Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha Gonna do?

[nrajeff]

So, since you claim he is so merciful, why even bother with hell? Why not just give everyone mercy?

Because universal salvation-ism is not fair to the people who were obedient, if they get the same reward as those who unrepentantly rebelled against God. Plus, it's not fair to give salvation to those who rebelled against God because they didn't want salvation.

Big deal if they didn't accept the Gospel. His mercy should be sufficient. If He is just wise and merciful, then why not universalism?

You forgot that I mentioned that I believe God to be fair.

I'm not Calvinist, Jeff.

Then you believe its TULIP teachings to all be false? If so, you should have, like I have, a problem with Calvinistic Jonathan Edwards-ism, where it paints God as a capricious, unreasonable being.

It's a whole lot less arrogant than your response if you turn out to be wrong.

You plan on accusing God of being a liar. Is that really "a whole lot less arrogant" than my response?

[Cerebrum123]

I call dibs on the big red trailer at the bottom!

Attachment 76488

I'll take the green one. I like green.

[Bill the Cat]

Because universal salvation-ism is not fair to the people who were obedient, if they get the same reward as those who unrepentantly rebelled against God. Plus, it's not fair to give salvation to those who rebelled against God because they didn't want salvation.

And you really think that someone who has died and is now "in the know" would still reject Christ?

You forgot that I mentioned that I believe God to be fair.

Sending anyone to hell forever for disobedience is not fair. And again, why would someone who knew their ticket out of suffering would be to accept Christ still reject it?

Then you believe its TULIP teachings to all be false?

Yes.

If so, you should have, like I have, a problem with Calvinistic Jonathan Edwards-ism, where it paints God as a capricious, unreasonable being.

I do. Hence, I am not Calvinist.

You plan on accusing God of being a liar. Is that really "a whole lot less arrogant" than my response?

Yes. Because I have His own WORD to back up my claims of lies. You have nothing of the sort to tell God "you're just going to have to deal with it!"

[nrajeff]

And you really think that someone who has died and is now "in the know" would still reject Christ?

Don't you believe the Bible? Aren't Satan and his demons in the know? Don't they still reject Christ?

Sending anyone to hell forever for disobedience is not fair.

Well, my beliefs about hell, and who ends up there forever, probably are not as Calvinistic as yours are.

And again, why would someone who knew their ticket out of suffering would be to accept Christ still reject it?

Why do people who know that their ticket out of suffering would be to dump Obama and embrace the ideals of conservatism, still reject those ideals and keep clinging to Obama? Would would ANYONE reject Christ? People have their reasons for all the stupid things they do. It sounds as if you expect all people to be rational and reasonable, and to only do things for rational and reasonable reasons.

Because I have His own WORD to back up my claims of lies. You have nothing of the sort to tell God "you're just going to have to deal with it!

You can't prove that your basis for accusing God of being a liar, is an infallible basis. On top of that, you can't prove that your interpretation of those verses you're using as your basis, is the most correct interpretation.

So it is possible that your accusation against God might be a false accusation, as I will illustrate from a hypothetical Catholic's POV:

Catholic: "Why did you lie to me? Why did you tell me, via the Bible, that the Communion host literally turns into Christ's body and blood...and now that I'm dead, I find out that it was only a metaphor, not literal???"

God (assuming that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is incorrect): "I didn't lie. I never said that it was a literal transubstantiation. You misinterpreted some Bible verses, that's all. "

My situation differs from yours: I don't plan on accusing God of being a liar. I just believe Him to be a resurrected being who is literally Jesus' Father, and who is a fair being who is too mature to be the capricious tyrant that Calvin, Edwards, Dante, et al portrayed Him to be. If it turns out that my beliefs about Him were wrong--and He is actually an unembodied, capricious, tyrannical spirit--then I won't call Him a liar. I will just tell Him that I have high standards when I decide who I want to worship, and I draw the line at worshiping capricious tyrants who would send me to eternal torment for the sin of having high standards when it comes to what I expect the character of a God to be.

[Cerebrum123]

Don't you believe the Bible? Aren't Satan and his demons in the know? Don't they still reject Christ?


Well, my beliefs about hell, and who ends up there forever, probably are not as Calvinistic as yours are.


