On what basis should people be judged?

[David Gould]

Simple question. If we assume that there is an afterlife, and that there is a God who judges people, on what basis do you think a person should be judged?

I ask this question because for me the whole notion of judgment makes no sense. After all, would you judge someone on the basis of where life has led them to at the point of death? Isn't that arbitrary? Why not pick how they were 9 years prior to death, for example?

[seebs]

Is judgement even the right paradigm?

What is the difference between judgement and evaluation?

[Joykins]

Simple question. If we assume that there is an afterlife, and that there is a God who judges people, on what basis do you think a person should be judged?

I ask this question because for me the whole notion of judgment makes no sense. After all, would you judge someone on the basis of where life has led them to at the point of death? Isn't that arbitrary? Why not pick how they were 9 years prior to death, for example?

With love and mercy, based upon all available information (the person's character, intentions, love, deeds, influences, etc.).

[ksen]

Simple question. If we assume that there is an afterlife, and that there is a God who judges people, on what basis do you think a person should be judged?

I ask this question because for me the whole notion of judgment makes no sense. After all, would you judge someone on the basis of where life has led them to at the point of death? Isn't that arbitrary? Why not pick how they were 9 years prior to death, for example?

Since God is the Judge He should judge according to whatever standar He has set up.

In Christianity that standard is perfection.

[Danhalen]

In Christianity that standard is perfection.Then what is perfection?

[ksen]

In Christianity that standard is perfection.Then what is perfection?

God.

[Danhalen]

In Christianity that standard is perfection.Then what is perfection?God.Then if we all fall short of the glory of God, what is the point in judging any of us?

[ksen]

In Christianity that standard is perfection.Then what is perfection?God.Then if we all fall short of the glory of God, what is the point in judging any of us?

Do people falling short of a standard mean that standard should somehow be invalidated? An awful lot of people fail the goal of passing their first physical fitness test in basic training. Should the military have to scrap their PT standards?

The bigger question, in my mind, is since everyone falls short of the standard why does God save any?

[Danhalen]

Do people falling short of a standard mean that standard should somehow be invalidated? An awful lot of people fail the goal of passing their first physical fitness test in basic training. Should the military have to scrap their PT standards?No. I think your analogy is flawed. We're not talking about the miltary. We are talking about a being that is being described as "perfection." Since everything in existence is not perfect, save God, then nothing meets the standard. Therefore...

The bigger question, in my mind, is since everyone falls short of the standard why does God save any?...this question is exactly the problem. Gould's question remains valid.

[ksen]

Do people falling short of a standard mean that standard should somehow be invalidated? An awful lot of people fail the goal of passing their first physical fitness test in basic training. Should the military have to scrap their PT standards?No. I think your analogy is flawed. We're not talking about the miltary. We are talking about a being that is being described as "perfection." Since everything in existence is not perfect, save God, then nothing meets the standard. Therefore...

Well, isn't the universe (if it's closed) assumed to be in perfect equilibrium? What is not perfect about the universe?

There are affects from the Fall like sickness, disease, and death but isn't the Creation itself. . .perfect?

The bigger question, in my mind, is since everyone falls short of the standard why does God save any?...this question is exactly the problem. Gould's question remains valid.

What is Gould's question? (Please pardon my ignorance.)

[Columbus]

The bigger question, in my mind, is since everyone falls short of the standard why does God save any?Because God made us exactly the way we are, ignorant and prone to self-destructive behaviour. Some of us learn to do better from our human sources, but everyone will learn eventually, at least when they die. Basing a human's Eternal Reward on their few decades of thrashing around in ignorance here on earth is just goofy, IMHO. When someone insists that this is true, it makes all the rest of their personal beliefs look goofy to me also.
Tom

[Danhalen]

Well, isn't the universe (if it's closed) assumed to be in perfect equilibrium?No. The universe is thought to be expanding and closed, therefore it cannot be in perfect equilibrium.

