Board index ‹ Salvation

[Silo Door]

> So what you're saying is that our killing 300 million in one century, it really wasn't as bad as other centuries when we killed 50 million, because there were so many other people on the Earth? Hmm. Sounds like skewed reasoning to me. If I wipe out a village of 100 people, is that more bloody than killing 10,000 in a town of 20,000? Not in my way of thinking.

This topic is irrelevant to our discussion anyway. I could agree the whole world is going down the tubes and that still wouldn't be evidence for Hell or God. If anything, one could make an argument that a benevolent God wouldn't allow such.

That aside, what I and the person who posted the answer I got that excerpt from is saying is, the higher percentage of people dying in wars, etc. is only possible because deaths by other causes such as disease are down (which is a perk of existence in this time that people living previously didn't have, i.e. things getting better). If everyone died of pneumonia, then they couldn't die in combat in war.

> Whoa whoa, whoa, don't just toss this out there casually, first of all.

Why not? It's a supposed action by the Christian God is it not?

> Second, it hasn't been anything we've been talking about.

If we're talking about genocides now compared to in the past, it does fall into what we were talking about.

> Third, it's not even true. The Genesis Flood was not a global event, but rather a regional one. That's a completely different discussion, though.

I suppose all Christians don't see the events of the Bible as being historically accurate. We don't have to discuss this in detail and perhaps it's not the time. Just an off the cuff idea I had about previous genocides.

> I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that to be in lesser punishment in hell is desirable to being in a lesser reward in heaven?

I'm trying to say the amount of reward/punishment is what would ultimately matter as to the experience of Heaven/Hell and it's enjoyment/hardship.

For example, if you earned your room in Heaven yet it was next to the noisy ice machine and you had to work at a job you disliked and God never spoke to you or gave you any mind, perhaps you wouldn't enjoy yourself as much as those in the VIP section with unlimited wine and games and fun. On the other hand, if your in the section of Hell where you're merely slapped on the wrist every so often, you're glad you earned that spot instead of the one where others are skewed on flaming hooks. (Just an example and illustration, I'm not saying these are accurate descriptions of Heaven or Hell.)

So what you earned could very well make a large difference in your experience, hypothetically. Actual details of this stuff aren't available to my knowledge and it's all supposed and guesswork anyway.

One could then reasonably say (imo) that you earned your experience, and as such, your enjoyment/hardship, just not your initial ticket.

[jimwalton]

> "Genocide" Why not? It's a supposed action by the Christian God is it not?

No it's not. Any study of the text and any research into the background shows that genocide was not what was going on. The only way to come to that conclusion is to read the words superficially and draw a trivial conclusion. It is not the supposed action by the Christian God.

> I suppose all Christians don't see the events of the Bible as being historically accurate.

Oh, I see the events of the Bible as historically accurate, and I see the Flood as a historical event. It just wasn't global.

> I'm trying to say the amount of reward/punishment is what would ultimately matter as to the experience of Heaven/Hell and it's enjoyment/hardship.

Yeah, I get this, but the real and most important issue is "Where are you—in the presence of God or separated from Him?"

> if you earned your room in Heaven yet it was next to the noisy ice machine and you had to work at a job you disliked and God never spoke to you or gave you any mind, perhaps you wouldn't enjoy yourself as much as those in the VIP section with unlimited wine and games and fun.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but this is quite a false picture of heaven. This makes a at least a segment of heaven a place of discomfort, boredom, annoyance, meaninglessness, and envy. It's not fair to make this the situation. Then you speak of hell as if it's a better situation than the person in heaven.

> (Just an example and illustration, I'm not saying these are accurate descriptions of Heaven or Hell.)

Yeah, the example and illustration is so far off it can't be something we discuss as if it's one of the possibilities.

> One could then reasonably say (imo) that you earned your experience, and as such, your enjoyment/hardship, just not your initial ticket.

Yeah, the idea that I've been saying all along is that heaven is not earned by experience, nor is your enjoyment of heaven (it's described as a joyful, positive experience for all). But what level of reward you have there is totally fair, based on what you've earned. And hell is what a person chooses by rejecting God, just like the people way back in our conversation experience the awfulness of the storm because they refuse to get into the rescue helicopter. But beyond that, their experience is hell is totally fair, based on what they've earned. I don't see what's unjust about it.