Humans love better than God

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

it's not a sacrifice knowing you'd come out peachy in the end, now is it?

By that logic, anyone who is certain that it will come out "peachy" in the end is incapable of making a sacrifice. This would not be limited to Christians who believe they are going to Heaven, but would also apply to Muslims who believe they are going to Paradise, Hindus who believe they are going to re-incarnate in a form superior to their current one, Buddhists who believe they will reach enlightenment, and people who are certain that there is no afterlife, but believe that being dead is preferable to their current situation. According to your logic, none of these people are capable of making a sacrifice (or at least die sacrificially.) What I've seen in the world goes against that logic. I've seen people of various religions make sacrifices. While I believe that none of them had such significant consequences for the eternal destiny of humanity as Jesus' sacrifice did, I still see these people as making sacrifices.

I know a man (who isn't a Christian) who decided years ago to budget for three meals a day, but only buy food for and eat two meals, and gave the money he saved on the third meal to charity. As far as I know he's still doing it. This man works hard for money he doesn't need, gives away that money he gets instead of spending it on himself, and continually gives up eating food, and in doing so misses out on the enjoyment that eating food normally brings him. Would you say that because this man knew before he started that he could physically survive on only two meals a day instead of three (and turn out "peachy" in the end,) that in working harder than he needed to, giving up money that he could have used for his own enjoyment, giving up food, and giving up the enjoyment of eating food, that he has not made a sacrifice?

you either have no clue about the argument he is making...or you're trying to change the subject...which is it?

Just asking for clarification is all. For this debate to allow us to reach a conclusion about whether humans really do love better than God does, it must be assumed that "Where Is God" and his cousin both exist, as theirs is the example for human love we're analysing, and it must also be assumed that God exists, as it is His love to which we are comparing it. "Where Is God's" account of what happened between him and his cousin must be considered to be accurate, and the information we have about God must be considered to be accurate if we are to engage in a debate about them. If these things don't exist and/or are considered inaccurate, then any conclusion we reach lacks a solid basis, and isn’t really meaningful.

I asked the OP to clarify to which God the OP referred, because the OP was saying in one sentence that the God in the Bible isn't real, and then in the next sentence went on to provide a view about Him, and use that view to augment his position that humans must love better than God. Either God doesn't exist (and the OP's following sentence was therefore moot,) and the result of the debate is a foregone conclusion, because if God doesn't exist and humans do then of course human love is going to be better; there's really nothing to debate (and this thread probably shouldn't be in a "debates" sub-forum, in fact it could be considered spam,) or, God does exist (in which case the sentence "And that God isn't real" is incorrect,) the information we have about Him is accurate (it has to be for the sake of argument,) and we can analyse and interpret this information to reach a conclusion about whether humans love better than God.

It seemed that the OP was taking God to exist, firstly by starting a debate topic that would require a God to exist, then by mentioning things in the Bible (which states fairly unequivocally that God does in fact exist,) to justify his position.

Another explanation for the sentence "And that god isn't real" could be that the OP was not referring to the God in the Bible, and was referring to a different God. In this case, we'd have to assume (for the sake of argument,) that this other God existed, and whatever information we had about this other god (e.g., Allah and the Qur’an) was accurate. We could then interpret what happened between "Where Is God" and his cousin, and interpret what the Qur’an says about Allah's love, compare the two and determine whether humans love better than God. However, the OP mentions the Bible in his second post, so it seems that both he and I are referring to the same God in our respective arguments. If we're referring to the same God then it's logical that we're referring to the same information about Him (the Bible) when we interpret the way He loves. "Where Is God" has one view based on this information (He made us do it,) I have another (He can't have made us do it, because an excuse of "You made me do it" wouldn't be enough when it comes to judgement.) In a debate it seems only proper to question the other side's interpretation of the information that has led him to his conclusion, and provide one's own views.

I just wanted some clarification on what the OP was meaning when He wrote "And that God isn't real. Plus God is 'saving us' from something he made us do" in the light of starting a debate thread that would require God to exist, and putting forth my view on "he made us do it."

but according to your bible, if they professed jesus as god, your gonna be hanging out with them for an eternity, congratulations...