What is not perfect about the universe?I do not understand the question. What can be perfect about the universe other than its "universeness." Of ourse, for the universe to have perfect "universeness," it must be the only universe. If it is not the only universe, it can only perfectly be "this universe." This only judges the qualities which make up "the universe" to those things which are "not the universe." For a thing to be perfect, it must have a referent to judge its qualities by.

There are affects from the Fall like sickness, disease, and death but isn't the Creation itself. . .perfect?It is perfectly itself. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean by this question.

What is Gould's question? (Please pardon my ignorance.)Doesn't the judgment by God, based on his perfection, seem arbitrary.

[ksen]

Well, isn't the universe (if it's closed) assumed to be in perfect equilibrium?No. The universe is thought to be expanding and closed, therefore it cannot be in perfect equilibrium.

What is not perfect about the universe?I do not understand the question. What can be perfect about the universe other than its "universeness." Of ourse, for the universe to have perfect "universeness," it must be the only universe. If it is not the only universe, it can only perfectly be "this universe." This only judges the qualities which make up "the universe" to those things which are "not the universe." For a thing to be perfect, it must have a referent to judge its qualities by.

There are affects from the Fall like sickness, disease, and death but isn't the Creation itself. . .perfect?It is perfectly itself. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean by this question.

Yeah, I'm not sure where I was going with that, nevermind.

What is Gould's question? (Please pardon my ignorance.)Doesn't the judgment by God, based on his perfection, seem arbitrary.

No, why should it?

If I posit a perfect, eternal, Creator God why should I assume that any standard He uses be arbitrary?

[Danhalen]

Doesn't the judgment by God, based on his perfection, seem arbitrary.

No, why should it?

If I posit a perfect, eternal, Creator God why should I assume that any standard He uses be arbitrary?Your question, "why is anyone saved" is the reason you ought to question whether or not God's judgment is arbitrary. What is the criterion by which God chooses which people will be saved, and which will not? The placement of this criterion seems to be arbitrary.

[gomichan]

The problem I have with this whole debate is the way 'judgement' is interpreted. I think that imagining a court-style judgement where one is determined to be innocent or guilty is excessively simplistic.

Whatever goes on in the mind of God, it must be timeless, whole, and made of perfect love. It's beyond our comprehension.

Which isn't to say there's no point talking about it. I just think that getting stuck on the cartoon image of somebody checking an account book at the Pearly Gates is not likely to lead to anywhere enlightening.

[Danhalen]

The problem I have with this whole debate is the way 'judgement' is interpreted. I think that imagining a court-style judgement where one is determined to be innocent or guilty is excessively simplistic.

Whatever goes on in the mind of God, it must be timeless, whole, and made of perfect love. It's beyond our comprehension.No matter how the interpretation of "judgment" is made, there is going to be an element of determining the merit or worth of something. Whether this judgment is made "perfect love" or not is irrelevant.

[gomichan]

No matter how the interpretation of "judgment" is made, there is going to be an element of determining the merit or worth of something. Whether this judgment is made "perfect love" or not is irrelevant.

That would be the case if the decision being made were binary. 'Good enough' or 'not good enough', 'innocent' or 'guilty'. Some folks here will tell me that's precisely the decision under discussion, and that it is binary. Saved or not-saved. But I do not believe it is.

For 'judged', substitute 'understood' and see how that sits. We will be / are / have always been fully understood. Our nature, our heart, all our decisions.

And if we, also, are eternal, then it doesn't make much sense to think that understanding only happens at the point when we happen to die.

Of course, I don't believe in Hell as The Spanking Room, either. A place where you 'go' to get punished -- no. Rather, I see it as a state of such fear and hatred and anger that being loved is unendurable. Haven't you ever known anyone like that? No one can fix it for them. They have to change it themselves.

(Before anyone points out scriptural references to the lake of fire and suchlike, I should let you know I see scripture as non-literal and filtered through human perceptions, so while such passages do give useful information, they don't convince me of the existence of a cosmic barbecue pit.)

[seebs]

No matter how the interpretation of "judgment" is made, there is going to be an element of determining the merit or worth of something. Whether this judgment is made "perfect love" or not is irrelevant.

