why jesus jew and not christian?

[anonymous2]

Look at 2 Peter 3 again: the things that are hard to understand aren't being examined and debated, they're being distorted. And Peter specifically mentions the subject in question as well (v.15): "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him."

You either deny "that our Lord's patience means salvation", or you take it to mean "our Lord's patience means damnation", but Peter says they lead to destruction or loss of security.

Peter refers to "all" his [Paul's] epistles, [Paul] speaking in them of these things, in which [in which? in Paul's epistles, right?] SOME things (not some OF these things) are difficult to understand. The "some things" do not seem to only refer to "these things" which Peter was just referring to. It appears to be a reference to Paul's epistles as a whole containing "some things" which are "difficult to understand". Yes, "Peter" goes on to say that the unlearned and unstable wrest them [Paul's epistles, right?] to their destruction, as with the rest of the scriptures [rest of the scriptures meaning non-Pauline scriptures]. At least that's how I'm interpreting it. Of course, that's the thing about the Bible. One man has an interpretation and another man another.

If you trust your own will enough, but that's not much different in practice than having faith in God's will for you. But whoever tries to keep his life will lose it. It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to death. Sin is rebellion, but God does not force me not to sin. It's a voluntary subjection to Him, instead of to myself. I was bought from slavery under the kingdoms of men and set free under God's conditions, and I can imagine no greater freedom. As Jesus explained above, we're saved by faith, yes, but faith is obedience, and obedience does not mean sitting on your hands - it means taking up your cross and following in God's footsteps.

Which goes back to my point about how I see Christianity-as slavery. You're not your own. You're god's slave. You have been bought with a price. He who seeks to save his life shall lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it (nice martyrdom quote by the way, sorry, but I think I'd deny faith in something uncertain to keep my life in something which is certain, this life. And to think a loving God would require such a mortal sacrifice baffles me). War is peace. Life is death. Black is white. Slavery is freedom. The "foolishness" of God is in actuality "wisdom". Christanity sounds like the reversal of sanity to me. But hey, what do I know? To Christians, I've been "blinded by the god of this world", right? Besides your belief that Christianity is true, what is really the difference between arguments Christians could make and what could be considered "cultic" arguments, such as "lead not to your own understanding" [but instead follow the cult], "he who seeks to save his life shall lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it" [nice martyrdom quote, also can be construed as if you give your life to the cult, you'll get "true life". Don't try to save your own life by denying the cult.], "whoever tries to keep his life shall lose it" [so give it over to the cult so you can get "true" life] "slavery to God is true freedom", [be a slave to the cult, it's ACTUALLY freedom, in this life and the next], "you have been bought with a price, you are not your own" [don't be independent, do what the cult wants, you're its slave], "your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to death" [or to the cult ] Really, what's the actual difference, between Christians using these types of arguments, or "cults" using these types of arguments, aside from the fact you think Christianity is true and "cults" are false?


You can choose to look at it as God not "forcing you not to sin", but what is the bottom line? You HAVE to do God's will, don't you? If you don't, are you a Christian? And what happens to those who aren't Christian? I mean, technically, if someone put a gun to your head and demanded your wallet, he's not really forcing you, is he? It's your choice, technically, isn't it? Would you find freedom in that? I mean, you HAVE a choice. Either submit to the robber's will, or die. How is that different than what the Biblical God wants us to do? Submit to him, or be sent to the lake of fire. The Biblical God wants to take your will, your life and submit it to his will.

We know through Jesus what it really means to "take up one's cross". It means bearing public scorn, mocking and rejection for something that is greater and more lasting than the death penalty bearing down on our shoulders. After all, aren't you implying that what Jesus did and endured was also "unprofitable" - that it was a perfectly good life wasted? He did do it purely by faith and obedience, you know.

Like I said before, I look at Jesus kind of how I look at Mani or the Bab. That's if the Jesus of the NT really existed. I'd venture to guess one could go to mental asylums and find people claming that they're some prophet or god. People who actually seem to believe the things they talk about. They could even espouse a decent moral system. Of course, you don't see Jesus as that, you see him as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Those who were the keepers of those prophecies, the Jews, don't share that view (although there have been Jews who converted to Christianity. There have also been Christians who converted to Judaism). Jesus didn't defeat the Romans, he didn't bring in the Messianic kingdom, and it's been close to 2000 years since he died. Did he really defeat death, since everyone still dies? The lion does not lie down with the lamb unless the lamb is inside the lion's stomach. Although you believe he'll accomplish things when he returns, forgive me if I don't espouse such a view. You'd consider a person who made fantastic claims nowadays as a madman or demonic, wouldn't you? Say this person died and then people said he rose from the dead, and would come back to take vengeance on those who didn't believe in him. What would be your views of such a person? Madman or demonic, right? So why is Jesus different?

Because a secular justice system doesn't have that authority. It can't regulate love, or punish hatred. It can only try to compensate after a crime have been committed. They try to quantify an abstract as best they can, based on the fruits of sin, put a time value on it and declare it "just". Their existence depends on society accepting their authority. If every member of society really takes "I'd rather do what I personally think is right, according to my own viewpoint", to its conclusion, it implies anarchy. The two are mutually exclusive. Are we in constant negotiation with something that doesn't exist?

You're right, it does imply anarchy. But anarchy doesn't necessarily mean "evil". Laws can be bad, or wrong, even Christians can believe this, when they say "God's laws are higher than man's laws." You yourself are a bit of an "anarchist", because if "secular law" violates "God's law", you go with "God's law", don't you?

According Singapore and Thailand's justice, only one thing warrants the death penalty: drugs. Manslaughter gets two years. Imagine that legislation in America. Imagine everything that's wrong in the world being judged globally. Who has authority over "what you think is right"?

Yes, I find that a bit warped, if I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that "drugs" are the only thing that can possibly warrant the death penalty-so a mass murderer can't get the death penalty? Are you saying that merely TAKING drugs warrants the death penalty? And what type of "drugs"? Or are you saying big time "drug" dealers? In the United States, lots of people take "drugs", although some of it is accepted as ok because they're "legal drugs"-as if there's some definite demarkation between "legal drugs"=good, "illegal drugs"=bad. Who has authority over what I think is right? Since I live in the United States of America, that government does, although I don't worship the USA government's laws as some absolute truth.

No doubt all men will be resurrected to be judged. What sense is there in judging only people who are already considered righteous? Note that Paul speaks of this as "hope". If he did not expect to see justice, how could it inspire hope? Also note that nowhere is physical pain desribed. Daniel calls it "everlasting shame and contempt", John calls it damnation. They're not things you feel by being roasted in a fire. I don't think it's more desireable, but I do think it undermines your understanding somewhat to continue thinking of hell on impractical terms, as if it were a version of the Tower of London.

hehe.. see, I could think "cool, Paul expects to see justice", but then I think of how Christians think of "justice", then I wonder if it could be a good thing afterall. Perfection or hell is NOT my idea of "justice".

You don't know what God knows, and your actions aren't determined by what God knows. You said so yourself. If you move from where you're rooted, you'll find yourself on holy ground. You're not where you're supposed to be, and that's why your thoughts are dominated by hell and damnation. If you choke on something, spit it out before you die from it.

My "thoughts are dominated by hell and damnation" because we're discussing Christianity, and I used to "believe". I haven't totally thrown off the "shackles" of Christianity, and I'm not sure I ever will. I was exposed to it and "believed" during my "impressionable years", so it has left a deep scar on me. All one needs to do is read the Bible to find hell and damnation. Even as a Christian, I don't see how you can live a single moment thinking that such a place exists. I'd be preaching to everyone I possibly could. I know when I "believed", I was concerned about people going there. Who could possibly live an enjoyable life thinking that such a place exists? If you can, I congratulate you, because that's not something I can do.

That's not what Genesis says, by the way. But anyway, following my example above, a request to end it would be eternally selfish. It's the kind of thing Satan would do - did do, by some accounts. He was given his "freedom", and caused all kinds of mischief (to put it lightly). Imagine what your suicide does to a loved one, and reconsider whether you love them. The conclusion of your decision will be distilled in heaven or hell.

Ok, then what does Genesis say? God speaks, things happen. It portrays the creation of the universe as something simple for God. So could be the destruction of things for God. Or do you believe matter is co-eternal with God and God has no power to destroy it?

You're comparing suicide in this life with "eternal suicide". Now, suicide in this life, sure, it could have a negative effect on your family (could being more than likely would). But that's not what I'm talking about. You're concerned about effects on loved ones. That's a noble thought. But think of what Christianity does to loved ones. It can tear families apart. It can lead you to believe your loved ones will be eternally damned. In heaven, what are you going to think? "Darn, my best friend isn't here".. and guess where that means he is. Hell, right? And you think eternal death is worse than that? With eternal death, there will be nobody to lament about a loved one not being in heaven and instead being in hell. Of course, you can claim that God will wipe your mind clean of those in hell. Not a bad thought. But we're still on this earth.

And you accuse me of "convenient hypotheses"? What is more convenient: being accountable for your life and deeds, or not being accountable? Giving just enough authority to a democratically selected system of justice to soothe your conscience is not enough. It's token accountability.

You were basically asking what I thought would be my "ideal" view of the universe, right? So I answered. And notice that I didn't say there should be no punishment. In fact, I implied God should "kick my ass" for things I've done wrong. But Christianity blows it waaaaay out of proportion.

Once again, it's HELL I have a problem with. It's not so much accountability that I have a problem with. It's HELL. It's eternal damnation. If there's a "god" up there who "doles out justice", then there is. But once you equate "justice" with "perfection or torture", then it becomes monstrous.

 

[robtex]

You reject Jesus as God but you accept that man is more good than bad (this is the essense of Communism by the way). Christianity says that Jesus IS God and that man is wholely bad. (Captialism is based upon the assumption that man is basically selfish and greedy and that he will do what is best for himself and not what is best for the community - which must be correct since Capitalism trumps Communism/Socialism every time).

I can't help you here. You have made a life choice and you must live with it. Be well my friend.

That part makes me sad. That you think that the only reason people show kindness to one another is because God is watching. I would have to say, that for me...being kind feels good and right and I don't need religious inspiration as a motive for being good natured. I fell sorrow that a relgious doctrine would preach that without its existance, a moraless society would develop.

I realize that you have decided that the virgin birth, orginal sin and need for salvation is absolute. At this point, I can see that saying anything that is not congruent with these absolute truth's of yours will just not register. The paradign of Jesus as the son of God though makes no sense. It is absolutly pointless for an omnipotent God, whom wanted to make man in the image of himself would first, make a mistake (ie not be omnipotent) and than b need to sadistically sacrifice his son (which if it is his son is not him) to make up for his mistake?

It is impossible for Jesus to be the son of God and God. And before you say well God is everywhere and that is how realize that if he was u and I would be Gods too by that logic.

I am contending that Jesus, whom does not mention Christanity or is a Christian (but instead a Jew, whom according to Christians broke the coventent) because he didn't know as a mortal man. He became bigger than life after his death. The catholic Church (more so than other Christian churches) has failed to ever prove that Jesues was resurrected despite that it is central to validating their religion and despite that they have more than enough capital to do so if it were provable. Do you realize how many things older than Jesus supposed resurrection get discovered and proved regualry by anthropolists and archeologist but not the resurrection of Christ. The reason is, is that it did not happen. I have two reasons for stating this:

1) because the need of an omni-potent God to need to toruture and murder his son to save the world is irrational

2) because there is no motive for God to hide the one thing that could prove Christanity is the one true relgion of the world

In your section that their are two catagories, sinners and God....that is saying that he rejects you (automatically because we are born of sin) but you get a second chance (not a first just a second one via orginal sin) to make good with him. If we are created in the imagie of God while are we so imperfect? More importantly, why would he create something to automatically reject it. It does not follow. Why would anyone follow a relgion that demands absolute perfection but than says forget not possible believe in Jesus and you get a free ride? Doesn't the paradign just look funny to you?

What if Jesus was just a man and was breaking the first commandment? It is a possiblity. It is a much bigger probablity than him being born of a virgin but as a God, killed but resurrected to save all of mankind.

As a footnote when I say I reject Jesus as my savior it means I don't believe he was tortured and raised holding a ticket for me to get into heaven if I accept him as my savior, but I read the teachings that came from or at least attribute to him and see how pacifistic and humanistic they are and how as a philosphy his humanistic approach at time was beatiful and admirable which makes it even harder for me to see the millions killed in his name since his death.

 

[robtex]

You have to read Romans. Look at what the rich man said in v21: "All these I have kept since I was a boy". If the rich man felt that he was perfectly righteous, why did he still ask Jesus how to inherit eternal life?

who knows we can't ask him. Why do you feel so?

With the second point will you contend that their are two options:

1) Jesus is the savior and if those men do follow him they will enter the kindom of heaven

2) Jesus is a man, but an amazing rightous, loving and virtous man who say if you live as I live you will enter heaven as surely as I do

The reason I am going with # 2 is that there is nothing in the Bible that states he is divine in nature. He is not addressed as God as all. He does not talk from the heavens. There is nothing that says he becomes God. And as a footnote while would God want to exist on earth if our goal (according to Christanity) is to make it to heaven as opposed to bring God to earth?

Man is more good than bad but because he has any bad in all he is doomed without Jesus? Do you realize how fanatical that sounds? That sounds fanatical enough to justify killing millions for thousands of years. And that is exactly what has happened. The idea is one of the most evil ones any religion could ever produce. Life is measured in increments not all or none. Besides if perfection is impossible and good deeds don't count on a daily basis if there is one less than perfect deed why bother at all? Just ask Jesus and he will forgive you and you get your ticket into heaven. That paradign again makes no sense. How on earth can you validate an idea like that?


Ok on your last sentence Jesus restored man and man still sins (and thus is not restored) are two mutually exclusive events. It is either one or the other. Both cannot co-exist.

 

[Jenyar]

Peter refers to "all" his [Paul's] epistles, [Paul] speaking in them of these things, in which [in which? in Paul's epistles, right?] SOME things (not some OF these things) are difficult to understand. The "some things" do not seem to only refer to "these things" which Peter was just referring to. It appears to be a reference to Paul's epistles as a whole containing "some things" which are "difficult to understand". Yes, "Peter" goes on to say that the unlearned and unstable wrest them [Paul's epistles, right?] to their destruction, as with the rest of the scriptures [rest of the scriptures meaning non-Pauline scriptures]. At least that's how I'm interpreting it. Of course, that's the thing about the Bible. One man has an interpretation and another man another.

No, it's not just with the Bible. People seem to prefer their own territory so much that they end up building walls to protect patches of desert. I'm not like that, and I agree with your interpretation. Paul certainly has some hard saying in most of his epistles, and it would be unfair to artificially limit what can be thought of as "difficult". I'm just concerned that we don't wrest them.

Which goes back to my point about how I see Christianity-as slavery. You're not your own. You're god's slave. You have been bought with a price. He who seeks to save his life shall lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it (nice martyrdom quote by the way, sorry, but I think I'd deny faith in something uncertain to keep my life in something which is certain, this life. And to think a loving God would require such a mortal sacrifice baffles me).

It baffles, because it is anathema to every calling and responsibility to life that we are given. I martyr isn't supposed to be someone who trows his life away in some feigned attempt at piety. It is someone - if you look at Biblical examples like Stephen, Paul, Peter and others - who hold on to this life they have, were given, and expect, even under threat of torture and death.

I recognize that this is part of what you're holding on to yourself: the affirmation of life in the face of "an eternity of torture", and I commend you for it. That's the spirit that will allow you to see beyond artificial religiosity and empty threats. I think we hit in a nerve when we started talking about being slave to God, because there's the rub. Slavery to life does not guarantee life.

War is peace. Life is death. Black is white. Slavery is freedom. The "foolishness" of God is in actuality "wisdom". Christanity sounds like the reversal of sanity to me. But hey, what do I know? To Christians, I've been "blinded by the god of this world", right?

You've hit on one of the characteristics of Christianity. God frequently turns popular wisdom on its head. But blinded by the god of this world? Not necessarily. Paul was blinded in order to see at last. The blind man was born blind not because of sin or parents who sinned, but so that God's work might be seen in him. Nobody is ever lost beyond God's reach, and in another reversal of intuition: He seems to prefer those who are farthest from Him for His more important plans. Any Christian who condemns you is practically telling you he knows what God may or may not do. Disrespect for life amounts to disrespect for God, and vice versa.

Besides your belief that Christianity is true, what is really the difference between arguments Christians could make and what could be considered "cultic" arguments, such as "lead not to your own understanding" [but instead follow the cult], "he who seeks to save his life shall lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it" [nice martyrdom quote, also can be construed as if you give your life to the cult, you'll get "true life". Don't try to save your own life by denying the cult.], "whoever tries to keep his life shall lose it" [so give it over to the cult so you can get "true" life] "slavery to God is true freedom", [be a slave to the cult, it's ACTUALLY freedom, in this life and the next], "you have been bought with a price, you are not your own" [don't be independent, do what the cult wants, you're its slave], "your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to death" [or to the cult ] Really, what's the actual difference, between Christians using these types of arguments, or "cults" using these types of arguments, aside from the fact you think Christianity is true and "cults" are false?

There are major phenomenological differences. The easiest way to explain it is the difference in who we follow, and who He is to us. No servant is greater than his master, and no messenger is greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16).

This is also in answer to robtex: Jews who staked their lives on faith in One God (the "Shema": Mark 12:29), called Jesus 'Adonai' (plural of 'Lord') - One of the Old Testament titles for God. It denotes absolute mastership - which is why Jesus said one 'cannot serve two masters' in Matt 6:24. See also Matthew 22:43-45 and John 13:13. Jesus was not just an English gentleman. When John the Baptist quoted Isaiah 40:3, saying he is the one "who makes straight the way of the Lord" (John 1:23), that "Lord" is YHWH, yet he was obviously referring to Jesus (go ahead, check it). *

You can choose to look at it as God not "forcing you not to sin", but what is the bottom line? You HAVE to do God's will, don't you? If you don't, are you a Christian? And what happens to those who aren't Christian? I mean, technically, if someone put a gun to your head and demanded your wallet, he's not really forcing you, is he? It's your choice, technically, isn't it? Would you find freedom in that? I mean, you HAVE a choice. Either submit to the robber's will, or die. How is that different than what the Biblical God wants us to do? Submit to him, or be sent to the lake of fire. The Biblical God wants to take your will, your life and submit it to his will.

