Your thoughts on other religions

[Crypto2015]

Crypto2015 : Your last post did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since you've told us new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (and I agree with you on this specific point).

1) INFANTS HAVE NO MORAL CULPABILITY
Clear Asked in post # 51 " Crypto2015 - Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?


2) THE DAWNING OF MORAL CULPABILITY AND THE FIRST SIN OF LIFE

Clear Asked in post # 51 Crypto2015 : I agree with you that an infant without any moral competency does not sin and thus, cannot be justly punished. When he dies, he goes where the sinless go. However, to tease out the finer nuances of your religious theory, What about a small child who just reaches a bit of moral competence and he steals a piece of gum from his mother’s purse. Does that child deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell for this single sin of taking a piece of gum? "

The point in this example is that this is the first and only sin this young child has, so far, been morally competent enough to recognize as “wrong”, he has not yet committed the multitude of other moral transgressions that typically occur as one ages. He has, so far, only done this one thing wrong. Is he worthy of rage and hell fire for eternity for taking this piece of gum?


3) SPECIFIC MORAL CULPABILITY FOR SPECIFIC MORAL PRINCIPLES
Regarding Crypto2015s’ personal interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability

"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)


4) Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read : For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)


5) Regarding Crypto2015s' personal interpretation of “perish” as “condemnation in hell”

You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify the change in meaning.

For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “…perish by the sword…” (… εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament, it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.

Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12. For examples :


6) Crypto2015 said : “If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than to change the meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?


7) Crypto2015 said : “Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of first, living, 2) then dying (perishing) and then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2) then "condemnation in hell" and then 3) judgment. This is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.


8) Crypto2015 said : “ The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of “every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses?


9) Crypto2015 said : “ This code of law, which theologians call natural law, allows us to know right from wrong, even if we have never heard of Moses, Jesus, or the Bible. For instance, even a person that has grown up completely alone in a desert island knows that it is wrong to smash babies' heads against a rock. Those who never heard about the Christian God will be judged in accordance with this natural code of law. “

I very much agree with this basic point you are suggesting that God judges at least partly, according to the "natural code of law" . If one’s “natural code” or conscience is a basis for Gods' judgment, then why would a non-christian who follows their conscience be “condemned to hell”?

This is where the “Catholic nuance” starts to become important and wise. Thus, I asked you if a child who steals a piece of gum, (but who’s conscience bothers him for this first and only sin), deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell for this single sin of taking a piece of gum? Or, does the young child deserve something less? If God judges the young child by the “natural law” (as you described it) or "conscience", then what will be the small child’s fate that a just and loving God would render to the naughty young child who steals a piece of gum?


Crypto2015 replied in post #59 : "God cannot ignore the sin of the boy that stole the piece of gum because God is perfectly just and therefore cannot overlook sin. Even that trivial sin is, when judged by God's standards, bad enough to condemn the boy to hell."

Crypto2015, Other than telling us you believe the the young child who steals a piece of gum justly deserves to be condemned to hell, you still have not answered the other points that allow us to examine finer points of judgment in your theory.

Am I correct that you feel that this young boy who commits only the sin of taking a piece of gum from his mom's purse and then dies, having committed only this one transgression, deserves the rage of a God who will punish this "gum heist" with eternal condemnation to hell?"
Now, this (say 12 month old...) who takes the gum dies, and has never been given the opportunity by God to be exposed to Christianity (having been born in either a time or a place where Jesus is unknown). Is this 12 month old infant doomed to an eternal hell for taking a piece of gum and not accepting Jesus before death?

These are nuances. I would much rather you consider these carefully before simply and reflexively offering an irrelevant scripture to readers. I will be gone on a short vacation and may not have internet (we'll see what hotel I end up in). Take your time and think about the questions I am asking regarding just judgment and your personal interpretation of Romans that you offered to readers.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good.

Clear
ειτζεισιω

Yes, that child deserves to be sent to hell for all eternity. All of us deserve to be sent to hell for all eternity. We have defied God both individually and as a species and hence we are not entitled to anything but to hell. It is only due to the mercy and grace of God that we can be saved. And this only through Jesus' Christ expiatory sacrifice.

