Its Good news .

[URAVIP2ME]

The act of killing an innocent itself is immoral. Bringing them back to life in the second earth or something does not change that. Do you understand this?
My questions are perfectly reasonable. Whether you read them or not is up to you.
Who is fooling whom?

In Scripture I find it is Not the innocent (Nor the righteous or unrighteous ) but the execution of the: wicked.
The 'executional sword-like words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15
Only the wicked are destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
God brings to ruin those ruining the Earth - Revelation 11:18 B.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

................. 2) All human crimes are finite in nature. Therefore infinite irreversible punishments violate ethics. This is true for all souls God chooses to kill permanently.

In Scripture I find only the wicked are ' destroyed forever ' - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
in other words, those wicked are past the point of repenting, past the point of remorse.
They would only choose to do harm to upright peoples.

 

[halbhh]

The act of killing an innocent itself is immoral. Bringing them back to life in the second earth or something does not change that. Do you understand this?
My questions are perfectly reasonable. Whether you read them or not is upto you.
Who is fooling whom?

in these bodies we all 'die', not just some.

The rate is 100%.

But, it's not a real death.

Which of us will then live forever?

 

[halbhh]

Yes, God is Not partial (show favoritism ) for all can be acceptable to Him.
There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
The only ones destroyed are the 'wicked' according to Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
This is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom covers MANY and does Not say all or everyone.

I find we need to take note of 2 Peter 2:4 because the Greek word there is Not the word for hell /grave.
It is the word ' Tar'ta.rus ' ( like a holding 'pit ', so to speak ).
So, those fallen angels are in bonds of darkness - Jude 1:6
They will have the same fate as sinner Satan - Revelation 20:2
Then, Jesus will destroy wicked sinner Satan - Hebrews 2:14; Romans 16:20
Thus, in Scripture 'fire ' can stand for: forever destruction.

That's all correct, as I understand. Each piece you said. Hearing me? Each piece here is correct.

 

[halbhh]

Yes, God is Not partial (show favoritism ) for all can be acceptable to Him.
There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous - Acts of the Apostles 24:15
The only ones destroyed are the 'wicked' according to Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
This is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom covers MANY and does Not say all or everyone.

I find we need to take note of 2 Peter 2:4 because the Greek word there is Not the word for hell /grave.
It is the word ' Tar'ta.rus ' ( like a holding 'pit ', so to speak ).
So, those fallen angels are in bonds of darkness - Jude 1:6
They will have the same fate as sinner Satan - Revelation 20:2
Then, Jesus will destroy wicked sinner Satan - Hebrews 2:14; Romans 16:20
Thus, in Scripture 'fire ' can stand for: forever destruction.

AND....

also this:

1 Peter 4:6 That is why the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged as men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Some (not all) of the dead (such as for example some who lived in times before Christ came, or others in lands that never heard the gospel during their lifetime) will respond to the gospel, which Christ brought to them.

 

[sayak83]

In Scripture I find only the wicked are ' destroyed forever ' - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
in other words, those wicked are past the point of repenting, past the point of remorse.
They would only choose to do harm to upright peoples.

A human always has free will. And God cannot predict what humans will think or do in the future (according to halbhh). Thus God cannot know if a person will repent or not in the infinite future that the soul has in the post resurrection time. Hence destroying the person is not morally justifiable.
Further,

in these bodies we all 'die', not just some.

The rate is 100%.

But, it's not a real death.

Which of us will then live forever?

That does not make premature killing of innocent persons justified.
And you have not addresses the objections to God killing human souls after resurrection either.

 

[halbhh]

That does not make premature killing of innocent persons justified.

To me, if death of this body were the final, real death, then someone dying at age 50 is just as bad as someone dying at age 5 or at age 5 days.

All of them equally tragic and awful. If that were the situation that this body's death was the final, real death.

And you have not addresses the objections to God killing human souls after resurrection either.

