Why wouldn't God let people out of hell?

[Chazman]

Yo Dudies,

Questions:

1. Did you have any control over your birth-i.e: time, place, parents?
2. Did you have any control over the supposed events in the Biblical Garden of Eden?
3. If you do not believe in the Christian god, do you go to "hell"?
4. Is the Christian god "all good"?

Allcare.

You may not like these answers but they are all Biblicaly based.

1). none whatsoever.
2). none whatsoever
3).eternly speaking , there are only two places of existance heaven
and hell. If pergatory exist, (not from the bible but from the apocrypha,) but is not infinite .
we can all speculate what we think what will happen to those that live
a nice life , but don't believe in the christain God, vs. what is in his word..
" there is only ONE way !" we may not like it, or think how unfair , or
what on unloving God, or whatever, however his word has been around
much longer than you or me were even thought of...
The real questions ( which would answer yours )
do we choose to believe ALL of his word.. or just some of it .
if only some ,,,why ??? and how do we pick which to believe and which
to ignore. what happens then , does this mean that now we have NEW truths
what happens then when someone comes along and contests what you think ??? In all fairness to humanity. one must decide ,, either/or --> all the word is true , or none of it is true... however keep in mind just because someone decides there is a new truth dosn't make it true,,, maybe just to
them and there followers..

4). Yes he is ,, BUT,,,,, ALL good ,,What is all good ???
What if you and me disagree on what all good is ?? does that make us both right?? then someone else says we are both wrong.. does this mean we are both wrong and you are now correct in it's true meaning,, or do we just
totaly rely on common sense and reasoning ?? will this alone be enough ???
what are we to do when we find out that God did or said something in the past that did not line-up to our all good definition. Is he Now wrong???

 

[Chazman]

Yo Dudies,

Questions:

1. Did you have any control over your birth-i.e: time, place, parents?
2. Did you have any control over the supposed events in the Biblical Garden of Eden?
3. If you do not believe in the Christian god, do you go to "hell"?
4. Is the Christian god "all good"?

Allcare.

You may not like these answers but they are all Biblicaly based.

1). none whatsoever.
2). none whatsoever
3).eternly speaking , there are only two places of existance heaven
and hell. If pergatory exist, (not from the bible but from the apocrypha,) but is not infinite .
we can all speculate what we think what will happen to those that live
a nice life , but don't believe in the christain God, vs. what is in his word..
" there is only ONE way !" we may not like it, or think how unfair , or
what on unloving God, or whatever, however his word has been around
much longer than you or me were even thought of...
The real questions ( which would answer yours )
do we choose to believe ALL of his word.. or just some of it .
if only some ,,,why ??? and how do we pick which to believe and which
to ignore. what happens then , does this mean that now we have NEW truths
what happens then when someone comes along and contests what you think ??? In all fairness to humanity. one must decide ,, either/or --> all the word is true , or none of it is true... however keep in mind just because someone decides there is a new truth dosn't make it true,,, maybe just to
them and there followers..

4). Yes he is ,, BUT,,,,, ALL good ,,What is all good ???
What if you and me disagree on what all good is ?? does that make us both right?? then someone else says we are both wrong.. does this mean we are both wrong and you are now correct in it's true meaning,, or do we just
totaly rely on common sense and reasoning ?? will this alone be enough ???
what are we to do when we find out that God did or said something in the past that did not line-up to our all good definition. Is he Now wrong???

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Chazman, everything you just said is meaningless, and I'll tell you why.

*Chazman: all the word is true, or none of it is true
*Chazman: what are we to do when we find out that God did or said something in the past that did not line-up to our all good definition.

Ok. From the way you speak in your post I assume that you take the Bible word for word as utter and total truth, even in the literal sense. Therefore, when God commanded that the men, women and children (innocent) be slaughtered, you take that as something God really commanded. If I assume correctly then I question why you take is as literal, entirely.

I question it because, what reason do you have to do so? The reason, I assume, you would argue is that the Bible was inspired by God. While I agree with this, I don't agree with the conclusion that it is all, therefore, to be taken literally, and as truth in every form. However, even though I agree with the idea that it is inspired by God, I ask, from whence do you come to this belief? Have you felt God in your life? Or have felt God in the reading of Scripture? Perhaps you were given the Scriptures by your family, or loved ones, or simply by good people. In each of these cases you are either relying on your internal senses, or your trust in others. Neither of which guarantee the absolote truth of the Bible. Therefore, I have to also assume that ultimately your belief in the Bible rests solely in faith.

If this is true (and only you can confirm or deny my assumptions here), then your belief in the absolute truth of the Bible is also totally held in faith. Since this is true, then the truths of God revealed in the Bible, which you hold, must also be held entirely in faith. THEREFORE, you may never use logic when speaking of God, since everything you hold as true about God comes entirely out of faith.