I don't think so at all!

I am content to be judged in perfect love. I would be afraid of being judged by any other standard, but that one, I cannot fear.

[Gabriel]

Of course, I don't believe in Hell as The Spanking Room, either. A place where you 'go' to get punished -- no. Rather, I see it as a state of such fear and hatred and anger that being loved is unendurable. Haven't you ever known anyone like that?

I've met myself before.

No one can fix it for them. They have to change it themselves.

I agree with you. It's my constant job.

My belief about life tends to center around the idea that we are here to learn something and the lessons will continue until we learn it. As for what happens to people who never engage in any spiritual evolution while they're alive, I have no idea what happens to them.

My sole hope is that after I shuffle off this mortal coil, I will be allowed to rest for a while before being taught anything else.

[Lanakila]

The Christian idea that you are judged on beliefs and not works is rather offensive. To think that Hitler could have begged forgiveness at the end of his life and go to heaven, while a child over a certain age living in India and because of that being a Hindu, goes to hell; is very offensive. I prefer to believe that if there is a hell its here on earth.

[seebs]

The Christian idea that you are judged on beliefs and not works is rather offensive. To think that Hitler could have begged forgiveness at the end of his life and go to heaven, while a child over a certain age living in India and because of that being a Hindu, goes to hell; is very offensive. I prefer to believe that if there is a hell its here on earth.

When it's put like that, it sounds sort of offensive.

However:
1. I think everyone does need forgiveness.
2. I cannot imagine a way to draw a line that says "but at this point, you cannot ask for forgiveness" that is not cruel.

The problem I have with it is just the assumption that the Hindu necessarily goes to Hell on the basis of abstract opinions. I don't have a basis for that.

[Danhalen]

That would be the case if the decision being made were binary. 'Good enough' or 'not good enough', 'innocent' or 'guilty'. Some folks here will tell me that's precisely the decision under discussion, and that it is binary. Saved or not-saved. But I do not believe it is.I don't think there is any decision being made, but that's another story. Why do you think it is not a binary decision?

For 'judged', substitute 'understood' and see how that sits. We will be / are / have always been fully understood. Our nature, our heart, all our decisions.This stands to reason if God is omniscient.

And if we, also, are eternal, then it doesn't make much sense to think that understanding only happens at the point when we happen to die.Then think of it as the verdict, and your life on earth has been the trial.

Of course, I don't believe in Hell as The Spanking Room, either. A place where you 'go' to get punished -- no. Rather, I see it as a state of such fear and hatred and anger that being loved is unendurable.You don't think being in such a state is just as horrible as being punished (if not moreso)?

Haven't you ever known anyone like that? No one can fix it for them. They have to change it themselves.No. I have never known a person like this.

(Before anyone points out scriptural references to the lake of fire and suchlike, I should let you know I see scripture as non-literal and filtered through human perceptions, so while such passages do give useful information, they don't convince me of the existence of a cosmic barbecue pit.)As a side, if anyone does bring something scriptural up to support a pit of fire as a place of eternal torment, I would point out they, too, are using their own non-biblical interpretation.

[Danhalen]

I don't think so at all!

I am content to be judged in perfect love. I would be afraid of being judged by any other standard, but that one, I cannot fear.I do not understand the concept of perfect love in the role of "Judge." Well, I do not understand the concept of a perfect anything. I really wish this vestige of Helenist Christianity would go away.

[Lanakila]

The Christian idea that you are judged on beliefs and not works is rather offensive. To think that Hitler could have begged forgiveness at the end of his life and go to heaven, while a child over a certain age living in India and because of that being a Hindu, goes to hell; is very offensive. I prefer to believe that if there is a hell its here on earth.

When it's put like that, it sounds sort of offensive.

However:
1. I think everyone does need forgiveness.
2. I cannot imagine a way to draw a line that says "but at this point, you cannot ask for forgiveness" that is not cruel.