God is the most perfect conceivable being. The most perfect conceivable being is perfectly just. Otherwise it wouldn't be the most perfect conceivable being. Now, a perfectly just being cannot ignore sin, not even the stealing of a piece of gum. A being that ignores sin, no matter how small this sin is, is not perfectly just and therefore is not God. Then, how can a perfectly just God save us from our sins? God can be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful if he provides an expiatory sacrifice for our sins. By doing so he avoids overlooking our sins, while at the same time saving us from eternal damnation. That's why Jesus' sacrifice is essential to all of us. Without Jesus we are irremediably lost.

It seems to me that you base your theology on your personal opinions rather than on the crystal-clear word of God. This is dangerous because "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) and "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). Have a good trip and enjoy your vacations!

 

[jaybird]

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

 

[Crypto2015]

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Those children believed in him.

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:1-6)

 

[Crypto2015]

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

If you have a few minutes take a look at this video

 

[jeager106]

"Thoughts on other religions".
Jim Jones wasn't a nice man.
"Drink the purple kool-aid."
And the dummies DID!
Koresh............let's all burn to death for "god" after I screw your wives for ya.

 

[Clear]

1)Regarding why infants are not morally culpable and do not sin :
Crypto2015 : Your last post, again, did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since we’ve agree that new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (unless you have changed your opinion...). However you did not answer the question you were asked : Here it is again : Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?

2)Regarding Crypto2015s theory of just punishment to an infant with infantile moral competence
Clear Asked in post # 51 Crypto2015 : I agree with you that an infant without any moral competency does not sin and thus, cannot be justly punished. When he dies, he goes where the sinless go. However, to tease out the finer nuances of your religious theory, What about a small child who just reaches a bit of moral competence and he steals a piece of gum from his mother’s purse. Does that child deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell for this single sin of taking a piece of gum? "
Crypto2015 answered (post #61) Yes, that child deserves to be sent to hell for all eternity.

Thank you for taking a clear stand on this question concerning the stealing of a piece of gum by a small child. Since the other questions have not been as forthcoming, perhaps we can pull another tooth.


3)Regarding Crypto2015s interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)

Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read : For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)

You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify your suggested change in meaning.

For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “…perish by the sword…” (… εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament , it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.

Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12.
For examples :
Crypto2015 said : “If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than changing it's meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?

Crypto2015 said : “Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of first, living, 2) then dying (perishing) and then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2) then "condemnation in hell" and then 3) judgment, is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.

Crypto2015 said : “ The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of “every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses?

Clear
ειτζακνεω

 

[Clear]

Jaybird : Hi, I like your points about small children since it is so very much like the earliest Judeo-Christian descriptions regarding children and their special status. Crypto2015 has an interesting theory and I’ve wondered as to why and how such theories and interpretations developed since the earliest Christian descriptions do not treat the subject of infants and children in this manner.

When a Jewish poster pointed out that babies were sinless and innocent, a Christian poster forwarded his theory, saying :“No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. (Robin1 Post # 4046) While this distasteful description is not the same as Crypto2015, it is not far from it in it’s justification to send a young child to an eternal hell for taking a piece of gum that was not his, during a time when toddlers have very little understanding of and control of their choices as well as only a fledgling idea of what remorse and sin and conscience is and a fledgling ability to make rational choices. While ancient "nuanced" Christianity had ways to deal with such issues, "Condemnation Christianity" simply assumes damnation to an eternal hell. Such theological theories are not nuanced as were early Christian worldviews.

The Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”. It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal. Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

Thus, the viewpoint of infants and children as being “not wicked” was one difference between early and authentic Christian theology and later theories of “depravity” that became popular in later Christian movements and interpretations.