Human love would most likely not allow people like Hitler and Pol Pot (or anyone else who's ever disobeyed God) to enter heaven, regardless of what they professed. In the act of love God displayed, He afforded them the opportunity to enter in. I've not seen a greater act of love exhibited by humans than the one exhibited by God. I would say that this means that God loves better than humans do.

 

[Wombat]

All the anti-agnostics who lack the understanding and backbone needed to confess agnosticism..

Now I’m more confused. If this is ‘Baha’i’ context/related then to my mind it is Baha’i Conservatives/Fundamentalists who manifest “anti-agnostic” or anti atheist povs...not the ‘Radicals’ or reformers. Those viewed (within Baha’i) as ‘radicals’/liberals...those who are open to/embrace a theistically inclined agnosticism and oppose theocracy...the likes of Professor Juan Cole...have, like myself and many others...have left the increasingly conservative Baha’i community.

Your allowing them to continue to be wrong, sets a bad example.
Still not sure who it is I’m “allowing” to do anything...and if it’s being “wrong”...how am I supposed to stop them?

I have always thought the religion of glory was the worst enemy for the spread of agnostic understanding and therefore true science...
Sounds fair enough...but, again, I’m not sure what the “religion of glory” means to you...grand temples? Vast lush gardens?....Baha’is got them for sure. But, as always, the real “religion of glory” resides with those who live it...In Baha’i context I’ve only met one...Aboriginal Elder Henry ‘Banjo’ Clarke. Google that name and you will get a glimpse of the religion of glory.


we shall see In the future as i suspect the Bahai fiath shall grow as all religions must, each being exchangeable for the other
All man made religions grow for a period...then die. History is littered with dead man made faiths. Divinely revealed religion occurs in historically isolated succession...certainly the core teachings are “exchangeable for the other” as they each convey the same Golden Rule message advanced in each age.
“Baha’i faith shall grow”? Probably...but it is pretty stagnant at the moment with a ‘declaration’ retention rate of only about 50% and a proven proclivity for falsifying membership numbers.

I personally have not had the chance to meet a perfect Bahai,

The only Baha’is that I have heard of who could lay claim to that status are long dead. So don’t hold your breath.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is no possible way that you really thought that that is what I meant.

I'm nit-picking. ^_^

Believe it or not, there are people who don't understand science at all, and really do mistake the method for the result of the method. In debates like this, it's best to be as clear as possible.

My point is that everything and every system we know and analyze with science like physics/matter/mass has always existed. Even if humans never existed and no conscience remained in the universe, physics would still be there. Apples would still fall to the Earth from trees.

Thus spoke Solomon.

"10. There is a thing of which [someone] will say, "See this, it is new." It has already been for ages which were before us."
-Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) 1:10

^_^

 

[waitasec]

(emphasis mine)

Yes, you've already explained that. What I'm asking is why you interpret it that way.

consider applying the consequences of history to the gospels...

"The community which gave rise to Matthew originated in Palestine, but: "There the community’s mission to Israel failed, and eventually, probably in the period preceding the Jewish War of 66-70, they were forced to leave the land of Israel. They found a new home in Syria and began to missionize among the Gentiles."[11] Antioch, a coastal city in northern Syria and the third largest in the Roman world, is often mentioned as this later home of the Matthean community, but it could have been any large city in the eastern Mediterranean with large Jewish and Christian populations, and recent research points towards a location near Galilee or Judea.[12]
According to an influential hypothesis put forward by W.D. Davies, the gospel of Matthew was written as a direct response to developments within the Jewish community following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Pharisees of Judea emerged as the new leaders of the Jewish community after the war, and the loss of the Temple and its priests and the ritual of sacrifice faced them with the problem of finding a new Jewish identity. Their answer was to insist on strict observance of the Law (the Torah), isolation from the gentiles, and minimalisation of the expectation of the coming of the Messiah (the expectation which had provoked the war). The Jewish Christians of Antioch produced a radically different answer: Jesus, not the Law, was to be the focus of their identity; Jesus was the Messiah; and Jew and gentile were to be brought into the one community."

