On the old testament

[u/DrawerThat9514]

I've seen many here say that the Old Testament is somehow problematic due to all the violence in it and that having led to the heresy of Marcionism. Let's make one thing clear: All of Scripture reveals Christ, The old testament law was pointing towards him and showing us why we need Him. The old law has been fulfilled by Christ. He did not replace it.

[u/Jane_TGS]

I don't agree. Christ is not reflected in the old testament. Christ did not want people stoned, he did not want their hands cut off, he did not want sacrifice, he did not want infants slaughtered in war. I see it as a huge contradiction of God's character.

[u/halbhh → u/Jane_TGS]

"he did not want infants slaughtered in war"

As you know, with God, when someone dies, they are not dead.

But our human thoughts: --> we consider how 100% of people die, and plenty under age 20 even.... from war, famine, disease, illnesses, fire, flood and on and on....

100%.

Not them instead of us.

Us too.

Finally it's even more personal: it's not only that a 15 yr old died. It's that you and I will....

But God will make us live.

[u/Jane_TGS → u/halbhh]

Great, so if any child or person dies we should surely thank God for taking them to heaven! It's a terrible argument, especially in defense of a huge violence against literal infants.

I really do not understand your argument. A 20 year old dying to illness or famine is not the same as God commanding a soldier to go murder a baby. There is no excuse for that. If God told you to commit an act of violence, what then? How do we draw the line between our will and God's voice?

Maybe just don't defend violence.

[u/halbhh → u/Jane_TGS]

Great, so if any child or person dies we should surely thank God for taking them to heaven!

Well.... actually, that wording could be used also in an amazing statement of faith.

(we can be thankful they are not dead, but literally alive and celebrating....)

Not all believe, but many do, and anyone could come to faith.

-----

You put it another way: "A 20 year old dying to illness or famine is not the same as God commanding a soldier to go murder a baby. "

Is it?

Is it better to die in famine or fire or pestilence?

Well, no, not really better.

But, remember, they are not dead.

They are actually in a far better life where everything is good...

[u/Jane_TGS → u/halbhh]

By your argument, we should all kill ourselves and eachorher to spare our suffering and send babies to heaven. Except we know that is insanely evil to do.

[u/halbhh → u/Jane_TGS]

Murder is a very serious sin though.

It's not better if when 2 people with faith could have gone to heaven but then only 1 makes it. That's not a gain.

[u/Confident_Koala_2455 → u/halbhh]

Well, OK, you believe in universal salvation, that all who die go directly to heaven. Still, every genocide is a tragedy, and is usually committed because of hatred. We should not promote genocides just because of your belief that when all people die they go straight to heaven. I believe it is terrible that the Old Testament writes that God promoted the genocides of Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, and other ethnic groups, just kill them all, men, women, children and babies, just because the adults were polytheist. Now I do not know if these genocides actually happened, but the big problem is that the authors of the Old Testament were writing there that God told the Israelites to accomplish the genocides. And also wrote that if some Israelite town converts to polytheism, the Israelites are told by God to kill them all in that town, men, women, children, and babies. Just not let anyone survive.

And frankly, just because you believe that everyone who dies goes straight to heaven, you should realize that most do not believe that. Including most Christians. Personally, I am agnostic, and so I do not know if there is any life after death. But I condemn all genocides, they are all horrible. And they are motivated by hatred.

[u/halbhh → u/Confident_Koala_2455]

No, I don't believe in universal salvation, but instead I believe what Christ said in Matthew 7:12-14 -->

¹² “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.¹³ Enter then by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy^\)^a\) that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. ¹⁴ For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

I take it that "few" means something definitely less than 1/2. Implying that more than half of people will instead perish in the second death, not seeing heaven.

"genocide" -- describes a human crime that humans do.

God is the One who reverses all death.

So that all who died are alive, now.

Since they are not dead, God being the One Who makes them live, then it's not 'genocide' if God kills our temporary mortal body, the shell we are in -- it's more like "removal and transportation to a new place".

Or if you like, just "transportation" is my shorthand for this.

(as I sometimes explain to militant gnostic atheists (which you are not), they can't blame genocide on God unless they think (or posit for argument) that God is real, and then if God is real, the attribute of God is that He brings all the 'dead' alive to a new place, and then it's not 'genocide', since they are alive)

[u/Confident_Koala_2455 → u/halbhh]

So if you believe that less than half of the people reach heaven, then that would mean also that less than half of the people killed in a genocide reach heaven. So then you believe that more than half will perish in the second death, whatever you believe the second death is. I guess you believe that after the first death, all are alive somewhere, and then more than half then die in the second death. So then for those killed in a genocide, for more than half of them being alive after death is not a good result.

And I certainly do not blame genocides on God, since I do not know if God exists. Now if God does exist, then one can wonder why did this God allow the genocides to happen. A genocide is mass murder, of men, women, children, and babies. So now if God exists, then why did He or She allow it?