I noticed that URAVIP2ME answered that many times. Perhaps I can merely reword for clarity.

Only those that truly reject the one who said "love one another" -- reject love (towards all others, reject "love one another") -- will mercifully be extinguished forever in the "second death" (the real one).

I'd not want someone in heaven that would create conflicts and eventually war by distrusting God and refusing to love others.

Those that reject what creates a good eternal life are not able to live one.

 

[sayak83]

To me, if death of this body were the final, real death, then someone dying at age 50 is just as bad as someone dying at age 5 or at age 5 days.

All of them equally tragic and awful. If that were the situation that this body's death was the final, real death.



I noticed that URAVIP2ME answered that many times. Perhaps I can merely reword for clarity.

Only those that truly reject the one who said "love one another" -- reject love (towards all others, reject "love one another") -- will mercifully be extinguished forever in the "second death" (the real one).

I'd not want someone in heaven that would create conflicts and eventually war by distrusting God and refusing to love others.

Those that reject what creates a good eternal life are not able to live one.

We are comparing between a God who prevents crimes before they happen without giving death to a God who kills guilty as well as innocents in city/civilization spanning mass destructions (as the God of the Bible did in the OT). Clearly the former is a more ethical God. I both scenarios, we can assume resurrection happens after.

Do you believe that even the bodies that you get after resurrection can be injured or destroyed by others? If so, what is the difference between this body and the next one? If not, how can war and injury be possible after resurrection. Further, human beings continue to have free will throughout do they not? Even God cannot know if a person will repent sometime in the future (after resurrection) or not. Thus the opportunity should always be open and anything that eternally destroys the soul cannot be considered ethical in my view.

Furthermore, not believing in the Christian God has no correlation with desire to hurt or harm others. What reason is there then to believe that those who do not worship the God will cause violence and war. No such evidence exists here on earth at least. So what justification does God have in killing souls before they have even done anything in the post resurrection world?

Finally, the basic point remains this. One human soul cannot kill another human soul. They can only kill or injure the body which is temporary and can be healed (automatically or by God as the case may be...in this life or the next). So there can be no punishment that leads to the permanent destruction of the soul itself as that will be infinitely greater punishment than the actual crime being committed. Morality says one should punish only upto the extent of the crime and no more. Even the Satan of the Bible cannot kill another soul (as far as I understand), so he cannot be killed, maybe imprisoned at the max.

 

[halbhh]

a God who prevents crimes before they happen

That's not even theoretically possible.

Could not be done even with omniscience and omnipotence so long as dealing with intelligent beings that have genuine agency (freedom of thought and action).

There's not any conceivable way to prevent all evil actions ahead of time for untrained persons (such as most of us) without some destructive constraints.

Constraints that would prevent the main goals, such as these:

A) Replacing us with rigidly programmed robots that don't have any freedom of choice, so that we could not do intentionally harmful actions to others.

OR

B) Putting us individually in prison cells (however large or fancy) to keep us totally separated from one another, so that we could not harm others because there would be no others to harm.

But the goal of life here seems to be for us god-like beings to learn to trust and to love .

The above pre-constraints against evil would obviate/prevent the goal. You'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

So, the only way to accomplish removing evil: What we see playing out already: training and sorting.

Some become ready for heaven very quickly, some already there right off the bat, some take longer, days or years, some take decades.... some take most of a century, and some will never make it to choosing to freely love all.

Experience, training, sorting seems to be the only way to get god-like beings to learn to love fully.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A human always has free will. And God cannot predict what humans will think or do in the future (according to halbhh). Thus God cannot know if a person will repent or not in the infinite future that the soul has in the post resurrection time. Hence destroying the person is not morally justifiable.
Further,............................

