WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF JESUS RETURNED?

[danielsh]

Jesus is perfect, therefore he will be a perfect ruler, which means that there will be perfect freedom. There will be no murder, as it will be prevented before hand, and crimes will be dealt with swiftly. There will be no needs for a court system, though men will arbitrate under God's command, because God will not throw off humanity from governing. It will just be a perfect system.

"Hitler is perfect, therefore he will be a perfect ruler, which means that there will be perfect freedom. There will be no murder, as it will be prevented beforehand, and crimes will be dealt with swiftly. There will be no need for a court system, though men will arbitrate under Hitler's command, because Hitler will not throw off humanity from governing. It will just be a perfect system."

Perfect for the people following Jesus. Perfect for the people following Hitler. Autocracies are always perfect for the autocrats and their constituents... what about everyone else? Doesn't the idea of some great and powerful leader quashing dissent bother y'all in the least? Gunwounds, that indignation is only righteous because you define it as such. I don't have any problem with Jesus whipping a bunch of money-changers (because whipping capitalists, in a temple or no, is fun for everyone), but I have a major problem with him coming down from Heaven, declaring, "This is my father's house, bitch!" and then laying the holy smackdown on dissenters.

[Wolf]

Dan, that's not necessarily true. If The Jesus Dominion practices unconditional love and forgiveness for all people, then what you say, the "holy smackdown on dissenters" will not occur. This is why, in the movie Chariots of Fire Heaven is described as a dictatorship, with God as a benign, loving dictator. It is, actually, the only circumstances under which dictatorship can work; where the dictator is divine, and truly has only unconditional positive regard for the people he rules.

(Furthermore, do you think it might bother religious believers here in the least bit when you compare Jesus to Hitler? I mean, look at what happens when you compare Bush to Hitler. Imagine the insult that might cause!)

[danielsh]

Well, this is generally an argument from extremes. And anyway, what do I ever say that doesn't infuriate religious people? ;-)

Anyway, what's bothering me is the apparent disparity between your Jesus Dominion and Gunwounds' and TMA's. It's just odd, that's all. Is it going to be a loving, tolerant community wherein no one has the desire to commit murder, or wherein no one can act on the murderous urges that they have? There is a significant distinction, in my opinion.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well, this is generally an argument from extremes. And anyway, what do I ever say that doesn't infuriate religious people? ;-)

Anyway, what's bothering me is the apparent disparity between your Jesus Dominion and Gunwounds' and TMA's. It's just odd, that's all. Is it going to be a loving, tolerant community wherein no one has the desire to commit murder, or wherein no one can act on the murderous urges that they have? There is a significant distinction, in my opinion.

The Bible..... and i am quoting the Bible cause what else do i have??..

[Wolf]

I think a better way of describing what might happen is that humanity would transcend mortal existence; we would no longer be motivated by greed, corruption, lust for power, or hatred. Our free will would be preserved, but our free will would coincide with the will of God's; to love all, forgive all, and to move forward in total peace. In C. S. Lewis' descriptions of the "apocalypse", those who were good were able to explore countless universe's, each one like, and yet not like, the one they once lived in. Their old world was described as a faded, shadowy, seemingly-false representation of the countless new worlds that they could explore, live in, and thrive in bliss. In this sense, I feel that the good elements of humanity are preserved -- the desires to learn, to explore, to grow, to love -- while our darker traits, those very human things that inevitably cause our downfall are thrown away in the husk of the old world. We transcend.

[GhostHunter]

The end of all.

[danielsh]

Matt, there is a great deal of disparity between your image of the apocalypse and Gunwounds'. Could you define 'good,' according to that philosophy? I remember when a Jewish man, Mr Rowe, passed away. He was a kind, wonderful man, beloved by everyone who knew him. But according to what I had been taught, he had worshipped the wrong God, and so was going to be tortured in Hell. This was one of the major incidents that moved me towards Atheism.

Free will is the 'beta' stage of humanity, Gunwounds?! That's sick! If Jesus is coming back in order to establish a theocratic, dissent-free, orderly government, then why can't I compare him to a dictator? That's dictatorship. Moreover, you failed to address or acknowledge that there is an important difference between continuing to be a hateful human being, but a restrained one, and actually being reformed and good. If people still want to kill each other, but the magic of Jesus restrains them, makes them impotent to act on those wants, then that's not right.

Sheesh. I'm glad that I'll die before I have to live in that dystopia.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Matt, there is a great deal of disparity between your image of the apocalypse and Gunwounds'. Could you define 'good,' according to that philosophy? I remember when a Jewish man, Mr Rowe, passed away. He was a kind, wonderful man, beloved by everyone who knew him. But according to what I had been taught, he had worshipped the wrong God, and so was going to be tortured in Hell. This was one of the major incidents that moved me towards Atheism.