The early moral worldview underlies the textual witnesses of this principle such as when Jesus taught “… Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark 10:14–15)


2) THE IRONY OF SHIFTING THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS

The Jewish poster said in response to the modern Christian theory that babies (and all others) are depraved morally : “…I am so glad I am not Christian - so I don't have to be ashamed, and embarrassed, by the crap you are putting forth about babies! Post # 4063

While I understood the sentiment underlying this complaint against a Christians personal theory, historically her opinion was the same of early Christian theology and it was the modern Christians’ personal theology and Christian religion that differed from these early Judeo-Christian worldviews on this specific point. It was ironic to see the non-Christian taking the early Christian position and the modern Christian, taking the non-historically Christian position.

3) INSIDE THE THEORY WHERE YOUNG CHILDREN ARE CONDEMNED TO HELL FOR TAKING A STICK OF CHEWING GUM INSTEAD OF HAVING A MECHANISM WHEREBY THEY CAN RETURN TO THEIR PRIMAL STATE

The 4th century era New Testament Sinaiticus is different than our modern version (as are all early New Testament codices…). That early New Testament included a book called “Hermas” (the shepherd). Christians of that era read and used their New Testament just as we read our modern versions.

Their New Testament said : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3 It is not merely “infants” that we are to be like.

The epistle of Barnabas was also included in this early (4th c.e.) bible. These early Christians would have read Barnabas’ testimony to them that “Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11)

These early Christians who read these sorts of things regarding infants and young children did not seem to believe that infants “sin constantly” or that infants “are depraved”. IF, they did not view infants or a young child in this same way, then they would have viewed early textual witness differently and interpreted them differently.

For example, IF these early Christians believed their New Testament when it read that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”, how would they have viewed the equivalent question as to Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” of Mtt 18:1-4.

If they believed that infants are glorious and “stand foremost with [God}”, then it made perfect sense to use a child as an example, to set the child in their midst and for Jesus to say “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

The early Christian concept of just judgment that is present in certain versions of Christian worldviews such as found in the “Catholic nuances” contain doctrines such as a spirit world or purgatory or “world of spirits” that allowed for certain conditions to become justified and “fixed”. This is one reason the “nuances” and even basic doctrines of early Christianity (and forms of the earliest textual witnesses on this point) are, in my opinion, better than the many later Christian theories that came to emphasize and proclaim “condemnation on steroids”.

Good journey to you

Clear

 

[Crypto2015]

1)Regarding why infants are not morally culpable and do not sin :
Crypto2015 : Your last post, again, did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since we’ve agree that new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (unless you have changed your opinion...). However you did not answer the question you were asked : Here it is again : Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?

2)Regarding Crypto2015s theory of just punishment to an infant with infantile moral competence
Clear Asked in post # 51 Crypto2015 : I agree with you that an infant without any moral competency does not sin and thus, cannot be justly punished. When he dies, he goes where the sinless go. However, to tease out the finer nuances of your religious theory, What about a small child who just reaches a bit of moral competence and he steals a piece of gum from his mother’s purse. Does that child deserve the rage of God and eternal punishment in hell for this single sin of taking a piece of gum? "
Crypto2015 answered (post #61) Yes, that child deserves to be sent to hell for all eternity.

Thank you for taking a clear stand on this question concerning the stealing of a piece of gum by a small child. Since the other questions have not been as forthcoming, perhaps we can pull another tooth.


3)Regarding Crypto2015s interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)

Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read : For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)

You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify your suggested change in meaning.

For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “…perish by the sword…” (… εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament , it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.

Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12.
For examples :
Crypto2015 said : “If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than changing it's meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?

Crypto2015 said : “Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of first, living, 2) then dying (perishing) and then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2) then "condemnation in hell" and then 3) judgment, is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.

Crypto2015 said : “ The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of “every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses?

Clear
ειτζακνεω

Watch the video that I posted above. What I am telling you is very clearly explained there.

 

[jaybird]

Jaybird : Hi, I like your points about small children since it is so very much like the earliest Judeo-Christian descriptions regarding children and their special status. Crypto2015 has an interesting theory and I’ve wondered as to why and how such theories and interpretations developed since the earliest Christian descriptions do not treat the subject of infants and children in this manner.