Your example is very appropriate, because if I'm already dead, there's no choice really - there is nothing left but life. The robber's greatest threat is robbed of its power; Death has lost its sting. It's another inversion: God has has taken away the freedom to die and go to hell. It's a freedom that Adam asserted with his decision to rebel, and he was expelled from Eden to be free. It's no coincidence that the tree of life Adam left behind is the same one described again in Revelation as standing over the river of life in God's new kingdom (Rev. 2:7). The choice or freedom is to die, the law (or compulsion) is to live. Or put it still another way: God is threatening you with life. Submit to his will (love Him and love each other boldly, without fear of death), or really die. It's a choice out of freedom. You're no more bound to listen and live than you would have been without any knowledge of God or hell.

Like I said before, I look at Jesus kind of how I look at Mani or the Bab. That's if the Jesus of the NT really existed. I'd venture to guess one could go to mental asylums and find people claming that they're some prophet or god. People who actually seem to believe the things they talk about. They could even espouse a decent moral system. Of course, you don't see Jesus as that, you see him as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Those who were the keepers of those prophecies, the Jews, don't share that view (although there have been Jews who converted to Christianity. There have also been Christians who converted to Judaism).

The first church came from nowhere if not from Jews. Jesus was a Jew. All of his disciples were Jews. This isn't wishful ex post facto thinking, it's a fact. Whatever Jesus was or wasn't - the first Christians were Jews.

Jesus didn't defeat the Romans, he didn't bring in the Messianic kingdom, and it's been close to 2000 years since he died. Did he really defeat death, since everyone still dies? The lion does not lie down with the lamb unless the lamb is inside the lion's stomach. Although you believe he'll accomplish things when he returns, forgive me if I don't espouse such a view. You'd consider a person who made fantastic claims nowadays as a madman or demonic, wouldn't you? Say this person died and then people said he rose from the dead, and would come back to take vengeance on those who didn't believe in him. What would be your views of such a person? Madman or demonic, right? So why is Jesus different?

Those claims were made in the Old Testament - it was in Jesus that their fulfilment was realized. One example of such a "madman" was John the Baptist. We know that he sent a message from prison to ask Jesus whether he was the one John expected, or whether they should expect another (Matt.11). Jesus let his deeds speak for him - they are all miracles that the messiah was expected to perform, that were prophesied in the OT but had not been realized before.

The "lion lying down with the lamb" and so on were agricultural expressions of heaven - expressions of faith and trust in God. With Jesus, that faith was confirmed - those who had faith could have it. As John said, "The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful." Everyone still dies, but not everyone dies with an expectation of death. Jesus did not bring an earthly kingdom - an earthly kingdom would have brought the kind of world we fear most. Your doubts sound a lot like 2 Peter 3:4, just before we read of Paul's difficult letters,

They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.​

Jesus' return will be the end of God's patience with sin. The coming of Jesus will herald His kingdom, and it will be a sepration of those who belong to it and those who don't. It's not for "revenge". See Jesus' parables about the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13 and 18).

You're right, it does imply anarchy. But anarchy doesn't necessarily mean "evil". Laws can be bad, or wrong, even Christians can believe this, when they say "God's laws are higher than man's laws." You yourself are a bit of an "anarchist", because if "secular law" violates "God's law", you go with "God's law", don't you?

There is no authority above God, but all authority should be respected as we respect God's authority. We can't just pick and choose which laws we want to follow. God subjected his people to authority from the first day on. What He did not give to anyone was authority that puts itself above Him. For instance, no government has the authority to force me to denounce God, or pray to other gods, as the Romans tried to do. There's a difference between auhority and the abuse of authority, or oppression.

Yes, I find that a bit warped, if I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that "drugs" are the only thing that can possibly warrant the death penalty-so a mass murderer can't get the death penalty? Are you saying that merely TAKING drugs warrants the death penalty? And what type of "drugs"? Or are you saying big time "drug" dealers? In the United States, lots of people take "drugs", although some of it is accepted as ok because they're "legal drugs"-as if there's some definite demarkation between "legal drugs"=good, "illegal drugs"=bad. Who has authority over what I think is right? Since I live in the United States of America, that government does, although I don't worship the USA government's laws as some absolute truth.

I'm not an expert on Oriental Law. They were the big opium producers, and my guess is that the subculture of crime and abuse it inspired prompted stricter laws. The point is that laws are merely a means to an end - and clearer that end, the stricter the laws. Thailand and Singapore tolerates no illegal drug dealing or usage, and the lives that were destroyed by it warrant the death penalty. Because of those laws, becoming involved in drugs now becomes a conscious partaking in a culture that sponsored the corruption and destruction of lives. There is no excuse - it is your responsibility as an American to familiarize yourself with the laws of the country you enter. What is justified by you and your society - and therefore your justice system - is different than the circumstances and processes that led to drugs being outlawed in Singapore. Your own authority won't overrule their government, just as it can't overrule your own govenment.

If you don't wish to live in paradise, then you don't have to abide by its rules. Then you are free under the laws of nature and entropy to take the path of nature and share its fate - since it does belong to God. We live on earth by his authority, and any inclination towards justice and life is according to His regulations. It's as if you find yourself in Singapore and have begun to recognize some of its laws, but still want to be entitled to some of the freedoms you had in America. At some stage they are going to ask you to make a choice.

hehe.. see, I could think "cool, Paul expects to see justice", but then I think of how Christians think of "justice", then I wonder if it could be a good thing afterall. Perfection or hell is NOT my idea of "justice".

It isn't? Justice defines what "perfection" is, and then punishes everything according to the degree that it doesn't conform. What does it mean to be a perfect driver? - to obey all traffic laws. Even the laws imply that you have to make the right decisions at times where choices are required. For the most part they are intuitive, as much as we think living and loving is intuitive. If leave the road and drive off a bridge, it has nothing to with justice that you end up as a pile of metal. Justice ended at the point where it drew the solid lines on the edge of the road, and put the "bridge ahead" sign on the curb. The railing would have stopped you if you weren't drunk or speeding - it's no fault of the law that it wasn't intended to stop your car under such circustances.

Just like it isn't the Bible's fault if you reject it for not complying to people's standards for perfection of those who speed through it. Just like God's words to Adam, or Jesus work on earth, it isn't a final, solid barrier before you hit the bottom, but they are warning enough of the conclusion to the road they're on.

My "thoughts are dominated by hell and damnation" because we're discussing Christianity, and I used to "believe". I haven't totally thrown off the "shackles" of Christianity, and I'm not sure I ever will. I was exposed to it and "believed" during my "impressionable years", so it has left a deep scar on me. All one needs to do is read the Bible to find hell and damnation. Even as a Christian, I don't see how you can live a single moment thinking that such a place exists. I'd be preaching to everyone I possibly could. I know when I "believed", I was concerned about people going there. Who could possibly live an enjoyable life thinking that such a place exists? If you can, I congratulate you, because that's not something I can do.

That's a lot like saying 'who could possibly live an enjoyable life knowing that death awaits?' Lots of people do, because it doesn't threaten them.

You weren't asked to believe in Christianity, especially not that you could save people fro hell. You only had to believe that God made salvation available and possible to all, and spread the good news that it has become a reality. To those who are on dangerous roads, it is our responsibility to point out the possible conclusion, since our message also implies nobody will escape judgment or consequences.

Ok, then what does Genesis say? God speaks, things happen. It portrays the creation of the universe as something simple for God. So could be the destruction of things for God. Or do you believe matter is co-eternal with God and God has no power to destroy it?

I'm not sure who of us is the one preaching death and destruction here. You said it was me? Evrything will end up where it was intended to. I see no reason why God had to spare the earth in the first place, but aparently a single believer and his family were enough to dissuade Him. Thank God we're not in charge. If total annihilation were a better end - more certain, secure and peacful - than having to live an eternity in heaven, I'm sure God would have sent his enemies to heaven, and believers to hell. Maybe if the Bible told us of such a total annihilation, a few years in hell would almost have seemed worth the immediate gratifications available in this life. If you're right, heaven would certainly not present enough motivation not to. Hey, maybe you're right and God did spare Hitler an eternity with the devil. But that's not the kind of good news I wish to spread.

You're comparing suicide in this life with "eternal suicide". Now, suicide in this life, sure, it could have a negative effect on your family (could being more than likely would). But that's not what I'm talking about. You're concerned about effects on loved ones. That's a noble thought. But think of what Christianity does to loved ones. It can tear families apart. It can lead you to believe your loved ones will be eternally damned.

It has only lead me to think that hey, maybe I am the only Christian in this crowd for a reason. Maybe I could show them a little of the love and forgiveness that I've experiened. Maybe this prevalent intolerance isn't as insurmountable as they think. What tears families apart is lack of love and forgiveness - selfishness, hatred, deceit and lies. "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come." Right?

In heaven, what are you going to think? "Darn, my best friend isn't here".. and guess where that means he is. Hell, right? And you think eternal death is worse than that? With eternal death, there will be nobody to lament about a loved one not being in heaven and instead being in hell. Of course, you can claim that God will wipe your mind clean of those in hell. Not a bad thought. But we're still on this earth.

I believe when God said He will wipe off every tear, He meant just that. It's not impossible to overcome grief. But tell me, why aren't we told how righteous every member of Noah's family was? And yet they were saved because of his obedience. We aren't told how righteous Lot's family was, yet they were saved from Sodom along with him. His wife was also saved, but disobeyed and didn't see freedom. We aren't told that Noah, or Lot, or Jesus saved them, but there they were. And there's the Samaritan woman who was saved by the leftovers (breadcrumbs) that fell from Israel's salvation (Mark 7:28).She just had to be there to receive it - her mere faith that it would be enough to save her was all it took. Why? I don't know - we don't know who we affect when God works through us and who we don't. I just trust Him with it, and try to make sure I'm where He needs me to be so I don't miss what He's doing. If by laying down my life I have the chance to save others, I would do it - and I am doing it.

My best friends are in good hands, I have no fear for them. If they give me reason to, you can be sure I'll be there to beg them to change their ways.

You were basically asking what I thought would be my "ideal" view of the universe, right? So I answered. And notice that I didn't say there should be no punishment. In fact, I implied God should "kick my ass" for things I've done wrong. But Christianity blows it waaaaay out of proportion.

Once again, it's HELL I have a problem with. It's not so much accountability that I have a problem with. It's HELL. It's eternal damnation. If there's a "god" up there who "doles out justice", then there is. But once you equate "justice" with "perfection or torture", then it becomes monstrous.

And in conclusion, I want to reiterate: justice is not greater than mercy.

Zechariah 7:9
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.​

That is God's justice. Those who can't accept that will have to be content with the leftovers. The problem is, I don't think they believe even that is enough to save them.

"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few." Just one person to help will halve my work.

 

[Jenyar]

*

2) Jesus is a man, but an amazing rightous, loving and virtous man who say if you live as I live you will enter heaven as surely as I do

You have to ignore everything we know about Jesus to hold that view.

John 14:7-
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?​

Faith in Jesus is faith in God, not in an amazing man. In any case, how would a man, however righteous and amazing, gain the certainty of entering heaven, never mind make it available to others?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: Faith in Jesus is faith in God, not in an amazing man. In any case, how would a man, however righteous and amazing, gain the certainty of entering heaven, never mind make it available to others?
*************
M*W: These "others" you mention who had heaven available to them, who are they, how do you know they entered heaven, give names, dates, personal communications you've had with them after their death, etc., and provide concrete evidence that Jesus was the dying demigod savior who made heaven available to them. And, while you're at it, prove there is a heaven and hell and Jesus was the messiah? We're waiting... but we're not holding our breath. This is your delusion.

 

[robtex]

*

You have to ignore everything we know about Jesus to hold that view.

John 14:7-
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?​

Faith in Jesus is faith in God, not in an amazing man. In any case, how would a man, however righteous and amazing, gain the certainty of entering heaven, never mind make it available to others?

Jenyar I read John 14:7 line and I think that most likey he is talking about his biological father not a god who born him (and than somehow is him? another set of mutually exclusive events).

As a matter of fact so says the Bible in the chapter of John:

John 1
45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Matthew 1:1 says qoute
"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David."

Matt 9:27 says

"As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"

As well as Matt 20:30
"Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"

The Chapter of Mark calls Jesus the son of David too

Mark 10:47
"When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Mark 12:35
" While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ[1] is the son of David"

Luke 18 38,39
"He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Romans 1:3
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[1] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[2] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

luke 3: 23"
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph"

which talks about his baptizing by John the Baptists. I am really confused as to why John was baptizing Jesus if Jesus is one aspect of the trinity.....

Maybe we are all sons of God according the bible and figuraltely speaking and Jesus was one such mortal man. I mean in John 6:70 he calls one of his 12 (presuming Judas) the devil,

" Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" but I don't seem anyone calling Judas part of Satan. That is kinda inconsistant don't ya think?

I have something I would like you to read. It is from one of the most informative sites I have found on the net on religion. Religioustolerance.org Read this link:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

Bible qoutes from Biblegateway.com (niv version)
post researched further from
religious tolerance.org

Really we can play the Bible qouting game till the end of time and all that we will discover is that the many authors of the Bible were kinda confused on Jesus role in the whole thing. One guy says one thing another guy says something else. The net result is Jesus role partially unknown. The adroit thing to do it would seem is to go backwards and find the most likely roles and look at them before going to the least unlikely roles.

I have to confess that Jesus being born of a virgin, saving all of humanity from itself, being the son of God and God at the same time, and coming back a second time (because as an omnipotent God he could not save man the first time) to save us again is really low on my likelyhood list.

 

[anonymous2]

There are major phenomenological differences. The easiest way to explain it is the difference in who we follow, and who He is to us. No servant is greater than his master, and no messenger is greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16).

Which is basically what I was getting at. To you, Jesus was God incarnate, not a cult leader. I doubt "cult followers" look at their leaders as "cult leaders", but rather holy men. Or in the case of Sai Baba, an incarnation of God.

This is also in answer to robtex: Jews who staked their lives on faith in One God (the "Shema": Mark 12:29), called Jesus 'Adonai' (plural of 'Lord') - One of the Old Testament titles for God. It denotes absolute mastership - which is why Jesus said one 'cannot serve two masters' in Matt 6:24. See also Matthew 22:43-45 and John 13:13. Jesus was not just an English gentleman. When John the Baptist quoted Isaiah 40:3, saying he is the one "who makes straight the way of the Lord" (John 1:23), that "Lord" is YHWH, yet he was obviously referring to Jesus (go ahead, check it). *

The people who worshipped the golden calf were Jews too. So were some who worshipped Baal. The idea that the "first Christians were Jews" doesn't necessarily impress me. And "believing that Jesus was the Messiah" wasn't necessarily blasphemous from a Jewish viewpoint, until people started saying Jews didn't need to follow the law of Moses, and that Jesus was actually, literally God incarnate-which might explain why "Jewish Christians" according to what history supposedly records, weren't thrown out of the synagogues at first. The fact that Rabbi Akiva thought Bar Kochba was the Messiah, that didn't make him an apostate to Jews from my understanding. The first Mormons were Christians, weren't they? What about the first Buddhists, weren't they Hindus? And the first Baha'is, didn't they come from a Shi'ite Muslim background?
The first Protestants were Catholics, right?

Your doubts sound a lot like 2 Peter 3:4, just before we read of Paul's difficult letters,

They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.​

Jesus' return will be the end of God's patience with sin. The coming of Jesus will herald His kingdom, and it will be a sepration of those who belong to it and those who don't. It's not for "revenge". See Jesus' parables about the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 13 and 18).)

I know that's what "Peter" said. The problem I have is that if you look at the NT, the general expectation was that Jesus would come back soon, as in soon in human time. "Paul" said "we who are alive and remain ... unto the coming of the Lord"... but then "Peter" is the only one who implies thousands of years with "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years". Why should I see this as anything other than a rationalization to explain why Jesus hadn't returned yet? If mankind hasn't destroyed itself by the year 15000 CE, and if there are Christians left, do you think it at all reasonable to still think Jesus will come back? Christians have been expecting the return of Jesus for how long now? What I see in 2nd Peter 3 is a defense mechanism-an excuse to explain why Jesus hadn't returned yet. "It's because God is patient with sin". Yeah? Then why is the tone of the NT besides that that 2nd Peter 3 passage about Jesus "coming quickly", "this is the last hour", etc? Who besides "Peter", in the NT, even entertained the idea of possibly thousands of years until Jesus returned?

It isn't? Justice defines what "perfection" is, and then punishes everything according to the degree that it doesn't conform. What does it mean to be a perfect driver? - to obey all traffic laws. Even the laws imply that you have to make the right decisions at times where choices are required. For the most part they are intuitive, as much as we think living and loving is intuitive. If leave the road and drive off a bridge, it has nothing to with justice that you end up as a pile of metal. Justice ended at the point where it drew the solid lines on the edge of the road, and put the "bridge ahead" sign on the curb. The railing would have stopped you if you weren't drunk or speeding - it's no fault of the law that it wasn't intended to stop your car under such circustances.

haha.. yea, I can picture it, "Sir, did you know you were going 5 mph over the speed limit?", "No, officer", "Well, then, I'm not going to 'let it go this time', or even write you a ticket. What I'm going to do is torment you." Why not just admit that "Christian justice" has little to do with how "justice" plays out in the actual, physical world?

That's a lot like saying 'who could possibly live an enjoyable life knowing that death awaits?' Lots of people do, because it doesn't threaten them.

No, I don't find it even remotely similar. We see death, we know it exists, although we may love a person and know that person will eventually die, and know that we ourselves will eventually die, it's something that's clearly known, unless one's a child who doesn't understand death. The grief of death does not even remotely compare to the grief of an eternal hell. I know that I'm going to die. But it's possible I could have a relatively painless death. It's possible I could suffer for a relatively short time. But hell follows someone pass the grave and onto eternity. "Infinitely" worse.