Yes, God gifted humans with free-will choices and God does Not now involve Himself with one's choices.
This is why the 'saved' (delivered/rescued) people of Revelation 7:9,14 is an 'unknown number', a number Not yet known.
By the end of the thousand-year governmental reign of Christ over Earth everyone resurrected in that post-resurrection time will have the opportunity to remain ' innocent' (righteous) or not. This will be by free-will choice.
What is morally justifiable is the execution of the wicked for the sake of justice for the innocent/ righteous.
So, there is a difference between: killing, murder, and an execution for justice sake.
The wicked are the ones who would kill or murder the innocent / righteous ones.
Thus, it is only the wicked who will be ' destroyed forever ' for justice sake - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
Mankind will look but the wicked will be No more - Psalms 37:9-11.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I noticed that URAVIP2ME answered that many times. Perhaps I can merely reword for clarity.
Only those that truly reject the one who said "love one another" -- reject love (towards all others, reject "love one another") -- will mercifully be extinguished forever in the "second death" (the real one).
I'd not want someone in heaven that would create conflicts and eventually war by distrusting God and refusing to love others. Those that reject what creates a good eternal life are not able to live one.

Very well said ^ above^ thank you.
Since sinner Satan has been cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:12; Revelation 12:9) there will never again be war in Heaven, so what we are now dealing with is Not wanting someone on Earth that would create conflict or war on Earth.
Jesus, as both Prince of Peace and King of God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44) according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15 the ' sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of the wicked - Psalms 92:7.
In this way humble meek people will inherit the Earth as described in the 37th Psalm.
Those Not called to heavenly life can gain eternal life right here on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

AND....1 Peter 4:6 That is why the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged as men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Some (not all) of the dead (such as for example some who lived in times before Christ came, or others in lands that never heard the gospel during their lifetime) will respond to the gospel, which Christ brought to them.

I find ' those who are now dead ' (see John 3:13) are still dead just like those of Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39.
They are still sleeping in death as both Jesus and the OT teaches - John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5
And this is why the 'future tense' is used at Acts of the Apostles 24:15 that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection.....
That future-earthly resurrection takes place during Resurrection Day meaning Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand years, then those resurrected ones can then respond to the gospel.
Thus, at that resurrection time what a resurrected person does 'after' they are resurrected can be judged (favorable or adverse judgement ) with the favorable or righteous to live on Earth eternally as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

in these bodies we all 'die', not just some.
The rate is 100%.But, it's not a real death. Which of us will then live forever?

I would like to take the liberty to say instead of 'real death' to Jeremiah 51:39; Jeremiah 51:57 'perpetual sleep'.
Real death to me means the ' second death ' as found at Revelation 21:8.
Those who die because of inherited Adamic death ( what we inherited from fallen father Adam ) can have an earthy resurrection awakened from death's deep sleep. - John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
At Jesus' soon coming Glory Time found at Matthew 25:31-33,37,40 it is the figurative living humble 'sheep' who can then live forever right here on Earth. ( Earth will then become as described in Isaiah 35th chapter )
Whereas, the figurative haughty ' goats ' will be destroyed forever - 2 Thessalonians 1:9
Destruction for the ungodly - 2 Peter 3:7 - the wicked who will be destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35.
The 'sheep' will be here on Earth to welcome back the resurrected dead who have Not been called to Heaven.
(I find Heaven is for people like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 5:9-10; Revelation 2:10)
The majority of people can have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection on Earth with the opportunity to live forever on Earth as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.

 

[sayak83]

That's not even theoretically possible.

Could not be done even with omniscience and omnipotence so long as dealing with intelligent beings that have genuine agency (freedom of thought and action).

There's not any conceivable way to prevent all evil actions ahead of time for untrained persons (such as most of us) without some destructive constraints.

Constraints that would prevent the main goals, such as these:

A) Replacing us with rigidly programmed robots that don't have any freedom of choice, so that we could not do intentionally harmful actions to others.

OR

B) Putting us individually in prison cells (however large or fancy) to keep us totally separated from one another, so that we could not harm others because there would be no others to harm.

But the goal of life here seems to be for us god-like beings to learn to trust and to love .

