Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 04-29-2002, 02:14 AM

I think I read that Tercel and luvluv believe in this and one of them said they see 'nothing Biblical' against it.

What about the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16, I think, but Millenium won't let me check right now)? The rich man didn't get a second chance. He wasn't even allowed to have someone warn his brothers against ending up where he was - in 'no second-chance-land', being 'tormented by the flames'.

love
Helen

eh · 04-29-2002, 06:23 AM

You tell em, Helen. Infinite punishment for finite deeds - a true sign a certain religion is false.

Too bad we don't have any JW's on this board, or so it seems. It might make for some interesting debates with mainstream Christians.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-29-2002, 06:45 AM

Tercel and luvluv aren't christians. They're non-specific-deists-who-think-Jesus-rocks!

Dude.

HelenM · 04-29-2002, 06:59 AM

I restarted my computer and now I can quote what I referred to...

Quote:

Luke 16:19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, {[23] Greek Hades}where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 25 "But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' 27 "He answered, `Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29 "Abraham replied, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 30 "`No, father Abraham,' he said, `but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31 "He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

I am looking for the second chance...nope can't find it!

Oh here's another no second chance...

Quote:

Matt 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 "They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 "He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Anyway, the part about 'it's better to cut off your hand rather than sin with it and go to hell with your body intact' argues against 'second chance theology' imo.

I mean, what...will you have people who gave their lives for the LORD side-by-side with people who didn't care about Him at all? Oh, I suppose so because of death-bed conversions...never mind...

love
Helen

Pomp · 04-29-2002, 10:36 AM

This theological discussion doesn't seem to deal directly with the Existence of God(s), so I'm going to send it off to MRD.

GunnerJ · 04-29-2002, 01:44 PM

[offtopicrant] Yes, PB, I've noticed a lot of non EoG stuff on the EoG forum recently. [/offtopicrant]

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

Tercel · 05-01-2002, 02:22 PM

Hi Helen,
I've seen you round posting often before, but I've never quite been able to understand where you're coming from.With regard to this topic, do you disagree with me as to the possibility of a second chance and are you trying to prove me wrong, are you being an honest questioner, are you trying to prove the bible contains contradictions, or do you completely agree with me on the issue of a second chance and are simply pointing out my exaggeration?
With regard to the bible verses you quote, I must ask the question: Can you be sure that Jesus meant what he was saying to be taken literally as absolute theological truth, or (like so many of his other teachings) he meant it as a kind of parable, a hypothetical situation to make his listeners think?

Now Peter and Paul would surely have known these teachings of Jesus, yet it doesn't stop Paul saying to the Athenians that God had overlooked all their wrongdoings or Peter from writing that the gospel was preached to the dead. Surely, we can have confidence in placing the apostles' interpretation of Jesus' message ahead of our own?

Bree · 05-01-2002, 08:37 PM

What is your definition of a parable, Tercel?

Do we know for a fact that Jesus did use parables in order to preach to the masses? Or perhaps his stories (especially the more obscure ones) were just that - stories?

Did all of his parables HAVE to be about the Kingdom?

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 08:49 AM

I would give a qualified endorsement to what Helen's thrust is: it does seem that you are given but one chance to be holy (ie God-like)
and if you don't take it, that's it. Now maybe that wouldn't apply in the case of very young children, or people born into pagan societies since they would lack even that one opportunity. Of more interest to me, however, is the social element of Luke's Gospel: our reward/punishment is
based on our attitude/actions toward others, especially those in need. It's enough to make even well-heeled believers squeamish. It challenges the ideas that a mere creed or avowed
identification with the "right" religion is what
God is requiring. Heady stuff.
Cheers!

luvluv · 05-04-2002, 03:30 PM

Found ya Helen!

Might have been better to start this thread in the same board on which the initial question was raised if you wanted it answered. (No one responded to it in the original post, so I thought everyone thought the argument irrelavent)

My own thinking is that the story of the sheeps and the goats, at least, is clearly a parable inasmuch as it deals with judgement in the aggregate, and not a personal judgement as Christians tend to believe is the case. I think it is a parable because it seems to exist solely to communicate an ethic: that Jesus/God consider ignoring the sufferings of any human being to be equivalent to ignoring their own sufferings (if they could suffer). I have always thought of this parable as the first example of the philosophy of solidarity, and found it inspiring that God Almighty includes Himself in the number of those who suffer with everyone who suffers.

I say all that to say that one cannot get accurate information about the exact nature of the afterlife from parables whose PRIMARY PURPOSE was the presentation of a seperate ethic. Parables have morals attached to them. Passages meant solely to give us information about the afterlife usually don't. Furthermore, there is precious little information about the afterlife given in the Bible.

I brought up the second chance possibility in response to the idea that one who was earnestly seeking salvation, but through chance died just short of making a commitment to God, would be lost. I don't believe that. I believe that if there is the slightest possibility that one would be willing to commit oneself to God, God would accept that commitment. The thing about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is that the rich man HAD second chances. He had repeated chances over and over and over again, and He made his decision. Any decision he made was not on the basis of a logical contradiction or unanswered questions or honest intellectual conflict. It was based on selfishness, greed, and pride. Such a man probably could not honestly desire to commit to God, but only desire to escape Hell. Personally, I don't believe the second chance to be absolutely universal, but I simply do not believe that death, as such, represents the absolute final demarcation after which no choices about the soul can be made. What of those who die in infancy, or who die never having heard the gospel? The Bible speaks of a millenial period where such people will be taught about God after Christs return, and I see no reason why those who have HONESTLY doubted might not receive instruction during that period. But whether there will be endless chances offered to those who have had endless chances on earth, and who on earth chose their own self interests not out of any principle but simply out of selfishness - that is another question entirely.

