The question of how God judges those who do not know Christ has been on my mind for quiet a while as it has been repeatedly requested of me to provide just reason for the basis of His judgment.
I realize that not knowing Christ is not the same as rejecting Him, because if a person does not know there is a real Jesus to know, they cannot be justly judged for not knowing Him. However, the judgment that comes from God is based on our own moral standard that we hold others to, which we ourselves have failed to uphold. While His standard is higher than our own, He judges the one who does not know Him based on the laws that person holds to be the moral standard.
So let’s say a person’s value system says that intolerance is wrong and makes judgments against people who are intolerant. Then that same person is intolerant in some way, they will be held accountable to God for breaking their own moral standard.
Romans 2: 1-6 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done."
Thus God’s judgment is not based on holding someone accountable to some standard they didn’t know existed, but by holding them accountable to their own standard that they practice as true. This is affirmed in Revelation when it is talking about that ultimate Day of Judgment.
Revelation
The judgment then justly comes based on what is justly deserved according to what is known. The wording of “the dead” refers to those who are not in the life of Christ. The good news though, is that none of us have to pay that debt to sin. None of us have to come under judgment. We can instead be justified—having Christ death be substituted for our death—joining with Him in His Resurrection, being fully made whole without any debt to sin. We do not have to earn that redemption; we simply take hold of His hand that is extended out towards us. It’s like reaching up with an empty hand, knowing you have nothing to offer, but receiving Him forevermore.
8 comments:
Again, the same pattern. You leave previous posts with unanswered questions, or at best, unsatisfactory answers.
You said....
While His[biblegod's] standard is higher than our own...
Says who? And moreover, what do you mean by "higher"? Do you mean, more beneficial to the human race than our own standard here in the US, which already puts humanity first? Or do you mean, "might makes right!!!".... as in, if we don't follow the "higher standard", the one who sets this "higher standard" will get revenge?... say, for instance, DROWN everybody because its "standard" isn't being met. That? Or does "higher" mean something else?
"He judges the one who does not know Him based on the laws that person holds to be the moral standard."
Irrelevant conclusion. Non-christians get "hell" no matter what "moral standard" they uphold(or disregard). If "christian" means to "be in God"(as you say), then again, one can't "be in" what one doesn't believe exists. Yet, that person gets the same treatment as those who out-and-out reject "God". That is a mockery of "Justice", and it is an abuse of "Authority".
BTW, who enforces the doctrine of "Hell"? Does that question ring any bells, Karla? If humans follow the wrong "moral standard" and will subsequently be defaulted to "Hell", who sees to it that those who don't volunteer to be tormented for all of eternity get precisely that---tormented for all of eternity ?????
Well?
Boom,
By "higher" I meant greater in all respects to our own moral standard. Humanity can not be first before God, the reason we exist is because He first is and gave life to us.
People don't usually volunteer for the consequences of their actions, but that doesn't make them less just.
Each person is judged perfectly accurately and gets his just deserves. The thing is we can stand on the side of justice where the just deserves have been paid for us, or we stand on the side where we have to pay that price.
Boom, I'm not going to belabor this further in the comments. Maybe one day you'll see the justness of His ways.
"By 'higher' I meant greater in all respects to our own moral standard." ~ Karla
In that case, I unashamedly stand by my position that my own "moral standard" is "greater" than the morality of the Christian biblegod, as seen in the pages of the bible. Dashing children against rocks; drowning human beings....oh, good grief, why do I even bother?... you are perfectly familiar with the disgusting, atrocious, inhumane behaviors and policies of your biblegod. The difference is, you defend that "God", calling him and said behaviors "good" and "moral", because he has promised you eternal bliss when you expire, in exchange for your undying belief.
And again, this is why people like you are a danger to society. "God" could command you to KILL me and all other nonchristians, and you'd actually have to "think" about it, even if you ultimately disobeyed your "God"(which, hopefully, you would). In any event---'disgusting, and scary, to boot.
continues..."Humanity [cannot] be first before God, the reason we exist is because He first is and gave life to us."
Begging the question. And again, this type of argument has been pointed out to you... gee, I don't know, too many times to remember... yet, you still repeat this fallacious, disingenuous tactic.
continues...."People don't usually volunteer for the consequences of their actions, but that doesn't make them less just."
True. But guess what, Karla?...that little observation is completely irrelevant; you still have yet to address my main point of contention.
Here's the question again.....
"who enforces the doctrine of 'Hell'?"
IOW, whether those bound for "Hell" think it "just", or not, who sees to it that those who show resistance will be PUT there?? You know, to get their "punishment"? Please answer the question, and yes, it's a very pertinent question, in light of your continual insistance that nonbelievers "put themselves in Hell".
continues..."Each person is judged perfectly accurately and gets his just deserves."
Oh, really? So, in light my asking you over and over and over if you think that I deserve to be in "Hell", you have finally affirmed this?..i.e.."yes", I deserve it???
a) correct
b) incorrect
continues..."...we can stand on the side of justice where the just deserves have been paid for us.."
