|
Basebf555 posted:I am Jewish, can you speak a little bit about what you feel will happen to me when I die, assuming I don't accept Jesus before then? I feel you will have to face judgment. Then, what will you have to stand on in regards to your transgressions to the Torah? Have you kept your mitsvah's flawlessly? Have you worn your tsitzits out in public (I wear them and I don't base my justification on mitzvah's) Do you keep the laws perfectly basically is what I ask. If not, then how will you justify yourself before HaShem? How can you atone when people don't make Leviticus sacrifices anymore? What about the correlation to the destruction of the Temple shortly after Jesus's death? What about the lineage of David, is that still traceable? How will we know when the Messiah comes if we cant trace the lineage now?
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I feel you will have to face judgment. Then, what will you have to stand on in regards to your transgressions to the Torah? Have you kept your mitsvah's flawlessly? Have you worn your tsitzits out in public (I wear them and I don't base my justification on mitzvah's) Do you keep the laws perfectly basically is what I ask. If not, then how will you justify yourself before HaShem? How can you atone when people don't make Leviticus sacrifices anymore? What about the correlation to the destruction of the Temple shortly after Jesus's death? What about the lineage of David, is that still traceable? How will we know when the Messiah comes if we cant trace the lineage now? What do you mean exactly by "face judgment"? What will happen to me? Lets say that I have kept the mitzvot and laws flawlessly, but I still don't accept Jesus. What happens then? Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, God played chicken with innocent lives and that's okay? So what about killing all the first borns in Egypt? Or flooding the Earth in a global genocide? I want to answer this but I want to do a little research on this, I will edit this post in a few hours with a response ok?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What do you mean exactly by "face judgment"? What will happen to me? Sorry if I came off a little dramatic with my response, I was just caught up in excitement because I found the question interesting and one that I care about immensely. I would need to understand your view of the afterlife before talking about judgment. The Torah certainly does not address the topic of Sheol in depth, and I haven't delved deep into rabbinical literature yet. I believe that all humanity will face judgment upon their death. This is in line with conservative Christian doctrine. I do believe that God has a plan for His Jewish people, they are certainly not forgotten, nor forsaken. As for the verdict of your judgment I truly cannot say how that would go, since I don't sit in the judgment seat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
I think they are wondering about what you literally mean with 'facing judgement'. Because the image that pops up in my mind is standing on red carpet flanked by a cloud landscape, before an ivory stairway that houses a gigantic throne with something undefineable, unwatchable entity on it, asking why I skipped church on June 24th, 1999, and then having to respond in literal words, despite Him already knowing the answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Why did God create the loa loa worm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Sorry if I came off a little dramatic with my response, I was just caught up in excitement because I found the question interesting and one that I care about immensely. I'm not sure I understand why my personal view of the afterlife would make any difference. Don't you have an idea of what you think would happen to me, regardless of my own beliefs? It seems like you're saying that accepting Jesus isn't 100% required for entrance to Heaven though, is that correct? Or would there be a legit Heaven where all the Christians are, and then a separate place that's also kinda nice(but not as good as Heaven) for the Jews?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:How can you atone when people don't make Leviticus sacrifices anymore? For someone in seminary school and who seems to have a decent understanding of Jewish tradition, it's weird that you don't understand Yom Kippur, you know, the Day of Atonement? The day where we ask others, as well as God, for forgiveness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I think they are wondering about what you literally mean with 'facing judgement'. I can show you what the scripture says about judgment (and hell coincidently) Revelation 20 : 11 - 15 Then I saw a great white throne and the One who sat on it. The earth and the heavens fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And there were open books, and one of them was the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone was found whose name was not written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. I really cant tell you what its like in the lake of fire, I want to address something things concerning reconciliation of God's justice with the doctrine of hell: - I hold that God delights in granting mercy over judgment - Restoration is God's primary goal - God's love is never overcome with hateful passions or vindictiveness - At the same time there is a biblical and intuitive basis for some form of retributive justice Some can argue that an eternity in hell is far worse than anything thing we can do wrong in this life - consider the possibility that the damned, having formed throughly evil characters, continue to sin in hell. Someone who has given themselves over to evil in this life will not cease to relish evil in the next, as such they never cease to accrue guilt - Annihilation has a certain appeal to some because it seems like a less severe punishment than eternal damnation, even if we have a less painful depiction of hell than a constant furnace fire. But take the case of capital punishment, it is usually considered a harder punishment than life in prison, so may annihilation be a harder punishment than hell. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:For someone in seminary school and who seems to have a decent understanding of Jewish tradition, it's weird that you don't understand Yom Kippur, you know, the Day of Atonement? The day where we ask others, as well as God, for forgiveness? I believe what he's saying is, just having a "Day of Atonement" where you think about your sins and repent for them, is bullshit. The only way to really atone was laid out by God, and it involves sacrifices, which nobody performs anymorebecause they realized its insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:For someone in seminary school and who seems to have a decent understanding of Jewish tradition, it's weird that you don't understand Yom Kippur, you know, the Day of Atonement? The day where we ask others, as well as God, for forgiveness? I think that Yom Kippur is very important, but I also believe that the command for observing Yom Kippur was given alongside the Burnt offerings, Sin offerings, Trespass offerings, Peace offerings, and Meal offerings and not as a replacement to those types of sacrifices, because of the necessity to reconcile your sins on more than a yearly basis, though I respect your difference in opinion on this
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I think that Yom Kippur is very important, but I also believe that the command for observing Yom Kippur was given alongside the Burnt offerings, Sin offerings, Trespass offerings, Peace offerings, and Meal offerings and not as a replacement to those types of sacrifices, because of the necessity to reconcile your sins on more than a yearly basis, though I respect your difference in opinion on this Is it fair to say that you tend to interpret scripture very literally? Not judging you, but there are different schools of thought on that in almost every religion and denomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:In no way was God contingent on the blood of the animals to forgive people of their sins. This is shown in the New Covenant, where no longer is the blood of bulls required. Its purpose was to show the consequence of sinning. God hates sin and it is more heinous to him and he makes it clear through one having to kill an innocent animal or His own son to be forgiven for it. That was literally the contingency until the New Covenant, when God went "okay, good enough with the goats and rams and suchlike, let's just one and done my emanation body, then we'll create a new set of contingencies." God hating sin is basically another major limitation on God. If God can be disappointed so easily as by sinning then I mean, come on now. Especially if the very concept of sin is arbitrary. God decides what is and is not a sin, then decides to hate those things that are sinful based on his own arbitrary decisions. It's very prone to the Euthyphro problem, but that's been hashed out before. Edit: hell, you're even asking the modern Jews how they can possibly atone without the instrument of those particular sacrifices, so I guess I can directly say: in what way is god's forgiveness not contingent on those sacrifices if you yourself are asking people how they can receive that forgiveness without performing those sacrifices? As for god transcending and not being contingent upon the creation, I think we have to logically disagree on that - god is obviously contingent upon the creation because his emotional states are dependent on the behaviors of that creation, and because even the very term "creator" requires it. Essentially, if god created the universe, then before the universe, god was not a creator, then after the universe, he was a creator. You can say that he transcends creation as a concept, but if he does creating, then he's a creator. If he doesn't do creation, then? Again, God is father if he has a son, sure, of course that makes sense. Without a son, there is no father. But sons and fathers are interdependently co-emergent, one doesn't exist without the other. Similarly, creators and creations are interdependently co-emergent. Similarly, a holy spirit that dwells is interdependently co-emergent with the place or mode of dwelling. You can say that something is independent of creation and exists beyond its realm, but you cannot simultaneously assert that that something is the creator. Because of the old and new covenants, we also know that God is not unchanging - the nature of contracts into which he enters and to which he is bound (no floods, for example) change, and so he's not unchanging. Again, this doesn't indicate transcendence, it indicates being interdependent, impermanent, samsaric. A