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

since god allowed for the destruction of the temple, for a second time, then their quest for redemption/freedom was pushed back by enveloping the afterlife as the carrot. if you believed jesus as the son of god then you have redemption if not, you're thrown into the hades in which jesus speaks of earlier before the parable in question
matthew 11:23

that isn't the part of your interpretation I'm questioning.

but what is your interpretation of the parable?

 

[waitasec]

By that logic, anyone who is certain that it will come out "peachy" in the end is incapable of making a sacrifice.

and so is the jesus character is incapable of doing, right?

This would not be limited to Christians who believe they are going to Heaven, but would also apply to Muslims who believe they are going to Paradise, Hindus who believe they are going to re-incarnate in a form superior to their current one, Buddhists who believe they will reach enlightenment, and people who are certain that there is no afterlife, but believe that being dead is preferable to their current situation. According to your logic, none of these people are capable of making a sacrifice (or at least die sacrificially.) What I've seen in the world goes against that logic. I've seen people of various religions make sacrifices. While I believe that none of them had such significant consequences for the eternal destiny of humanity as Jesus' sacrifice did, I still see these people as making sacrifices.

I know a man (who isn't a Christian) who decided years ago to budget for three meals a day, but only buy food for and eat two meals, and gave the money he saved on the third meal to charity. As far as I know he's still doing it. This man works hard for money he doesn't need, gives away that money he gets instead of spending it on himself, and continually gives up eating food, and in doing so misses out on the enjoyment that eating food normally brings him. Would you say that because this man knew before he started that he could physically survive on only two meals a day instead of three (and turn out "peachy" in the end,) that in working harder than he needed to, giving up money that he could have used for his own enjoyment, giving up food, and giving up the enjoyment of eating food, that he has not made a sacrifice?

i'm sorry, it seems as though you changed the subject from jesus supposed sacrifice to how people prove their faith...
this is what i was responding to...

I agree, but how many of them sacrificed themselves for the eternal benefit of those who were trying to kill them? I don't think the two are comparable, or if they were to be compared, the act of Jesus would seem more selfless, and therefore "better."

not if i didn't ask for it...it was done in vain then...

Just asking for clarification is all. For this debate to allow us to reach a conclusion about whether humans really do love better than God does, it must be assumed that "Where Is God" and his cousin both exist, as theirs is the example for human love we're analysing, and it must also be assumed that God exists, as it is His love to which we are comparing it. "Where Is God's" account of what happened between him and his cousin must be considered to be accurate, and the information we have about God must be considered to be accurate if we are to engage in a debate about them. If these things don't exist and/or are considered inaccurate, then any conclusion we reach lacks a solid basis, and isn’t really meaningful.

the entire point of the argument, from what i understand, is to refute the idea of gods love as unconditional, real or not, because of what, and correct me if i am wrong, your bible says about gods love by comparing how people show their love for one another far exceeds the love the god in the bible is capable of.

Human love would most likely not allow people like Hitler and Pol Pot (or anyone else who's ever disobeyed God) to enter heaven, regardless of what they professed.

no because they are evil incarnate...but you seem to be fine with the idea of hanging out with these vile beings for an eternity...if they did profess jesus as god

In the act of love God displayed, He afforded them the opportunity to enter in. I've not seen a greater act of love exhibited by humans than the one exhibited by God. I would say that this means that God loves better than humans do.

not if jesus knew he would end up peachy in the end...
sorry i see no sacrifice...

the love a parent has for their child far out weighs what the bible describes how god loves...his love has to be reciprocated...that is a condition...
and i am speaking from experience...
do you have children?

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I was literally just moved to tears by my cousin. I decided to confess of my athiestic views on life to him, and I didn't get the response I had feared. I expected the usual "I will pray for you," or "I hope you change your mind." I was welcomed by the most heart-warming and uncondtional love as he told me that he didn't even care; he was on my side no matter what. Bros for life.

Why can't God do this? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all loved each other, no matter what? What good is a God who can't love as much as his creations?

I just wanted to share this experience and my thoughts with you guys, being as I'm still crying a wee bit. I'm such a softie. And remember, I love you.:rainbow1::angel2:

So God do not love you!

 

[Riverwolf]

So God do not love you!

