What's the moral difference?

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

god-free ,can you begin a new thread,one that makes a little bit more sense.

For me it's never been that rewarding debating atheists, it always come down to :he said, she said.

And ,it's not a matter of winning or losing ,but did we communicate our thoughts and beliefs or did we fail...

that's why you need to clarify ..

What part of our conversation are you having trouble understanding?

[Christodoulos]

Originally Posted by God-free

What part of our conversation are you having trouble understanding?

The part where you define morality.

May I ask this question... Do you believe that Gay sex is the moral equivalent of hetero sex.

please answer with a simple yes or no to begin,
and then start your explanation.

I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .

[God-free]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

The part where you define morality.

I don’t recall giving a definition of morality. Morality refers to the judgment of the goodness or badness* of human action and character as they relate to accepted/acceptable standards or conduct.

*Goodness and badness are more difficult to define because everyone seems to have their own ideas of what they mean. I tend to rely on reason to determine if something is good/right/beneficial or bad/wrong/harmful.

May I ask this question... Do you believe that Gay sex is the moral equivalent of hetero sex.

please answer with a simple yes or no to begin,
and then start your explanation.

Yes, and this is why:
The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.

I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .

What makes you think that? Are you under the impression that ****sexual believers don’t exist? I know for a fact that they do. What about substance abusers, adulterers, thieves, liars, murderers, etc.? Are they all atheists, too?
It doesn’t appear you’ve given any serious thought to this.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Christodoulos

"Yes, and this is why:
The sexual acts performed between consenting adults is none of my business. It doesn’t matter if those involved are ****sexual or heterosexual. As long as they aren’t involving anyone else who is unwilling or unable to give consent, then no moral ***essment is even necessary.

I'm convinced that in today's world, ****s are embracing atheism for no other reason but to grant themselves a license to commit perversions .
<snip>

EXACTLY!

The reason for that is because atheism is 100% relativistic. Logically speaking, atheism MUST be wishy-washy because to admit to any absolute truth, there MUST then be something greater than one's self who would be the One who establishes the absolutes. This is therefore the Achilles Heel of atheism, and it is the skeleton in the closet of every atheist. They really cannot escape that conundrum.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by God-free

Hiya Mac! Long time no "see".

Yup. long time no typo

Interesting. Although, one could look at it as a lose-win situation for you. Sure, you’ve been victimized and lost whatever cash you had in your wallet but you did come out of it with your life.

Except the money the robber took from me was the money I was going to pay my loan shark off with and now he's after me....

I won’t get into the part about whether or not the robber wouldn’t want to leave a witness because that strays outside of the parameters of the OP. And, since you’ve called the offender a “sinning robber”, I think it’s safe to say that you and I agree that what the robber did is immoral.

For now I will stipulate.

That’s one way to look at it but it doesn’t quite p*** muster. Each scenario presents very similar ultimatums.

To me they are very different, The robber will take my life as I know it. God offers me a choice in something which I cannot see after I live out my natural life.

Just like the robber, God said he wanted something and that if he didn’t get it he’d inflict harm on the person. In applying your view to the OP, the way I see it, God isn’t warning you that “the bridge is out ahead”. What he is doing is threatening to take the bridge out from under you if you don't go his way.

The bridge is out for all beyond the bend which we cannot see and not by God's doing. It is a chasm that not not even the Dukes of Hazard can jump in their souped up charger. God warns the bridge is out but there is another way.

This is something I’d prefer to discuss in the other thread, if you don’t mind. I try not to, but I’ve already managed to allow myself to get into off-topic discussions with 2 others in this thread.

We can do that in another thread if you like but it is germane to the discussion of whether God warned or caused the the bridge to be out.

I’d be happy to discuss this with you, and I don’t mind doing it in an open thread so that others can read it and join in if they want to. Post a thread and I’ll respond when I’m able.

I appreciate your openness about that.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by MacG

Except the money the robber took from me was the money I was going to pay my loan shark off with and now he's after me....

LOL!

For now I will stipulate.

For now?

To me they are very different, The robber will take my life as I know it. God offers me a choice in something which I cannot see after I live out my natural life.

