Existence of Hell

[Nowhere357]

I am new to this forum. I have many questions. I am not interested in hate or confrontation. I am sure my questions have been dealt with extensively already, so any advice on where to look for more information is appreciated.

I am a very spiritual person. I live in a xian society. I am confused as to WHY enlightened people are willing to worship the xian god. If the bible is true, then god sends people to hell, for ever, to suffer and suffer, regardless if they are good or bad. This seems to me to be an evil and wrong thing to do.

Of course I do not want to go to hell. So xianity tells me I need to 'believe' in Jesus. So I study what we know about Jesus. I believe what I understand. I do not understand that Jesus died for our sins. This does not make sense to me. So my brain does not 'believe' it.

So I must go to hell? Why would a god, if he was good, send people to hell just because they do not understand? Clearly (to me) that is not an act of a good god. Therefore the xian god does not deserve our worship.

Besides the people who do not understand, of course, we have: all the people born before Jesus. All the people who have not heard of Jesus. All the people who are raised in a culture that denies Jesus. All the people who are too young, or too mentally unstable, etc and etc and etc.

Hell must be FULL of people who have done nothing wrong. This seems like the act of an evil and corrupt god. Why then should we worship such a thing?

[bobazilla]

Yep, they're out of luck....they're doomed. The everloving benovelont god of the bible has consigned them to eternal misery. Just the kind of deity I could dig.

Bobazilla

[Nowhere357]

Of course this is ample reason to reject xianity. My question is directed to those who worship ANYWAY. I want to try and understand why they still accept such a god.

[Nowhere357]

:help:

[Ryokan]

They worship that God because it is a very safe thing. You believe in Jesus, and you are saved. It gives you a frame work to view the world, answers to the big questions, and then you can go on with your life, without fear or confusion. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

[geoff]

People go to Hell because they freely choose to ignore the King.

God is King. If you lived in a Kingdom and ignored the King, refusing to acknowledge his existence, rule, and His good pleasure at letting you live in his lands. every time he tried to make Himself known to you, you turned your back and said "What King, I see no King, I will just keep messin up His lands, and frustrating his plans".

in fact, in Romans 6 it indicates that by giving allegience to anyone else but the True King, its like war. War against the true King. He has the right, and the power to destroy those who war against Him.

Its not something that Should be taken lightly. If there is a God (and there is) then He is the true ruler of this creation by virtue of the fact that He created it. BE WARNED!

[Nowhere357]

Hi Geoff. The xian religion, then, says that everyone else must believe as xians do or they go to hell. From the POV of non-believers, this seems confrontational and intolerant.

If mother Teresa had doubts, then she now burns in hell. IMO that is wrong and cruel.

So my question is, from the point of view of a non-believer, xians worship a cruel god, with an intolerant religion. Why? Is fear the only reason?

Using your analogy, we are under no obligation to worship a bad king. We have the right of revolution. :smile:

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 02:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Ryokan:

They worship that God because it is a very safe thing. You believe in Jesus, and you are saved. It gives you a frame work to view the world, answers to the big questions, and then you can go on with your life, without fear or confusion. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

It is nice. Most xians think the xian god stands for good and right. I have no problem with that outlook in general. Of course, most folk who claim xianity don't really read the bible, celebrate easter and xmas in a mostly secular way, attend church more as a social thing if at all, etc. Go with the flow type of people.

[AtheistArchon]

- I have an interesting view of the hell concept. More specifically...

People go to Hell because they freely choose to ignore the King.

- I find this interesting. The implication here is that god gives us a free choice to decide wheter to choose to follow him (and accept his existence, and so on), or to be doomed to hell. But is that really a free choice?

- I wrote a parable (tongue in cheek, of course, but still illustrating my point) about it. Enjoy.

It's your choice. (A parable)

Frank was a Christian. He was a fervent believer in Jesus Christ, the resurrection, and sin and salvation. Frank also knew that the bible told him that when a person dies, they are judged. If they are believers in Christianity and are saved, then they get to go to heaven... which is a nice place to be. However, if you die, and you've heard about Christianity but refuse to believe in it, then you've made a choice not to spend eternity in heaven, but rather in hell, which is not a nice place to be.

One day, Frank left his home on his way to work, listening to his favorite Christian rock station. At a stoplight, several hooded figures leaped out of the bushes and accosted him! Frank was rendered unconscious, and he blacked out.

When Frank awoke many hours later, he found that he was bound by the wrists and feet. He was laying on a large board, suspended about six feet in the air. When he looked around, he noticed that he was not alone... with him in the room were a dozen or so hooded figures similar to the ones that kidnapped him from his car.

"Who are you? What are you doing? Why have you kidnapped me?" Frank screamed.

One figure stepped forward and spoke. "Calm yourself, brother... we mean you no harm. We are not here to hurt you, we are here to enable your salvation." At this several of the other hooded figures began to chant.

"My salvation?" Frank said, "But I'm already saved. I belong to Jesus Christ, and heaven awaits me. Christianity is my religion, and nobody can make me believe otherwise."

"That's troublesome," said the leader, "because your salvation does not depend upon Christianity. Let me tell you what we believe. We are followers of Zorb The Sacred Crocodile. Zorb is the one true God, and every other religion, frankly, is wrong. Oh! Pardon my pun."

"Cultists!" Frank yelled. "I've been kidnapped by cultists! Help!"

"We see your religion as a cult, not ours, Frank. But I digress... we were talking about your salvation, no? Let me tell you, Frank, how to achieve life and salvation in the eyes of Zorb. All you have to do is renounce your beliefs in Christianity, and pledge your undying belief in Zorb. That's it! No strings attached. We don't even ask for donations, Frank... we require no monetary compensation. All we do is ask that you, as a Zorbist, help us to evangelize our good news and enlighten others as to their fate."

"What are you talking about?" Frank stammered, "I've never heard of Zorb before."

"But you have now, Frank, and now you have a decision to make. Renounce your false god and embrace the truth that is Zorb, or you will suffer the fate of an unbeliever. It is the law of Zorb."

Frank's eyes grew wide. "What fate?"

At this, the floor began to move. Directly beneath Frank, a large circle opened, revealing a pit of twenty thrashing crocodiles. Gore hung from their teeth. Several of them make snapping sounds.

"By the law of Holy Zorb, all unbelievers are due to be cast into the pit of crocodiles. That's the law."

"You're insane!" Frank yelled, "You're trying to kill me!"

"Nonsense," the leader replied soothingly, "we're offering you salvation! Everyone has free will." The leader began to walk around the circle of crocs. "Don't get me wrong, Frank, we really do want you as a member. It pains us terribly whenever we have to cast anyone into the pit. We hate doing it! But it isn't our law, it's the law of Zorb. We're offering you a perfectly fair choice here, Frank. It's so simple, really... believe in Zorb..." The leader waved a hand over the pit. "... or suffer a nasty fate. How can any choice be simpler than that?"

"But... this isn't fair! You are setting me up. If I don't pledge my belief in Zorb, you're going to kill me!"

"Not us, Frank. You. We never kill anyone on purpose... we just give people what they want. Don't you have free will? If you choose Zorb, then you choose life. We will let you down! We will initiate you into our ranks, and Zorb will smile upon you. If you don't choose Zorb, then you have consciously chosen to die terribly. Why would you do that, Frank?" The leader stepped back and placed his hand on a large lever. "And now, it's time to make your choice. What will it be? Life, or painful death? Is it really that hard to decide? I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't want to go on living... to enjoy the benevolence of Zorb. Who would knowledgeably go to their deaths like this when the path to salvation is so clear, and freely given?"

"No!" Frank yelled, "I'll never renounce my faith! What you people are doing is forcing me to make a choice to believe by threatening me with pain if I don't! That's not freedom!"

"So be it," the leader said solemnly, "another soul lost to the abyss. How sad it is to see so many people turning their nose up at life when the choice was right there in front of them. Go to your fate knowing that you were offered salvation, and consciously made the decision to die painfully instead. May Zorb help us all."

And with that, he pulled the lever.

[geoff]

Nowhere:

Christians believe that the world was created by God, and that He rules over it. We believe and know this to be true. We are entitled to think so, and to share it with others, just as others share their beliefs with us.

Mother Teresa... well, she may have doubts, however, she lived her life in service to the God and King of Creation. God promises never to leave such a person.

Mother Teresa lived her life according to what she knew about God. Representing him on earth was what she did. Does that sound like a cruel God? Scripture is full of statements from God about how He is the champion of the under priveledged, victims of injustice, the poor, the widows, the sick, the hurt, etc. He inspires the mother teresas and so on, to give themselves in service to him, and the world.

I think you are confusing the words and actions of a few that claim to be servants of the King, but who are not, with the clear demonstrations and words of those who actually are, like mother teresa.


I also notice you tend to make massive generalisations... and they arent particularly accurate either.

[ACow]

There's a few problems i see with the whole "you choose to go to hell thing" or "you choose to disobey the king".

Firstly, how can it be said to be a fair choice when you do not possess complete knowlege on the choice you are going to make?
Contrary to many fundementalist christian attitudes, i DO NOT know that god exists. I DO NOT know his/her/its nature if he/her/it does exist. I DO NOT possess sufficient knowlege to be aware of any reward punishment schemes. I DO NOT know that the christian god exists. I HAVE read the bible, and am far from impressed. And YES, there are plenty of thing's god could do any time he chooses to satisfy me of his existance (despite the possibility of someone bringing up a bible verse or two to try and "prove" that there is nothing that could convince me, and if there isn't, why was i made this way? Why make something at all if it will just spend eternity in hell?).

If i am living away happily on my ranch one day, then all of a sudden, at a time not of my chosing, something turns the place into a blazing inferno because i didn't follow king "blob" (whom i'd never actually heard of or seen), how is that free will?

If someone holds a flamethrower to your head and says "Choose the god who loves you?" Is that really a free choice?

And what if your not even aware that there is a choice, and you don't find out until you get blasted in the furnace?

It gets even more confusing when there's several kings all vying for your citizenship, especially if none of them can back up their arguements with anything but poor ignorant attempts at philosophy and illogical arguements.

And what's with the "never being able to change your mind?"
I mean, obviously, its a free choice....we're only free to a convienient degree...

[geoff]

atheistarchon:

I find this interesting. The implication here is that god gives us a free choice to decide wheter to choose to follow him (and accept his existence, and so on), or to be doomed to hell. But is that really a free choice?

Yes, it really is.

As for your analogy/parable.
It fails because the evidence of God is everywhere, the whole world exists because He made it. Therefore there is no excuse. If you are living in a Kingdom, with representatives of the King all about, there is no excuse not to know of Him.

[geoff]

A Cow,

AS i said in my response above, there is no excuse, the evidence that there is (or at the least *maybe*) a God is everywhere. You can not tell me you have never ever heard that there was/maybe a God.

There is no "holding a flamethrower" to any ones head. That is a weak argument. Do you know there is a government in Australia? You sure do. Evidence of it is everywhere, although, I bet you have never actually met the prime minister. You can choose to believe he doesnt exist... and when you are punished for breaking the law, any cry of "i didnt really believe he existed" will fall of deaf ears wont it, because there is no excuse for not knowing.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 05:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geoff:

Nowhere:

Christians believe that the world was created by God, and that He rules over it. We believe and know this to be true. We are entitled to think so, and to share it with others, just as others share their beliefs with us.

Mother Teresa... well, she may have doubts, however, she lived her life in service to the God and King of Creation. God promises never to leave such a person.

Mother Teresa lived her life according to what she knew about God. Representing him on earth was what she did. Does that sound like a cruel God? Scripture is full of statements from God about how He is the champion of the under priveledged, victims of injustice, the poor, the widows, the sick, the hurt, etc. He inspires the mother teresas and so on, to give themselves in service to him, and the world.

I think you are confusing the words and actions of a few that claim to be servants of the King, but who are not, with the clear demonstrations and words of those who actually are, like mother teresa.


I also notice you tend to make massive generalisations... and they arent particularly accurate either.

I think you are answering my question by saying you interpret the bible in a different way. IOW good people don't go to hell. That's cool.

But it does bring up the question of interpretation. Clearly there are thousands of interpretations. How do you decide which one you 'believe' in?

Yes I am using generalizations, because I'm speaking from a gerneral POV.

[geoff]

nowhere,

I have a formal theological education, and I believe I have been equipped with the tools to determine a fairly intelligent and reasonable understanding of Scripture.

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geoff:
Its not something that Should be taken lightly. If there is a God (and there is) then He is the true ruler of this creation by virtue of the fact that He created it. BE WARNED!

In other words, God exists. And he is evil. So do what he says, or else.

Thanks, but I don't think I'll be joining your church any day soon.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geoff:AS i said in my response above, there is no excuse, the evidence that there is (or at the least *maybe*) a God is everywhere. You can not tell me you have never ever heard that there was/maybe a God.

I haven't heard that there's a God. I've heard a few people say it, but they don't know any better than I do.

There's no real evidence for any sort of God.

Out of interest, could you believe that the moon is made of cream cheese? Why not? There's plenty of evidence. The colour of it, for one thing. There's no excuse for not believing it.

Do you know there is a government in Australia? You sure do. Evidence of it is everywhere, although, I bet you have never actually met the prime minister. You can choose to believe he doesnt exist...

No, you cannot. You can't 'choose to believe' that, because the evidence is everywhere. Photographs, video, millions of witnesses, millions of contemporary references published in books and in newspapers - the proof is absolute.

With God, we have nothing. We have the bible, but that's just a single book of fairy tales with no supporting evidence. Your argument is paper-thin. If not thinner.

Paul

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 09:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geoff:

nowhere,

I have a formal theological education, and I believe I have been equipped with the tools to determine a fairly intelligent and reasonable understanding of Scripture.

So you have the correct interpretation due to the fact that you are educated? Then of course all people of similar intelligence
and education would come to the same interpretation, correct?

If in fact even educated people fall into all belief categories, what would that say about your interpretation? Of all possible interpretations, you have the correct one? What evidence do you have for that presumption? Why do you 'believe' one interpretation over the other?

[geoff]

LordSnooty,

There is ample evidence that there is a God, you are living in it for example. History is rife with examples of people who came to know God APART from the "bible". Your statement that you cant ignore the fact there is a government in Australia is interesting. Lets say you are an aborigine in the desert. You find some gold, you sell it to some passing tourist and earn some money. You decide this is a good thing and set up a stall and sell gold to everyone who passes. None of them mention a government or tax law. One of them asks you for a reciept, and so you get a bit of paper, put the price and your signature (X) on it as they asked you to. They put this reciept in their tax return and one day the IRS track you down, and throw you in the slammer because you broke the law by not paying tax. Your claim that "i didnt know there was a government" falls on deaf ears doesnt it? I can just see them saying "oh ok, thats all right, you didnt know we exist, we'll let you off".
Not likely. This analogy is a bit inaccurate, but you get the picture. The King HAS made himself known, but you just choose to ignore His existence. I for one, am telling you He exists, so you really do have no excuse. You can choose to ignore me, or believe me, its up to you. But if I am right, you have no right to complain. And if you are an intelligent person, you will put aside your doubts, and investigate "just in case".

Nowhere.
The problem with interpretation, is that it is "interpretation". However, generally most "theologians" agree of a few simple facts, and go from there. How I apply the principles and instruction about God in Scripture to my own life, will vary depending on who I am. The basis of truth however, is the same.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 07:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
geoff:

Nowhere.
The problem with interpretation, is that it is "interpretation". However, generally most "theologians" agree of a few simple facts, and go from there. How I apply the principles and instruction about God in Scripture to my own life, will vary depending on who I am. The basis of truth however, is the same.

Geoff, I do not choose my beliefs. I believe, if I understand. My question was, WHY do you believe and worship a cruel god with an intolerant religion. Your answer was that you had a different interpretation.

SO why do you choose one interpretation over another? Why can't anyone choose any interpretation? Is it your position that the bible is incorrect when it says that we must accept jesus to avoid hell? To get to heaven?

[geoff]

Nowhere,

I dont believe God is cruel, and the evidence I base that on is Scripture and my own experience. I agree, religion can be intolerant... that applies to ANY religion, and does. I find that evolutionists are the most intolerant of any religion (yes, evolution has become a religion). Christianity is not supposed to be a "religion", it is more a "lifestyle". I think of it like having no legs, and then suddenly getting 2 legs. Your lifestyle changes...

Why do I choose one interpretation over another? Because I have studied the history of interpretation.. I have studied the context of scripture, I have studied exegetical principles etc. I spend my time researching the social and cultural context in which the Scriptures where written etc. I read piles of books, commentaries, etc, in order that I might know what others think about it.
I am no great scholar, I only have a BA.. no PHD or anything. But I know enough to know my limits, and to be able to determine what is a steaming pile of wombat doo, and what isnt.

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58224#post58224)
geoff:
I find that evolutionists are the most intolerant of any religion (yes, evolution has become a religion). Christianity is not supposed to be a religion, it is more a lifestyle.

I am sure that calling "evolution a religion" and "xianity not a religion" is not supportable. It's also a digression.

I think your answer to "why do you believe in that particular interpretation" is that made up your own mind. I respect that.

However, if you can pick and choose which lines from the bible to accept, so can everyone else. Clearly, the bible is not the only path to heaven, if it is a path at all. :)

A good god would not send people to hell. The bible says he does. The conclusion really seems clear IMO.

[ACow]

AS i said in my response above, there is no excuse, the evidence that there is (or at the least *maybe*) a God is everywhere. You can not tell me you have never ever heard that there was/maybe a God.

I agree with the "maybe". But that is not enough to settle independantly on a notion of the christian god. Even comprehending the idea of what a god or what the nature of said god could be seems to be completely beyond the majority of the population. Will my selfless admission of not knowing entitle me to salvation? Will my humble works save me? Will someone who has heard that there is A god entitle them to salvation if it is not neccesarily precisely the christian one?

There is no "holding a flamethrower" to any ones head. That is a weak argument.

Eternity of hell is what then? Love? Mercy? I may just be being presumptuous here, after all, i've heard just about every interpretation there is, but i do not know that hell exists, and if i end up there, why can i not change my mind if i sincerly am repentant?

Do you know there is a government in Australia? You sure do. Evidence of it is everywhere, although, I bet you have never actually met the prime minister. You can choose to believe he doesnt exist... and when you are punished for breaking the law, any cry of "i didnt really believe he existed" will fall of deaf ears wont it, because there is no excuse for not knowing.

I can see the prime minister.
I can touch the prime minister.
I can listen to the prime minister.
If i wantede to, i could have a conversation with him.
I can see the police. There is only one police force.
I can see the law. There is only one law in effect.
I can see the courts.
I can see the prisons and punishments.

I cannot see your god.
I cannot touch your god.
I cannot hear your god.
I cannot have a conversation with your god.
I see no police. I see no police force.
There are several sets of laws, all claiming to have precedence over me and the world at large. Each with followers whom appear equally powerless, unthoughtfull and irrational.
I cannot see the prisons until i am in them.
I cannot see the court until i am judged.
And I am one who has actually looked for such things. How does an ignorant (moreso) individual, or even a child come to conclude such things, especially if they die young?

The King HAS made himself known, but you just choose to ignore His existence. I for one, am telling you He exists, so you really do have no excuse. You can choose to ignore me, or believe me, its up to you. But if I am right, you have no right to complain

And what of all the other people who have told me of other kings, or the same king, but with different laws and properties?

Just to be clear, what exactly IS required for salvation?

[AtheistArchon]

- Eh, well, obviously the existence of the universe is not evidence of god just because god is defined as the creator of the universe. I can define my kitchen table as the creator of the universe, but that does not make it so.

- We do have ample evidence that the universe exists, sure. But we do not have any evidence that the universe is a creation of any deity.

- Besides, the cultists claim Zorb made the universe... to them, your argument works in exactly the opposite direction: it's proof that Zorb exists! Either way, the morality of being forced to "choose" correctly lest you be punished is not disputed yet.

- As Lordsnooty said, we are hung up on the existence of god, but not worrying too much about the morality of the "choice" at hand. You are assuming god exsits... an evil god. My parable ALSO assumes a god exists! An evil one, too... but morally indistinguishable from the one described in the bible, because both offer the same conditions for "choice". That's the pinch.

[geoff]

Nowhere:

If Christianity (and creationism) is a religion, so is evolutionism. Evolution is still an uncertain theory, so one must place faith in it being correct. And it is noticable that those who hold to evolutionism are usually just as guilty of the same "religious crimes" that "religious" people are. Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

A good god would not send people to hell. The bible says he does. The conclusion really seems clear IMO.

Thats like saying "a good judge doesnt put criminals in prison or sentence murderers to death". The Bible says humanity CHOSE to defy God and sentence THEMSELVES to hell. God is the Judge, and more, God actually rescues people from the fate they have chosen for themselves.

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59422#post59422)
geoff:
If Christianity (and creationism) is a religion, so is evolutionism. Evolution is still an uncertain theory, so one must place faith in it being correct.
People believe all kinds of things. That does not make it a religion. Enough of this digression! :)

You said:
"Thats like saying "a good judge doesnt put criminals in prison or sentence murderers to death". The Bible says humanity CHOSE to defy God and sentence THEMSELVES to hell. God is the Judge, and more, God actually rescues people from the fate they have chosen for themselves."

This doesn't answer any of my questions. In fact you have contradicted yourself. You said your god was not cruel. Then you said god sends people to hell. No one except the mentally ill would "choose" to go to hell. That is a lie. If people go to hell, it is because god has sent them there. I say then that you worship a cruel and unjust god, with an intolerant religion, and you confirm this, even as you deny it.

Clearly your education has not given you wisdom. Your only answer to "why worship a cruel god" is because you fear! That answers my question from your POV. Thank you.

BTW there really is nothing to fear. Since you have studied the bible, I'm sure you've noticed that (xian) god not only is cruel, he also is weak. Surprisingly weak. More to be pitied, than feared, IMO. :)

[geoff]

NOwhere,

Interesting comments...

n fact you have contradicted yourself. You said your god was not cruel. Then you said god sends people to hell. No one except the mentally ill would "choose" to go to hell. That is a lie. If people go to hell, it is because god has sent them there.
I havent contradicted myself at all. When a criminal commits a crime, they CHOOSE to commit the crime, and also must then accept the consequences. Are they then sent to Jail because the Judge sent them? or because they commited a crime? Is it the judges fault that the person broke the law? No. Is the Judge responsible for the crime in any way? No.

The crime and the punishment are the responsibility of the criminal. The Judge is not cruel because he upholds the law. The judge is right to punish criminals.

Your only answer to "why worship a cruel god" is because you fear! That answers my question from your POV.
Quite frankly, all this shows is that you HAVENT understood my response, and/or are unwilling to let go of your preconceptions about what the Bible says.
I have maintained that I do NOT believe in God because of fear, in fact, I have nothing to fear at all. I have maintained that God is NOT cruel, and given a reasonable analogy in explanation and support.

BTW there really is nothing to fear. Since you have studied the bible, I'm sure you've noticed that (xian) god not only is cruel, he also is weak. Surprisingly weak. More to be pitied, than feared, IMO
There is nothing to fear if you know God.
Since I have studied the Bible, where God is ALWAYS protrayed as the creator, King, Judge, and above all else that is in existence, if find your comment to be decidedly ridiclous. In fact, considering the generally intelligent comments you started out with, this one is completely unintelligible. Sorry man, but really, that was a dumb thing to say.

[bobazilla]

Any deity that would setup his chosen people the way the biblical god has, deserves neither respect, allegiance, or glory. Such a deity is a tyrant.

God is all-see, all knowing, and benevolent, so:

1. He knew Adam & Eve would fall.
2. He knew humanity would be doomed to suffering and pain.
3. He knew he would spend a lot of time destroying his chosen peoples enemies.
4. He destroys whole cities on a whim.
5. He destroys all of humanity because he was a bit peeved. (Except for noah and others of his "kind").
6. God, in a moment of remorse has his son betrayed, tortured, and crucified, to make up for the shabby way he has already treated humanity.

All of this is believed, and studied, and picked over, and yet there is not the slightest evidence for any of it.

And yet the believers say, Glory to God, worship him! Yet this deity has a record of cruelty and tyranny. I honestly, never will in a gazillion years, get it!!!!

It's so flipping ludicrous....

[bobazilla]

04-05-2003 @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=55250#post55250)
geoff:

People go to Hell because they freely choose to ignore the King.

God is King. If you lived in a Kingdom and ignored the King, refusing to acknowledge his existence, rule, and His good pleasure at letting you live in his lands. every time he tried to make Himself known to you, you turned your back and said "What King, I see no King, I will just keep messin up His lands, and frustrating his plans".

in fact, in Romans 6 it indicates that by giving allegience to anyone else but the True King, its like war. War against the true King. He has the right, and the power to destroy those who war against Him.

Its not something that Should be taken lightly. If there is a God (and there is) then He is the true ruler of this creation by virtue of the fact that He created it. BE WARNED!

If he does exist, does he deserve respect? And if so why? Just making me isn't enough. I can make children, but it be right to threaten them with eternal punishment for not following me to the exact letter? That's what god's "choice" is.....either do exactly as I say or fry....

Believe if you want.....but I don't think such a deity, even if it existed, deserves respect.

[geoff]

Bob,

let me see:

1. He knew Adam & Eve would fall.

Knowing is not causing. God is not responsible for Adam and Eves Choice.

2. He knew humanity would be doomed to suffering and pain.]/quote]

Again, Humanity chose their own destiny. God didnt choose it, knowing is not causing.

[quote]3. He knew he would spend a lot of time destroying his chosen peoples enemies.

So does George Bush, is he "cruel, ludicrous, tryanical?" God does what He does in order to bring about "the end", which results in an "edenic" creation, no pain, no suffering, no war". Hardly the actions of a tyran
t
4. He destroys whole cities on a whim.

These cities werent destroyed on a Whim. Obviously you havent read the passage concerned.

5. He destroys all of humanity because he was a bit peeved. (Except for noah and others of his "kind").
A bit peeved? The human beings he created turned their backs on him, went to serve the enemy and went to war with him. Hardly "nothing".

6. God, in a moment of remorse has his son betrayed, tortured, and crucified, to make up for the shabby way he has already treated humanity.
His son volunteered for the Job, and sacrificed Himself, in the greatest act of humility and love known to humanity.

Sorry Bob, but it doesnt sound like you have done your homework. I can set you some, should you desire to understand instead of making rabid, uninformed overgeneralisations.

[geoff]

If he does exist, does he deserve respect? And if so why? Just making me isn't enough. I can make children, but it be right to threaten them with eternal punishment for not following me to the exact letter? That's what god's "choice" is.....either do exactly as I say or fry....

Would you punish your children if they did wrong? If they divorced you and adopted themselves a new parent and either pretended you didnt exist, or went around the world telling everyone you were cruel and tyranical and worthless how would you feel? What would you do?

Really Bob, you are going from bad to worse. I dont think you really know what I think about God.. or what the Bible says. It sounds like secondhand tripe someone has told you, and you brought into.

[JesusFreakVOM]

done nothing wrong? how many people do u know that have done nothing wrong?

[bobazilla]

Today @ 04:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59903#post59903)
geoff:

Would you punish your children if they did wrong? If they divorced you and adopted themselves a new parent and either pretended you didnt exist, or went around the world telling everyone you were cruel and tyranical and worthless how would you feel? What would you do?

Really Bob, you are going from bad to worse. I dont think you really know what I think about God.. or what the Bible says. It sounds like secondhand tripe someone has told you, and you brought into.

The secondhand tripe has come from working my way through the bible itself.....I'm all the way up to 2kings (I know, I still have a way to go). What I have seen is one story of atrocity after another. Can you tell me that when god caused the flood that only Noah was worthy of being saved? There was absolutely no one else that was righteous???? No, god got peeved because he wasn't getting the attention he thought he deserved, so he killed everyone.

For example: suppose I tell my kids they can't watch HBO. I pay the bills, I bought the TV, it's mine to do with as I want. The only thing my children are allowed to do is sit and worship a picture of me. But I catch them watching HBO and not worshipping my picture. In my eyes they have "sinned". So I kill them. Let's not mess around here!!!! That's the way the old testament god did it.

Was every single citizen of Sodom & Gomorroh really deserving of death? The children, the old folk? The women beaten and forced into whoredom? Hell no. Sugar coating the OT god as a patron of love and understanding is a horrible misrepresentation of what he really was.....a tribal deity that a primitive culture used to enforce solidarity within the tribe (much like JW's use disfellowshiping), explain their place in a world they didn't understand, and justification for the genocide they practiced on their neighbors.

Then someone somewhere decides to put a new spin on the story, and voila God is really a nice guy, who had his son volunteer to be tortured and crucified to save humanity. It doesn't matter that in the 2000+ years between the fall and Jesus, all those who ever lived are doomed to extinction. They didn't get the second chance offered. (I won't even get into the argument about whether Jesus really suffered, or for that matter even existed).

So you can say what you like, believe what you like, but I have not been fed any 2nd hand tripe. I've got my brain, common sense, and the bible. I don't need esoteric reasoning, I don't need to know ancient hebrew, I don't need to go to the seminary to tell me what is flat out obvious,

it's still flipping ludicrous.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 03:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59831#post59831)
geoff:

NOwhere,

No athiest ever felt the need to make fun of my screen name. I find that telling. FYI the correct interpretaion is NOWhere. You are exactly 180 degrees wrong! :)

I havent contradicted myself at all. When a criminal commits a crime, they CHOOSE to commit the crime, and also must then accept the consequences. Are they then sent to Jail because the Judge sent them? or because they commited a crime? Is it the judges fault that the person broke the law? No. Is the Judge responsible for the crime in any way? No.


I understand your point. You beg the question. Any "law" that sends people to hell is unjust and cruel.

The crime and the punishment are the responsibility of the criminal. The Judge is not cruel because he upholds the law. The judge is right to punish criminals.

I understand. God considers it a crime to use our brains and think about things. That is why he is cruel and unjust. Hitler in heaven, Mother Teresa in hell. Cruel and unjust. No getting around it, Geoff.

Quite frankly, all this shows is that you HAVENT understood my response, and/or are unwilling to let go of your preconceptions about what the Bible says.
I have maintained that I do NOT believe in God because of fear, in fact, I have nothing to fear at all. I have maintained that God is NOT cruel, and given a reasonable analogy in explanation and support.

Possibly I have misunderstood you. My preconception about the bible - that it is true - I let go of a long time ago.

If it's not fear, what is it? That is my question. Your reply - that you studied and interpreted as you saw fit - means to me that study and interpretation is appropriate. But then I learn that ONLY your interpretation is correct. Because that is self-contradictory, I assumed you were trying misdirection.

There is nothing to fear if you know God.

Then I am safe. I have studied and interpreted the bible. I understand that a good god would not send people to hell. I understand that the bible says god sends people to hell. Therefore I understand that either the bible is wrong, or that god is not good.

Since I have studied the Bible, where God is ALWAYS protrayed as the creator, King, Judge, and above all else that is in existence, if find your comment to be decidedly ridiclous. In fact, considering the generally intelligent comments you started out with, this one is completely unintelligible. Sorry man, but really, that was a dumb thing to say.


Kings 20:10-11 or Isaiah 38:7- 8]). This mover of heavens is cowed by mere horses & buggies made of iron? Sounds weak and pathetic to me. God clearly was a local tribal god, nothing more. The claim that he "made" the universe sounds like pomposity. Hell, to affect the decision of one man, god murdered hundreds of innocent children. Cruel. To make sure he got the right children, he needed folks to mark their doors. Weak.

Not so dumb and ridiculus after all.

I'm not interested in debating religion. My interest is in learning WHY these beliefs are accepted.

[geoff]

Bob,

I am impressed you are reading the bible.. I am unimpressed with your comments. I suggest you refrain unti you have read it through, as it is a complete unit. BTW, if you had taken note of what you read, you would have seen that the only Righteous Person WAS Noah, or more would have been saved. There was NO righteous person in Sodom and Gomorrah, that was the point in their destruction.
It seems you read it, and then said to yourself "it really doesnt say that".

Nowhere:
No athiest ever felt the need to make fun of my screen name. I find that telling.
The fact you find it telling, is telling... it was a typo. I quite often capitalise the second letter in words, because I seem to type faster than I can take my finger off the shift key.

I understand your point. You beg the question. Any "law" that sends people to hell is unjust and cruel.
Do you understand my Point? Perhaps. the point is that the Law is not unjust, neither is the one who enforces it.