SO, the logic which you presented in you last post is therefore meaningless, since it is entirely your own words, the words of a man, which cannot be trusted. This is because, by such reasoning as, *all the word is true, or none of it is true* only God's word is entire truth. So, it must therefore remain as also true that your words cannot be ENTIRELY true, but only partially true, and therefore not to be trusted, or given consideration, since we may be deceived in believing a lie.

*sigh*... however, by the same logic, you would also discount what I have just said as "untrustworthy" and deceptive words.

 

[Cyperium]

Many people believe that God is omnipotent and all-loving. If this is true, why would he not allow people out of hell? Christianity seems to take a very firm stance that a person (except Jesus, I guess) can never get out of hell once they end up there, but this doesn't seem to fit with the idea of an all-powerful God who loves everyone. If God is loving, why not forgive people for their mistake and let them into heaven? Or do you believe that God is somehow incapable of letting people out of hell? Does God stop loving people after they die?

This is just my own idea (which is interpreted from the Bible).

Some has to go through fire in order to get clean, so that their sins go away.

The Bible say that gold is tested in fire (so it's not just the bad ones that has to go through fire (or so it seems))

There is a great chasm (rift/cleft/"space") between heaven and hell, so that no one from heaven could get to hell, and no one from hell could get to heaven.

Since fire cleans us, then there is some sense in them being judged to eternal fire. If they only can accept God by hidden bad motives, then what is there to do? They refuse to be saved, they have too much pride to even accept that they have been forgiven. They can't live again, cause then Jesus would be made a ridicule (since He would have to be crusified twice). God can't accept them into heaven, cause then they would start to do the same thing there as they have done here.

This is some of the things that I've thought about regarding this issue, I'm not 100% sure that this is the way it is, but it seems believable and trustworthy for me.

 

[stretched]

Yo Dudes,

Chazman, what I mean with "all good" is that if the answer to question 4. is "yes", there would not an evil, lying bone in god`s body. The Christian god would not ever do anything considered cruel.Nor break any of his own commandments. For example, god would not kill. So having said this, is the Christian god "all good"?

beyondtimeandspace, I will get to my thinking later. So your answers would be?

1. Yes/No?
2. Yes/No?
3. Yes/No?
4. Yes/No?

Yo Jenyar ,

Eesh brother are you psychic? But no, you don`t have to be prescient to know where I am going. Simply because you have tangible evidence of my thought processes via my posts.

What do you make of my questions Jenyar?

Allcare.

 

[spidergoat]

The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.

Pope JOHN PAUL II, 1999

 

[Chazman]

Yo Dudies,

Questions:

1. Did you have any control over your birth-i.e: time, place, parents?
2. Did you have any control over the supposed events in the Biblical Garden of Eden?
3. If you do not believe in the Christian god, do you go to "hell"?
4. Is the Christian god "all good"?

Allcare.

You may not like these answers but they are all Biblicaly based.

1). none whatsoever.
2). none whatsoever
3).eternly speaking , there are only two places of existance heaven
and hell. If pergatory exist, (not from the bible but from the apocrypha,) but is not infinite .
we can all speculate what we think what will happen to those that live
a nice life , but don't believe in the christain God, vs. what is in his word..
" there is only ONE way !" we may not like it, or think how unfair , or
what on unloving God, or whatever, however his word has been around
much longer than you or me were even thought of...
The real questions ( which would answer yours )
do we choose to believe ALL of his word.. or just some of it .
if only some ,,,why ??? and how do we pick which to believe and which
to ignore. what happens then , does this mean that now we have NEW truths
what happens then when someone comes along and contests what you think ??? In all fairness to humanity. one must decide ,, either/or --> all the word is true , or none of it is true... however keep in mind just because someone decides there is a new truth dosn't make it true,,, maybe just to
them and there followers..

4). Yes he is ,, BUT,,,,, ALL good ,,What is all good ???
What if you and me disagree on what all good is ?? does that make us both right?? then someone else says we are both wrong.. does this mean we are both wrong and you are now correct in it's true meaning,, or do we just
totaly rely on common sense and reasoning ?? will this alone be enough ???
what are we to do when we find out that God did or said something in the past that did not line-up to our all good definition. Is he Now wrong???

 

[Truth51]

Many people believe that God is omnipotent and all-loving. If this is true, why would he not allow people out of hell? Christianity seems to take a very firm stance that a person (except Jesus, I guess) can never get out of hell once they end up there, but this doesn't seem to fit with the idea of an all-powerful God who loves everyone. If God is loving, why not forgive people for their mistake and let them into heaven? Or do you believe that God is somehow incapable of letting people out of hell? Does God stop loving people after they die?