Is the robber’s gun loaded? The OP doesn’t say one way or the other. They both gave you a choice that promises something which you cannot see (i.e. a bullet from one; a terrible afterlife from the other). They both used coercion as a way to attain their goals.
I know it’s uncomfortable for believers to admit, but there is no moral difference between the two scenarios as they‘re presented. I think your God gl***es are obstructing your view.
The following is a joke but it’s accurate and it's what this thread is about:

Knock knock

Q. Who’s there?

A. It’s Jesus. Let me in.

Q. Why?

A. So I can save you.

Q. From what?

A. From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in.

The bridge is out for all beyond the bend which we cannot see and not by God's doing. It is a chasm that not not even the Dukes of Hazard can jump in their souped up charger. God warns the bridge is out but there is another way.

Humorous though it is, this is preaching and doesn’t address the point that God uses coercion in the same way the robber does.

We can do that in another thread if you like but it is germane to the discussion of whether God warned or caused the the bridge to be out.

“The Garden scene” has no relevance to this thread’s topic.

I appreciate your openness about that.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by God-free

LOL!

For now?

just keeping my options open

Is the robber’s gun loaded? The OP doesn’t say one way or the other

The premise that my life is on the line as he says he will kill me. It is most believable as he has put tangible metal to my head. I have much to lose, my family has much to lose. The OP says he WILL kill me.

They both gave you a choice that promises something which you cannot see (i.e. a bullet from one; a terrible afterlife from the other). They both used coercion as a way to attain their goals.

What are their goals the OP does not say. I can infer that the robber's goal is self interest in attaining my cash and a callous disregard for my life. What is God's goal? What is His regard for my life?

I know it’s uncomfortable for believers to admit, but there is no moral difference between the two scenarios as they‘re presented. I think your God gl***es are obstructing your view.
The following is a joke but it’s accurate and it's what this thread is about:

Knock knock

Q. Who’s there?

A. It’s Jesus. Let me in.

Q. Why?

A. So I can save you.

Q. From what?

A. From what I’m going to do to you if you don’t let me in.

I think part of the difficulty is that the OP is missing information. To compare apples to apples, wouldn't the robber have to first make the money that he requires available to me?

Humorous though it is, this is preaching and doesn’t address the point that God uses coercion in the same way the robber does.

Let me rephrase. The bridge is out for the victim in the OP.

“The Garden scene” has no relevance to this thread’s topic.

It really does when one allows views the forest rather than insisting on keeping to a single tree. The number 23 is just a number but its' context tells whether it's dollars or doughnuts or a number in a combination lock and the Garden scene tells us whether God held a gun to their head or warned them of the consequences of their actions.

[/QUOTE]

[God-free]

Originally Posted by MacG

The premise that my life is on the line as he says he will kill me. It is most believable as he has put tangible metal to my head. I have much to lose, my family has much to lose. The OP says he WILL kill me.

The OP says he’ll shoot you. Maybe you’ll die, maybe you won’t, or maybe the gun is empty and he’s just using it to frighten you. Regardless, it’s the the threat to your well-being that matters here.

What are their goals the OP does not say.

Their goals are stated in the OP. The robber wants your money and God wants you to place all of your trust in him.

I can infer that the robber's goal is self interest in attaining my cash and a callous disregard for my life. What is God's goal? What is His regard for my life?

Whether or not either of them has any regard for your life is not the point. However, one could argue, and I would, that neither has much, if any, regard for your life/well-being. The robber probably doesn't know or care about you. And God, who is said to love humanity, is willing to send you to a place of torment.

I think part of the difficulty is that the OP is missing information. To compare apples to apples, wouldn't the robber have to first make the money that he requires available to me?

No. Why would he? He’d be aware that it’s not uncommon for people to carry money with them (or, at least, something of monetary value). Similarly, God would know that people have the capacity to trust, even when they have no valid reason to do so.

Let me rephrase. The bridge is out for the victim in the OP.

Who’s responsible for taking out the bridge/creating the place of torment in the first place? Let me try to put it another way:

What would your reaction be if you found out that your best friend, who loves his children, built a torture chamber in his basement for the purposes of “punishing” his kids if they don’t respect him as he thinks they should? I imagine you’d be shocked and appalled by it. But, for some reason, if God does basically the same thing, believers are okay with that. It’s mind-boggling to me.