lot of theology has been cobbled together, notably by for example St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, that moves the conception of god towards a more mystic god but without making the leap towards actual mysticism. A lot of this comes out of Roman Catholic theology and it's very robust but begs the question - they look at what they have and try to describe it, they assume the conclusion, basically. "Well, we don't believe god is limited, so how can we come up with theological justifications for his unlimited nature. Okay, let's say he's transcendant beyond creation." What they end up with is a kind of mystic god as one might find in Rosicrucianism or Sufism that is very advanced spiritually, but the problem is that it's inconsistent with the actual scripture and from what we know of how Judaism and Christianity have been practiced in the past. Either we depersonalize God and go with the "ineffable, transcendant, beyond all conceptual nature" path, which makes it difficult to then ascribe action, intent, or desires to God, all of which are things that God exhibits, numerous times, throughout the scriptures, or we have to accept the scriptures at face value, in which case god is personal and has a conventional, limited existence like all other beings. I think it's notable that these mystic ideas don't tend to appear in early Jewish henotheism, they show up later as it moves towards monotheism. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
If demons are basically just trying to trick you into thinking you might get inducted into the freemasons and then it never pans out, what exactly is Satan's deal? What does he want?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
For that matter, is Satan a he? Is god? Does it matter? I hate this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If demons are basically just trying to trick you into thinking you might get inducted into the freemasons and then it never pans out, what exactly is Satan's deal? What does he want? I also just want to point out that the policy in Freemasonry is that we do not invite people to join at all, ever. You can suggest someone might like it, but a person has to ask to join, and they cannot be induced to ask to join or suggested to ask to join or so on. They must ask to join of their own free will and accord. I mean I just want to point that out in case people are confused about our usual recruitment procedures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Is it fair to say that you tend to interpret scripture very literally? Not judging you, but there are different schools of thought on that in almost every religion and denomination. Well, I hold to a literal interpretation when the genre of the book its in and the larger context dictates it was meant to be done that way. I don't believe in holding everything in the Bible to the exact letter as written though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well, I hold to a literal interpretation when the genre of the book its in and the larger context dictates it was meant to be done that way. I don't believe in holding everything in the Bible to the exact letter as written though. Can you give an example of something in the Bible where you've decided that the larger context allows for non-literal interpretation? I'm trying to figure out how you evaluate when its appropriate to interpret beyond the literal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I also just want to point out that the policy in Freemasonry is that we do not invite people to join at all, ever. You can suggest someone might like it, but a person has to ask to join, and they cannot be induced to ask to join or suggested to ask to join or so on. They must ask to join of their own free will and accord. Thank you for that clarification
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Thank you for that clarification What if asking to join the Freemasons is actually instant disqualification? I smell a hint of sulfur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:That was literally the contingency until the New Covenant, when God went "okay, good enough with the goats and rams and suchlike, let's just one and done my emanation body, then we'll create a new set of contingencies." I don't agree that God hating sin is a limitation on His part. Sin is destructive in nature and harmful to those around you or unloving towards God in lieu of your own personal desires. Sin in no way debilitates God, He is never worse for wear regardless of the sins of humanity. I do think that God created the moral compass, otherwise God Himself would be contingent on morality. Take murder for instance, He hates it because its unfair to the one you murder. Same thing with stealing and adultery. Covetousness is generally a very negative personality trait. Lying on the stand at a trial is generally pretty mean. He doesn't want His people to act like that and hates when they do, He is our "Father" in heaven after all. To understand the new covenants relation to the Old Testament you need to understand Paul's Epistles, even if it is just Romans. The sacrifices are explicitly rescinded as a means of forgiveness of sins in favor of Christ's atonement. That was not the case until the New Covenant. Now there may be some rabbinical literature that says otherwise. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:What if asking to join the Freemasons is actually instant disqualification? I smell a hint of sulfur. disqualification to what? edit: Ill just leave the masons questions to the mason thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:disqualification to what? Probably wise, but disqualification to joining. Maybe the demons don't want you to be a Freemason. Why is adultery unfair?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Probably wise, but disqualification to joining. Maybe the demons don't want you to be a Freemason.  Emotional abuse is still abuse to me