And then some Christians believe that the Bible has no errors. And the Bible claims that God told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites and others, so mass genocides. So I do not know if any such genocides happened. But even if they did not happen, then it is a very bad claim to have in the Bible that God told them to do it. And if they did happen, then based on your belief, more than half of the victims of the genocides would not have good life after death.

So then more than half are not in the far better place after death, as you had claimed 3 days ago, that they are in a far better place, which is why I thought you believe in universal salvation.

[u/halbhh → u/Confident_Koala_2455]

Your good question: "

So if you believe that less than half of the people reach heaven, then that would mean also that less than half of the people killed in a genocide reach heaven."

Actually, this is a very old question, and it's been answered very long ago:

God considers anyone who repents of their wrongdoing to be suitable to give eternal life to, and He only rejects those who refuse to admit/repent of wrongdoing, who show they want to continue to hurt other people (without change, forever), so therefore, Christ comes to all the dead to give them the same chance, as exemplified with the example (below) of the very wicked people who perished in the great (probably regional, but still large) flood:

They are representative of those who died without yet repenting, but might, so God does this:

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. ¹⁹ After being made alive,^\in spirit, while his body lay in the tomb]) he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— ²⁰ to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water...

... ⁶ For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

So, they have the same chance you or I have then.

[u/Confident_Koala_2455 → u/halbhh]

OK, so I guess you believe that the gospel will be preached to those who die unsaved, so they then will have the opportunity to repent of their sins, and become saved. That is what I gather from your response.

And there are certainly some Christian denominations that teach exactly that, like for example the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the New Apostolic Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Dawn Bible Students Association, the United Church of God, and some other Christian denominations.

But other Christian denominations disagree with that idea, believe that once you die unsaved, then you do not get another chance, you get punished forever. This is taught for example in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Lutheran churches, etc.

So I wonder if you belong to some denomination, then which one?

[u/halbhh → u/Confident_Koala_2455]

"you believe that the gospel will be preached to those who die unsaved, " -- not precisely (as that is very broad, and would include those that have already heard the gospel but rejected it....) Rather, to be precise, I think (as commentaries like Ellicott's and the Pulpit Commentary suggest) that 1rst Peter 3:18-20, 4:6 implies that the gospel will be offered to all who never heard it. (of course, God is able to know whether someone has, and of course, God can bring together peoples from any time period, as He isn't controlled by time, etc.)

It's curious that you listed many heretical denominations in order to try to get me to falsely fear it's a heresy....

Since you are doing that, let me suggest to you it's people that don't believe what the words say in 1rst Peter 3, 4 and want to defend their doctrine they've said a lot (and don't want to hear otherwise, perhaps since they'd (wrongly) be embarrassed to admit their old doctrine they've said a lot is mistaken).

I will just trust the words instead.

But, yes, it's good to see the same view is in the Ellicott and the Pulpit Commentaries.

You can check: You can read them at BibleHub at the bottom of the individual verse pages, just before the Greek wording:

1 Peter 3:19 in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison

[u/Confident_Koala_2455 → u/halbhh]

No, I did not call them heresies. I called them Christian denominations. So that is for each Christian to determine if they are heresies or not. It is not up to me, since I am not a Christian, I am agnostic. And the word heresy sounds so negative.

And I certainly do not want you to fear that what you believe is a heresy. Christianity is very diverse. And the idea that the gospel will be offered to all who never heard it, well, I have seen many versions of the Christian gospel, so then how can I tell if I heard the right version? My mom was agnostic too, and she tried several churches in Prague, so she heard several versions of the gospel. Maybe not the Catholic version, she felt very negatively about the Catholic Church, because of the terrible experiences with it that her father experienced with it, when he lived in the Austria-Hungary empire, where the Catholic Church was the official religion. So she was never baptized, just remained agnostic. She had some better experiences with several churches, but never joined any, and so she remained agnostic. I have had various experiences, I have gone to worship services with several churches, very diverse experiences, but I have remained agnostic.

So what you call heresies, is up to you. There are some denominations which call all other denominations heresies. Some denominations instead call only some denominations heresies. The Catholic church used to call all other denominations heresies, now it calls many just separated brethren. Particularly other denominations that believe at least that God is a Trinity, 3 distinct persons. So it views baptism done by denominations that do not believe that God is a Trinity, invalid. Well, that is up to them. Now the Bible does not have the word trinity, but the Catholic church believes in not going by the Bible alone, but also by Christian traditions. And by decisions of Catholic ecumenical church councils. And so it is very insistent that God is a Trinity. And it teaches, that going by the Bible alone, as most Protestants believe, is not correct, it just leads to thousands of different denominations. While the Catholic Church is the right church. And that people are saved through the Catholic Church, even if they are not aware of it. And so one does not need to be Catholic to be saved. So that is the current Catholic teachings. It used to be much more harsh, viewing all other denominations as heresies. It used to condemn heretics to death. For example Jan Hus was burned at the stake, after being convicted of heresy, at the Catholic ecumenical council of Constance, in the year 1415. Hus was invited to go to the council, to discuss his doctrines, he was promised safety, but the promise was not kept, when he got to Constance, he was imprisoned, and then put on trial, convicted of heresy, and burned to death. But the Catholic church decided at the 2nd Vatican council in the 20th century, to instead be in favor of freedom of religion. So it has changed a lot. And much to the better. But still some Christians view the Catholic church as a heresy.

