A silly question

[rez]

I've been directing my attention away from theology for a while now so i'm a little rusty on a couple of things.

Before God appeared to Abraham and revealed true religion to the world what happened to all the people that died?

1. Did they simply stop existing altogether? Were they simply destroyed due to a lack of use?

2. Did God judge them according to how they had lived their lives and sent them to hell or heaven respectively?



Scenario 1. Why did God send so many of his apparently beloved creations into oblivion for so long before appearing and showing people how to be saved on a whim? Why wait and deprive his beloved of salvation?

Scenario 2. If God was judging people according to their merit and solely on how well they lived their lives what was the point of introducing true religion to them? Outside of a need to be praised what purpose does laying out strict and bloody dogma have if he already had a system of judgment?


Any help is appreciated.

[bdh]

1. Did they simply stop existing altogether? Were they simply destroyed due to a lack of use?

They went to sheol and existed in a state of darkness and lethargy. The part of the Apostle's creed that says that Jesus went to 'hell' is a slight mistranslation since it really means he went to the underworld to release them for judgement. That is also part of an apocryphal biblical story that isn't canon though.

For a more metaphysically elegant point though, drawn from the scripture, its also simpler to say that they cease to exist but will later be resurrected for the last judgment.

2. Did God judge them according to how they had lived their lives and sent them to hell or heaven respectively?

Well, technically, the real judgment hasn't occurred yet, but they should be resurrected just like everyone else and subsequently damned.

Scenario 2. If God was judging people according to their merit and solely on how well they lived their lives what was the point of introducing true religion to them? Outside of a need to be praised what purpose does laying out strict and bloody dogma have if he already had a system of judgment?

Because Christianity isn't about judgment, its about getting closer to God and JC. The whole judgment emphasis is really just an overblown part of the religion.

[rez]

Ah Bdh I was hoping you would reply, i just didn't expect it so soon!

They went to sheol and existed in a state of darkness and lethargy. The part of the Apostle's creed that says that Jesus went to 'hell' is a slight mistranslation since it really means he went to the underworld to release them for judgement. That is also part of an apocryphal biblical story that isn't canon though.

For a more metaphysically elegant point though, drawn from the scripture, its also simpler to say that they cease to exist but will later be resurrected for the last judgment.

So they die and are sent to a waiting room until they are judged by criteria it is impossible for them to fulfil. Ultimately damning them. Doesn't feel too holy.

Unless they were judged according to their lifestyle which again begs the question - Why bother introducing the obviously irrelevant laws?

Because Christianity isn't about judgment, its about getting closer to God and JC. The whole judgment emphasis is really just an overblown part of the religion.

Well simply put the only way to get closer to JC and God is to be judged as worthy.

What I'm trying to say is that either God condemened a rather astronomical amount of people to hell for no purpose or he already had a perfect way of determining who could get close to him. One that did not require Dogma and praise.

[bdh]

Ah Bdh I was hoping you would reply, i just didn't expect it so soon!

Well thank you very much.

So they die and are sent to a waiting room until they are judged by criteria it is impossible for them to fulfil. Ultimately damning them. Doesn't feel too holy.

How is the criteria impossible for them to fulfill? This was a very different time, specifically the time before Abraham, and human beings had a very different relationship with God (at least biblically). After Adam, its not as if God suddenly disappeared. He had a relationship with the recently fallen peoples. The difference though is that over time the people turned away from him on their own accord and God had to reintroduce himself.

Unless they were judged according to their lifestyle which again begs the question - Why bother introducing the obviously irrelevant laws?

Mosaic law? The law was designed to generate a cohesive nation, which it has done quite successfully.

Well simply put the only way to get closer to JC and God is to be judged as worthy.

Not closer, closest.

What I'm trying to say is that either God condemened a rather astronomical amount of people to hell for no purpose or he already had a perfect way of determining who could get close to him. One that did not require Dogma and praise.

Actually there is a middle ground in this. Though all the dogma and praise isn't completely necessary it would have a threefold benefit.
A) it would allow the most contemptible and endangered of being damned an opportunity for redemption
B) It would act as a source of happiness and fulfillment. Its not all about the after life after all. Pretty much all of the saints, save a few, were pretty happy and upbeat people.
C) Inspire people to greater acts of compassion (keyword, greater or saintly, since ideally most people are nice anyway).

The problem with your rationale is that it is completely focused on judgment as the sole purpose of humanity when revelation also exists for man's benefit on Earth as well. Thats one of the reason people keep on emphasizing the health-related and charity related aspects to faith.

All the fire and brimstone preaching really does tend to slant peoples views away from immanent concerns like poverty and such like that.

Now, from this line of reasoning, the next point of contention I foresee is that Christianity doesn't really make the world a better place and that the view isn't consistent with reality, but, the consistency of Christianity with reality is a different argument all together than Christianity's consistency with itself, which I believe was the thrust of your opening post.

[Garnier]

I've been directing my attention away from theology for a while now so i'm a little rusty on a couple of things.