When a Jewish poster pointed out that babies were sinless and innocent, a Christian poster forwarded his theory, saying :“No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. (Robin1 Post # 4046) While this distasteful description is not the same as Crypto2015, it is not far from it in it’s justification to send a young child to an eternal hell for taking a piece of gum that was not his, during a time when toddlers have very little understanding of and control of their choices as well as only a fledgling idea of what remorse and sin and conscience is and a fledgling ability to make rational choices. While ancient "nuanced" Christianity had ways to deal with such issues, "Condemnation Christianity" simply assumes damnation to an eternal hell. Such theological theories are not nuanced as were early Christian worldviews.

The Christians of early Sinaiticus New Testament era taught the early Christians to become AS infants “with no wickedness” since “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.“

The early Christian worldview that infants had “no wickedness” but instead did not sin was the very reason infants and small children were not merely qualified to enter the kingdom of God in this early interpretation but were “foremost with him”. It was this very context which underlie the early interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach when he taught the disciples concerning “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

It was a “little child” whom Jesus set their midst as an example, saying “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

It is the moral purity of the infant which formed the early Christian teaching that after forgiveness of sin, mankind could return to their primal moral state inside this renewal. Thus the epistle of Barnabas says :“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11.

Thus, the viewpoint of infants and children as being “not wicked” was one difference between early and authentic Christian theology and later theories of “depravity” that became popular in later Christian movements and interpretations.

The early moral worldview underlies the textual witnesses of this principle such as when Jesus taught “… Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark 10:14–15)


2) THE IRONY OF SHIFTING THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS

The Jewish poster said in response to the modern Christian theory that babies (and all others) are depraved morally : “…I am so glad I am not Christian - so I don't have to be ashamed, and embarrassed, by the crap you are putting forth about babies! Post # 4063

While I understood the sentiment underlying this complaint against a Christians personal theory, historically her opinion was the same of early Christian theology and it was the modern Christians’ personal theology and Christian religion that differed from these early Judeo-Christian worldviews on this specific point. It was ironic to see the non-Christian taking the early Christian position and the modern Christian, taking the non-historically Christian position.

3) INSIDE THE THEORY WHERE YOUNG CHILDREN ARE CONDEMNED TO HELL FOR TAKING A STICK OF CHEWING GUM INSTEAD OF HAVING A MECHANISM WHEREBY THEY CAN RETURN TO THEIR PRIMAL STATE

The 4th century era New Testament Sinaiticus is different than our modern version (as are all early New Testament codices…). That early New Testament included a book called “Hermas” (the shepherd). Christians of that era read and used their New Testament just as we read our modern versions.

Their New Testament said : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3 It is not merely “infants” that we are to be like.

The epistle of Barnabas was also included in this early (4th c.e.) bible. These early Christians would have read Barnabas’ testimony to them that “Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11)

These early Christians who read these sorts of things regarding infants and young children did not seem to believe that infants “sin constantly” or that infants “are depraved”. IF, they did not view infants or a young child in this same way, then they would have viewed early textual witness differently and interpreted them differently.

For example, IF these early Christians believed their New Testament when it read that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”, how would they have viewed the equivalent question as to Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” of Mtt 18:1-4.

If they believed that infants are glorious and “stand foremost with [God}”, then it made perfect sense to use a child as an example, to set the child in their midst and for Jesus to say “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4)

The early Christian concept of just judgment that is present in certain versions of Christian though such as found in the “Catholic nuances” contain doctrines such as a spirit world or purgatory or “world of spirits” that allowed for certain conditions to become justified and “fixed”. This is one reason the “nuances” and even basic doctrines of early Christianity (and forms of the earliest textual witnesses on this point) are, in my opinion, better than the many later Christian theories that came to emphasize and proclaim “condemnation on steroids”.