God considers it a crime to use our brains and think about things. That is why he is cruel and unjust. Hitler in heaven, Mother Teresa in hell. Cruel and unjust. No getting around it, Geoff.

Err.. that seems ike a very irrational comment, are you ok? What ever caused this outburst, it is irrelevant, and makes it somewhat harder for me to treat you with the respect you deserve.

If it's not fear, what is it? That is my question. Your reply - that you studied and interpreted as you saw fit - means to me that study and interpretation is appropriate. But then I learn that ONLY your interpretation is correct. Because that is self-contradictory, I assumed you were trying misdirection.
It seems it may be be you who is attempting misdirection. What I said was that the basis of truth does not change, and interpretation must fit into that. I also said I was confident that my understanding was with in those realms. I also said understanding was influenced by many things, which makes its application and particulars unique to an individual, however there is this a "root" basis of truth in which that must fit. When Jesus said "God is Love" He didnt mean a million different things, He meant one thing, which is understood and applied to each person uniquely.

Then I am safe. I have studied and interpreted the bible. I understand that a good god would not send people to hell. I understand that the bible says god sends people to hell. Therefore I understand that either the bible is wrong, or that god is not good.
Or you have not understood the Bible, which seems to be the case.

Isa 38:7 "This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: 8 See, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps." So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined.
Ok, So he does the impossible, causing the earth to stop rotating effectively.
This mover of heavens is cowed by mere horses & buggies made of iron? Sounds weak and pathetic to me. God clearly was a local tribal god, nothing more.

Clearly? hmm... I am beginning to find it hard to believe you have actually studied the Bible, as this is becoming more reactive and less sensible as time goes on.

I'm not interested in debating religion. My interest is in learning WHY these beliefs are accepted.
Well, they are generally accepted because a: they make sense, and b: they are true, and c: because there is in fact a God who is real and visible.

Alot of the greatest thinkers in the world are believers in God, and alot of them are Christian. MOstof them will not just blindly accept things, like C S Lewis for example... He was convinced by the facts.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 09:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61465#post61465)
geoff:

Nowhere:

The fact you find it telling, is telling... it was a typo. I quite often capitalise the second letter in words, because I seem to type faster than I can take my finger off the shift key.
Alright, I accept your apology. Isn't it interesting, though, that the difference between being NOwhere (lost) and being NOWhere (not lost) is merely a matter of perspective? :)


Do you understand my Point? Perhaps. the point is that the Law is not unjust, neither is the one who enforces it.

Here is a little thought experiment. I love my wife. That's why I beat her. I don't enjoy beating her, it's for her own good. When she properly respects me, things are fine. When she chooses to disrespect me, then I must beat her. Out of love.

Clearly, the use of the word "love" in this experiment, is ridiculus. Abuse is cruelty, not love.

In the same way, torturing people for eternity is not love. It is cruel. This is a very simple point, and I know that you are a very smart man. Why then the denial?

Listen - in all seriousness. I am filled with love and empathy. I try hard to do the right thing. I hate and oppose evil. I stand for good and right. Is this not the light you call "Jesus"?

Using the brain I was born with, I study and think about things. I have concluded that the bible is not divinely inspired. I do not believe that jesus died for our sins. The concept makes no sense to me. Still, however, I am filled with the light of love.

NOW, you tell me that I will suffer for eternity. Either god is evil, or it is not necessary to worship jesus to get to heaven. :)


When Jesus said "God is Love" He didnt mean a million different things, He meant one thing, which is understood and applied to each person uniquely.

Apparently, he means that endless torture is love. That is stupid! Torture is not love!


Well, they are generally accepted because a: they make sense, and b: they are true, and c: because there is in fact a God who is real and visible.

The bible contains hundreds, even THOUSANDS, of contradictions, logical fallacies, errors. It is full of superstition, myth, dogma. This "makes sense" to you?

The statement that god is visible is a lie. Unless you mean he is visible to you alone, which is possible I suppose.

So here is what I'm leaning from you.

Torture is love.
Myth is truth.
Invisible is visible.

And that is why you believe in god. Okay then. :no:

[geoff]

Nowhere:

sn't it interesting, though, that the difference between being NOwhere (lost) and being NOWhere (not lost) is merely a matter of perspective? :)
Depends on whose perspective. I dont put much stock in human perspectives in regards to who is or isnt saved.

In the same way, torturing people for eternity is not love. It is cruel. This is a very simple point, and I know that you are a very smart man. Why then the denial?
The answer is quite simple, I dont believe the Scriptures teach hell is an everlasting torture. It is an eternal punishMENT not an eternal punishING.
Clearly, the bible decribes the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as depicting the fact of the wicked, which is destruction at the hand of God. Thats a whole different topic though.


The bible contains hundreds, even THOUSANDS, of contradictions, logical fallacies, errors. It is full of superstition, myth, dogma. This "makes sense" to you?
You must not be reading the same Bible as me... I've heard the claims, but not found any thing to convince me they are true.

I would answer your last comments, but I believe they are made false by my comments above.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 02:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62422#post62422)
geoff:

I think I just uncovered the reason (other than fear) that folks may worship such thing. It provides a feeling of specialness and superiority. How sad. :duh:

Thanks for your input (Don't bother to reply, please. I've learned all I can from you, and IMO you are unteachable.)

[geoff]

I dont think I am superior... I just dont think you have done your homework..

I have read the bible countless times, have spent a good portion of the last 5 years of my life in full time professional study of the Bible. The problem with forums like this is that people tend to jump to conclusions, like you did with your name, and are again now. You are confusing confidence in myself, my education, and my tools, with arrogance and superiority.

Its funny, isnt it, that when I dont capitulate and agree with you, all of a sudden I am arrogant and superior. This is the point I tried to make at the beginning of our dialogue. You have done exactly what you find (or think you find) in me.

I find your last post to be arrogant and rude. Effectively it says to me "if you dont believe like me, you must be wrong, and you must be an idiot". AS the old proverb says - "its what you dislike about yourself most, that you dislike most in other people" (or something like that).

[bobazilla]

Give over on Sodom and Gomorroh....

The bible says there was no one righteous but Lot & his wife.

There were no children or infants in the town? The feeble? The mentally handicapped? Slaves? Senile? They were incable of understanding but still not righteous and deserving of death.....makes sense. If god exists, in my opinion he's a jerk.

How about this......why didn't we just a-bomb Baghdad...as far as I know noone was "righteous", they're all just a bunch of Saddam loving clones. Destroying them and their city would have cleansed the earth of something obviously evil. (Note: The preceding was sarcasm)

Even George W. is more civilized that the OT god.

Bobazilla

P.S. I'm only reading the bible so I can attempt to understand where folk like you can get off justifying all sorts of atrocious behaviour with a book that was insensible 2000 years ago. So study on.....

[geoff]

bob,

if you dont have anything constructive to say, dont say anything...

a: there was NO ONE righteous in S&G.. How God deals with infants and Children is up to Him.. I wouldnt go ASSUMING that He consigned them to Hell, after all, you are only 1/4 of the way through the Bible.
b: We dont A-Bomb bagdad because it is not our place to do that (if I was american..). We dont "really" know who is righteous or Not.. only God does, as it is between Him and the individual.

Folk dont have to "justify atrocious behaviour". Let me do to you, what you do to God: you are 15 years old, skinny, pimply and dont have many friends. You are kind of intelligent, but people pick on you, so you view the world through the eyes of a bullied geek, with a bad attitude. You probably swear at your parents, suffer from depression, and perhaps cut yourself and contemplate suicide. You probably pick on your younger siblings, bullying them and making them cry.

I have come to this conclusion from the 3 posts you have made, and what a few other people who dont really know you have said. Perhaps you are really like this, perhaps not. But from now I refuse to believe anything you or anyone else says because this is the facts.

That is what you have done to God. You dont know Him. You are only reading the bible in order to pick out things that support your preconception. And until you know him, or try to understand him apart from your preconceptions, well.. really... you prove what God said about S&G.. there is no one who is righteous. If one was righteous, they would know God. They would serve God. They wouldnt be destroyed.

[efta777]

I worship in God because A) I believe that he exists as creator and ruler. I believe this because I can see evidence of his creation, I can see the impact he has had on history and I can feel him in my life. I realize that these are not demonstratable, but they are real enough to me, and I know most other Christians can say the same. B) Based off my belief in God's existence, I can learn about him through the Bible, which I view as being innerant scripture, and C) Through this, I learn that He sent his son to die for my sins, giving me the opportunity to be saved. Givin this reasoning, I worship God and I thank him for even offering salvation to the world even though he didn't have to.
Cheesy? Yes. But true.

[geoff]

efta,

I agree... but unfortunately its just christianese to them.. and quite frankly, to me, even though I am a Christian.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 05:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62588#post62588)
geoff:

I have read the bible countless times, have spent a good portion of the last 5 years of my life in full time professional study of the Bible. The problem with forums like this is that people tend to jump to conclusions, like you did with your name, and are again now. You are confusing confidence in myself, my education, and my tools, with arrogance and superiority.

How you can claim 5 yrs of study, yet be unaware of all the contradictions, etc, is beyond me. I can provide links to dozens of websites detailing the information, but I doubt you would be interested. BTW my list includes plenty of xian sites, also. This is not a one-sided viewpoint.

As to my screen name, it's not fair to accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" because I read what you wrote! BTW, I had searched your posts for examples of your "double-caps" and found none. That doesn't mean there isn't any, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe THAT was jumping to conclusions!

My suggestion of "superiority" is not directed at your confidence as a person, it refers to the idea that heaven is reserved for your belief, and your belief alone. Exclusive club, like. You seem to have jumped to a conclusion.

Its funny, isnt it, that when I dont capitulate and agree with you, all of a sudden I am arrogant and superior.
I never said "arrogant", but maybe it fits. At any rate, I am aware that logic does not trump faith. I have no illusions of making anyone "capitulate".

I tried hard to share the POV that hell is evil. You ignored my points, and proclaim that changing a word (punishing to punishment) makes it okay. That is such sloppy thinking, it became clear to me that you ALREADY KNOW that the concept of hell is bad, and not good. But since YOU get to go to heaven, you have no need to address to issue. Thus, my conclusion that you gain a sense of superiority from your interpretation of your religion.

Sure here I jump to conclusions. I have no choice, since you evade the issues.
I find your last post to be arrogant and rude. Effectively it says to me "if you dont believe like me, you must be wrong, and you must be an idiot".

Your words, not mine. In fact, I challenge you to go to the secular web, and explore some of my postings. My interests are in exploring the existence of life and mind. You will quickly learn how wrong your assumption of my nature is.

One thing you would learn is how NON arrogant and NON rude I am. You would also learn that I'm fair, and open-minded. Still, I'm human, and have my moments. Don't you? :)

I dont put much stock in human perspectives in regards to who is or isnt saved.
Think about this. Are you not human? Now I bet you are not thinking about it. Your brain is busy trying to defend such a contradictory statement. Instead, try THINKING ABOUT IT.

BTW, thanks for not responding. :no:

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 07:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62708#post62708)
efta777:

I worship in God because A) I believe that he exists as creator and ruler. I believe this because I can see evidence of his creation, I can see the impact he has had on history and I can feel him in my life. I realize that these are not demonstratable, but they are real enough to me, and I know most other Christians can say the same.

Thanks for responding.

I understand this. The same is true for other religions, also.

B) Based off my belief in God's existence, I can learn about him through the Bible, which I view as being innerant scripture.

Innerent? Are you aware that the bible is full of contradictions? For example, the conflicting stories of creation in genesis?

C) Through this, I learn that He sent his son to die for my sins, giving me the opportunity to be saved.


So it's okay with you, that everyone born before jesus, is in hell? That people of other religions go to hell? etc etc. Or do you interpret the bible differently?

[geoff]

NOwhere:

How you can claim 5 yrs of study, yet be unaware of all the contradictions, etc, is beyond me. I can provide links to dozens of websites detailing the information, but I doubt you would be interested.
I am aware of them. Interested in them. Seen them all refuted. *shrug* there are very very very few actual problems... none that can not be sufficiently dealt with.

it refers to the idea that heaven is reserved for your belief, and your belief alone. Exclusive club, like.
Funny, the Christian/Judaistic view of Heaven is.. well, Christian and Judaistic.. it would be unusual for it to be Bhuddist, or Hindi..

I tried hard to share the POV that hell is evil. You ignored my points, and proclaim that changing a word (punishing to punishment) makes it okay.
Hell itself ISNT evil, no just punishment is evil. YOu even agreed, and yet you seem to have forgotten this.
I havent "changed a word" - I have offered you what I believe is the best understanding of what Hell is. Had you done you homework you would know that there are 2 main schools of thought regarding hell... eternal torment or destruction (called annihilationism). I believe in annihilationism. YOur preconception is that I am someone who believes in eternal torment, a doctrine I find abhorrent and anti biblical. Annihilationism is becoming more and more common amongst scholars, biblicists and theologians because it does fit more closely with SCripture.

Sure here I jump to conclusions. I have no choice, since you evade the issues.
YOu jump to conclusions because you werent really interested in what I believe. You are only (in this discussion anyway) interested in generally slamming Christianity. You have preconcieved what I believe and argued against it, which is commonly called "a straw man".

Because I refuse to defend something I dont believe, I am *avoiding the issues*, *superior*, *ignorant*.

One thing you would learn is how NON arrogant and NON rude I am. You would also learn that I'm fair, and open-minded. Still, I'm human, and have my moments. Don't you? :)
I am not interested in what you have said elsewhere. I dont have the time to go and look even if I was. I am interested in what you have to say here, if and when you actually decide to deal with MY christian beliefs, instead of tha which you imagine I might believe.


Think about this. Are you not human? Now I bet you are not thinking about it. Your brain is busy trying to defend such a contradictory statement. Instead, try THINKING ABOUT IT.

THis about sums up how little effort you have put into this... non-arrogant? non rude? open minded? Your lack of effort in even trying to comprehend my belief is rude.

What I meant by my comment is that it is up to God to determine who is saved and who is not. I dont care if you say you are saved, or anyone else does.. thats fine. I have some tools I can use to give me an idea if you are lying or not, but in reality it is not my decision, and not with in the scope of human ability to determine truly. Only God knows the human heart, no human has this ability.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 05:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63640#post63640)
geoff:

I strongly suggest you stay away from the secular web. They would eat you alive. Not so much for your beliefs, but for your lousy debating skills.

there are many theists there whom I highly respect. THEY would eat you alive. Yeah, it's best you stick your little corner.

Bye. :)

[geoff]

hehe, thats funny... most of the secular people I debate with (which is most people I debate with, as I find Christians boring to debate with) never complain. In fact, in a real life debate with 2 degree'd philosophers, they concluded my defense was the most rational they had heard from a Christian... however, thats hearsay, as neither of them are here to ratify the claim.

I would still like to see you actually address my beliefs instead of what you think I believe.

I generally find the secular forums boring, however, the debates there tend to be a bit more open as people arent there with an anti-christian agenda, nor are they permanatly on the defensive as it seems you are.

You havent managed to eat me alive, in fact, you havent managed to even locate me yet... kinda sad really.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 07:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63739#post63739)
geoff:

I would still like to see you actually address my beliefs instead of what you think I believe.



Okay. You are aware that my interest here is how the existence of hell relates to the idea that we should worship god.

What are your beliefs on the subject?

BTW I don't claim to be skilled at debating. I do understand the ground rules, and try to adhere to them. Also BTW, unlike many atheists, I have respect for faith. :)

[geoff]

Also BTW, unlike many atheists, I have respect for faith. :)
Thats interesting... I think it takes alot more faith to have faith in nothing, that it does to have faith in something. Its a wonder you're still sane.

Okay. You are aware that my interest here is how the existence of hell relates to the idea that we should worship god.

What are your beliefs on the subject?

My opinion.. it doesnt. If we want to show a God who deserves to be worshipped, Hell is not a good place to start. Hell is the end, and should be left there.

God should be worshipped because He exists, and such a being deserves it, not because he is going to destroy you if you dont.

I believe hell to be destruction. The destruction by fire of the wicked. I believe the flood and sodom and gomorrah are precursors to the final event, as we are told in Matt 24, for example; "As it was in the days of Noah...".

Is this enough to proceed?

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 09:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64940#post64940)
geoff:

Thats interesting... I think it takes alot more faith to have faith in nothing, that it does to have faith in something. Its a wonder you're still sane.


1) You imply I have claimed to have faith. I have not made such a claim.
2) You imply that if I have faith, then it is faith in nothing. This is unsupported, and it is incorrect.
3) You imply I'm sane. Unsupported.
4) You imply my sanity is affected negatively by my faith. Unsupported.
5) You imply that your faith is somehow superior to mine. Unsupported.
Not a very good start, Geoff. :)

ME: "You are aware that my interest here is how the existence of hell relates to the idea that we should worship god.
What are your beliefs on the subject?"

GEOFF: "My opinion.. it doesnt."

The idea that we should worship god, is related to the idea of god. The idea of god, is related to the idea of the existence of hell. Therefore, the idea that we should worship god, is related to the idea of hell.

So your opinion, as stated, has no meaning. There can be no doubt that the idea of the existence of hell, relates to the idea that we should worship god.


GEOFF: "If we want to show a God who deserves to be worshipped, Hell is not a good place to start. Hell is the end, and should be left there."

Do you mean if theists want to show others that their god should be worshiped, then they should not start by talking about hell?
Or do you mean if theists want to show god that they worship him, they should not start with hell?
Or do you mean if someone wants to show god which people should be worshiped, then they should not talk about hell?
Or do you mean something else entirely?

Geoff, I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

GEOFF: "God should be worshipped because He exists, and such a being deserves it, not because he is going to destroy you if you dont."

Why should he be worshiped? Because he exists?
Why, if he exists, does that mean we should worship him?
Why does he deserve it?
Do you believe god destroys people who don't worship him?

GEOFF: "I believe hell to be destruction."
I assume you mean the destruction of souls. So the souls stop existing. Is this what you mean?

GEOFF: "The destruction by fire of the wicked."
My understanding of fire is that it hurts. Are you saying that god hurts souls before he destroys them?
What are "the wicked"? I assume you mean the souls that god decides to destroy.
What criteria do you think god uses to decide which souls he is going to destroy?

GEOFF: "I believe the flood and sodom and gomorrah are precursors to the final event, as we are told in Matt 24, for example; "As it was in the days of Noah..."."

What does this mean? And why do you think this relates to our discussion?
We are not discussing bible passages. We are discussing the relationship between the idea of the existence of hell, and the idea that we should worship god.

GEOFF: "Is this enough to proceed?"

No. You have given nothing to proceed on.
You started with a handful of irrelevant, negative, unsupported statements.
Then you gave a meaningless response to my basic question.
Then you made a confusing statement with multiple meanings.
You followed with a pair of statements about your belief of hell, which I can work with, maybe, if the problems listed above were dealt with.
You ended with an irrelevant bible quote.

Well, you tried, I guess. Thanks. :)

[geoff]

I think this is really quite funny.
1) You imply I have claimed to have faith. I have not made such a claim.
2) You imply that if I have faith, then it is faith in nothing. This is unsupported, and it is incorrect.
3) You imply I'm sane. Unsupported.
4) You imply my sanity is affected negatively by my faith. Unsupported.
5) You imply that your faith is somehow superior to mine. Unsupported.
Not a very good start, Geoff. :)
1. no, I commented that I BELIEVE it takes alot of faith to be an athiest. I didnt say anything about what you believe.
2. I could correct this by saying you have faith in "science" or something, but I dont know if you do. Regardless, it is not faith in something supernatural, so I refer to it as nothing.
3,4, ever heard of humour?
5. Never.

Yet again, you fail to actually *read* what I wrote, just carrying on in the same way as before.

The idea that we should worship god, is related to the idea of god. The idea of god, is related to the idea of the existence of hell. Therefore, the idea that we should worship god, is related to the idea of hell.

There are many gods, none of whom are related to a *hell* who demand worship. Therefore the idea of worship of *god* is NOT related to hell. YOU are the one relating Hell to a need to worship.

GEOFF: "If we want to show a God who deserves to be worshipped, Hell is not a good place to start. Hell is the end, and should be left there."

Do you mean if theists want to show others that their god should be worshiped, then they should not start by talking about hell?
Or do you mean if theists want to show god that they worship him, they should not start with hell?
Or do you mean if someone wants to show god which people should be worshiped, then they should not talk about hell?
Or do you mean something else entirely?
An analogy.
I want you to be my friend. There is 2 ways I can do it. 1. Be my friend or I will set fire to you. 2. Let me help you, love you, guide you, teach you, support you.
Which one works best you think?

GEOFF: "God should be worshipped because He exists, and such a being deserves it, not because he is going to destroy you if you dont."

Why should he be worshiped? Because he exists?
Why, if he exists, does that mean we should worship him?
Why does he deserve it?
Do you believe god destroys people who don't worship him?
Answers:
- yes
- because He is God, the one who created all, and deserves worship
- see above
- No. And Yes. God destroys those who refuse to acknowledge His existence, because they were created to be in relationship with Him. He destroys them, because they are making themselves God, and in doing so are warring against Him.

GEOFF: "I believe hell to be destruction."
I assume you mean the destruction of souls. So the souls stop existing. Is this what you mean?
I dont believe souls are immortal, nor are they seperable from any other part of the human being. Destruction means destruction of the whole person, body, soul, spirit, mind, emotion, blah blah.

GEOFF: "The destruction by fire of the wicked."
My understanding of fire is that it hurts. Are you saying that god hurts souls before he destroys them?
What are "the wicked"? I assume you mean the souls that god decides to destroy.
What criteria do you think god uses to decide which souls he is going to destroy?[/quote
1.No, He destroys the whole person, and no, not before. The fire is the destruction. It is equivalent to say, the electric chair.
2. The wicked are those who have chosen to suppress the knowledge of God and have warred against him.
3. See 2.

[quote]GEOFF: "I believe the flood and sodom and gomorrah are precursors to the final event, as we are told in Matt 24, for example; "As it was in the days of Noah..."."

What does this mean? And why do you think this relates to our discussion?
We are not discussing bible passages. We are discussing the relationship between the idea of the existence of hell, and the idea that we should worship god.
It relates to the nature of Hell, which you seem to find so abhorent.. as do I (eternal torment, which is unbiblical). If there is a different understanding of Hell, then it certain has a bearing. I think you are being deliberately obtuse and anti.

No. You have given nothing to proceed on.
You started with a handful of irrelevant, negative, unsupported statements.
Then you gave a meaningless response to my basic question.
Then you made a confusing statement with multiple meanings.
You followed with a pair of statements about your belief of hell, which I can work with, maybe, if the problems listed above were dealt with.
You ended with an irrelevant bible quote.

Well, you tried, I guess. Thanks. :)

Sound like excuses to me.

[Blake Reas]

I do not like it because I am in rebellion from God therefore Hell does not exist. Can we say Argumnet from Outrage?

Blake

[geoff]

/me looks in horror... boy am I gad I didnt say that :bunny:

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 04:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65633#post65633)
geoff:

There are many gods, none of whom are related to a *hell* who demand worship. Therefore the idea of worship of *god* is NOT related to hell. YOU are the one relating Hell to a need to worship.


In this thread I have mentioned "xian" or "xianity" at least 13 times.
I have mentioned "bible" at least 13 times.
I have mentioned "jesus" at least 10 times.

Between us, we have mentioned any other god, religion, or religious tome exactly zero times.

And now you claim not to know what god we are talking about.

Well, I can destruct your last post point by point with ease. There is no reason to, however. Your character, attitude, and lack of skill is displayed for all to see.

I have no further interest in your opinions. Bye bye Geoff. :)

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 09:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65917#post65917)
Blake Reas:

I do not like it because I am in rebellion from God therefore Hell does not exist. Can we say Argumnet from Outrage?

I haven't claimed hell does not exist. Other than that, you are not too far wrong here.
I am agnostic. I admit I do not know whether there are god(s) of whatever kind.

My claim is that the concept of hell, per the bible, is morally evil, and if the xian god exists, then she does not deserve our worship.

If god allows the existence of hell, and punishes people for eternity, then god is evil. Notice the "if".

Argument from outrage? You bet. :)

[geoff]

Nowhere,

That last post to me made no sense.. none at all...

Its quite simple you know, if you dont want to discuss it, stop responding..

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 09:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66641#post66641)
geoff:
That last post to me made no sense.. none at all...

I'm sure it didn't. :)

[geoff]

nowhere:

"And now you claim not to know what god we are talking about."

where did you get the from, by the way? Its in nothing I said, after having read it about 15 times to make sure.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 12:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65968#post65968)
Nowhere357:


I haven't claimed hell does not exist. Other than that, you are not too far wrong here.
I am agnostic. I admit I do not know whether there are god(s) of whatever kind.

We all suppress the truth to some extent. Do you not believe because you have not found a god to suit your fancy? Of course you have some kind of god we all do it is probably something that you least expect also. It is probably what you give allegiance to the most. I do not believe in Agnostics or Atheist. I just believe in people who suppress the truth.


My claim is that the concept of hell, per the bible, is morally evil, and if the xian god exists, then she does not deserve our worship.

The concept of Hell is morally evil? And you are the Judge of that? When you stand before a Holy God you cannot have any sin we all deserve death but God has chosen to save some, to give us a way out if you will. You seem to have some hostility to Christianity, did something happen? Did you get beat up by the big bad bully in Sunday school? The only people who slander God and use the ignorant term Xian are those who a irrational fear of Christianity. What is your issue? I do not refer to you as a Xtheist do I? Didn't think so.

If god allows the existence of hell, and punishes people for eternity, then god is evil. Notice the "if".

On what grounds? If you created something would you not have the right to destroy it? A analogy would be me creating a Garden I have every right to go through and trample it to death. But Joe Nobody down the road cannot do so because I created it. Of course all analogies break down when speaking of God but I think you get the point. God does not owe you, geoff, or me anything.

Argument from outrage? You bet. :)

Thanks for admitting your illogical argument.

By His Grace For HIs Glory
Blake

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 05:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67143#post67143)
geoff:


I believe you know I was talking about the xian hell.

ME: "The idea that we should worship god, is related to the idea of god. The idea of god, is related to the idea of the existence of hell. Therefore, the idea that we should worship god, is related to the idea of hell.

YOU: "There are many gods, none of whom are related to a *hell* who demand worship. Therefore the idea of worship of *god* is NOT related to hell. YOU are the one relating Hell to a need to worship."

On top of the rest of our miscommunication, this evasion just really turned me off.

Geoff, don't worry too much about it. I know that you don't accept the xian hell any more than I do.

YOU: It relates to the nature of Hell, which you seem to find so abhorent.. as do I (eternal torment, which is unbiblical).

Because you're so much fun to talk to, I thought we could explore the idea that if YOU can interpret the bible as you see fit, then so can I (and anyone else), but that really is way off thread, and I apologize.

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 06:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67148#post67148)
Blake Reas:

We all suppress the truth to some extent.

This unfounded assertion requires support.

Do you not believe because you have not found a god to suit your fancy?
Well, okay. My "fancy" is knowledge and understanding.

Of course you have some kind of god we all do it is probably something that you least expect also.

How many gods do you believe in?

It is probably what you give allegiance to the most.
If we give allegiance to something, it becomes a god? I don't understand what you mean.

I do not believe in Agnostics or Atheist.
I am an atheist/agnostic, and you already know that. Rather than tell you that your comment is stupid, I'll just suggest you visit the secular web. There are so many of these non-existent people, that you may come to realize your error.

I just believe in people who suppress the truth.

I think you are saying : "All atheists are lying to themselves."
If so, I must tell you that is ignorant. Perhaps, YOU are lying to YOURself.

The concept of Hell is morally evil? And you are the Judge of that?

Yes. I form my own opinions. Eternal punishment, for the "sin" of being born, is morally bankrupt.

When you stand before a Holy God you cannot have any sin we all deserve death but God has chosen to save some, to give us a way out if you will.

"Deserve" death? Whatever for? If escape from hell and acceptance into heaven was based on our actions and our intents, then I would appreciate your point.

BUT the bible says that escape from hell is based on blind obedience, and not on morality.

It seems like the xian god is interested in acquiring mindless slave-drones, and is not interested in our morality.

You seem to have some hostility to Christianity, did something happen?

Yes. I became aware of the dark side of xianity.

I support good and right, and behave ethically and morally to the best of my ability. It is not good, and it is not right, to punish people for an eternity.

Really, it's not that complicated.

Did you get beat up by the big bad bully in Sunday school?

No. I didn't know Sunday school HAD bullies, but I guess that's human nature.

The only people who slander God and use the ignorant term Xian are those who a irrational fear of Christianity.

Not true. The fear is very rational. Xianity promotes bigotry and intolerance, and is contrary to world peace and harmony.

What is your issue?

For this thread, I'm curious as to WHY people worship such a god.

I do not refer to you as a Xtheist do I?

Well, that would make no sense. But then, you just did!

Didn't think so.

I know.


I said: "If god allows the existence of hell, and punishes people for eternity, then god is evil."

If you created something would you not have the right to destroy it?

If it belonged to me, and was not alive, then yes.

A analogy would be me creating a Garden I have every right to go through and trample it to death.

I would say yes. Plants have no feelings, as we understand them.

But Joe Nobody down the road cannot do so because I created it.

Well, he could, if you gave him permission, or if he is willing to break the law.

Of course all analogies break down when speaking of God but I think you get the point

All analogies are flawed, period.

I think your point is, god can torture people for eternity, if he wants to. Might makes right?

God does not owe you, geoff, or me anything.


I never said he did.

And if god is evil, I owe her nothing. Except rebellion, of course. All moral people should join the rebellion.

Thanks for admitting your illogical argument.

I have done no such thing.


Argument from outrage? You bet. :smile:

[geoff]

Nowhere:

On top of the rest of our miscommunication, this evasion just really turned me off.

Geoff, don't worry too much about it. I know that you don't accept the xian hell any more than I do.
I dont see how it is an evasion, apart from its not the answer that you expected/wanted.
I dont believe that what you "claim" is the christian hell, IS the Christian Hell. Fact is, there are 2 common views. You have picked on one, and ignored the other. You condemn Christianity on the basis of one view.. which is held by a few... sad.

Because you're so much fun to talk to, I thought we could explore the idea that if YOU can interpret the bible as you see fit, then so can I (and anyone else), but that really is way off thread, and I apologize.
I can interpret it as I see fit, because I have the training, the tools, and the knowledge to do so. Anyone else who puts in the work is also free to do so.

Anyone can fix a car, if they have a little knowledge, but if you want to know the details, and for expertise, you go to a mechanic who has done his apprenticeship, who has done his training, and is fully equipped and licensed to do the job.
If you want to know all the technical details regarding Homers Oddessy, do you talk to someone who has read it once or twice? Or do you talk to someone who has a degree in Literature Studies, Linguistics, Greek etc.. who has spent a large portion of their lives studying the writings?

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 11:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68167#post68167)
geoff:

Nowhere:
I dont believe that what you "claim" is the christian hell, IS the Christian Hell. Fact is, there are 2 common views. You have picked on one, and ignored the other. You condemn Christianity on the basis of one view.. which is held by a few...
Geoff, what are the two views, as you see them?
Also, I condemn evil god(s) only. One can claim I condemn xianity, only by claiming/admiting that xianity is evil.

I can interpret it as I see fit, because I have the training, the tools, and the knowledge to do so. Anyone else who puts in the work is also free to do so.


Do you suppose, then, that all with equivalent training, tools, and knowledge, come to the same interpretation?

If you want to know all the technical details regarding Homers Oddessy, do you talk to someone who has read it once or twice? Or do you talk to someone who has a degree in Literature Studies, Linguistics, Greek etc.. who has spent a large portion of their lives studying the writings?

This is a good point.

It occurs to me that the Oddessy includes includes some pretty wild fiction. If a scholar claimed that these fictions were reality, how would you react?

Anyone can fix a car, if they have a little knowledge, but if you want to know the details, and for expertise, you go to a mechanic who has done his apprenticeship, who has done his training, and is fully equipped and licensed to do the job.


Agreed. A car, however, is based on sound physical science.

Geoff, for a fact, there are many xian sects. Each is well represented by scholars. And each has arrived at a different interpretation.

What do you make of that? Other than you're right and they are wrong?

Peace

[geoff]

nowhere:

Geoff, what are the two views, as you see them?
They are eternal torment and annihilationism.

Also, I condemn evil god(s) only. One can claim I condemn xianity, only by claiming/admiting that xianity is evil.
It seems to me that YOU are claiming christianity is evil because of a view of hell held by some people.