You are evidentally grasping at straws---that statement is not even coherent.
continues..."or we stand on the side where we have to pay that price."
Blatant contradiction. If the 'whatever' has "been payed for us"..i.e..PAST TENSE, it shouldn't matter where we "stand". The 'whatever' is either paid; or it isn't paid---it's binary.
"Boom, I'm not going to belabor this further in the comments."
Yes, and it is evident why you wouldn't want to continue discussing this.
"Maybe one day you'll see the justness of His ways." ~ Karla
If I do, it certainly won't be from reading the bible or listening to Christian apologists.
Hey boomSLANG, help me out here. Though I haven't commented here in months, I've been lurking, and just as you see a certain pattern with Karla, I see a certain pattern with you.
You claim to be here in earnest pursuit of truth, right? If that's the case, why do you keep coming back, despite your claim that Karla merely repeats the same old pattern of unsupported claims? Why is it that you never come to my blog to discuss various evidences and arguments presented there? I know that for myself, personally, when I feel somebody is just spinning my wheels, little is to be gained. As such, it's difficult for me to avoid wondering if perhaps something besides earnest pursuit of truth is motivating you here. At any rate...
If "christian" means to "be in God"(as you say), then again, one can't "be in" what one doesn't believe exists. Yet, that person gets the same treatment as those who out-and-out reject "God".
You seem to propose an ontological distinction between "not believing in God" and "out-and-out rejecting God" but I wonder as to the meaningfulness of your strategy. Can you elaborate on what you think you gain by making this distinction?
Note that hell will be full of believers and non-believers, according to the Bible, which says that "even demons believe, and shudder."
cl: You claim to be here in earnest pursuit of truth, right?
Yup.
continues...If that's the case, why do you keep coming back, despite your claim that Karla merely repeats the same old pattern of unsupported claims?
Good question, but the timing, not-so-good, as *I'm done. It's an utter waste of time, cl. But to attempt to answer your question, I think that I came back for as long as I did, because I was intrigued(and a bit shocked) how someone could defend their errors for so long.
* I'm "done", unless Karla decides she wants to come back and reopen the discussion by responding to what I've said here, and/or, by answering the questions that she's previously ignored.
continues...Why is it that you never come to my blog to discuss various evidences and arguments presented there?
For several reasons. Here are some of those, in no particular order:
- because it's challenging enough trying to keep up with just one Theist's personal beliefs, interpretation of doctrine, etc., let alone, two or more.
- because, while Karla and I cannot seem to find any common ground, she hasn't once come unglued, nor has she acted like I'm uninvited.(And if nothing else, I give her kudos for that)
- because when cl self-projects as "God"..i.e..a "bad-ass" who can do whatever-the-hell it wants, at least it is fairly consistant with the deity that I see in the bible, whereas, I see serious conflict in Karla's "nice guy" self-projection as "God".
- because I believe more time would be spent with you suggesting how/why I should formulate my arguments in way that is acceptable to you, than on actually discussing why you believe/why I don't believe.
cl: As such, it's difficult for me to avoid wondering if perhaps something besides earnest pursuit of truth is motivating you here.
A couple of things: 1) perhaps I've already found "truth"(or at least, what is more likely true), and 2) if # 1 is true, I could be here to share that "truth" with Karla, just as she wants to share what she believes is "Truth", with me and others.
cl: You seem to propose an ontological distinction between "not believing in God" and "out-and-out rejecting God" but I wonder as to the meaningfulness of your strategy. Can you elaborate on what you think you gain by making this distinction?
Sure. To illustrate that we humans are more "just" and more "moral" than the Xian biblegod. What I hope to "gain", is to show Xians that a "God" would have to be at least as "just" and "moral" as I, if he/she/it expects me to worship him/her/it.
cl: Note that hell will be full of believers and non-believers, according to the Bible, which says that "even demons believe, and shudder."
Assuming that what "the Bible" says is true---again, biblegod sentences those who believed in him, but who somehow fell short, the very same as those believers who believed in and worshipped some other "God". IOW, people's intentions mean absolutely nothing, and I shudder to think what it would be like living in a society where people's intentions meant nothing.
Boom “- because, while Karla and I cannot seem to find any common ground, she hasn't once come unglued, nor has she acted like I'm uninvited.(And if nothing else, I give her kudos for that) “
Thank you. It is my hope that you feel invited. Would not a common ground be that we both want authentic truth?
Boom “A couple of things: 1) perhaps I've already found "truth"(or at least, what is more likely true), and 2) if # 1 is true, I could be here to share that "truth" with Karla, just as she wants to share what she believes is "Truth", with me and others.”
That is most certainly a good and commendable reason.
Karla: Would not a common ground be that we both want authentic truth?[bold mine]
Redundant. What is "true" doesn't need any modifiers. Notwithstanding, no---I don't see it as common ground, in that I am content with the idea that I can know what is more likely true, without necessarily knowing what is Absolutely True(uppercase "T"), whereas, you have gone on record numerous times to say that the former is meaningless without the latter, nevermind that you've yet to demonstrate in any meaningful way that you know the latter.
Post a Comment