of any kind following death; on the contrary, attaining it is understood to mean that once you die, you die forever.
 
yolland said:

I think you're conflating "connection" to the infinite with a quest for immortality, which is not a universal characteristic of religion at all. Nirvana has nothing to do with an "existence" of any kind following death; on the contrary, attaining it is understood to mean that once you die, you die forever.



perhaps my understanding of Buddhism and Nirvana are too heavily influenced by somewhat feel-good Western practices -- though i would argue that understanding our connection to the infinite is a means to achieve immortality, that nothing is born, or dies, but merely manifests under certain conditions, a metaphor that we are all waves in the ocean, and we become a wave when conditions are right, but we always remain ocean even when conditions have shifted and the wave itself has disappeared.

and i could word this better if i had my books in front of me.
 
coemgen said:
and Buddhists don't even really believe in God.

Understanding Buddhism's non-belief in "gods" is best understood in the context of Hinduism. "Gods," in Hinduism, are generally seen as representations of a single entity, Brahman. However, Brahman itself isn't a god and transcends "existence." As such, Brahman isn't worshipped, as Brahman is above that.

As such, when Buddhism doesn't believe in "gods," it means that they don't bother to worship entities that, technically speaking, are merely an illusion. And since Brahman, the creator of everything in Hinduism, is above worship and "existence," there's no point in worrying about deities.

At least, that's roughly how I interpret Buddhism.

How can they all lead to the same place?

If "God" has infinite love and compassion, He may perfectly well not insist that all of humanity worship Him.
 
Buddhism is nothing like any other religion. Enlightenment is WITHIN oneself, not something supreme outside ones self.

I've been getting more and more into the ides of buddhism, t just seems so simple, yet so worthy.

but thats all i want to say on this - the rest of the ideas are moot to me
 
Ormus said:


If "God" has infinite love and compassion, He may perfectly well not insist that all of humanity worship Him.

Yes, but if God is truly into justice (which goes hand in hand with love and compassion) he wouldn't come to Earth through Christ, live a perfect life, die a horrible death, and bring himself back to life — all to pay the penalty for our sins and allow us to have eternal life with him — and then allow us to chose other ways, or even ignore his work. I see that as a huge contradiction in character. What do you think?
 
coemgen said:


Yes, but if God is truly into justice (which goes hand in hand with love and compassion)



interesting point, but does it?

i think "justice" would involve the whole "eye-for-an-eye" thing, like, say, the death penalty; but the death penalty has nothing to do with love and compassion.

i see love and compassion as higher than justice, justice being very much of this world, and hopefully the need for it to be left in this world.
 
Interesting that you equate the death penalty as (an extreme form of) justice, when I would describe it more as vengeance. Justice and vengeance seem to be two different concepts. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says God in Jeremiah. But Christians are called to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God in Micah, so perhaps love and justice are not fundamental opposites -- particularly if justice is seen as defending the oppressed from injustice (James says that true religion is to look after the cause of the widow and the orphan).
 
nathan1977 said:
Interesting that you equate the death penalty as (an extreme form of) justice, when I would describe it more as vengeance. Justice and vengeance seem to be two different concepts. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says God in Jeremiah. But Christians are called to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God in Micah, so perhaps love and justice are not fundamental opposites -- particularly if justice is seen as defending the oppressed from injustice (James says that true religion is to look after the cause of the widow and the orphan).



actually, i agree, i was trying to throw out an earthly concept of justice -- eye for an eye, as a means of restoring equality when harm has been done.

perhaps an earthly notion of justice -- where i would argue that most of wouldn't agree that the death penalty as vengence, even though i do agree with you -- is opposed to love.
 
Irvine511 said:




interesting point, but does it?

i think "justice" would involve the whole "eye-for-an-eye" thing, like, say, the death penalty; but the death penalty has nothing to do with love and compassion.

i see love and compassion as higher than justice, justice being very much of this world, and hopefully the need for it to be left in this world.

I see where you're going, but I don't think it goes far enough. First off, many Christians, like myself, don't believe in the death penalty. The eye-for-an-eye thing is OT stuff, which was under the law. We're in the age of grace.

The Bible still tells us that God is a just God. The justice I'm talking about is for our own crimes — our sin. Sin could be seen as crimes against God. And in deed, according to the Scriptures, we'll face judgement for our sins one day. That sounds harsh, doesn't it? The cool thing is that because God is just and fair, he knew we couldn't live a sinless life. He knew we couldn't make the payment in full — we were always in debt to him because he's holy and perfect. In the OT days a "spotless lamb" was slaughtered as sort of a payment for someone's sins. God, in his wisdom, justice, mercy and grace decided to be the ultimate "spotless lamb" and step down and die as the payment for our sins. Now we don't have to pay the price. He paid it for us. What we are invited to do instead is simply accept that he died for us, ask for forgiveness for our crimes against God and put our life in his hands. If this is done, Christ's righteousness is credited to our account, and "all debts are removed."
 
Irvine511 said:




i, too, am very interested in NDEs, but the fact that they occur means that death was not fully achieved, though the information they provide is fascinating and an glimpse into the process of dying if not death itself.


