Who is judged?

I'm curious on your opinion of how someone who would be judged that suffered injury that caused permanent memory loss. Lets say someone got into a car accident at the age of 30 and woke up in a hospital with no memory of who they once were. From there on they had to relearn language and other secular concepts to function in society.

Now my question is who would be judged after the body dies? Would it be the person before or after the accident, considering the two have different personalities?

It is my belief that ones eternal salvation hinges on a belief and relationship with Jesus Christ and His judgment for our sins. If the person prior to their accident made a commitment to accept Jesus then he escapes judgment upon death as do all believers living in this age of grace. If he does not understand the concept of salvation after the accident, he is still covered by the grace of our Lord. If he did not accept Christ prior to the accident but did afterward, he is saved.

In ancient Egypt the heart was weighed.
Pre Christian weight watchers.

The answer is neither.

Nobody gets judged. It's all rubbish and infantile superstition invented as a control system for the gullible by the church in ancient times.

To simplify, it's a scam, it was always a scam. There is no God heaven or jesus or any of that pish.

A testament to the power of this system of lies is the degree that it is ingrained in society and how normal, sane, rational, scientific minds can still consider it to have some validity in the modern world.

If anyone is going to be judged it is the foolish who waste their time on religion who will be looked upon as moronic and stupid by future societies once this nonsense dies out.

reply to post by angus1745


So, this is your belief? Or you have conclusive evidence to what you are asserting? Would love to see some sources if the latter is the case.

It is not the man who is judged but the Soul of the man that is judged.

Same man, same soul.

Just because you have been in a coma, wakeup with no memory, does not mean that your soul is different.

reply to post by Ralphy

Now my question is who would be judged after the body dies? Would it be the person before or after the accident, considering the two have different personalities?

Perhaps, God knows best the person involved in the accident?.....and can therefore be the best to judge him?

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by angus1745

 

So, this is your belief? Or you have conclusive evidence to what you are asserting? Would love to see some sources if the latter is the case.

It is not only my belief, it is the way things are. My sources are all the laws of physics and most scientific discoveries made over the last 100 years.

I know they are insignificant next to the power of a 2000 year old badly-translated work of fiction. Call me picky I just prefer to believe in REAL THINGS. Not hooey about omnipotent supernatural entities that will 'judge' you when you die. I'd believe in Santa before I believed all that 'Jesus' baloney. It is so ridiculous.

If it was treated as what it now only is, i.e. a nice set of traditions and rules to live by then it would be fine. It's this rabid belief in what amounts to fairy stories that is just so out of place in this day and age.

Originally posted by angus1745

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by angus1745

 

So, this is your belief? Or you have conclusive evidence to what you are asserting? Would love to see some sources if the latter is the case.

It is not only my belief, it is the way things are. My sources are all the laws of physics and most scientific discoveries made over the last 100 years.

I know they are insignificant next to the power of a 2000 year old badly-translated work of fiction. Call me picky I just prefer to believe in REAL THINGS. Not hooey about omnipotent supernatural entities that will 'judge' you when you die. I'd believe in Santa before I believed all that 'Jesus' baloney. It is so ridiculous.

If it was treated as what it now only is, i.e. a nice set of traditions and rules to live by then it would be fine. It's this rabid belief in what amounts to fairy stories that is just so out of place in this day and age.

So then the hooey that you ascribe to is that everything in the universe is the result of pure statistical happenstance without any intelligent design. That these laws of physics and scientific discoveries you speak of just developed from nothing that exploded into being 14 billion years ago?

Also, if it were just a set of rules to live by and there is no God, then, logic begs the question, why live by that set of rules? How can one establish a standard without there existing a perfect standard to measure it against. That would equate to measuring things in inches while denying that rulers exist.

reply to post by angus1745

May I first say that I am not writing to convert you or push my ideas on you, I want you to push your ideas on me. Primarily your belief that science and specifically, physics, prove there is no God.

What branch of physics or experiment proves there is no God? Studies in gravity? The propagation of light waves? The discovery that sub-atomic particles can be broken into smaller particles? I'd really like to know.

I'm curious because I always thought that God was outside of science, in the sense that none of the instruments that science uses can enter His domain. You can't weigh Him, or measure His electrical conductivity. As far as I know, science has given up trying to figure out how the first particle or energy field was created.

Of course there's more to talk about in your post, but I'm really fascinated by how you can have knowledge that God doesn't exist.

On this subject, I believe Christopher Hitchens phrased it best.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Since the believers in "God" can assert his existence without any evidence, I can dismiss it without providing evidence.