Free will is the 'beta' stage of humanity, Gunwounds?! That's sick! If Jesus is coming back in order to establish a theocratic, dissent-free, orderly government, then why can't I compare him to a dictator? That's dictatorship. Moreover, you failed to address or acknowledge that there is an important difference between continuing to be a hateful human being, but a restrained one, and actually being reformed and good. If people still want to kill each other, but the magic of Jesus restrains them, makes them impotent to act on those wants, then that's not right.

Sheesh. I'm glad that I'll die before I have to live in that dystopia.

no no no no ..... Wolf and I are referring to two different times.

My scenario happens BEFORE Wolf's.... we are not talking about the same time.

My scenario is describing Jesus's reign during the 1000 years reign with both good and bad people still dwelling on earth BEFORE judgement.

Wolf's scenario is describing Jesus's reign AFTER the 1000 years and AFTER judgement where only the pure of heart dwell on the earth ....as everyone with an impure heart is now in hell.

Both scenario's are correct.. Wolf's just sounds better than mine cause his happens AFTER mine during a much nicer time......

In my scenario ... evil desires will be repressed..... because judgement will be at hand. God has done this before.... for example when he caused the great Flood that wiped out everyone... wasnt that repressing their freedom to sin?.... i think so (you cant sin while your drowning) ...

[TMA_1]

Okay let me put it this way. If jesus is perfect, then his rule would be perfect, that is just plain logic. Perfection isnt subjective, so jesus is wholly perfect. This is what I believe. So if that is the case then he cannot be compared to hitler, as he was imperfect, you can tell in so many ways with that, duh.lol

Ruling with a rod of iron is not evil, if done in perfection. Then you only use the iron rod on those who deserve it justly. I mean how can you not understand this? If christ is the real perfect member of the trinity, and is God the son and man all in one, then he is perfect. So you can only say that he is or isnt perfect. Because of this we wont ever agree, just argue about it. itis really just a differing of opinions. I respect your views as you have thought them out, though I think you are a bit zealous of your opinions, which can be dangerous.

[Wolf]

I'm just saying that I think the apocalypse will be an event in which every person gets what he or she truly deserves. Good men are those who do good things, believed in good ideals (ideal, such as "truth" or "loyalty" or "peace"), and those sorts of things. Remember, God forgives all who ask for his forgiveness. I think God is understanding enough to know that even those who believe in "different" gods can still be good people. C. S. Lewis explained what happens in his Chronicles of Narnia when he created the nation of Calormen. In this, the god of Calormen was completely different from the god of Narnia, however, it is soon revealed that these two gods, when they are together, really do have the same nature. I think God knows that it is simply impossible for the "orthodox" belief to reach all across the world, and I think he knew that if things were different, the people not worhshipping him may have worhsipped him, and vice versa. In reality, God can take worship of gods of different names as worship to him assuming there is one real God. Because he knows that it is merely a twist of fate that caused this to be, and if God is truly understanding and forgiving, he knows, then, the position that these people are in.

Anyway, I truly believe in the philosophy that everyone gets what they deserve.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm just saying that I think the apocalypse will be an event in which every person gets what he or she truly deserves. Good men are those who do good things, believed in good ideals (ideal, such as "truth" or "loyalty" or "peace"), and those sorts of things. Remember, God forgives all who ask for his forgiveness. I think God is understanding enough to know that even those who believe in "different" gods can still be good people. C. S. Lewis explained what happens in his Chronicles of Narnia when he created the nation of Calormen. In this, the god of Calormen was completely different from the god of Narnia, however, it is soon revealed that these two gods, when they are together, really do have the same nature. I think God knows that it is simply impossible for the "orthodox" belief to reach all across the world, and I think he knew that if things were different, the people not worhshipping him may have worhsipped him, and vice versa. In reality, God can take worship of gods of different names as worship to him assuming there is one real God. Because he knows that it is merely a twist of fate that caused this to be, and if God is truly understanding and forgiving, he knows, then, the position that these people are in.

Anyway, I truly believe in the philosophy that everyone gets what they deserve.

awesome... never heard it said quite like that but i have to say that is an excellent point of view.

:)

[Wolf]

As I believe I have said in other conversations, religion is very much the wants, hopes, and ideals of humankind laid out bare before the world. In texts such as the Bible, we see basic human wants and needs laid out before us, things that are still relevent today. Not just the good, either, the bad. We see how people want to be saved, how people want to do good. On the other hand, there is the temptation to do things which are not good. To me, religion is very much the soul of humanity. This is is why, I think, I feel ashamed discussing my faith; for it is all those personal, deep, and very human things about me which are stripped naked for all to see. It is my soul laid bare. I think this is why so many religions follow common themes. Transcendance is found from Christianity to Buddhism. The three religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are almost cousins, for example. Even Native American religions attempted to resolve these core human questions. Therefore, I agree with C. S. Lewis' assessment that all "gods" have the same nature. Therefore, it makes sense that the real God (assuming there is one) would take all worship of all gods as worship to Him. Humans have different languages and different words for love, but we all fall in love, do we not? Why punish men for using a different word for the same thing, faith? If we assume God is omniscient and omnipotent, I think He could easily arrive at this conclusion, and thus be tolerant of other "faiths". Besides, are not all religious faiths really the same, in the end?