Why not? How can anything any human, a small child compared to God, cause God, the Great Father, to not love His children?

 

[Wombat]

Why not? How can anything any human, a small child compared to God, cause God, the Great Father, to not love His children?

It is not possible....and yet humans will continue to generate that end...often by advocating- "God do not love you!"

 

[Quagmire]

consider applying the consequences of history to the gospels...

"The community which gave rise to Matthew originated in Palestine, but: "There the community’s mission to Israel failed, and eventually, probably in the period preceding the Jewish War of 66-70, they were forced to leave the land of Israel. They found a new home in Syria and began to missionize among the Gentiles."[11] Antioch, a coastal city in northern Syria and the third largest in the Roman world, is often mentioned as this later home of the Matthean community, but it could have been any large city in the eastern Mediterranean with large Jewish and Christian populations, and recent research points towards a location near Galilee or Judea.[12]
According to an influential hypothesis put forward by W.D. Davies, the gospel of Matthew was written as a direct response to developments within the Jewish community following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Pharisees of Judea emerged as the new leaders of the Jewish community after the war, and the loss of the Temple and its priests and the ritual of sacrifice faced them with the problem of finding a new Jewish identity. Their answer was to insist on strict observance of the Law (the Torah), isolation from the gentiles, and minimalisation of the expectation of the coming of the Messiah (the expectation which had provoked the war). The Jewish Christians of Antioch produced a radically different answer: Jesus, not the Law, was to be the focus of their identity; Jesus was the Messiah; and Jew and gentile were to be brought into the one community."

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

since god allowed for the destruction of the temple, for a second time, then their quest for redemption/freedom was pushed back by enveloping the afterlife as the carrot. if you believed jesus as the son of god then you have redemption if not, you're thrown into the hades in which jesus speaks of earlier before the parable in question
matthew 11:23

Sorry, but I don't see how any of this suggests we should interpret the parable the way you're interpreting it.

It would be at least as easy to point to other passages from Matthew and use everything you quoted from wiki to suggest the exact opposite: that rather than the "Believers go to heaven, unbelievers go to hell" scenario, that believing or not believing in Jesus, per se, was a moot point.

but what is your interpretation of the parable?

Sorry, doesn't look to me like we're done talking about yours yet. I'll be happy to give you mine once we're done with yours though.

 

[waitasec]

Sorry, but I don't see how any of this suggests we should interpret the parable the way you're interpreting it.

It would be at least as easy to point to other passages from Matthew and use everything you quoted from wiki to suggest the exact opposite: that rather than the "Believers go to heaven, unbelievers go to hell" scenario, that believing or not believing in Jesus, per se, was a moot point.

was the temple destroyed or not...?
were the gospels a consequence of the destruction of the temple?
were the gospels a way for a certain jewish sect to reconcile the destruction of the temple?

Sorry, doesn't look to me like we're done talking about yours yet. I'll be happy to give you mine once we're done with yours though.

i am open to changing my mind, maybe if you shed a little of your understanding it would help me see it differently...

 

[Quagmire]

was the temple destroyed or not...?
were the gospels a consequence of the destruction of the temple?
were the gospels a way for a certain jewish sect to reconcile the destruction of the temple?

The question was: why are you interpreting this parable to mean that "believers" are going to heaven, "unbelievers" are going to hell?:

Here it is again:

this is the parable:
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

the parable is explained
....13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

What I mean is: why are you equating the wheat with "believers" and the "thistles with "unbelievers", the parable, by itself, doesn't indicate this. In fact, if you put it in context with the parables before and after this one, and the explanation Jesus gives for the parables, you can see from this:13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. that he's talking about what people do, and what makes them do it, not about what they believe.

 

[Quagmire]

The question was: why are you interpreting this parable to mean that "believers" are going to heaven, "unbelievers" are going to hell?:

Here it is again:

What I mean is: why are you equating the wheat with "believers" and the "thistles with "unbelievers", the parable, by itself, doesn't indicate this. In fact, if you put it in context with the parables before and after this one, and the explanation Jesus gives for the parables, you can see from this:13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. that he's talking about what people do, and what makes them do it, not about what they believe.