Before God appeared to Abraham and revealed true religion to the world what happened to all the people that died?

1. Did they simply stop existing altogether? Were they simply destroyed due to a lack of use?

2. Did God judge them according to how they had lived their lives and sent them to hell or heaven respectively?



Scenario 1. Why did God send so many of his apparently beloved creations into oblivion for so long before appearing and showing people how to be saved on a whim? Why wait and deprive his beloved of salvation?

Scenario 2. If God was judging people according to their merit and solely on how well they lived their lives what was the point of introducing true religion to them? Outside of a need to be praised what purpose does laying out strict and bloody dogma have if he already had a system of judgment?


Any help is appreciated.

Well God does judge people according to one thing. If someone has sinned, he has fallen short and is condemned (separated from God). So thats me, you and everyone else. BUT Jesus took the condemnation on Himself, he was separated from God and He died. Then he was resurrected (God has power) so now there is no condemnation for us. Jesus paid the price and when we are judged, God does not see our sin because Jesus covered it.

Secondly, time is something that exists in our physical universe, but God is outside of time. And when we die we are no longer in time. So those who died before Jesus came, are covered by His sacrifice.

[rez]

How is the criteria impossible for them to fulfill? This was a very different time, specifically the time before Abraham, and human beings had a very different relationship with God (at least biblically). After Adam, its not as if God suddenly disappeared. He had a relationship with the recently fallen peoples. The difference though is that over time the people turned away from him on their own accord and God had to reintroduce himself.

Are we talking about a time where man was universally accepted as worthy of objective judgment no matter which God he praised?

So what you're saying is that God reintroduced himself with a newfound set of laws and limits so that he could keep the people's attention. I like this explaination.

Mosaic law? The law was designed to generate a cohesive nation, which it has done quite successfully.

This lends itself to a more man-made interpretation of the ten commandments. But thats a matter of faith I suppose.

Actually there is a middle ground in this. Though all the dogma and praise isn't completely necessary it would have a threefold benefit.
A) it would allow the most contemptible and endangered of being damned an opportunity for redemption
B) It would act as a source of happiness and fulfillment. Its not all about the after life after all. Pretty much all of the saints, save a few, were pretty happy and upbeat people.
C) Inspire people to greater acts of compassion (keyword, greater or saintly, since ideally most people are nice anyway).

Unfortunately these all come with downsides as well. New and VERY stict laws come with a huge amount of sinning due to the much more codified way of living. Sinning even in silly ways that aren't really neccesary like the Sabbath or not saying God's name. It also allows for far more people TO be condemned by the newly founded religious community. Of course the oppurtunity for them to repent is alive and well.

Option C is my favourite as it doesn't have an immediate oppisite. But is that worth it considering the Cons? Strict religion opens the door for severe consequences and retribution for schisms and disagreements let alone sinning. The abundance of stoning being the first thought that comes to mind.

The problem with your rationale is that it is completely focused on judgment as the sole purpose of humanity when revelation also exists for man's benefit on Earth as well. Thats one of the reason people keep on emphasizing the health-related and charity related aspects to faith.

In the face of the over reaching emphasis on judgment i hear preached my way I am habitually drawn back to the subject. The emphasis on charity and good that religion brings is an excellent answer to my question, my thanks.

However, do you not think that the large emphasis on judgement comes from Jesus and God himself? Its practically all they talk about.

All the fire and brimstone preaching really does tend to slant peoples views away from immanent concerns like poverty and such like that.

Agreed.

Now, from this line of reasoning, the next point of contention I foresee is that Christianity doesn't really make the world a better place and that the view isn't consistent with reality, but, the consistency of Christianity with reality is a different argument all together than Christianity's consistency with itself, which I believe was the thrust of your opening post.

On the contrary I would suggest that Christianity in theory really does make the world a better place. But Humanity has a horrible habit of ruining theoretical practices. Despite this i would say that it has done more good than harm, but i'm a terrible romantic.

Secondly, time is something that exists in our physical universe, but God is outside of time. And when we die we are no longer in time. So those who died before Jesus came, are covered by His sacrifice.

So basically everyone before Jesus goes to heaven no matter how they acted?

[bdh]

Are we talking about a time where man was universally accepted as worthy of objective judgment no matter which God he praised?

So what you're saying is that God reintroduced himself with a newfound set of laws and limits so that he could keep the people's attention. I like this explaination.

More or less.

This lends itself to a more man-made interpretation of the ten commandments. But thats a matter of faith I suppose.

Well, for whatever reason, the big guy wanted his own little nation.

Unfortunately these all come with downsides as well. New and VERY stict laws come with a huge amount of sinning due to the much more codified way of living. Sinning even in silly ways that aren't really neccesary like the Sabbath or not saying God's name. It also allows for far more people TO be condemned by the newly founded religious community. Of course the oppurtunity for them to repent is alive and well.