You weren't asked to believe in Christianity, especially not that you could save people fro hell. You only had to believe that God made salvation available and possible to all, and spread the good news that it has become a reality. To those who are on dangerous roads, it is our responsibility to point out the possible conclusion, since our message also implies nobody will escape judgment or consequences.

From a strictly non-emotional, "logical" standpoint, sure, but when you actually consider the morbid enormity which is called hell, ones "non-emotional logic" goes out the window.

I'm not sure who of us is the one preaching death and destruction here. You said it was me? Evrything will end up where it was intended to. I see no reason why God had to spare the earth in the first place, but aparently a single believer and his family were enough to dissuade Him. Thank God we're not in charge. If total annihilation were a better end - more certain, secure and peacful - than having to live an eternity in heaven, I'm sure God would have sent his enemies to heaven, and believers to hell. Maybe if the Bible told us of such a total annihilation, a few years in hell would almost have seemed worth the immediate gratifications available in this life. If you're right, heaven would certainly not present enough motivation not to. Hey, maybe you're right and God did spare Hitler an eternity with the devil. But that's not the kind of good news I wish to spread.

See, that's the difference between us. Same words, different meanings. When I say death and destruction, I mean annihilation. When you say death and destruction, you mean a "living death" in an eternity in torment. That's not what I consider destruction. I'm guessing what you're saying is that that you think heaven and hell should exist because they're excellent motivators for good over evil. I won't argue with you there-they're excellent psychological tools. But these tools have existed for quite a while and there are mass murderers, etc. Not everyone takes them seriously. You almost act like I'm saying there should be no punishment. When did I say that? When did I say that if there's no hell, everyone should go around like hedonistic madmen? And why do you equate "immediate gratifications in this life" with punishment, let alone eternal punishment? What's necessarily wrong "immediate gratification"? Note I said "necessarily". I can think of a lot worse things people can do than to indulge in "immediate gratification", unless someone's gratified by things like committing murder, or rape. What "immediate gratifications" are you referring to? Or do you think we should all be ascetics living in caves licking moss off of rocks and drinking rain water? I don't think even Hitler deserves "an eternity with the devil", once the enormity of the word "eternal", in this context, is fully realized.

It has only lead me to think that hey, maybe I am the only Christian in this crowd for a reason. Maybe I could show them a little of the love and forgiveness that I've experiened. Maybe this prevalent intolerance isn't as insurmountable as they think. What tears families apart is lack of love and forgiveness - selfishness, hatred, deceit and lies. "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come." Right?

You have a point. There are other things which can tear families apart besides religion. But religion, and Christianity can also be divisive. You view it as "yea, sure, that's because truth itself is divisive".

"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few." Just one person to help will halve my work.

Although I could be wrong, I see this as a request for fellow Christians to help converse with me? If you are having time constraints with responding to me, don't worry about it? Take your time.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar I read John 14:7 line and I think that most likey he is talking about his biological father not a god who born him (and than somehow is him? another set of mutually exclusive events).

As a matter of fact so says the Bible in the chapter of John...

Your premise: "Jesus being born of a virgin, saving all of humanity from itself, being the son of God and God at the same time, and coming back a second time ... is really low on my likelyhood list." (I omitted your personal theology, if you don't mind)

Verses under consideration:

1. John 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
2. 15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth [the Holy Spirit, see verse 25].
3. 23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
4. 28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Logical conclusion, following from your premise: "the Father" must be Joseph the Carpenter.

But for further consideration, I wish to submit John 8:

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. ...
54 ... "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. ...

57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"​

Really we can play the Bible qouting game till the end of time and all that we will discover is that the many authors of the Bible were kinda confused on Jesus role in the whole thing. One guy says one thing another guy says something else. The net result is Jesus role partially unknown. The adroit thing to do it would seem is to go backwards and find the most likely roles and look at them before going to the least unlikely roles.

And I believe your methodology is flawed, because you have already decided what you're going to find. Your conclusions can only benefit from confusion.

" Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" but I don't seem anyone calling Judas part of Satan. That is kinda inconsistant don't ya think?

Actually, being the devil is being his children and sharing his fate. We're still in John 8:

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!​

I have something I would like you to read. It is from one of the most informative sites I have found on the net on religion. Religioustolerance.org Read this link:

I have read it. It has a lot to say about what people don't seem to know, and builds its arguments from there - adding to the confusion you ascribe to. Sometimes it's the existence of parallels that are condemning, and others times it's the absence of parallels that are condeming, depending on what the premises are. It's impossible to come to any conclusion but your own from such a methodology.

Here's some examples:

Moreover, according to the same Lucan narrative, John the Baptist was a relative of Jesus and even knew of Jesus' divine nature when John was in his mother's womb (Luke 1:41,44). Yet in a later chapter of Luke, the adult John did not know who Jesus was (Luke 7:9).

Luke 7:9 says nothing of the sort. Jesus was talking about the centurion, not John.

It was important, however, for the authors of both these gospels, that Jesus be born in Bethlehem because it was the city of David from where, it was prophesied, Israel's ruler would come (Micah 5:2). Even so, John's gospel, contrary to Matthew and Luke, relates the common knowledge that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, and that he was not a descendant of David (John 7:41-42).

Once again, John 7:41 says nothing of the sort. It only confirms the same premise the site wishes to prove - in the mouth of doubters. Why don't they also quote John 7:27 "But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from."? Do you know where Jesus was "from"? Was it Bethlehem in Judea (where he was born, the origin of his human identity, Matt. 2:1), or from Nazareth in Galilee (the origin of his ministry and prophetic identity, Matt. 21:11), where he was raised? (Nazarene=Nezer=branch/offshoot: Isa 11:1 1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.)

Just like with the Pharisees, the answer will depend on who you think he is. In the end you have to decide for yourself: do you believe in Jesus because of Matthew or Luke, or because of God?

 

[Jenyar]

Which is basically what I was getting at. To you, Jesus was God incarnate, not a cult leader. I doubt "cult followers" look at their leaders as "cult leaders", but rather holy men. Or in the case of Sai Baba, an incarnation of God.

Of course. And every country looks to its president as "the president". Why don't we start wars over who the real president is? Because, somehow, somewhere, the claim has to be evaluated for what it is. Jesus was called "the Nazarene" and Christians were "the Nazarene sect" (Acts 24:5). We trace faith back to the primal desire to know God, without rejecting God's part in its history. It might be expressed thus:

1 John 2:26- I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.​

The people who worshipped the golden calf were Jews too. So were some who worshipped Baal. The idea that the "first Christians were Jews" doesn't necessarily impress me. And "believing that Jesus was the Messiah" wasn't necessarily blasphemous from a Jewish viewpoint, until people started saying Jews didn't need to follow the law of Moses, and that Jesus was actually, literally God incarnate-which might explain why "Jewish Christians" according to what history supposedly records, weren't thrown out of the synagogues at first. The fact that Rabbi Akiva thought Bar Kochba was the Messiah, that didn't make him an apostate to Jews from my understanding. The first Mormons were Christians, weren't they? What about the first Buddhists, weren't they Hindus? And the first Baha'is, didn't they come from a Shi'ite Muslim background?
The first Protestants were Catholics, right?

What is your point? All origins have sources. But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Was Baal God because some Jews believed he was? Was bar Kochba the messiah because Akiva believed he was? Paul preached to the Jews until they "publically maligned the Way" (Acts 19:9). Jesus was either who he said he was, or he wasn't. There is nothing wrong with being a Mormon or JW until it leaves that territory. The issue is what you expect when you express faith in someone.

I know that's what "Peter" said. The problem I have is that if you look at the NT, the general expectation was that Jesus would come back soon, as in soon in human time. "Paul" said "we who are alive and remain ... unto the coming of the Lord"... but then "Peter" is the only one who implies thousands of years with "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years". Why should I see this as anything other than a rationalization to explain why Jesus hadn't returned yet?

Because some had assumed that Paul's "alive and remain" referred to mortal life and not eternal life, and remain on earth instead of with Christ. There is a precedence for this:

John 21:23
Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"​

If mankind hasn't destroyed itself by the year 15000 CE, and if there are Christians left, do you think it at all reasonable to still think Jesus will come back? Christians have been expecting the return of Jesus for how long now? What I see in 2nd Peter 3 is a defense mechanism-an excuse to explain why Jesus hadn't returned yet. "It's because God is patient with sin". Yeah? Then why is the tone of the NT besides that that 2nd Peter 3 passage about Jesus "coming quickly", "this is the last hour", etc? Who besides "Peter", in the NT, even entertained the idea of possibly thousands of years until Jesus returned?

Because for every human living on earth at any time, the end is as quick as they come. The Kingdom of God is always equally near, and repentance is always equally urgent. "The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever" (1 John 2:17).

Surely, only by the words "this is the last hour[/i]" you should be able to infer that he wasn't checking his sundial?

It makes little difference whether you don't believe God will judge "now" or "soon" if you don't believe He will judge ever.

haha.. yea, I can picture it, "Sir, did you know you were going 5 mph over the speed limit?", "No, officer", "Well, then, I'm not going to 'let it go this time', or even write you a ticket. What I'm going to do is torment you." Why not just admit that "Christian justice" has little to do with how "justice" plays out in the actual, physical world?

The officer has already pulled you off 2000 years ago and given you a ticket. But God has given you a cheque for paying it as well, because He knows you can't afford the fine. If you speed on your way and never exchange the cheque, it's at your own risk. The unpaid ticket will remain testifying against you forever if you die, and the cheque will remain unchanged. Any "punishment" after that lies away from God, at the bottom of a ditch, not with Him. Nothing prevents you from turning around and cashing in to freedom.

No, I don't find it even remotely similar. We see death, we know it exists, although we may love a person and know that person will eventually die, and know that we ourselves will eventually die, it's something that's clearly known, unless one's a child who doesn't understand death. The grief of death does not even remotely compare to the grief of an eternal hell. I know that I'm going to die. But it's possible I could have a relatively painless death. It's possible I could suffer for a relatively short time. But hell follows someone pass the grave and onto eternity. "Infinitely" worse.

No, always equally bad. Fire does not burn you worse after 1000 years than after a day. You might even get used to it, but the real torment is not having hope of release, as you have now.

From a strictly non-emotional, "logical" standpoint, sure, but when you actually consider the morbid enormity which is called hell, ones "non-emotional logic" goes out the window.

If you wish.

See, that's the difference between us. Same words, different meanings. When I say death and destruction, I mean annihilation. When you say death and destruction, you mean a "living death" in an eternity in torment. That's not what I consider destruction.

Do you have any reason to believe in such a form of "destruction"? You want God to create it - for whose benefit? You won't accept even a moment in hell from Him. What you're really looking for is justification for unbelief, and you won't get it.

I'm guessing what you're saying is that that you think heaven and hell should exist because they're excellent motivators for good over evil. I won't argue with you there-they're excellent psychological tools.

They need not be. I don't use them as such. No, I say their existence forces you to decide, however much you resent the decision.

But these tools have existed for quite a while and there are mass murderers, etc. Not everyone takes them seriously.

Which seems to contradict your declaration that they such "excellent" psychological tools. I've never met anyone who let (or admitted to letting) fear of hell or expectation of heaven motivate their day to day decisions. Not before everything else had been considered, anyway.

You almost act like I'm saying there should be no punishment. When did I say that? When did I say that if there's no hell, everyone should go around like hedonistic madmen? And why do you equate "immediate gratifications in this life" with punishment, let alone eternal punishment?
What's necessarily wrong "immediate gratification"? Note I said "necessarily". I can think of a lot worse things people can do than to indulge in "immediate gratification", unless someone's gratified by things like committing murder, or rape. What "immediate gratifications" are you referring to? Or do you think we should all be ascetics living in caves licking moss off of rocks and drinking rain water? I don't think even Hitler deserves "an eternity with the devil", once the enormity of the word "eternal", in this context, is fully realized.

If you already have your reward, no expectation is going to convince you to let go of it. Not without some decision or willpower on your part. Immediate gratification can be powerful enough to make you want to hold on to it, disregarding any future loss. It carries the greater weight, and if it's weight is greater than final accountability, it is dangerous.

What punishment would you consider "enough"? What will make up for Hitler or Stalin's deeds, so that justice will be finally and ideally served?

You have a point. There are other things which can tear families apart besides religion. But religion, and Christianity can also be divisive. You view it as "yea, sure, that's because truth itself is divisive".

Religion itself is actually communal, not divisive.

Although I could be wrong, I see this as a request for fellow Christians to help converse with me? If you are having time constraints with responding to me, don't worry about it? Take your time.

No, not at all. I was referring in general to the amount of misunderstandings and assumptions that get in the way of the message.

 

[anonymous2]

Because some had assumed that Paul's "alive and remain" referred to mortal life and not eternal life, and remain on earth instead of with Christ. There is a precedence for this:

John 21:23
Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"​

This is an interpretation I don't especially recall hearing or seeing before. A problem I have with it is if Paul is merely saying "We who have eternal life and remain with Christ", why does he contrast "We who are alive and remain" with "the dead in Christ"? Even if I read it with your words, "We who have eternal life and remain with Christ unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede those who have fallen asleep"-that would mean "We who are Christians and remain Christians unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede those who have fallen asleep." Even with your words, it would still mean the "we who are alive and remain" have to literally be alive and remaining, otherwise, there is no real distinction between "we who are alive and remain" and "those who have fallen asleep".

Paul refers to those who have fallen asleep, and for Christians not to grieve for them like those without hope, because when Jesus comes back God will have those who "sleep in Jesus" [the Christian dead] with Jesus. Paul's obviously referring to physically living Christians grieving for physically dead Christians. Both groups would "have eternal life and remain with Christ [remain Christians]", wouldn't they? We who are alive and remain=We Christians who are physically living and will continue living. The dead in Christ=Christians who have physically died, not SPIRITUALLY died, right? I don't believe it's reasonable to think of "we who are alive" as meaning "we who have eternal life", because if it means this, then are the "dead in Christ" people who DON'T have eternal life? But that would be contrary to the meaning of the passage. Paul says "we who are alive and remain" will meet up with "the dead in Christ" (who will rise first and meet Jesus in the air when he comes back). It's contrasting physically alive Christians with physically dead Christians-not spiritually alive Christians with spiritually dead Christians. After all, the "spiritually dead" aren't even Christians, are they?

If all the people Paul was referring to by "we who are alive and remain", including himself, ended up dying, then they THEMSELVES became the "dead in Christ", and there ended up being no real distinction between "WE who ARE ALIVE and REMAIN" and the "dead in Christ".

In my opinion, the last verse in the passage which says "Therefore comfort one another with these words" doesn't make the most sense if one believes Paul thought the entire generation of Christians living at his time would die.

This is why I think this passage portrays Paul thinking that the return of Jesus would be before his generation of Christians completely died off.

Because for every human living on earth at any time, the end is as quick as they come. The Kingdom of God is always equally near, and repentance is always equally urgent. "The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever" (1 John 2:17).

So basically God deceived people into thinking the "end is near" because he wants people to THINK the end is near so they can repent? Just making sure I have it straight.

Surely, only by the words "this is the last hour[/i]" you should be able to infer that he wasn't checking his sundial?

I'm not claiming "John" was being completely literal. But words should have meaning. "last hour", "end of all things is at hand", "last days", "coming quickly" etc have to mean something. I could list the verses, but I will ask, do I need to? Do you admit that the general tenor of the NT is that Jesus was to return soon, as in within a generation or so? If in reality the "last hour" is almost 2000 years or more, then maybe a "day with the Lord" isn't a thousand years, maybe it's 48000 years. Maybe it's like the 4 million something years in a "day of Brahma". I also have to ask, why would a loving God not make it clear? Why does Paul say things which are "difficult to understand?" Why does Jesus speak in parables so people won't understand? Is Christianity a test of intelligence, that one who isn't bright enough to fit the Biblical jigsaw puzzle together gets hell as payment? And if "last hour" can mean almost 2000 years or more in "God's eyes", then maybe the "eternity" in heaven really is only just a really long time which humans perceive as eternity.

If you wish.

This is why I think you either don't especially care about others going to hell, or don't believe it's as serious as Christians have throughout history. If you don't consider hell the most morbid, horrible thing anyone has ever thought of, tell me something more morbid and horrible. Can you think of one? Do you really think that Christianity has taught that only the "bad" go to hell? No. Non-Christians go to hell. Your agnostic friends who you personally like, if they don't eventually "repent and believe in Jesus", are going to hell. That's "historic" Christianity. When you admit to this, then maybe you'll see how morbid hell really is.

Do you have any reason to believe in such a form of "destruction"? You want God to create it - for whose benefit? You won't accept even a moment in hell from Him. What you're really looking for is justification for unbelief, and you won't get it.

For the simple reason that you don't accept anyone burning people to death as punishment today. Or do you? Do you think if one accidently drives 5 mph over the speed limit, the punishment should be for that one to be burnt at the stake? When you realize how revolting hell REALLY is, then you might not merely just think of it as abstract punishment. No, it's not necessarily PUNISHMENT that I have a problem with. It's, once again, hell. Picture your agnostic friends who you personally like being burnt at the stake. Revolting, ain't it? But at least with a burning at the stake, one feels excruciating pain for a relatively short time. So that's a blessing compared to what your "loving, just" God supposedly doles out for an eternity. Yes, I find substantial reason for unbelief in an alleged eternal torturing god. That's a similar reason why I don't believe in Islam. Or even Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist/Zoroastrian/Jain hells. Of course, you can say, "What you want to believe does not change reality." I agree.

They need not be. I don't use them as such. No, I say their existence forces you to decide, however much you resent the decision.

Which seems to contradict your declaration that they such "excellent" psychological tools. I've never met anyone who let (or admitted to letting) fear of hell or expectation of heaven motivate their day to day decisions. Not before everything else had been considered, anyway.

Maybe a lot of people nowadays don't really consider heaven and hell. But, historically they've been excellent psychological tools. I didn't say they convince everyone. You may not know people who admit to letting heaven and hell motivate their daily lives, but I'm willing to bet you many Christians, Muslims and other religious people who believe in eternal or long lasting hells and believe in heaven or moshka or whatever, those things DO motivate them in their daily lives.