It really does when one allows views the forest rather than insisting on keeping to a single tree. The number 23 is just a number but its' context tells whether it's dollars or doughnuts or a number in a combination lock and the Garden scene tells us whether God held a gun to their head or warned them of the consequences of their actions.

Okay. Go ahead and tell me how you think it’s relevant and we’ll see where it leads. I suspect I already know.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by God-free

The OP says he’ll shoot you. Maybe you’ll die, maybe you won’t, or maybe the gun is empty and he’s just using it to frighten you. Regardless, it’s the the threat to your well-being that matters here.

"If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you."...in the head. Let's see give money and live, don't give money and die. Then again as hard headed as I am it'd prolly ricochet back at the robber and get him instead.

Their goals are stated in the OP. The robber wants your money and God wants you to place all of your trust in him.

They both are warning me based on my choice that I may die or live. It is up to me to chose life.

Whether or not either of them has any regard for your life is not the point. However, one could argue, and I would, that neither has much, if any, regard for your life/well-being. The robber probably doesn't know or care about you. And God, who is said to love humanity, is willing to send you to a place of torment.

As stated above, he also makes a way to avoid it as well.

No. Why would he? He’d be aware that it’s not uncommon for people to carry money with them (or, at least, something of monetary value). Similarly, God would know that people have the capacity to trust, even when they have no valid reason to do so.

It is one way these scenarios are different to me, not preaching just explaining my filters: God sent the Lamb of God as the Supreme sacrifice to ensure a way out for me. You no doubt have heard of the Judge who found his friend before his bench. The Judge fined him as the law required but took off his robe and paid the fine.

Who’s responsible for taking out the bridge

I am for me.

/creating the place of torment in the first place?

God. Have you read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis?

Let me try to put it another way:

What would your reaction be if you found out that your best friend, who loves his children, built a torture chamber in his basement for the purposes of “punishing” his kids if they don’t respect him as he thinks they should? I imagine you’d be shocked and appalled by it

.

I'd probably get the authorities involved.

But, for some reason, if God does basically the same thing, believers are okay with that. It’s mind-boggling to me.

Okay with it? It is a grievous thing to me.

Okay. Go ahead and tell me how you think it’s relevant and we’ll see where it leads. I suspect I already know.

What happens to me is the result of my choice to eat anything I want in the fridge but nothing from under the sink. Eat from the fridge and live, eat from under the sink and die. Give the robber money I live to only die later, give God my life (die to self, live for others), only to die later but have the promise of eternal life. All my choice - as I see it.

MacG

[God-free]

Originally Posted by MacG

"If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you."...in the head. Let's see give money and live, don't give money and die. Then again as hard headed as I am it'd prolly ricochet back at the robber and get him instead.

If you give “it” to God, he’ll take you to heaven. If you don’t, he’ll send you to hell. No difference.

They both are warning me based on my choice that I may die or live. It is up to me to chose life.

Of course, your choices are yours to make. But, I’m not asking what choice you would make, and I’m not asking what your reasons for making it would be. The main area of concern (which I’ve stated repeatedly and which everyone here is skirting) is on the coerciveness of each proposition (i.e. Do this or I‘ll hurt you).

As stated above, he also makes a way to avoid it as well.

So does the robber.

It is one way these scenarios are different to me, not preaching just explaining my filters: God sent the Lamb of God as the Supreme sacrifice to ensure a way out for me.

The robber, also, may have chosen not to load the gun so he wouldn’t have to risk actually killing you.
I’ll leave the scapegoat discussion for another time.

You no doubt have heard of the Judge who found his friend before his bench. The Judge fined him as the law required but took off his robe and paid the fine.

I’m not familiar with that story. Do you have a link?

I am for me.

You’re responsible for your own actions. That’s true. Do you, or does anyone, deserve eternal torment for finite “crimes”? Is that just?

God.

And he’d have no qualms about sending you, and most of humanity, there. That’s monstrous.

Have you read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis?

No.

I'd probably get the authorities involved.