Good journey to you

Clear

i agree with you about the children. i few things i would add to it. the child stealing gum OMO is not the same as me, a grown man, stealing my neighbors lawnmower. i know the difference between right and wrong, i know my responsibilities as a follower of Jesus, i know what it means to sin against the Lord most High. a child doesnt fully get these things. i wouldnt punish my children for something they didnt understand, i love my children, the Lord loves His children more than that.
also i believe what Jesus teaches on children has to do with children not being conformed to this world and not being corrupted by it.
i used to worry about these things, those born outside Christian cultures, because i was taught they are doomed. i dont worry about it so much anymore, i know its a teaching of man and not Jesus. these theories you call “condemnation on steroids” IMO were created to justify conquering other cultures, not to spread the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Crypto2015]

i agree with you about the children. i few things i would add to it. the child stealing gum OMO is not the same as me, a grown man, stealing my neighbors lawnmower. i know the difference between right and wrong, i know my responsibilities as a follower of Jesus, i know what it means to sin against the Lord most High. a child doesnt fully get these things. i wouldnt punish my children for something they didnt understand, i love my children, the Lord loves His children more than that.
also i believe what Jesus teaches on children has to do with children not being conformed to this world and not being corrupted by it.
i used to worry about these things, those born outside Christian cultures, because i was taught they are doomed. i dont worry about it so much anymore, i know its a teaching of man and not Jesus. these theories you call “condemnation on steroids” IMO were created to justify conquering other cultures, not to spread the teachings of Jesus.

If you watch the video that I posted you'll see that natural law, the law written on the heart of every human being, is sufficient to rightly condemn someone to eternal damnation. In other words, because all men have this law written on their hearts, all men are without excuse if they sin. They all deserve eternal damnation. However, natural law cannot save us because it lacks Christ and his Gospel. This is explained in the first chapters of the Letter to Romans.

If what you say is true and we are wrong in saying that those born outside of Christian cultures are lost unless they accept the Gospel, why did Christ die at all? After all, we could have been saved by following the natural law too, just like the non-Christians, without the need for an expiatory sacrifice. Hence, if you are right, Christ died in vain. Moreover, why was the law of Moses necessary? Once again, we could have been saved by following the natural law, without the need for a God-given law. In point of fact, revelation itself is not necessary if all we need to be saved is natural law.

Conquering other nations has nothing to do with what Jesus told us to do, to bring the Gospel to all nations in order to SAVE all nations. Was Jesus wrong when "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16:15)? Why didn't Peter tell him: "Lord it is not necessary, they will be saved anyway"?

 

[Clear]

Jaybird said : “i agree with you about the children. i few things i would add to it. the child stealing gum OMO is not the same as me, a grown man, stealing my neighbors lawnmower. i know the difference between right and wrong, i know my responsibilities as a follower of Jesus, i know what it means to sin against the Lord most High. a child doesnt fully get these things. i wouldnt punish my children for something they didnt understand, i love my children, the Lord loves His children more than that. (post #69)

Jaybird : I think your point is perfectly correct and a wise and logical point. The base religious position that a perfect Father/God cannot interact with patience with imperfect beings that he has profound love for is illogical. A full-grown, educated, civilized man may interact with a child it loves and does not necessarily turn into a rage nor damn a child to an eternal hell for taking a piece of gum from the mothers purse. This is patently unjust and unmerciful and unloving. The later Christian theories that condemns a young child to “condemnation in hell” for the piece of gum is a specific point of doctrine that non-christians may dismiss out of hand and they should look to the earlier Christian interpretations for enlightenment regarding God's mechanism of Justice and mercy toward his children.

It is just as absurd to create a religious theory where a just God creates imperfect beings who he loves but then punishes in a terrible hell for having the very imperfections HE placed within them (e.g. in ex-nihilo religion).

It is equally absurd to think that a just God would create a mechanism for “saving” his children, and then place most of them on the earth in a place and time where most of them cannot access this mechanism. Most of the individuals who have ever lived were never introduced to Christian religion. Millions upon millions have died without ever knowing who Jesus was. While these basic issues were not a problem for early Christianity with it's beliefs, the later theories advance by un-nuanced modern Christian theories having “Condemnation on Steroids” often have no mechanism to account for these basic problems their modern religious theories and modern interpretations create.