Why do people who know that their ticket out of suffering would be to dump Obama and embrace the ideals of conservatism, still reject those ideals and keep clinging to Obama? Would would ANYONE reject Christ? People have their reasons for all the stupid things they do. It sounds as if you expect all people to be rational and reasonable, and to only do things for rational and reasonable reasons.



You can't prove that your basis for accusing God of being a liar, is an infallible basis. On top of that, you can't prove that your interpretation of those verses you're using as your basis, is the most correct interpretation.

So it is possible that your accusation against God might be a false accusation, as I will illustrate from a hypothetical Catholic's POV:

Catholic: "Why did you lie to me? Why did you tell me, via the Bible, that the Communion host literally turns into Christ's body and blood...and now that I'm dead, I find out that it was only a metaphor, not literal???"

God (assuming that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is incorrect): "I didn't lie. I never said that it was a literal transubstantiation. You misinterpreted some Bible verses, that's all. "

My situation differs from yours: I don't plan on accusing God of being a liar. I just believe Him to be a resurrected being who is literally Jesus' Father, and who is a fair being who is too mature to be the capricious tyrant that Calvin, Edwards, Dante, et al portrayed Him to be. If it turns out that my beliefs about Him were wrong--and He is actually an unembodied, capricious, tyrannical spirit--then I won't call Him a liar. I will just tell Him that I have high standards when I decide who I want to worship, and I draw the line at worshiping capricious tyrants who would send me to eternal torment for the sin of having high standards when it comes to what I expect the character of a God to be.

Dante wasn't a theologian, and his works were known as "La Divina Comedia" which translates as "The Divine Comedy". You are starting to remind of a guy who I used to deal with that went by vbv, and Jeff, that is NOT a good thing. Maybe you should examine your posts in full, before you post them. You know, to check for errors and the like.

[Bill the Cat]

Don't you believe the Bible? Aren't Satan and his demons in the know? Don't they still reject Christ?

No. They simply want to be better than Him.

Well, my beliefs about hell, and who ends up there forever, probably are not as Calvinistic as yours are.

Doubtful. Yours simply pushes the free will decision past death.

Why do people who know that their ticket out of suffering would be to dump Obama and embrace the ideals of conservatism, still reject those ideals and keep clinging to Obama?

Really? You want to compare POLITICS to SALVATION?

Would would ANYONE reject Christ?

Because they don't believe He is the Messiah. But when they are in torment in hell, they will KNOW, and they will want to escape. Or do you REALLY think there will be people who would rather have hell than Jesus?

People have their reasons for all the stupid things they do. It sounds as if you expect all people to be rational and reasonable, and to only do things for rational and reasonable reasons.

No. I expect everyone to want to get out of torment because it is not enjoyable!

You can't prove that your basis for accusing God of being a liar, is an infallible basis. On top of that, you can't prove that your interpretation of those verses you're using as your basis, is the most correct interpretation.

Things He says plainly leave no room for interpretation. And, again, just because you claim something is just an interpretation doesn't make it true.

So it is possible that your accusation against God might be a false accusation,

One that His Own Israel lived with for centuries...

as I will illustrate from a hypothetical Catholic's POV:

Catholic: "Why did you lie to me? Why did you tell me, via the Bible, that the Communion host literally turns into Christ's body and blood...and now that I'm dead, I find out that it was only a metaphor, not literal???"

God (assuming that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is incorrect): "I didn't lie. I never said that it was a literal transubstantiation. You misinterpreted some Bible verses, that's all. "

Non Sequiter. He DID say that He was literally the only God. So, your comparison is null and void.

My situation differs from yours: I don't plan on accusing God of being a liar. I just believe Him to be a resurrected being who is literally Jesus' Father, and who is a fair being who is too mature to be the capricious tyrant that Calvin, Edwards, Dante, et al portrayed Him to be. If it turns out that my beliefs about Him were wrong--and He is actually an unembodied, capricious, tyrannical spirit--then I won't call Him a liar. I will just tell Him that I have high standards when I decide who I want to worship, and I draw the line at worshiping capricious tyrants who would send me to eternal torment for the sin of having high standards when it comes to what I expect the character of a God to be.

Exactly. You want to claim moral superiority over God Himself!

[nrajeff]

Dante wasn't a theologian....