I would hope so, buy why would you? Isn’t your best friend doing virtually the same thing that God does/will do?

Okay with it? It is a grievous thing to me.

If you think it’s a just punishment, then you’re okay with it.

What happens to me is the result of my choice to eat anything I want in the fridge but nothing from under the sink. Eat from the fridge and live, eat from under the sink and die.

As an adult, you know what’s under the sink will probably kill you if you ingest it. Adam and Eve would have been, presumably, child-like in their thinking. That makes a difference, doesn't it? I think it does.

Give the robber money I live to only die later, give God my life (die to self, live for others), only to die later but have the promise of eternal life. All my choice - as I see it.

MacG

In terms of an afterlife, if such a thing were real, it wouldn’t make a difference if you gave the money to the robber and died later vs. not giving him the money and dying now.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by God-free

If you give “it” to God, he’ll take you to heaven. If you don’t, he’ll send you to hell. No difference.

I read a book awhile ago called "The Singer" It is more a poetic narrative than a novel by Calvin Miller. In it was a line that rang true to me "Would you ever send me to hell?" "No. But if you should choose to I could not stop you."

Of course, your choices are yours to make. But, I’m not asking what choice you would make, and I’m not asking what your reasons for making it would be. The main area of concern (which I’ve stated repeatedly and which everyone here is skirting) is on the coerciveness of each proposition (i.e. Do this or I‘ll hurt you).

Another part of what makes this so difficult is that scene is so tightly framed that it does not allow other facets such as aforementioned motives. If all there is is what you present without taking anything else into account like a Judge barring evidence because of the poisoned tree doctrine then God and the robber are equals in every way. But you ask us to make a moral judgement without knowing the morality of the players. This seems like a hobson's choice or a straw man to me.

So does the robber.

The robber, also, may have chosen not to load the gun so he wouldn’t have to risk actually killing you.
I’ll leave the scapegoat discussion for another time.

Like you said, it is not germane what he has in his gun it is what he made me believe.

I’m not familiar with that story. Do you have a link?

I had it always heard it as a story, a modern allegory but I wondered if maybe what I had heard was a retold story based in reality. That has not yet turned out to be true but I found this:

http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/...s-womans-fine/ and there are other as well.

You’re responsible for your own actions. That’s true. Do you, or does anyone, deserve eternal torment for finite “crimes”? Is that just?

And he’d have no qualms about sending you, and most of humanity, there. That’s monstrous.

How do you know whether he has qualms or not?

No.

Interesting read about fic***ious folks who have made their choice.

Ever read 'Mere Christianity'?

I would hope so, buy why would you? Isn’t your best friend doing virtually the same thing that God does/will do?

Since we no nothing of the morality of the players it is hard to say.

If you think it’s a just punishment, then you’re okay with it.

If it is just then I am ok with it, if it is not I am not.

You may find my following at***ude appalling. I lost my mom when I was 15 and my Dad when I was 18. By the time I was 18 I had committed my life to Christ. As I thought about it became worried about my parents spiritually - were they in heaven or hell?!! I began to fear for them actually. What if they did not have the chance to make their choice? What if?!! It was not until I settled on God's judgements are just that I realized that they would have had a chance to choose and it is my hope that they are with Him. I have to say that this is a faith/trust thang.

As an adult, you know what’s under the sink will probably kill you if you ingest it. Adam and Eve would have been, presumably, child-like in their thinking.

That was a throw back to an earlier reference I made about giving someone a choice between the two. 'Presumably' the one receiving the instruction would understand the consequences of which they were informed.

That makes a difference, doesn't it? I think it does.

It is interesting to me that you would think that they who were made in God's image were child like in there thinking. What makes you think so?

In terms of an afterlife, if such a thing were real, it wouldn’t make a difference if you gave the money to the robber and died later vs. not giving him the money and dying now.

As I said earlier, the Robber threatens that which I know and by virtue, threatens my family. God 'threatens' to use your term, to do something in the future life which I cannot see and no threat to my family.

[God-free]

Originally Posted by MacG

I read a book awhile ago called "The Singer" It is more a poetic narrative than a novel by Calvin Miller. In it was a line that rang true to me "Would you ever send me to hell?" "No. But if you should choose to I could not stop you."