Those who make the claim, have the burden of proof. Now, if you can submit to me concrete proof of a God, I will certainly evaluate it without bias. To this day, no such proof has been offered.

Edit: Corrected a mistyped word.

reply to post by Daemonicon


As has no proof been asserted to the big bang theory. So the playing field is level.

reply to post by micmerci


You are correct that no 100% solid evidence has been offered yet,(that is not to say there is NO proof, there, of course is) HOWEVER, that hasn't stopped science from investigating further. (I might direct you to the work being performed on/with the Large Hadron Collider, and pretty much any observatory) Based on the evidence known thus far, the Big Bang is the most likely scenario. (

reply to post by Daemonicon

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Isn't that a little subjective?
I mean, one might be convinced that organism "A" evolved into organism "B"... but what about someone who isn't? Does he get to apply the same Christopher Hitchens quote.... and dismiss the ToE?

What about Aliens/ETs and UFOs... I have not seen a single UFO or an alien being in my life.... So can I safely dismiss claims about Aliens visiting earth in their flying objects?

What do you think?

reply to post by Daemonicon


While I agree that science not having an answer does not attribute to the divine, it needs to follow that it cannot exclude the divine as well. As far as proof is concerned, either side cannot produce definitive proof without multiple, documented, eyewitness accounts. To date, I cannot find any written eyewitness accounts of the big bang theory. I can however find multiple, documented eyewitness accounts of a person who claims to have been in existence since the beginning.

It simply comes down to believing their account or not.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I admit that I am not a professional in this field, nor am I an expert. I can offer my viewpoints however.

On the first charge, I do not believe that you can dismiss the Theory of Evolution using this line because, whether someone wants to accept it or not, there is proof for evolution from one species to another.

On the second charge, yes you can. If someone claims that ETs have visited the Earth in one form or another, and does so without evidence, you are well within your right to dismiss it without evidence. Now, if someone did offer evidence to support it, and you are just unwilling to accept it, that is a different story.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by Daemonicon

 

While I agree that science not having an answer does not attribute to the divine, it needs to follow that it cannot exclude the divine as well. As far as proof is concerned, either side cannot produce definitive proof without multiple, documented, eyewitness accounts. To date, I cannot find any written eyewitness accounts of the big bang theory. I can however find multiple, documented eyewitness accounts of a person who claims to have been in existence since the beginning.

It simply comes down to believing their account or not.

I disagree. You will not find an eyewitness to the big bang...ever. The reason for this, is because it was a matter of millions of years before humans even existed. That is a bad way of looking at it. Granted, we cannot prove definitively the big bang, we have evidence to suggest that is what happened, and the expansion of space can help to show this.

From what source(s) are there eye witness accounts to the beginning? The only ones I can think of are religious texts. Before I can answer your question a bit more, I have to ask one of myself. To you, is the beginning that you refer to a matter of a few thousand years ago, or a few billion years? Once you answer that I can more accurately answer your questions. Sorry, I do hate answering a question with a questions, but in this case, more information is needed before I can offer any information.

reply to post by Daemonicon


I believe the crux of your question to me is do I support a young Earth theory. My answer is yes I do. Before I am branded a moronic fundamentalist, I would like for us to come to the agreement that there is a laundry list of assertions for both sides of the argument. We could spend the holiday debating them or we could establish that both sides believe what has been told to us by predecessors on either side of the issue.

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by angus1745

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by angus1745

 

So, this is your belief? Or you have conclusive evidence to what you are asserting? Would love to see some sources if the latter is the case.

So then the hooey that you ascribe to is that everything in the universe is the result of pure statistical happenstance without any intelligent design. That these laws of physics and scientific discoveries you speak of just developed from nothing that exploded into being 14 billion years ago?

Also, if it were just a set of rules to live by and there is no God, then, logic begs the question, why live by that set of rules? How can one establish a standard without there existing a perfect standard to measure it against. That would equate to measuring things in inches while denying that rulers exist.

Now you're getting the idea. It is just random natural events without intelligent design. Yes.

Those rules no longer really apply, as society and it's laws have taken their place with the same basic end result. One can see the merits of such a control system based on belief in something non-existant, back in the times when lawless uneducated and primitive cultures could easily be manipulated through fear by the educated and powerful.

The Church is not the controlling political entity it once was. The rules of Christianity are ingrained in our cultures as they have been for centuries but that is as far as it goes. We neither need to praise or fear being judged by something with as much basis in reality as the boogeyman or the tooth fairy.

Did the sun shine the same on the man before the accident, as it did after the accident?

We are all judged every day.

Everyday we are forgiven for the things we do.

God watches in hopes that we will catch on.

With Love,

Your Brother