Neither are you. Does that mean that everything you have to say about God and His system of justice should be summarily dismissed?
Maybe you should examine your pontifications before posting them, so that you can reduce the number of fallacies (and the like) they contain.

[One Bad Pig]

No. I expect everyone to want to get out of torment because it is not enjoyable!

I expect that wanting to get out of torment would not cause anyone to sincerely convert. Yes, people may say anything to make the torment stop, but God looks at the heart.

[nrajeff]

No. They simply want to be better than Him.

And you think that DOESN'T constitute a rejection of Christ? Isn't REBELLION against Him a de facto rejection of Him?

Beause they don't believe He is the Messiah.

The demons believe. Isn't that in the Bible?

But when they are in torment in hell, they will KNOW, and they will want to escape. Or do you REALLY think there will be people who would rather have hell than Jesus?

Do you think that when all knees are made to bow, and all tongues confess that Jesus is the Christ, that it will be done willingly by everyone? Don't you think that Satan hates God so much that he would rather have hell than Jesus?

No. I expect everyone to want to get out of torment because it is not enjoyable!

Some say that where we will end up is where we want to be, with people we are comfortable being with. You don't think Satan gets some enjoyment from what he does? If he didn't enjoy it, wouldn't he stop doing it?

Things He says plainly leave no room for interpretation. And, again, just because you claim something is just an interpretation doesn't make it true.

Just because you claim something is not interpretation, doesn't mean it's not one.

Do you subscribe to the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

He DID say that He was literally the only God. So, your comparison is null and void.

Then Jesus DID say that He is literally bread.

Exactly. You want to claim moral superiority over God Himself!

Only if it turns out that I am morally superior. Which I highly doubt will actually be the case. (Remember, in this exercise we were to assume that something we consider highly unlikely turns out to be the case, and then speculate on what our response would be) But if that's how it turns out, then why deny the reality?

[Sparko]

And you think that DOESN'T constitute a rejection of Christ? Isn't REBELLION against Him a de facto rejection of Him?



The demons believe. Isn't that in the Bible?


Do you think that when all knees are made to bow, and all tongues confess that Jesus is the Christ, that it will be done willingly by everyone? Don't you think that Satan hates God so much that he would rather have hell than Jesus?


Some say that where we will end up is where we want to be, with people we are comfortable being with. You don't think Satan gets some enjoyment from what he does? If he didn't enjoy it, wouldn't he stop doing it?


Just because you claim something is not interpretation, doesn't mean it's not one.

Do you subscribe to the doctrine of Transubstantiation?


Then Jesus DID say that He is literally bread.


Only if it turns out that I am morally superior. Which I highly doubt will actually be the case. (Remember, in this exercise we were to assume that something we consider highly unlikely turns out to be the case, and then speculate on what our response would be) But if that's how it turns out, then why deny the reality?

Why do you believe it is morally OK for God to punish Satan in hell forever for disagreeing with God, but think that if he wanted to send YOU there, he would be morally inferior to you?

[Cerebrum123]

Neither are you. Does that mean that everything you have to say about God and His system of justice should be summarily dismissed?
Maybe you should examine your pontifications before posting them, so that you can reduce the number of fallacies (and the like) they contain.

I didn't say that everything that Dante said about God should be dismissed, but trying to compare "La Divina Comedia" which was never even meant as a theological treatise, but as a COMEDY, then it isn't exactly a good idea to be comparing it to REAL theological works. Do you mind pointing out some of the fallacies in my post about Dante? Do you think it would be a good idea to compare say, Lord of the Rings, or some other work of fiction with something like "Summa Theoligica"? The reason I compared you to vbv, is because he ALSO used Dante as a source for his theological objections, which is just plain silly. You have built yourself a fine strawman there Jeff, don't burn it too fast, you will get too little enjoyment out of that. Oh, and is it ever a BAD thing to look at a post before you send it? I have had to do that many times, and when I have acted in haste, it has made my point much harder to be grasped.

[Bill the Cat]

And you think that DOESN'T constitute a rejection of Christ? Isn't REBELLION against Him a de facto rejection of Him?

Not in the way humans do. Or perhaps the Kinderhook plates had something in them where a human tried to usurp God's throne and rule the universe....

The demons believe. Isn't that in the Bible?

And they saw face to face God's glory. So their belief is not sufficient for salvation. Same as the dead. Their belief is insufficient.