Do you suppose, then, that all with equivalent training, tools, and knowledge, come to the same interpretation?
The same or something close.

It occurs to me that the Oddessy includes includes some pretty wild fiction. If a scholar claimed that these fictions were reality, how would you react?
"Who claims its fact? Who claims its fiction? Whats the evidence for and against? What has been thought in the past? Is it possible? Is it impossible? What other explanations are there? etc etc etc.."

What do you make of that? Other than you're right and they are wrong?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Scholars also. Scientists also have differing opinions on "sound physical science". Quite often polar opposites. For example, there are a large number of reputable scientists who dont believe that the world formed by accident.. and a large number who do. Who is right? Who is wrong?
I believe to the best of my knowledge, education and experience that I am heading down the right path. I can usually defeat most arguments presented to me by other theologians (except for the odd one).
Its a bit of a self defeating argument really because the same thing can apply to any field of learning. Biblically, understanding comes through exegesis, which is a science and and art form. It is demonstratable. Its logical. It requires considerable study and research. It is a field of expertise.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Scholars also. Scientists also have differing opinions on sound physical science. Quite often polar opposites. For example, there are a large number of reputable scientists who dont believe that the world formed by accident.. and a large number who do. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Of course. Do you propose that reputable scientists have EVIDENCE that the world was created by some other means then "accident"? A powerful thing about science, Geoff, is reputable scientists don't allow personal beliefs to affect their scientific claims. This is NOT the case with religion.

I believe to the best of my knowledge, education and experience that I am heading down the right path.
So do I.

I wonder, have you studied the koran? the bhagavad gita? Hinduism, mormonism, taoism? Egyptian book of the dead? Tibetan book of the dead? Etc? Etc.?

Or have you fixated on the bible only?

Biblically, understanding comes through exegesis, which is a science and and art form. It is demonstratable. Its logical. It requires considerable study and research. It is a field of expertise.

Exactly what demonstrates the bible as a reliable guide to truth?

"Who claims its fact? Who claims its fiction? Whats the evidence for and against? What has been thought in the past? Is it possible? Is it impossible? What other explanations are there? etc etc etc.."

Very good. Applied to the bible, I learn it is myth, superstition, dogma, and a bit of biased history. An illogical and non-sensible work of fiction. I found it to be biased, bigoted, intolerant, and contrary to world peace. That's how I found it!

It does have moments of enlightenment, but I have found ALL of those moments outside the bible as well, and with none of the dark baggage.

The same or something close.

In your view, who avoids hell and goes to heaven? What are the requirements?

It seems to me that YOU are claiming christianity is evil because of a view of hell held by some people.

No, I claim a good god would not punish people for eternity. It's really not that complicated a position, Geoff.

They are eternal torment and annihilationism.

In the first case, god then is cruel, immoral, and unjust, and doesn't deserve worship. I find that god to be evil. I oppose evil.

In the second case, I reserve judgement of her nature, until I learn your views on the requirements needed to avoid annihilationism.

Peace

[geoff]

nowhere:

Of course. Do you propose that reputable scientists have EVIDENCE that the world was created by some other means then "accident"? A powerful thing about science, Geoff, is reputable scientists don't allow personal beliefs to affect their scientific claims. This is NOT the case with religion.

It was an example of legitimate differences in science. There are many, and yes they are reputable, and often not Christian. Another example might be the recent discussion regarding whether obesity is genetic or not. THere is good evidence for boths sides.
However, in the case of the Bible, it is historically verifiable. Read the Exodus Case by Lennart Moller, which shows from acientific (archeological, forensic and various other scientific investigations) that there was an exodus, a Moses, an Abraham, a Jacob, and a Joseph. I look forward to reading the counter arguments against it, to see how it stacks up. I found it rather compelling.

I wonder, have you studied the koran? the bhagavad gita? Hinduism, mormonism, taoism? Egyptian book of the dead? Tibetan book of the dead? Etc? Etc.?

Or have you fixated on the bible only?
Yes, I have. I havent been a Christian all my life you know. I have been a Christian for 7 years, for the first 29 I was many many things. I also have hindu, buddist, taoist, shaman, witch, satanist, vampire, new age, scientist, etc etc friends. I have dabbled in most of these myself at some time.
AS part of my studies we looked at comparitive religions, quite in depth. We also study the Ancient Near East quite intensely (like, this is the focus of all our study) and the various cults and other sociological phenomena. I'm not an expert, but I have studied, researched, wrote, and been examined on it.

Exactly what demonstrates the bible as a reliable guide to truth?
This question misses the point, however it is worth answering. The Bible claims to be the word of God, a record of his dealings with Humanity, and his instruction regarding what is required for his creation. Therefore, as God is the one who defines Truth, it claims to be the most reliable guide there is.
I dont really want to debate this point though, as it is off topic.
The point was regarding HOW one GETS understanding from Scripture.


Very good. Applied to the bible, I learn it is myth, superstition, dogma, and a bit of biased history. An illogical and non-sensible work of fiction. I found it to be biased, bigoted, intolerant, and contrary to world peace. That's how I found it!
And if I ask myself those questions about your understanding, I find that it isnt very well researched, and contrary to what is known to be true generally. Even Secular experts are forced to admit that the Bible is historically accurate, and that this is demonstratable from science.

In your view, who avoids hell and goes to heaven? What are the requirements?
The requirements are a "right" relationship with God. That is, acknowledging his Kingship, and living a life that refects it. Simple. This is to avoid the punishment for NOT acknowledging his Kingship. You can call it hell, or what ever, but it is a criminal punishment.


No, I claim a good god would not punish people for eternity. It's really not that complicated a position, Geoff.

And my counter claim, by way of example would be, then there is no such thing as a good judge, if He punishes a criminal. The judge who sentences a murderer to death is not a good judge.

In the second case, I reserve judgement of her nature, until I learn your views on the requirements needed to avoid annihilationism.
You cant avoid annihilation. Even if you are not a Christian, as soon as you enter the cremation chamber and they flick the switch, you are annihilated (humour, but with a point, I hope).

[Alien Dragon]

There are many, and yes they are reputable, and often not Christian.

I would like to see this "evidence" from "reputable scientists" for the purposeful creation of earth.

I'm not an expert, but I have studied, researched, wrote, and been examined on it.

Should we learn about capitalism by going to communist school?

However, in the case of the Bible, it is historically verifiable.

Star Trek is full of real people, places, and events.

And if I ask myself those questions about your understanding, I find that it isnt very well researched.

It's not my research that bothers you, it's my conclusion. The bible is not divinely inspired.

The requirements are a "right" relationship with God.

This is taking forever, Geoff. WHAT is a "right" relationship?

[/QUOTE]This is to avoid the punishment for NOT acknowledging his Kingship. [/QUOTE]

What exactly does this mean? Then babies go to hell?

[/QUOTE]And my counter claim, by way of example would be, then there is no such thing as a good judge, if He punishes a criminal. [/QUOTE]

Do all muslims go to hell? All buddists? All aboriginals?

[/QUOTE] You cant avoid annihilation. Even if you are not a Christian, as soon as you enter the cremation chamber and they flick the switch, you are annihilated [/QUOTE]

What the? No one goes to heaven? Geoff, you are so obtuse.

BTW from the theology web home page:

GODISNOWHERE

[geoff]

How come you changed names? Been norty?

I would like to see this "evidence" from "reputable scientists" for the purposeful creation of earth.

www.answersingenesis.org is a start. Plus I have been to lectures from Professors from various universities from around the world. I have also attended lectures from various leading scientists, such as fossil fuel researchers, who are all creationists. Not to mention having read an article by the famed "anti-creationist" Stephen Hawking, in which He claims not to "have an opinion" on creation, except to say that creation "seems" more likely than any other option based on the evidence we have at this time.

Again, I dont want to discuss this, its not my area of expertise.. there is a whole forum dedicated to this here... go and ask them.

Should we learn about capitalism by going to communist school?
Irrelevant. I was studying at a Seminary. Do you learn to be a mechanic by going to Barber school? No, you to to the appropriate school, which has the appropriate expertise. Your response was argumentative, obstructive and not well thought out.

Star Trek is full of real people, places, and events.
Sigh. Now, lets see, does archeology confirm the places, sites, people and events of Star Trek? Do historical records confirm that what start trek says happened, happens? No. This is not the case for SCripture. Your answer, yet again, was not well thought out, argumentative, and quite frankly, dumb.

It's not my research that bothers you, it's my conclusion. The bible is not divinely inspired.
Its fairly obvious there is NO research. Otherwise your answers would be intelligent. Therefore there is no conclusion worth taking note of.

This is taking forever, Geoff. WHAT is a "right" relationship?
The relationship Humans were created to have, representatives of God, serving Him by ruling creation, in relationship with Him. Read Genesis, its all there.


What exactly does this mean? Then babies go to hell?
It means EXACTLY what I said. Babies are the responsibility of God, and according to Rom 5:12-14, I would suggest they dont go to Hell. Its all in the Bible, read it.

Do all muslims go to hell? All buddists? All aboriginals?

Irrelevant and not related to the quote. All criminals found guilty are punished. Punishing Criminals does not make the Judge unjust, as it is His RIGHT to punish, and is by default, Just.

What the? No one goes to heaven? Geoff, you are so obtuse.
DOnt be argumentative. You are deliberately twisting the conversation, most likely because you are going no where, nowhere. A person sentenced to death does not avoid death unless they are some how pardoned. Therefore, no one avoids death, unless their debt to the law is somehow paid. So, unless your debt is paid, you are annihilated.

[Alien Dragon]

How come you changed names? Been norty?


No. I merely exercised my free will.

go and ask them.

I wondered if you had info I hadn't already been exposed to. You don't.

Irrelevant. I was studying at a Seminary.

I know. I find the existence of bias and agenda to be relevant.

You know what xians think about buddhism, for example. Do you know what buddism says about xianity?

Now, lets see, does archeology confirm the places, sites, people and events of Star Trek?

You aren't paying attention. The REAL places, people, and events in Star Trek are certainly confirmed. For example they traveled to San Francisco. For example they spoke with Steven Hawking. For example they discussed WW II. I have to spell out this simple point for you. sheesh.

Your answer, yet again, was not well thought out, argumentative, and quite frankly, dumb.

You have been provided with the opportunity to correct your misconception.

[geoff]

Well, seeing as you arent going to stop responding with your inane and pointless comments, I'll stop responding to you.

If you arent going engage in an intelligent conversation, there is no point me trying to have one with you. I have plenty of other athiests I can talk to, rather than waste my time on a "christianist" (like a racist, but prefers to persecute Christians).

When you lose your anti christian agenda, and what to have a decent discussion... come back.

[Alien Dragon]

Its fairly obvious there is NO research. Otherwise your answers would be intelligent. Therefore there is no conclusion worth taking note of.

Your inability to grasp simple points reflects on you, Geoff, not on me.

The relationship Humans were created to have, representatives of God, serving Him by ruling creation, in relationship with Him. Read Genesis, its all there.

Another non-answer. Your interpretation is a secret, unless you share.

It means EXACTLY what I said.

I asked your definition of "right relationship" (which you said was the way to heaven).
You said "This is to avoid the punishment for NOT acknowledging his Kingship.
Clearly babies don't acknowledge god.

Now you backpedal and try to expand your definition. I know you won't grasp this, but it should be clear to any lurkers. Geoff, you are obtuse.

Irrelevant and not related to the quote. All criminals found guilty are punished. Punishing Criminals does not make the Judge unjust, as it is His RIGHT to punish, and is by default, Just.


Here is another very simple point. I started this thread.
I will decide what is relevant.

The question of whether YOUR INTERPRETATION of god requires all non-xians to go to hell, is relevant to the question of whether the xian god is a good god.

And you have avoided the question, again. I really can't be any more concise and direct then this: do muslims go to hell? Buddists? Aboriginals?

[geoff]

ho hum. boring.

YOu can not have an intelligent discussion with someone who decides whats true/relevant by some random factor only known to themselves (and its proving unlikely that they even know themselves).

toodles.

[Alien Dragon]

ho hum. boring.


It is indeed in the nature of freethought to disturb those with narrow and inconsistent world views.

Do all muslims go to hell? Why does this question bother you?

[geoff]

Do all muslims go to hell? Why does this question bother you?

A. Its not my place to decide who goes to hell.
B. It doesnt bother me at all.

[Alien Dragon]

Today @ 05:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77231#post77231)
geoff:



A. Its not my place to decide who goes to hell.
B. It doesnt bother me at all.

A: You are unaware of, or ashamed of, your own interpretation of the bible.

B: Oh I can tell you are not bothered.

C: A good god would not punish people for eternity.

D: A good god would judge us on our actions and intentions (ie our morality), and not on our willingness to become mindless slave-drones.

E: Xianity preaches exclusionism, promotes intolerance, and is contrary to world peace.

F: Moral people should seek enlightenment elsewhere. Xianity is just too primitive and hateful.

[geoff]

a. Huh?
b. Uh huh
c. Wrong. A good Judge IS RIGHT to punish those proven guilty.
d. He DOES judge us on our actions and intentions, Gen 6:5-6
e. Baloney. Some IDIOTS preach it, and others believe it. The message of Israel (Judaism) and Christianity, is a future restoration of the world to peace and its rightful intended state.
f. Intelligent people should make intelligent decisions based on THE BEST evidence... not hearsay. You dont make a very good witness for athiesm.

[zionstructure]

Ok...well what about the exsistence of Hell. Well nowhere, ever read about gnosticism? If not i think you would like it. Basically has your same ideas about the "biblical God".

Hell is in a majority of the major religions, and the very first hell that resembles <if not is a mirror image> of the christians idea of hell is the Zoroastrian Hell (about a thousand years before Christ). Though people in the Zoroastrian Hell do not stay there forever. That idea seems to be a new starting with Christianity and being adopted by Islam as well. Hey even Buddhism has a hell, and it sounds like the christian one but don't worry, its just a temporary hell.

Being a spiritual person, and looking over all the ideas and thoughts about where we go and why after this life. The only fair and just ideas that I've come across are that of reincarnation. Didn't get it right? Try again.

Practice makes perfect.

:cheers:

[Warcraft3]

nowhere375:

I just wanted to throw in my two cents here since I understand where you are coming from(I think). I have had about 1,237,853,927 conversations on this topic and others similar to it. I have many friends who are either athiest or agnostic and so these things frequently come up over coffee.

I struggle every day with what I see are "problems" with Christianity and this is a big one. So here is my stab at it......

There are two diffeent veiws on hell currently as you have heard. One is "eternal torment" and "the other is anihilationism".

Usualyl it is the "eternal torment" view that people find repulsive so I will attempt to provide an answer. The point of my possible answers is this......if a human can think of a reasonable answer of why there is suffering in hell, then surely there may be an answer ,which currently we do not know (or possibly cant even comprehend at this time), which makes sense and is "just" in a human sense.

Okay here are my thoughts on the "eternal torment" view......


1. What is the nature of the "fire" exactly?
This is one that we do not have an exact answer for. Scripture may be speaking figuratively or literally when describing "fire" (certainly the fire isnt physical as we know it since hell is not a physical place), but lets assume for the sake of argument that people who are in hell are really burning in a "physical" sense.

2. It is reasonable to think that there are "levels" of suffering in hell
I believe that not everyone in hell experiences the same level of suffering. Why? Here are two possible explanations of the suffering.....



a. One answer is because in general the "judgement" of hell is simply not going to heaven, but the specific suffering is in direct relation to the "evil" you did on earth. Under this view many people who go to hell will actually suffer very little.
b.Another possibility is maybe the "fire" is there to prevent hell form being worse than it has to be. Imagine a place where you have a bunch of evil beings (demons and the like) combined with a bunch of people who have no chance of excape and nothing preventing them from doing harm to each other. No "police force" and no "light" or "conscience" for people to look to. A bunch of angry beings pent up in one place could take their anger out on one another and cause immense suffering. So maybe the "fire" is their as a restraint to keep each resident from harming anyone else. Thus the fire is consistant with a loving God even in hell.



Now Im not saying that I necessarily believe any of these....I know they may sound far-fetched, but Im honestly trying to answer your question without resorting to "well just accept it". I do think that there is a good answer, but I just havent found it (or have had it revealed to me) yet. But I continue to pray and ponder on this issue in search of the answer. My answers in this post were just me giving it a shot. I hope they help a little.
:shrug:



Russ

:read:

[Mason David]

This is my first day as a member of theology web. I would first like to express my gratitude to the creators of this site. I am 19 years old and have only recently begun to question my faith and to try to discover what I truly believe. It is great that people can debate here, because religious questions are clearly of the utmost importance for many people.
Now, on the existence of hell. It seems very strange to me that the omnibenevolent Christian God would even allow such a place as this. My reasoning here is that if God is all powerful and God is all knowing, then he knows the past,the present, and the future. With this understood, he must surely know that millions upon millions of people of his creation will perish in eternal hellfire. To mr the question of freewill is of little worth anyway. Predestination is inevitable if you believe that God is all knowing. With that said, why does a loving God allow people that he knows will be damned to even be born?
I would love any response from Christian and atheist alike. I'm not here to make enemies or to offend anybody. I value the opinions of others.

[angeltread]

Today @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77877#post77877)
Mason David:
With that said, why does a loving God allow people that he knows will be damned to even be born?



Hello. My first post here, too. Most threads here seem pretty deep and way out of my league, but this one seems more my speed.

David, that's a fair question. I'd have to say that God is a God of free will. There are millions of people on this earth; for all we know, most of them don't care for or listen to God - but they certainly continue to produce millions and millions more people without thought of consequence. I don't see God striking them dead in the womb. So it's just a vicious cycle - we have only ourselves to blame, really.

As for Hell - I've always been interested in the subject. Jesus described Hell as a place of 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'. To me, this torment is an overwhelming feeling of guilt and unforgiveness - so much so that i doubt they will care about what is going on around them. I also believe that Heaven and Hell are more 'physical' than most make them out to be. When Jesus appeared to the disciples, they could touch him. Jesus also described Hell as a 'lake of fire'. I don't think that's a far off description - since Hell is 'without God'. God is the source of light and warmth in Heaven. That leads me to believe that some type of lake of fire would serve that purpose in Hell.

[apologetics]

This is my first post on TheologyWeb. I stumbled across it today while visiting one of my favorite websites, tektonics.org, JP Holdings site. I thought this was just as good a place to start as any, seeing as though this is one of my favorite theological subjects!

This issue is so complex and involved. Reading through all 6 pages of posts, I have encountered the usual suspects. Misunderstanding about the nature of God, the nature of freewill and the logical connections of "good" and "evil."

Atheists and skeptics claim that God is evil because he has created an evil place such as hell and that "throwing" good people into hell simply for non-belief is evil. Therefore, they conclude, this God is not worthy of being belief and certainly not worthy of worship.

Several things need to be considered:

1. God did not create moral evil. This is an actualized result of free will. Is it fair to say that he created the possibility of moral evil? Certainly. However, this is not anything close to the actual creation of it. Humanity actualized the possibility and made evil a reality when Man [chose] to do evil. Being a perfectly holy God (being holy is not a character of his nature, it IS his nature!), he could not tolerate this which is contrary to his very nature. It has to be quarantined. This is Hell....but this is only part of the story.

Free will is God's gift to humanity. 1 John 4:8 tells us that God is love. Again, this is not just a character trait, but it is his nature. God IS love. Now, how could God have created perfectly free individuals who were not perfectly free to chose anything, including evil? How is it possible that God could have created free individuals without free will? It is completely impossible. Without free will, it would have been possible for God to have created perfect beings, but we would have been perfect robots, not humans. Now, with those who chose to do evil, with this gift, could a perfectly holy God sit back and accept this? Of course not!

2. There are many different theological views on Hell. Some suggest that the Biblical language is to be taken literally, but many theologians do not. What is Hell then? It is eternal separation from Christ. Period. God is simply giving you for eternity what you chose on this earth.....utter and complete separation from Him. In actuality, this could be looked at as a mercy, not a punishment. Would God really be a loving God if you spent your entire life desiring NOT to believe in Him and desiring NOT to worship Him, but when you died, he brought you kicking and screaming into an eternity in which you would be forced to do both of these activities?

As to one of the views of Hell that has gained popularity in our post-modernistic society, annihilationism. There is simply NO reason to believe this! In fact, most of the Bible's teaching of Hell specifically mitigates against this. Annihilationists must read into passages and take things out of context to support there beliefs. I will go into this more specifically with anyone wishing to discuss this.

3. It is theologically indefensible to claim that God "tortures" people in Hell. Are there differing levels of punishment in Hell? The Bible does teach that there are different degrees of suffering. Matthew 11:20-24 is an excellent example. Would it be logical to assume that Hitler will have a different punishment than, say, the weekend warrior who was too concerned with his golf game to find time for faith? Sure, but then again, we are not God. Just because the Bible indicates that Hell is a place of eternal torment does not mean that God is controlling the torment, just as a the jury who sentences a convicted killer to prison for life without the possibility of parole is not controlling the killers tormented emotions for his many years in prison. The Bible does specifically state the Jesus Christ will judge, but it is theologically indefensible to claim that the Bible teaches that he then controls the eternal torment. He is ONLY giving people what they have desired all their lives.....separation from Him. Will that knowledge lead to severe eternal torment? I would say probably!

4. Many atheists believe that it is unjust to sentence "good" people to Hell simply for not believing something. My response to this is always, "how do you define good?" What is "good?" Why do you believe that your definition of "good" is better than someone elses? Palestinian and now Iraqi Homicide Bombers are taught that their actions are not only "good," but are actually commended by Allah. They bomb and kill innocent "enemy" Israeli's and they are getting themselves a first-class ticket to a number of eternal virgins! Now, do you consider their actions "good?" Most civilized individuals would, of course, say NO! But they view their actions as good and conversely, they view your actions as bad. So, who is right? If their is not an ultimate moral law giver then tags such as "good" and "bad" are relative and actually any action could be classified as good. Situational ethics. The very word "good" and "bad" implies that there is some standard by which to judge this. This is the creation of the Necessary Being....God.

5. Acow brought up one of the most popular atheistic reasons for NOT believing in God.....lack of evidence. Is it possible that God, being perfect, has provided all the evidence He deems necessary? Of course.....and understanding this I would not want to be face-to-face with my creator as I faced final judgment armed with only this excuse. In addition, the Psalmists indicate numerous places that God's handiwork can be seen all around. Science has failed miserably in their attempts to bring life from non-life. Why is that?

The bottom line: If God exists, then Hell exists. If God exists, then the first principle of logic, the law of non-contradiction, states that 2 things that are mutually exclusive cannot exist at the same time in the same place. There is only ONE God. For example, Allah and Yahweh cannot exist at the same time since God is a Necessary Being and by the very nature of a Necessary Being, only One can exist. Therefore, if God exists, then what he has revealed in the Bible is true and Hell will be a reality for all who choose a life without Him. Attempting to claim that you cannot believe in him because your limited, finite mind cannot will obviously not get you too far with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God.

It is late and I have not addressed this issue nearly as thoroughly as I would like to have. Any specific questions will be gladly answered specifically!

[Woman]

To those who believe in a literal hell, a physical one...

where is it?

[apologetics]

Early on in this post, Nowhere357 brought out an atheistic stalwart: There can't be a Hell because "what about all those who have never heard about Jesus?"

If this were true, then wouldn't it be better just to abolish ALL churches? Within a few generations no one will remember church and soon Jesus Christ will fade from memory and everyone will live happily everafter with everyone going to Heaven.

This is what logicians call a Reductio Ad Adsurdum, or an argument from absurdity.

If Jesus Christ is real and said that he is THE way, THE truth and THE life and NO ONE would come before the Father but BY HIM, then that about settles it.

There are much fuller explanations to this argument that I won't bore anyone with here, but would be glad to if anyone would like to delve deeper.

[Laughlyn]

04-02-2003 @ 06:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51127#post51127)
Nowhere357:

If the bible is true, then god sends people to hell, for ever, to suffer and suffer, regardless if they are good or bad. This seems to me to be an evil and wrong thing to do.


The idea is that people are condemned to Hell, if they willfully denies God, in spite of the evidence they have seen. In christian belief, noone passes through life without knowing Christ himself, although not neccessarily under that very name.

[geoff]

Zionstructure:

It seems to me an eternity of trying again and again to achieve perfection through reincarnation would be a form of hell... :)

[geoff]

The idea is that people are condemned to Hell, if they willfully denies God, in spite of the evidence they have seen. In christian belief, noone passes through life without knowing Christ himself, although not neccessarily under that very name.

Actually.. according to the Bible it is because we are the offspring of Adam, who sinned originally, and our deeds, thoughts and desires prove/reveal we are his offspring.

I was watching a documentary on WWII. One of the Germans said something interesting, he said: "I never met an Englishman, but I was born a German, so I was at war with England. I had no choice. I didnt know any better, until I finally met an Englishman. Some of us realised that Englishmen where humans like us, and not to be hated, but many of us continued as we had been taught, to war against and hate Englishmen".

You see, you dont have to "choose" to be at war, if your country is at war, so are you, from the oldest, to the youngest. From the time you are born, to hte time you die, or the war ends. The only way to escape is to join another kingdom/nation.

It is the same with humanity. We are born into a state of war with God. You can choose to ignore it, and suffer the consequences, or you can join a sifferent kingdom.

[zionstructure]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78303#post78303)
geoff:

Zionstructure:

It seems to me an eternity of trying again and again to achieve perfection through reincarnation would be a form of hell... :)

Geoff, I hear ya :) though given the choice of ideas about the afterlife. I think being reborn again and again on either this planet or another (its a very big universe) is much better than spending an eternity in hell for not picking the right view of God.
But ya know, I think its the Gnostics who think Earth IS hell, literally and to be reborn here is a great punishment...and after seeing the way of life in parts of Africa for example, i can't rely deny that idea as completely absurd.

<i have two tangents i want to get off on right now so if you were just looking for something on hell...don't read after this point >

For the Christians. Yahweh is not the "real" name of God. How do i know this? Well the Jews were only allowed to say Gods actual name in the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement. Thats because it was so powerful, that to misuse it would cause things like...the red sea parting, the first born of some random country dying, you get the idea. The only people who have the "real" name of God are probably some sect of Kabbalists and trust me they aren't probably going to reveal it to Gentiles. If anyone would like further info or documentation you can e-mail me :)

And this is about Jesus, specifically, the quote of "I am the way the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father but through me"....ok, let me give you an idea to toy around with and it won't hurt my feelings if you don't believe it just, give it a look.

In Christian doctrine,
Jesus = God
God = Love
therefor by Christian theory
Jesus= Love

"Love is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes unto the Father but through Love".
I think if Christians took this view they would sound alot less elitist. But in the famous words of Dennis Miller, But thats just my opinion, i could be wrong

:cheers:

[Warcraft3]

zionstructure:

In Christian doctrine,
Jesus = God
God = Love
therefor by Christian theory
Jesus= Love

"Love is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes unto the Father but through Love".
I think if Christians took this view they would sound alot less elitist. But in the famous words of Dennis Miller, But thats just my opinion, i could be wrong

1.God does not "=" love. The verse which states God is love is not equating God with love in a mathematical sense.

2. Your version of the verse, "Love is the way, the truth, and the life,......" is not consistant with other statements that Jesus said.

3. "God is love" is not saying that "love is God". They are two very different statements. One is defining love by God, saying that God is the epitome of love, and the other is saying that the impersonal concept of love is the ultimate thing in the universe.

So while your views of love may be very admirable, they are not Biblical.


Russ


:rockon:

[geoff]

I am afraid I have to agree with steadele

[garthoverman]

apologetics said:

1. God did not create moral evil. This is an actualized result of free will.
and:

Any specific questions will be gladly answered specifically!

My questions:Is there free will in Heaven?

Is there evil in Heaven?

Does your God know the future infallibly?Think carefully about your answers.

Yours,
Garth

[apologetics]

garthoverman asked:

My questions:
Is there free will in Heaven?

Is there evil in Heaven?

Does your God know the future infallibly?
Think carefully about your answers.

Most theologians, and I do agree, believe that there is free will in heaven. Now, the common objection to this is that if there is free will in heaven, then moral evil has to exist as it exists here. The most common reply to this is as such:

Heaven is not this earth. The Apostle John describes this very exactly in Revelation 21:1. There is to be a new heaven and a new earth. Who is to be living on this new earth that is to be our eternal heaven? Those who have chosen Jesus Christ as their personal savior. It it this earthly "choice" that holds the key. The theological answer to this apparent conundrum is that our earthly choice for Christ and his perfection is perfectly actualized through the Resurrection. Simply put, we will be free, but we will have no desire to chose anything but the perfection that we have been given through Jesus Christ. Hard to imagine, I grant you, but we are viewing this through carnal, finite, fallen minds.

Will there be evil in heaven? Very simply put......NO! How could this be seeing as though God will be fully and completely in charge of events there.

As to God's infallible knowledge of the future:

I have recently read a very interesting and challenging piece written by Boston College philosophy professor Peter Kreeft. Kreeft points out that God is the creator of time. As such, he is not bound by the limitations of time. This actually is the answer to "who created God?" He is the uncaused cause. He exists outside of time and space and as such is infinite. As many philosophers have pointed out, God this is the basis behind God being called the Necessary Being.

Kreeft points out that as God is outside the bound of time and space, he has no timeline upon which to view events. Things at the first are as real and present to him as events at the end. Think about that. I have equated this to God being able to look at the events of world history on the tip of a needle. What was, what is and what will be are all rolled into his present view. He cannot look back and forth across time because that would mean that he was looking at things within time and space. Can he interject himself into time.....sure, but this is not where he resides.

If all events are simultaneously current for him, how can "predetermination" be defended? Just because God know how events will take place does not mean that he fatalistically causes them to happen. Predetermination violates free will and cannot logically be equated with a God of love.

So, to answer your question.....YES, God's knowledge of the future is infallible. I will concede that not all theologians hold to this, however. There is a doctrine known as Openness Theology that states that the Bible indicates that God "changes his mind," meaning that God might not be privy to all events throughout history. This thinking has been attacked by many of today's brightest theological minds. But, I put it out there so that you know it exists. For more information on this, I would suggest two books by Dr. Gregory Boyd: Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity and God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. I don't agree with many of Boyd's conclusions, but they are interesting, nonetheless.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 12:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78944#post78944)
apologetics:

garthoverman asked:

Most theologians, and I do agree, believe that there is free will in heaven. Now, the common objection to this is that if there is free will in heaven, then moral evil has to exist as it exists here. The most common reply to this is as such:

<snip>

Will there be evil in heaven? Very simply put......NO! How could this be seeing as though God will be fully and completely in charge of events there.
Then your statement that evil is "the result of actualized free will" is false since actualized free will can exist without the resulting evil (Heaven).

As to God's infallible knowledge of the future:

I have recently read a very interesting and challenging piece written by Boston College philosophy professor Peter Kreeft. Kreeft points out that God is the creator of time. As such, he is not bound by the limitations of time.
You'll need to demonstrate this, not just assert it. Otherwise all I see is the typical theistic hand-waving. Do you have anything that might substantiate your claims (i.e. objective evidence)?

Just because God know how events will take place does not mean that he fatalistically causes them to happen.
Yes it does. Whether God is in time or "outside of time" (a phrase repeatedly used by theists, but NEVER demonstrated to be meaningful), it matters not since His infallible knowledege of OUR future removes all choice and hence negates free will. Since you postulate your God as creating EVERYTHING and also knowing EVERYTHING at once He is therefore omni-responsible. IOW, since your God is the "First Cause" (special pleading at its best) and no event happens other than what your God knows at the instant of (or before) creation, He set in motion an unbreakable chain of events. I'm just the bullet -- God pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

So, by my count your 0 for 2. Evil is NOT the result of free will, and free will doesn't really exist if your God exists as you've described.

Care to take another swing? :teeth:

Yours,
Garth

[Mason David]

I have to agree with Garthoverman here. The presumption that God is "outside of time" is irrelevant. The conclusion is very simple in my opinion. God knows all things, whether he is in fact outside of the "carnal" concept of time or not. He knows that certain people are going to hell and he does nothing to prevent it. The free will concept is false if God is all knowing. Again I have to pose the question, why does a loving God allow people to be born when he has the knowledge that they will in fact go to hell. Where's the mercy?
And while I'm at it, where is there any Biblical proof of God being "outside of time?" That seems to be a human invention to me.