Can I offer Crypto2015s post #70 as an example? He says (post #70) : “If what you say is true and we are wrong in saying that those born outside of Christian cultures are lost unless they accept the Gospel, why did Christ die at all? “
This question implies his theory does not know of any other mechanism for learning about Jesus and thus assumes there is no other mechanism for learning about Jesus. The earliest Judeo-Christian religion did not have this difficulty. Hence I claimed the “Catholic Nuances” (such as the post-death world of spirits, purgatory, spirit world, place in the middle, etc.) were important, whether they were taught by early Christian witnesses, or by Catholic witnesses, or by restorational witnesses or by religious historians. The earliest doctrines were wise and some of them should never have been abandoned.

Look at the remainder of Crypto2015s questions. For example, the early doctrine of a spirit world after death, (spirit world, world of spirits, purgatory, etc.) that was found in so many of the important early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses solves these problems which the more modern “Condemning” Christian theories cannot do in as just a manner.


Regarding the unjust relegation of the young child to eternal hell for taking a piece of gum from their mom’s purse.

Jaybird said : “ i used to worry about these things, those born outside Christian cultures, because i was taught they are doomed. i dont worry about it so much anymore, i know its a teaching of man and not Jesus. “
I do not have much interest in these sorts of Christian theories because these sorts of theories and interpretations do not exist in the earliest historical Christian witnesses written by the earliest Christians themselves (describing their beliefs to us) and thus, are creations of later ages and different Christian movements that came to exist. My interest lies in the earliest Christian religion and it’s interpretations.

Jaybird said : “ these theories you call “condemnation on steroids” IMO were created to justify conquering other cultures, not to spread the teachings of Jesus.”
I think there is merit to your point that these theories have been abused in creating fear in masses of individuals to manipulate them. I also think certain influential religious personalities may have created such theories as a reflection of their own psyche and their own personalities. That is, the theory is a reflection of a personality rather than an authentic religious tradition from early periods. I am guessing there are multiple other reasons why these sorts of condemning Christianities sprang up but, as I said, my interest does not lie in them.


I hope your spiritual journey is good.

Clear

 

[Clear]

Crypto2015 : you have still not answered my question as to why you attempted to change the normal use of Romans 2:12 to support your theory. Below are my questions again.

1)Regarding why infants are not morally culpable and do not sin :
Crypto2015 : Your last post, again, did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since we’ve agree that new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (unless you have changed your opinion...). However you did not answer the question you were asked : Here it is again : Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?

3)Regarding Crypto2015s interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)

Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read : For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)

You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify your suggested change in meaning.

For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “…perish by the sword…” (… εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament , it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.

Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12. For examples :

Crypto2015 said : “If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than changing it's meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?

Crypto2015 said : “Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of first, living, 2) then dying (perishing) and then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2) then "condemnation in hell" and then 3) judgment, is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.

Crypto2015 said : “ The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of “every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses?

Clear
ειεισενεω

 

[Crypto2015]

Crypto2015 : you have still not answered my question as to why you attempted to change the normal use of Romans 2:12 to support your theory. Below are my questions again.

1)Regarding why infants are not morally culpable and do not sin :
Crypto2015 : Your last post, again, did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since we’ve agree that new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (unless you have changed your opinion...). However you did not answer the question you were asked : Here it is again : Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?

3)Regarding Crypto2015s interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)

Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read : For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)

You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify your suggested change in meaning.

For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “…perish by the sword…” (… εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament , it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.

Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12. For examples :

Crypto2015 said : “If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than changing it's meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?

Crypto2015 said : “Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of first, living, 2) then dying (perishing) and then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2) then "condemnation in hell" and then 3) judgment, is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.

Crypto2015 said : “ The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of “every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses?

Clear
ειεισενεω

Sorry, but I can't read all of that. Can you please write a paragraph or two with the things that you want to tell me? As far as I can see, you base your understanding of this topic on the extra-biblical writings of early Christians. There is a reason why these extra-biblical writings are extra-biblical: they contain things that aren't in agreement with the rest of the Bible and that aren't representative of the doctrines taught by Jesus and the apostles.