Well, in terms of the final judgement, right and wrong is always pretty much the same, though the punishment may be different based on the circumstances. The strictness of the mosaic is really just a function of God's plan, and has little to ultimately do with final morality. Even so, people who ascribe to the Mosaic law will be judged slightly differently because it is a direct commandment by God to them that other people simply don't have. The rightness or wrongness then, of the Mosaic law, doesn't come from any intrinsic morality, but because and only because it is God's command. You do what he says because what he says will lead to ultimate goodness.

Option C is my favourite as it doesn't have an immediate oppisite. But is that worth it considering the Cons?

Well, in Christianity, pretty much all of the cons associated with it went out the door the Council of Jerusalem when they said the mosaic law was a special case.

Strict religion opens the door for severe consequences and retribution for schisms and disagreements let alone sinning. The abundance of stoning being the first thought that comes to mind.

Well, I would just maintain that the Mosaic law is, in the grand scheme of things, an anomaly associated with special circumstances such that the people involved will also be given different attention. Theres a reason also why in Christianity the law is now, more or less, defunct.

In the face of the over reaching emphasis on judgment i hear preached my way I am habitually drawn back to the subject. The emphasis on charity and good that religion brings is an excellent answer to my question, my thanks.

Well, you're welcome. And indeed, there is much emphasis on judgment, but what can I say, it fills pews.

However, do you not think that the large emphasis on judgement comes from Jesus and God himself? Its practically all they talk about.

Its not all they talk about. The beatitudes, for example, are largely about just being a good person.

On the contrary I would suggest that Christianity in theory really does make the world a better place. But Humanity has a horrible habit of ruining theoretical practices. Despite this i would say that it has done more good than harm, but i'm a terrible romantic.

Aren't we all.

[David Deas]

Before God appeared to Abraham and revealed true religion to the world what happened to all the people that died?

1. Did they simply stop existing altogether? Were they simply destroyed due to a lack of use?

2. Did God judge them according to how they had lived their lives and sent them to hell or heaven respectively?

Nothing happened to them. They just died.

Although Yahweh promised salvation to his followers long before Yashua ever came along, the idea of an afterlife in either heaven or hell is very much a product of the ancient Roman Catholic Church and their New Testament. The original scriptures, accurately translated, do not claim anything about post-mortem existence. Nor did Yashua.

[rez]

Well, in terms of the final judgement, right and wrong is always pretty much the same, though the punishment may be different based on the circumstances. The strictness of the mosaic is really just a function of God's plan, and has little to ultimately do with final morality. Even so, people who ascribe to the Mosaic law will be judged slightly differently because it is a direct commandment by God to them that other people simply don't have.

So what of the new laws introduced like the sabbath? Where is the morality there?

The rightness or wrongness then, of the Mosaic law, doesn't come from any intrinsic morality, but because and only because it is God's command. You do what he says because what he says will lead to ultimate goodness.

Doesn't this leave a bad taste in you're mouth? Saying that God is above the human sense wrong inevitably leads to the scenario of God ordering you to do something you know and feel is wrong.

How can you reconcile

A) A God that would have the gall to test his minions in such a way (Abraham)

B) Deciding that a supernatural being is more iportant than what you feel is right?

Nothing happened to them. They just died.

Although Yahweh promised salvation to his followers long before Yashua ever came along, the idea of an afterlife in either heaven or hell is very much a product of the ancient Roman Cathloic Church and their New Testament. The original scriptures, accurately translated, do not claim anything about post-mortem existence. Nor did Yashua.

Good to see you again DD. What i was getting at was a conceptual view of a God who in his infinite perfection has the power to change his mind and allow a new batch of people to join him in heaven. I was wondering why such a decision was made and why the original humans were denied such a privilige.

[David Deas]

Good to see you again DD. What i was getting at was a conceptual view of a God who in his infinite perfection has the power to change his mind and allow a new batch of people to join him in heaven. I was wondering why such a decision was made and why the original humans were denied such a privilige.

“Blessed are the [those] who pursue salvation [righteousness], for such as these [those] are in the kingdom of God.” -- Yashua; Matthew 5:10

Yashua taught that both Heaven [the Kingdom of God] and Hell [Gehenna] were metaphorical concepts. Not places you go to after you die. I tell you this because In order to answer your question, and in order for the Bible to be more consistent with itself, it is imperative to have as accurate a translation as is possible.

[rez]

Think more of an argument concerning what the Church preaches rather than what scripture teaches.

[David Deas]

That doesn't make any sense.

If you start with false premises then you likely end up with an equally false answer.

[rez]

Simply an argument against what th church preaches. Taking their version of events and asking the questions that show God in a less than perfect light according to their version.

Its not a quest to find the real answer.

[David Deas]

Simply an argument against what th church preaches. Taking their version of events and asking the questions that show God in a less than perfect light according to their version.

Its not a quest to find the real answer.

Nevertheless you have the real answer.

The real answer is a far better arguement against falsehood than simple rhetoric.

[Captain Blackadder]

Yeah the bible itself has now answer to this questio just like it has no answers to many quandries however the church talks about Limbo and things like that. However I feel that if there was a god and he was all loving entrance into heaven would be based on what kind of person you were not your relgious belief.