What punishment would you consider "enough"? What will make up for Hitler or Stalin's deeds, so that justice will be finally and ideally served?

What could possibly make up for their deeds? Their eternal tortures wouldn't make up for their crimes either, would they? So why would God do that to them? Though like I said before, if God wanted to make Hitler and Stalin die millions of times, in the manner they were responsible for the many who were murdered, how can I really complain? Gruesome? Sure. But "infinitely" less gruesome than an eternal hell. And you proclaim the need for "justice" as if it's some strict entity which must be appeased, but then you have to admit that if Hitler or Stalin "repented" and "believed in Jesus" before they died, they are in heaven right now. You think that makes "justice finally and ideally served?" You think by Jesus' death that paid for everything Hitler or Stalin did if they "repented and believed in Jesus" before they died? How does believing in Jesus repay their victims' families? It doesn't, does it? How does "strict justice" have anything to do with vicarious atonement? A murderer about to have his life taken from him by the death penalty can't have that sentence taken away by someone who hasn't committed murder taking his place in the gas chamber or whatever method is used.

How does Hitler and Stalin (by believing in Jesus) pay back the families of the people Hitler and Stalin had murdered? They don't, do they? They still owe them, don't they? So how does believing in Jesus' vicarious atonement pay back the "sin debt" they owed those people? One could make the argument that Jesus paid a sin debt to God, but what about a sin debt to man? In Christianity you can "sin against a brother", can't you? Sin isn't only against God, is it? Didn't Jesus say if your brother sins against you 70x7 times, forgive him? What happened to the "strict justice" for the victims' families? Hitler's and Stalin's deaths didn't appease "strict justice", did it? And never will it be appeased, because even with Hitler and Stalin's eternal tortures, those victims' families will never be paid back by Hitler and Stalin, will they? So why does God need to eternally torture again, considering "strict justice" isn't appeased by their eternal tortures? I'd think that in order to "work off" some of their "sin debt" to their victims, Hitler and Stalin should be the personal slaves of their victims. That sounds like a better form of "justice" to me than eternal hell. How does Hitler and Stalin being in an eternal hell help pay back their "sin debt" to their victims?

You keep on talking about justice like it's a strict entity which must be appeased, but how can justice be appeased by a vicarious atonement? If you owe someone $40, you owe someone $40, and you must pay them back $40 (according to strict justice). You can't go to a judge and say, "Jesus paid this debt for me, so I don't owe $40". You can't go to a judge and say, "I slaughtered this chicken as a sacrifice to a god, so I don't owe $40." Just what do you REALLY mean when you say "justice"?

As for religion, it can be communal, or it can be divisive. I don't think all religion is bad. But when some missionary religion wants to destroy all cultures which don't conform to its religion, that can be divisive. Not that I think all cultures are great. If the Aztecs really did as history records, they had human sacrifices. Of course, to the Aztecs, they were necessary to appease the god(s) and to keep the universe going. But to burn basically all their books? I don't know about that. Of course, yes, "this is my subjective opinion", I don't have an alleged "Word of God" to fall back on for an objective morality.

 

[Jenyar]

This is an interpretation I don't especially recall hearing or seeing before. A problem I have with it is if Paul is merely saying "We who have eternal life and remain with Christ", why does he contrast "We who are alive and remain" with "the dead in Christ"? Even if I read it with your words, "We who have eternal life and remain with Christ unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede those who have fallen asleep"-that would mean "We who are Christians and remain Christians unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede those who have fallen asleep." Even with your words, it would still mean the "we who are alive and remain" have to literally be alive and remaining, otherwise, there is no real distinction between "we who are alive and remain" and "those who have fallen asleep".

Ah! I think you've hit the nail on the head: they're not any different. Those who are alive (on this earth) are just as "dead" as those who have fallen "asleep in Christ", and have the same hope and expectation ("will not precede them") of Christ's return.

If all the people Paul was referring to by "we who are alive and remain", including himself, ended up dying, then they THEMSELVES became the "dead in Christ", and there ended up being no real distinction between "WE who ARE ALIVE and REMAIN" and the "dead in Christ".

No, he refers specifically to their hope, which is not bound to whether they are still alive or dead. Paul, believing in the immediacy of Christ's imminant return, might have expected that some of them would still be alive, but that was hardly his point. If I were to preach "the Kingdom of God is near", and some of the people I were talking to were grieved about those who had died and might therefore not see it, I would comfort them in the same way: 'don't grieve for them, becaue we who are alive - even those of us who might remain alive until He comes - will not precede those who have already died.' We will not see anything they won't, and they don't have anything we won't have as well.

So basically God deceived people into thinking the "end is near" because he wants people to THINK the end is near so they can repent? Just making sure I have it straight.

You're only deceived if you believe you were deceived. With Jesus resurrection, the kingdom of God had come nearer than even death. Jesus would fetch us before death could lay any claim. It has not claim on our ives anymore.

You could die of a heart attack within the next minute, that's how near death is to you. God is nearer; His kingdom is closer. As close as the difference between breathing out and breathing in - whether it's your first or final breath doesn't matter.

I'm not claiming "John" was being completely literal. But words should have meaning. "last hour", "end of all things is at hand", "last days", "coming quickly" etc have to mean something. I could list the verses, but I will ask, do I need to? Do you admit that the general tenor of the NT is that Jesus was to return soon, as in within a generation or so? If in reality the "last hour" is almost 2000 years or more, then maybe a "day with the Lord" isn't a thousand years, maybe it's 48000 years. Maybe it's like the 4 million something years in a "day of Brahma". I also have to ask, why would a loving God not make it clear? Why does Paul say things which are "difficult to understand?" Why does Jesus speak in parables so people won't understand? Is Christianity a test of intelligence, that one who isn't bright enough to fit the Biblical jigsaw puzzle together gets hell as payment? And if "last hour" can mean almost 2000 years or more in "God's eyes", then maybe the "eternity" in heaven really is only just a really long time which humans perceive as eternity.

It's not so hard to understand, but you make it hard. You refuse to let it be simple. We've become so used to thinking in terms of thousands and billions of years that we can't appreciate any second of it. These people had no such grand concepts of time. To the Jews, the universe was about 4000 years old, their messiah had come, their prophesies had come true. Their enemies were upon them. The loving God made clear the one thing that needed to be clear above all else: "whatever happens, wherever or whenever you are, nothing can tear you from my hands". The things that are difficult to understand never interfere with the most important message, which is why Paul asked that we move beyond them. Patience and perseverence are the cornerstones of faith. But with faith, time dissolves into a non-issue.

You don't have to know when to know why. At least that much should be clear to you. Jesus made it abundantly clear that nobody would know when. Even if the parables tell you nothing else, they are clear about what that means.

This is why I think you either don't especially care about others going to hell, or don't believe it's as serious as Christians have throughout history. If you don't consider hell the most morbid, horrible thing anyone has ever thought of, tell me something more morbid and horrible. Can you think of one? Do you really think that Christianity has taught that only the "bad" go to hell? No. Non-Christians go to hell. Your agnostic friends who you personally like, if they don't eventually "repent and believe in Jesus", are going to hell. That's "historic" Christianity. When you admit to this, then maybe you'll see how morbid hell really is.

I think you are the morbid one here. You've simplified Christianity into the same monster that many Christians have made it - as if it provided salvation only for the righteous. As if hell was all there is, and God and salvation was built on it. As indeed they tried to build God's kingdom on the doctrine of hell. But that is not what Jesus said. as for "historic" Christianity - fortunately, some Christians made it through the Inquisitions alive. Christ came for all who would listen to him and accept him. You have no more reason or authority to pronounce who goes to hell and who doesn't than I have. By God's grace, I know what makes reconciliation with God possible, and what ensures it. Only God is "good" - by your calculations, everyone would go to hell. That is most certainly not true.

The question is, why take any chances? Why gamble your life in the hope that separation from God and life is more tolerable that it sounds?

If you're not afraid of it, why the argument against it? And if you are, why the argument against God? You have to choose what you believe, you can't sit on the fence forever.

For the simple reason that you don't accept anyone burning people to death as punishment today. Or do you? Do you think if one accidently drives 5 mph over the speed limit, the punishment should be for that one to be burnt at the stake?

Accidents don't ask questions and don't forgive. Whether it's 5 or 50 mph, you ignore the law at your own risk. The wages of sin was death, the atonement has been made. We believe in justice and forgiveness first, heaven and hell second. They are the expressions of God's promises to us. If you don't believe God will be just, then it's your theology we don't agree with, not mine.

When you realize how revolting hell REALLY is, then you might not merely just think of it as abstract punishment. No, it's not necessarily PUNISHMENT that I have a problem with. It's, once again, hell. Picture your agnostic friends who you personally like being burnt at the stake. Revolting, ain't it? But at least with a burning at the stake, one feels excruciating pain for a relatively short time. So that's a blessing compared to what your "loving, just" God supposedly doles out for an eternity.

God doles out love and justice. Justice does not make the destination of good and evil the same. Mercy does not replace justice. I picture Jesus burning at the stake, and thank God that He sees innocense when nobody else will. Isn't that what the crucifixion was about? Isn't that one of the things Jesus stands for?

Yes, I find substantial reason for unbelief in an alleged eternal torturing god. That's a similar reason why I don't believe in Islam. Or even Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist/Zoroastrian/Jain hells. Of course, you can say, "What you want to believe does not change reality." I agree.

What about the God of love? Do you believe in Him? He doesn't feature at all in your theology.

Maybe a lot of people nowadays don't really consider heaven and hell. But, historically they've been excellent psychological tools. I didn't say they convince everyone. You may not know people who admit to letting heaven and hell motivate their daily lives, but I'm willing to bet you many Christians, Muslims and other religious people who believe in eternal or long lasting hells and believe in heaven or moshka or whatever, those things DO motivate them in their daily lives.

Then they have very shallow and fearful spiritual lives, and in dire need of Jesus' message to them.

1 John 4:17-
In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
We love because he first loved us.​

What could possibly make up for their deeds? Their eternal tortures wouldn't make up for their crimes either, would they? So why would God do that to them? Though like I said before, if God wanted to make Hitler and Stalin die millions of times, in the manner they were responsible for the many who were murdered, how can I really complain? Gruesome? Sure. But "infinitely" less gruesome than an eternal hell.

A death. A second death. One penalty, not a million: One. Eternal. Death.

And you proclaim the need for "justice" as if it's some strict entity which must be appeased, but then you have to admit that if Hitler or Stalin "repented" and "believed in Jesus" before they died, they are in heaven right now.

Why do you think so? Would God have been compelled by their deeds to believe their words? Words are, in the end, just the pronounciation. Our lives are the commitment. Only God can change a person's heart, and if they had rejected God until their dying day, there was nothing left to change.

You think that makes "justice finally and ideally served?" You think by Jesus' death that paid for everything Hitler or Stalin did if they "repented and believed in Jesus" before they died? How does believing in Jesus repay their victims' families? It doesn't, does it? How does "strict justice" have anything to do with vicarious atonement? A murderer about to have his life taken from him by the death penalty can't have that sentence taken away by someone who hasn't committed murder taking his place in the gas chamber or whatever method is used.

Fortunately, God is not bound by the rules of linear causality. Every person pays for his own crimes. Their vicim's families have comfort that a) the criminals had been tried and b) their loved ones were vindicated and their lives returned to them.

And if the murderer has been found guilty, but the judge comes down to serve his sentence in his place - that man has the chance to change his life, can consider his "rehabilitation" to be completed (another popular argument against hell is that it doesn't offer rehabiliation). If he doesn't change his life, he has not received any forgiveness, and is considered unrepentant of his deeds.

In Christianity you can "sin against a brother", can't you? Sin isn't only against God, is it? Didn't Jesus say if your brother sins against you 70x7 times, forgive him? What happened to the "strict justice" for the victims' families? Hitler's and Stalin's deaths didn't appease "strict justice", did it? And never will it be appeased, because even with Hitler and Stalin's eternal tortures, those victims' families will never be paid back by Hitler and Stalin, will they?

If they are so sure that they themselves are so deserving of forgiveness, so innocent, that they can't forgive, then they might have their own lives to worry about. If they don't believe that their sons' deaths would be vindicated, then their grief will be all the greater. Jesus made it possible to forgive - for the same reason that Paul reminded people to have hope. Those who have died are no exempt from hope or guaranteed against judgement, but neither are the living. That's why God said, "do not take revenge, I will repay".

And do not forget: those who have lost homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, or children, will receive ten times as much. You are going out from the assumption that God cannot replace them. The thought of replacing someone special is only repugnant because we can't imagine it being possible. But God gave them to you in the first place, didn't He? You didn't earn them or create them yourself.

You keep on talking about justice like it's a strict entity which must be appeased, but how can justice be appeased by a vicarious atonement? If you owe someone $40, you owe someone $40, and you must pay them back $40 (according to strict justice). You can't go to a judge and say, "Jesus paid this debt for me, so I don't owe $40". You can't go to a judge and say, "I slaughtered this chicken as a sacrifice to a god, so I don't owe $40." Just what do you REALLY mean when you say "justice"?

God accepted sacrifice as payment out of love, the way a magistrate might accept animals from a poor rural community in stead of money. And God is the judge. Nobody forces Him to be just, it's pure love and mercy that He is.

 

[anonymous2]

You're only deceived if you believe you were deceived. With Jesus resurrection, the kingdom of God had come nearer than even death. Jesus would fetch us before death could lay any claim. It has not claim on our ives anymore.

You could die of a heart attack within the next minute, that's how near death is to you. God is nearer; His kingdom is closer. As close as the difference between breathing out and breathing in - whether it's your first or final breath doesn't matter.

So are you telling me that every reference which seems to imply that Jesus was to come within the lifetimes of the NT writers or close therein, all they ever meant was that "the end is near" in the sense that people can die at any moment? I don't buy that. The end MIGHT be near for me, but to say the end IS near is saying something specific. I could die of a heart attack within the next minute. But if you say I WILL die of a heart attack within the next minute, and I don't, then you were wrong in your prediction. I don't buy that the references to the expectation of Jesus' coming and the end of the world just meant that "Your life is uncertain, you can die at any moment." I believe that's a distortion.

You don't have to know when to know why. At least that much should be clear to you. Jesus made it abundantly clear that nobody would know when. Even if the parables tell you nothing else, they are clear about what that means.

You're right in that a specific date wasn't predicted. But are you honestly trying to tell me that every single reference to the end, such as "There are those who are standing here today who shall see the Kingdom of God", "You shall not go through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes", etc, all they ever meant was "You may die soon so you should repent?" If you are saying that, I believe that's dishonest. And yes, I know the explanation that "see the Kingdom of God" meant only the "transfiguration", but I don't buy it.

I think you are the morbid one here. You've simplified Christianity into the same monster that many Christians have made it - as if it provided salvation only for the righteous. As if hell was all there is, and God and salvation was built on it. As indeed they tried to build God's kingdom on the doctrine of hell. But that is not what Jesus said. as for "historic" Christianity - fortunately, some Christians made it through the Inquisitions alive. Christ came for all who would listen to him and accept him. You have no more reason or authority to pronounce who goes to hell and who doesn't than I have. By God's grace, I know what makes reconciliation with God possible, and what ensures it. Only God is "good" - by your calculations, everyone would go to hell. That is most certainly not true.

I didn't mean "bad" in the sense of "God is good. People are bad." I don't think most people, unless they're influenced by Christian thought, classify every single human being as "bad". "Evil" people is what I mean by "bad" people. Of course I have no authority to pronounce hell on people. I just find it fascinating that you hold out hope for your agnostic friends' salvations even if they never "believe in Jesus", when I assume you've told them about Jesus, right? Yet they still don't believe? And what if they don't believe for their whole lives? You think they can possibly in any way still get to heaven? A laudable view, which in my opinion shows that you have more compassion than how the Bible portrays God as having in some passages. I wonder how many arguments you could get from your fellow Christians against your view.

Yes, I agree my comments about Christianity were a simplification. The Bible also presents God as loving. But the problem is this: If I write a book which in some passages speak of God as loving, but then in some passages they speak of God as an eternal torturer, what would you make of it? Kind of like how if someone offered you a free vacation to the Bahamas, all expenses paid and then in the fine print said *If you accept this offer, you will have your organs harvested as payment*, what would you make of it? Would you just blithely accept the offer and think "Wow what a great offer?" You choose to focus on the passages which portray God is loving. That sounds good. But that doesn't negate those other passages which portray him otherwise. Because I refer to a concept of God that essentially exists in the Bible (that God's essentially an eternal torturer), that doesn't necessarily make me morbid. What am I saying that's different than what the Bible says? You said that the "lake of fire" is the "second death". You're right in that is how it's described. But "death" doesn't mean non-existence according to that view, does it? Isn't "the lake of fire", basically an eternity of pain, of death, as opposed to happiness and life? No, from what I can tell, I think the NT portrays only "believers in Jesus" being saved post Jesus. Could you show me where the NT portrays anyone being saved after Jesus had died who wasn't a believer in Jesus? Personally, I find it somewhat inclusive that you even entertain that such "post Jesus" non-Christians can be saved. I find that a bit more tolerable. Actually, there is a passage which could be construed as saying that all Jews go to heaven-"All Israel will be saved", and I think a couple passages which could be construed as "Universalist", but how do they overrule other statements that say or imply that if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to hell? Some Christians don't want to think of God as unjust, so they don't want to say "those who haven't heard" are necessarily in hell. But what is "just" to God? One can hold out that "God is just" and feel comfort in that, but given that the same Bible preaches hell to non-believers, maybe your idea of "just" isn't "God's idea" of just? But you seem to go even further than that. It interests me that you can even entertain the idea that your agnostic friends could even possibly get to heaven without converting. Sure, "with God all things are possible", but do you think that passage is applicable?You've never told them about Jesus? I assume you have. So they know about Jesus, right? Yet you still think it's possible they can be "saved" without "believing in Jesus"? If so, I will say, "interesting".

The question is, why take any chances? Why gamble your life in the hope that separation from God and life is more tolerable that it sounds?

If you're not afraid of it, why the argument against it? And if you are, why the argument against God? You have to choose what you believe, you can't sit on the fence forever.