The problem I have with it is just the assumption that the Hindu necessarily goes to Hell on the basis of abstract opinions. I don't have a basis for that.

But the Calvinist and those that believe that those that don't ask God for forgiveness, believing certain things about Jesus; go to hell. I am telling you from experience that they have scriptural support for that belief. Especially if you follow the Romans road to lead people to salvation.

[seebs]

I am telling you from experience that they have scriptural support for that belief. Especially if you follow the Romans road to lead people to salvation.

I agree that they have support, but I think it evaporates with study that isn't built around a careful filter to exclude any hints to the contrary, and redefine terms in terms of post-Enlightenment views.

[seebs]

I do not understand the concept of perfect love in the role of "Judge." Well, I do not understand the concept of a perfect anything. I really wish this vestige of Helenist Christianity would go away.

Heh. I'm not sure I understand it, but... I think that perfect love implies some level of acceptance or understanding, no grudges, etcetera. This is a good standard to judge by.

[Danhalen]

Heh. I'm not sure I understand it, but... I think that perfect love implies some level of acceptance or understanding, no grudges, etcetera. This is a good standard to judge by.I'm not sure I get this at all. It seems you are describing "perfect love" as "empathetic disinterest," which seems to be paradoxical. I agree with gomichan when he/she(?) says that "judge" may be an inappropriate term precisely because we have entered into a definition of God which is "perfect love." We already know love does not judge. We know this from the same collection of stories in which we learn God is the ultimate judge and where we learn "God is love."

Too many contradictory definitions.

[seebs]

Agreed that there are many conflicting definitions.

I have known people who convinced me that it was possible for someone to be in a state which precluded experiencing love in a positive way. I am not sure how they can get out of it.

[gomichan]

I don't think there is any decision being made, but that's another story. Why do you think it is not a binary decision?

For the sake of discussion, we're taking it as given that God exists and the scriptures mentioning judgment or sorting have some meaning. I'm cool with knowing that, for you, it's a pure hypothetical. :)

I don't think it's a binary decision because that doesn't fit with my view of salvation as ongoing and religion as a path. A binary decision, especially one which occurred at one point in time rather than being continuous, is simply too human an idea. I'm aware I'm not explaining this well; I'll think on it and try to come up with a better way to put it.

Then think of it as the verdict, and your life on earth has been the trial.

But that's precisely the binary I'm saying doesn't fit the paradigm. Nor does the image of a test, in which at some arbitrary point the proctor tells you, "Turn over your papers, you're done," fit it.

You don't think being in such a state is just as horrible as being punished (if not moreso)?

Absolutely. But there's no way to change such a person from the outside without removing free will, which would pretty much invalidate humanity's existence. If we're eternal, however, our free will is also eternal; no one could be 'frozen' in that horrible state and still be an eternal soul. Again, a temporal point after which no change is possible doesn't make sense.

No. I have never known a person like this.

It's rare, but I've seen it. It's painful to watch.

As a side, if anyone does bring something scriptural up to support a pit of fire as a place of eternal torment, I would point out they, too, are using their own non-biblical interpretation.

Why do you say 'non-biblical' interpretation? I'd think any interpretation of the bible would be by definition a biblical interpretation. Or are you saying no interpretation of scripture is fully correct? That, I'd agree with.

[David Gould]

Seebs,

I too have known people who I felt were beyond helping, so to speak. However, were they always that way? How about when they were 13? In other words, I am questioning how a process - us - can be judged by where it ceases. Why not judge it by where it started from?

There is a cool Red Dwarf episode where an insane robot judges the whole crew, with the intention to eliminate from reality those who fail the test. Rimmer and the Cat pass. Lister and Kryton fail. (Of course, if you do not know the show, this is pretty meaningless - suffice to say, Rimmer was a horrible and useless individual and the Cat was purely interested in himself. Lister and Kryton were much better people than RImmer and the Cat.)

The point was that the insane robot judged them on how well they had lived up to their potential. Rimmer and the Cat were the best people that they could be, given what life had thrown to them. Lister and Kryton had not fulfilled their potential, and so failed the test.