If that makes sense to you then, if the robber did kill you for refusing to give him your money, his attorney could defend him against a charge of murder by claiming that you chose suicide. I don’t think a jury in the real world would fall for that, do you?

Another part of what makes this so difficult is that scene is so tightly framed that it does not allow other facets such as aforementioned motives. If all there is is what you present without taking anything else into account like a Judge barring evidence because of the poisoned tree doctrine then God and the robber are equals in every way. But you ask us to make a moral judgement without knowing the morality of the players.

I never implied they were equals in every way. I‘m only highlighting the similarities between their methods of operation. In that, they are equal.

Since you are really, really, intent on knowing their hypothetical motives, I’ll provide them for you, although I still maintain that they are irrelevant to the OP.
The robber’s motive is to help his buddy quickly make up the shortfall on his rent in order to avoid an imminent eviction.
God’s motive is what it always is--to get whatever results in his own pleasure and glory.

... This seems like a hobson's choice or a straw man to me.

It isn’t a straw man to you unless I’ve misrepresented your arguments and then argued against those false arguments. I don’t think I’ve done that but, if you think I did, please point it out for me.
It isn’t a Hobson’s choice either because neither the robber or God is telling you “this is your only option; take it or leave it.” They’re saying, “do this or I’ll hurt you.”

Like you said, it is not germane what he has in his gun it is what he made me believe.

Right. I was merely pointing out that the robber may have also “ensured a way out for [you]” as you said God had done.

I had it always heard it as a story, a modern allegory but I wondered if maybe what I had heard was a retold story based in reality. That has not yet turned out to be true but I found this:

http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/...s-womans-fine/ and there are other as well.

Much of the story, at the link you provided, has been edited out. The embedded link, within the article, goes to a site where the item is “Not found.”

How do you know whether he has qualms or not?

The God character in the Bible demonstrates, over and over again, that he has no qualms/misgivings about hurting/killing people when he doesn‘t get his way. It stands to reason, he would send people to hell without compunction.

Interesting read about fic***ious folks who have made their choice.

Ever read 'Mere Christianity'?

No. But, I’ve heard Lewis’ lord, lunatic, or liar argument.

Since we no nothing of the morality of the players it is hard to say.

If your friend has a torture chamber in his basement to be used to punish his children, that should give you a clue about his morality.

If it is just then I am ok with it, if it is not I am not.

Why would you contact the authorities upon finding out your friend built a torture chamber in his basement for the purposes of “punishing” his kids if they don’t respect him as he thinks they should? Isn’t your friend doing virtually the same thing that God does/will do?

You may find my following at***ude appalling. I lost my mom when I was 15 and my Dad when I was 18. By the time I was 18 I had committed my life to Christ. As I thought about it became worried about my parents spiritually - were they in heaven or hell?!! I began to fear for them actually. What if they did not have the chance to make their choice? What if?!! It was not until I settled on God's judgements are just that I realized that they would have had a chance to choose and it is my hope that they are with Him. I have to say that this is a faith/trust thang.

I don’t think you’re a bad person. I just think you’re willfully ignoring your own moral “measuring stick” whenever God “does something” that you‘d condemn if it were done by anyone else.

That was a throw back to an earlier reference I made about giving someone a choice between the two. 'Presumably' the one receiving the instruction would understand the consequences of which they were informed.

I wonder how many children are taken to the hospital each year because they didn’t heed the warnings from their parents about what will happen if they eat something they shouldn’t.

It is interesting to me that you would think that they who were made in God's image were child like in there thinking. What makes you think so?

For one, prior to the ‘event’ A&E were both naked and didn‘t notice. It wasn’t until after the ‘event’ that they realized that they were naked and covered themselves. God even asks them who told them they were naked. Secondly, neither of them knew anything about good and evil before they took that fatal bite. How could they know God would consider their disobedience to be as bad/evil as it turned out to be? This suggests to me that they possessed an innocence similar to that of a child at the time God warned them not to eat from that tree.

As I said earlier, the Robber threatens that which I know and by virtue, threatens my family. God 'threatens' to use your term, to do something in the future life which I cannot see and no threat to my family.

