Choosing a faith

Allow me my turn at this soapbox. I believe that hell exists at some level of reality but that hell was never initially made for sinning humans. Hell was a place where Lucifer could explore his inner Satan, attempting to lure and convince humans to join him (out of jealousy that the Lord was doing a far better job at recruiting free-willed followers. ) Following this rabbit trail, I believe that humans only end up in hell by the rejection of the Holy Spirit of the eternally living God.Now let us examine (or reexamine) ringos sheep & goats argument.

quote:

---

Matt 25:31-46--
"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'

​

37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

​

41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand,' Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'

​

44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45 Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." NKJV

---

People have not yet been separated. Some sketchy apologist is at the same level as a non-binary politician who wears a dress. Both are at the same level as a sanctimonious conservative who looks down on the politician wearing a dress yet supports the sketchy and dishonest apologist. Biden and Trump sit at the same level. Even Kim Jong Un and Putin sit at this level. The playing field is level. As long as we are alive at least, we all have an opportunity to improve our standing with a Holy Judge. This judge is patient. This judge understands the core dynamics and idiosyncrasies of human nature and evolved survival traits.At some point, this judge will separate the students who will graduate from the students who will fail the test. (the test is our entire lives)Cranky old atheist Theodoric may well graduate while arrogant and uninformed Phat may fail.Our playwright Rrhain once had a great post that described the plot dynamics of Pygmalion: Message 235
We could argue that if a supposedly loving and caring God separated the wheat from the chaff, as Matthew 25 suggests, He did in fact care more for wheat than for Chaff. Ringo, the one who defends Satan in court, imagines a grave injustice for humans who are condemned to hell. But I don't see the scripture as talking about humans (goats) being sent to hell as much as I see Jesus warning all of us now, at the same level, that one day in our future we will be separated and sifted. Perhaps our imperfections, "sins" if you will dare I say inner demons will be purged and cast into the fire, burned up and destroyed for eternity. If my assessment is wrong, it only leaves a judge who is vindictive. I say let the goats walk. Sift them from their demons. Indict Satan. If he insists on mimicking Christ, who took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, he should be prepared to be thrown into the fire. Perhaps all of his rebellion, pride, and jealousy will burn off and God can welcome him back.

Of course you're a literalist. You literally accept the nice though fanciful stories about Jesus, and you reject the dreadful stories about genocide and the absurd ones about creation and the flood. The Golden Rule doesn't belong to religion. It belongs to everyone. From where I sit it looks like the non-religious do a much better job following the Golden Rule than the religious. Many people don't use religion to make them better people. They use it to construct excuses for the horrible things they do. Truth? You mean the kind of truth that has evidence? Something you can't prove, i.e., cannot provide evidence for, is your truth? That isn't much of a truth, is it? Isn't it just an unevidenced belief?--Percy

Excellent point. I try to live my life by a version of the Golden Rule. I have been an atheist all of my adult life. When I was a child I believed what children do. The Golden Rule has nothing to do with religion or religious belief

I do insist on reading in context. You said that Matthew 25 doesn't say what it plainly does say only a couple of verses away from your quote. That is unconscionable.I'm very close to calling you a flat-out liar.

SHRIEK!It... doesn't... matter.It doesn't matter one atom what hell was "made for". What matters is that Jesus said explicitly that He curses sinners to go to hell:

quote:

---

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

---

You can stop posting your lying nonsense every day. You'll always get the same reply. Not at all. I think everlasting fire is appropriate for people who don't give spare change to the poor. Yes, the one in the Bible. Jesus said let them burn. There are no demons except the ones in your head. And the only Satan is your right-wing handlers. And yet you never do. You only assert your own Phantasy without any reference to what the Bible actually says.Now I suppose we can count on you to bring up the exact same bullshit tomorrow?