But even this was arbitrary. Kryton was a robot. Before Lister helped him break his programming, he was the best that he could be. If he had been judged back then, he would have passed the test. But he was judged at an arbitrary point in his existence at which he did have more options open to him.[/i]

[seebs]

I too have known people who I felt were beyond helping, so to speak. However, were they always that way? How about when they were 13? In other words, I am questioning how a process - us - can be judged by where it ceases. Why not judge it by where it started from?

A friend of mine pointed out that it's always a problem to dismiss someone as beyond hope, or say that the Spirit is not with someone, because you never know what God had to work with.

That said: What if "judgement" is the wrong model?

What if the question is not "should I punish you for touching red hot metal" but "what will happen to you now that you are touching red hot metal"?

There is a cool Red Dwarf episode where an insane robot judges the whole crew, with the intention to eliminate from reality those who fail the test. Rimmer and the Cat pass. Lister and Kryton fail. (Of course, if you do not know the show, this is pretty meaningless - suffice to say, Rimmer was a horrible and useless individual and the Cat was purely interested in himself. Lister and Kryton were much better people than RImmer and the Cat.)

But the Cat looks fine, which I think makes up for a lot.

The point was that the insane robot judged them on how well they had lived up to their potential. Rimmer and the Cat were the best people that they could be, given what life had thrown to them. Lister and Kryton had not fulfilled their potential, and so failed the test.

Doesn't sound very insane.

In fact, this is one of the reasons I tend not to be very fond of trying to judge people. Hitler's the popular example. There's a novel that I've been told about (yet not seen) in which Hitler managed to get a job doing art. What would he have been like? Would he have become the person so hated and feared that you can't even hope to have a serious discussion referring to him?

For all we know, Hitler's regime was the result of a heroic effort by a very damaged man to overcome his hatred, and had he given up and gone with his impulses, it would have been worse.

But even this was arbitrary. Kryton was a robot. Before Lister helped him break his programming, he was the best that he could be. If he had been judged back then, he would have passed the test. But he was judged at an arbitrary point in his existence at which he did have more options open to him.[/i]

Yup!

I tend to view this in terms of how we try to change, not in terms of how well we do.

[David Gould]

With regard to the hot metal thing, it is still arbitrary. For example, the guy at 13 might not have been touching hot metal. By the time he dies, he is. And he suffers the consequences of that.

However, if he had died at 13, he would not have.

Similarly, a person who is touching hot metal at 30 will not suffer the consequences if the stop touching it before they die.

The whole set up is the problem. If there is free will, death basically occurs at random.


I like the Hitler thing. My thinking is that if I was born in Germany (outside of Berlin) in 1910, I cannot see how it is likely that I would not have been a Nazi in 1936 and beyond.

[seebs]

It's the apparent arbitrariness of death that makes me tend to assume some combination of continued change after death, and/or the notion that the outward expression may not be the reality.

It may be that a person who, to us, seems hateful, is in fact doing his best to love, and when freed from the imposition of instinct and brain function, takes to it like a fish to water.

[Danhalen]

Sorry I took so long to respond. Why do you think it is not a binary decision?I don't think it's a binary decision because that doesn't fit with my view of salvation as ongoing and religion as a path. A binary decision, especially one which occurred at one point in time rather than being continuous, is simply too human an idea. I'm aware I'm not explaining this well; I'll think on it and try to come up with a better way to put it.Is it correct to say you see humans as spiritual beings on a path (religion etc. being the path), and that we are continually evolving spiritually? There is no judgment, only continual growth in our understanding in accordance with where God would like us to go? At no point in our travel does God stop us, and determine which path we will be given? God allows us to be our own judge (for lack of a better word)?

Then think of it as the verdict, and your life on earth has been the trial.But that's precisely the binary I'm saying doesn't fit the paradigm. Nor does the image of a test, in which at some arbitrary point the proctor tells you, "Turn over your papers, you're done," fit it.If there is no point at which a final decision is made, is there ever a terminus on the path we choose? Do we eternally wander down our chosen path as spiritual beings?