[GUNWOUNDS]

As I believe I have said in other conversations, religion is very much the wants, hopes, and ideals of humankind laid out bare before the world. In texts such as the Bible, we see basic human wants and needs laid out before us, things that are still relevent today. Not just the good, either, the bad. We see how people want to be saved, how people want to do good. On the other hand, there is the temptation to do things which are not good. To me, religion is very much the soul of humanity. This is is why, I think, I feel ashamed discussing my faith; for it is all those personal, deep, and very human things about me which are stripped naked for all to see. It is my soul laid bare. I think this is why so many religions follow common themes. Transcendance is found from Christianity to Buddhism. The three religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are almost cousins, for example. Even Native American religions attempted to resolve these core human questions. Therefore, I agree with C. S. Lewis' assessment that all "gods" have the same nature. Therefore, it makes sense that the real God (assuming there is one) would take all worship of all gods as worship to Him. Humans have different languages and different words for love, but we all fall in love, do we not? Why punish men for using a different word for the same thing, faith? If we assume God is omniscient and omnipotent, I think He could easily arrive at this conclusion, and thus be tolerant of other "faiths". Besides, are not all religious faiths really the same, in the end?

well now that i stop and think about it a little more... the only problem with that.... is that it gets a little too liberal.... see christianity has this little thing called christ and it seems to be the pivotal difference... especially when Jesus says .. "none come to the father except through me"... that is a powerful statement.

Christ is what makes this whole thing complicated... now if someone was ignorant of christ then i stand by your statements that God would be flexible.... but the problem today is that with all the TV's, VCR's, Satellites, and missionaries, and cell phones, etc, etc ... i doubt you will find someone who has never heard of christ.... and i think this is why people are held accountable.

If christ was not a factor and it was just God.... then i could see the flexibility... but with the addition of christ things get really complicated.

[Wolf]

Well, I think this still fits in with everyone getting what they believe they get. If you believe that Jesus died to redeem humanity, than I think you can live life knowing that you are truly redeemed, that you are truly free. If you do not, and you simply believe in God, I still think that you aren't in trouble. Are not Jesus and God two facets of the same being? I thought that there was such a thing as a Trinity, which is at the core of Christian faith. Would not all three facets of God still be part of God, and thus ensure this flexibility?

[danielsh]

Gunwounds' scenario is still scaring me. A lot.

It's not a question of liking the vices of the world, it's a question of liking free will. That's not something I'd want to be taken from me, ever, under any pretense. Because anyway, if we don't have the option to do wrong in addition to right, then doing right has no value at all.

[SurlyPIG]

if we don't have the option to do wrong in addition to right, then doing right has no value at all.

Well put.  That applies to many different matters.  Imposed good is as valuable as free evil.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds' scenario is still scaring me. A lot.

It's not a question of liking the vices of the world, it's a question of liking free will. That's not something I'd want to be taken from me, ever, under any pretense. Because anyway, if we don't have the option to do wrong in addition to right, then doing right has no value at all.

I look at it the other way.... free will scares the hell out of me...

free will is like being on top of a skyscraper with the option to stay on the roof or the option to fall to your doom.

I would rather be on the ground with no option to fall.

Dont get me wrong... free will is good because it shows true loyalty.... meaning if someone

[Dante]

I would rather be free and facing destruction than shackled against my will. Of course I have no choice in the matter which in turn means I'm not free. Damn.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I would rather be free and facing destruction 

what happened to your code of self-preservation at all costs?

.

[Dante]

I see being free as self-preservation. There is more to preservation than mere life.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I see being free as self-preservation. There is more to preservation than mere life.

thats on the verge of oxymoron....

[Dante]

Preservation of the will is important and if I were to will my death then that is self-preservation, even though it would mean willing the end of my life. As I said, there is more to preserve than merely life and will is one of the most important.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Preservation of the will is important and if I were to will my death then that is self-preservation, even though it would mean willing the end of my life. As I said, there is more to preserve than merely life and will is one of the most important.

even if the will ceases to exist with the ending of the life?

[Dante]

Yes. To give up the will is to lose it, while to die with it is not because you are not there afterwards to experience loss.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes.

if the will ceases to exist how can you say it was preserved?

EDIT*- i posted this before dust scout edited his above message*

.