The above pre-constraints against evil would obviate/prevent the goal. You'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

So, the only way to accomplish removing evil: What we see playing out already: training and sorting.

Some become ready for heaven very quickly, some already there right off the bat, some take longer, days or years, some take decades.... some take most of a century, and some will never make it to choosing to freely love all.

Experience, training, sorting seems to be the only way to get god-like beings to learn to love fully.

Actually it's theoretically very possible. A simple example: we cannot walk on water even though I may want to. The laws of the universe constrains us from realizing this wish of ours. Such a thing can easily be done regarding our wish to harm another human. We may want to, but we will not be able to do it as the, laws of the universe will prevent it from happening. Simple.
You have not answered my objections regarding the fact that killing souls is morally unjustifiable.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, God gifted humans with free-will choices and God does Not now involve Himself with one's choices.
This is why the 'saved' (delivered/rescued) people of Revelation 7:9,14 is an 'unknown number', a number Not yet known.
By the end of the thousand-year governmental reign of Christ over Earth everyone resurrected in that post-resurrection time will have the opportunity to remain ' innocent' (righteous) or not. This will be by free-will choice.
What is morally justifiable is the execution of the wicked for the sake of justice for the innocent/ righteous.
So, there is a difference between: killing, murder, and an execution for justice sake.
The wicked are the ones who would kill or murder the innocent / righteous ones.
Thus, it is only the wicked who will be ' destroyed forever ' for justice sake - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
Mankind will look but the wicked will be No more - Psalms 37:9-11.

Can a wicked person kill a soul? If he can't explain how killing his soul can be a just punishment?
Does a person cease to have free will after 1000 years? If not, explain how God can know he will not mend his ways in the infinite future time that he would have had if his soul was not destroyed?

 

[halbhh]

Actually it's theoretically very possible.

A rule of thumb I use is when I have any theory (example: the one you just stated), then I myself try to shoot it down, prove it wrong, find a flaw in it. That way, instead of getting into the mere effort to defend a theory, I'm actively improving all my theories, all the time, so that they become better. That's the way to get past these initial ideas, such as the idea that evil could merely be prevented, which needs
examination.

The laws of the universe constrains us from realizing this wish of ours. Such a thing can easily be done regarding our wish to harm another human.

If you disable someone, sure, then they cannot do an action, being disabled.

But....If you do that -- if you constrain people from being able to harm others, such as putting them in a prison cell or isolation, or physically incapacitating them, then they cannot learn what they need to learn. They only learn that you are a jailer.

Preventing someone from being able to do an evil act by an artificial constraint on their range of action (as if you can only turn right, but never left, etc.) would be like trying to control a teen ager by lifting them physically off the ground, which would only leave the impulse to do wrong unchanged.

It would accomplish nothing. Merely incite rebellion. There's nothing in it that teaches, or allows learning.

They would have to just think up a new technique to get what they aim to get.

Instead of constraint , they need something that actually helps them learn better.

Which would be things like suffering hurts and attacks themselves, so as to learn what it's like to be on the receiving end, so that they can learn, and understand, and have sympathy, and then intellectually accept it's a wrongful action to do to others.

 

[sayak83]

It's best to be skeptical about your own theory enough to investigate it more fully yourself.



If you disable someone, sure, then they cannot do an action, being disabled.

But....If you do that -- if you constrain people from being able to harm others, such as putting them in a prison cell or isolation, or physically incapacitating them, then they cannot learn what they need to learn. They only learn that you are a jailer.

Preventing someone from being able to do an evil act by an artificial constraint on their range of action (as if you can only turn right, but never left, etc.) would be like trying to control a teen ager by lifting them physically off the ground, which would only leave the impulse to do wrong unchanged.

It would accomplish nothing. Merely incite rebellion. There's nothing in it that teaches, or allows learning.

They would have to just think up a new technique to get what they aim to get.

Instead of constraint , they need something that actually helps them learn better.