You don't think being in such a state is just as horrible as being punished (if not moreso)?Absolutely. But there's no way to change such a person from the outside without removing free will, which would pretty much invalidate humanity's existence. If we're eternal, however, our free will is also eternal; no one could be 'frozen' in that horrible state and still be an eternal soul. Again, a temporal point after which no change is possible doesn't make sense.Is it then possible a spiritual being could enter into such a state of hellish existence after passing from this life into the next existence?

No. I have never known a person like this.It's rare, but I've seen it. It's painful to watch.I can only imagine. I've seen what I believe to be a person on the brink of such an existence, but we were lucky to bring her back.

As a side, if anyone does bring something scriptural up to support a pit of fire as a place of eternal torment, I would point out they, too, are using their own non-biblical interpretation.Why do you say 'non-biblical' interpretation? I'd think any interpretation of the bible would be by definition a biblical interpretation. Or are you saying no interpretation of scripture is fully correct? That, I'd agree with.I'm saying anytime anyone reads the Bible they necessarily interpret the scripture with their own extra-biblical baggage and desires. This does not preclude the "no one interpretation is correct" position.

[gomichan]

Is it correct to say you see humans as spiritual beings on a path (religion etc. being the path), and that we are continually evolving spiritually? There is no judgment, only continual growth in our understanding in accordance with where God would like us to go? At no point in our travel does God stop us, and determine which path we will be given? God allows us to be our own judge (for lack of a better word)?

Yes. I'd even say God requires us to be our own judge. One evidence of this is that Jesus didn't give us a long list of rules to cover every conceivable situation, but rather replaced the law with a simple command to love. He spoke in parables and metaphors, and was rarely unambiguous. I don't think that was an accident. I think He did it very deliberately to force us to think and make decisions, evolve and grow, rather than check off boxes on a little checklist without being spiritually engaged.

If there is no point at which a final decision is made, is there ever a terminus on the path we choose? Do we eternally wander down our chosen path as spiritual beings?

Well, now we're getting into purely speculative territory. Perhaps all things are revealed; with perfect understanding, would we continue to travel? Perhaps we go back around for another go; reincarnation is not an unheard-of belief among Jews. What I don't think we do is freeze into a will-less snapshot of our state at the moment of death.



Is it then possible a spiritual being could enter into such a state of hellish existence after passing from this life into the next existence?

Again, I'm out in speculation-land here. But it seems to follow that the answer would depend on whether one is still having new experiences. If everything is perfectly revealed, and a person finds the universe intolerable even when they fully understand it, then they'd be pretty much stuck. Whereas if, for instance, they're reborn, or there's a world outside flesh that we can't even imagine from here, then change is still possible.

Edit: I got your question sorta inside-out there. But the converse would also be equally true.

I'm saying anytime anyone reads the Bible they necessarily interpret the scripture with their own extra-biblical baggage and desires.

Quite true.

This does not preclude the "no one interpretation is correct" position.

Technically, no. But because there are as many interpretations as there are readers, and because it's not a test we're scored on or a checklist to fill out, perfect correctness isn't something you can do on purpose. It'd be more like the million Shakespeare monkeys thing. :D[/i]

[John.Kievlan]

Simple question. If we assume that there is an afterlife, and that there is a God who judges people, on what basis do you think a person should be judged?

I ask this question because for me the whole notion of judgment makes no sense. After all, would you judge someone on the basis of where life has led them to at the point of death? Isn't that arbitrary? Why not pick how they were 9 years prior to death, for example?

It certainly is arbitrary. However, that's only a problem if our moral culpability is not similarly arbitrary. In other words, if we postulate that our moral development proceeds along a path that is guided by God, and begins at conception and ends at death, in such a way that our state at death represents the entire moral development of which we were capable, then it becomes a little more reasonable to think that after death it's "too late" but beforehand we can always change.

Granted, that postulate is unacceptable to unbelievers like us, but many believers use it to make their beliefs coherent.