We all take chances. You're "taking a chance" by believing that Allah is not God, or by believing that any other religious construct that exists isn't true which would put you in some sort of hell or reincarnated as a lower form of life. If you eat animals, some religious constructs do not look kindly upon that. I doubt that especially concerns you, does it? I doubt you especially care about or have even heard of a collection called "Evidential Miracles in Support of Daoism" (http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/daoist-scriptures/major-scriptures/pg3-2-49.asp). Or even if you accept this collection as accurate, you could simply say the miracles were "Satanic". And other religions can claim Christian miracles were inspired by an evil entity. The fact that the Bible tries to argue against this with its "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" warning doesn't necessarily make the argument true. By the way you live your life as a Christian, I doubt that necessarily puts you in a good position to other religious constructs. Pascal's Wager can be applied many religious constructs, not just Christianity.

And I have to ask, why would a truly loving God eternally punish someone who "gambled" and made the wrong choice? If that's called "love", it's a warped definition in my opinion.

I didn't say I wasn't "afraid of it [hell]". For all I know, there could be a hell. There could be virtually anything outside of my personal knowledge. There could be a vengeful, wrathful, "evil" deity up there who created us for his sadistic pleasure. There could be an eternal paradise for all us just waiting on the other side of death. God could be a loving God "up there" who is full of mercy, and just "itching" to show his children a blissful life in paradise. All I was saying is that I find the doctrine of hell intolerable, to explain why I don't believe in Christianity. Whether such a hell actually exists or not wasn't really my point.

Personally, I don't believe there's an eternal hell. But that's my belief and hope. I can't prove it. As for God, there could be a God. But if he exists, I don't believe he's an eternal torturer. Those are my beliefs.

What about the God of love? Do you believe in Him? He doesn't feature at all in your theology.

No. I don't believe in a God of love. Why should I? I don't see life itself as some blissful harmony. Life is full of destruction every second, pretty much, at least on the microscopic level, isn't it? And there's what the human eye can see. The food chain. Natural disasters. Sure, "life" comes from death, but why should it even be this way? If there's a God of love, why would he create or allow a system where there's mandatory, and sometimes even painful death, even if life can come from it? Why should I believe that there's a God of love when there are these things?

Now, would I LIKE there to be a God of love? Sure. That sounds awesome. To think that a God personally loves me? What could I say besides "Show me thy God?" Who wouldn't like thinking that such a God exists? Like I said, I used to think God exists and that he was basically "a good God". If I could reverse time and go back to that "child like faith" I used to have, in a sense, I might want to. Paul said love believes all things, didn't he? I might want to go back in time and "believe it all". But I can't reverse time.

Why do you think so? Would God have been compelled by their deeds to believe their words? Words are, in the end, just the pronounciation. Our lives are the commitment. Only God can change a person's heart, and if they had rejected God until their dying day, there was nothing left to change.

I'm saying that they could be in heaven, if they repented and were sincere. You can't really deny that the worse "sinner" in the world could have a change of heart on his/her death bed. So, at least in theory, this person can get heaven, right? "Is my eye envious because God's gracious"? Yeah. Why should the worker hired in the last hour get the same amount as the one who worked for the entire day? How couldn't someone be revolted by thinking many of those who Hitler and Stalin had murdered could be in hell, and think that Hitler and Stalin COULD, in theory, get heaven? Or even by thinking of a murderer who, say, murdered a non-Christian. And then that murderer repents and "finds Jesus". And there are people in prison for violent crimes who have "found Jesus", aren't there? The one murdered can get hell while the murderer can get heaven. Doesn't one's "sense of justice" find that revolting?

 

[robtex]

I didn't contend that anyone, including Joe, was the father of Jesus. I instead said that there were multiple theories within the Bible as to who the Dad was.

John1:45 says it is Joe
So does luke 3:23
and John 6:42


But than Matt 9:27
says it is David
as does

Matt20:30
Mark 10:47
Mark 12:35
LUke 18:39-39

We can play the Bible qoute game all day but it is very inconsistant as to who Jesus father is.

History however has been very consistant:


1) The combined churches which have poured vasts amount of resources in time and money have never been able to prove Jesus resurrection much less his ascention into heaven and membership in the trinity

2) Jesus never knew about Christanity and never mentioned it which makes no sense if he was to be the man who was to start this new religion despite his omnipotence as a member of the trinity

3) He instead embraced Judism which Christians say have broken God's convent but yet Jesus was one (meaning he would have to break God's covent to but he is God?).

4) No evidence of his presence as anything other than a man on this earth has ever been discovered despite the fact that this would have been the greatest thing man would have ever witnessed. (except in the Bible)

 

[Jenyar]

I didn't contend that anyone, including Joe, was the father of Jesus. I instead said that there were multiple theories within the Bible as to who the Dad was.

Maybe there are, but not in the Bible.

John1:45 says it is Joe
So does luke 3:23
and John 6:42

But than Matt 9:27
says it is David
as does

Matt20:30
Mark 10:47
Mark 12:35
LUke 18:39-39

We can play the Bible qoute game all day but it is very inconsistant as to who Jesus father is.

Oh dear. It seems I misjudged your level of ignorance completely. How much do you know about the nuances that "son of" (or "ben") contain? I think before we continue this discussion you should do some homework: JewishEncyclopedia: Abba.

Joseph was the supposed biological father of Jesus. Think of him as Jesus' adopted father. His real Father is our adoptive father. David is the messiah's spiritual father - the one through whom his "seed" was reckoned. "Son of David" is a messianic title. So is "Son of man". We know from the Talmud and elsewhere that all Jews regard Abraham as their father.

History however has been very consistant:

1) The combined churches which have poured vasts amount of resources in time and money have never been able to prove Jesus resurrection much less his ascention into heaven and membership in the trinity

What would proof of an ascention or resurrection look like?

2) Jesus never knew about Christanity and never mentioned it which makes no sense if he was to be the man who was to start this new religion despite his omnipotence as a member of the trinity

How do you understand the words "follow me"?

3) He instead embraced Judism which Christians say have broken God's convent but yet Jesus was one (meaning he would have to break God's covent to but he is God?).

The covenant (promise) was not broken, but fulfilled by Jesus. In other words, God delivered on his promises. God himself said Israel had broken his covenant with them:

Hosea 8:1-
"Put the trumpet to your lips!
An eagle is over the house of the LORD
because the people have broken my covenant
and rebelled against my law.
Israel cries out to me,
'O our God, we acknowledge you!'
But Israel has rejected what is good;​

But look at line 4: "and rebelled against my law". That's what's called "being a sinner". It's not just Israel who needs grace and forgiveness, is it?

4) No evidence of his presence as anything other than a man on this earth has ever been discovered despite the fact that this would have been the greatest thing man would have ever witnessed. (except in the Bible)

LOL. I know why you added "except in the Bible" - because that was written by everybody to whom there was evidence. Jesus wasn't Alexander the Great, or Nebuchadnezzar, King of the Babylonian Empire, or Julius Caesar. Jesus' face wouldn't appear on coins or vases, his name would not be inscribed on lintels and doorposts. He established no earthly kingdom and overthrew no earthly force. Which is the only reasons most people could find to remember a name or carve a statue. That was what the Jews really wanted. Eternal life could wait, but the Romans were an immediate threat to them and the temple. The Sadducees never outlived the destruction of the temple.

No, as anonymous2 saw, Jesus' followers believed they were a select few, the last remnants of those who would be saved. Jesus' only legacy was the people he touched. But after their messiah had ascended to heaven, they had no more reason to believe the mighty Roman empire would be overthrown him personally. It was a sign that they lived at the end of times. The earthly forces had prevailed on earth, they thought. But when it became clear that the end wasn't to come in their lifetimes, they had to begin making sure that their testimonies would outlive them. Things that were only whispered among Christians until then had to be written down. When it was clear that the apostles and those who knew Jesus would not be around for much longer to check their faith against, it became much more urgent to write the gospels down. Until then, Paul's epistles to the churches were enough to keep them going. They eventually outlived the Roman Empire, and many others who aimed to "rule the world".

But why would anybody else want to remember this man? They didn't even accept him when he walked among them. To those who didn't believe in God or would admit their sins, Jesus accomplished nothing. For them, He was evidence of nothing, and He proved nothing. But for Christ's followers, making images of him or venerating him with a shrine or statues or temples, would be idolatry and contrary to everything He taught.

The only people in a position to create some lasting "evidence" of his life on earth would die before they did. I doubt they would even have taken pictures if they had cameras.

 

[Jenyar]

So are you telling me that every reference which seems to imply that Jesus was to come within the lifetimes of the NT writers or close therein, all they ever meant was that "the end is near" in the sense that people can die at any moment? I don't buy that. The end MIGHT be near for me, but to say the end IS near is saying something specific. I could die of a heart attack within the next minute. But if you say I WILL die of a heart attack within the next minute, and I don't, then you were wrong in your prediction. I don't buy that the references to the expectation of Jesus' coming and the end of the world just meant that "Your life is uncertain, you can die at any moment." I believe that's a distortion.

If that's what he said, maybe. But analogies aside: the Kingdom of God had never come nearer than Jesus. The decisions to be made were never more urgent. Not only WILL you be judged by Him, but by your rejection of Him you ARE judged. What Paul preached with "the end is near" is not a specific time (Jesus had excluded that possibility), but a specific relationship between times, some kind of causality of events. They were reading the signs, and everything indicated that the world as they knew it was coming to an end. They weren't trying to distort the fact - those were the facts. To them the apocalypse Jesus predicted to their generation (Matt.24:34) happened when Jerusalem burned and the temple was reduced to rubble.

1 Cor 10:11
These things [in Israel's history] happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.​

So the issue wasn't the time, but the immediacy; the past was a preparation for the present, and the present is now. It wasn't when to expect Jesus, but that we should expect Him - and what "expectance" meant (2 Peter 3:10-13).

You're right in that a specific date wasn't predicted. But are you honestly trying to tell me that every single reference to the end, such as "There are those who are standing here today who shall see the Kingdom of God", "You shall not go through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes", etc, all they ever meant was "You may die soon so you should repent?" If you are saying that, I believe that's dishonest. And yes, I know the explanation that "see the Kingdom of God" meant only the "transfiguration", but I don't buy it.

In the first place, you can't categorize all those references under the same heading. You make assumptions about what "end" is referred to, what it means to "see the Kingdom of God". But there is more at play. "You shall not go through the cities of Israel..." (Matt. 10) refers to the mission to Israel (v.6), but it is paralelled in Matthew 24, where "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (v.14).

Matt.24:6- You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.​

Doesn't sound so near now, does it? Maybe it was in the light of these words of Jesus that Paul saw the end so clearly. But Jesus saw his life and resurrection as first foundation of this kingdom. If He didn't, why would He have to warn against false Christ's - other people claiming 'the end is near'? Why establish a church, if the "rock" He was talking about would only last one lifetime?

When you see a kingdom rise beneath your feet, it can hardly be much nearer. And why can't the transfiguration be what Jesus was talking about? It was after all, a window into this Kingdom - two witnesses to it, the Law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah) - with Jesus at the centre of it (in brilliant white). But the Kingdom is not "only" that. Many people who were with Jesus were indeed alive when the foundations were layed: at the crucifixion and resurrection.

1 Cor. 3:11-
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.​

Also see 1 Tim. 6, where Christians are urged to build "a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." Once again, it is a matter of immediate repentance and hope vs. immediate gratification and reward.

I could refer you to Christian thinktank to get a further appreciation of the issues involved.

I didn't mean "bad" in the sense of "God is good. People are bad." I don't think most people, unless they're influenced by Christian thought, classify every single human being as "bad". "Evil" people is what I mean by "bad" people. Of course I have no authority to pronounce hell on people. I just find it fascinating that you hold out hope for your agnostic friends' salvations even if they never "believe in Jesus", when I assume you've told them about Jesus, right? Yet they still don't believe? And what if they don't believe for their whole lives? You think they can possibly in any way still get to heaven? A laudable view, which in my opinion shows that you have more compassion than how the Bible portrays God as having in some passages. I wonder how many arguments you could get from your fellow Christians against your view.

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.​

That's all I have to hold on to. I cannot give anybody any more hope that that, however much I would like them to have it.

The fact is that if things would have wound up fine for everybody anyway, Jesus would not have been necessary. But that assumes that everybody has automatically been justified, and that good and bad are on different sides of the human condition. They aren't. Good and bad, as we have it, are both on the same side: good people can reject their salvation as much as bad people. We are saved by the skin of our backsides as it is.

I'm just not as quick as many to decide who has rejected the Son, and who hasn't. Or so doubtful about my role in their lives.

Yes, I agree my comments about Christianity were a simplification. The Bible also presents God as loving. But the problem is this: If I write a book which in some passages speak of God as loving, but then in some passages they speak of God as an eternal torturer, what would you make of it? Kind of like how if someone offered you a free vacation to the Bahamas, all expenses paid and then in the fine print said *If you accept this offer, you will have your organs harvested as payment*, what would you make of it? Would you just blithely accept the offer and think "Wow what a great offer?" You choose to focus on the passages which portray God is loving. That sounds good. But that doesn't negate those other passages which portray him otherwise. Because I refer to a concept of God that essentially exists in the Bible (that God's essentially an eternal torturer), that doesn't necessarily make me morbid. What am I saying that's different than what the Bible says? You said that the "lake of fire" is the "second death". You're right in that is how it's described. But "death" doesn't mean non-existence according to that view, does it? Isn't "the lake of fire", basically an eternity of pain, of death, as opposed to happiness and life? No, from what I can tell, I think the NT portrays only "believers in Jesus" being saved post Jesus. Could you show me where the NT portrays anyone being saved after Jesus had died who wasn't a believer in Jesus? Personally, I find it somewhat inclusive that you even entertain that such "post Jesus" non-Christians can be saved. I find that a bit more tolerable. Actually, there is a passage which could be construed as saying that all Jews go to heaven-"All Israel will be saved", and I think a couple passages which could be construed as "Universalist", but how do they overrule other statements that say or imply that if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to hell? Some Christians don't want to think of God as unjust, so they don't want to say "those who haven't heard" are necessarily in hell. But what is "just" to God? One can hold out that "God is just" and feel comfort in that, but given that the same Bible preaches hell to non-believers, maybe your idea of "just" isn't "God's idea" of just? But you seem to go even further than that. It interests me that you can even entertain the idea that your agnostic friends could even possibly get to heaven without converting. Sure, "with God all things are possible", but do you think that passage is applicable?You've never told them about Jesus? I assume you have. So they know about Jesus, right? Yet you still think it's possible they can be "saved" without "believing in Jesus"? If so, I will say, "interesting".

No, they cannot be saved without Jesus - He is the means of all salvation. But you're still arguing from righteousness, as if we are all by default sinless and start out in a relationship with God, where He could be merciful or not, just or not. The fact is that we don't. Humanity forfeited life with God already with Adam, and it was only grace that He continued to save those who turn to Him. It has always been only grace. We can't make a case for ourselves anymore, because we don't have a case. The situation is much more desperate than you realize, and we're far more dependent on God than you will accept. Completely dependent on God, in fact.

If "being lost" wasn't all that bad, salvation would have been just another option hiding among the many wonderful things life has to offer. But God has already went far beyond what reason or justice could dictate. He went out on a limb to give us the chance to accept Him; Any torment we incur in hell would be completely our own doing. And there is another condemning factor: temptation away from God. If you find any alternative more desireable than eternal life, than living in the Kingom God prepared, you can be sure that it's a mirage. Satan has coated the edges of death with such sweet attractions... and I have a feeling that non-existence as you imagine it is just another manifestation of these "alternatives". Anything as long as it doesn't have to be God, right?

There is no justified reason to call God a torturer. If hell was God's domain, it would have been called God's kingdom instead. If you walk into a self-perpetuating torture chamber with your eyes open, you're the only one who's a "torturer".

We all take chances. You're "taking a chance" by believing that Allah is not God, or by believing that any other religious construct that exists isn't true which would put you in some sort of hell or reincarnated as a lower form of life. If you eat animals, some religious constructs do not look kindly upon that. I doubt that especially concerns you, does it? I doubt you especially care about or have even heard of a collection called "Evidential Miracles in Support of Daoism" (http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/daoist-scriptures/major-scriptures/pg3-2-49.asp). Or even if you accept this collection as accurate, you could simply say the miracles were "Satanic". And other religions can claim Christian miracles were inspired by an evil entity. The fact that the Bible tries to argue against this with its "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" warning doesn't necessarily make the argument true. By the way you live your life as a Christian, I doubt that necessarily puts you in a good position to other religious constructs. Pascal's Wager can be applied many religious constructs, not just Christianity.

Why do you think God doesn't use miracles to convince people? They're not convincing except to those who see them and appreciate their significance. On their own they point to nothing. The only sign God gave our generation is Jonah - the baptism of repentance. In Jesus' case, his miracles supported his claims and God's promises. They demonstrated the faith. I don't mind I Allah is God, He loved me. All other religious construct rely on the fear of hell, whatever their version of it looks like. Some, again, don't sound so bad - like reincarnation, until you've worked off your debt. I would go along with any of these, if I hadn't experienced God's grace already. There is no karma left to work off, no sin left to forgive, no dietary or sacrificial practise left to be performed. There is nothing left but love in service to God. All myths, religions and desires culminate in death, and death was conquered.

Name one, just one, other God that promised forgiveness and unconditional love - and delivered.

And I have to ask, why would a truly loving God eternally punish someone who "gambled" and made the wrong choice? If that's called "love", it's a warped definition in my opinion.

You can go on substituting words for "rejecting God" until you're blue in the face, it won't make a difference. Belief in God is not a gamble, it's a sure thing. The only gamble is that it isn't a sure thing, that there are viable alternatives. I don't believe in Jesus because I hope I got it right, "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are 'Yes' in Christ" (2 Cor. 1:20). Nothing can to be added ot subtracted from that.

I didn't say I wasn't "afraid of it [hell]". For all I know, there could be a hell. There could be virtually anything outside of my personal knowledge. There could be a vengeful, wrathful, "evil" deity up there who created us for his sadistic pleasure. There could be an eternal paradise for all us just waiting on the other side of death. God could be a loving God "up there" who is full of mercy, and just "itching" to show his children a blissful life in paradise. All I was saying is that I find the doctrine of hell intolerable, to explain why I don't believe in Christianity. Whether such a hell actually exists or not wasn't really my point.