I was only pointing out that the afterlife would be there regardless of when or how you died. What you wrote made it sound like the timing of your death had some significance re the afterlife.

[John T]

Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

Of course, your choices are yours to make. But, I’m not asking what choice you would make, and I’m not asking what your reasons for making it would be. The main area of concern (which I’ve stated repeatedly and which everyone here is skirting) is on the coerciveness of each proposition (i.e. Do this or I‘ll hurt you).

The "coerciveness" you mention is a condition contrary to fact, and an absurdity.

That is because you fail to recognize the first and primary attribute of God, and that is love and then you exalt the primary condition of humanity, our sinfulness expressed as our free will to be absolute in our refusal to bow our knee before our Creator. You must see that God is not willing that anyone die, and be separated from Him at death, but He wants us to repent of our sins and stubborn pride so that we can enjoy heaven with Him.

You need to remember that God is very very patient, and is not willing that anyone die; it grieves Him, but He does draw the line, then He acts. He says that in Genesis. People now do not understand that before the Flood, there was a sophisticated civilization in existence. Before the Flood there were iron workers, and bronze workers, This is significant because the "modern" iron age did not begin until c. 900 BC. It also says that there were musicians who handled the "harp and organ" or "lyre and panpipe". What is significant about this latter instrument is that its origins are attributed to Chinese, Grecian and Incan civilizations. The earliest Inca civilization we know about came about 1400 BC; Greece was resettled in the post-Mycenaean period, which was about 1100 to 600 BC. the historian Thucydides attributes the Doric invasion to be around 426 BC, the Mycenaean period. You should notice a relative consistency in these dates, all of which are post diluvian.

By definition, the accounts in Genesis 4, which testify of a high antediluvian civilization all speak of things commonly attributed to events happening 3000 years ago, during the first millennium BC. Additionally, since the late date of the Exodus is c.1250 BC Moses had to be writing a HISTORY, and was not creating an anachronistic statement when he wrote the about things that would be happening about 300 years in the future in three geographically diverse locations such as the Iron Age, and the pan flute.

Of course, I do not expect you to believe any of this because t seems to me that you have hardened your heart, refusing to believe anything about Bible is true. But IMHO that is a pre-condition born more from prejudice rather than knowledge: "Do this, or else I will hurt you."

In your prejudicial, pre-conditional beliefs you simply fail to recognize the MANY "second chances" that God gave to those who rebelled because their collective proclivity to express their independent free will by rebelling against the mercy of God. You see, God is more merciful than the state trooper who hands you a ticket for speeding. The signs are all posted, and you choose to drive at 72 MPH on the NYS Throughway and the signs uniformly state 65 MPH (except approaching the end in Buffalo) your stubborn rebellion earns you a fine and five points are ***essed upon your license (if you get 12 or 13 in a certain period, you loose your license for a year).

By having all those penalties in place, it is hoped that the next time you drive on the NYS Throughway you will drive slower.

But your false ****ogy makes God the "bad guy" when in the fact that He FIRST issues mercy, then he warns and warns (about 17 or more times) then He permits you to keep on doing your rebellious self-will because your heart has become habituated to sinning; then like the debt collector who places a lien on your home for non-payment of debt, God then permits you to reap the penalty of your self-willed rebellion upon your death. In both cases of accepting mercy and grace or in sinning and disgrace, YOU are in the "driver's seat" , and that is because of YOUR CHOICE exercising free will towards reward or punishment.

Your sinful self willed rejection of God may not catch up with you tomorrow, or next week, or next year, but be ***ured that eventually, just as the lien holder knows he will get his due, so also will happen to you if you stubbornly choose to reject God and his mercy. While you are alive, that chance to receive mercy still exists; then your soul must give an account before God. If you accept the mercy of God, and believe on Jesus Christ, then there will be no lien on your soul. If you do not, then the lien still will exist, and then you will have to pay it. Does it not make sense to have Someone else pay that lien on your soul? By accepting Jesus as Savior, the lien is lifted, and paid in full by Jesus.

Here it is, expressed in another manner:

2 Peter3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.