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.
1/ The Griesbach hypothesis concludes Matthean priority.
2/ The Griesbach hypotheisis does not include Q
3/ Therefore with Matthean priority there is no "need" for Q.Matthean priority does not exclude "Q" but does not "need" it.With Matthean priority either position concerning Q can be argued. Yes, there are competing ideas about when the Gospels were written and the order in which they were written. Markan priority was based on the internal evidence by Streeter and ignored the external evidence.Here is a link to a book by Dennis Barton that outlines the history behind Markan priority as well as the arguments for it and outlines why Matthean priority is much more likely. You can select the chapters of interest, or just ignore the whole thing.Church HistoryOne point of interest is if "Q" actually existed then it would be more important to the early Christians and would have been preserved as more important than the Gospels. Also, the first church fathers would have referenced it as well. The Gospels point to a heavenly throne with His Kingdom being those that followed Him, without geographic boundaries. See Daniel 7.As for end times prophesies Jesus said that as to when only the Father knows. Most of the prophesies were part of His argument opposing violent revolution and what would happen if and when they went down that road. This of course was the case in 70AD. I would add that that I don't believe this was a supernatural prediction but a simple reading of the tea leaves. He was essentially saying that if you start a military conflict with the Romans then they will do what they always do and flatten the place.I agree that the early church believed that it would happen sooner rather than later but you still see some Christians believing the same thing today. Firstly the accounts were written by fallible human beings. Secondly they were individuals and knew different parts of the story. Yes there is discontinuity in the details.However, if this whole story was concocted then we wouldn't see these differences. They would have carefully aligned their stories.They are however, all in agreement that Jesus was resurrected just as witnesses to a car accident will give conflicting stories but they all agree that the accident occurred.

quote:

---

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.

---

I am not being obtuse at all. Unlike you.

quote:

---

1/ The Griesbach hypothesis concludes Matthean priority.
2/ The Griesbach hypotheisis does not include Q
3/ Therefore with Matthean priority there is no "need" for Q.
​

---

That is an obvious non-sequitur, and indeed I believe I already answered it (Message 909). We might as well say:1/ The Farrer hypothesis concludes Markan priority.
2/ The Farrer hypotheisis does not include Q
3/ Therefore with Markan priority there is no "need" for Q.
​
( Note that in both it should be “includes” not “concludes”)Both are equally wrong and for the same reason.

quote:

---

Matthean priority does not exclude "Q" but does not "need" it.
​
With Matthean priority either position concerning Q can be argued.

---

And exactly the same is true with Markan priority. So Matthean priority makes no difference at all.Really arguments are not just collections of words. You need to understand the issues. You have already seen that the answers to the arguments for Q have nothing to do with Matthean priority and that is quite enough to show that you are wrong. Unless Matthean priority in itself provides the answers - and you know it doesn’t - you can’t be correct.

quote:

---

Yes, there are competing ideas about when the Gospels were written and the order in which they were written. Markan priority was based on the internal evidence by Streeter and ignored the external evidence.
​

---

Given the shortage of external evidence that would seem sensible. The key question is whether Matthew is derived from Mark or vice versa. But the external evidence presents them as independent creations - if the external evidence is even talking about the Gospels we have. Papias, for instance is either wrong about the language Matthew was written in or talking about a different document, lost to us. And in that case, wouldn’t the external evidence favour Markan priority? Papias possible reference to Mark does not have a similar problem, and if Papias is correct and is referring to Mark, Markan priority follows.

quote:

---

Here is a link to a book by Dennis Barton that outlines the history behind Markan priority as well as the arguments for it and outlines why Matthean priority is much more likely. You can select the chapters of interest, or just ignore the whole thing.Church History

---

It looks somewhat polemic in nature and completely ignores the reasons for proposing Q. That is not good. I think we can partially blame Barton for your error, but you certainly should have been aware of the issues after they were brought up in this thread.

quote:

---

One point of interest is if "Q" actually existed then it would be more important to the early Christians and would have been preserved as more important than the Gospels. Also, the first church fathers would have referenced it as well.

---

If there was a document written in Aramaic by Matthew - as Papias says, that would have been important yet no such document is known. And if I recall correctly in the earliest quotes from the Gospels, the source is not identified.

quote:

---

The Gospels point to a heavenly throne with His Kingdom being those that followed Him, without geographic boundaries. See Daniel 7.

---

Daniel 7 does not refer to the Messiah sitting on a heavenly throne - indeed it des not directly refer to the Messiah at all, and it is God who sits on the heavenly throne. And the kingdom spoken of - which was meant to come in about 200 years before Jesus died - still does not exist.

quote:

---

As for end times prophesies Jesus said that as to when only the Father knows

---

As should be obvious I was talking about Jewish prophecies linked to the Messiah. If they have not come to pass we can hardly see that Jesus was a successful Messiah.

quote:

---

Firstly the accounts were written by fallible human beings. Secondly they were individuals and knew different parts of the story. Yes there is discontinuity in the details.