Let me get your argument straight. You assume hell, then imagine a hypothetical strawman God who "would create such a place", all to justify your non-belief? Let's see how Satan did it:
"let's assume God was a liar, then you could eat from this tree and surely won't die", and lo and behold, they did not die. But they did not prove God a liar either. They just tried to justify their disobedience that way. Was Satan right? Did God lie about the reality of death - eternal death? Is our short existence in this world enough evidence to build our case, to prove God wrong and justify ourselves? As if we're so sure He wouldn't preserve our lives if we just repented and obeyed Him for once.

Personally, I don't believe there's an eternal hell. But that's my belief and hope. I can't prove it. As for God, there could be a God. But if he exists, I don't believe he's an eternal torturer. Those are my beliefs.

You're sure there isn't a hell, whether God exists or not. Don't you that all your arguments proceed from that premise? You've practically guaranteed yourself that you'd never have to believe in God, no matter what He does. Or did.

No. I don't believe in a God of love. Why should I? I don't see life itself as some blissful harmony. Life is full of destruction every second, pretty much, at least on the microscopic level, isn't it? And there's what the human eye can see. The food chain. Natural disasters. Sure, "life" comes from death, but why should it even be this way? If there's a God of love, why would he create or allow a system where there's mandatory, and sometimes even painful death, even if life can come from it? Why should I believe that there's a God of love when there are these things?

I think here we get to the crux of it. You already believe in hell, but you can't accept that it exists - even in limited form as hinted at here on earth. You've confused "life" with "God", and found neither acceptible. But God didn't create this for us, He didn't have this in mind for us. He made Eden and put us in it, and we succesfully brought every evil we could imagine into it, including our idols. Idols are gods that promise blissful life if you're good, or eternal hell if you're bad, and medioctrity if you're mediocre. They start out as ideals of us, but eventually they end up being us at our worst. They cannot save, forgive or love. To a child without its parents, even the most user-friendly house would seem like a haunted mansion full of dangers - as indeed many things that were meant for certain uses would be in the wrong hands. Pain has an immensely important role in our lives. Let a doctor describe to you the hell of a leprosy community, where pain cannot be felt (Book: Pain: The Gift Nobody Wants.

If suffering was proof that God didn't love, then why isn't love proof that He does? It's not an accurate measure.

Death was never meant to affect us the way it does. It was the means to germinate the seed God planted with our lives on earth. It might have helped the sun burn, given compost to the earth, helped new things grow. But it would never have threatened us as it does even we hadn't lost sight of God. Those who die with life "will not see decay".

Now, would I LIKE there to be a God of love? Sure. That sounds awesome. To think that a God personally loves me? What could I say besides "Show me thy God?" Who wouldn't like thinking that such a God exists? Like I said, I used to think God exists and that he was basically "a good God". If I could reverse time and go back to that "child like faith" I used to have, in a sense, I might want to. Paul said love believes all things, didn't he? I might want to go back in time and "believe it all". But I can't reverse time.

How did you start believing in pain and suffering, then? What made you lose hope that it wasn't all there is?

I'm saying that they could be in heaven, if they repented and were sincere. You can't really deny that the worse "sinner" in the world could have a change of heart on his/her death bed. So, at least in theory, this person can get heaven, right? "Is my eye envious because God's gracious"? Yeah. Why should the worker hired in the last hour get the same amount as the one who worked for the entire day? How couldn't someone be revolted by thinking many of those who Hitler and Stalin had murdered could be in hell, and think that Hitler and Stalin COULD, in theory, get heaven? Or even by thinking of a murderer who, say, murdered a non-Christian. And then that murderer repents and "finds Jesus". And there are people in prison for violent crimes who have "found Jesus", aren't there? The one murdered can get hell while the murderer can get heaven. Doesn't one's "sense of justice" find that revolting?

It's because the only hope of murderer and victim, sinner or saint, lies with God. Our 'sense of justice' finds anything we're jealous of, "unjust". A historian once wrote, "each man calls barbarism that which is not his own practice". In other words: it assumes your judgment is right.

Whether a person has served 10 days in prison and then died, or 25 years in prison before he died, we must still call it a life sentence and be satisfied. We put murderers in prison and comfort survivors, but we can never really restore anything. Did Hitler escape a life sentence by taking his own life, or did his suicide satisfy what justice would have demanded anyway? Think about that.

Your doctrine of hell relies on the premise that some people have no hope. I tell you that everyone has hope. That once you've lost hope, you've already tasted the first hint of what hell must be like. Just like anywhere else without God.

 

[anonymous2]

If that's what he said, maybe. But analogies aside: the Kingdom of God had never come nearer than Jesus. The decisions to be made were never more urgent. Not only WILL you be judged by Him, but by your rejection of Him you ARE judged. What Paul preached with "the end is near" is not a specific time (Jesus had excluded that possibility), but a specific relationship between times, some kind of causality of events. They were reading the signs, and everything indicated that the world as they knew it was coming to an end. They weren't trying to distort the fact - those were the facts. To them the apocalypse Jesus predicted to their generation (Matt.24:34) happened when Jerusalem burned and the temple was reduced to rubble.

He said he didn't know the day or hour, but that doesn't mean the *general* idea in the NT is that the end wasn't going to be soon, as in human time. You pretty much agree with me when you say this in your prior post:

No, as anonymous2 saw, Jesus' followers believed they were a select few, the last remnants of those who would be saved. Jesus' only legacy was the people he touched. But after their messiah had ascended to heaven, they had no more reason to believe the mighty Roman empire would be overthrown him personally. It was a sign that they lived at the end of times. The earthly forces had prevailed on earth, they thought.

But then you go on to say that the NT authors believed the end wasn't to be in their lifetimes by writing their books. I'm not sure about that. The*general* expectation of the NT was that Jesus was to come soon. Not almost 2000 years or more.

Also, from what I recall of the passage in Matthew 24, Jesus was warning about false, secretive Christs who would have people say about them, "go here, he's in a secret place" or whatever. I don't deny that there were things portrayed in the NT in certain passages which were supposed to happen before the "end", but those things still could have been expected to happen within the lifetimes of Jesus' disciples or thereabout. Jesus was saying that his coming would be known, not secretive. That doesn't imply that it'd be almost 2000 years in the future or more.

And what were the NT authors ideas of "all the nations"? Can you show me any evidence they were aware of any nations outside of the Roman Empire and its general environs? Paul seems to have pretty much said the "gospel" had *already* been preached to the "whole world".

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." (Romans 10:17,18, RSV)

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Col 1:23, KJV)

And there are these passages:

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. (Romans 1:8, KJV)

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25,26, KJV)

What? The Christians' faith is spoken of throughout the "whole world"? The "gospel" was made manifest, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to "all nations"? The Roman Empire is being referred to as far I can can tell. I see little reason to think that the NT authors even had any IDEA there was anything else besides the Roman Empire. And if they did, what else were the NT authors aware of besides maybe Persia, India, Ethiopia? The point is the "whole world", that being the known world, was smaller back then.

Do you have any evidence that the NT authors were aware of China? The "new world"? Australia? Sub-Saharan Africa? Indonesia? Why do you think they thought that the "whole world" couldn't have been preached to in a lifetime? I'm not talking about to every single individual. If that's what you think by "whole world", then I question when Christianity will ever preach its message to every single person who ever exists on earth. People can die young.

These things [in Israel's history] happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.[/indent]
So the issue wasn't the time, but the immediacy; the past was a preparation for the present, and the present is now. It wasn't when to expect Jesus, but that we should expect Him - and what "expectance" meant (2 Peter 3:10-13).

I don't believe 2nd Peter 3 overrides the rest of the passages which imply Jesus would come back within the lifetime of the NT authors or thereabouts.

In the first place, you can't categorize all those references under the same heading. You make assumptions about what "end" is referred to, what it means to "see the Kingdom of God". But there is more at play. "You shall not go through the cities of Israel..." (Matt. 10) refers to the mission to Israel (v.6), but it is paralelled in Matthew 24, where "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (v.14).

Matt.24:6- You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.​

Doesn't sound so near now, does it? Maybe it was in the light of these words of Jesus that Paul saw the end so clearly. But Jesus saw his life and resurrection as first foundation of this kingdom. If He didn't, why would He have to warn against false Christ's - other people claiming 'the end is near'? Why establish a church, if the "rock" He was talking about would only last one lifetime?

This is pretty much why I question why God didn't make it all clear. "End" does not mean end of the world. This doesn't mean that. Why be obscure? Just say it. In clear language which everyone, even a child will understand. Be perfectly clear if you're an allegedly loving God. Why teach in parables SO that people won't understand, and in doing so will be eternally damned? That is not anyone's definition of "loving" unless they have sick minds. The bottom line is that that passage about Israel implies that Jesus would return before the disciples went through all the cities of Israel. I know that Christians have "explanations" for "them all". I'm not interested in them. I've already read enough Christian rationalizations. They're designed to validate the Bible at any cost and pretty much to preserve the doctrines of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

Also, read what you quoted about a testimony or witness to all nations. Notice it doesn't say that the gospel would be preached to every single invidual in the whole world, but as a witness or testimony to all nations. What more is really implied here besides a general preaching to a nation? Why do you think this couldn't have all been accomplished within the lifetime of the disciples or thereabout? There's little reason, to me, to think that the disciples were thinking of much outside of the Roman empire and its environs when they said "all nations". If you can show me that they knew of nations outside of that, I'd like to see it. And if taken literally, the gospel has already been preached to every nation which existed in the disciples minds, in my opinion, pretty much. I mean, new nations can sprout up. Are those considered too? Even in Muslim countries where they have laws against conversion of Muslims to another religion, in some of them there are Christians and I doubt they always keep their mouths shut about Jesus. In the past, "the gospel" was allowed in the Arabian pennisula, pre-Muhammad, wasn't it? So it was already preached there, wasn't it? And Christianity even reached the Persian/Sassanian empire or whatever it was then and India. Christians have a tradition that Thomas went to India in the first century. So where is there room left to think that the gospel hadn't already been preached as a witness "all the nations?" Just where else was it to go in the disciples minds? China, Sub-Sarahan Africa, the "new world", Australia, Indonesia? Show me that they knew there was a China. Or even that there was any place outside of the Roman Empire and general environs, really. Sometimes when the NT refers to the world, all it appeared to mean was the Roman Empire pretty much.

Look, I didn't say that the NT had absolutely no reference to a possibility that Jesus' return was to be generations away. After all, look at 2nd Peter 3. But if you notice in Matthew 24, Jesus is speaking to YOU, when YOU see all these things, not "when people almost two thousand years or more in the future see all these things", but YOU. And who were the "YOU?" referred to in this passage? Jesus' disciples. Not Christians almost 2000 years later or more. Stars were supposed to fall from the sky "immediately after those days" (which I'm guessing referred to the attacking of Jerusalem by the Romans? And "stars" can't fall from the sky, "shooting stars" aren't stars, they're meteors [meteorites?]). Look at 1 John 2:18:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Nothing to hint of almost 2000 years or more there, right? Even then there were antichrists. And even then in the NT times there were "false Christs".

Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, I think these are two people mentioned in the book of Acts, and if you check out this website, it has a list of ancient messianic claimaints: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html#overview

And what exactly would be wrong with founding a church if it was to only last a lifetime, when that lifetime would be the last lifetime until the end of the world? The "church" is the "body of believers", basically, right? All the Christians whether the church in Corinth, or wherever, right? That doesn't at all imply anything really about how long this "church" should last. The "gates of hell" wouldn't stand against Jesus' church whether it lasted for 40 years and then the end came, or if it lasted a million years and then the end came. ALL it seems to be saying, to me, is that Jesus' church wouldn't die off from Satanic opposition. And since there are still Christians today, it's apparently true so far, unless one wants to say no true Christians still exist I guess. If there weren't Christians and if nobody kept on copying the books, putting them on the internet, etc, then the passage wouldn't exist unless it was quoted by antagonists or we dug it up like Manichaean writings have been dug up or whatever. Either way, Jesus' church defeats hell, doesn't it? Isn't that what the passage is trying to say, that Jesus' church defeats hell, or that it won't die off from Satanic opposition, instead of saying anything about how long it will actually last?

And there were "wars, rumors of wars", etc, during the NT times. Yes, obviously Matthew 24 is referring to something in the future, but how far in the future?

I could refer you to Christian thinktank to get a further appreciation of the issues involved.

I know about Glenn Miller's website. I'm not really interested in it. It's designed to validate the Bible and Christianity at any cost, in my opinion. The fact that people can come up with rationalizations to explain away the general NT expectation of Jesus' return in the lifetime of the NT authors-this just goes to show that people can do basically whatever necessary to preserve their religious beliefs. And Christians aren't really different in this regard than other religious groups. I mean, I can sit here right now and flatly say "All A is B" and then say "All A is not B" and I can try to explain away the two different statements and reconcile them by mental gymnastics. I'm not interested in tektonics.org, either.

The fact is that if things would have wound up fine for everybody anyway, Jesus would not have been necessary. But that assumes that everybody has automatically been justified, and that good and bad are on different sides of the human condition. They aren't. Good and bad, as we have it, are both on the same side: good people can reject their salvation as much as bad people. We are saved by the skin of our backsides as it is.

This is a difference in our positions. I don't think people necessarily need to be "justified". People are who they are, good and bad. Does that mean we should glorify the bad or ignore it? No. But Christianity takes the bad, and magnifies it beyond proportion, and ignores the good, when its deity examines the lives of men. After all, why would it say non-Christians go to hell if it didn't do exactly that? Ghandi? in hell. Murderer who repents and believes in Jesus? in heaven. And don't get me wrong. I find other religions also offensive in a similar regard. I don't believe that a just, loving God would torture you for eternity for being a Trinitarian as what it appears some believe Allah will. That you associate a mere man with God (in their view), Allah is that unforgiving? Your "shirk" is so horrible to him that he can't forgive you for your honest mistake? That's disgusting. And if you eat animals, do I think you should go to some million+ year hell? No. I mean, I agree that animals feel pain, and it's sad that some humans have a craving for animal flesh, but do I think a million+ years of torture is a fair payment for eating animals? No. Some religions tend to blow things out of proportion.

No, they cannot be saved without Jesus - He is the means of all salvation. But you're still arguing from righteousness, as if we are all by default sinless and start out in a relationship with God, where He could be merciful or not, just or not. The fact is that we don't. Humanity forfeited life with God already with Adam, and it was only grace that He continued to save those who turn to Him. It has always been only grace. We can't make a case for ourselves anymore, because we don't have a case. The situation is much more desperate than you realize, and we're far more dependent on God than you will accept. Completely dependent on God, in fact.

Do you have any proof that we're completely dependent on a deity? You can say that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power, but I can say that Atlas holds up the earth, and if you don't appease him, he'll drop it and we'll all fall to our deaths. Your idea that we all exist because of God's unmeritorious grace or if you're thinking that if he decided to withdraw it that we'd all dissolve or choke to death since there'd be no oxygen, or whatever is a fearful concept. But until you can prove it's reality, it's only a fearful concept. I could just as easily say that the god I worship has an axe over your head. He's ready to behead you if you don't do what I want. Scary, isn't it? Prove that your concept is REAL, not that it's merely scary.

No, that's not how I'm arguing. I'm arguing that people ARE sinful. They're also GOOD. They're both. You think a single sin warrants an eternity of punishment. Who in their right mind would think such a view? Anselm's "a sin against an infinite god is an infinite sin deserving of an infinite punishment", I do not at all buy it. It's just a nice correlation to try to justify a brutal, sick Christian theology. And if such a view were the case, then the most minor "sin" should be punished exactly the same in the Bible. The minor sin like the major. But even in the OT it's not punished that way. God does not immediately kill everyone who does the most minor sin, does he? Does the Law of Moses say, "If you steal, you shall be stoned"? No. And there are many other crimes which didn't get the death penalty. The OT God in general is ACTUALLY more loving than the NT one, cause at least with much of the OT, there was no concept of eternal torture. Yes, I know, you consider both "gods" as being the same God. The exacting "eye for an eye" God didn't necessarily follow you to the grave and beyond. You can't praise God in Sheol. Not that I'm saying every single OT reference never referred to existence in the afterlife. So I have no need for you to quote me a passage which implies an afterlife in the OT, so please don't waste your time. And if stealing $1 is the same in God's eyes as Hitler, Christians should think of it exactly how God thinks of it, shouldn't they? You steal $1? You should die. You are responsible for murdering millions of people? You should die. But Christians don't think this. Why? CAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S BULLSHIT! Nobody in their right mind thinks that way.

If "being lost" wasn't all that bad, salvation would have been just another option hiding among the many wonderful things life has to offer. But God has already went far beyond what reason or justice could dictate. He went out on a limb to give us the chance to accept Him; Any torment we incur in hell would be completely our own doing. And there is another condemning factor: temptation away from God. If you find any alternative more desireable than eternal life, than living in the Kingom God prepared, you can be sure that it's a mirage. Satan has coated the edges of death with such sweet attractions... and I have a feeling that non-existence as you imagine it is just another manifestation of these "alternatives". Anything as long as it doesn't have to be God, right?

Another convenient Christian viewpoint. "God's not torturing you, you're torturing yourself". Maybe Hitler wasn't torturing anyone, they were torturing themselves. Yep. Makes so much sense. What you say only makes sense if we assume that Christianity is true. And that God is really loving and fair and people who reject Christianity do it out of evil, spite, full well knowing they'll be tormented in an eternity which God did all he could to prevent (even though he created us and will send people there). Actually, we should think that everything that happens is the fault of humans, to be consistent with Christianity. You died in Auschwitz? That was your fault. Christianity tries to blame mankind for Christianity's own evil, sadistic god. IT ONLY MAKES SENSE IF ONE ALREADY ACCEPTS THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. And even then it doesn't REALLY make sense, because a "loving" God who is supposedly omniscient CREATED an eternal hell and CREATED mankind with eternal souls and FOREKNEW people would go to hell, many people who simply made the wrong theological choice. So he had PLENTY of choice to deal with mankind otherwise. You think a "just, loving" God should eternally torture people because they're not smart enough to make the correct theological choice? That's essentially Christianity though, isn't it? That's sick!