Your beliefs on this topic are clearly heretical. They are so heretical that this should be self-evident to you. If it were possible to know Jesus without any sort of supernatural revelation (i.e., the Bible or at the very least a vision), God would not have bothered to inspire the Bible.

 

[Crypto2015]

Look what I found

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:11-12)

 

[jaybird]

Look what I found

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:11-12)

what time are they referring to? or were the nations always separated?

 

[NadiaMoon]

Well I ultimately believe my Goddess(es) to be true, but I believe other's faith are true in some way, meaning they will be going to the same afterlife

 

[Clear]

1) quote :
Crypto2015 : you have still not answered my question as to why you attempted to change the normal use of Romans 2:12 to support your theory. Below are my questions again.

1)Regarding why infants are not morally culpable and do not sin :
Crypto2015 : Your last post, again, did not answer important questions you were asked that allow us to discuss nuances. Your quote (Romans 3:23) "all have sin..." is irrelevant and incorrect to the context since we’ve agree that new born infants do NOT have sin nor do they sin as newborns. (unless you have changed your opinion...). However you did not answer the question you were asked : Here it is again : Why is it, (do you think), that infants are not morally culpable? What is it, about an infant that prevents them from being morally culpable?

3)Regarding Crypto2015s interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 as it refers to specific moral culpability
"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:12-16)

Crypto2015 said (post #52) : “In my opinion when Paul uses the word "perish" in the phrase "For all who have sinned without the law also perish without the law", he is talking about spiritual death (i.e., condemnation to hell).
Firstly, in the greek there is no definite article to the word “law” in this greek sentence (and there are no known significant greek variants with an article in any greek text). Thus, the sentence (vs 12) should read : For as many as have sinned without (a) law, will perish (die) without (a) law (“…Ανομως απολουνται”)

You are interpreting “απολουνται” or “perish” to mean “condemnation in hell”. However, no other use of this form of this word in the new Testament means “condemnation in hell”. Your reasoning does not justify your suggested change in meaning.

For example, when απολουνται is used in Matt 26:52 referring to those who will “…perish by the sword…” (… εν μαχαιρη απολουνται) the meaning is physical death and NOT “condemned to hell”. In hebrews 1:11, referring to the earth and the heavens, the term απολουνται, : “They will perish… (αυτοι απολουνται…) means a physical perishing / dissolving / returning to chaos. απολουνται, in this sentence, does not mean that the earth and heavens are “condemned to hell”. Even when the term is used in Luke 5:37 when the “bottles will perish…” (οι ασκοι απολουνται), the term refers to an actual physical loss. The bottles are not “condemned to hell”. Thus, in all other uses of this specific word in the N.Testament , it is used for a physical dissolving or physical perishing or physical death or physical loss.

Other than to support your ideology, why not allow the word “perish” to mean “perish” rather than “condemnation in hell”?
Your supportive data and reasoning are not helpful to your re-interpretation of Romans 2:12. For examples :

Crypto2015 said : “If the word "perish" referred only to physical death, the sentence would be a ridiculous truism. “
If “perish” as “death” forms a “truism”, then this actually supports leaving “perish” to mean “perish” rather than changing it's meaning to “condemned to hell”. Other than that it does not fit your ideology, why would “perishing” without law be “ridiculous” such that it necessitates changing it’s meaning? (especially since most individuals in history DID die without knowledge of a Jewish or Christian law...) Why not allow that the ancients historical ideology and their interpretations are different than yours and the word “perish” means “perish” (and not “condemned to hell”)?

Crypto2015 said : “Furthermore, it is evident that he is talking about spiritual death because he immediately goes on to say "and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law", which obviously refers to Judgement Day. “
If you are referring to temporal order, your suggested re-interpretation is less rational than the original sentences. For example, the current sentence has a temporal order of first, living, 2) then dying (perishing) and then 3) judgment. Your order of first 1) living, 2) then "condemnation in hell" and then 3) judgment, is not as logical as the original sentence. This is another reason you should consider leaving the word “perish” with its original meaning of “perish”.

