My salvation is a result entirely on what Jesus Christ did on the cross. My repentance and aknowledge of what Jesus did on the Cross, is a passive, not a active act.
So, you didn't choose to be a Christian, then? Someone else made you go through the motions and you just passively went along with it, and are still going along with it? That's what a so-called 'passive' act really means, to just go along with something that someone else does. An 'active' act, on the other hand, is how the word 'action' is actually defined.
Of course we can know it. Since God manifested himself to us through his word , the bible, and testified that there will be a final judgement, where each of our words will be judged.
That isn't knowing it. That's believing you know it, which is not at all the same thing. People believed that they knew the sun revolved around the earth for a long, long time, but their belief did not actually change what really happens. So no, you can not know it. You can only believe you know it, and that's entirely the point. Because if you happen to be wrong in some or all particulars, your belief won't change that fact, and you can't possibly know for sure until after you die.
And who is to blame , if they do not believe it, and afterwards, it happens anyway ?
Depends on the reliability of the information. If we have direct visual observation of an asteroid, and we can track its path to Earth, and tell where it's going to hit, and someone there doesn't believe it and then gets killed, there's no question that it was their own fault, because all of those things make it a pretty reliable prediction. But if the only information we have on something was written thousands of years ago, by people who were ignorant of others possibility or even the mere conception of a scientific explanation, and furthermore it contradicted itself in a number of ways, then I think we could blame the writer(s) of the book for being so totally incoherent and unreliable. Furthermore, even a broken clock can be right occasionally, but that doesn't mean we rely on the clock for accurate information.
Non, that for sure. Thats logical. But what is your point ?
My point is that you're basing the foundation of your morality on God's judgment in the afterlife. Something you can't prove exists, and the only evidence you have is a book that's thousands of years old and internally self-contradictory. What do you think happens to someone who believes that God is the source of all morality if they stop believing in God? As opposed to someone who developed their morality out of simple, observable, and verifiable precepts and thus has something solid to base it on, whether or not they have a belief in God.
Justice and fairness is not directed only on a human level. Who sets the rules of the game, is the creator of the game. I believe God made human kind, so that we could interact with him, live to glorify him, to live upon his will, not a selfcentered life, but a God centered life, and as a consequence, love each other. I believe, God in essence is love. The more we center our live to him, and live according to his will, the more WE are blessed , and happy. Its a constant sharing of one to the other. But we can have a relationship with God only, if we are pure and holy, as he is. But nobody of us is capable to live a perfect, holy, sinless life. The only way out was, God to send his son to die for us, and carry all our sins on the cross. As long as someone pays for sins, its fair.
The day, someone can do whatever, and is not charged, fairness ends.
And so you prove my point. It's all about believing in God; fairness is set to the side, because it's far more important to try to get everyone to believe. Except that it doesn't work that way in the real world. One of the worst wars in history, the Thirty Years War, was fought between different Christian nations; not a one of them was not Christian. They all believed in Jesus, in personal salvation, etc, yet that didn't stop them from fighting a war that lasted for decades and killed millions of Christian civilians who just happened to be in the way. Because they had their eyes set firmly on the afterlife, and so what they did in this life to all those people didn't really matter in the long run.
It seems you do not know the bible. There is a also a judgement of the ones, that accepted forgiveness. And we will be judged also according to what we did in this life. Who served well, will receive a higher prize, than the ones that did little here on earth.
I used to read the Bible in church. Do not presume to tell me that I don't know the Bible.
And the fact of the matter is that this judgment you speak of is inherently unjust and unfair. It focuses on whether a person believes in Jesus as personal savior, not on what they actually did in life. Sure, okay, they might get slapped on the wrist a few times if they weren't a particularly good person, but they still face only reward in the afterlife. Whereas someone who doesn't profess the belief in Jesus as personal savior can be the most saintly person ever to live and still end up going on to be 'punished' in hell...for the 'crime' of not having the right beliefs while alive. The fact that the rewards or punishments can differ in degree does not change the fact that the basis of whether they face a reward or a punishment is solely on whether they believe or not.
the bible is clear, we were saved , not through good deeds, but to do good deeds. If someone does not show any change of life, its a sign that his conversion was not true.
Which of course does not change the fact that there is no real incentive to do those good deeds. It's easy to talk about greater or lesser rewards in heaven, but those aren't really 'real' to people (especially since heaven is just a concept, not someplace that people can actually go see). And a Christian can show a change in behavior, thus proving their conversion was 'true', without going to any particular effort to do good deeds. Go to church once a week, drop some money in the offertory, etc.
The quest is if God really asked them to do so......
I assume you mean question
? And good job of restating what I just got done saying. Of course the question is whether God actually asked them to do so. But it's not something you can prove in the affirmative. There is no way to say, "God definitely did tell this person to commit murder". For that matter, there's no way to prove that God didn't tell them to do it, because there's no reason God couldn't send mental afflictions onto someone for the express purpose of telling them to do it.
to himself, since there is nobody above him.
In other words, he's accountable to no one. If he decided that he was tired of doing the 'salvation' thing, he could change his mind and send everyone to hell, and nobody could stop him. And you can't say for sure that this won't happen, because it's already happened twice according to Christian doctrine. God decided to kill off the world, and spared the ark; God decided to 'kill' himself via a passion play in order to spare people who he had already condemned based on an apocryphal event that nobody can really prove happened in the first place.
He did not suffer anything , and if there is nothing beside life here on earth, he is not suffering anything on the other side either. That is not just, compared to the thousands, which were imprisoned, tortured, and killed upon his command.
Justice is not inflicting misery on someone merely because that someone inflicted misery onto others. The fact that you cannot conceive of justice that doesn't involve getting people back for bad things they did suggests to me that you don't really understand what justice actually is.
Eye for eye is not just ?
No, it isn't. I'm gonna paraphrase Sun Tzu here, because although he was talking about victory in warfare in the original quote, I think it applies to other things as well. True justice is not achieved by punishing people for deeds they have already committed; it is achieved by convincing them not to commit the deeds in the first place. The original quote is, roughly, "To subdue the enemy in battle is not the acme of skill; to subdue the enemy without fighting is."
Its not siimply and only about making someone stop doing evil. If Hitler repent, and changed his mind in 1945, after 50 million deads, and said : holy shit. I made some tremendous bad things. Ill stop continuing promoting war. And no consequence at all would apply. Would that be right ?
No, but not for the reason that you're trying to suggest. For one thing, everyone would assume that he was simply trying to get out of being punished for those things, and nobody would accept for a minute that he was serious. And, chances are, they would be right not to believe him, because Hitler had a tendency to make promises and then break them.
But let's turn that around. What do you think would be a good punishment for Hitler? He was ultimately responsible for the ~50 million dead...should we kill him 50 million times? That's what you're suggesting, that the only way for there to be justice is for a person to suffer the same consequences as their victims did. And in this case, that would presumably mean having someone who can kill, then resurrect, then kill again, etc, Hitler ~50 million times, as well as inflict all the non-lethal damage that he was also responsible for. In this case, I assume you mean God.
I say again, that isn't justice. That's just a desire for vengeance. Justice is in preventing someone like Hitler from being able to do that ever again, not in indulging a lust for vengeance by having God do all the punishing you could want someone to suffer.
justice. He would pay for the evil done. Sins are primarly directed against God, and then against other people.
Except that it. Isn't. Justice!
Making someone pay for something is the very definition of vengeance, and is the antithesis of justice. You need to understand the difference between the two, that a desire for vengeance undermines the very concept of justice.