[geoff]

Since you postulate your God as creating EVERYTHING and also knowing EVERYTHING at once He is therefore omni-responsible. IOW, since your God is the "First Cause" (special pleading at its best) and no event happens other than what your God knows at the instant of (or before) creation, He set in motion an unbreakable chain of events. I'm just the bullet -- God pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

This all assumes that "knowing" has a causitive property, which it of course, does not. God can know, and not cause, in the same way you can know, and not cause. Cause is not a property of "knowing".

No other event happens because God "KNOWS" what will happen, not becuase he CAUSES it by knowing.

[geoff]

The presumption that God is "outside of time" is irrelevant.

Since all things start with God, whether he is in or out of time is important.

Especially in regards to His knowing. God can NOT foreknow if He is a prisoner of time, he can, like us, only make informed judgements, or guesses.

However, this thread is about the existence of hell, not foreknowledge.

[apologetics]

garth wrote:

Then your statement that evil is "the result of actualized free will" is false since actualized free will can exist without the resulting evil (Heaven).

Garth, this statement is only false if the two arenas are mutually dependant. They are not! The world we live in is in a sense pre-choice. Heaven is post-choice. The presence of free-will in Heaven without the resulting evil is a result of the choice that one made for God in this world. Do I pretend to understand all of the nuances? Of course not! However, you seem willing to argue the point regardless....

You'll need to demonstrate this, not just assert it. Otherwise all I see is the typical theistic hand-waving. Do you have anything that might substantiate your claims (i.e. objective evidence)?

Provide objective evidence to what? That God is outside of time and space? How would one do that? If I were able to provide what you are asking, I would have found the solution to something that has been a theological issue since nearly the beginning of time. There are obviously logical reasons for believing this. How can the creator of something be subject to his creation? If God created time, how could he have been within time when it was created? I understand that this is a debated theological issue, but asking for objective evidence is beyond me or anyone! If I could provide you that evidence, I would have to be God....which I am not.

Yes it does. Whether God is in time or "outside of time" (a phrase repeatedly used by theists, but NEVER demonstrated to be meaningful), it matters not since His infallible knowledege of OUR future removes all choice and hence negates free will. Since you postulate your God as creating EVERYTHING and also knowing EVERYTHING at once He is therefore omni-responsible. IOW, since your God is the "First Cause" (special pleading at its best) and no event happens other than what your God knows at the instant of (or before) creation, He set in motion an unbreakable chain of events. I'm just the bullet -- God pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

You'll have to do a better job at defending this statement:

"His infallible knowledege of OUR future removes all choice and hence negates free will."

How does foreknowledge of an event negate freewill? Just because he knows something ahead of time does not mean that he MADE you do it! He knew that you were going to do it, but it couldn't have been done until you CHOSEto do it! Just because he knew ahead of time that you were going to, say, cheat on your taxes, doesn't mean that you didn't freely chose to cheat. You could have chosen NOT to cheat, and his foreknowledge of that choice would have affected the chain of events just as much. You are not a puppet on a string! You have a mind to turn right or left, have the burger or the chicken, etc. Why is that so difficult to understand?

If God is outside of time, as I said, he can't see forward or backward....He just knows! Please explain how this knowledge can affect how YOU chose things.

I'm just the bullet -- God pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

Assuming that God is real, are you trying to claim that non-existence would have been a better situation than existence? While I agree that what you have stated is an interesting analogy, it cuts both ways. Good and bad. Should God have forgone creation because a vast minority would chose evil with their freewill at the expense of the far greater number of his creatures that would choice to peform of acts of kindness and love with theirs?

[apologetics]

Mason David said:

The conclusion is very simple in my opinion. God knows all things, whether he is in fact outside of the "carnal" concept of time or not. He knows that certain people are going to hell and he does nothing to prevent it. The free will concept is false if God is all knowing.

I just don't understand the logic here! How is it God fault that you CHOSE not to believe in him? Do you, at this very moment, have the ability to chose to do ANYTHING you want? Could you run over and jump out the window and fall to your death? Yes! Could you drive to a liquor store, hold it up and shoot the cashier? YES! Conversely, could you load up your car with all your possessions and donate them to an orphanage? YES! Or, could you make the decision right now to begin to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and begin to pursue the massive amount of evidence pointing to this conclusion? YES AGAIN!

My point is that you have the ability....RIGHT NOW....to chose to do any act you chose! It might be legal or illegal, good or bad, right or wrong, but the act will not take place until YOU CHOSE TO DO IT!

Placing the blame on God is not only a weak excuse to justify non-belief, it is illogical.

Again I have to pose the question, why does a loving God allow people to be born when he has the knowledge that they will in fact go to hell. Where's the mercy?

Two things here:

1. I would ask you to justify your belief that non-existence is better than existence, because that is the logical conclusion to your statement. I would also ask you to explain how true love could exist (and therefore free will) if only those people who were going to love God were allowed to exist. Wouldn't that be a twisted kind of love?

2. If you have chosen a lifetime of not only not believing in God, but in actually attacking Him, what is God supposed to do? Allow you into Heaven along with all those who made the free choice to love him? If that were really the case, wouldn't it be best to live just as lasciviously and lecherously as possible since there was not vertical dimension to your actions? However, this type of living is contrary to the very nature of God. So, how do you propose he rectify the situation?

Actually, isn't he being merciful? He is simply giving you the eternal results of your choice NOT to live with Him. Would you want to be dragged kicking and screaming into Heaven where you would be forced not only to live with him, but to worship him daily for eternity when you couldn't stand the thought of spending an hour a week in church?

And while I'm at it, where is there any Biblical proof of God being "outside of time?" That seems to be a human invention to me.

Like I've said previously. How could God be in time when it was not in existence until he created it? What creator is subject to the limits of his creation?

The Bible does not say, "God is outside of time," but when proper Biblical exegesis is employed, the concept is understood. I will leave you with one Biblical example:

Malachi 3:6: "For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."

What is time? The Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines it as:

a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.

In essence, time is the measure of change. Can you think of anything that is within time that does NOT change? God does not change, therefore, how can he be subject to the limits of time?

Please explain your position that this concept is just a human creation.

[zionstructure]

Yesterday @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78751#post78751)
steadele:

zionstructure:



1.God does not &quot;=&quot; love. The verse which states God is love is not equating God with love in a mathematical sense.

2. Your version of the verse, &quot;Love is the way, the truth, and the life,......&quot; is not consistant with other statements that Jesus said.

3. &quot;God is love&quot; is not saying that &quot;love is God&quot;. They are two very different statements. One is defining love by God, saying that God is the epitome of love, and the other is saying that the impersonal concept of love is the ultimate thing in the universe.

So while your views of love may be very admirable, they are not Biblical.


Russ


:rockon:


Hey russ,
Well i was just using the whole "equal" thing to try to get the point across and i wouldn't really expect people to take the point in a purely mathematical way.
To respond to your points though.
I personally think that "love is the way..." and so on like i stated before is consistent with what i personally believe the NT to be about. Now you might look at the bible in a purely nicene creed fashion and thats all good. But while the topic Jesus preached on the most was Hell, He also preached heavily on love. He <and other jewish teachers of his time> were advocating that Loving God and your Neighbor as yourself was the entire law, and the rest was just commentary.
On your last point, Love in an impersonal way is not Love. We can all agree that people through the term around way too loosely in society but it doesn't change the idea of it, atleast it shouldn't. When you Love another human being, in that sense, Love is God. Loving your car or your ps2 isn't Love.

The law of similarity (philosophical, not mathematical) . If God is Love and you Love, then you are closer to God.

:cheers:

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79157#post79157)
apologetics:

Garth, this statement is only false if the two arenas are mutually dependant.
No its not.

They are not! The world we live in is in a sense pre-choice. Heaven is post-choice. The presence of free-will in Heaven without the resulting evil is a result of the choice that one made for God in this world. Do I pretend to understand all of the nuances? Of course not! However, you seem willing to argue the point regardless....
Ahhh.... the "God works in mysterious ways" argument. Been along time since someone actually used that on me...



Provide objective evidence to what? That God is outside of time and space? How would one do that?

Precisely. That's why postulating an entity existing "outside time and space" is meaningless.


If I were able to provide what you are asking, I would have found the solution to something that has been a theological issue since nearly the beginning of time. There are obviously logical reasons for believing this. How can the creator of something be subject to his creation?
Explain how it is impossible for a creator to be "subject to his creation." Define creation. If you are referring to the universe you've mislabeled it.

If God created time, how could he have been within time when it was created?
Do you realize that "when time was created" presupposes time's existence?


I understand that this is a debated theological issue, but asking for objective evidence is beyond me or anyone! If I could provide you that evidence, I would have to be God....which I am not.

Well that depends on how you define god....



How does foreknowledge of an event negate freewill?
Because free will requires that at every decision event there exists multiple logical possibilities that are mutually exclusive in reality. Infallible foreknowledge is predicated on the impossibility of error. If at time t(0) God knows infallibly that X will do act A at time t(x) {such that x > 0} then B {mutually exclusive to A} is impossible.

He knew that you were going to do it, but it couldn't have been done until you CHOSEto do it!
Its meaningless to speak of choice. (Putting it in capital letters and bold type doesn't give it any more meaning either)


Just because he knew ahead of time that you were going to, say, cheat on your taxes, doesn't mean that you didn't freely chose to cheat.
Thats exactly what it means.

You could have chosen NOT to cheat
Not if it was already known that I would cheat.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
The sweet, sweet irony...

If God is outside of time, as I said, he can't see forward or backward....He just knows! Please explain how this knowledge can affect how YOU chose things.
1.) God created the universe.

2.) My future is part of the known universe, and cannot change.Therefore God created my future, and it cannot change.


Assuming that God is real, are you trying to claim that non-existence would have been a better situation than existence?
Do you mean for us or for God? If you mean us, then first demonstrate that non-existence is possible.

While I agree that what you have stated is an interesting analogy, it cuts both ways. Good and bad. Should God have forgone creation because a vast minority would chose evil with their freewill at the expense of the far greater number of his creatures that would choice to peform of acts of kindness and love with theirs?
The point of it all is that it is possible for God to create a world where free will can exist without evil (Heaven) yet He didn't (here and now). Therefore evil cannot be a result of free will. {obviously that assumes that free will is a reality which seems to conflict with other attributes you claim of God}

BTW - is it possible for a person in heaven to do act B (sin) which is mutually exclusive to the Primary Directive of Heaven (worship God)? How free is that person?

Yours,
Garth

[apologetics]

“ They are not! The world we live in is in a sense pre-choice. Heaven is post-choice. The presence of free-will in Heaven without the resulting evil is a result of the choice that one made for God in this world. Do I pretend to understand all of the nuances? Of course not! However, you seem willing to argue the point regardless.... ”


Ahhh.... the "God works in mysterious ways" argument. Been along time since someone actually used that on me...

Garth, c'mon! If God exists do you think we have anyway of adequately explaining an infinite being with the faculties of a finite mind? There is an entire subject of logic called the Prinicple of Analogy that deals directly with this subject. We have NO way of adequately even speaking of God, much less understanding him. If you think you do, then you should be writing books on Theology because you might have the answer to all the questions that have plagued theologians for 1000's of years.

The rest of your last post illustrates quite clearly that nothing I have to say will be acceptable to you, therefore, I am done trying. I learned long ago to bow out of these dead end discussions much sooner than later. Life is far to short!

In closing I will say only one more thing. To use a game analogy....if God really exists, then doesn't he set the rules? If he created the universe, time, the earth, you, then we are all subject to his way. If he has set up the rules then I guess that is the way the game gets played. Thinking that God is not worth believing in just because you perceive his ways to be unfair is asinine if he really exists. If he doesn't exist, then this is all a useless conversation and we should all be out playing golf or drinking heavily. Its ironic that a race of beings who, as a generalization, has a difficult time learning to set up the new DVD player believe that we have the answers to the infinite. Very curious.

[semmie]

Today @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79867#post79867)
apologetics:
We have NO way of adequately even speaking of God, much less understanding him. If you think you do, then you should be writing books on Theology because you might have the answer to all the questions that have plagued theologians for 1000's of years.

Its ironic that a race of beings who, as a generalization, has a difficult time learning to set up the new DVD player believe that we have the answers to the infinite. Very curious.

:rofl:

apolo....you make me smile.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79867#post79867)
apologetics:

If God exists do you think we have anyway of adequately explaining an infinite being with the faculties of a finite mind?
Can you demonstrate that the mind is indeed finite?

There is an entire subject of logic called the Prinicple of Analogy that deals directly with this subject. We have NO way of adequately even speaking of God, much less understanding him.
That depends on how God is defined.

If you think you do, then you should be writing books on Theology because you might have the answer to all the questions that have plagued theologians for 1000's of years.
One needn't have "answer{s} to all the questions" to have an understanding of what is and what isn't real.

The rest of your last post illustrates quite clearly that nothing I have to say will be acceptable to you, therefore, I am done trying. I learned long ago to bow out of these dead end discussions much sooner than later. Life is far to short!
Explain to me how you conclude that nothing you say will be acceptible to me. Aren't I the only judge of what's acceptible to me?

In closing I will say only one more thing. To use a game analogy....if God really exists, then doesn't he set the rules? If he created the universe, time, the earth, you, then we are all subject to his way.
Translation: "If I can presuppose any set of rules I want, isn't it true that they exist?"



Thinking that God is not worth believing in just because you perceive his ways to be unfair is asinine if he really exists. If he doesn't exist, then this is all a useless conversation and we should all be out playing golf or drinking heavily.
What's this, Pascal's Wager in camoflage? If your God doesn't exist, there's roughly 2,499 other deities that might be the ACTUAL one if there is one at all. Your last statement about this "useless conversation" is a non-sequitur.


Its ironic that a race of beings who, as a generalization, has a difficult time learning to set up the new DVD player believe that we have the answers to the infinite. Very curious.
Of course you ignore that the race INVENTED the DVD player in the first place. BTW, if answering the infinite is as impossible as you paint it, then how is it that you have any answers at all?

Yours,
Garth

[Woman]

Nowhere357,

I think these are the kinds of questions that generally make agnostics out of Christians at a certain age or certain point in their lives.

Another thing that always struck me...we humans struggle with ego all the time. Well, some of us do. The less we act from ego, the more love we are able to manifest. My understanding of God does NOT include a big ego, subject to the emotion of rage, which is a very immature emotion even in mortals. My conclusion is that this God was created in the image of man and not visa-versa.

Hell is a concept very much in keeping with that kind of diety.

[Nowhere357]

04-24-2003 @ 11:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77389#post77389)
geoff:

a. Huh?

We were talking about your beliefs, concerning hell. I asked "Do all muslims go to hell?". Your answer was that it's not up to you. Well, duh! Do you claim that I think you're god? Clearly either you don't know whether your interpretation of the bible requires all muslims to go to hell, OR you are just ashamed to admit that is precisely what you think.

When you avoid direct questions in such a manner, I have no choice but to come to my own conclusions.

c. Wrong. A good Judge IS RIGHT to punish those proven guilty.


Guilty of WHAT? I've stated more than once that I have no problem with the idea of god punishing people. You keep tossing out this red herring, and it still doesn't work.

SO "C: A good god would not punish people for eternity." still stands unrefuted.

d. He DOES judge us on our actions and intentions, Gen 6:5-6


One wonders why you keep updating your statement of belief. I've asked directly your belief of how to get to heaven, or how to avoid hell, and this is the first time you've mentioned this.

It's too much work to try and get meaning from you.

e. Baloney. Some IDIOTS preach it, and others believe it. The message of Israel (Judaism) and Christianity, is a future restoration of the world to peace and its rightful intended state.


Prove it.

"E: Xianity preaches exclusionism, promotes intolerance, and is contrary to world peace." Still stands, unrefuted.

f. Intelligent people should make intelligent decisions based on THE BEST evidence... not hearsay. You dont make a very good witness for athiesm.


I agree with this. Two points: if the bible is your idea of "best evidence" then of course your world-view is skewed; and I don't claim to be a poster child for anything. I speak for myself only.

[Nowhere357]

04-24-2003 @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77458#post77458)
zionstructure:

Ok...well what about the exsistence of Hell. Well nowhere, ever read about gnosticism? If not i think you would like it. Basically has your same ideas about the &quot;biblical God&quot;.


It's now on my list of things to study. Thanks.

Being a spiritual person, and looking over all the ideas and thoughts about where we go and why after this life. The only fair and just ideas that I've come across are that of reincarnation. Didn't get it right? Try again.

This view is not offensive, unlike the xian hell. :)

[Nowhere357]

04-24-2003 @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77657#post77657)
steadele:

nowhere375:
The point of my possible answers is this......if a human can think of a reasonable answer of why there is suffering in hell, then surely there may be an answer ,which currently we do not know (or possibly cant even comprehend at this time), which makes sense and is &quot;just&quot; in a human sense.


I don't disagree with this, at least as far as this thread is concerned. I don't claim that because i find hell offensive, therefore hell (or god) doesn't exist.

I DO claim that if god punishes people for eternity, then god is not good, and we should not worship such a thing.

One answer is because in general the "judgement" of hell is simply not going to heaven, but the specific suffering is in direct relation to the "evil" you did on earth. Under this view many people who go to hell will actually suffer very little.


This idea does not offend me. I believe people SHOULD be held accountable for their actions and intentions, assuming that accountability is reasonable and just.

Another possibility is maybe the "fire" is there to prevent hell form being worse than it has to be. Imagine a place where you have a bunch of evil beings (demons and the like) combined with a bunch of people who have no chance of excape and nothing preventing them from doing harm to each other. No "police force" and no "light" or "conscience" for people to look to. A bunch of angry beings pent up in one place could take their anger out on one another and cause immense suffering. So maybe the "fire" is their as a restraint to keep each resident from harming anyone else. Thus the fire is consistant with a loving God even in hell.


This is a new idea for me. Assuming the people "deserve" to be there, and that the punishment is not eternal, then I have no objection (again, for this thread).

But I continue to pray and ponder on this issue in search of the answer. My answers in this post were just me giving it a shot. I hope they help a little.


Thank you for a good post, Russ. :)

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77877#post77877)
Mason David:

Predestination is inevitable if you believe that God is all knowing.

I agree with all of your points. I wonder, have you discovered the Secular Web? I hope you'll go explore it.

IMO any view of god as omni-anything leads to logical contradictions.

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 08:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78189#post78189)
apologetics:
I thought this was just as good a place to start as any, seeing as though this is one of my favorite theological subjects!


It's clear you've put a lot of thought into this subject! I'm not a scholar, I'm an explorer, and I think the subject of xian hell is important to talk about.

Atheists and skeptics claim that God is evil because he has created an evil place such as hell and that "throwing" good people into hell simply for non-belief is evil. Therefore, they conclude, this God is not worthy of being belief and certainly not worthy of worship.


This is very close to what I've been trying to say. The difference is that I don't believe god is evil; I believe that IF god does this, then he is evil. Can you see the difference? I am saying that if there is a creator god, she is interested in our morality and not in which culture we happened to be born in (which of course determines which religion we're likely to be indoctrinated in).

God did not create moral evil. This is an actualized result of free will.

If god created what we know as reality, and moral evil is part of reality, then your statement must be false. Either god is omnipotent and created everything - including evil; OR god is not omnipotent and did not create evil. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Free will is God's gift to humanity.

Then of course god cannot be omniscient. Again, you can't have it both ways.

What is Hell then? It is eternal separation from Christ. Period.

If christ represents an evil god, then seperation is what moral people would want. Of course you think god is good; then the question becomes "what deserves seperation?".

Annihilationists must read into passages and take things out of context to support there beliefs.

I think ANY interpretation of the bible requires the exact same thing.

Just because the Bible indicates that Hell is a place of eternal torment does not mean that God is controlling the torment, just as a the jury who sentences a convicted killer to prison for life without the possibility of parole is not controlling the killers tormented emotions for his many years in prison. The Bible does specifically state the Jesus Christ will judge, but it is theologically indefensible to claim that the Bible teaches that he then controls the eternal torment.

Unless you claim that god is not in control of his own creation (and so not omnipotent) I think this is a distinction without a difference.

Many atheists believe that it is unjust to sentence "good" people to Hell simply for not believing something. My response to this is always, "how do you define good?" What is "good?"

It really is not all that difficult. A "good" person attempts to follow morals based on reason and empathy.

I have no difficulty distinguishing between, say, Mother Teresa and Hitler.

So, who is right? If their is not an ultimate moral law giver then tags such as "good" and "bad" are relative and actually any action could be classified as good.

I think you have it backwards. First, good and bad ARE relative, but that doesn't mean we can't identify good from bad. Again, reason and empathy are all we need to make correct moral decisions.

Second, if there is a "moral law giver", then it could make ANYTHING good, or bad. For example, killing all first born could be good, or thinking with the brain you are given could be bad.

This is the creation of the Necessary Being....God.


Or so goes the myth, anyway. :)

Acow brought up one of the most popular atheistic reasons for NOT believing in God.....lack of evidence.

Popular because it makes sense. If we are to believe in stuff without evidence, then we can believe ANYTHING no matter how stupid or silly.

Is it possible that God, being perfect, has provided all the evidence He deems necessary? Of course.....and understanding this I would not want to be face-to-face with my creator as I faced final judgment armed with only this excuse.

Or maybe you'll be in trouble because god wants us to use the brains he gave us. Perhaps he's offended by blind faith.

In addition, the Psalmists indicate numerous places that God's handiwork can be seen all around. Science has failed miserably in their attempts to bring life from non-life. Why is that?


"Miserably" is a loaded and inappropriate word. Science is a method of understanding reality, and it works very well, and it does not need defended by the likes of myself.

That said, it's true that the origin of life is not understood yet. In no way does that imply the bible becomes the best source to use.

The bottom line: If God exists, then Hell exists.

Assertion only.

If God exists, then the first principle of logic, the law of non-contradiction, states that 2 things that are mutually exclusive cannot exist at the same time in the same place. There is only ONE God. For example, Allah and Yahweh cannot exist at the same time since God is a Necessary Being and by the very nature of a Necessary Being, only One can exist.

Or we have many names for the same idea, and allah and yahweh and god and nirvana and etc and etc all refer to the same reality.

Therefore, if God exists, then what he has revealed in the Bible is true and Hell will be a reality for all who choose a life without Him. Attempting to claim that you cannot believe in him because your limited, finite mind cannot will obviously not get you too far with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God.


Well, the bible reveals hundreds of contradictions, fallacies, errors, inconsistencies, and is full of myth, legend, dogma, and superstition.

Also, the concepts of omni-anything reveal a lack of understanding about the way reality works.

It is late and I have not addressed this issue nearly as thoroughly as I would like to have. Any specific questions will be gladly answered specifically!


The issue is whether a good god would punish people for eternity, and whether a good god is more interested in blind faith or in our morality. The only correct answer is no, and no.

If you wish to claim that moral people should worship god, you need to ditch the concept of hell, and you need to ditch the concept that heaven is for xians only.

[garthoverman]

04-26-2003 @ 03:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79056#post79056)
geoff:

This all assumes that &quot;knowing&quot; has a causitive property, which it of course, does not.
The knowing doesn't, but the creating does. If you postulate your God as creator of the universe with instantaneous infallible foreknowledge, then the "First Cause" becomes Omni-cause, and everything else is just going through the motions in accordance to the way God created it.


God can know, and not cause, in the same way you can know, and not cause.
Wrong, its NOT the "same way" since I did not create the universe knowing everything that would ever happen. If I built a machine that I infallibly knew would kill 11 people (i.e. it couldn't NOT kill), is it the machine's fault?

Cause is not a property of &quot;knowing&quot;.
No but inerrant foreknowledge combined with universal Creator-ship renders the future certain, negates free will, and lands all responsibility squarely on God's shoulders.

No other event happens because God &quot;KNOWS&quot; what will happen, not becuase he CAUSES it by knowing.
He causes it by knowing AND creating.

Yours,
Garth

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 09:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78196#post78196)
apologetics:

Early on in this post, Nowhere357 brought out an atheistic stalwart: There can't be a Hell because &quot;what about all those who have never heard about Jesus?&quot;


I did no such thing. I have not claimed there cannot be a hell.

If Jesus Christ is real and said that he is THE way, THE truth and THE life and NO ONE would come before the Father but BY HIM, then that about settles it.


Yes it does. Clearly this jesus is NOT interested in our morality, and is only interested in acquiring mindless slave-drones.

Also, this jesus is actively evil, since it punishes people in an unjust fashion. I reject such a diety, and will oppose it.

Makes me wonder why anyone would worship such a thing.

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 09:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78210#post78210)
Laughlyn:



The idea is that people are condemned to Hell, if they willfully denies God, in spite of the evidence they have seen. In christian belief, noone passes through life without knowing Christ himself, although not neccessarily under that very name.

This seems sensible to me. Now we can say that heaven is for good people; that hell is for evil people; that jesus is A path to heaven; that xianity can co-exist with other religions that preach love and tolerance.

Thank you. :)

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78350#post78350)
zionstructure:


In Christian doctrine,
Jesus = God
God = Love
therefor by Christian theory
Jesus= Love

&quot;Love is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes unto the Father but through Love&quot;.
I think if Christians took this view they would sound alot less elitist.


Another sensible view. This is the jesus I accept. Thank you. :)

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78751#post78751)
steadele:


So while your views of love may be very admirable, they are not Biblical.


Which is why the view is sensible. The bible is a lousy guide to reality, a lousy guide to morality, and just a lousy book period. The notion that it is "divinely inspired" is just silly. Sorry, but that is just how it is.

[Nowhere357]

04-26-2003 @ 03:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79056#post79056)
geoff:

No other event happens because God &quot;KNOWS&quot; what will happen, not becuase he CAUSES it by knowing.

Distinction without a difference. If my choice is known BEFORE I make it, then I have no choice. This is a simple point, and sure to evade many people.

[geoff]

nowhere:

We were talking about your beliefs, concerning hell. I asked "Do all muslims go to hell?". Your answer was that it's not up to you. Well, duh! Do you claim that I think you're god? Clearly either you don't know whether your interpretation of the bible requires all muslims to go to hell, OR you are just ashamed to admit that is precisely what you think.
Obviously you did think I was God, because you asked me to do that thing that only God can do, Judge who does to hell or not. If I said I knew, I would be lying. The bible doesnt say "all muslims will go to hell". It says those who refuse to acknowledge God and live in His Kingdom will be punished.

Guilty of WHAT? I've stated more than once that I have no problem with the idea of god punishing people. You keep tossing out this red herring, and it still doesn't work.

SO "C: A good god would not punish people for eternity." still stands unrefuted.
And I have pointed out before, that what they are guilty of is WAR against the King. They are living in the Kings land, and they are trying to overthrow him. THAT is what they are guilty of.


One wonders why you keep updating your statement of belief. I've asked directly your belief of how to get to heaven, or how to avoid hell, and this is the first time you've mentioned this.

Because its a given for anyone who has actually read the Scriptures. God REPEATEDLY judges people for what they do, what they think, and what they are, because it is all part of the same package. You do, you think, to "intend" because of what you are. What you do and think and so on PROVES "what you are".

"E: Xianity preaches exclusionism, promotes intolerance, and is contrary to world peace." Still stands, unrefuted.
From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Isaiah and revelations are 2 books which immediately spring to mind regarding the future state of the world, in which it is said it is a world of peace, no tears, no purposelessness, etc etc... Your statement is just plain ignorant. It reveals you have little if any, knowledge about what the Bible says.
Its quite obvious you havent done any background work, and its quite insulting, not only to me, but to all who attempt to discuss anything with you.

I agree with this. Two points: if the bible is your idea of "best evidence" then of course your world-view is skewed; and I don't claim to be a poster child for anything. I speak for myself only.

the bible is a major part of my world view, and as I believe it to be true, it is the measure by which I judge other aspects of the world. I am not limited to it, though, and unlike you, I HAVE actually done some research.

[geoff]

garth:

The knowing doesn't, but the creating does. If you postulate your God as creator of the universe with instantaneous infallible foreknowledge, then the "First Cause" becomes Omni-cause, and everything else is just going through the motions in accordance to the way God created it.

Creation didnt cause knowledge. God knew prior to creating. And again, for you to be right, we are still left with knowing = creating = cause. Knowing has no power to create, nor cause. Therefore your premise must be wrong.

You would have to demonstrate a. How first cause becomes omnicause, and b. How this then changes the properties of knowledge to that which is demonstratably false.

Wrong, its NOT the "same way" since I did not create the universe knowing everything that would ever happen. If I built a machine that I infallibly knew would kill 11 people (i.e. it couldn't NOT kill), is it the machine's fault?
It doesnt matter "what" knows... cause CAN NOT be a property of knowing. If it is, then that must be a general property, that is, if God knowing, causes, then you knowing, causes. And that is demonstrably false. You can not cause by knowing, and neither can God. You can act on knowledge, and create a machine which kills. However, this is not what God did, and is therefore false. God created a being which was able to choose, and the being chose to Kill. God may have known it would, but the being had the freedom, and had been taught it was wrong, and that punishment would follow, and yet did so anyway. The being caused by its own free action, God did not cause.

No but inerrant foreknowledge combined with universal Creator-ship renders the future certain, negates free will, and lands all responsibility squarely on God's shoulders.
Sorry, wrong. Is Ma Lector responsible for Hannibals decision to eat people? No. She may have known he would, and taught him it was evil, but she is not responsible because KNOWING DOES NOT CAUSE. It doesnt matter if Ma LEctor is God and creator, because Her knowledge did not cause anything to happen.
Again, you ascribe a false property to knowledge, which causes a false conclusion. And this prevents you from understanding Scripture properly.

He causes it by knowing AND creating.

How? This can not be so. Knowing is passive. It DOESNT cause anything. Creating is an act of will, it is cause itself. You are trying to make knowledge have a property it can not, because another being has it. It doesnt matter of God knows, you know, or your dog knows, knowing doesnt cause. It is not a property of knowing.

If I Park a truck on top of a hill, and someone pushes it down the hill and kills people with it, am I reponsible. No. Even if I see someone stealing thetruck and know they are going to kill people in it, i am in no way responsible. Because my knowing DIDNT CAUSE IT. Neither does Gods.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80503#post80503)
geoff:

Creation didnt cause knowledge. God knew prior to creating. And again, for you to be right, we are still left with knowing = creating = cause. Knowing has no power to create, nor cause. Therefore your premise must be wrong.
You've spectacularly missed the point. I'm NOT arguing that knowledge = creatiing = cause. I'm arguing that infallible foreknowledge reduces all causes to the First Cause since nothing can diverge from what is known at the instant of creation.


You would have to demonstrate a. How first cause becomes omnicause
That's easy: infallibly knowing the eternal results that will proceed from the Frist Cause (i.e. creation of the universe) renders the First Cause as the ONLY cause which bears responsibility. To elaborate, if by causing the universe in the particular way God did, He then infallibly knew that Hitler would kill 6 million Jews, then Hitler HAD NO CHOICE but to kill the Jews, and its only God's fault since HE created it that way.

Answer this question: If I aim my gun inerrantly at a target, is it the fault of the bullet that it travels where it is infallibly known it will go?


and b. How this then changes the properties of knowledge to that which is demonstratably false.
That is not part of my argument, depsite how much you seem to wish that it were.


if God knowing, causes, then you knowing, causes.
No it doesn't. I am not the creator of all that is as you postulate your God to be. Are you saying that your God did NOT create all that is?


You can not cause by knowing, and neither can God.
That is not my argument. God causes by creating and infallibly knowing.


You can act on knowledge, and create a machine which kills. However, this is not what God did, and is therefore false. God created a being which was able to choose
If your God's foreknowledge is inerrant, then it is meaningless to speak of choice. Choice requires the existence of multiple mutually exclusive possibliites for every decision event, yet infallible foreknowledge is predicated on the IMPOSSIBILITY of mutually exclusive realites, therefore choice doesn't exist.


God may have known it would, but the being had the freedom
If God knew it would, then it did NOT have freedom. Your statement is contradictory.


Sorry, wrong. Is Ma Lector responsible for Hannibals decision to eat people? No. She may have known he would, and taught him it was evil, but she is not responsible because KNOWING DOES NOT CAUSE. It doesnt matter if Ma LEctor is God and creator, because Her knowledge did not cause anything to happen.
It does so matter. Its not the knowledge alone, it is the creator-ship and infallble foreknowledge together that cause. Since God created the world knowing that Hitler would exterminate 6 million Jews, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Hitler to "choose" anything else. Hitler HAD NO CHOICE since God knew the event before Hitler did.