First of all, the nature of hell is not fire and brimstone. This is a metaphor of how the emotional guilt of not accepting God will be. It will be a dark place where there is no presence of God, no Holy Spirit, No Jesus. "Lake of Fire" is symbolic of God's Judgement. The people will realize how badly they messed up, and the guilt will burn them like fire. The term "weeping and gnashing of teeth" refers to how they will be so upset that they did not choose God. Some will cry, others will be incredibly frustrated. Hell is a place of separation, not torture.

The thing is, people in hell will still find themselves the center of the world, for the rest of eternity. God is actually showing love and honoring free choice by creating hell. These people willfully chose not to be with God during their lives. See, here's the neat thing about Him: he gives you enough evidence for you to know he's there, but keeps it discreet so that you still have the choice. These people knew he was there, but they openly refused Him. So he sends them away because that is what they wanted. It's what they chose.

Not only that, but also, he refuses to annihilate those he loved so much to create in the first place. We are created in his image and therefore are eternal beings. Additionally, It would be unfair to those who love Jesus so much to be separated from Him after a few years in heaven, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Hell, as much as God hates it, is another of God's ways of loving people even when it hurts him so badly.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

well, stretched, since you want it so simplistically, though such answers shouldn't be so simply given, due to misunderstanding:

1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes

 

[Q25]

God does not force anyone to love Him;

sure He does,
well not God himself (b/c he dont exist,) but the God pushers like yourself!

if you dont love Him you'll end up in hell,no wordtwisting will get around that.

God's omnipotence has to do with His being wholly present in all things created by Him, which has nothing to do with His ability or inability to "release a soul from Hell."

omnipotent=allmighty
omnipresent=everywhere
thought you might want to get that straight,
btw is God present in Satan?

www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/index.htmlclick God

 

[Q25]

God is actually showing love and honoring free choice by creating hell.

god shows love by threathening you with eternal torture,
and you still think belief in such God gives you free choice?
its more like an offer you cant refuse!

These people willfully chose not to be with God during their lives.

how is that posible,
didnt someone just mention that God is in all of creation?
wouldnt that include people=His children?

 

[M-16]

In Islam, you can be in Hell for a period of time and then go to heaven, it depends on how bad are your sins.

 

[anonymous2]

From what I have read, the idea is that God is so holy that he can't tolerate sin, and so souls with the metaphysical "stain" of sin can't be in his presence. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since God is supposed to be omnipresent. If God is also here on earth, then he's been exposed to sinners for thousands of years. Also, in the book of Job, Satan (the supposed author of sin itself!) is there talking with God in heaven. Also, if Jesus was on earth for 30+ years and he was also God (according to Christians), how could he have been around sinners if he had some total repulsion to them?

Not only this, but it makes little sense to me, even if it's believed that God couldn't tolerate sinners in heaven, why would he have to torture them for eternity in hell? Why couldn't he leave them alone? Or destroy them? It can't possibly be that souls, which God supposedly created, could not also be destroyed by God. That would make God less than omnipotent.

Another argument is that a sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment. So does that mean everything else done to God, prayer for instance, deserves infinite acceptance (so that I no longer have to pray again?) Any good deed should be infinitely rewarded? (even in Christian thought there are rewards for the faithful based on "work", so evidently God must not think all righteousness is as "filthy rags")

As for what CS Lewis said about hell, it sounds kind of convenient. Hell is supposed to be so bad, but yet people don't want to leave it? They like it there? Is he serious? He thought people could leave hell but don't want to? Where does the Bible say this?

 

[JustARide]

Hell, as much as God hates it, is another of God's ways of loving people even when it hurts him so badly.

Hmmm, sounds a tad like that famous Vietnam statement... "We had to burn the villages down in order to save them."

God: "I love you so much that I must leave you forever alone and in constant pain with no chance for rehabilitation or redemption."

Some interesting logic at work there.

 

[stretched]

Yo Truth 51,

Quote Truth 51:
"First of all, the nature of hell is not fire and brimstone. This is a metaphor of how the emotional guilt of not accepting God will be. It will be a dark place where there is no presence of God, no Holy Spirit, No Jesus. "Lake of Fire" is symbolic of God's Judgement."

Where or what is your evidence for this interpretation?

Quote Truth51:
"The thing is, people in hell will still find themselves the center of the world, for the rest of eternity. God is actually showing love and honoring free choice by creating hell."

Where or what is your evidence for this interpretation?

Quote Truth 51"
"These people willfully chose not to be with God during their lives. See, here's the neat thing about Him: he gives you enough evidence for you to know he's there, but keeps it discreet so that you still have the choice. These people knew he was there, but they openly refused Him. So he sends them away because that is what they wanted. It's what they chose."

Once again, where or what is your evidence for this interpretation. Or maybe just give me your reasoning for drawing this conclusion?

Quote Truth51:
"Hell, as much as God hates it, is another of God's ways of loving people even when it hurts him so badly."

Maybe you can answer these questions for me Truth51?