I don't believe all people will be given a second chance after death, only those who never got a real chance on earth. I meant my second chance argument only as a rebuttal against those who consider death as the ultimate threshhold. I maintain that the concept is not anymore extrabiblical than an idea like the Trinity. To my knowledge, the Bible never strictly addresses the issue of whether honest disbelievers will be given a second chance after death. There is no reason for this to be the case from a Christian standpoint.

04-29-2002, 02:14 AM	#1
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	re: 'second chance after death' I think I read that Tercel and luvluv believe in this and one of them said they see 'nothing Biblical' against it. What about the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16, I think, but Millenium won't let me check right now)? The rich man didn't get a second chance. He wasn't even allowed to have someone warn his brothers against ending up where he was - in 'no second-chance-land', being 'tormented by the flames'. love Helen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2002, 06:23 AM	#2
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	You tell em, Helen. Infinite punishment for finite deeds - a true sign a certain religion is false. Too bad we don't have any JW's on this board, or so it seems. It might make for some interesting debates with mainstream Christians.

04-29-2002, 06:45 AM	#3
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Tercel and luvluv aren't christians. They're non-specific-deists-who-think-Jesus-rocks! Dude.

04-29-2002, 10:36 AM	#5
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	This theological discussion doesn't seem to deal directly with the Existence of God(s), so I'm going to send it off to MRD.

04-29-2002, 01:44 PM	#6
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	[offtopicrant] Yes, PB, I've noticed a lot of non EoG stuff on the EoG forum recently. [/offtopicrant] [ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

05-01-2002, 02:22 PM	#7
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	Hi Helen, I've seen you round posting often before, but I've never quite been able to understand where you're coming from.With regard to this topic, do you disagree with me as to the possibility of a second chance and are you trying to prove me wrong, are you being an honest questioner, are you trying to prove the bible contains contradictions, or do you completely agree with me on the issue of a second chance and are simply pointing out my exaggeration? With regard to the bible verses you quote, I must ask the question: Can you be sure that Jesus meant what he was saying to be taken literally as absolute theological truth, or (like so many of his other teachings) he meant it as a kind of parable, a hypothetical situation to make his listeners think? Now Peter and Paul would surely have known these teachings of Jesus, yet it doesn't stop Paul saying to the Athenians that God had overlooked all their wrongdoings or Peter from writing that the gospel was preached to the dead. Surely, we can have confidence in placing the apostles' interpretation of Jesus' message ahead of our own?

05-01-2002, 08:37 PM	#8
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	What is your definition of a parable, Tercel? Do we know for a fact that Jesus did use parables in order to preach to the masses? Or perhaps his stories (especially the more obscure ones) were just that - stories? Did all of his parables HAVE to be about the Kingdom?

05-04-2002, 08:49 AM	#9
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I would give a qualified endorsement to what Helen's thrust is: it does seem that you are given but one chance to be holy (ie God-like) and if you don't take it, that's it. Now maybe that wouldn't apply in the case of very young children, or people born into pagan societies since they would lack even that one opportunity. Of more interest to me, however, is the social element of Luke's Gospel: our reward/punishment is based on our attitude/actions toward others, especially those in need. It's enough to make even well-heeled believers squeamish. It challenges the ideas that a mere creed or avowed identification with the "right" religion is what God is requiring. Heady stuff. Cheers!

05-04-2002, 03:30 PM	#10
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Found ya Helen! Might have been better to start this thread in the same board on which the initial question was raised if you wanted it answered. (No one responded to it in the original post, so I thought everyone thought the argument irrelavent) My own thinking is that the story of the sheeps and the goats, at least, is clearly a parable inasmuch as it deals with judgement in the aggregate, and not a personal judgement as Christians tend to believe is the case. I think it is a parable because it seems to exist solely to communicate an ethic: that Jesus/God consider ignoring the sufferings of any human being to be equivalent to ignoring their own sufferings (if they could suffer). I have always thought of this parable as the first example of the philosophy of solidarity, and found it inspiring that God Almighty includes Himself in the number of those who suffer with everyone who suffers. I say all that to say that one cannot get accurate information about the exact nature of the afterlife from parables whose PRIMARY PURPOSE was the presentation of a seperate ethic. Parables have morals attached to them. Passages meant solely to give us information about the afterlife usually don't. Furthermore, there is precious little information about the afterlife given in the Bible. I brought up the second chance possibility in response to the idea that one who was earnestly seeking salvation, but through chance died just short of making a commitment to God, would be lost. I don't believe that. I believe that if there is the slightest possibility that one would be willing to commit oneself to God, God would accept that commitment. The thing about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is that the rich man HAD second chances. He had repeated chances over and over and over again, and He made his decision. Any decision he made was not on the basis of a logical contradiction or unanswered questions or honest intellectual conflict. It was based on selfishness, greed, and pride. Such a man probably could not honestly desire to commit to God, but only desire to escape Hell. Personally, I don't believe the second chance to be absolutely universal, but I simply do not believe that death, as such, represents the absolute final demarcation after which no choices about the soul can be made. What of those who die in infancy, or who die never having heard the gospel? The Bible speaks of a millenial period where such people will be taught about God after Christs return, and I see no reason why those who have HONESTLY doubted might not receive instruction during that period. But whether there will be endless chances offered to those who have had endless chances on earth, and who on earth chose their own self interests not out of any principle but simply out of selfishness - that is another question entirely. I don't believe all people will be given a second chance after death, only those who never got a real chance on earth. I meant my second chance argument only as a rebuttal against those who consider death as the ultimate threshhold. I maintain that the concept is not anymore extrabiblical than an idea like the Trinity. To my knowledge, the Bible never strictly addresses the issue of whether honest disbelievers will be given a second chance after death. There is no reason for this to be the case from a Christian standpoint.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.