Again, you ascribe a false property to knowledge, which causes a false conclusion.
Actually, again, you misrepresent my argument and construct a strawman.

And this prevents you from understanding Scripture properly.
I understand it just fine. I understand that its a large collection of folklore authored by a random assortment of rather ignorant savages.

<snip rest of strawman attacks>

Yours,
Garth

[geoff]

You've spectacularly missed the point. I'm NOT arguing that knowledge = creatiing = cause. I'm arguing that infallible foreknowledge reduces all causes to the First Cause since nothing can diverge from what is known at the instant of creation.

But you *are* arguing this. And worse, you are arguing that knowing the outcome of free choices CAUSES them.
Not being able to diverge from what is foreknown is NOT cause. Its nothing to do with "first cause" either. You seem to be excluding free choice from the equation. If you create a being with the Freedom to Choose, you can not be responsible for its actions, even if you foreknow them. The being HAS to be autonomous because it has freewill and therefore is responsible.

That's easy: infallibly knowing the eternal results that will proceed from the Frist Cause (i.e. creation of the universe) renders the First Cause as the ONLY cause which bears responsibility. To elaborate, if by causing the universe in the particular way God did, He then infallibly knew that Hitler would kill 6 million Jews, then Hitler HAD NO CHOICE but to kill the Jews, and its only God's fault since HE created it that way.
It would be the case if the created thing was not autonomous, or able to choose for itself. The analogy is false, because Hitler had the ability to choose NOT to kill 6 million Jews, because God did not cause Him to do it. God foreknew, He did not cause.

Answer this question: If I aim my gun inerrantly at a target, is it the fault of the bullet that it travels where it is infallibly known it will go?
THe bullet is fired, it has a choice, to hit, or to miss, the bullet chooses to hit. Did the bullet have a choice? Yes. It is then no longer the responsbility of the firer, even if the firer knew the bullet would choose to hit.
IN regards to humanity and hell, the bullet was aimed away from the target, told the consequences, and still chose to hit the target. Its not the firer who is responsible, but the bullet.

Are you saying that your God did NOT create all that is?
He doesnt create human free actions, he knows them.

If your God's foreknowledge is inerrant, then it is meaningless to speak of choice. Choice requires the existence of multiple mutually exclusive possibliites for every decision event, yet infallible foreknowledge is predicated on the IMPOSSIBILITY of mutually exclusive realites, therefore choice doesn't exist.
This is only true if foreknowledge is causal. Which you claim you arent arguing. But of course, you are, because this is the premise your argument is based on.

If God knew it would, then it did NOT have freedom. Your statement is contradictory.
ONLY if foreknowledge is causal. The being who chooses doesnt know which choice they will make, therefore they "make a choice". They cause it. God's knowing doesnt cause it, nor negate the freedom they had in making the choice. Foreknowledge is knowledge.. its not causative, it doesnt negate freedom. These are false properties you are ascribing to knowledge.

it is the creator-ship and infallble foreknowledge together that cause
Incorrect. If what you claim of foreknowledge is true, it is as true for me as it is for God. It doesnt matter what BEING it is who knows. Creator or not. Of course, God created human beings with the freedom to choose, which negates any "creator causalness" you might claim.

Actually, again, you misrepresent my argument and construct a strawman.
sigh, and so far you have continued to do the same, perhaps you will see this time.

I understand it just fine. I understand that its a large collection of folklore authored by a random assortment of rather ignorant savages.
Ignorant savages... Solomon, whom people visited from all over the globe because of His great wisdom, Luke, a doctor, Paul, of whom it is said was one of the most learned man in Judaistic circles. Ignorant savages? That doesnt include the likes of Ezra, nehemiah, Moses, Joseph, etc.. all highly learned and wise men.. ignorant savages? heh.. you just have to laugh at that one

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 03:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80488#post80488)
geoff:

nowhere:

From the sublime to the ridiculous.


I'm rubber and you're glue. I love you anyway, Geoff. :)

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80688#post80688)
geoff:


I know this is a difficult point to grasp. I'll try to explain it very carefully.

At t=0, god says "At t=1 the person WILL choose 'X'."
Now at t=1 the person can choose 'X', or choose 'Y'. So let's say he chooses 'Y'.

WAIT he cannot choose 'Y' - that would make god wrong!

SO THEREFORE he has to choose 'X'. HE HAS NO CHOICE.

Predestination and free will are mutually exclusive.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80688#post80688)
geoff:

But you *are* arguing this. And worse, you are arguing that knowing the outcome of free choices CAUSES them.
No, I am not. Your repeated insistance that I AM arguing it only reveals your lack of comprehension.


Not being able to diverge from what is foreknown is NOT cause.
Not alone its not.

Its nothing to do with &quot;first cause&quot; either. You seem to be excluding free choice from the equation.
No, YOU exclude free choice from the equation by postulating the existence of a being with infallible foreknowledge. As Nowhere357 demonstrated to you rather astutely, the two are mutually exclusive.


If you create a being with the Freedom to Choose, you can not be responsible for its actions, even if you foreknow them.
If they are infallibly foreknown, there is no Freedom to Choose.


The being HAS to be autonomous because it has freewill and therefore is responsible.
Sorry, you ain't outta the woods yet.


It would be the case if the created thing was not autonomous, or able to choose for itself. The analogy is false, because Hitler had the ability to choose NOT to kill 6 million Jews, because God did not cause Him to do it. God foreknew, He did not cause.
Hitler did NOT have the ability since the ability to act differently would make God wrong, which according to your postulate is impossible.


THe bullet is fired, it has a choice, to hit, or to miss, the bullet chooses to hit. Did the bullet have a choice? Yes. It is then no longer the responsbility of the firer, even if the firer knew the bullet would choose to hit.
This is one of the most ridiculous responses I've received in all my years debating on the net. Should we free all of our convicted murderers then and imprison their ammunition?

IN regards to humanity and hell, the bullet was aimed away from the target, told the consequences, and still chose to hit the target. Its not the firer who is responsible, but the bullet.
But the bullet was NOT aimed away from the target if God knew the outcome before he created everything. In a sense, all events happen at the instant of creation because they are ALL instantly and infallibly known.

He doesnt create human free actions, he knows them.
If they are known, they are not free.

ONLY if foreknowledge is causal. The being who chooses doesnt know which choice they will make, therefore they "make a choice". They cause it. God's knowing doesnt cause it, nor negate the freedom they had in making the choice. Foreknowledge is knowledge.. its not causative, it doesnt negate freedom. These are false properties you are ascribing to knowledge.
Knowledge is not causative, creation is. Forknowledge simply limits all that is possible to that which is known, thereby negating freedom of choice. Creating something such that it can be ONLY one way and NO OTHER way = cause.

If what you claim of foreknowledge is true, it is as true for me as it is for God. It doesnt matter what BEING it is who knows. Creator or not.
False, now quit attacking your strawman and deal with my actual argument. You could start by demonstrating how I might choose something DIFFERENT from what God already knows infallibly.

Of course, God created human beings with the freedom to choose.
If the beings have the freedom to choose, then His infallible foreknowledge is impossible.

and so far you have continued to do the same, perhaps you will see this time
How have I misrepresented YOUR argument? Do you even HAVE and argument beyond the bald assertion that SOMEHOW infallible forkeknowledge is compatible with free will? If so, perhaps you care to present it?

Yours,
Garth

[Warcraft3]

Nowhere:

Which is why the view is sensible. The bible is a lousy guide to reality, a lousy guide to morality, and just a lousy book period. The notion that it is "divinely inspired" is just silly. Sorry, but that is just how it is.

That is not just "how it is". That is how you see it.

I could call whatever you use as a guide to reality and morality "lousy".
I could tell you that you are "silly" because you dont believe.
And then I could proclaim, "that is just how it is"

Why dont I do this? Because I have enough wisdom to know that people hold their personal beliefs for many reasons. I respect your beliefs even though I disagree and will defend my beliefs.

Declaring my beliefs silly and telling me thats just how it is does not contribute to discussion in any way. You do not convince people of anything this way or make them take your view into account.

I am well respected by my friends for my intelligence and rationality, and indeed I also respect them in these areas as well. I am not someone who surrounds himself with people who agree with me and I do not shy away from debate. Calling my beliefs silly is nothing more than an insult and does not contribute to the purpose of this thread.

I am not upset or anything by it, indeed I am rather unemotional in general, but I do think such statements can turn a discussion/debate into silly squabbling.

I will not let that happen.



Russ

:read:

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80972#post80972)
steadele:

Nowhere:

That is not just &quot;how it is&quot;. That is how you see it.


Good point, and good post. I find your view refreshing.

Let's try this: what reason do you have, to suppose the bible is divinely inspired?

[Mason David]

Yesterday @ 06:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80377#post80377)
Nowhere357:



I agree with all of your points. I wonder, have you discovered the Secular Web? I hope you'll go explore it.

IMO any view of god as omni-anything leads to logical contradictions.

Im glad that you understand where I am coming from Nowhere. Some people seem to be in extreme denial of SIMPLE LOGIC. If the Christian God is real, then he creates people with full knowledge of where they will spend their afterlife. This "God of love" allows people to be born knowing that they will burn. It's that simple. Not my idea of love.

[Mason David]

04-25-2003 @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79174#post79174)
apologetics:

Mason David said:



I just don't understand the logic here! How is it God fault that you CHOSE not to believe in him? Do you, at this very moment, have the ability to chose to do ANYTHING you want? Could you run over and jump out the window and fall to your death? Yes! Could you drive to a liquor store, hold it up and shoot the cashier? YES! Conversely, could you load up your car with all your possessions and donate them to an orphanage? YES! Or, could you make the decision right now to begin to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and begin to pursue the massive amount of evidence pointing to this conclusion? YES AGAIN!

My point is that you have the ability....RIGHT NOW....to chose to do any act you chose! It might be legal or illegal, good or bad, right or wrong, but the act will not take place until YOU CHOSE TO DO IT!

Placing the blame on God is not only a weak excuse to justify non-belief, it is illogical.



Two things here:

1. I would ask you to justify your belief that non-existence is better than existence, because that is the logical conclusion to your statement. I would also ask you to explain how true love could exist (and therefore free will) if only those people who were going to love God were allowed to exist. Wouldn't that be a twisted kind of love?

2. If you have chosen a lifetime of not only not believing in God, but in actually attacking Him, what is God supposed to do? Allow you into Heaven along with all those who made the free choice to love him? If that were really the case, wouldn't it be best to live just as lasciviously and lecherously as possible since there was not vertical dimension to your actions? However, this type of living is contrary to the very nature of God. So, how do you propose he rectify the situation?

Actually, isn't he being merciful? He is simply giving you the eternal results of your choice NOT to live with Him. Would you want to be dragged kicking and screaming into Heaven where you would be forced not only to live with him, but to worship him daily for eternity when you couldn't stand the thought of spending an hour a week in church?



Like I've said previously. How could God be in time when it was not in existence until he created it? What creator is subject to the limits of his creation?

The Bible does not say, &quot;God is outside of time,&quot; but when proper Biblical exegesis is employed, the concept is understood. I will leave you with one Biblical example:

Malachi 3:6: &quot;For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.&quot;

What is time? The Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines it as:

a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.

In essence, time is the measure of change. Can you think of anything that is within time that does NOT change? God does not change, therefore, how can he be subject to the limits of time?

Please explain your position that this concept is just a human creation.

Apologetics
If you dont understand my logic then you you have totally missed the point. My logic goes like this: God knows everything past, present, and future-God knows every move you make, every thought you have, and he knows whether or not you will accept him-and the kicker is---he knows all of this before you come into the world! In essence, he allows millions of people to be born with the prior knowledge of their eternal destination. Why, why why does he allow these people (the ones he knows are going to hell) to come into existence. And for the record, in my opinion, non-existence would be better than eternal damnation. As for the rest of your questions for me, there is no need in me answering them if you understand the logic that I've presented.

[Warcraft3]

Nowhere357:
Let's try this: what reason do you have, to suppose the bible is divinely inspired?


That is a great question. I will do my best to give you a thoughtful answer tomorrow night. I was going to answer tonight ,but it is getting late.


Russ

:read:

[geoff]

nowhere:

I know this is a difficult point to grasp. I'll try to explain it very carefully.

At t=0, god says "At t=1 the person WILL choose 'X'."
Now at t=1 the person can choose 'X', or choose 'Y'. So let's say he chooses 'Y'.

WAIT he cannot choose 'Y' - that would make god wrong!

SO THEREFORE he has to choose 'X'. HE HAS NO CHOICE.

Predestination and free will are mutually exclusive.

First of all, lets exclude God from the equation.
If P knows that at t2, X will choose a1 over a2, does X still have a choice at t1 ?
Yes.
If P is you, me or God, at t1 X must still make a choice regardless of whether the outcome is known. Therefore foreknowledge does NOT negate choice, nor does it negate freewill.
You are forcing a property onto knowledge which is doesnt have... cause.
Scripture clearly teaches that God foreknows, and that human beings have freedom of choice. I believe this to be true, along with many secular and religious philosphers who are compatibilists.

Garth:

Its nothing to do with "first cause" either. You seem to be excluding free choice from the equation.
No, YOU exclude free choice from the equation by postulating the existence of a being with infallible foreknowledge. As Nowhere357 demonstrated to you rather astutely, the two are mutually exclusive.
He didnt demonstrate it astutely. He made the same assumption you have, that foreknowledge has the property of cause, and thus negates choice and freewill. This flies in the face of "reality". It is also not what the Scriptures teach.
There are examples in Scripture of Humans who know the future, for example, a woman with a spirit of divination in Acts. She knew the future, and yet this knowledge (supposedly from a divine being) did NOT cause the future, nor did it negate any of the choices made to arrive that the known "thing".

Hitler did NOT have the ability since the ability to act differently would make God wrong, which according to your postulate is impossible.
Of Course Hitler had the ability. The Bible says He does. The Bible also says God knows. God's knowing doesnt negate the choices Hitler made. Its illogical to think that it would.

This is one of the most ridiculous responses I've received in all my years debating on the net. Should we free all of our convicted murderers then and imprison their ammunition?
The Murderer IS the ammunition. YOu might actually grasp what I am saying if you werent so uptight.

But the bullet was NOT aimed away from the target if God knew the outcome before he created everything. In a sense, all events happen at the instant of creation because they are ALL instantly and infallibly known.
incorrect. That is not what I believe, nor is it what I believe the Bible teaches. The bible is quite clear in explaining that Humanity was placed here, and given autonomy. Its also quite clear that they were explained what was required of them, and the outcome of failing to meet this requirement.

Knowing events are going to happen DOES NOT CAUSE them. So there is NO WAY that they can happen at the moent of creation. They are merely know. Then there is a few millenia of choices and actions, experiences and occurences which lead to them.


Knowledge is not causative, creation is. Forknowledge simply limits all that is possible to that which is known, thereby negating freedom of choice. Creating something such that it can be ONLY one way and NO OTHER way = cause.
And herein lies your second error. Creation does not make/create/cause knowledge of anything. Creation is something that God foreknew. God's knowledge pre-existed creation. Therefore your claim is false.

False, now quit attacking your strawman and deal with my actual argument. You could start by demonstrating how I might choose something DIFFERENT from what God already knows infallibly.
You can not choose anything other than what is known. It doesnt matter whether I know it, God knows it, or the queen mother knows it. And knowing it doesnt negate any choices that you might make.
As I said, if X is known to be choosing a2 at t2, at t1 X still has a choice toi make between a1 and a2. There is no way foreknowing can negate that. X ALWAYS has to choose, X always has to actually do something, regardless.

Do you even HAVE and argument beyond the bald assertion that SOMEHOW infallible forkeknowledge is compatible with free will? If so, perhaps you care to present it?
I've demosntrated it at least 2 ways. Which is more than you have done.

[garthoverman]

He didnt demonstrate it astutely. He made the same assumption you have, that foreknowledge has the property of cause, and thus negates choice and freewill.
I have explicitly denied that foreknowledge is causative, and repeatedly told you that this is not my argument. Perhaps you should try reading my posts instead of creating imaginary arguments to attack.



There are examples in Scripture of Humans who know the future, for example, a woman with a spirit of divination in Acts. She knew the future, and yet this knowledge (supposedly from a divine being) did NOT cause the future, nor did it negate any of the choices made to arrive that the known &quot;thing&quot;.
Of course not, she's not the creator of the universe.


Of Course Hitler had the ability. The Bible says He does. The Bible also says God knows. God's knowing doesnt negate the choices Hitler made. Its illogical to think that it would.
Please show me how it would be possible for Hitler to do X if God infallibly knew he would do Y. First realize that infallibility is predicated on the impossibility of error. Second, realize that if God knew Hitler would do X, then Y represents the possibility that God's knowledge was erroneous. Your original postulate of God's infallibility eliminates all possibilities of error. Therefore, Y doesn't exist and Hitler has no choice but to do exactly as God knows.


The Murderer IS the ammunition. YOu might actually grasp what I am saying if you werent so uptight.
Insult is casual fare for the common mind.

BTW - Will you agree then that we should release all convincted human murderers and instead imprison their weapons? Does this mean that if someone were to shoot your friend that you wouldn't be angry with them since it wasn't that person's fault? Methinks the Supreme Court and most of the rational world would disagree with you.


That is not what I believe, nor is it what I believe the Bible teaches.
I know that's not what you believe. If it was, we wouldn't be having this argument. The difference is that you are confusing your personal and inconsistent beliefs with objectively established facts - a common malady that plagues theists.


The bible is quite clear in explaining that Humanity was placed here, and given autonomy. Its also quite clear that they were explained what was required of them, and the outcome of failing to meet this requirement.
And the Bible is quite clear rabbits chew cud, and that the earth has four corners and is the center of the universe. That the Bible clearly says this does not make it a fact, despite your personal beliefs

Knowing events are going to happen DOES NOT CAUSE them. So there is NO WAY that they can happen at the moent of creation. They are merely know. Then there is a few millenia of choices and actions, experiences and occurences which lead to them.
What are "merely know(n)"? All the events in the universe, right? You realize that in order for something to be known it must exist, don't you? Therefore, if all the events are known at the instant of creation, they must all exist at the instant of creation.


And herein lies your second error. Creation does not make/create/cause knowledge of anything. Creation is something that God foreknew. God's knowledge pre-existed creation. Therefore your claim is false.
Impossible as shown above. What could be known if nothing existed?


You can not choose anything other than what is known.
Then there is no choice. If only one outcome is possible, choice doesn't exist.


It doesnt matter whether I know it, God knows it, or the queen mother knows it. And knowing it doesnt negate any choices that you might make.
Yes it does. If I can't do anything but what is known then I HAVE NO CHOICE. Choice requires multiple alternative possibilities, however the existence of alternative possibilities contradicts infallible foreknowledge.

As I said, if X is known to be choosing a2 at t2, at t1 X still has a choice toi make between a1 and a2. There is no way foreknowing can negate that. X ALWAYS has to choose, X always has to actually do something, regardless.
If it is know infallibly that X will do A2, can A1 happen? No. Nothing but A2 can happen, therefore no choice exists.


I've demosntrated it at least 2 ways. Which is more than you have done.
No, all you have is bald asssertions. An actual argument would consist of a demonstration that X can do A1 at T2 when God knows infallibly at T1 that X will do A2 at T2. The problem for you is that the IMPOSSIBILITY of A1 is built into the infalliblity of God's foreknowledge. Either God's foreknowledge is not infallible, or free will doesn't exist. Take yer pick.

Yours,
Garth

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

nowhere:

First of all, lets exclude God from the equation.
If P knows that at t2, X will choose a1 over a2, does X still have a choice at t1 ?
Yes.


Then at t2, X can choose a2, and P was wrong. Chew on that, Geoff, and maybe you'll see the light.

[geoff]

nowhere:

Then at t2, X can choose a2, and P was wrong. Chew on that, Geoff, and maybe you'll see the light.

X *CAN* choose a2 at t2, but does not. And P was right.

X does not choose a2 BECAUSE P knew, or because P caused.

Garth claims the causal link is because God created, however he has yet (and in fact, no one has as far as I know) demonstrate why this link exists. Its impossible, especially considering the "knowing" pre-exists the creation.

It is impossible to prove that knowing makes events happen or negates choice. Choice doesnt cease to exist because choice in the human sphere is made up of a multitude of variables, so that even the chooser is often unaware of what choice they will make.

If I make a room with 2 doors, one which opens to nothing, and one to a room full of gold, and tell you to choose a door to open to get to a room full of Gold, I know there is only one choice you can make. But still, you have 2 choices. YOU have to choose. My knowing which door you will open wont affect that fact that YOU have to choose. YOU still have to choose. And when you oipen the door that I knew you would open, I will be right, my foreknowledge infalliable. I created, I foreknew, and yet there was still freedom of choice.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

nowhere:

X *CAN* choose a2 at t2, but does not. And P was right.

X does not choose a2 BECAUSE P knew, or because P caused.


If X CAN choose a2 at t2, then god COULD be mistaken, and so is not omniscient. You can't have it both ways, Geoff, and your insistence otherwise serves to put ALL of your opinions into the same boat. You are reality-challenged, which means you are unable to apply basic logic to reality.

But I love you anyway. :)

[geoff]

nowhere:

The POINT is, that God ISNT mistaken, and that doesnt affect the FACT that there is still choice.

This is the position of people such as william Lane Craig, etc (you can read some of his stuff at www.leaderu.com). Compatibilism is reasonably common these days, and I believe its very defensible. Its a position help by many here.

I dont believe that the old "God knows so there is no choice" argument is defensible, it flies in the face of reality.

[Woman]

I remember the Apostle's Creed as a child...the part...

"born of the Virgin Mary, suffered und Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he arose...."

Can anyone explain that to me?

[geoff]

The apostles creed isnt part of the bible.

[Socrates]

Woman:I remember the Apostle's Creed as a child...the part...

"born of the Virgin Mary, suffered und Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he arose...."

Can anyone explain that to me?"Hell" is an unfortunate translation of the Greek Katotata (&kappa;&alpha;&tau;&omega;&tau;&alpha;&tau;&alpha;), which just means the lower world (from the root word kato or kata meaning "down"). It is related to katoteros of Eph. 4:9, which is part of passage dealing with this, as I'll explain below.

In the King Jimmy Bible, "Hell" is sometimes used to translate New Testament Greek Hades, the abode of the dead, and equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew sheol. Up to the time of Christ, there were two compartments, one for the righteous (Paradise or Abraham's Bosom) and one for the unrighteous (Gehenna). This is shown in the account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. Now "Hell" usually has a more restrictive connotation of Gehenna, and herein lies the confusion.

In the time between His death and Resurrection, Jesus emptied the compartment of the righteous, according to Ephesians 4:8 "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."

Calvin had a different explanation which may well be right, "10. THE "DESCENT INTO HELL" AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE SPIRITUAL TORMENT THAT CHRIST UNDERWENT FOR US" -- his justification is at www.reformed.org/documents/Christ_in_hell/index.html

And while the Apostle's Creed is not Scripture, which is the primary standard, it is still Scripturally accurate, so is a reasonable secondary standard. A modern English version says "he descended to the dead".

[geoff]

Socrates:

And while the Apostle's Creed is not Scripture, which is the primary standard, it is still Scripturally accurate...

Generally it is... however, parts of it are not. It is a doctrinal statement and should be treated as such, and is therefore up for dispute.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

Generally it is... however, parts of it are not. It is a doctrinal statement and should be treated as such, and is therefore up for dispute.

In the same way that the bible and any other text that claims truth are "up for dispute".

BTW if god knows the future, and we have free will, then either your understanding of "god" has no meaning to me, or your understanding of "free will" has no meaning to me.

If your understanding of EITHER of those words comes from what you consider to be a divinely inspired text, then I think that's evidence that the bible is a poor guide to understanding reality. IOW you are hurting your cause.

The only solution I can see for you is to admit that the idea of an omniscient god must be from an incorrect interpretation of the bible.

[Warcraft3]

04-28-2003 @ 01:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81025#post81025)
Nowhere357:



Good point, and good post. I find your view refreshing.

Let's try this: what reason do you have, to suppose the bible is divinely inspired?

Okay Im gonna give you a really quick answer cause Ive been doing too many things at once lately.....

Without referring to personal experiences or events which are somewhat subjective here are some good arguments why I believe in the Bible........

1. I have read the arguments both for and against the resurrection and I think the "for" side has some really solid arguments.

2. I have also read the arguments back and forth over whether or not Christianity could have survived early on due to its close proximity in time with the miraculous events it claims. Here again, I think the Christian argument has some good rationality behind it.

Okay these are only two and Ill give you some more later. Of course you can read the same arguments and come to a different conclusion than I did, but I think these two are good ones.


Russ



:rockon:

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 05:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82742#post82742)
geoff:

Garth claims the causal link is because God created, however he has yet (and in fact, no one has as far as I know) demonstrate why this link exists. Its impossible, especially considering the &quot;knowing&quot; pre-exists the creation.
It is impossible for knowing to pre-exist creation since there would exist nothing to BE KNOWN. How can something be known, yet not exist?

It is impossible to prove that knowing makes events happen or negates choice.
Whaddaya mean? We've proven it several times over. Its beginning to seem like you're speaking a very different version of English than the rest of the English-speaking world.


Choice doesnt cease to exist because choice in the human sphere is made up of a multitude of variables
But qualifying God's foreknowledge as inerrant negates the existence of alternative possibilities (or "variables," as you put it). If it is impossible for God to be wrong, then no alternatives exist or are even possible. There can be no "variation" from that which God already foreknows inerrantly.


If I make a room with 2 doors, one which opens to nothing, and one to a room full of gold, and tell you to choose a door to open to get to a room full of Gold, I know there is only one choice you can make.
This situation is NOT analagous. If only one possibility exists, THERE IS NO CHOICE.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 06:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82754#post82754)
geoff:

nowhere:

The POINT is, that God ISNT mistaken, and that doesnt affect the FACT that there is still choice.
Yes, it does negate choice since choice relies on the existence of multiple mutually exclusive possibilities and a free selection among them. Inerrant foreknowledge makes alternative possibilities impossible.

Yours,
Garth

[apologetics]

Nowhere357 said:

Yes it does. Clearly this jesus is NOT interested in our morality, and is only interested in acquiring mindless slave-drones.

Also, this jesus is actively evil, since it punishes people in an unjust fashion. I reject such a diety, and will oppose it.

Makes me wonder why anyone would worship such a thing.

Firstly, I guess that we are assuming that Jesus Christ actually exists (which of course I actually believe)....

If this is the case, I guess I would ask why you believe he would care about your morality? Jesus Christ is the creative force within the trinity within the Christin doctrine. As such, he created morality. If something is contrary to this, it is contrary to his nature. That which is contrary to his nature is sin, ergo, the creation of hell as a place to quarantine this sin. You appear to believe that humans deserve an ontologically superior position to God.

As to your comment that Jesus is evil since "it" punishes people unfairly, I guess I would have to ask you to explain more clearly. How do you see Jesus punishing unjustly?

Also, If Jesus exists, how would one go about "opposing" him. That would be something special to see! He healed the blind, raised the dead and then actually defied death himself....but you are going to "oppose" Him. Hmmm......

[Nowhere357]

steadele:

1. I have read the arguments both for and against the resurrection and I think the &quot;for&quot; side has some really solid arguments.

2. I have also read the arguments back and forth over whether or not Christianity could have survived early on due to its close proximity in time with the miraculous events it claims. Here again, I think the Christian argument has some good rationality behind it.


Let's say that both points happen to be correct. What do you mean when you say you believe the bible? Does that mean genesis is "true", for example?

How about the existence of hell, what causes one to be sent there, and what allows one to avoid it?

[Woman]

geoff - I knew that the Apostles Creed was not Biblical, but I also knew there would be a reason for the Church to include that line.

Soc,

Oh, thank you so much! I have often wondered about that. I will check the ref. too.

I got another one for you. Do you believe that your great-grandma is in heaven? (we'll assume for argument's sake that she was a saintly woman.) Or is she just "dead" and waiting for judgement day?

[Nowhere357]

apologetics:

If this is the case, I guess I would ask why you believe he would care about your morality?

If god exists, I don't claim to know her nature.

I claim that if god punishes people with eternal suffering, then that god is evil.

Jesus Christ is the creative force within the trinity within the Christin doctrine. As such, he created morality. If something is contrary to this, it is contrary to his nature. That which is contrary to his nature is sin, ergo, the creation of hell as a place to quarantine this sin.

I don't know what this means. Did god create reality? Is hell real?

What is the nature of hell, what causes one to be sent there, what allows one to avoid it?

You appear to believe that humans deserve an ontologically superior position to God.

I don't believe people are superior to god.

As to your comment that Jesus is evil since "it" punishes people unfairly, I guess I would have to ask you to explain more clearly. How do you see Jesus punishing unjustly?

If god created reality, and if hell is enternal suffering, and if god sends people to hell, then god is an evil entity that wants to enslave us. I oppose evil and will fight for freedom. Freedom for everyone!

Also, If Jesus exists, how would one go about "opposing" him. That would be something special to see! He healed the blind, raised the dead and then actually defied death himself....but you are going to "oppose" Him. Hmmm......

That would depend on god's nature, wouldn't it? If I can't find any actions, I'll still have my intentions. And I bet we can resist - after all, the same book that tells us "He healed the blind, raised the dead and then actually defied death himself", also tells us he had trouble dealing with iron chariots.

If nothing else, I guess I'll wail and gnash my teeth.

[Socrates]

Woman asked:I got another one for you. Do you believe that your great-grandma is in heaven? (we'll assume for argument's sake that she was a saintly woman.) Or is she just "dead" and waiting for judgement day?I believe she is in heaven somehow, and conscious. The soul sleep doctrine is contrary to Scripture, e.g.
Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross, "I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43
Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus, who were conscious at the same time as the rich man's brothers were still alive on Earth
Phil. 1:21-23, where the believer was to"depart and to be with Christ", where the aorist infinitive (to depart) is linked by a single article to a present infinitive (to be with Christ). This linkage shows that the departure and being with Christ are at the same moment.
In Revelation 6:9-10, the souls of martyred saints are shown to be conscious and asking God how long he will refrain from smiting the wicked on Earth.

[Socrates]

Hey folk, there is little point in reinventing the wheel about foreknowledge and free will. Jaltus has already affirmed in masterly fashion the proposition "Can God know the future if we (mortals, Satan, and God) have free will?" at » Archives > Boxing Ring > Foreknowledge and Free Will (Powell versus Jaltus). The commentary is still going on at » Gym » Arena » Foreknowledge and Free Will (Powell versus Jaltus) Commentary.

[geoff]

Socrates...

You're right, this is not the place to discuss it.. and besides, Jaltus defends compatibility much better than I....

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83889#post83889)
Nowhere357:



Let's say that both points happen to be correct. What do you mean when you say you believe the bible? Does that mean genesis is &quot;true&quot;, for example?

How about the existence of hell, what causes one to be sent there, and what allows one to avoid it?


I mean I believe it is the inspired word of God.

Yes I do believe Genesis is true. There are five interpretations of Geneiss which I believe are permissable within scripture.

1. 24 hour day view
2. day-age view
3. Framework view
4. Gap view
5. Days of proclamation view

I think they all have strengths and weaknesses. Currently I do not accept either #1 or #4 although they do raise some interesting points.
View #3 is still somthing I am considering.
I guess right now my view is a mix of views #2, #5, and #3.
I find myself slowly gravitating toward view #5 though.


I thought I already answered you about the whole hell issue a few posts back.


Russ

[Nowhere357]

Socrates:
Jaltus has already affirmed in masterly fashion the proposition &quot;Can God know the future if we (mortals, Satan, and God) have free will?&quot;

That was fun. Powell denied the proposition and won the debate. IMO. :)

[geoff]

Lol, powell might as well have stayed in bed... he just looked foolish.

Steadele:

Genesis 1 is a literary construction for sure. Thats the primary consideration for understanding it.. whether its literal days or "days of proclamation" is a kind of "secondary" thing. Its more important to understand what Moses is writing using the kind of literary techniques he employs

[Nowhere357]

geoff:[/i]

Lol, powell might as well have stayed in bed... he just looked foolish.

You're the one who thinks skepticism is a religion, and xianity isn't, right?

[Nowhere357]

steadele:

I mean I believe it is the inspired word of God.

I thought I already answered you about the whole hell issue a few posts back.