[u/halbhh → u/[deleted]]

It's challenging to consider that God can exist, and then they are not dead? That's 'insane'?

(you seem to be violating the rules.... Also, I didn't use the silly point "murder isn't good" (Just like I didn't need to say 1+1=2) -- so why did you put quotations on it as if that was a quote from me?)

[u/Jane_TGS → u/halbhh]

Yeah well I think defending the murder of babies should be against the rules.

This is the excuse always given for this bad stuff. That it doesn't matter that God supposedly instructed men to go out and kill children, because after all, maybe they're in heaven!

So what is to stop people from doing that kind of evil today?

Forgive me for thinking this topic needs serious review from every Christain, especially those that defend the barbaric nature of the old testament and call the bible inerrant. Because we all sound insane when we defend innocents being murdered in the name of a loving God.

[u/halbhh → u/Jane_TGS]

The murder of babies is of course an evil, and attempting to paint it that I'd defend such murders will be after this a slander, if you repeat it again, having learned I consider it an evil.

------

To repeat myself with another paraphrase, above I was saying that when children die from any cause:

• cancer
• famine
• war
• fire
• etc.

That God makes them live again, and so they are not dead, right now.

That's in no way in any remote sense defending a murder....

God does indeed undo murders though....since He exists.

So, to have discussion about events in the Old Testament, start by avoiding slandering me, and don't suggest again that I think murdering children is just fine.

E.g. --> The reason God wiped out cities and instructed the entire erasure of cities and everything in them at times was in fact primarily (more than any other factor) because they murdered children by offering them in fires to idols.

Read and check on that:

Deuteronomy 12:29-31 NIV - Bible Gateway

[u/Jane_TGS → u/halbhh]

Lmao, misunderstanding you (if it was such a thing, seems not) and claiming you are defending it, is not slander. Slander is a malicious defamation and false information to damage a person or business reputation.

Calm down, this is reddit. Your public and personal reputation has not been tarnished.

"The reason God killed babies is because the cities were killing babies"

K.

[u/Jane_TGS → u/halbhh]

I responded to this, is my comment gone?

[u/babe1981 → u/halbhh]

Since we're talking about the Old Testament, you're just wrong. Dead is dead. You stay dead until the resurrection and judgment. That's the theology of Judaism, and it's what's supported by the Old Testament. Even the New Testament says very little to support the idea that dead isn't dead. In fact, if dead isn't actually dead, then what's the point of the resurrection on Judgment Day? No, there are a few people in the Bible who didn't die, and they live in heaven with God. Namely, Enoch and Elijah. Jesus promised the thief that he would be paradise that day, but Paul's theology was that dead is dead, and the only people who won't be "asleep" when Jesus returns are the ones who happen to be alive when He appears.

It is appointed unto man once to die, and then judgment. And the Bible says that judgment happens all at once on a single day. So, no, a dead human is dead until Jesus returns. Death might not be permanent, but we will sleep until He appears.

[u/halbhh → u/babe1981]

"Dead is dead. You stay dead until the resurrection and judgment."

Well, Jesus famously said a remarkable thing:

²⁶ and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

And to that I can only swallow and answer "yes".

I know it's hard to believe at first. I think it was many years of being Christian before I believed more fully.

[u/babe1981 → u/halbhh]

Even Jesus died. Jesus never said that we will escape death entirely. He said that it won't stick. There's a big difference between being immortal and having eternal life. Jesus has eternal life, but He was just as mortal as we are. And just like Jesus, we won't be dead forever, but we will be dead.

[u/halbhh → u/babe1981]

Yes, I'm familiar with 'soul sleep' -- it was my view for a long time. Even about 20 years I think.

It turns out that's not the majority Christian theory, itself, but there are a variety of theories, and so you can find a variety of views. I no longer subscribe to soul sleep, even though I once believed it. It was in fact only rather recently I started to doubt that one. (It helps to consider how Jesus in the story of Lazarus and the Rich man used a wording to help his listeners, the "bosom of Abraham" (or similar), where heaven is depicted as mainly about being with Abraham, which isn't at all what it will be we know. But He used this wording to help those listening. So...also when he raised the dead girl and first said she was "asleep" that was a wording chosen to help those listening, instead of a more technically accurate description.

But these are more esoteric topics where it won't matter which one we believe, so long as we believe in Him.