Here is an account by a guy who is bi sexual; it's pretty interesting and correllates with a lot of what my church teaches:

That we lived in Heaven with before deciding to come to earth
That we are all one family learning living and growing in the presence of God
That Christ was chosen before the world by where all mankind can be saved, and we accepted that plan before coming to earth, otherwise we couldn't have came here in a physical body.

Either this happened to this fellow or he is stealing LDS beliefs:

;)

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html

dbs
 
Last edited:
Well, according to Jesus...

Matthew 25:41-46

41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
 
MaxFisher said:
Well, according to Jesus...

Matthew 25:41-46

41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Yes, which would lead one to believe that our actions towards those in need count for a lot.

However, I again wonder how far does God's grace go. If I do the things you mention in Matthew, yet I still have lust in my heart, envy on the brain, and jeolousy.....

Does that forgiveness count?
 
My thought is that God wouldn't let us get in over our heads.

I think you can repent in the next life; that life being either Paradise or Spirit Prison.

If you find yourself in Paradise there is no reason to repent as you're with God, if you find yourself in Spirit Prison where Christ went to after he was crucified for 3 days, in that place I think God's Grace will allow those to repent who are willling, it will not be a picnic however. From what I've read it will be much harder as we will not be able to handle our addictions and physical urges
as we will no longer have physical bodies to discipline and marshall our urges.

The key is to get your life in order here first. if you cannot or do not get your life in order on Earth, thru God's Grace, He is merciful and one will suffer in Hell ( Spirit Prison) until his sins are paid for to the utmost farthing ( because of what Christ did for us) and then he can progress towards the ressurection, what degree of glory or Kingdom the person will eventually land at is beween God and that person.

I believe God is just and merciful, and being that he is perfect we will know exactly where we stand, it will be a secret no more.

dbs
 
Dreadsox said:
Yes, which would lead one to believe that our actions towards those in need count for a lot.

However, I again wonder how far does God's grace go. If I do the things you mention in Matthew, yet I still have lust in my heart, envy on the brain, and jeolousy.....

The Gospel of Matthew was mostly Jewish Christian (and I've explained before all the Gentile Christian revisions, as scholars have identified multiple authors), so that would explain the emphasis on good works for salvation.
 
Essentially, Pearson argues that too many Christians have decided to put their finite dogma before the infinite divine, that the blessings of God's forgiveness are bigger than the bible -- and come before it and last after it, that God is a mystical redeemer not a master of revenge . . .

See Romans 5:12-21 for one biblical passage that Pearson uses when he preaches his version of what Bono calls grace trumping karma, every time, world without end, amen.
 
Last edited:
Ormus said:


The Gospel of Matthew was mostly Jewish Christian (and I've explained before all the Gentile Christian revisions, as scholars have identified multiple authors), so that would explain the emphasis on good works for salvation.

I think scholars speculate or therorize that Matthew was written by many authors, I think it was written by Matthew himself

I think Grace and Works go hand in hand, like two blades in a pair of scissors.

Listen to what James wrote clearly explaining the necessity of Works after understanding Grace (Faith):

King James Version: James Chapter 2
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.


2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;


3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:


4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?


5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?


6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?


7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?


8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:


9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.


10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.


12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.


13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.


14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?


15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,


16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?


17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.


19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?


22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.


24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?


26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
 
Jesus talks about the importance of fruit -- a dead tree can produce no fruit, but a living tree produces thirty, sixty, and a hundred fold. John brings up the notion that if you say you love God, whom you can't see, but can't love your brother, whom you can, then there's a huge disconnect between what you say and what you believe.

I'm not sure if it's the good works that's the important thing -- legalism is frowned on in scripture -- but the idea of fruit that can be measured in what we do is important.
 
not Godly love, but love of the world.

To love God one most love their neighbor whether that neighbor be:

fat
skinny
wealthy
poor
educated
uneducated
Muslim
Hindu
Straight
Gay
Redneck
Liberal

does that work?

dbs
 
Irvine511 said:
can we love our brother but not God?

Interesting question. It reminds me of the verse where Jesus says, "No greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Paul seems to pick up on that idea when he says, "No one will die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die." Since Jesus laid down his life not just for his friends but for his enemies, none of them righteous or good, it seems like there's a greater love out there -- a purely sacrificial one -- that most of us don't understand. I'd suggest that Jesus was implying the only way to love in its fullest extent is by receiving love from God...because there's definitely a limit to how much we can love as human beings.
 
Anu said:
Essentially, Pearson argues that too many Christians have decided to put their finite dogma before the infinite divine, that the blessings of God's forgiveness are bigger than the bible -- and come before it and last after it, that God is a mystical redeemer not a master of revenge . . .

See Romans 5:12-21 for one biblical passage that Pearson uses when he preaches his version of what Bono calls grace trumping karma, every time, world without end, amen.

If I make it to vacation, I will have to do some looking into this.
 
Ormus said:


The Gospel of Matthew was mostly Jewish Christian (and I've explained before all the Gentile Christian revisions, as scholars have identified multiple authors), so that would explain the emphasis on good works for salvation.

SO does this invalidate it to you, or signify a change of some sort.

I find myself to be more in line with James, than any of the other New Testament writers.
 
Back
Top Bottom