You're right, my bad, sorry.

Anhilation: If god anhilates people base on our worship, and not on our morality, then god is not good.

Suffering: if god creates/allows suffering for eternity, then god is evil.

In either case, god must judge us on our morality and NOT on our religion. Otherwise we should not worship it.

[geoff]

You're the one who thinks skepticism is a religion, and xianity isn't, right?

no, I believe I suggested evolutionism requires more faith to believe it than Christianity, and thus lends itself to the kind of "hated religious behaviour" you despise so much. Far more so than true Christianity.

[geoff]

Anhilation: If god anhilates people base on our worship, and not on our morality, then god is not good.

Obviously you missed it, so I will restate it for you.

God carried out the sentence in accordance with the crime that the criminals have commited.

Our worship reflects the state of our morality. Our morality reflects the state of our relationship with the King. The state of our relationship is reflected in our worship etc etc. None alone is what He bases his Judgement on.

In fact, the judgement is based on the choice the human being has made. God merely affirms the choice, and carries out the sentence.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

no, I believe I suggested evolutionism requires more faith to believe it than Christianity, and thus lends itself to the kind of &quot;hated religious behaviour&quot; you despise so much. Far more so than true Christianity.

What "hated religious behavior" is it that you think I "despise so much", exactly?

[Warcraft3]

You're right, my bad, sorry.
No prob man. These threads can get quite long, and often you are talking to like 1,465,234,462 people at one time.

Anhilation: If god anhilates people base on our worship, and not on our morality, then god is not good.

Suffering: if god creates/allows suffering for eternity, then god is evil.
Im not going to pretend I can even begin to fully answer these feelings and thoughts you have. When I posted my possible "answers" of how these things could still be true with a God who is "good" and "fair" in our understanding, I was trying to relate to you how I approach a possible "resolution" to this topic. Believe me I really do understand where you are coming from, because I often struggle with the same conclusions myself.

I can only say that my somewhat weak solutions at resolving this issue, tells me that a much better resolution probably exists.
I believe the nature of heaven and hell is something I can only comment on in ignorance and speculation. I wish I had the answer for you, but I do not.

I can only say that I will continue to search and pray for the answer. I kind of "feel" that there is an answer more so than I think there is one.

I have often been accused by my friends of being too logical, too anaylitical, and too skeptical/cynical. But I do have feelings and I can say that as deeply as I am able to feel, I feel there is an answer.

I know this is not very scientific and can easily be brushed aside by skeptics, but I ask you not to simply disregard it. I know I am being somewhat vague and I will try to clarify in a later post.

Please consider my words.


Russ

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

Obviously you missed it, so I will restate it for you.

God carried out the sentence in accordance with the crime that the criminals have commited.

Obviously you missed it, so I will restate it for you.

I have no problem with the concept of punishment.

Our worship reflects the state of our morality. Our morality reflects the state of our relationship with the King. The state of our relationship is reflected in our worship etc etc. None alone is what He bases his Judgement on.
So you define moral behaviour as "worshiping God"?

In fact, the judgement is based on the choice the human being has made.
What choice, exactly? The choice of "Worship me or else!"?

God merely affirms the choice, and carries out the sentence.
That's fine. Except that your definition of "moral behavior" is wrong. Your interpretation of the Bible leads to a non-good God, but God is good, so your interpretation MUST be wrong.

Get rid the evil concept of hell, embrace the concept that God is interested in our morality, in goodness and love, and God is NOT interested in our religion.

It is not a sin to me a muslim. It is not a sin to be a buddhist. It is not a sin to be a xian. it is not a sin to be an atheist. It is not a sin to be a dog. :)

If you think Jesus' teachings say anything different, then either your interpretation is wrong, or your religion is corrupted.

[Nowhere357]

steadele:

Believe me I really do understand where you are coming from, because I often struggle with the same conclusions myself.


Thanks, Russ. What do you think of my solution?

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85495#post85495)
Nowhere357:



Thanks, Russ. What do you think of my solution?

Uhhhhh I dont actually remember exactly what you posted as your solution. Could you tell me what post # it was? Or just type it if its short enough?

I am having several discussions at once with people and I sometimes forget previous posts. ( you and I also had a discussion on prayer not too long ago, which I actually enjoyed by the way.)

Sorry I forgot your answer :shy:


Russ

[Nowhere357]

steadele:



Here's where I'm at:
"Get rid the evil concept of hell, embrace the concept that God is interested in our morality, in goodness and love, and God is NOT interested in our religion.

It is not a sin to be born. It is not a sin to be a muslim. It is not a sin to be a buddhist. It is not a sin to be a xian. it is not a sin to be an atheist. It is not a sin to be a dog. :)

If you think Jesus' teachings say anything different, then either your interpretation is wrong, or your religion is corrupted."

Why should we accept any religion/sect which would argue with this?

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 03:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85585#post85585)
Nowhere357:




Here's where I'm at:
&quot;Get rid the evil concept of hell, embrace the concept that God is interested in our morality, in goodness and love, and God is NOT interested in our religion.

It is not a sin to be born. It is not a sin to be a muslim. It is not a sin to be a buddhist. It is not a sin to be a xian. it is not a sin to be an atheist. It is not a sin to be a dog. :)

If you think Jesus' teachings say anything different, then either your interpretation is wrong, or your religion is corrupted.&quot;

Why should we accept any religion/sect which would argue with this?

Okay I figured your view was probably something like that. Actually its not too far from the view of a couple of my friends. I disagree with you, but I certainly understand your position and respect it.

I obviously think that you have the wrong interpretation of Jesus' words, and not me. But I think you knew that already.

By the way from some of your other posts I can see that you are interested in discussion/debate and not argument. I appreciate all who have such attitudes.


Russ

[apologetics]

Nowhere357 said:

"Get rid the evil concept of hell, embrace the concept that God is interested in our morality, in goodness and love, and God is NOT interested in our religion.

It is not a sin to be born. It is not a sin to be a muslim. It is not a sin to be a buddhist. It is not a sin to be a xian. it is not a sin to be an atheist. It is not a sin to be a dog. :)

If you think Jesus' teachings say anything different, then either your interpretation is wrong, or your religion is corrupted."

Nowhere, I, as steadele have to disagree with you. In addition, my disagreement is NOT based on my own feelings or opinions of this matter. They are based on the exact words of Jesus Christ that you claim teach something different. My question to you would be when was the last time you actually read ANY of the four gospels that contain the recorded words of Jesus Christ?

Now, you are completely correct that no where does Jesus say "being a muslim is sin" or "being a buddhist is sin" or "being an atheist is sin." However, what HE does say is this:

John 14:6 I am the way, the truth and the life, no man come to the Father but through me.

What is he saying here? He doesn't call himself A way, or Alife....he states that he is THEway, truth and life and this is very explicit in stating that there is NO way to the Father but through him.

Now, if you know this and know anything about the religions of Islam, Buddhism and atheism, what conclusion are you able to come to? Islam preaches that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God. They deny the resurrection which is the cornerstone of Christianity. Buddhism denies ANY God and believes that Jesus was just another mortally human teacher like Buddha. They deny the incarnation and the resurrection and therefore, also deny that Jesus was the Son of God. Atheism, obviously denies Jesus on many levels. Some deny that he EVER existed. Some deny that he was crucified. Some deny he was resurrected. However, all deny that he was the Son of God.

I would suggest a re-read of the gospels and a thorough reading of the Book of John. Then read Romans to see what the apostle Paul has to say about the issue of Salvation.

Your argument is not with me, it is with Jesus Christ. The fact that he is the ONLY way to the Father is pervasive throughout the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Another very curious thing is that after over 10 pages of posts, you still seem confused on the Christian concept of hell. I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread. There have been many good explanations about how Christians view hell and what the Bible teaches about hell, instead of holding to this "eternal damnation" thing that you seem destined to believe.

God does not send ANYONE to hell! You chose to separate yourself from Him by refusing to believe in his Son, Jesus Christ and the gift of grace that he has provided for you through the resurrection. He has already paid the price for you. You don't deserve it. I don't deserve it. That is what is so incredible about it! He died for us while we were still corrupted sinners (Roman 5:7-8). Our actions as humans are detestable to a holy, perfect God. He cannot tolerate ANY sin. Now, he would be a sadist if he had allowed Adam's sin to contaminate the human race and then set up a system where we had to work it off through good works. However, he didn't! He provided a completely free, effortless way to become redeemed in the eyes of our holy creator. That is what separates Christianity from EVERY OTHER religion that has ever existed!

If you chose not to believe this, it is not his fault. He created you with an intelligent brain capable of cognitive reasoning and independent thought. You are completely free at this time to choose to do anything you might like. In the end, if you have chosen a live your life apart from Him, then he will reward you eternally with your choice.....a life lived apart from Him! That is Hell. C.S. Lewis described this scenario as God saying to you on judgment day "Thy will be done," instead of you bending your knee to him in worship and saying "Thy will be done." He will simply give you what you want!

[geoff]

nowhere:

I have no problem with the concept of punishment.
End of problem.

So you define moral behaviour as "worshiping God"?
No.


What choice, exactly? The choice of "Worship me or else!"?
The choice to accept the rule and laws of the King of Creation, or not.

That's fine. Except that your definition of "moral behavior" is wrong. Your interpretation of the Bible leads to a non-good God, but God is good, so your interpretation MUST be wrong.
wrong.

Get rid the evil concept of hell, embrace the concept that God is interested in our morality, in goodness and love, and God is NOT interested in our religion.
Hell is no more evil than the Texan Judicial system in which people are sentenced to death for murder.
UNLIKE the judge in Texas, God has actually done something in order to reconcile the wicked to the community of His kingdom.
The human justice system si virtual devoid of love, and mercy, God's isnt.

It is not a sin to me a muslim. It is not a sin to be a buddhist. It is not a sin to be a xian. it is not a sin to be an atheist. It is not a sin to be a dog. :)
Sin is not recognising who God truly is, and giving him the appropriate respect, etc.

If you think Jesus' teachings say anything different, then either your interpretation is wrong, or your religion is corrupted.

Are you for real?
HAHAHAHAHAH
Do we have a lame comment of the day?

I am telling you what I believe Jesus' teachings to say, because Jesus is the author of my faith, my religion, my lifestyle. How can that corrupt it? Ridiculous. I might say, dont tell me about science, because science corrupts it. sheesh.
*bites his toungue.

[Ethos]

Dearest NoWhere...
Honestly, the answer that you seek is simple, I think.. Are you a good person?? Dp u live a virtuous life, helping and loving of others, especially those less fortunate than you?? Do you have love in your heart. Can u go to sleep each night with a clear conscience.. If so, then you have nothing to worry about. God will work it out for you, when your time comes righteous soul!! If not, then you should think about living a life set by those standards, which is much easier obtained when we are bettered within by Christ who strengthens us!! Just think about it... I don't think that God so easily discards his righteous childern who have been mislead... So stay righteous, and the salvation will come, like a thief in the night!! In my humble opinion of course... Good Luck and ~*~May Your Journey Be Safe And Virtuous~*~
In all sincerity,
Sarah

[apologetics]

Triphicus:

Honestly, the answer that you seek is simple, I think.. Are you a good person?? Dp u live a virtuous life, helping and loving of others, especially those less fortunate than you?? Do you have love in your heart. Can u go to sleep each night with a clear conscience.. If so, then you have nothing to worry about. God will work it out for you, when your time comes righteous soul!!

I have to respectfully disagree with your statement. I don't know if you just didn't spell out your thought clearly enough, or if we differ on how one achieves salvation. Paul makes it quite clear in Romans:

Romans 3:10-11 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

There are no "good" people in God's eyes. Paul explains why just 12 verses later:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

We have all sinned. Period! Not just Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Paul isn't equivocating with his language. This includes all who see themselves as "good." Its ironic the scales we put ourselves on to judge our "goodness." We compare ourselves with the likes of murders and thieves. When was the last time that you ran into someone that said, "I have never done anything wrong!"

We have only to compare ourselves with one person to test our "goodness." The only person to ever live the sinless life.....Jesus Christ.

Psalm 99:9 says that "God is holy."

Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8, both Isaiah and the apostle John are witnesses to those in the heavenly realm worshiping God. And in both instances, those worshiping him are crying out "holy, holy, holy."

All three of these verses serve to confirm that God is holy. Being holy is not a character of his nature.....it IS his nature. We cannot hope to attain the level of perfection required by a God who is holiness. Although there is indication that there are differing degrees of sin in God's eyes (1 Corinthians 6:18), there is no indication anywhere within Scripture that there is any sin, no matter how humanity has chosen to look at it, that God does not find completely unacceptable.

We all have sinned.....we all have fallen short of the glory of God.....and we are all doomed. The good news is that we have been given one through whom we may be rectified to God. Jesus Christ died so that all those who accepted his gift of grace would be saved the punishment due us. We do nothing for it.....nor could we ever hope to improve ourselves to please a perfect, holy God.

I agree, that good works, being a "good" person is a result of this grace and mercy. However, we will not save ourselves apart from Jesus Christ. He spelled it out pretty clearly:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

One more thing I have always found interesting about people calling themselves "good" and using that as justification that they deserve to go to heaven. Who is the definer of "goodness?" We believe that giving to the poor, volunteering our time at a hospice, being neighborly, etc. make us good. However, many Muslims believe that strapping explosives to your body, running into a crowded Israeli cafe and blowing yourself up is "good." We view their actions as horrific and evil....and they view us as horrific and evil. Unless there is an absolute moral law giver, the concept of goodness degrades into a relativism and becomes meaningless. This moral law giver is God and he has said that we need Jesus Christ FIRST! For me, that is all I need to know.

I don't pretend to know who will be saved and who will not. That is the realm of the Holy Spirit. However, what I do know is if my beliefs run counter to what has been spelled out for me in Scripture, I know it is time to worry.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:[/i]

End of problem.


This indicates where our views diverge.

I think the punishment needs to fit the crime, or it's not "just".

I can admit god has a larger view than any of us. I CANNOT admit that eternal punishment is just. And eternal suffering is evil. (I know you don't believe in that version.)

“ So you define moral behaviour as "worshiping God"? ”

No.
(Here is where you should have inserted your definition.)

The choice to accept the rule and laws of the King of Creation, or not.

If these rules come down to things like "love thy neighbor" then I DO accept them.

If these rules come down to "follow Jesus and only jesus" then I DO NOT accept them.

You will never find me at a Jonestown or a Waco.

Hell is no more evil than the Texan Judicial system in which people are sentenced to death for murder.
You've mentioned this, and it still is a poor example.

First, killing people who are helplessly strapped in a chair should be considered murder. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. For example, slavery used to be legal.

Second, our human justice system strives to make the punishment fit the crime. We have a right and an obligation to object when justice is failing.

Sin is not recognising who God truly is, and giving him the appropriate respect, etc.
You are wrong. Sin is immoral behavior. If you wish xianity to be seen as a good religion, then you have to get on board. IMO.

Here's the thing, Geoff. I may be interested in what Jesus has to say. Your gospel tells me that what Jesus has to say is stupid, even evil. You don't mean to say that; so your interpretation of the bible must be wrong.

HAHAHAHAHAH Are you for real?
Yes. And quotes like this, from people like you, make me think I'm on the right track.

The Bible requires interpretation.
Sometimes quite liberal interpretation.
The concept of hell, and of "worship or else", come from Biblical interpretation.
Those concepts reveal traits of exclusionism, divisiveness, cruelness, intolerance, and etc.
Those traits are not the traits of a loving God.
Therefore the concepts of hell and "worship or else" must be based on a faulty interpretation of the bible. Or the bible refers to a non-loving god.

I am telling you what I believe Jesus' teachings to say, because Jesus is the author of my faith, my religion, my lifestyle. How can that corrupt it? Ridiculous. I might say, dont tell me about science, because science corrupts it.
I think Jesus was trying to teach us about love. So if your beliefs cause hate and strife, I think you've corrupted his teachings.

How do you feel, if a muslim says you must go to hell?

[Nowhere357]

steadele:

By the way from some of your other posts I can see that you are interested in discussion/debate and not argument. I appreciate all who have such attitudes.

Thanks. And I am interested in what you have to say. I know this is an emotional subject, difficult to talk about without getting frustrated and angry.

I disagree with you, but I certainly understand your position and respect it.
:cheers:

I obviously think that you have the wrong interpretation of Jesus' words, and not me. But I think you knew that already.
I don't think it is controversial to sugget that the Bible should not be literally interpreted, at least not all of it. Otherwise, Genesis for example becomes mere superstition. The bible REQUIRES interpretation, beyond a mere reading of the words. Do you agree with this?

If so, then why should we accept an interpretation which causes hate and violence?

[Nowhere357]

Posted by apologetics on Today 03:08 AM:

He doesn't call himself A way, or Alife....he states that he is THEway, truth and life and this is very explicit in stating that there is NO way to the Father but through him.

Maybe, in context, he meant "A" way, and not "THE way".

If you are right, then the Bible must be read like a newspaper, which I am sure you know is untenable.

SO you are supporting my position that "hell" and "worship me or else" are based on faulty interpretation of the Bible.

Your argument is not with me, it is with Jesus Christ. The fact that he is the ONLY way to the Father is pervasive throughout the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Then either you have interpreted incorrectly, or your god is interested in acquiring worshipers, and NOT in our moral behavior.

Even Forrest Gump knows that "evil is as evil does". :)

I would suggest a re-read of the gospels and a thorough reading of the Book of John. Then read Romans to see what the apostle Paul has to say about the issue of Salvation.
Here's the thing. I can't hear what the book has to say, with all this "hell" and "worship me or else" getting in the way.

My question to you would be when was the last time you actually read ANY of the four gospels that contain the recorded words of Jesus Christ?

I have enough experience with the Bible to know that I can support almost ANY position through quote selection.

Here's a challenge. YOU reread all of Jesus' words and teachings, and for a mental exercise, try interpreting them so as to hear the love, and reject the hate. See what you come up with. Just for fun. And pray on it.

Now, if you know this and know anything about the religions of Islam, Buddhism and atheism, what conclusion are you able to come to?
Here is the big conclusion. To a very real extent, our religion depends on our culture.

And no religion has a corner on moral behavior.

SO god is interested in our moral behavior, and NOT on our religion.

AND "all dogs go to heaven". Tell me I'm wrong, and I must reject and even oppose your religion.

Another very curious thing is that after over 10 pages of posts, you still seem confused on the Christian concept of hell.
There are several xian concepts of hell. Which supports my point, and my conclusion.

God does not send ANYONE to hell! You chose to separate yourself from Him by refusing to believe in his Son, Jesus Christ and the gift of grace that he has provided for you through the resurrection.
This is an interpretation that causes very bad feelings. I have not chosen to seperate myself from anything, except evil. If god sends me to hell for my beliefs (or lack thereof), that is HIS choice, not mine.

SO it SEEMS like you are telling me "embrace evil, and call it good, or you will be punished". I am sure that is not what Jesus meant, so I am sure that you have misinterpreted the Bible. OR that the bible is meaningless.

There have been many good explanations about how Christians view hell and what the Bible teaches about hell, instead of holding to this "eternal damnation" thing that you seem destined to believe.
Do you deny that many xian sects preach "eternal damnation"?

Do you deny that "eternal damnation" causes disharmony?

[Nowhere357]

Triphicus:[/i]

Dearest NoWhere...

Actually, it's NowHere. :)

Honestly, the answer that you seek is simple, I think.. Are you a good person?? Dp u live a virtuous life, helping and loving of others, especially those less fortunate than you?? Do you have love in your heart. Can u go to sleep each night with a clear conscience.. If so, then you have nothing to worry about. God will work it out for you, when your time comes righteous soul!!
I completely agree. And it is simple, and obvious, to me. God is interested in our moral behavior and intentions, and NOT in our religion.

Bright and sunny Christians like yourself have my respect. I believe your path has wisdom and heart. There is a bit of condescension in saying all other paths must be "mislead", but still.

It is a shame, IMO, that your view is immediately attacked, and by other Christians!

Thank you, Sarah.

[apologetics]

Maybe, in context, he meant "A" way, and not "THE way".

If you are right, then the Bible must be read like a newspaper, which I am sure you know is untenable.

SO you are supporting my position that "hell" and "worship me or else" are based on faulty interpretation of the Bible.

OK, first sentence: I challenge you to find A SINGLEdocument in ANY language that shows that Jesus said that he was "A" way. How can you logically make that comment? What evidence is it based on?

second sentence: How does understanding the word "the"....a difinitive article.....mean that the Bible must be read like a newspaper? Language has to have meaning and it has to read within that context. If there is contrary evidence, then it should be presented, but here, you have none. Also, I think that you need to read up on what historians have to say about the interpretation of historical documents. They are to read and interpeted as stated unless evidence to the contrary is available. This is not a condition of "religion" it is a basic premise on which the study of history is based.

third sentence: I'm agreeing with you how? Explain that further....it should prove interesting!

Then either you have interpreted incorrectly, or your god is interested in acquiring worshipers, and NOT in our moral behavior.

Even Forrest Gump knows that "evil is as evil does". :)

Of course my God is interested in being worshiped! He created the universe! I'd say that that deserves my worship! I am the created, He is the creator! However, what you seem to misunderstand is that being worshiped is not equivalent to making slaves. I have a choice to worship, you have a choice NOT to worship. But, if my God is a reality, then logically He can be the ONLY reality and as such, he is to be worshiped and loved by his creation.

You have failed miserable in your attempt to make a case that God is evil. steadele, geoff and I have presented enough evidence to show the weakness of that argument, but sometimes logic fails, I guess.

Here's the thing. I can't hear what the book has to say, with all this "hell" and "worship me or else" getting in the way.

This comment says a lot about the state of mind that you have approached the Bible with.....if, in fact, you have read any of it....which is the belief I am quickly coming to. Here's my suggestion.....I would work on a different excuse, on the outside chance you are wrong! Because there are gonna be billions of people standing behind you that will have heard, dispite all the "hell and worship me or else."

I have enough experience with the Bible to know that I can support almost ANY position through quote selection.

I'm sure you can.....it's called taking things out of context! Atheists and skeptics are great at this. I can use "quote selection" to show that the Bible says, "there is no God." Of course when read within the proper context, it says "The fool says, 'there is no God,'"

Here is the big conclusion. To a very real extent, our religion depends on our culture.

And no religion has a corner on moral behavior.

SO god is interested in our moral behavior, and NOT on our religion.

I will agree that God is not interested in our religion. However, if the God of the Bible is true (and there is enough evidence to have convinced billions of people and changed the hearts of many an atheist that this is the case.... I would suggest a reading of Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. McDowell was an atheist who set out to write this book to disprove Christianity, but ended up becoming one of the 20th centuries most vocal advocates), then Salvation is only available through His Son, Jesus Christ. He died on the cross for you. You don't have to do anything to receive it, but believe. It is completely free! Now what about the love in this don't you understand?


AND "all dogs go to heaven". Tell me I'm wrong, and I must reject and even oppose your religion.

I sure hope that you don't plan on dying with this excuse on your lips! As I have said, what I believe is not based on my mind. It is on what Jesus Christ said 2000 years ago when he walked this earth. Your argument is not with me, it is with Him.....as I have already stated and you just simply choose to ignore.....

[apologetics]

Nowhere:

In your post to Triphicus:

It is a shame, IMO, that your view is immediately attacked, and by other Christians!

I wasn't "attacking" anything she said, I was clarifying what is known as "the historic Christian doctrine." She might believe what I wrote, but her position wasn't spelled out clearly. If she believes contrary, then I was "disagreeing" with her, but I wasn't attacking her. I was spelling out 2000 years of church history that dates back to the time of the resurrection....not making up my own "attack." Nice try, though. Also, it was very interesting that you completely ignored the bottom of her post when she talked about "Christ." Since you said that you "completely agree" with her, I'm wondering if that also includes her belief in Christ! A text taken out of context is a pretext, remember!

[geoff]

nowhere:

I think the punishment needs to fit the crime, or it's not "just".
It does.

“ So you define moral behaviour as "worshiping God"? ”


No.


(Here is where you should have inserted your definition.)
Definition of what? I answered your question.

f these rules come down to things like "love thy neighbor" then I DO accept them.

If these rules come down to "follow Jesus and only jesus" then I DO NOT accept them.

You will never find me at a Jonestown or a Waco.
Jesus said, those who follow me TRULY, love their neighbour.
People who take others lives, or cause others to take their own lives arent following Jesus', arent loving their neighbours, and are defiling all that is taught in the Bible.
You want find a true believer in God at waco or jonestown either.

First, killing people who are helplessly strapped in a chair should be considered murder. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. For example, slavery used to be legal.

Second, our human justice system strives to make the punishment fit the crime. We have a right and an obligation to object when justice is failing.
And we believe God is perfect, and therefore metes out justice "perfectly". It is God who says that human life is so valuable that taking it is a violation of such a great proportion, that He demands a reckoning for it (Gen9:4-6). As creator, He is the one who knows.
You are wrong. Sin is immoral behavior. If you wish xianity to be seen as a good religion, then you have to get on board. IMO.
How would YOU... an athiest, know what Sin is? YOu've proved you dont know anything about the bible, how on earth can you define a complex theological term?

Here's the thing, Geoff. I may be interested in what Jesus has to say. Your gospel tells me that what Jesus has to say is stupid, even evil. You don't mean to say that; so your interpretation of the bible must be wrong.
Heres the thing. You DONT KNOW what the gospel says. You have probably heard something somewhere. But you really dont know diddly. You dont KNOW what gospel is. And you DEFINATELY dont know what I think the gospel is.

The Bible requires interpretation.
Sometimes quite liberal interpretation.
The concept of hell, and of "worship or else", come from Biblical interpretation.
Those concepts reveal traits of exclusionism, divisiveness, cruelness, intolerance, and etc.
Those traits are not the traits of a loving God.
Therefore the concepts of hell and "worship or else" must be based on a faulty interpretation of the bible. Or the bible refers to a non-loving god.
And, as I have said over and over. You are basing this whole steaming pile of wombat doo on ONE understanding, one that I dont accept as biblical. So get off your bandwagon and deal with it.

I think Jesus was trying to teach us about love. So if your beliefs cause hate and strife, I think you've corrupted his teachings.
My beliefs dont cause anything of the sort. Your anti christian attitude however, is akin to racism, and extremely foul.

How do you feel, if a muslim says you must go to hell?
I dont really care. Why should I? I dont find it offensive, certainly less that your anti christian attitude. It doesnt hurt me, offend me, upset me,, cause me to reject them as friends, stop loving them etc. I certainly dont feel the need tolash out at them, as you do to us.

[Bohemian Spirit]

Hi y'all I'm pretty new here, but I decided I had my own personal experience to throw in. I'm not a Christian, so not sure if this will mean anything to anyone...but here it goes:

Before my Opa died of leukimia, he told my uncle and I about a dream he had. (this was the first time he had been awake and able to talk for a week) He said that he had dreamed he was with his two brothers again, and that soon the three of them would be together.

He kept thinking about that dream; that the three of them would be together, reunited after years. He died happy.

And that's why I can't believe in Hell...because if Hell did exist, I can promise you that the three of them wouldn't have gone to the same place :tongue:

Just my little story. Hope it stirred some thought* :D

Bohemian Spirit

[geoff]

Nice story.

I wouldnt base "dogma" on someones dream though.

[Ethos]

Triphicus to Nowhere:
Dear Nowhere
(post#165 )

Dearest NoWhere...
Honestly, the answer that you seek is simple, I think.. Are you a good person?? Dp u live a virtuous life, helping and loving of others, especially those less fortunate than you?? Do you have love in your heart. Can u go to sleep each night with a clear conscience.. If so, then you have nothing to worry about. God will work it out for you, when your time comes righteous soul!! If not, then you should think about living a life set by those standards, which is much easier obtained when we are bettered within by Christ who strengthens us!! Just think about it... I don't think that God so easily discards his righteous childern who have been mislead... So stay righteous, and the salvation will come, like a thief in the night!! In my humble opinion of course... Good Luck and ~*~May Your Journey Be Safe And Virtuous~*~
In all sincerity,
Sarah

Apologetics to Triphicus:
I have to respectfully disagree with your statement. I don't know if you just didn't spell out your thought clearly enough, or if we differ on how one achieves salvation. Paul makes it quite clear in Romans:

Romans 3:10-11 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

There are no "good" people in God's eyes. Paul explains why just 12 verses later:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

We have all sinned. Period! Not just Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Paul isn't equivocating with his language. This includes all who see themselves as "good." Its ironic the scales we put ourselves on to judge our "goodness." We compare ourselves with the likes of murders and thieves. When was the last time that you ran into someone that said, "I have never done anything wrong!"

****************************************************

Okay apologetics. I know that we all sin, I am not perfect, as you are not perfect.. All I am saying is that when one strives each day to BE A BETTER person, as opposed to living each day self righteously, then they pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

Notice that I didn't use the word good. For you are absolutely correct in God not seeing any of us as good. Even Jesus said he wasn't good. Only God was good. Please pardon my mistake.

[Ethos]

*Only God is Good

[Ethos]

05-03-2003 @ 04:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86353#post86353)
Nowhere357:


Actually, it's NowHere. :)


I completely agree. And it is simple, and obvious, to me. God is interested in our moral behavior and intentions, and NOT in our religion.

Bright and sunny Christians like yourself have my respect. I believe your path has wisdom and heart. There is a bit of condescension in saying all other paths must be &quot;mislead&quot;, but still.

It is a shame, IMO, that your view is immediately attacked, and by other Christians!

Thank you, Sarah.


Thank You NowHere, for your kind words! All that I say comes from my heart!

[AnubisAmon]

95% of the earth's population believes in a supreme being of some sort. That being said, I'll use the phraze "where there's smoke their is usually fire." If God is a heavenly father who looks after us much like our real father(I know some flaws exist on the earthly level) I know what I would have to do to be shunned from my earthly father so I see god as a god of love and I personal think it would take alot to be shunned from his site. Not some little lack of understanding. That being said, I think we will be held responsible for our actions much like we are here on earth. In other words we may have to sit in the corner for awhile if we've been bad.

[Nowhere357]

apologetics:

OK, first sentence: I challenge you to find A SINGLEdocument in ANY language that shows that Jesus said that he was &quot;A&quot; way. How can you logically make that comment? What evidence is it based on?

I challenged you first.

Logically, for one thing, it's the difference between "Jesus is Love", and Jesus is "worship me or else!". And some evidence is the fact that fundamentalist christianity causes disharmony and violence in the world.

second sentence: How does understanding the word "the"....a difinitive article.....mean that the Bible must be read like a newspaper?
It was the way that Jesus was talking about. The only way that he was talking about. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways.

And why should one little word tell you that whole foreign cultures are going to hell?

Language has to have meaning and it has to read within that context. If there is contrary evidence, then it should be presented, but here, you have none.
Good example. The bible is full of contradictory statements which require interpretation. How about "love your neighbor..." which contradicts your interpretation of "believe it or else!'.

Also, I think that you need to read up on what historians have to say about the interpretation of historical documents. They are to read and interpeted as stated unless evidence to the contrary is available.

The bible is not a historical document, unless you accept all religious books as such, which contradicts your position anyway. And I've provided the evidence.

third sentence: I'm agreeing with you how? Explain that further....it should prove interesting!
If you insist on your literal translation of the passage in question, then I can insist in a literal translation of for example some nice Genesis quotes. This then puts the entire bible into the realm of pure superstition. To avoid this, we must allow liberal interpretation. This supports my position. Isn't this interesting?

Of course my God is interested in being worshiped! He created the universe! I'd say that that deserves my worship! I am the created, He is the creator!
I'd say that's not a good enough reason. I'd say god has to be good, if he wants our worship. I'd say our moral behavior would be important to god. What does it say about you, that you disagree with this?

However, what you seem to misunderstand is that being worshiped is not equivalent to making slaves. I have a choice to worship, you have a choice NOT to worship.
I do worship. Chew on that.

And worship due to threats IS slavery. Worship due to love, is not.

But, if my God is a reality, then logically He can be the ONLY reality and as such, he is to be worshiped and loved by his creation.
God created Buddhists, too. And scientists. All good people worship after their fashion. The only thing special about your version is the hate and strife it causes. Why do you think that's what Jesus wanted?

You have failed miserable in your attempt to make a case that God is evil.
Says you. The "evil god" is based on "eternal damnation" which many xians reject. As well as nearly all non-xians."Eternal damnation" turns people away from the bible! Is that what Jesus wanted?