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Do your professors bring up the cessationism/continuationism debate or Calvinist/Arminian soteriology debate very often?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:
I don't follow. If it's secret and no emotional abuse happens, adultery is alright? I need to know this for personal reasons. Wondering who I should prepare my arguments to deal with in the afterlife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Do your professors bring up the cessationism/continuationism debate or Calvinist/Arminian soteriology debate very often? I haven't come across any cessationalist, generally the baptist I know believe in the continued gifts of the spirit (not as hardcore as the pentecostal brothers), but we always hold that the cannon is closed. As far as Calvinism is concerned, I have studied it historically but from the theology courses i've had so far it hasnt been a major point of discussion. Its obvious that some professors hold to reformed doctrine pretty strongly through how they present their materials Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I don't agree that God hating sin is a limitation on His part. Sin is destructive in nature and harmful to those around you or unloving towards God in lieu of your own personal desires. Sin in no way debilitates God, He is never worse for wear regardless of the sins of humanity. I do think that God created the moral compass, otherwise God Himself would be contingent on morality. Take murder for instance, He hates it because its unfair to the one you murder. Same thing with stealing and adultery. Covetousness is generally a very negative personality trait. Lying on the stand at a trial is generally pretty mean. He doesn't want His people to act like that and hates when they do, He is our "Father" in heaven after all. The limitation is that it is "hating," which means his emotional state is contingent upon the actions or behaviors of others. I can make god happy by following his rules and worshiping him and so on, and I can make him unhappy by not following his rules and so on. Who actually holds the power here? quote:To understand the new covenants relation to the Old Testament you need to understand Paul's Epistles, even if it is just Romans. The sacrifices are explicitly rescinded as a means of forgiveness of sins in favor of Christ's atonement. That was not the case until the New Covenant. Now there may be some rabbinical literature that says otherwise. My understanding is that the new covenant is the fulfillment of the old covenant. Christ himself is the ultimate blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins from that point forward. No other blood sacrifices would be considered sufficient relative to God's own incarnate form, so the blood sacrifice schtick is no more. But again, this only indicates that god himself is limited by rules, regulations, agreements, and contracts. Previously, he was contractually obligated to forgive sins if and only if they performed the proper propitiation. He would then grant them blessings optionally. Now, he is contractually obligated to forgive sins if and only if they become Christians and do the whole accepting grace thing. It's all very cut and dry contract stuff, but it's certainly a limitation on god. For example, I was baptized, so in theory if I had died when I was Christian I'd have been saved, but then I left the church, so now I'm not saved. I'm in control in this relationship, I wield all the power. God is limited by my actions. If God had the power to forgive everyone's sins and promise them a heaven, then God would have to be kind of a jerk to not offer that to all sentient beings, no requirements. Instead, he's got an exclusive clubhouse for all the repenters our there, and unrepetent sinners get hell. In fact, I don't think anybody gets judged at all - we get the results of our actions, it's simple cause and effect. If God can magically atone all sin, and is comprised of universal love, then he should magically atone all sin universally. But it's a stretch to me that god can take away my sins as if by magic, even through elaborate sacrifices. If that were possible, then a lot of gods would be just doing that a lot. Instead, from my perspective, it seems to be the case that we are generally responsible for our own actions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I haven't come across any cessationalist, generally the baptist I know believe in the continued gifts of the spirit (not as hardcore as the pentecostal brothers), but we always hold that the cannon is closed. Are you familiar with the rather recent development of Calvinists essentially stealthing their way into pastoral positions within the SBC? I.e., they lie to the elders about their soteriology when they are doing the interview for their call, and whoops turns out the pastor you hired is actually an ardent Calvinist. What are your thoughts about that? Most of the Reformed Baptists I'm friends with are the "LBCF 1689 or get out" type, but I'm interested to hear a more mainline Baptist viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