Crypto2015 said : “ The paragraph expounds the idea that those who have never heard the Law of Moses have no excuse for their sins because God has written a code of law on the heart of each and every human being. “
Why not look at the sentences before verse 12 for a theme. For examples, The first verse speaks of mans judgment versus comparisons to God's judgment. Vs 9 speaks of “every soul”… “both of Jew and of Greek” vs 10 speaks of honour and peace to everyone that works…. Vs 11 speaks of there being “no partiality with God”. That is, why not allow the theme of justice in judgment for every individual be a theme of verse 12 rather than your suggestion taken from later explanatory verses? END QUOTE


Crypto2015 replied : “Sorry, but I can't read all of that. Can you please write a paragraph or two with the things that you want to tell me?”


Obviously you are able to read the post. The fact that you cannot support your theory without changing the text means the original text does not support your personal theories. Are you sure you don't want to try to justify your manipulation of the text to support your theory? If you cannot, then you have ceded the point that the text does not support your claim.




2) Regarding Crypto2015s claim that a loving, patient and just, merciful God should condemn a young child to hell for taking a single piece of gum from his mom's purse

Crypto2015 said : " Look what I found "Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:11-12) (post #74)

Again, you are offering another bit of text that seems unconnected to your theory that God condemns to hell for a trivial act such as a child taking a piece of gum from his mom's purse, nor is it obvious how this verse makes this action just or merciful or loving. What do you think you found in these two verses that supports your theory of Condemnation to hell of small children who take a piece of gum that does not belong to them?

1) If Paul has a desire (as he explains) to have the Saints in Ephesus “…know what is the hope of his calling,…the riches of glory of his inheritance…the greatness of his power..to those who believe… etc. ” Eph 1:18-19 then how does Pauls description of the wonderful changes that have taken place in the Ephesian Saints support your theory of Condemnation to hell of small children who take a piece of gum that does not belong to them?

2) How do these verses Justify your religious theory where a just God creates imperfect beings who he loves but then punishes in a terrible hell for having the very imperfections HE placed within them (e.g. in ex-nihilo religion).

3) How do these verses make just your theory that a just God creates a mechanism for “saving” his children, and then place most of them on the earth in a place and time where most of them cannot access this mechanism. Most of the individuals who have ever lived were never introduced to Christian religion. Millions upon millions have died without ever knowing who Jesus was.

4) How is your modern theory of Condemnation to hell of young children who take a piece of gum either more just or superior in any way to the “Catholic” nuance of a purgatory or the version of a world of spirits where individuals are justly rewarded or punished by degrees based on levels of knowledge and given a chance to repent for things they did not know about in life?

5) Without some degree of nuance or some such mechanisms that were present in early Christian worldviews, how is your modern interpretation made just or superior in any way to the earliest Judeo-Christian interpretations of proportional and just reward?

6) Tell us about this scripture you have “found” and what it meant to the early Christians who wrote it and to those who received it.

In any case, as you consider how your theory of condemnation fits, or doesn't fit into authentic Historical Christian thought, I hope your spiritual journey and discovery are good and satisfying.

Clear
ειτωσισεω

 

[Deidre]

After exploring a few religions before returning to Christianity, I may not agree with them, but respect people's freedom to choose.

 

[jaybird]

After exploring a few religions before returning to Christianity, I may not agree with them, but respect people's freedom to choose.

i have respect for many of them. are we not told seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open. i know there are many in these other belief systems that are doing exactly that and they are being lead right where they are.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hey Christians! This is my first time posting on this DIR, and I got a question for ya'll: What do you think of other religions? Your reaction to another belief, and what your religion says about other religions.

There is some truth in other religions. There is ultimate truth in Christianity. Christianity says you are saved trusting in Jesus. I've never encountered a non-Christian religion that said anything different than this: do stuff on your own to save yourself (maybe, someday, or in another life).