Which would be things like suffering hurts and attacks themselves, so as to learn what it's like to be on the receiving end, so that they can learn, and understand, and have sympathy, and then intellectually accept it's a wrongful action to do to others.

Even that is easy. Just make it a natural law that any intentional hurt that you cause...you will receive the same amount of pain/hurt/mental agony yourself at the time of the action itself. Something like Newton's third law, only for moral actions. This will mean you will get maimed as soon as you maim someone else, if you cause someone mental anguish, you will immediately receive the same amount of mental anguish yourself, etc.
Thus you will learn directly what it feels like to be hurt, maimed, killed, anguished yourself if your actions cause any such thing.
I am pretty sure that will deter 99.99% of all evil actions humans indulge in today.

 

[halbhh]

Even that is easy. Just make it a natural law that any intentional hurt that you cause...you will receive the same amount of pain/hurt/mental agony yourself at the time of the action itself. Something like Newton's third law, only for moral actions. This will mean you will get maimed as soon as you maim someone else, if you cause someone mental anguish, you will immediately receive the same amount of mental anguish yourself, etc.
Thus you will learn directly what it feels like to be hurt, maimed, killed, anguished yourself if your actions cause any such thing.
I am pretty sure that will deter 99.99% of all evil actions humans indulge in today.

It seems God wants those that are willing to love everyone, and wants to give us real chances to decide, choose, change our course, and become someone able to love everyone.

Or...alternatively, to chose against that.

Christ came specifically to help us in precisely that choice and change:

Mark 2:17 On hearing this, Jesus told them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
(He came for those honest and humble enough to admit they have done wrongs)

As you can see, Christ says that He came for precisely the reason to help sinners -- those who intentionally harm others unjustly. To help them repent and change.

As it turns out, 'sinners' -- people intentionally breaking the golden rule with awareness -- sooner or later will include most of us, after childhood. In some way, possibly one we are so accustomed to we don't even feel it's wrong anymore -- habituation -- we tend to all have some kind of wrong we need to reform out of, sooner or later. Most anyone needs such divine aid.

If they will choose to do what is one of the best qualities in a child: to humbly accept aid.

 

[sayak83]

It seems God wants those that are willing to love everyone, and wants to give us real chances to decide, choose, change our course, and become someone able to love everyone.

Or...alternatively, to chose against that.

Christ came specifically to help us in precisely that choice and change:

Mark 2:17 On hearing this, Jesus told them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
(He came for those honest and humble enough to admit they have done wrongs)

As you can see, Christ says that He came for precisely the reason to help sinners -- those who intentionally harm others unjustly. To help them repent and change.

As it turns out, 'sinners' -- people intentionally breaking the golden rule with awareness -- sooner or later will include most of us, after childhood. In some way, possibly one we are so accustomed to we don't even feel it's wrong anymore -- habituation -- we tend to all have some kind of wrong we need to reform out of, sooner or later. Most anyone needs such divine aid.

If they will choose to do what is one of the best qualities in a child: to humbly accept aid.

I am not seeing an argument here that is telling me why a world where one directly experiences the suffering he causes to others and hence directly learns through that experience the cost to others of the harm he/she is causing is not a better and more efficient way of learning why harming others is the wrong thing to do.

 

[halbhh]

I am not seeing an argument here that is telling me why a world where one directly experiences the suffering he causes to others and hence directly learns through that experience the cost to others of the harm he/she is causing is not a better and more efficient way of learning why harming others is the wrong thing to do.

Instead of only constrained beings that only avoid evil because they aren't given a chance to do it, or only avoid evil because they get an immediate hit like an electric shock to deter them....

Instead of that, we read that God wants reformed beings that truly want to do what is good, people with a changed heart.

Such people are free, and therefore can more fully love and enjoy others in a more complete, real way.

Not just I-love-what-you-do-for-me, but more: I love you as your unique self, unlike anyone else, and take delight in your being, regardless of what you've done for me.