What are your views on Creationism and Young Earth Creationism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:The limitation is that it is "hating," which means his emotional state is contingent upon the actions or behaviors of others. I can make god happy by following his rules and worshiping him and so on, and I can make him unhappy by not following his rules and so on. Who actually holds the power here? The fact that you were baptized was not conclusive evidence that you were going to heaven according to the New Testament. You cannot justify yourself, although you can hold on to the promises that are included in the covenant. Christ makes clear that you have to actually belong to him and not be a Christian in name only, and thats up to Him to decide (judgment). Who are you to decide that all sentient beings should go to heaven? That is beside the fact that the true hope of the Christian is in the resurrection, not the intermediate state or heaven. By having a covenant in place He gives you the option to opt out of this (Calvinist obviously disagree on ability to opt out or opt in but don't care about that right now ) So, basically if you want be in a relationship with God, then He makes a clear and understandable way present that grandma can believe in too. If you don't, then you don't have to believe in Him. He leaves the decision up to you. I don't think Him giving you the option to opt out is being a jerk. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Sorry to repeat myself but I'd like this particular question answered. Do you believe that a person who doesn't accept Jesus as their lord and savior could be accepted into Heaven, under any circumstances? Is it possible, even if unlikely, to live a life consistent with the teachings of the Bible without believing that Jesus was the son of God?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:So, basically if you want be in a relationship with God, then He makes a clear and understandable way present that grandma can believe in too. Oh no, are we still talking about adultery?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Why did God not create a world in which everyone freely believes the Gospel and is saved? possible answer: It may not be feasible or preferable for God to create such a world. If such a world were feasible and did not have overriding decencies, God would have created it. But given His will to create free creatures, God had to accept that some would freely reject Him and His every effort to save them and be lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why did God not create a world in which everyone freely believes the Gospel and is saved? Why does he punish his creations for acting the way he created them, again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:But given His will to create free creatures, God had to accept that some would freely reject Him and His every effort to save them and be lost. Was that his will or Satan's? I'm pretty sure Genesis clarifies this for us. His will seemed to be in the not free creature camp. Didn't all of the beginning creatures reject his rear end?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Why did God not create a world in which everyone freely believes the Gospel and is saved? Are you familiar with the Molinist trans-world damnation theology advanced by William Lane Craig (based on Platinga's work)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Sorry to repeat myself but I'd like this particular question answered. I will give you an example of a possibility Lets say you lived your whole life in a tribe of the zubamafoo's in Papua New Guinea. You deduced from the world you live in that something had to have made it in the first place for it to be here, because your huts don't build themselves you know. You rejected cannibalism now matter how much people taste like chicken. You loved your neighbor as yourself, and you lived a really decent life but NO missionary ever came and talked to you and you never even had a written language to work with. Upon judgment then that person could be held to what was revealed via natural revelation (from the natural world) and be judged accordingly and go to heaven. I think there is a possibility in that kind of sense yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:You rejected cannibalism now matter how much people taste like chicken. You loved your neighbor as yourself, and you lived a really decent life If they lived the decent life and loved their neighbor, but ate a bite of human flesh, that's a dealbreaker? Why? Edit: Catholics devour human flesh and blood and love it, as I understand things. Why is that OK?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Are you familiar with the Molinist trans-world damnation theology advanced by William Lane Craig (based on Platinga's work)? I love some of Platinga's works (like his version of the ontological argument) and I respect Craig and I will check it out thanks. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:37
|
|