This comment says a lot about the state of mind that you have approached the Bible with.....if, in fact, you have read any of it....which is the belief I am quickly coming to. Here's my suggestion.....I would work on a different excuse, on the outside chance you are wrong! Because there are gonna be billions of people standing behind you that will have heard, dispite all the "hell and worship me or else."
I have read much of it, and many related works. Including theology texts. My "state of mind" is to learn the truth, which offends many fundies.

And it's not an exuse. If god punishes with eternal damnation, or judges on worship not morals, then I reject and oppose it. Whether it exists or not. Luckily, your version of a jealous hateful god is false. :)

I'm sure you can.....it's called taking things out of context! Atheists and skeptics are great at this.
In my mind I'm reviewing the church vs Galileo. Proving that theists are masters at taking the bible out of context.

I will agree that God is not interested in our religion. <snip> He died on the cross for you. You don't have to do anything to receive it, but believe.
The first and last statements are in contradiction.

Now what about the love in this don't you understand?
The part where god's love requires our belief.

I sure hope that you don't plan on dying with this excuse on your lips!
It's not an excuse. It's an understanding based on reason and empathy.

It is on what Jesus Christ said 2000 years ago when he walked this earth.
So I better worship jesus because the bible says so?

Your argument is not with me, it is with Him.....as I have already stated and you just simply choose to ignore.....
I did not. I answered you, and my answer is still the same. Here it is again:

"Then either you have interpreted incorrectly, or your god is interested in acquiring worshipers, and NOT in our moral behavior."

[Nowhere357]

apologetics:[/i]

I wasn't &quot;attacking&quot; anything she said, I was clarifying what is known as &quot;the historic Christian doctrine.&quot;
I didn't mean to imply you were. I should have spelled out: I was thinking of her view being attacked by fundies in other threads and in other forums. My bad, sorry.

Also, it was very interesting that you completely ignored the bottom of her post when she talked about "Christ." Since you said that you "completely agree" with her, I'm wondering if that also includes her belief in Christ! A text taken out of context is a pretext, remember!

Specifically, I agreed with the parts I quoted. Generally, however, I do agree with her entire post. I can interpret "Jesus" to mean "the Light of Jesus" which means a path with wisdom and heart.

As opposed to a path of ignorance and apathy.

[Warcraft3]

Thanks. And I am interested in what you have to say. I know this is an emotional subject, difficult to talk about without getting frustrated and angry.
I assure you, you will not see such emotions expressed when you are conversing with me.

I don't think it is controversial to sugget that the Bible should not be literally interpreted, at least not all of it. Otherwise, Genesis for example becomes mere superstition. The bible REQUIRES interpretation, beyond a mere reading of the words. Do you agree with this?
To a point yes, I do agree with you. As to the Genesis example there are 5 interpretations of Genesis 1 which I have looked at. These are
1. 24-hour day view
2. Day-age view
3. Framework view
4. Gap view
5. Days of proclamation view

Only number 3 does not claim a literal interpretation. I belive each view has good points and is permissible within scripture. I personally believe views 2,3, and 5 have excellent arguments behind them, while I find views 1 and 2 rather weak. I lean more towards view number 5 than any others currently. With that said let me say....
I only consider a "non literal" reading if I see good reasons to take such a view. Every view must be take into account the rest of scripture and must fit into an overall theology. This is why I agree with your position "to a point".

If so, then why should we accept an interpretation which causes hate and violence?
My view causes me to be neither hateful or violent. I would not necessairly blame the interpretation of scriputre when people misuse it or abuse it. Christianity is much more than a viewpoint or a theology. It has to be a growing relationship with Christ. Only after much prayer can one obtain balance and spiritual power and authority. So I would say the problem with Christianity is not their view on scripture, but the failure to apply thier beliefs.


Russ

[Nowhere357]

geoff:[/i]

nowhere:


It does.
Does not.

Definition of what? I answered your question
Pay attention. And no you didn't. Because of no definition.

Jesus said, those who follow me TRULY, love their neighbour. People who take others lives, or cause others to take their own lives arent following Jesus', arent loving their neighbours, and are defiling all that is taught in the Bible.

This supports my position that god is interested in morality, not worship. The worship part is gravy.

You want find a true believer in God at waco or jonestown either.
I think they considered themselves "true believers".

And we believe God is perfect, and therefore metes out justice "perfectly".
Which is how we know that the hell of eternal damnation doesn't exist, and how we know that he is interested in our morality, not our religion.

How would YOU... an athiest, know what Sin is?
I started by learning in church and school. Then I refer to a dictionary. I apply reason and empathy. Finally, I meditate on it.

Feel free to drop this point, as you do all the points you can't support, and then later you can just act like you have the point anyway, which seems to be your style. :smile:

Heres the thing. You DONT KNOW what the gospel says. You have probably heard something somewhere. But you really dont know diddly. You dont KNOW what gospel is.
Says you.

And you DEFINATELY dont know what I think the gospel is.
I had tried to find out. But now I don't care. I am aware of your logical thinking process, and if you tell me it's raining, I'll go look first.

And, as I have said over and over. You are basing this whole steaming pile of wombat doo on ONE understanding, one that I dont accept as biblical. So get off your bandwagon and deal with it.
Freethought does indeed tend to disturb those with narrow and inconsistent worldviews.

One should wonder why you are so mad at me, when I claim to follow good and right, and to oppose evil and wrong. :huh:

My beliefs dont cause anything of the sort.
Then what's your problem? My entire position starts with "IF..."
When you proceed to argue against the position for many pages, one may think you find the "IF..." to be descriptive of your beliefs.

Your anti christian attitude however, is akin to racism, and extremely foul.
From the fellow who brought us "Christianity is not really a religion" and "evolutionism is really a religion", we now have "freethought is anti-xian racism".

I dont really care. Why should I?
Demonstrating your lack of empathy.

As I've stated repeatedly, my view requires empathy and reason. You've demonstrated your lack of reason; now we see your lack of empathy, and so of course you don't get it.

[Warcraft3]

Bright and sunny Christians like yourself have my respect. I believe your path has wisdom and heart. There is a bit of condescension in saying all other paths must be &quot;mislead&quot;, but still.

It is a shame, IMO, that your view is immediately attacked, and by other Christians!

Thank you, Sarah.

NowHere: I would like to comment on the phrase, Bright and sunny Christians briefly.
I do not know if my comments apply to Sarah or not, since I have not interacted with her and have not read enough of her posts to think either way. So for the moment I am only speaking in general about Christians who are "bright and sunny".

I have met some "bright and sunny Christians" before and I have observed several things about them.
1. They usually do not give skeptics or atheists very good answers to support their beliefs.
2. They often are more concerned with avoiding disagreements than with sharing the gospel
3. In an attempt to be "loving" and "nice" and "agreable" with people they often water down the gospel to the point where it is indistinguishible (spelling?) from other beliefs.
4. They often lack wisdom and discernment, and rarely mature spiritually.

I believe that true Christian love corrects error, exposes sin, and is uncompromising with the essentials. I knew several people who fit this description to the letter. Often people with problems (drugs, sex related issues, family problems) would go to these Christians for help. While the "bright and sunny" christians made the people feel good, they rarely had the wisdom or power to truly help them. By the time these people came to someone else (I was the person in several instances) for help, they were worse off than they were before. This was a "tad" bit frustrating and made helping them more difficult than it had to be.

There is a balance between caring and correcting. I have seen first hand the damage that both "hard core fundies" and "bright and sunny christians" can do to people. There is a balance that comes only with maturity, experience, and much prayer.

The Christian walk is a difficult one and is not meant to be easy. We as Christians are not supposed to walk around with a permanent smile pasted on our faces, but instead have a deep peace and compassion.

Love is not an emotion, but is a state of mind and spirit. These things come through much prayer.




Russ

[Nowhere357]

AnubisAmon:

95% of the earth's population believes in a supreme being of some sort. That being said, I'll use the phraze &quot;where there's smoke their is usually fire.&quot;

And every culture, back to the stone age. This proves nothing, but I agree that it's evidence.

If God is a heavenly father who looks after us much like our real father(I know some flaws exist on the earthly level) I know what I would have to do to be shunned from my earthly father so I see god as a god of love and I personal think it would take alot to be shunned from his site. Not some little lack of understanding. That being said, I think we will be held responsible for our actions much like we are here on earth. In other words we may have to sit in the corner for awhile if we've been bad.

This view is attractive. It's a shame that the positive message of Christianity is buried under the dogmatic negativity that seems so prevalant.

[Ethos]

Russ
So we meet again... Where you speak from is the same place where I am going. I will be the first one to say that I am not spiritually mature. I have many years ahead of me to see and do, and learn before I can come from a true place of refined wisdom... If I were an oyster, and wisdom were the pearl, I would just now have the grain of sand (basis for which to create the pearl, over time) lodged in my belly..
You are very correct in sayign that Christianity is a hard road, for as it is is said in the bible:

Enter by the narrow gate; For the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.
For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.
Matthew 7:13-14

But I still stand by by every word that I have spoken... If someone is meant to be found by God, I believe with everything that I am that God is all powerful enough to make it happen... But only if that person is righteous and pleasing in the sight of the Lord, instilled with moral fabric, and with a heart overflowing with love and kindness, will the Lord bother to pave their way to him..
And to take this even further...
Just as the "Christians" who spout off the messages of the Lord, but do not abide by them, are being led by a different, opposite force than God.

That is what I meant by my post, and I stand by it. You are correct in most of everything that you Say though Russ, as you seem to be a very wise man. I just hope you also, practice what you preach..

[Warcraft3]

Russ
So we meet again... LOL so we do.

Where you speak from is the same place where I am going. I will be the first one to say that I am not spiritually mature. I have many years ahead of me to see and do, and learn before I can come from a true place of refined wisdom... If I were an oyster, and wisdom were the pearl, I would just now have the grain of sand (basis for which to create the pearl, over time) lodged in my belly..
I pray that soon the "pearl" God will give you will draw many to Himself. Do not ever give up or stop praying. Pray constantly and do not get discouraged.


You are very correct in sayign that Christianity is a hard road, for as it is is said in the bible:

Enter by the narrow gate; For the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.
For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.
Matthew 7:13-14
Indeed.

But I still stand by by every word that I have spoken... If someone is meant to be found by God, I believe with everything that I am that God is all powerful enough to make it happen... But only if that person is righteous and pleasing in the sight of the Lord, instilled with moral fabric, and with a heart overflowing with love and kindness, will the Lord bother to pave their way to him..
I agree that many who now seek God will find Him before their life is over. Even though we may not know about it, God may intervene in ways we can not even imagine. I believe we will be surprised to see how many people spent their whole lives not believing in Christ only to find Him at the end.


Just as the "Christians" who spout off the messages of the Lord, but do not abide by them, are being led by a different, opposite force than God.
Indeed

That is what I meant by my post, and I stand by it. You are correct in most of everything that you Say though Russ, as you seem to be a very wise man. I just hope you also, practice what you preach..
Any wisdom or spiritual knowledge I have comes from long ago when I was truly walking with God. I have fallen far and am slowly trying to piece my spiritual life back together. I have seen much suffering and have had my heart and spirit crushed to powder. But I am walking the road once again, although very slowly. Maybe I will share my story with you so you know where I am coming from. I have seen God move in the supernatural and have witnessed His power. I have also seen the foolishness of men and how easily we can lead others astray. I have been guilty myself of causing many to stumble and am only now beginning to recover from the agony of my mistakes.

But I have learned much and do not plan on repeating the same mistakes the second time around. But progress is slow and painful. But it is progress, nonetheless.


Russ

[Ethos]

Hi Russ,
You have seen/witnessed the Heavenly Realm and you are allowed to talk about it??

I am glad to hear that you are getting back up to stand again after you have fallen.. I suppose that is one of the truest tests of our faith in our Lord.. Perserverance. I am sure that in the end the Lord will triumph, meaning you shall triumph in him!!
BTW I prayed for you in my morning prayer, and shall continue to do so kind friend!!

Best of Luck, and God Bless You!! He never gives up more than we can handle right??

in all sincerity and love,
Sarah:thumb:

[Ethos]

Best of Luck, and God Bless You!! He never gives *us more than we can handle right??

in all sincerity and love,
Sarah

Correction, change the up to *us

[JesusFreakVOM]

hang in there triphicus, our walk is one day at a time, if u fall , get back up and brush yourself off and keep lookin up. For our GOD is a mighty GOD and worth trusting.

[Ethos]

ThanX Jesus Freak!

[geoff]

nowhere:

“ Definition of what? I answered your question ”


Pay attention. And no you didn't. Because of no definition.

Err.. no. The answer was No. Morality is not the same as worship.

“ Jesus said, those who follow me TRULY, love their neighbour. People who take others lives, or cause others to take their own lives arent following Jesus', arent loving their neighbours, and are defiling all that is taught in the Bible.
”


This supports my position that god is interested in morality, not worship. The worship part is gravy.

You missed my point. AND you dont understand what "worship" is. Worship includes your day to day behaviour. Worship is an attitude of service. Morality does not equal worship, however, there is an aspect of true morality which glorifies, and therefore is worshipful to God.

“ You want find a true believer in God at waco or jonestown either. ”


I think they considered themselves "true believers".
I consider myself a fish, it doesnt make me one.

“ And, as I have said over and over. You are basing this whole steaming pile of wombat doo on ONE understanding, one that I dont accept as biblical. So get off your bandwagon and deal with it. ”


Freethought does indeed tend to disturb those with narrow and inconsistent worldviews.

One should wonder why you are so mad at me, when I claim to follow good and right, and to oppose evil and wrong.

I dont believe you have "freethought". I am not disturbed. I am not mad at you. You are only out for yourself. Its the idea that freedom might *actually only* come through God, and Christianity that scares you. It scares you because if its true, you would have to serve someone else other than yourself. You dont know what it means to "love your brother" - because you cant see past yourself.

You dont oppose evil and wrong either. Quite the opposite. You persecute Christianity because you are afraid of it... that is evil and wrong.

“ And you DEFINATELY dont know what I think the gospel is. ”


I had tried to find out. But now I don't care. I am aware of your logical thinking process, and if you tell me it's raining, I'll go look first.

I've told you. Its not my problem if you are unable to comprehend it. Its not like its not been common knowledge for about 6000 years.

“ My beliefs dont cause anything of the sort. ”


Then what's your problem? My entire position starts with "IF..."
When you proceed to argue against the position for many pages, one may think you find the "IF..." to be descriptive of your beliefs.
You may have said "if", but I said, "its not like that, its like this" - and you continued to argue against your "if" continually.. despite repeated protests. its not me who has the problem, its you who can not get off your little hobby horse. I have offered an alternative Christian understanding which can and does resolve the problem of the "if". But you just blindly continue.

As I've stated repeatedly, my view requires empathy and reason.
Your view requires nothing of the sort. It relies on second hand, outdated and inaccurate information.
You've come to the mechanic and said, here is my ferrari, now, you fix it like this because I did it just like this in my model t ford in 1931.
Get over it.

[bhukkadakota]

the way i see it
many christians are christians because they believe that they will go to hell if they arnt.
like i mentioned somewhere else
this god is basically using terror to gain his supporters
how can christians call saddam hussein evil for killing people if they dont support him while worshipping a god who does worse to non believers.
how many people through history have died for not being christian
by telling people they are BORN with the original sin and the ONLY way to be saved is to follow jesus ( which is basically do whatever the church tells you to) they change society into the way they want it by making totally innocent people think they OWE something to jesus.

[apologetics]

the way i see it
many christians are christians because they believe that they will go to hell if they arnt.
like i mentioned somewhere else
this god is basically using terror to gain his supporters
how can christians call saddam hussein evil for killing people if they dont support him while worshipping a god who does worse to non believers.
how many people through history have died for not being christian
by telling people they are BORN with the original sin and the ONLY way to be saved is to follow jesus ( which is basically do whatever the church tells you to) they change society into the way they want it by making totally innocent people think they OWE something to jesus.

:zzz:

Is it too much to ask a skeptic to come up with an original thought or is there a special school where one learns to copy-and-paste?

[geoff]

I dont think its a "special" school... its just their version on "enlightened thinking"

[Satori]

04-02-2003 @ 06:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51127#post51127)
Nowhere357:

I am new to this forum. I have many questions. I am not interested in hate or confrontation. I am sure my questions have been dealt with extensively already, so any advice on where to look for more information is appreciated.

I am a very spiritual person. I live in a xian society. I am confused as to WHY enlightened people are willing to worship the xian god. If the bible is true, then god sends people to hell, for ever, to suffer and suffer, regardless if they are good or bad. This seems to me to be an evil and wrong thing to do.

Of course I do not want to go to hell. So xianity tells me I need to 'believe' in Jesus. So I study what we know about Jesus. I believe what I understand. I do not understand that Jesus died for our sins. This does not make sense to me. So my brain does not 'believe' it.

So I must go to hell? Why would a god, if he was good, send people to hell just because they do not understand? Clearly (to me) that is not an act of a good god. Therefore the xian god does not deserve our worship.

Besides the people who do not understand, of course, we have: all the people born before Jesus. All the people who have not heard of Jesus. All the people who are raised in a culture that denies Jesus. All the people who are too young, or too mentally unstable, etc and etc and etc.

Hell must be FULL of people who have done nothing wrong. This seems like the act of an evil and corrupt god. Why then should we worship such a thing?

I didn't bother to read this thread, but I'm sure it's absolutely full of people giving various mindless reasons how god can be a nice dude, and yet being the sickest and cruelest mother ever concieved. I even had a lengthy discussion about this very topic in this forum about 4 months ago, and it was, quite frankly, a joke. It's amazing the ridiculous heights of speculation and leaps of logic people will go to to maintain their various delusions. I trust you realize that a lot of what christianity is is attempting to get around this, it's called "theology", and it's nothing more than an intellectual trap for those who are either unwilling or unable to think for themselves. It's sad, and I think it's an injustice that needs correcting, which is why I'm here.

I'm glad to see that your sense of morality and ethics surpasses that of the xian's "god" (cuz if it didn't I would be quite scared and sad, but I really doubt any human could be as morally deficient as this god character).

Stay cool, stay intelligent, stay self-honest, stay ethical,

Satori

[Satori]

05-08-2003 @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91315#post91315)
apologetics:

:zzz:

Is it too much to ask a skeptic to come up with an original thought or is there a special school where one learns to copy-and-paste?

Is it too much to ask a blind faith believer to address unoriginal ideas as they come up rather than overlooking them? Seems to me that it is, and I regard that as nothing more than a tactic to avoid responding.

You're it.

Satori

[geoff]

satori,

Its a pity you dont have respect for other people, especially whilst you expect (and rant and rave at them when they dont) have respect for you.

[mickiel]

Anyone who thinks God has created a giant pain amphliphier, and plans on tortureing people alive, concious, without end for all eternity, which is longer than 999999, trillion, 8888 billion, 7777quadrillion years, simply does not know God.

[geoff]

mickiel,

That would be correct.

These atheists, or anti-theists seem to be operating off second hand, or otherwise incorrect information. Its like a game of chinese whispers, and the further down the chain it gets, the further away from the truth it gets.

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 10:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98951#post98951)
geoff:

mickiel,

That would be correct.

These atheists, or anti-theists seem to be operating off second hand, or otherwise incorrect information. Its like a game of chinese whispers, and the further down the chain it gets, the further away from the truth it gets.

Its not sane rational thinking, also proof of how far deception can go disguised as truth. Its so clear, yet so blind to many. In order for hell to be eternal( if God wanted to eliminate something, he could simply will it out of existance) God would have to give humans an indestructable body that would not decompose or react to the heat of the flames. The body must not deteriate or break down to eternal attack against its existance. He must give the poor human a mind that would not go insane after 5,000 trillion years of constant suffering. So a superhuman mind will be essential, and that mind must keep the human awake, no passing out is allowed, we want the person to be aware of each concious moment of the suffering, or why do it? All angels posted by the lake must be merciless, we would not want any of the puny humans getting out now would we. Anyone who believes this senerio is just as crazy as hitler, and even worst, they think God is crazy to.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:

I dont believe you have &quot;freethought&quot;. I am not disturbed. I am not mad at you. You are only out for yourself. Its the idea that freedom might *actually only* come through God, and Christianity that scares you. It scares you because if its true, you would have to serve someone else other than yourself. You dont know what it means to &quot;love your brother&quot; - because you cant see past yourself.

You dont oppose evil and wrong either. Quite the opposite. You persecute Christianity because you are afraid of it... that is evil and wrong.

You presume to tell me how I feel!

It must make you feel better to believe this nonsense, and that fits in with your worldview - which seems to require the ability to truly believe in nonsense.

[Nowhere357]

apologetics:

Is it too much to ask a skeptic to come up with an original thought or is there a special school where one learns to copy-and-paste?
What is it about freethought which seems to frighten Christians so much?

Has it ever occured to you there may be a reason why you keep hearing the same things over and over? People come here from all kinds of indoctrination backgrounds, or no indoctrination at all, and so many of them have seen the same thing: there is something terribly wrong with the fundamentalist Christian dogma of hell and worship.

At any rate, people are under no obligation to to have achieved your level of understanding before they post here. It does your position no credit to blindly insult people just because you don't like what they think they see.

[Nowhere357]

Satori:

I didn't bother to read this thread, but I'm sure it's absolutely full of people giving various mindless reasons how god can be a nice dude, and yet being the sickest and cruelest mother ever concieved.
There is the (minority?) view that the "sickest and cruelest mother ever" idea is based on poor interpretation of the bible.

Btw I like what the Buddha says about organized religion.

I think Christianity can provide a path with wisdom and heart, but unfortunately much xian dogma also provides support for the worst kinds of bigotry and intolerance.

:cheers:

[Nowhere357]

mickiel:

Its not sane rational thinking, also proof of how far deception can go disguised as truth. Its so clear, yet so blind to many.
I agree, but think this is a bit harsh. We are pretty much still physically the same as stone-age man. Our scientific and technological knowledge has far outpaced our spiritual and moral
understanding.

But our understanding is growing, and the old-time religions will adapt or die.

[Ethos]

Today @ 07:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109889#post109889)
Nowhere357:


There is the (minority?) view that the &quot;sickest and cruelest mother ever&quot; idea is based on poor interpretation of the bible.

Btw I like what the Buddha says about organized religion.

I think Christianity can provide a path with wisdom and heart, but unfortunately much xian dogma also provides support for the worst kinds of bigotry and intolerance.

:cheers:

So, what you are saying is that just because there are some Christians who go against the very idea of Christianity, that then ruins it for the rest of us? Just because Hitler was bad "Christian" who took the word of the bible and created an extremist belief system, which he used to brainwash and manipulate millions(I'm using him as an extreme example, but there are millions more), that makes the TRUE teachings of Jesus, of God, obsolete?

So what you are really saying then, is that the ignorance and ulterior motives of some influential people, who have created dogmatic systems, and imprisoned themselves and others in judgements and untruths have the capability of taking away from us, the greatest gift ever given to us, by our creator, namely Jesus, and all that his resurrection implies?

That view, I think, is one of the main problems of this world... We give ignorance too much credit.

The problem with all dogmatic belief is simply that they are most of the time based on what once was the truth, the true word of God, but it's clarity has been muddled by mankinds presumptuous attempts to put their finger on it, to explain it, to take the most simple and wonderful of truths, and create an entire religious hierarchy out of it..

The problem with man trying to do this is that man has an ego, and man is impure. There comes into play ulterior motives, and manipulations, politics, etc. You name it.

The TRUE meaning of Christianity is actually very basic, and simple enough to be written on the face of an emerald. I am still discovering it as I go along, but what I have come to so far, is that we needn't search for God in someones philosophy of him, in someone else's ideas or politics, because he simply isn't there... All that you will find there is a brazen idol of stone, that never lived...

We simply won't find the LIVING AND ONE TRUE GOD and most likely we will be driven even further away from him in a search of this kind.

Truth be told, we needn't go far to find him, to find the true meaning of Christianity, all it takes is a long and searching look inside ourselves.. He is within each and every one of us, we just can't find him behind all of our flesh.

The search for God begins with an honest look at yourself, and with the decision to dive within,to admit that you are weak, that you are a sinner, then to surrender your life, and your mind, YOUR EGO, your selfish desires, and let him take care of you, let him heal you, and teach you how to truly live, like when you were a child.

To Let him live within you. To Let the alchemy of the purification of your soul truly begin, and never look back..

That is all he asks of us, and That is true Christianity, and it doesn't matter if there is hell in the afterlife, because people who are not awake to God within themselves, thus completed as human beings, or that are on the quest to do so presently(like yours truly), are already living in hell.
I should know, I'm just leaving from there...

Time oh, oh time will tell.. You think you're in heaven but youre living in hell....
-Bob Marley

[mickiel]

Christianity and catholism , along with islam, have covered this earth with their view of God, and none of them have influenced mankind as a whole toward God. None of them have acheived their perceived goals. No religon on earth will ever be suscessful, if i understand the information the bible has provided. Christianity thinks itself Gods annointed, as does islam and catholisim. All of these churches are too big to be the little flock the bible describes. The elect are called foolish, weak, unwise and sinful. None of these above listed churches make claims to this. If i were satan, all three would be perfect vechicles to do a job on this world, i think that is exactly what he has done, besides, that is satans job, to deceive the whole world. How can one deceive a religon outside of it? It must be done inside out, and in a manner that the people think themselves to be right. satan has done a beautiful job of this, in fact so good of a job, God had to be involved.

[Ethos]

Today @ 02:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110318#post110318)
mickiel:

Christianity and catholism , along with islam, have covered this earth with their view of God, and none of them have influenced mankind as a whole toward God. None of them have acheived their perceived goals. No religon on earth will ever be suscessful, if i understand the information the bible has provided. Christianity thinks itself Gods annointed, as does islam and catholisim. All of these churches are too big to be the little flock the bible describes. The elect are called foolish, weak, unwise and sinful. None of these above listed churches make claims to this. If i were satan, all three would be perfect vechicles to do a job on this world, i think that is exactly what he has done, besides, that is satans job, to deceive the whole world. How can one deceive a religon outside of it? It must be done inside out, and in a manner that the people think themselves to be right. satan has done a beautiful job of this, in fact so good of a job, God had to be involved.

So what point exactly is it that you are trying to make?

Our relationship with God is a personal thing, that each one of us,as members if the human race, experience in our own way.. Just as each one of us fight against the evil forces in a personal battle, some armed with the word of god, and armor of faith... Some not, the ones who live in the bondage of it..

What does that have to do with Satan taking over religion? Just because someone calls themselves a Christian or a Catholic, does not make them so... Faith without action is dead! I am sure Satan uses the hypocrites of religion as tools, but not the authentic journeyers on the road of enlightenment through Christ.. And it is just these journeyers that can see through his lucid traps with just one glance from the heart...

Satan has nothing over true Christians, because his insidious ways are strictly bound to earthly things, to desires of the flesh.. And true children of the light no longer have any desires of the flesh...

So say all you want about Satan infiltrating the religious system.. The key word there is SYSTEM-- We are not systems, we are people, so It really holds no ground over his hold on us, as Christians..

[Nowhere357]

Triphicus:

So, what you are saying is that just because there are some Christians who go against the very idea of Christianity, that then ruins it for the rest of us?
So what you are really saying then, is that the ignorance and ulterior motives of some influential people, who have created dogmatic systems, and imprisoned themselves and others in judgements and untruths have the capability of taking away from us, the greatest gift ever given to us, by our creator, namely Jesus, and all that his resurrection implies?

It's not quite that simple, I think. More than just "some" people warping Jesus' teachings, for example at one time any european scientist who made discoveries that contradict xian dogma could expect to be punished. This, from the faith of Truth!

The search for God begins with an honest look at yourself, and with the decision to dive within,to admit that you are weak, that you are a sinner, then to surrender your life, and your mind, YOUR EGO, your selfish desires, and let him take care of you, let him heal you, and teach you how to truly live, like when you were a child.
These statements are not too unlike statements of for example nirvana or satori. I advocate spiritual reality, and think there is truth in the Bible, but it is buried under all the hateful intolerance that comes with so much of the xian dogma. THAT is the target of my attack. But I think you know that, and I think that maybe hate and intolerance have no hold on you.

So I support your spiritual awareness, and hope your life situation has continued to improve. :angel:

[mickiel]

Today @ 02:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110952#post110952)
Triphicus:



So what point exactly is it that you are trying to make?

Our relationship with God is a personal thing, that each one of us,as members if the human race, experience in our own way.. Just as each one of us fight against the evil forces in a personal battle, some armed with the word of god, and armor of faith... Some not, the ones who live in the bondage of it..

What does that have to do with Satan taking over religion? Just because someone calls themselves a Christian or a Catholic, does not make them so... Faith without action is dead! I am sure Satan uses the hypocrites of religion as tools, but not the authentic journeyers on the road of enlightenment through Christ.. And it is just these journeyers that can see through his lucid traps with just one glance from the heart.
Satan has nothing over true Christians, because his insidious ways are strictly bound to earthly things, to desires of the flesh.. And true children of the light no longer have any desires of the flesh...

I will give you an example, a perfect example of satans power over individuals. You claim faith without works is dead. Explain to me your works, what have you done to help yourself or mankind meet God. This i just can't wait to read. How can you meet a God who has purposely turned his back on this world?








So say all you want about Satan infiltrating the religious system.. The key word there is SYSTEM-- We are not systems, we are people, so It really holds no ground over his hold on us, as Christians..

If you think satan has not infiltrated individuals, You are infiltrated.

[Ethos]

Yesterday @ 07:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111397#post111397)
mickiel:



If you think satan has not infiltrated individuals, You are infiltrated.

I didn't ever say that Satan does not infiltrate individuals. You took it out of context, I meant he does not infiltrate true Christians, even if he has infiltrated Christianity in certain ways... Please read my entire context before arguing a point completely out of it..
Back to the point, he cannot infiltrate Christians because we are filled with the light of the Lord.
But On the contrary, Satan has more prisoners than Jesus has saved, I am sure.
The reason being simply that most people find it difficult to give up their desires of the flesh for a life of the spirit..
You ask me what I have done for myself and humanity? I am a kind person, I do all that I can for others. I live every day trying harder to be better, to be more like him.. I know I have a long road to travel towards this, and by no means am I perfect. But I do not live for the flesh, I live for Jesus. I have delightedly handed my life and will over to him, and now bow in reverence and praise of his name.
That is what I do, and that is what I have done. And that, according to theWord of God, which I have taken the liberty to set as a panorama of aphorism below, is enough. Amen!

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as a child of the light(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Having nothing to do with the fruitess deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. That is why it is said:
"Wake up, O Sleeper,
Rise from the dead
And Christ will shine on you"
Be very Careful, then, how you live- Not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every oppurtunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymms and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:8-21

[Ethos]

Yesterday @ 05:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111321#post111321)
Nowhere357:


It's not quite that simple, I think. More than just &quot;some&quot; people warping Jesus' teachings, for example at one time any european scientist who made discoveries that contradict xian dogma could expect to be punished. This, from the faith of Truth!


These statements are not too unlike statements of for example nirvana or satori. I advocate spiritual reality, and think there is truth in the Bible, but it is buried under all the hateful intolerance that comes with so much of the xian dogma. THAT is the target of my attack. But I think you know that, and I think that maybe hate and intolerance have no hold on you.

So I support your spiritual awareness, and hope your life situation has continued to improve. :angel:

Thank you NowHere, Same be to you! I hope you find the answers you seek in the right place, and right way. God be with you.

[mickiel]

Today @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113385#post113385)
Triphicus:



I didn't ever say that Satan does not infiltrate individuals. You took it out of context, I meant he does not infiltrate true Christians, even if he has infiltrated Christianity in certain ways... Please read my entire context before arguing a point completely out of it..
Back to the point, he cannot infiltrate Christians because we are filled with the light of the Lord.
But On the contrary, Satan has more prisoners than Jesus has saved, I am sure.
The reason being simply that most people find it difficult to give up their desires of the flesh for a life of the spirit..
You ask me what I have done for myself and humanity? I am a kind person, I do all that I can for others. I live every day trying harder to be better, to be more like him.. I know I have a long road to travel towards this, and by no means am I perfect. But I do not live for the flesh, I live for Jesus. I have delightedly handed my life and will over to him, and now bow in reverence and praise of his name.
That is what I do, and that is what I have done. And that, according to theWord of God, which I have taken the liberty to set as a panorama of aphorism below, is enough. Amen!