---

In other words what you claimed to “see” in the Gospels isn’t there because the Gospel authors got it wrong. Pardon me for doubting that your inventions are more reliable than the Gospels.

quote:

---

However, if this whole story was concocted then we wouldn't see these differences. They would have carefully aligned their stories

---

Only if they were working in collusion - and if the author of Luke used Mathew, as we both believe, then he rejected much of Matthew’s story. And of course you ignore the far more reasonable possibility of the story growing over time, and in different directions in different groups.

quote:

---

They are however, all in agreement that Jesus was resurrected just as witnesses to a car accident will give conflicting stories but they all agree that the accident occurred

---

Reports of car accidents generally agree fairly well on where the accident occurs. If the author of Matthew knew that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem on instructions from Jesus, and Jesus appeared to them there he certainly would not have thought that they went to Galilee - again on Jesus’ instructions - and met Jesus there instead. And if Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew, as you believe, then he certainly ought to know the truth of that.So I think that the discrepancies are far more significant than you admit.

It feels like he's living a corollary of what Richard Feynman said, that the easiest one for us to fool is ourself.GDR, we only care what you believe to the extent you produce legitimate evidence or find a novel approach. So far you're doing standard liberal apologetics. It might not be going to far to call you a sort of Bible obsessed Unitarian.--Percy

It's interesting the different focus people have. I know the religions affiliation of almost no one I know.
I only know the Indian family across the street is Hindu because they're holding a Hindu wedding for their daughter. Then you don't understand evolution. Increasing one's differential reproductive success can be done in many, many more ways than bonking your competition over the head.--Percy

GDR:

---

That is one explanation. I would argue against based it on the basis that it is not consistent with the concept of survival of the fittest from evolution.

Percy:

---

Then you don't understand evolution. Increasing one's differential reproductive success can be done in many, many more ways than bonking your competition over the head.

---

---

I think you are confused here, Percy. Bonking your competition over the head would be a selection pressure (akin to predation). An increase in an offspring's differential reproductive success can only happen in a small number of ways. Random adaptive mutations are one way. Recombination where adaptive alleles from both parents are passed to the offspring is another. And some type of lateral transfer of adaptive genetic material such as bacteriophage do occasionally is a third way. I wouldn't call that "many" let alone "many, many". But if you are aware of other ways of increasing reproductive fitness, let us know.

Are you saying that goats are sinners and sheep aren't?Last time that I checked, both sheep and goats sin.

I think that I already answered this but I'll try again. Firstly we have Jesus quoted as saying only the Father knows. Jesus did not forecast a time of the end times, and yes some Christians have always been there to say that it is coming soon.The quote from Jesus about it happening in the life times of some that were alive then is not about end times at all. It is His message denouncing violent revolution. There was a strong faction in the country that advocated for a military revolution and Jesus realized that this was going to happen in the relatively near future. He is saying, using Jewish apocalyptic language that when it did happen, it would be best to head for the hills because the Romans would do what they always do. This all happened of source in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem itself.I am not saying that He knew that supernaturally. So much of the church have been so focused on seeing Jesus as wholly God they forget the wholly man nature. He would be the equivalent of those who predicted WW II in 1937. My Christian belief hangs on the contention that the resurrection was an actual historic event. The basic theistic part of my faith is simply the goodness of God and that as humans which should reflect that same loving goodness.

I agree, which IMHO is evidence of a deity that wants this to be a fundamental property of humanity. Truth is still truth with or without evidence. It is simply that we won't agree much of the time even when there is evidence, let alone when there isn't. You agreed that the Bible, (along with other holy books) is evidence, although it doesn't come close to constituting a proof.
​

How many times do I have to say it. IMHO Matthew is using hyperbole to make a point. Do I think that the rest of the parable is word for word what Jesus said; no I don't. I do believe that Matthew has captured Jesus in essence in the parable, which is consistent with the overall picture painted by the Gospels.Incidentally the NASB and the NIV translations both simply have it as eternal punishment - no fire.Even the, what does eternal punishment mean? In reading Lewis eternal punishment is about living in a world where predominate culture is self focused, as opposed to a world where the predominate culture is focused on the other.

quote:

---

I think that I already answered this but I'll try again. Firstly we have Jesus quoted as saying only the Father knows. Jesus did not forecast a time of the end times, and yes some Christians have always been there to say that it is coming soon.

---

That is misleading. According to the Gospels Jesus knew that it was coming soon, but not the exact time.Mark 13 Not knowing “the day or hour” certainly does not rule out some knowledge of when it would happen - and within the lifetime of the disciples is certainly imprecise enough to be consistent with that language.

quote:

---

The quote from Jesus about it happening in the life times of some that were alive then is not about end times at all. It is His message denouncing violent revolution.

---

That is certainly not what the Gospels say:
Mark 13 Indeed Mark 13 is clearly referencing Daniel 7 - which is about a successful rebellion.