And as for "God", I don't have a problem with a *loving* God. In fact, in Christianity, Satan's actually the better character. At least he doesn't torment people for eternity. Show me the "loving God" and that'll interest me.

There is no justified reason to call God a torturer. If hell was God's domain, it would have been called God's kingdom instead. If you walk into a self-perpetuating torture chamber with your eyes open, you're the only one who's a "torturer".

I already gave you a justified reason for calling the Christian God an eternal torturer. Did he create hell? Yes. It says it was prepared for the devil and his angels. PREPARED! It's NOT merely "the absence of God", it's a CREATION of God. Get that through your head, please. Hell is God's creation as Heaven is. And yes, IF you WILLFULLY, and KNOWINGLY "walk into a self-perpetuating torture chamber with your eyes open, you're the only one who's a 'torturer'.", but the same rationale can be used to justify any hell. The Muslim hell. Why are you walking into a self-perpetuating torture chamber with your eyes open? All you need to do is accept Islam, and quit assocating another with God by worshipping the man Jesus. All you need to do is quit eating animals, and you can avoid the torture chamber. One can use similar arguments for other religions.

 

[anonymous2]

Why do you think God doesn't use miracles to convince people? They're not convincing except to those who see them and appreciate their significance. On their own they point to nothing. The only sign God gave our generation is Jonah - the baptism of repentance. In Jesus' case, his miracles supported his claims and God's promises. They demonstrated the faith. I don't mind I Allah is God, He loved me. All other religious construct rely on the fear of hell, whatever their version of it looks like. Some, again, don't sound so bad - like reincarnation, until you've worked off your debt. I would go along with any of these, if I hadn't experienced God's grace already. There is no karma left to work off, no sin left to forgive, no dietary or sacrificial practise left to be performed. There is nothing left but love in service to God. All myths, religions and desires culminate in death, and death was conquered.

We all still die. Some can even die painful deaths. You can believe death was conquered, but when we all still die, including yourself, your argument is unconvincing. And a resurrection claim is not only seen in the Bible. It exists in Hinduism and Taoism from what I've read. In Buddhism, one can use an evil power to reanimate a corpse. Personally, I'm not all that familiar with non-Christian religions, so I can't really easily cite you good sources, at least right now. But I personally doubt you'd even care if other religions had such a claim, cause I know you'd try to rip the claim to shreds, while holding onto your own religious claim as "historic truth". I don't care even IF the NT is "historically accurate" in 100% of its place names and character names. You know, Troy was supposedly discovered based on reading one of Homer's writings, but I highly doubt you accept Homer's writings and religious statements as competely historically accurate. Fictional novels can have historical aspects. And no, I'm not convinced that there were no such things as fictional novels around the time the NT was written. None of that is really convincing to me. Now, you can say that these "resurrections" were false, inaccurate, unreliable, unhistoric, Satanic, or whatever, but I can say the same thing of your religion. Doesn't the Bible say that the anti-Christ would, if possible, deceive even the elect, because of the miracles he does? Doesn't the Bible say that he has "all power"? I'm serious. Now you can say it doesn't really mean "all power", but whatever it's saying, it's saying he's one POWERFUL dude. And Revelation says the beast which was slain was resurrected. You can say it wasn't a real resurrection. I can say Jesus' resurrection wasn't real, that it was just an illusion, that an evil deity influenced the disciples into believing a lie. Prove to me he didn't. Prove to me that the God of the Jews didn't cause or allow the disciples to believe a lie in order to test his chosen people, and that some of them failed the test and decided to worship a man instead of the Creator. Prove to me that Christianity is not an ingenius construct of an evil entity who read the OT passages and distorted them to convince people that they were fulfilled, to convert the Jews away from their God and instead worship a man? Prove to me that Jesus was not in fact Satanic like an "angel of light" showing "loving miracles". After all, doesn't Paul say that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light? If he can, how do you KNOW that Paul wasn't influenced by Satan? That Jesus wasn't? That the NT authors weren't? Don't quote me the blasphemy against the holy spirit passage. That was designed so people would NOT question the source of Jesus' alleged miracles. And the argument could be used to prove the divine source of all exorcisms, which I doubt you admit to. Yes, Satan can cast out Satan, can't he? After all, if he transformed himself as an "angel of light", then wouldn't he do exactly such a thing-Appear loving and good when in fact he wasn't? I mean, the Qur'an preaches against Satan. Yet to many Christians the Qur'an is FROM Satan. So how does Satan preach against Satan? How does any religion preach against evil if it is fact inspired by evil? Doesn't Revelation describe Jesus as the "bright and morning star", and Isaiah describe what Christians believe is Satan as "star of the morning"? Prove to me that the book of Revelation wasn't inspired by Satan and that Jesus wasn't Satan. I'm very serious. Prove to me that my scenarios are not what could have happened. Neither one of us can prove our beliefs. If I could "zap my mind" and reconcile a loving God with an eternal hell, maybe I'd be more on your page than I am. Not that I'm at all saying you're stupid, because I'm not. What I am saying is that MY mind can not accept that there's an eternal hell. Sure, I find the descriptions of hell scary. Who wouldn't? Like I would find other descriptions of hell, such as the Qur'an, which are worse and more often than even the Bible's descriptions in my opinion. Because I can't absolutely prove any religion is false, I can't automatically say all religious claims are false. But MY mind can't accept that there's an eternal hell, no matter how scary it sounds, no matter how many alleged warnings there are about it, and no matter what psychological tool is used to try to convince me of its existence, because it doesn't register in my mind as "justice", but rather as total, absolute, mind numbing, and vicious cruelty.

God doesn't use miracles to convince people? You sure about that? Is that the position of the entire Bible that God doesn't use miracles to convince people? Didn't Jesus basically say believe because of the works themselves? So wasn't he saying "Believe me for the miracles I do?"

And if you think Christianity itself doesn't rely on the fear of hell, where do you get that from? I already quoted you Jesus saying FEAR HIM in reference to the one who can put your body and soul in Gehenna. You can try to explain away the verse if you wish. You don't think Muslims think Allah is loving? They ALSO think he's an eternal torturer. I think Krishna's supposedly loving. But in Hinduism people supposedly can go to a hell for a million+ years. You don't "mind" other religions' hells cause you don't think they're real, not because you don't find them revolting. "Reincarnation" doesn't necessarily negate a hell. Some people believe in both. And yea, you would have a problem being reincarnated as an animal which gets slaughtered. Horrifying, isn't it?

Name one, just one, other God that promised forgiveness and unconditional love - and delivered.

Jenyar, you can't say that God promised "forgiveness and unconditional love", when you ALSO say that one HAS to accept Jesus to GET that "forgiveness and unconditional love". If you have to DO something to GET it, it's not UNCONDITIONAL. I can't live my life how I see fit and still get "forgiveness and unconditional love", can I? The Christian God does not give unconditional love! You HAVE to "believe", "follow Jesus", whatever the Bible describes as God's laws (whichever those are, since there are many different Christian groups who interpret what the Bible wants differently). That is NOT UNCONDITIONAL LOVE DAMN IT! Unless you have a very warped sense believing God will be "unconditionally loving" eternal souls in hellfire.

Let me get your argument straight. You assume hell, then imagine a hypothetical strawman God who "would create such a place", all to justify your non-belief? Let's see how Satan did it:
"let's assume God was a liar, then you could eat from this tree and surely won't die", and lo and behold, they did not die. But they did not prove God a liar either. They just tried to justify their disobedience that way. Was Satan right? Did God lie about the reality of death - eternal death? Is our short existence in this world enough evidence to build our case, to prove God wrong and justify ourselves? As if we're so sure He wouldn't preserve our lives if we just repented and obeyed Him for once.

This is predicated on believing the Bible as true. Now, if the Bible is true, I find Satan a more admirable character ultimately. At least he didn't PREPARE an eternal torture pit and put people in it. And what is wrong with "knowledge of good and evil"? Why didn't God want Adam and Eve to eat that fruit? Why put it there in the first place unless when he FOREKNEW they'd eat of it?

You're sure there isn't a hell, whether God exists or not. Don't you that all your arguments proceed from that premise? You've practically guaranteed yourself that you'd never have to believe in God, no matter what He does. Or did.

I didn't say I was SURE there isn't a hell. Have you been reading my posts? I said I BELIEVE God's not an eternal torturer. Why should I have to believe that God's an eternal torturer? Or even that he CREATED an eternal torture pit and puts people there? Or as you try to say that people walk in willingly. Yeah. Right. Nobody in their right mind would walk in there willingly. Which goes to show your argument is bologna.

I think here we get to the crux of it. You already believe in hell, but you can't accept that it exists - even in limited form as hinted at here on earth. You've confused "life" with "God", and found neither acceptible. But God didn't create this for us, He didn't have this in mind for us. He made Eden and put us in it, and we succesfully brought every evil we could imagine into it, including our idols. Idols are gods that promise blissful life if you're good, or eternal hell if you're bad, and medioctrity if you're mediocre. They start out as ideals of us, but eventually they end up being us at our worst. They cannot save, forgive or love. To a child without its parents, even the most user-friendly house would seem like a haunted mansion full of dangers - as indeed many things that were meant for certain uses would be in the wrong hands. Pain has an immensely important role in our lives. Let a doctor describe to you the hell of a leprosy community, where pain cannot be felt

Hahah.. yes, "pain is good". This goes back to the Christian reversal of things. Life is death. Pain is good. etc. Sorry, excruciating pain that leads to death is not good. If you think it is, then why don't you apply such pain to yourself and see how you like it? One of the reasons why you might associate pain with good I think is that you believe God died on the cross. After all, if God died a painful death on the cross, and its meaning was good (in fact supremely good in Christian theology, for it is what was necessary for salvation and avoidance of eternal damnation), then maybe pain and suffering is actually good? If you are implying that pain is good, this is as sick as what I've read about Mother Teresa (whether true or not I don't know), that basically suffering is good. And God himself is the one who brought curse into the world. He didn't need to throw Adam and Eve out of the garden. He could have simply forgiven them. But he chose not to. Instead he gave women suffering in child birth and a ground that yields thistles. He didn't need to do that, did he? And if it was merely a "natural consequence", guess who created that "natural consequence". Once again, GOD was responsible. So why did he do it?

If suffering was proof that God didn't love, then why isn't love proof that He does? It's not an accurate measure.

Where's the love? Like I said, "show me thy God". Not merely an alleged book by him. You can't say in one breath that God is love and then in the next say that he is omniscient and created an eternal hell, people with eternal souls, and foreknew they'd go there, against their will. And yes indeed it would be against their will. For the SIMPLE FACT that if such a hell exists, nobody in their right mind would walk into it and stay there forever.

How did you start believing in pain and suffering, then? What made you lose hope that it wasn't all there is?

I got older. I found out that it was full of pain, death and disappointment. Look, if I thought the Christian God was good, and that all my intellectual, moral problems I have with the Christian concept of God could just disappear, and I could just "believe" and find Christianity making perfect sense, then I might just do that. There was a comfort in thinking I knew what the truth was, I'll give you that. Not that life is only full of pain, death and disappointment. But it doesn't show me that an all loving God created or allowed these things. No, I don't buy the "human free will" argument. I'm sorry, but I have little reason to think that because Adam and Eve did something wrong, that caused natural disasters, the food chain, microscopic death every second, famine, disease, etc. That a "loving God" would even create such "natural consequences" to "sin" just doesn't really make sense. I see no reason to see a rational correlation between Adam and Eve doing something wrong and things wrong today which mankind can't really control, such as painful death. I mean, sure, in theory you could try to control it, but it can still happen "to the best of them".

I apologize for the "angry" tone of these posts. They have that tone because I am angry. The things Christians do to try to rationalize their belief in an eternal torturing god is mind boggling.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

anonymous2: Peter refers to "all" his [Paul's] epistles, [Paul] speaking in them of these things, in which [in which? in Paul's epistles, right?] SOME things (not some OF these things) are difficult to understand. The "some things" do not seem to only refer to "these things" which Peter was just referring to. It appears to be a reference to Paul's epistles as a whole containing "some things" which are "difficult to understand". Yes, "Peter" goes on to say that the unlearned and unstable wrest them [Paul's epistles, right?] to their destruction, as with the rest of the scriptures [rest of the scriptures meaning non-Pauline scriptures]. At least that's how I'm interpreting it. Of course, that's the thing about the Bible. One man has an interpretation and another man another.
*************
M*W: In the end, Peter hated Paul. He knew Paul was lying. And Paul hated Peter, because Peter thought he was the Messiah on Earth. That argument still goes on today. Peter vs. Paul. Paul wasn't a Christian, and Peter wasn't the first pope of the Catholic Church. James should have been the pope of Jesus' first church. So, they're both wrong. There is no confusion about James
beliefs. James was Jesus' brother. Peter was only a pawn, and Paul was very much a liar. If Christianity really does exist, it's the religion of James. Otherwise, there is no salvation from the church of Peter nor the philosophy of Paul. Those two have blasphemed the word of Jesus. The Messiah hasn't come, yet. Anyone who believes they are already waiting are sorely confused. There is no Messiah, and there is no salvation except from the innermost soul of every human being. The soul is that bioelectrical energy that flows through all of humanity. It was with Jesus just as it was with Moses and Abraham, just as it was in Mary Magdalene, and Jesus' children; just as it was in Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas; just as it was in the Virgin Mary and Joseph, the architect. This energy flows through all of humanity -- not just Jesus. Humanity is the Christ. Pay attention!


Which goes back to my point about how I see Christianity-as slavery. You're not your own. You're god's slave. You have been bought with a price. He who seeks to save his life shall lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it (nice martyrdom quote by the way, sorry, but I think I'd deny faith in something uncertain to keep my life in something which is certain, this life. And to think a loving God would require such a mortal sacrifice baffles me). War is peace. Life is death. Black is white. Slavery is freedom. The "foolishness" of God is in actuality "wisdom". Christanity sounds like the reversal of sanity to me. But hey, what do I know? To Christians, I've been "blinded by the god of this world", right? Besides your belief that Christianity is true, what is really the difference between arguments Christians could make and what could be considered "cultic" arguments, such as "lead not to your own understanding" [but instead follow the cult], "he who seeks to save his life shall lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it" [nice martyrdom quote, also can be construed as if you give your life to the cult, you'll get "true life". Don't try to save your own life by denying the cult.], "whoever tries to keep his life shall lose it" [so give it over to the cult so you can get "true" life] "slavery to God is true freedom", [be a slave to the cult, it's ACTUALLY freedom, in this life and the next], "you have been bought with a price, you are not your own" [don't be independent, do what the cult wants, you're its slave], "your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to death" [or to the cult ] Really, what's the actual difference, between Christians using these types of arguments, or "cults" using these types of arguments, aside from the fact you think Christianity is true and "cults" are false?


You can choose to look at it as God not "forcing you not to sin", but what is the bottom line? You HAVE to do God's will, don't you? If you don't, are you a Christian? And what happens to those who aren't Christian? I mean, technically, if someone put a gun to your head and demanded your wallet, he's not really forcing you, is he? It's your choice, technically, isn't it? Would you find freedom in that? I mean, you HAVE a choice. Either submit to the robber's will, or die. How is that different than what the Biblical God wants us to do? Submit to him, or be sent to the lake of fire. The Biblical God wants to take your will, your life and submit it to his will.




Like I said before, I look at Jesus kind of how I look at Mani or the Bab. That's if the Jesus of the NT really existed. I'd venture to guess one could go to mental asylums and find people claming that they're some prophet or god. People who actually seem to believe the things they talk about. They could even espouse a decent moral system. Of course, you don't see Jesus as that, you see him as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Those who were the keepers of those prophecies, the Jews, don't share that view (although there have been Jews who converted to Christianity. There have also been Christians who converted to Judaism). Jesus didn't defeat the Romans, he didn't bring in the Messianic kingdom, and it's been close to 2000 years since he died. Did he really defeat death, since everyone still dies? The lion does not lie down with the lamb unless the lamb is inside the lion's stomach. Although you believe he'll accomplish things when he returns, forgive me if I don't espouse such a view. You'd consider a person who made fantastic claims nowadays as a madman or demonic, wouldn't you? Say this person died and then people said he rose from the dead, and would come back to take vengeance on those who didn't believe in him. What would be your views of such a person? Madman or demonic, right? So why is Jesus different?



You're right, it does imply anarchy. But anarchy doesn't necessarily mean "evil". Laws can be bad, or wrong, even Christians can believe this, when they say "God's laws are higher than man's laws." You yourself are a bit of an "anarchist", because if "secular law" violates "God's law", you go with "God's law", don't you?



Yes, I find that a bit warped, if I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that "drugs" are the only thing that can possibly warrant the death penalty-so a mass murderer can't get the death penalty? Are you saying that merely TAKING drugs warrants the death penalty? And what type of "drugs"? Or are you saying big time "drug" dealers? In the United States, lots of people take "drugs", although some of it is accepted as ok because they're "legal drugs"-as if there's some definite demarkation between "legal drugs"=good, "illegal drugs"=bad. Who has authority over what I think is right? Since I live in the United States of America, that government does, although I don't worship the USA government's laws as some absolute truth.



hehe.. see, I could think "cool, Paul expects to see justice", but then I think of how Christians think of "justice", then I wonder if it could be a good thing afterall. Perfection or hell is NOT my idea of "justice".



My "thoughts are dominated by hell and damnation" because we're discussing Christianity, and I used to "believe". I haven't totally thrown off the "shackles" of Christianity, and I'm not sure I ever will. I was exposed to it and "believed" during my "impressionable years", so it has left a deep scar on me. All one needs to do is read the Bible to find hell and damnation. Even as a Christian, I don't see how you can live a single moment thinking that such a place exists. I'd be preaching to everyone I possibly could. I know when I "believed", I was concerned about people going there. Who could possibly live an enjoyable life thinking that such a place exists? If you can, I congratulate you, because that's not something I can do.