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as a child of the light(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Having nothing to do with the fruitess deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. That is why it is said:
&quot;Wake up, O Sleeper,
Rise from the dead
And Christ will shine on you&quot;
Be very Careful, then, how you live- Not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every oppurtunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymms and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ
.
Ephesians 5:8-21

As i have said, if you believe satan cannot infiltrate true christians, explain to me how he inflitrated the being in Ezk. 28, that being was annointed by God, sealed by God, was sinless and perfect in all his ways, i think this places him above you and he was infiltrated . Peter was infiltrated as he stood next to Christ and almost cut a mans head off, later he denied Christ three times. After receiving more of the spirit, satan still got in him by limiting his view of salvation, thinking it to be only for the jews, as do modern day christians think it is only for believers. I have futher examples of satan infiltrateing christians, but i suspect you cannot see past these given.

[Nowhere357]

mickiel:

After receiving more of the spirit, satan still got in him by limiting his view of salvation, thinking it to be only for the jews, as do modern day christians think it is only for believers.
I think this is a good point. Since Jesus taught of love, and we're all god's children, the "hell for infidels" idea must be caused by poor interpretation.

Or maybe it means the bible is not divinely inspired. :teeth:

[Ethos]

Yesterday @ 07:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=113544#post113544)
mickiel:



As i have said, if you believe satan cannot infiltrate true christians, explain to me how he inflitrated the being in Ezk. 28, that being was annointed by God, sealed by God, was sinless and perfect in all his ways, i think this places him above you and he was infiltrated . Peter was infiltrated as he stood next to Christ and almost cut a mans head off, later he denied Christ three times. After receiving more of the spirit, satan still got in him by limiting his view of salvation, thinking it to be only for the jews, as do modern day christians think it is only for believers. I have futher examples of satan infiltrateing christians, but i suspect you cannot see past these given.

Good point, but those are momentary instances... In the end, true faith in God overcomes in them.. Just like in the Story of Job. We all have our weaknesses, places where Satan can stick a thorn in our side. That is why it is written..

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his might and power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devils schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the Rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual Forces of evil in the Heavenly Realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the Gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of Salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Saints. *Amen*
Ephesians 6:10-20

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114407#post114407)
Triphicus:



Good point, but those are momentary instances... In the end, true faith in God overcomes in them.. Just like in the Story of Job. We all have our weaknesses, places where Satan can stick a thorn in our side. That is why it is written..

Infiltration is infiltration no matter if it is momentary or not. In Matt. 24:4-5, many christians are infiltrated, in verse 10 they are so infiltrated they start turning on each other. Vs 24 is interesting though, one could argue that the elect cannot possibly be mislead, but the arguement could go either way. The verse does seem to indicate it is not possible, which fuels my belief concerning who the elect is. It most certainly is not mainstream christianity.









Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his might and power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devils schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the Rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual Forces of evil in the Heavenly Realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the Gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of Salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Saints. *Amen*
Ephesians 6:10-20

[markporter]

sorry to disturb the flow of the conversation....but I have a few thoughts on th OP, firstly miller's article at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html raises some interesting points.....

Secondly, I think there is somewhere in the Bible in which Jesus is talking to the pharisees and says something along the lines of 'if you couldn't see the truth then you wouldn't be judged, it is the fact that you can see it and are rejecting it that's the problem' (of course that could be my imagination, but I don't think it is). I think one clear example of this is satan.....he knows that God is good and he knows the punishment which he has chosen, but he choses to value his own pride above that....I think it is made clear in the Bible where we see the demons asking Jesus if he has come to punish them.

Hell in my opinion is the state of having a broken relationship with God, and thus all the good things which he gives.

Anyway, that's the end of my interlude.....go back to whatever you were discussing now.

[dizzle]

Welcome to TWeb Mark!!!

[markporter]

Thank you!

[Bill Hogue]

St. Theresa of Avila had a vision of Hell ..... chills the blood.

However, Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a book called "Shall We Hope That All Men Be Saved". It was a rebuttal to his being labeled a Universalist. He says we should hope that all men be saved, whether they are or not. If we do not care whether our fellow human being suffers in hell, how can we care about him in this temporal physical nature of ours? So we must hope that ALL be saved.

It is not our place to say anyone is in hell. We were not given authority to say that anyone went to, is in, or will go to hell. Judgment is given to Christ, we were given the commandedment to love and be merciful. Our purpose is to love God and serve him.....one way is by loving our neighbor.

No one wants personally to be in Hell, and we should not want anyone else to be there. Triumphalistic religious sects are making a mistake when they condemn others to hell. Hell is real, but I pray that not even my ex-wife's lawyer goes there.

[Nowhere357]

Billl Hogue:

No one wants personally to be in Hell, and we should not want anyone else to be there. Triumphalistic religious sects are making a mistake when they condemn others to hell. Hell is real, but I pray that not even my ex-wife's lawyer goes there.
How do you reconcile the "existence of hell" with the "absolute good" of a "creator"?

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 08:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126434#post126434)
Nowhere357:


How do you reconcile the &quot;existence of hell&quot; with the &quot;absolute good&quot; of a &quot;creator&quot;?

How do you define "absolute good"?

[Nowhere357]

prgmrdave:

How do you define "absolute good"?
I don't. As far as I can tell, it's a concept associated with the Christian mythology. It seems to reduce to "might makes right".

How do you define it?

[mickiel]

Hell is what christians really want for those who do not measure up to their standards. Christians are a frightful people, so self righteous, i can't stand them. I can't see Jesus likeing them either. In vain do they worship him, teaching hell as a doctrine. Money is their god, hell their fear trump card. satan is wise in useingh them to deceive this world, a perfect con plan.

[Bill the Cat]

to quote JP... Same ol claptrap" from someone who does not want to live by any standard. Don't even bother reading the Bible, according to Mick, we're all just fine!!

:zzz: :zzz:

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 10:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126605#post126605)
Nowhere357:


I don't. As far as I can tell, it's a concept associated with the Christian mythology. It seems to reduce to &quot;might makes right&quot;.

How do you define it?

I don't, either, because in my Christian what-I-don't-particularly-consider-to-be-mythology (:smile:) it seems to derive from the divine attributes of righteousness, holiness, and mercy.

But my question is, if you don't have a definition for "absolute good", why does it seem to you that the concept of Hell violates it?

[Nowhere357]

prgmrdave:

I don't, either, because in my Christian what-I-don't-particularly-consider-to-be-mythology (:smile:) it seems to derive from the divine attributes of righteousness, holiness, and mercy.

"Myths" are not known to be facts. This does not mean they can't be true. :cheers:

But my question is, if you don't have a definition for "absolute good", why does it seem to you that the concept of Hell violates it?
I use the definition given - in this case, the "divine attributes" listed above.

If someone beats his wife and calls it good, how do you explain his error to him? I don't mean to answer with a question, but I need an insight here to help connect with your understanding.

Anyway, the existence of hell violates the notion of "absolute good" only if God is the creator of reality. As I see it, at least one of these concepts must be wrong. For this thread, I'm assuming god exists and is the Creator, and that God is supremely good and worthy of our worship.

I claim that a hell of eternal damnation cannot follow.
I claim that judgement based our given belief system cannot follow.

[mickiel]

06-18-2003 @ 08:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126695#post126695)
Bill the Cat:

to quote JP... Same ol claptrap&quot; from someone who does not want to live by any standard. Don't even bother reading the Bible, according to Mick, we're all just fine!!

:zzz: :zzz:

We are just fine because of 1John 2:2, no matter how much sin yo can find, Jesus is the propitiation for all of it. And not just Christians sins, but for the whole world. John 1:29 Jesus takes away the sins of the whole world, in my view why condemn a sinless world? I think that makes us fine. Rom. 5:18, makes me feel good about the chances of mankind. One mans sin condemned all men. Jesus act of righteousness saves those same all. In John 17:2, Jesus has authority over all flesh, in 1 Tim 2:6, he gives his life as a ransom for all, not just believers.I feel good about that.

In John 12:32, Jesus makes an unsual claim that if he be lifted up, he will draw all men to him, NOT JUST obedient studious christians. I think mankinds chances are good here too. Luke 9:56 gives me belief that salvation is not based on what we do, but on what Christ has done. Jesus i not out to get us, he will save mens lives, not destroy them, i see we are just fine there also. In 1 Tim 4:10, Jesus is called the savior of the world, i think were just fine there. I see salvation all in that verse, but even more in 1 Tim 2:4. The reason i think mankind is just fine is because Go so loves this WORLD, he cares for us so very very much, he has not willed any to perish, which would be predestined murder. I think we will be fine because God lovesus so much, he just can't help himself, and he knows we can't help our own selves, he won't loose not one of his children.

[prgmrdave]

Yesterday @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127109#post127109)
Nowhere357:


&quot;Myths&quot; are not known to be facts. This does not mean they can't be true. :cheers:


I use the definition given - in this case, the &quot;divine attributes&quot; listed above.

If someone beats his wife and calls it good, how do you explain his error to him? I don't mean to answer with a question, but I need an insight here to help connect with your understanding.

Anyway, the existence of hell violates the notion of &quot;absolute good&quot; only if God is the creator of reality. As I see it, at least one of these concepts must be wrong. For this thread, I'm assuming god exists and is the Creator, and that God is supremely good and worthy of our worship.

I claim that a hell of eternal damnation cannot follow.
I claim that judgement based our given belief system cannot follow.

It's easy to define good subjectively (how many threads have there been on this? :smile:) as "what seems to me to be beneficial". The only useful objective definition I've been able to come up with (objective meaning outside of you or me, and it becomes subjective in some sense when either of us begins to apply it) is something like "compliance with some given moral standard."

So subjectively, I don't see the benefit of the beating the man is giving his wife, so I'd not call it good. But I can't impose my subjectivity on the man, because by definition, it's just the way I see it.

Objectively, it would depend on the moral standard. Maybe it's commanded; maybe it's prohibited; maybe it's neither, in which case I'm probably back to the subjective. If the man were a Christian, I could sit with him and review Ephesians 5 and point out that beating his wife is not exactly "cherishing" her. Otherwise, we'd have to use the objective moral standard of a domestic violence statute or something like that.

So in what sense is God "supremely good"? If in the subjective, every action He performs produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number. Objectively (from our PoV), He sets up a moral standard, never changes the moral standard, and always acts in accordance with the standard.

So according to His righteousness, He never acts in opposition to the moral standard He set. According to His holiness, He sets Himself apart from all those who fail to perfectly uphold the standard. According to His justice, those who fail to perfectly uphold the standard are found to be in a situation of moral debt which must be atoned for. According to His grace, He has provided that atonement in the death of Christ. According to His mercy, He allows each of us to partake of that atonement. But the choice is ours whether to partake. What is He to do with those who reject His standards and His gift of atonement? Force them to accept? If so, believing in God becomes pointless.

Did I even come close to answering what you asked? :smile:

[Nowhere357]

mickiel:
We are just fine because of 1John 2:2, no matter how much sin you can find, Jesus is the propitiation for all of it.
Good job. And btw, anyone who draws the wrath of holding and his supporters is on the right track, imo. :smile:

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 01:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128857#post128857)
Nowhere357:


Good job. And btw, anyone who draws the wrath of holding and his supporters is on the right track, imo. :smile:

I am a friend of JP's ( as much as a net friend can be :hrm:) but we differ on a few items, like preterism.

[Nowhere357]

Bill the Cat:

I am a friend of JP's ( as much as a net friend can be :hrm:) but we differ on a few items, like preterism.
That's okay. My observation still holds. :smile:

[Nowhere357]

prgmrdave:
The only useful objective definition I've been able to come up with (objective meaning outside of you or me, and it becomes subjective in some sense when either of us begins to apply it) is something like "compliance with some given moral standard."

Works for me, I guess.

So subjectively, I don't see the benefit of the beating the man is giving his wife, so I'd not call it good. But I can't impose my subjectivity on the man, because by definition, it's just the way I see it.
I understand your point. However, we both know that he's "wrong" to beat his wife, regardless of whether morals are objective or subjective.

If the man were a Christian, I could sit with him and review Ephesians 5 and point out that beating his wife is not exactly "cherishing" her. Otherwise, we'd have to use the objective moral standard of a domestic violence statute or something like that.
There is something missing here, hard to explain. The second case - the domestic violence statute - exists for what reason? Do we behave morally due to the statute, or did we develop the statute because of our morality?

I'm sure it's the latter. Do you agree?

So in what sense is God "supremely good"? If in the subjective, every action He performs produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
My position is that this cannot be reconciled with a hell of eternal damnation.

Objectively (from our PoV), He sets up a moral standard, never changes the moral standard, and always acts in accordance with the standard.
Assuming these standards are good (I assume an evil god would also have standards) then again this cannot be reconciled with the existence of hell.

So according to His righteousness, He never acts in opposition to the moral standard He set. According to His holiness, He sets Himself apart from all those who fail to perfectly uphold the standard. According to His justice, those who fail to perfectly uphold the standard are found to be in a situation of moral debt which must be atoned for. According to His grace, He has provided that atonement in the death of Christ. According to His mercy, He allows each of us to partake of that atonement.
I have no problem with any of this. So far, this seems to agree with my thinking that we are all God's children, and so He must be interested in our spiritual growth - not our belief system.

But the choice is ours whether to partake.
If this means that the choice is ours to strive for morality - spiritual growth - then I agree. If the choice is believe in one particular system of myths and legends, over other equally arbitrary systems (or at least what appears to be arbitrary, to many people who are honestly seeking truth), then I disagree.

Failing to believe due to lack of evidence is not equivalent to choosing or not choosing to partake of atonement. Surely God is interested in our hearts, and not which system we happen to be indoctrinated into.

What is He to do with those who reject His standards and His gift of atonement? Force them to accept?
Of course not. However, failing to see the life preserver is not the same as choosing to drown. It seems to me that an omnipotent benevolent creator could make sure we see the life preserver.

Did I even come close to answering what you asked?
I appreciate your sincerity.

It seems very obvious to me that eternal damnation is wrong and immoral - therefore not the act of a benevolent god - and since God is benevolent, then hell is myth and not reality.

But how to show that, if a person does not see it? I hoped the wife-beating-man would give insight into how you would identify something that was plainly and surely wrong. Then I could use the insight to explain why no benevolent God would eternally punish people.

But your well thought out answer seems to require objectivity - a book, a law - to make the determination.

Please answer the question above ("Do we behave morally due to the statute, or did we develop the statute because of our morality?")

Thank you for the good post. :)

[ChrisChillin]

Hey Nowhere, I know your tagline says "Open-Minded Skeptic", and I don't have much reason to doubt that, except it seems you've come into this thread already with some loaded presuppositions that have closed your mind to considering Christian claims, whether you are aware of that or not.

These presuppositions include:
Number One: The God of the Bible is very cruel, based on how I view the record of his actions in an ancient world through a 21st-century perspective.

Number Two: The God of the Bible is very cruel, because I know hell to be very cruel, based on my understanding of what is just or not.

Now I admit that hell is a tough issue for me, and I think it is for every human, because we have a problem correlating our understanding with what constitutes "goodness" to what is good in the eyes of God. We see others as good because of what we see on the outside, and then ourselves as good, but in moments of introspection and reflection we can realize how often we're self-seeking, mean, rude, and unresponsive to the plight of others. For example, right now I feel that I and the Western world share collective guilt for not jumping to action to help the very very serious AIDS crisis in Africa. Whole nations are dying and we sit comfortably here in our air-conditioned houses surfing the internet. That doesn't strike me as a very good going-the-extra-mile-loving-your-neighbor reaction. When I remember that "good people" in Germany stood by and let Jews get slaughtered, and as I think about the AIDS situation now, and when I remember how I can turn to selfishness and ignore the needs of others, then I start to wonder just how good we all really are.

Another thing: When people argue against hell, they tend to say, "Well, you wouldn't want so-and-so example to end up there or does so-and-so example deserve to go?" I have yet to run across somebody who has argued, "Well I know that I don't deserve to go there." I think that's very revealing. We can argue that our friends seem too good and too nice not to go, but what about ourselves? So the question I have, Nowhere, is what does God owe you? Do you deserve to enjoy eternity with Him? If so, why? Why should God do anything for us? If we come to realize this obvious insignificance we have before an eternal, omniscient Creator and Orchestrator of the universe, then the love and grace He gives us become jaw-dropping considerations.

Now, to tackle presupposition numero uno - Is the God of the Bible cruel? I'm going to suggest the following articles from Christian Think Tank. The author, Glenn Miller, uses multiple sources, is well-trained in logic and philosophy, and develops his arguments very thoughtfully and articulately. He, too, has struggled personally with such questions, instead of just jumping to random Bible verses to quote in response. I suggest these articles are good reading for any open mind.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/whyjust.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnohear.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/vincent1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/predator.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qkilisak.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/godlies.html

Also, for a good treatment of the debate within Christianity over the possibility of salvation of people who don't know and accept the gospel, I suggest No Other Name by John Sanders. He comes out supporting the inclusivist position, which I do as well. Basically, that means there is hope for those outside the visible church, for those who are earnestly seeking even though they may not ever encounter the name "Jesus" in their lifetime.

That's all for now. Hope this helps. Keep up the open mind, dude!

[mickiel]

Today @ 07:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129552#post129552)
ChrisChillin:

Hey Nowhere, I know your tagline says &quot;Open-Minded Skeptic&quot;, and I don't have much reason to doubt that, except it seems you've come into this thread already with some loaded presuppositions that have closed your mind to considering Christian claims, whether you are aware of that or not.

These presuppositions include:
Number One: The God of the Bible is very cruel, based on how I view the record of his actions in an ancient world through a 21st-century perspective.

Number Two: The God of the Bible is very cruel, because I know hell to be very cruel, based on my understanding of what is just or not.

Now I admit that hell is a tough issue for me, and I think it is for every human, because we have a problem correlating our understanding with what constitutes &quot;goodness&quot; to what is good in the eyes of God. We see others as good because of what we see on the outside, and then ourselves as good, but in moments of introspection and reflection we can realize how often we're self-seeking, mean, rude, and unresponsive to the plight of others. For example, right now I feel that I and the Western world share collective guilt for not jumping to action to help the very very serious AIDS crisis in Africa. Whole nations are dying and we sit comfortably here in our air-conditioned houses surfing the internet. That doesn't strike me as a very good going-the-extra-mile-loving-your-neighbor reaction. When I remember that &quot;good people&quot; in Germany stood by and let Jews get slaughtered, and as I think about the AIDS situation now, and when I remember how I can turn to selfishness and ignore the needs of others, then I start to wonder just how good we all really are.

Another thing: When people argue against hell, they tend to say, &quot;Well, you wouldn't want so-and-so example to end up there or does so-and-so example deserve to go?&quot; I have yet to run across somebody who has argued, &quot;Well I know that I don't deserve to go there.&quot; I think that's very revealing. We can argue that our friends seem too good and too nice not to go, but what about ourselves? So the question I have, Nowhere, is what does God owe you? Do you deserve to enjoy eternity with Him? If so, why? Why should God do anything for us? If we come to realize this obvious insignificance we have before an eternal, omniscient Creator and Orchestrator of the universe, then the love and grace He gives us become jaw-dropping considerations.

Now, to tackle presupposition numero uno - Is the God of the Bible cruel? I'm going to suggest the following articles from Christian Think Tank. The author, Glenn Miller, uses multiple sources, is well-trained in logic and philosophy, and develops his arguments very thoughtfully and articulately. He, too, has struggled personally with such questions, instead of just jumping to random Bible verses to quote in response. I suggest these articles are good reading for any open mind.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/whyjust.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnohear.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/vincent1.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/predator.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qkilisak.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/godlies.html

Also, for a good treatment of the debate within Christianity over the possibility of salvation of people who don't know and accept the gospel, I suggest No Other Name by John Sanders. He comes out supporting the inclusivist position, which I do as well. Basically, that means there is hope for those outside the visible church, for those who are earnestly seeking even though they may not ever encounter the name &quot;Jesus&quot; in their lifetime.

That's all for now. Hope this helps. Keep up the open mind, dude!


Good greif, i thought i was alone. Heres another who can see. Welcome to suffering brother.

[Nowhere357]

ChrisChillin:
Hey Nowhere, I know your tagline says "Open-Minded Skeptic", and I don't have much reason to doubt that, except it seems you've come into this thread already with some loaded presuppositions that have closed your mind to considering Christian claims, whether you are aware of that or not.

"Open-minded" does NOT mean "let your brains fall out".

Number One: The God of the Bible is very cruel, based on how I view the record of his actions in an ancient world through a 21st-century perspective.
First, my position in this thread does not involve the cruelty of God's actions in the Bible.
Second, the presupposition I held about the Bible was that it made sense and had real value.
Third, man evolves and changes - of course we looked at things differently in the past. This does not excuse immoral behavior by a god.

Number Two: The God of the Bible is very cruel, because I know hell to be very cruel, based on my understanding of what is just or not.
This is not a presupposition. Simply look at the definitions for the words "cruel" and "hell", then add in the idea that God is omnipotent Creator. Then read the Bible. The conclusion naturally follows.

Finally, my understanding of what is just or not is what I use to determine justice, and your understanding is what you use.

But butchering innocent children is wrong, regardless of whether morality is subjective or objective (which seem to be your point). You agree that butchering innocent children is wrong, don't you?

Now I admit that hell is a tough issue for me, and I think it is for every human, because we have a problem correlating our understanding with what constitutes "goodness" to what is good in the eyes of God.

Here is a presupposition I hold in this thread: it is not possible for God to be less moral than humans.
Here's another: there is no possible good in eternal punishment.

I have no problem with the idea that God is wiser than us. But we do not need omniscient wisdom to recognize that ETERNAL punishment for a FINITE creature's mistakes is unjust.

So the question I have, Nowhere, is what does God owe you?
Fair and just treatment. Lacking this, his benevolence dissipates, as does his right to be worshiped.

Why should God do anything for us?
Creation of life carries responsibility. Ask any parent.

If we come to realize this obvious insignificance we have before an eternal, omniscient Creator and Orchestrator of the universe, then the love and grace He gives us become jaw-dropping considerations.

Love and grace based on what, exactly? Belief in Jesus, regardless of moral behavior?

Now, to tackle presupposition numero uno - Is the God of the Bible cruel?
Again, this point is irrelevant to my position here. Frankly, with eternal salvation at stake, I can see how any atrocity commited by God, here on the mortal plane, can be rationalized. I'll look at the links anyway, since you recommend them.

Also, for a good treatment of the debate within Christianity over the possibility of salvation of people who don't know and accept the gospel, I suggest No Other Name by John Sanders. He comes out supporting the inclusivist position, which I do as well.
This is the direction I wish Christianity would move. It is hateful and wrong to say that all non-Christians must go to hell. I'm sure that is not what Jesus meant for Christians to think.

After all, we're all God's children. Right?

[ChrisChillin]

aiight dog, i got some thoughts comin' soon...just keep checkin'..

[ChrisChillin]

okay, since im very busy...
i think these two links can provide some food for thought...
hope they help..

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/hell.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html
(he doesn't talk about Hell right away here, but gets too it not too far down...)

[Nowhere357]

ChrisChillin:
okay, since im very busy...

Nontheless, I'd rather hear your thoughts then merely add to my reading list. :smile:

[Pragmatist]

Well just to let you know I am a christian because that is how my life has been shaped, but I see christianity as a community of love. In my interpretation I don't see christianity as something you get scared into by people telling you, you are going to hell. I know that is the reason that most people convert but I don't think it is correct. If we look at the teachings of Jesus, then we will see that 99% of the time when he spoke of the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth he was talking to those who claimed to know all there was about god, the pharisees (sp?). You never see Jesus walking up to someone and telling them they were going to hell, he always approached them with love and compassion. You never see him getting mad if people decided not to follow him. So in my theology I don't see that hell has any place at all, and I do think it is a christian view. So for those that are struggling with the hell issue know that it is possible to deny hell and still be a christian. But if you still don't like christianity more power to you, you have come from a different point of view than me, and I am okay with that.

[Nowhere357]

Pragmatist:
Well just to let you know I am a christian because that is how my life has been shaped,

This is an important admission. It explains for example why the middle east spawns Muslims.

but I see christianity as a community of love.
Christianity has a bright side, yes it does. It's the dark side we're looking at in this thread, though.

In my interpretation I don't see christianity as something you get scared into by people telling you, you are going to hell. I know that is the reason that most people convert but I don't think it is correct.
Fear is the main cause of conversion? I agree that's a poor reason.

If we look at the teachings of Jesus, then we will see that 99% of the time when he spoke of the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth he was talking to those who claimed to know all there was about god, the pharisees (sp?). You never see Jesus walking up to someone and telling them they were going to hell, he always approached them with love and compassion. You never see him getting mad if people decided not to follow him.
Why is this message so hard for the fire and brimstone crowd to hear?

So in my theology I don't see that hell has any place at all, and I do think it is a christian view. So for those that are struggling with the hell issue know that it is possible to deny hell and still be a christian.
I agree. Many Christians (and probably all non-Christians) realize that hell is a myth.

But if you still don't like christianity more power to you, you have come from a different point of view than me, and I am okay with that.
I judge faith on results. There is much good on the light side, although I'm not convinced this outweighs the dark side. With more Christians like you, this may change.

Anyway, I'll be looking for your comments on other issues. Thanks for playing!

[BeHereNow]

I know I'm dredging this up from page 2, but I couldn't resist.geoff:

Would you punish your children if they did wrong? If they divorced you and adopted themselves a new parent and either pretended you didnt exist, or went around the world telling everyone you were cruel and tyranical and worthless how would you feel? What would you do?

Although I am not a parent, I think it is safe to assume that I would never, EVER, cast my kids into a lake of fire for all eternity (or for 5 seconds). I don't care what they did, I don't care if they hate me, curse me, spit at me, hit me, and deny that I'm their parents, I still would not send them to "hell." No matter what they did.

That's called LOVE, and the Bible (through it's description of God and hell) does a very poor job of defining Love.

[mickiel]

In order for christianity to prove hell exist, they must tamper with the nature of God, a very dangerous thing to do. But do it they must. They musy change the God revealed in Galatians 5:22-23, and magnify him to being controlled or consumed by his wrath. This is the transfer that must take its traditional place in the mind of man for hell to be real. they must teach that Gods anger WILL LAST THROUGHOUT ETERNITY, or that he will always tolerate sin, meaning he will co-exist forever with misery.

Anger grows weaker in God, Isaiah 57:16. Gods wrath consistantly "faints" within him, this means it does not intensify, as it does in humans. Gods wrath is his reaction to sin, not to the sinner, God will only tolerate sin for so long, then it will be no more. No more sorrow, no more suffering, no more misery, but for hell to exist, these things must also exist, so christianity is teaching their will NOT be and end to these things. A clear contridition to Revelation 21:4, 22:3. Many christians do not know how to study the bible, they would rather listen to their pastors preach and teach, one of the main vechicles of satans deception, he knows they put heavy trust in their pastors.

[Walt]

[i]04-04-2003 @ 02:59 PM answers to the big questions
This is my main problem with religion: people think they've found answers, so they quit looking for answers. But the "answers" they've found are not true answers, and now they'll never find the true answers because they have become stagnant in their search.

[Pragmatist]

07-17-2003 @ 05:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=151070#post151070)
Walt:


This is my main problem with religion: people think they've found answers, so they quit looking for answers. But the &quot;answers&quot; they've found are not true answers, and now they'll never find the true answers because they have become stagnant in their search.


Well this is not only true of religion right. Look at the entire enlightenment era (which includes today actually) that is their philosophy find the captial T truth and then tell everyone else they are wrong. Now I am a christian however, I don´t believe in absolute truth and I think we can blame modernity for causing this problem even in the church. But you also seem to think there is a truth ``out there`` for us to find, however following the pragmatists I think we have a way to avoid the problem of truth all together instead of trying to solve it. Let us understand truth as contingent, not universal, but also not relative. Richard Rorty´s concept of Irony I believe does the trick. He speaks of truth(s) are found in sentences. What he means by this is that each sentence can be evaluated not on right or wrong or good and bad, but on whether or not it works, is it practical and does it work in that particular situation. I think Wittgenstein is the father of this concept, which he wrote about in the Philosophical Investigations. So while I understand what you are saying about religion believing they have all the answers, we must not simply blame the church for this crime, but all of modernity.

Pragmatist

[mickiel]

[. So while I understand what you are saying about religion believing they have all the answers, we must not simply blame the church for this crime, but all of modernity.

Pragmatist [/QUOTE]

Nor does it make sense to blame John q. public for the crimes of religon. Religon is the blame for religous deception, and your response is typical of christians who seek to spread the blame outside of themselves.

[Bernie]

Hello folks. Thought I'd jump in for a quick comment....

Mickiel said: "In order for christianity to prove hell exist, they must tamper with the nature of God, a very dangerous thing to do. But do it they must. They musy change the God revealed in Galatians 5:22-23, and magnify him to being controlled or consumed by his wrath. This is the transfer that must take its traditional place in the mind of man for hell to be real."

I have to disagree with you here, Mickiel. The entire Old Testament is full of the expressions of God's wrath, over and over and over, against sin and unrighteousness. Is it not actually you who are tampering with God's nature by laying claim to the idea that the volumes written in all the Bible, both Testaments, that teach of God's wrath simply dissipates based on the Gal 5 quote you provided?

The problem isn't merely mathematical, you know. It doesn't boil down to a count of OT vs. NT verses to see which one outshouts the other. The one who dismisses God's wrath must explain how it is that God who moved all His OT prophets to cry out against sin and announce His just wrath many dozens of times over has flubbed up. The preponderance of evidence lies squarely on the side of His wrath as a reality. I believe it is. I believe His love is shown through His wrath. That doesn't lessen the terror and agony of experiencing it...though He provides an escape from the majority of it through Christ, He will use it to bring to eternal fellowship with Him all the number the bible says He will save.

What I call the "false love gospel" has gained a lot of ground in recent years. This is the view, generally, that God's wrath has disappeared in Christ, that we should, after first defining God's love as general tolerance for a lack of moral integrity, speak only of this love to one another. Might this not fall under the warning from Isaiah, "...You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions." (Isa 30:10)?

Don't misunderstand me...I'm new here, and I don't know you well enough to make the judgment that your personal theology falls squarely in this category. But the argument you are using above is one of the same arguments the "false love" crowd uses.

God's will shall be done, for in His wrath He'll gather, perfect, purge and purify all in all...just as Scripture teaches.

God bless you in your walk.

[geoff]

I'd have to agree with most of that..

I would say one thing, though, that a natural outworking of God's love for creation, is His desire for it to be returned to its intended state of "peace". In order for this to happen, a multitude of criteria must be met, not the least of them are appeasing his wrath at sin, his destruction of evil, and his salvation of the elect.

[Nowhere357]

geoff:
I would say one thing, though, that a natural outworking of God's love for creation, is His desire for it to be returned to its intended state of &quot;peace&quot;. In order for this to happen, a multitude of criteria must be met, not the least of them are appeasing his wrath at sin, his destruction of evil, and his salvation of the elect.
God's love is not so great for anything other than the "elect", apparently. And the omnipotent creator needs psychological help, according to you, in order to "appease" his wrath.

Say, if God was evil, how could you tell? :shrug:

[Bernie]

Hello geoff,

YOU: "I would say...that a natural outworking of God's love for creation, is His desire for it to be returned to its intended state of "peace"."

Your idea bears a resemblence to Aquinas' view that the object of the will is the good, apprehended as such. Unlike most of the rest of Christianity past and present, he sees our choice (election) of good as corrupt, that the object of choice is the means to the good. While both will and choice proceed from the same power, choice can be corrupted while will remains free to fasten on the object of its causal desire. Everyone else tends to lump will and choice as two aspects of the same power with identical objects of apprehension. This man had a fantastic mind.

YOU: "In order for this to happen, a multitude of criteria must be met, not the least of them are appeasing his wrath at sin, his destruction of evil, and his salvation of the elect."

Agreed. However, we may not agree on who the elect are...I believe the preponderance of the Scriptures on this point (1Jn 2:2, for instance), while most today interpret the elect to be comprised of particular individuals and not others.


N-357,

YOU: "Say, if God was evil, how could you tell?"

We'd all like Him a lot better because then He'd be more like us.

YOU: "And the omnipotent creator needs psychological help, according to you, in order to "appease" his wrath."

I'm curious: How do you see this necessity of God's needing help in geoff's post? I don't see that at all in what he wrote.

God bless you in your walk.