If you go back to Matthew7:22--23,

22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

or forward to Matthew 25:32--41 Matthew 25:32--41 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version, ©2011 - BibleGateway.com

You can see that, according to what Matthew has Jesus teaching, what people profess to believe is a moot point.

 

[waitasec]

The question was: why are you interpreting this parable to mean that "believers" are going to heaven, "unbelievers" are going to hell?:

Here it is again:

What I mean is: why are you equating the wheat with "believers" and the "thistles with "unbelievers", the parable, by itself, doesn't indicate this. In fact, if you put it in context with the parables before and after this one, and the explanation Jesus gives for the parables, you can see from this:13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. that he's talking about what people do, and what makes them do it, not about what they believe.

this is why i think heis speaking of hell...
47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[waitasec]

what ever causes someone to go to hell is a moot point
but the question is, did jesus say there was a hell for those who do not enter heaven

 

[Quagmire]

this is why i think heis speaking of hell...
47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

That wasn't the question either. The question wasn't "do the Gospels suggest that hell exists", the question, again, is why are you interpreting Matthew 13:24-42 to be saying that "believers" are going to heaven, "unbelievers" are going to hell?

In fact, the passage you just cited itself suggests a different interpretation:

"The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous"

Again: it seems to be judging people by their actions, not by what they believe or profess to believe.

 

[Quagmire]

what ever causes someone to go to hell is a moot point
but the question is, did jesus say there was a hell for those who do not enter heaven

No actually, that wasn't the question.

 

[waitasec]

That wasn't the question either. The question wasn't "do the Gospels suggest that hell exists", the question, again, is why are you interpreting Matthew 13:24-42 to be saying that "believers" are going to heaven, "unbelievers" are going to hell?

In fact, the passage you just cited itself suggests a different interpretation:

"The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous"

Again: it seems to be judging people by their actions, not by what they believe or profess to believe.

sure, thats great...

so who do you know is that evil?

 

[Quagmire]

sure, thats great...

so who do you know is that evil?

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

You made a point, you're being asked to defend that point:

i see it as believers and unbelievers are to live among eachother and when the rapture, or whatever...time of death...the time of reaping comes to pass...that is when they will be divided...

To echo Wombat's question: why do you see the parable as a reference to "believers vs unbelievers"? That isn't apparent in the verses you quoted.

If you can't defend your point, the intelligent thing to do would be to stop and think about why you can't. Changing the subject (which is all you've been trying to do all through this) isn't going to make your point valid.

 

[waitasec]

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

You made a point, you're being asked to defend that point:



If you can't defend your point, the intelligent thing to do would be to stop and think about why you can't. Changing the subject (which is all you've been trying to do all through this) isn't going to make your point valid.

it's ok...no worries.
sometimes it takes a while to see something from another perspective.

believers and unbelievers are separated as the parables have been implying
the unbelievers are wicked for not believing...


A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

are we not to understand that those who have ears to hear are the seeds that fell on good soil and those other seeds that fell on shallow ground and thorns represent those who do not have ears to hear? meaning those with faith are going to reap and those without will be wasted away

24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”


The Parable of the Weeds Explained

36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

who are the people of the kingdom? the christian jews, the new sect that was forming, because of the historical backdrop i mentioned before.
who are of the evil one...non believers...more specifically, unbelieving jews.
the devil is the one spreading the doubt...
jesus said:
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

so yes believers go to heaven because they have faith without signs
and unbelievers will go to hell be cause they do not have faith.

faith with out works is dead...so if you believe you will show your faith by what you do...
the problem with that is no one needs faith in order to be good...

 

[Quagmire]

it's ok...no worries.
sometimes it takes a while to see something from another perspective.

believers and unbelievers are separated as the parables have been implying
the unbelievers are wicked for not believing...


A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

are we not to understand that those who have ears to hear are the seeds that fell on good soil and those other seeds that fell on shallow ground and thorns represent those who do not have ears to hear?

No. "Whoever has ears, let them hear" is a fairly common ending for a parable in the gospels. It's aimed at the audience, not the characters in the parable. It's a way of asking the audience "Do you get it?".

meaning those with faith are going to reap and those without will be wasted away

Nope, that's not what it says, that's just something you're reading into it.