Prove to me that epistular Paul believes in resurrection of unsaved

In my last post I stated that the epistular Paul believes that “the unbeliever ceases to exist instantly upon death and so only the saved can be resurrected because only they continue to exist after death.” As an afterthought I offered some passages in the comments which I believe demonstrate this point.  But now, I want to open a challenge.  Yes, a challenge.  All you people out there that believe that Paul (not the Paul of Acts, but the epistular Paul) teaches a resurrection of the unsaved, PROVE IT. Show me the money….err, I mean, the verses. Give me Book, Chapter, and Verse.  And no, Acts doesn’t count. It has to be from the Pauline Epistles.

How important is Christian orthodoxy?

I have to say a lot of these discussions about Christian orthodoxy no longer concern me because of something I’ve noticed. The Synoptics-Acts teach the resurrection of BOTH the just and unjust attendant with the unjust being raised to be tossed into hell. However, that hell is annihilation per Jesus’ comment about fearing “him who can DESTROY both body and soul in hell.”  The epistular Paul and John on the other hand teach that he who believes in Jesus will be raised (John), or Jesus will raise those who “belong to him” when he returns (Paul), i.e. no unsaved or unbeliever or no on who does not “belong” to Jesus will be raised, the punishment for the unsaved being death “the wages of sin is death” and “destruction” and that is meant literally, as in the unbeliever ceases to exist instantly upon death and so only the saved can be resurrected because only they continue to exist after death.  In each system, the unsaved are eventually obliterated, not tormented forever. The Synoptics system does have them being tormented between death and the resurrection (i.e. Luke’s story of the rich man and Lazarus), but finally obliterated in hell after the resurrection. John and Paul have them instantly obliterated at death.  So its pointless to worry overmuch about “orthodoxy.”

Reminds me of Ecclesiastes 7:16-17

Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?

Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

The New Testament itself can’t agree on one coherent after-life view, but its two competing views certainly rule out the mainstream eternal torment view, and thus all the over freaking out about condemnation is beside the point. Is the law infinite? Is it going to condemn me no matter what? Will God invent a new law all of the sudden just to condemn me at the last minute, as Protestantism teaches?  Well then I’ll be obliterated.  Well then, in such a case, under such a tyrant of a god, I would simply agree with Job in Job 7:16

I loathe it; I would not live alway: let me alone; for my days are vanity.

I would not = I don’t want to. And Job had never even watched Starship Troopers:

Come on you apes, you wanna live forever?

Actually its interesting to me, that early Christianity was about escaping from obliteration to get to live forever via the resurrection. Modern Christianity is about some indestructible soul that not even God can obliterate so the best he can do with one he doesn’t like is dump it in a furnace.  And Buddhism is the idea that this life sucks but we keep getting born back into it and so the point is to let go of all desires and achieve “enlightenment” so that you can finally “go to Nirvana” which more or less means just finally cease to exist. Job 7:16 (maybe not the entire book, but that one verse) seems more in line with the last one.

PS: I will post two comments below, both of which I made on a post over on Argo’s blog, in a post he calls “The Christian Does Not Die, He Becomes Death: Spiritual Marxism masquerading as the Christian orthodox ideal, Part 17“.  I’m posting those comments here because you kind of need them to understand my theory of finite vs infinite law, which was referenced above because this post was initially written as another comment for that blogpost which I decided to just make a blogpost on my blog instead. Anyone curious as to why I mentioned Buddhism here, see my comments on another of Argo’s posts, called “God’s Categorical Knowledge is Both Irrelevant and Impossible for Humanity to Know and Claim“.

Old people churches — a gift from God (part 1)

(I don’t understand why Part 1 stopped showing up, so I’m re-posting it.)

One of the major reasons my blog has mellowed out and I don’t post hardly ever anymore, and when I do, its usually just a link to a youtube video, is that I’ve been attending a different congregation for I don’t know exactly how long, a year, maybe a little more, and its a congregation of largely older people, using traditional hymns with nobody making trouble trying to introduce contemporary bullcrap music. And as a result, my engagement with neo-Calvinism in the real world has dropped to nearly absolute zero, and what’s the point of fighting something on the Internet that you don’t have to deal with in real life anymore?

Not everyone is old. I’m in my 30s, and there are few people there in their 20s, but the bulk of the congregation is my parents’ age or older. There are no little kids, no teenagers.

I don’t endorse the theology over at Internetmonk, and I hardly go over to that blog anymore because most of what its about is pushing acceptance of homosexuality, but there is one issue on which I do agree with the guys over there, and its highlighted in this article What about THIS “cutting edge”? bemoaning how the seeker-sensitive and mega-church culture caters to teenagers, and asking the question why there is no such outreach to the elderly. From the end of the article:

What does it mean to follow Jesus in the late autumn and winter of our lives?

And why don’t churches seem to care?

iMonk has run a lot of articles over the years about how they feel more liturgical churches are more mature or focused towards the more mature, or the older, those who’ve escaped the teens and twenties. That may be the case. I’ve never thought of my church as “liturgical.” Its not like the Anglican church, for instance, since there are no priests, no clergy, certainly no male clergy wearing dresses, no candles, no eucharistic adoration, etc. etc. But I guess in a way it is “liturgical” in that every service proceeds the same way. We’re not clamoring to “shake it up” by moving the constituent elements of the service around, or changing the style of music, etc. Its always the same. And there is something very grounding about that.

Before, when I was in a church filled to the brim with teenagers — well, really, there were probably only about 5 actual teenagers and then 5 adults who thought they were teenagers — there was constant trouble, both in wanting to constantly change the music style, AND in theology, i.e. the incursion of Calvinism coming in from those “hip” new books written by the “hip” and “happening” Calvinist pastors.

