Love me or else (Part One) (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Thursday, January 17, 2013, 18:24 (4116 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony believes we shall all be physically resurrected. Even allowing for God's existence, I have great difficulty understanding the practicality of this vision, based on Revelation 21, 1-8, as recommended by Tony himself. -TONY: All life extinguished? No oceans? Where did that come from? Well for food, it states quite clearly all seed bearing plants and animals get the leafy vegetation. Not sure where some of your other stuff came from.-I asked when this ongoing resurrection was to take place. If bodies are resurrected on the old earth while ordinary folk are still living on it, I'd have thought there'd be much confusion. In this life, I could be chatting to my great-great-great grandfather, who at the age of 213 would be in far better shape than me. No oceans? Verse 1: "...for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." As regards no meat-eating: "It is said that we will not be omnivores at that point, and hinted that the animals will not be carnivores" (B-M, 15 January at 19.14). I still think you'll have a job providing even seeds and leaves for us all.-TONY: There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again.
Dhw: Would it then be right to assume that this is the period on new earth during which all of us will undergo our resurrection, including all pre-Christians and all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Waga-Waga tribesmen, who will be taught the one and only truth, which is Christianity? (What else could it be, if Christ is the ruler?) 
TONY: I do not think it will be Christianity as we know it, no. Religion as we think of it is a purely human concept [...] -I could not agree more, and this applies to all the texts written by fallible humans, including the bible on which you have based this whole scenario.
 
TONY: [...] If you have died, and paid the price for your sins, and have been resurrected, and have not sinned, then you are no longer in need of a ransom sacrifice. At that point, Christianity as we know it could no longer apply. [...] faith at that point would gradually be replaced by accurate knowledge, something the Bible actually states directly. '[For this means everlasting life, taking in the accurate knowledge of you and the one whom you sent forth...'-All of the above is 100% Christian, right down (up?) to your 1000 year reign of Christ. But of course religion will change if Christ stands in front of us and says, "Look, it's me, and all you Hindus, Buddhists, Waga-Wagas and agnostics got it wrong, and now I ... the one whom God sent forth ... am gonna tell you the truth."
 
Dhw: Would it also be right to assume that capital crimes committed by our resurrected bodies, such as fornication, murder and agnosticism, will continue throughout the 1000 years? If not, when will they take place, and when exactly will we sinners be "immediately cut off"?
TONY: The implication is that the possibility for them will exist, but that something will forestall it from happening. [...] Agnosticism would actually be non-existent at that point. Not because it is wrong, but simply because presented with direct evidence it would not be possible.-So the whole business of evil fornicators, murderers and agnostics being chucked in the lake of fire and brimstone is a total sham. When we see direct evidence (e.g. Christ standing in front of us all), we shall of course all be "forestalled". Except: "When the act is committed too in the heart and mind of the person, that point of no return, that is when I think they would be cut off." So if we THINK naughty thoughts BEFORE we've had the direct evidence, we'll be cut off, even though we shan't DO anything naughty because the direct evidence will have forestalled us in the nick of time (Abraham's "split second"). I think: "Fornicate!" Then comes the direct evidence. I don't fornicate. But it's too late, and off I go into the lake! This is going to be 1000 years of split-second timing for someone in authority.-TONY: It has been remarked that in a perfect government, the government has a monopoly on force, and the sole mission of protecting the populace from the use of force.
DHW: If your mission is to protect the populace from force, and you have a monopoly on force, your mission can only be to protect the populace from your own misuse of force. And if you have a monopoly, you alone decide what constitutes the use or misuse of force. A great recipe for "perfect government" and for tyranny. [...] Even if [God] does NOT have infinite compassion, understanding and wisdom by your standards or mine [...] he still has the monopoly. [...] Peter's "Fear God" still has a powerful foundation.
TONY: There were many, many holes in your last paragraph, but unfortunately, for me to address them would take more time than I have at the moment. All I can tell you is that even a very cursory reading of the bible would pretty much demolish that entire last paragraph. Hell, even a cursory reading of Genesis and Revelation along would demolish it.-But I do not accept the authority of the bible. See our discussion under "How God works". Please point out the holes in the argument, not how the argument contradicts the unreliable collection of texts that make up the bible.