Do you think that when all knees are made to bow, and all tongues confess that Jesus is the Christ, that it will be done willingly by everyone?

Oh, I'm sure it will not be willingly. Nor will it offer salvation, for at that point, it will be too late.

Don't you think that Satan hates God so much that he would rather have hell than Jesus?

Satan can no longer accept Jesus as His God.

Some say that where we will end up is where we want to be, with people we are comfortable being with.

And the Bible says otherwise.

You don't think Satan gets some enjoyment from what he does? If he didn't enjoy it, wouldn't he stop doing it?

No.

Just because you claim something is not interpretation, doesn't mean it's not one.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Do you subscribe to the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

No. But I also realize that it was taught by some during the early church, and I can see the validity of what they were teaching. But nowhere did the Bible claim that it was fact. It can be inferred, but it is never specifically stated.

Then Jesus DID say that He is literally bread.

No. He called Himself "the bread of life" which was a messianic claim, and never meant to be taken literally as a human gingerbread man. This just shows how desperate you are to try to make a cheap point when you are defeated.

Only if it turns out that I am morally superior. Which I highly doubt will actually be the case. (Remember, in this exercise we were to assume that something we consider highly unlikely turns out to be the case, and then speculate on what our response would be) But if that's how it turns out, then why deny the reality?

You stated that if we were right, then you would srrogantly tell Him to "just deal with it".

[nrajeff]

And they saw face to face God's glory. So their belief is not sufficient for salvation. Same as the dead. Their belief is insufficient.

But didn't you say that ANYONE who became "in the know" would for sure accept Christ, repent of their sins, or whatever?

Oh, I'm sure it will not be willingly. Nor will it offer salvation, for at that point, it will be too late.

It could be that they made their choice, chose which side they wanted to be on, and they are sticking with their decision by choice because they really believe in the cause they have embraced.

Satan can no longer accept Jesus as His God.

Even if he were able, would he change his mind and choose to follow Christ? I think not.

But I also realize that it was taught by some during the early church, and I can see the validity of what they were teaching. But nowhere did the Bible claim that it was fact. It can be inferred, but it is never specifically stated.

Transubstantiation? Isn't it explicitly stated where it quotes Jesus saying "This IS my body....this IS my blood" ? How is that any more obviously metaphorical --and less literal--than "I and the Father ARE one" ??

No. He called Himself "the bread of life" which was a messianic claim, and never meant to be taken literally as a human gingerbread man. This just shows how desperate you are to try to make a cheap point when you are defeated.

What part of "He who EATS MY FLESH and DRINKS MY BLOOD shall have eternal life" looks any more metaphorical than "I and the Father are one" ?

You stated that if we were right, then you would srrogantly tell Him to "just deal with it"

And you stated that if WE were right, then you would MORE arrogantly call Him a liar. You don't think He will deal with THAT?

[Cow Poke]

What part of "He who EATS MY FLESH and DRINKS MY BLOOD shall have eternal life" looks any more metaphorical than "I and the Father are one" ?

WAIT! You mean we're NOT supposed to eat ... um.....

I think I'm gonna be sick!

[Bill the Cat]

But didn't you say that ANYONE who became "in the know" would for sure accept Christ, repent of their sins, or whatever?

Any HUMAN. Satan and the demons are not humans.

It could be that they made their choice, chose which side they wanted to be on, and they are sticking with their decision by choice because they really believe in the cause they have embraced.

Or they know that they made their decision and their fate is sealed, and they are going to try to take as many of us who DO have a choice with them.

Even if he were able, would he change his mind and choose to follow Christ? I think not.

He can't. End of story.

Transubstantiation? Isn't it explicitly stated where it quotes Jesus saying "This IS my body....this IS my blood" ?

No.

How is that any more obviously metaphorical --and less literal--than "I and the Father ARE one" ??

What part of "He who EATS MY FLESH and DRINKS MY BLOOD shall have eternal life" looks any more metaphorical than "I and the Father are one" ?

Because eternal life is not a mortal idea, it is spiritual. Thus, His flesh and blood were spiritual things that must be eaten and drank in a spiritual manner.

And you stated that if WE were right, then you would MORE arrogantly call Him a liar. You don't think He will deal with THAT?

Again, this rests on the evidence provided. I would provide HIS word, while you would provide your own.