In an older church, where people admit to being their age, there is less likelyhood of such nonsense. Really the whole nonsense can’t be blamed on teenagers or twenty-somethings themselves, because its the adult teenagers, the guys in their 50s who want to believe they’re sixteen, that push the trouble. Now in my context, we’re not even talking rock music, because the theology of the “denomination” bans instrumental music from the services altogether, so we’re just talking contemporary “worship” music meant to be accompanied by piano and guitar that’s been modified to be sung without them (you can imagine how well that works). But do you really think if a teenager tried to change the way the church works with respect to music, they could? without the adults who refuse to admit their own age siding with them? Of course not.

There is, therefore, a great gift in finding a church full of old people. Like is said in Proverbs somewhere, “He who finds a good wife finds a gift from the Lord.” How much moreso, he who finds a church of older people finds a gift from the Lord!!!!! Because he can have a peaceful experience such as was had in days gone by. He can metaphorically sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, rather than having to constantly fight with Philistines of the church music incursions or of neo-Calvinism.

PS: You can see from the comments on that article at iMonk that people largely think of church as a business that has to “market” distinctly to different age-demographics. And I will address that in my next post.

Old people churches — a gift from God (part 2)

At the end of my previous post, I said:

PS: You can see from the comments on that article at iMonk that people largely think of church as a business that has to “market” distinctly to different age-demographics. And I will address that in my next post.

Well, this is my next post.

The great thing about a church filled with older people is there is no marketing, because there doesn’t need to be any. There may also be no growth, as in conversions, and only growth from people moving in, but so what! Do we really believe that the whole point of Christianity is to constantly bring in more people to no real purpose? There certainly is a place for churches that simply conserve the (can I use this phrase?) deposit of faith, and do not beat the bushes bringing everyone in. There are churches focused on evangelism, and there are churches focused on worship and living the Christian life. There is nothing wrong with this. Quite frankly, its hard to create a church that does both. If the focus is evangelism, worship is hindered, because the sermons end up all being on how to grow the church! If the focus is worship, and equipping the saints to live the Christian life, there ends up being little focus on evangelism, because Paul never taught anyone in any of his epistles that the point of the Christian life is evangelism.

That last point needs to be elucidated.

Paul teaches a lot about husbands loving their wives, salves obeying their masters (Paul wasn’t inerrant, you know, so yeah, he got that one wrong), children obeying their parents, etc. etc. He talks about living your life largely as it was before you became a Christian, just now without the sin. He calls it staying in the calling in which you were called, or something like that. In other words, he never said everyone has to be some big evangelist.

What epistle can you show me where Paul berates the congregation for not doing HIS job for him?  Paul was an evangelist, he was a missionary, he spent his life going out and establishing churches and making converts.  So did his associates, like Titus, but they never told the churches that this is the job of everyone or berated the people for not being able to be “missional” and always have tons of conversions going on in their absence. In fact, if you read carefully, you’ll find all the churches in the New Testament (on which we have any kind of information, aside from Rome, since it was the capital of the world) were pretty small, a collection of one or two, maybe three families. And Paul doesn’t get on their case for not growing numerically…..because that’s his job, not theirs.  This is a point that needs to seriously be considered.

So the next time you’re at church, and the preacher berates the congregation on how its not growing and its YOUR fault, i.e. the congregation’s fault, but yes, YOURS in particular, for not doing “enough”….ask him…not, “why aren’t you doing your job? Its your job to grow the church, preacher, or pastor, etc.” because I’m sure he hears that a lot anyway, but ask him “Please show me book chapter and verse where Paul ever preached anything like this. Please show me where Paul takes the Corinthians to task, for instance, for not doing enough to evangelize.”  I think I may actually do this myself, because I want to see their flustered look on one of the “everyone has to be a big evangelist like Paul” pushers’ faces.

Clouds behind the moon…AND…unilluminated part of moon is transparent???

Every since Argo posted a post on how stupid he thought the flat earth conspiracy theory was, I’ve been watching a ton of videos on it on youtube. But also I’ve started paying attention to the moon nightly. I’ve noticed clouds behind the moon….AND….that the unilluminated part of the moon looks transparent, in that at night its black and during the day its blue, same color as the sky.  So it got me wondering, if clouds go behind the moon when its not a full moon (i’ve so far only seen them myself, that I can remember, behind a FULL moon) then would the unilluminated part of the moon really be transparent? would the clouds behind the moon be visible through that blue spot on the moon?  So I scowered youtube to see if there was a video showing such a thing, and there is.

Warning, the guy uses the F-word several times and the N-word in his sign off phrase. But you don’t need the sound on to enjoy this awesome quirk of nature that totally proves NASA and Science are full of crap.  ENJOY!!!!

My new satellite has discovered an earth-like planet! See the stunning new pics! TWO!!!!!

Its only been about an hour since my last post (My new satellite has discovered an earth-like planet! See the stunning new pics!) and already my new satellite (Brainerdnik1) has discovered not one but TWO new earth-like planets with breathable atmosphere!  We can live there! We can literally go live there! like literally!!!!!

Zebra-earth

Zebra Earth with Zebra Moon, both inhabited by Zebra People

No lions allowed. Sorry Cecil.

moving-clouds

Toxic Future Earth with “don’t tread on me” graffiti on the moon….see we really did get to the moon! (observe that the clouds have moved between the first and second image)

My satellite jumped 50 billion years into the future to get that one! But don’t worry, in about 3 hours it should make it back through the black hole to our timeline so we can keep finding new earth-like planets.  Next time we’ll probably find some SUPER EARTHS!

Wow this is exciting!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.