Ok, then what does Genesis say? God speaks, things happen. It portrays the creation of the universe as something simple for God. So could be the destruction of things for God. Or do you believe matter is co-eternal with God and God has no power to destroy it?

You're comparing suicide in this life with "eternal suicide". Now, suicide in this life, sure, it could have a negative effect on your family (could being more than likely would). But that's not what I'm talking about. You're concerned about effects on loved ones. That's a noble thought. But think of what Christianity does to loved ones. It can tear families apart. It can lead you to believe your loved ones will be eternally damned. In heaven, what are you going to think? "Darn, my best friend isn't here".. and guess where that means he is. Hell, right? And you think eternal death is worse than that? With eternal death, there will be nobody to lament about a loved one not being in heaven and instead being in hell. Of course, you can claim that God will wipe your mind clean of those in hell. Not a bad thought. But we're still on this earth.



You were basically asking what I thought would be my "ideal" view of the universe, right? So I answered. And notice that I didn't say there should be no punishment. In fact, I implied God should "kick my ass" for things I've done wrong. But Christianity blows it waaaaay out of proportion.

Once again, it's HELL I have a problem with. It's not so much accountability that I have a problem with. It's HELL. It's eternal damnation. If there's a "god" up there who "doles out justice", then there is. But once you equate "justice" with "perfection or torture", then it becomes monstrous.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jenyar]

He said he didn't know the day or hour, but that doesn't mean the *general* idea in the NT is that the end wasn't going to be soon, as in human time. You pretty much agree with me when you say this in your prior post:

Yes, but I don't agree with the implications you attach to it.

But then you go on to say that the NT authors believed the end wasn't to be in their lifetimes by writing their books. I'm not sure about that. The *general* expectation of the NT was that Jesus was to come soon. Not almost 2000 years or more.

And the Jews expected the messiah to wipe out the Romans. Our expectations don't dictate God's work. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness." What understanding of "slowness" do you think Peter had in mind?

And what were the NT authors ideas of "all the nations"? Can you show me any evidence they were aware of any nations outside of the Roman Empire and its general environs? Paul seems to have pretty much said the "gospel" had *already* been preached to the "whole world".

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." (Romans 10:17,18, RSV)

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Col 1:23, KJV)

Do you have any evidence that the NT authors were aware of China? The "new world"? Australia? Sub-Saharan Africa? Why do you think they thought that the "whole world" couldn't have been preached to in a lifetime? I'm not talking about to every single individual. If that's what you think by "whole world", then I question when Christianity will ever preach its message to every single person who ever exists on earth. People can die young.[/quote]
Wait a second - there are two perspectives involved here. There is the declaration of Jesus in Matt.24 where the gospel needs to be preached to all the nations (cf. the "Great Commission", Matthew 28:18-20), and there is this declaration of Paul that it has been proclaimed to "every creature under heaven" (Col. 1:23). But Paul mentions something else in verse 6: "All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth." He seems to think of the gospel Christians are spreading as something pre-existant, only now bearing fruit.

Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.​

We also know in Romans 15:20-24, only a few years earlier, Paul still had to go to Spain.

To Paul, Christ was the first-born over all creation (Colossians 1:15), and God has been evident to the world since creation (Romans 1:20). That is not disputed, and the gospel doesn't conflict with that. Instead, it heralds a "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.​

In Christ, Paul sees the fulfilment of a life that has been promised since creation, but could only be seen by its shadow, the law. The gospel sheds light on the object of this life itself, its revelation in Christ. Faith has always been the perseverance while in the shadow, now it is perseverance while in the light. So different aspects of one "gospel" is emphasized: the hope of faith in God (which had already been part of Israel's "gospel", hadn't it?), and the the hope specifically in Christ, who is the embodiment of all that has been promised - and is still to be declared to the nations of the earth.

I don't believe 2nd Peter overrides the rest of the passages which imply Jesus would come back within the lifetime of the NT authors or thereabouts.

Neither do I. But do you now see how it fits in with what I said above? Jesus' ascention is near end of the kingdom, the door into new creation, while his return is the far end. The expectation is of the same thing, and its urgent immediacy remains throughout.

This is pretty much why I question why God didn't make it all clear. "End" does not mean end of the world. This doesn't mean that. Why be obscure? Just say it. In clear language which everyone, even a child will understand. Be perfectly clear if you're an allegedly loving God. Why teach in parables SO that people won't understand, and in doing so will be eternally damned? That is not anyone's definition of "loving" unless they have sick minds. The bottom line is that that passage about Israel implies that Jesus would return before the disciples went through all the cities of Israel. I know that Christians have "explanations" for "them all". I'm not interested in them. I've already read enough Christian rationalizations. They're designed to validate the Bible at any cost and pretty much to preserve the doctrines of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

The goal isn't so much inerrancy (as you understand it) as not to let confusion cloud our judgment. The parables are quite easy to understand, but they're impossible to explain to someone who doesn't believe in God. Jesus is at the centre of them, and that makes them obscure to everyone who's relationship with God is obscured. Jesus was dispensing information of incredible significance and proportion in the form simple stories to simple people. Children were listening to them. It clears the playing field, and prevents people from creating elaborate theologies to justify their doctrines. Jesus told you exactly what you needed to know.

One parable in particular is applicable here: Matt. 25, The young women who were only prepared to wait a certain time. "The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep." Five were not prepared when the bridegroom finally arrived, and they missed the banquet.

The "end" means the end - with no "when" attached. In Matthew, we read that this ("these things") is the beginning of that end. That's what the message is. It's you who want it to mean something else. You seem to have a vested interest in obscuring the apparent meaning.

Also, read what you quoted about a testimony or witness to all nations. Notice it doesn't say that the gospel would be preached to every single invidual in the whole world, but as a witness or testimony to all nations. What more is really implied here besides a general preaching to a nation? Why do you think this couldn't have all been accomplished within the lifetime of the disciples or thereabout? There's little reason, to me, to think that the disciples were thinking of much outside of the Roman empire and its environs when they said "all nations". If you can show me that they knew of nations outside of that, I'd like to see it.

I'm glad you noticed it. The "world" of Paul will be the witness to the nations of the whole world. Christians are that nation. Just like Israel was a witness to the nations (Isaiah 43:9-11).

Jeremiah 6:17-
I appointed watchmen over you and said,
'Listen to the sound of the trumpet!'
But you said, 'We will not listen.'
Therefore hear, O nations;
observe, O witnesses,
what will happen to them.
Hear, O earth:
I am bringing disaster on this people,
the fruit of their schemes,
because they have not listened to my words
and have rejected my law.​

Sounds familiar?

Look, I didn't say that the NT had absolutely no reference to a possibility that Jesus' return was to be generations away. After all, look at 2nd Peter 3. But if you notice in Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking to YOU, when YOU see all these things, not "when people almost two thousand years or more in the future see all these things", but YOU. And who were the "you?" Jesus' disciples. Not Christians almost 2000 years later or more. Stars were supposed to fall from the sky "immediately after those days" (which can't happen, "shooting stars" aren't stars, they're meteors [meteorites?]. Look at 1 John 2:18:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

"Last times" or "last things" is an eschatological phrase. It had been employed to refer to certain events since the Old Testament, along with the "Day of the Lord". It refers to a specific period of time. In Matthew 24:29, we read "immediately after the distress of those days" in reference to Daniel's prophecy. Jesus quotes Daniel, referring to the following passage:

Daniel 12:11-12
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.​

That's roughly three and a half years, but it cannot possibly literal days - in Daniel mouth it's long time, but in Jesus' mouth it's immediate. The 'time, times and half a time' is the length of time the 'holy people' (the woman of Revelations 12) will be kept safe, even though their power is broken. According to Daniel 12, it refers to the time resurrection (see v.2). Now it is even more significant that Christ is called the "firstborn from the dead". To see how all these things come together, we read:

1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power [cf. Isaiah 40:31] until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. (see also v.10 onwards)​

And what exactly would be wrong with founding a church if it was to only last a lifetime, when that lifetime would be the last lifetime until the end of the world? The "church" is the "body of believers", basically, right? All the Christians whether the church in Corinth, or wherever, right? That doesn't at all imply anything really about how long this "church" should last. The "gates of hell" wouldn't stand against Jesus' church whether it lasted for 40 years and then the end came, or if it lasted a million years and then the end came. ALL it seems to be saying, to me, is that Jesus' church wouldn't die off from Satanic opposition. And since there are still Christians today, it's apparently true so far, unless one wants to say no true Christians still exist I guess. If there weren't Christians and if nobody kept on copying the books, putting them on the internet, etc, then the passage wouldn't exist unless it was quoted by antagonists or we dug it up like Manichaean writings have been dug up or whatever. Either way, Jesus' church defeats hell, doesn't it? Isn't that what the passage is trying to say, that Jesus' church defeats hell, or that it won't die off from Satanic opposition, instead of saying anything about how long it will actually last?

God defeated hell when Jesus conquered death - we share that victory by participating in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). The church itself is as powerless to defeat hell as Israel was. Christ came to do it for us and in our place. Now apply what I've explained above: when we are born from the dead - born again - we no londer follow death into destruction, we follow him into his kingdom. For those born of God, time has ended. If nothing else, the church Christ established would last because it was dependent on Him for enduring. It wasn't built on sand.

And there were "wars, rumors of wars", etc, during the NT times. Yes, obviously Matthew 24 is referring to something in the future, but how far in the future?

Why don't you think it still applies today?

I know about Glenn Miller's website. I'm not really interested in it. It's designed to validate the Bible and Christianity at any cost, in my opinion. The fact that people can come up with rationalizations to explain away the general NT expectation of Jesus' return in the lifetime of the NT authors-this just goes to show that people can do basically whatever necessary to preserve their religious beliefs. And Christians aren't really different in this regard than other religious groups. I mean, I can sit here right now and flatly say "All A is B" and then say "All A is not B" and I can try to explain away the two different statements and reconcile them by mental gymnastics. I'm not interested in tektonics.org, either.

Unfortunately, any scholarly approach to the subject would lead to "rationalizations" as you call them. It's unavoidable when you try to get to the bottom of something. The link went to a specific discussion, not the website in general, and I provided it to get you thinking about the details, in stead of making sweeping statements about "all those texts that refer to..."

This is a difference in our positions. I don't think people necessarily need to be "justified". People are who they are, good and bad. Does that mean we should glorify the bad or ignore it? No. But Christianity takes the bad, and magnifies it beyond proportion, and ignores the good, when its deity examines the lives of men.

Ignore the good? Think about what you're saying, man! "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9). The difference is that we don't have to glory in doing good. We don't need its merits. All merits for doing good now belong to God. It never benefitted anybody to receive all honour and glory for their good deeds when they still died without hope. So we've given up those claims in favour of something much more lasting, a claim to hope. Whatever good we do - and we must do it, or be hypocrites - is nothing to boast about.

After all, why would it say non-Christians go to hell if it didn't do exactly that? Ghandi? in hell. Murderer who repents and believes in Jesus? in heaven. And don't get me wrong. I find other religions also offensive in a similar regard. I don't believe that a just, loving God would torture you for eternity for being a Trinitarian as what it appears some believe Allah will. That you associate a mere man with God (in their view), Allah is that unforgiving? Your "shirk" is so horrible to him that he can't forgive you for your honest mistake? That's disgusting. And if you eat animals, do I think you should go to some million+ year hell? No. I mean, I agree that animals feel pain, and it's sad that some humans have a craving for animal flesh, but do I think a million+ years of torture is a fair payment for eating animals? No. Some religions tend to blow things out of proportion.

You're staring yourself blind against religion.

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Matthew 25:40
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'​

Ghandi showed that he knew God's laws - they were written in his heart - and by recognizing him as a righteous man, you show that you know them, too. In fact, he said once, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." But you make him a model, just like we like to make Hitler a model. The Ghandi you have in mind probably doesn't exist. For perspective, did you know Gandhi opposed modern medicine so much that he let his wife die rather than allow her to get a shot of penicillin. But later, when Gandhi himself needed medical treatment, his resistence to modern medicine mysteriously disappeared. I don't think he would have appreciated being a propaganda puppet against Christianity, though. Ghandi considered moral laws binding, drawing greatly from Jesus' sermon on the mount, and acted on them. But he cannot justify your stance against God anymore than Hitler can.

I'm not saying he's saved, neither that he isn't. I'm saying that neither Ghandi nor Hitler fell outside God's love, but that neither of them could be assured of salvation if they rejected Christ in word and deed. I will be judged by the standard I use to judge, and I did not deserve God's forgiveness either.

Do you have any proof that we're completely dependent on a deity? You can say that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power, but I can say that Atlas holds up the earth, and if you don't appease him, he'll drop it and we'll all fall to our deaths. Your idea that we all exist because of God's unmeritorious grace or if you're thinking that if he decided to withdraw it that we'd all dissolve or choke to death since there'd be no oxygen, or whatever is a fearful concept. But until you can prove it's reality, it's only a fearful concept. I could just as easily say that the god I worship has an axe over your head. He's ready to behead you if you don't do what I want. Scary, isn't it? Prove that your concept is REAL, not that it's merely scary.

Ha. No, that's not what I meant. I'm no pantheist. God made the universe quite capable, but it's His presence in spite of it that I'm talking about. Without His presence in my life, I would just be drifting along with it, on the way to whatever "hell" nature is drifting off to. The grace I'm talking about is what continues to give us hope, and continues to give us life.

No, that's not how I'm arguing. I'm arguing that people ARE sinful. They're also GOOD. They're both. You think a single sin warrants an eternity of punishment. Who in their right mind would think such a view? Anselm's "a sin against an infinite god is an infinite sin deserving of an infinite punishment", I do not at all buy it. It's just a nice correlation to try to justify a brutal, sick Christian theology.

I'm not selling anything, so I'm not really worried about what you're not "buying". You don't "buy" belief in God, no matter what the truth of punishment might be. But you seem to know what we deserve. Pray tell, what does humanity *deserve*, and what made us deserve it?

And if such a view were the case, then the most minor "sin" should be punished exactly the same in the Bible. The minor sin like the major. But even in the OT it's not punished that way. God does not immediately kill everyone who does the most minor sin, does he? Does the Law of Moses say, "If you steal, you shall be stoned"? No. And there are many other crimes which didn't get the death penalty. The OT God in general is ACTUALLY more loving than the NT one, cause at least with much of the OT, there was no concept of eternal torture. Yes, I know, you consider both "gods" as being the same God. The exacting "eye for an eye" God didn't necessarily follow you to the grave and beyond. You can't praise God in Sheol. Not that I'm saying every single OT reference never referred to existence in the afterlife. So I have no need for you to quote me a passage which implies an afterlife in the OT, so please don't waste your time. And if stealing $1 is the same in God's eyes as Hitler, Christians should think of it exactly how God thinks of it, shouldn't they? You steal $1? You should die. You are responsible for murdering millions of people? You should die. But Christians don't think this. Why? CAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S BULLSHIT! Nobody in their right mind thinks that way.

You're separating us from God again, as we were when we needed a law, just to keep up with our sins. The New Testament also says some will be beaten with few blows, some with more, according to their crime. But Jesus also says that transgressing one law makes you guilty under the whole of it.In other words, guilt is the problem, and we don't realize the seriousness of it. Good deeds don't make up for guilt without a law to enforce them. Laws can only compensate for so much, and ultimately, the law is not the judge.

Another convenient Christian viewpoint. "God's not torturing you, you're torturing yourself". Maybe Hitler wasn't torturing anyone, they were torturing themselves. Yep. Makes so much sense. What you say only makes sense if we assume that Christianity is true. And that God is really loving and fair and people who reject Christianity do it out of evil, spite, full well knowing they'll be tormented in an eternity which God did all he could to prevent (even though he created us and will send people there). Actually, we should think that everything that happens is the fault of humans, to be consistent with Christianity. You died in Auschwitz? That was your fault. Christianity tries to blame mankind for Christianity's own evil, sadistic god. IT ONLY MAKES SENSE IF ONE ALREADY ACCEPTS THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. And even then it doesn't REALLY make sense, because a "loving" God who is supposedly omniscient CREATED an eternal hell and CREATED mankind with eternal souls and FOREKNEW people would go to hell, many people who simply made the wrong theological choice. So he had PLENTY of choice to deal with mankind otherwise. You think a "just, loving" God should eternally torture people because they're not smart enough to make the correct theological choice? That's essentially Christianity though, isn't it? That's sick!

You're just calling yourself stupid. Now it's my turn not to buy it. If you jump in the fire, who's burning you? I didn't say you're burning yourself, I said you are to blame for being there.

A lot of what happens aren't the fault of anyone in particular, but the consequence of sin. Who gets punished? Who gets punished for letting half of Africa starve? Mugabe? America, for wasting the amount of wheat that could feed a continent on McDonald's? Or is hell just the place where money goes eventually?

Christ died - you know why? It wasn't because He deserved it, or because God killed him. It is called injustice. Have you considered that option? Have you ever thought, "if I was the victim of injustice, who would save me?" Not the people doling it out, for certain.

And as for "God", I don't have a problem with a *loving* God. In fact, in Christianity, Satan's actually the better character. At least he doesn't torment people for eternity. Show me the "loving God" and that'll interest me.

You refuse to look Him in the eyes. In your bitterness you are rejecting him. You would actually prefer to believe a lie!

I already gave you a justified reason for calling the Christian God an eternal torturer. Did he create hell? Yes. It says it was prepared for the devil and his angels. PREPARED! It's NOT merely "the absence of God", it's a CREATION of God. Get that through your head, please. Hell is God's creation as Heaven is. And yes, IF you WILLFULLY, and KNOWINGLY "walk into a self-perpetuating torture chamber with your eyes open, you're the only one who's a 'torturer'.", but the same rationale can be used to justify any hell. The Muslim hell. Why are you walking into a self-perpetuating torture chamber with your eyes open? All you need to do is accept Islam, and quit assocating another with God by worshipping the man Jesus. All you need to do is quit eating animals, and you can avoid the torture chamber. One can use similar arguments for other religions.

Please get it out of your head that I'm advocating one or the other religion to you. You need to do nothing, God has already done it. You just have to let yourself die a natural death before it claims your life involunarily.