1. Did you have any control over your birth-i.e: time, place, parents?
2. Did you have any control over the supposed events in the Biblical Garden of Eden?
3. If you do not believe in the Christian god, do you go to "hell"?
4. Is the Christian god "all good"?

Allcare.

 

[stretched]

Hi beyondtimeandspace,

Quote beyondtimeandspace:
"well, stretched, since you want it so simplistically, though such answers shouldn't be so simply given, due to misunderstanding:

My questions:
1. Did you have any control over your birth-i.e: time, place, parents?
2. Did you have any control over the supposed events in the Biblical Garden of Eden?
3. If you do not believe in the Christian god, do you go to "hell"?
4. Is the Christian god "all good"?

Your answers:

1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes

Cool beyondtimeandspace, yes whilst I agree that no answers are that simple, convoluted words can be constructed to be self-serving and ultimately pointless. By cutting the answers down to yes or no, one is confronted by simple logic.

Paradoxes that are apparent.

Answers to questions 1. and 2. - No.
How then can one be logically held responsible for the following from the Christian creed.

SIN
The man and woman chose to disobey God and lost their perfect standing before him. Since they were now imperfect, all of their offspring is imperfect in our natural state.
Each of us in our natural state continues to choose our own way rather than God's best for us. The Bible refers to this as sin.

(from: http://house-of-hope.net/faith/believe.html)

Your answer to question 3. excludes you from professing to be a mainstream Christian as it goes against the Christian creed as stated below.

"Those who refuse salvation through God's son Jesus have automatically chosen eternal separation from God with conscious torment in Hell."

(from: http://house-of-hope.net/faith/believe.html)

If your answer to question 4. is indeed yes, how does one explain an "all good" god breaking his own commandment? "Thy shalt not kill?" Would you teach your children one thing, and then proceed to do differently? How does one reconcile this paradox?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Answers to questions 1. and 2. - No.
How then can one be logically held responsible for the following from the Christian creed.

You're talking about people whose birth and circumstances prevented them from hearing the gospel. You're not one of those people, so the argument doesn't apply to you. You are responsible for what you know and what you reject, under whatever circumstances you find yourself in.

Your answer to question 3. excludes you from professing to be a mainstream Christian as it goes against the Christian creed as stated below.

"Those who refuse salvation through God's son Jesus have automatically chosen eternal separation from God with conscious torment in Hell."

Professing to be a mainstream Christian is the least one should be worried about. Your beliefs matter to you and only to you. If you make a wrong decision, it doesn't help to say "but everybody else said..." I'm sure you agree.

The correct answer to question 3 is actually: we can't say. God decides who is worthy of his presence (who else is qualified, after all?), and my personal opinion is that His presence is hell to those who have rejected Him. "Our God is a consuming fire" (also read Num. 31:23). But, as a result of the grace of God, we can say that everybody who calls on His name will be saved. And He has also revealed the means of that certainty through Jesus Christ, by his resurrection. He's the only reason for certainty - He represents God's relationship with us and recognition (or rejection) of us. He is the justification for our faith, but also the means of our judgment.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Christ is our only reason for making the claims we do. It's the only name given to us; he contains all we know about God and about his future kingdom. That's not a position of power, but a confession of ignorance.

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.​

In the past, Christians have been far too quick to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't. The fact is that we only know that rejecting Christ is the quickest way to lose your certainty. We don't get to decide, we only know what God has decided about Christ, and that's all we have to hold on to. Jesus spoke about another flock ("I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also").Who knows? It might be you. But when you're being dragged out of the fire, you don't ask exactly where else the fire has caught and who else is being saved, or let go to find out. You just hold on to everyone you love and call to everyone who will hear.

If your answer to question 4. is indeed yes, how does one explain an "all good" god breaking his own commandment? "Thy shalt not kill?" Would you teach your children one thing, and then proceed to do differently? How does one reconcile this paradox?

You don't understand the commandment. God also instated death penalties - as punishment for breaking the commandment. Surely those carrying out a death penalty "kills". The commandment is aimed at wanton killing and murder. Only those in a position to judge (enforces the law) may decide over a life; sometimes it's courts, judges, communities, governments, military generals. And God. It's just mercy that some governments, states and judges today are less confident about their right to pronounce the death penalty, and Christian morality had a lot do with that (let those who are innocent throw the first stone). The argument could be turned around by asking why we allow serial killers and rapists to live.

Another point is that God can kill the body and still save the person - we can't. Your argument relies on putting our act of taking a life on an equal level as God taking a life. But as the answer to question 1 states: you didn't have control over your life, either. Why not call that immoral? It's simply a bias you find in your favour, as opposed to one you don't (or think might not be).

If "goodness" were a law - a right (and at creation, God indeed pronounced everything "good") - then we are breaking the commandment by being less than that, and forfeiting our right. God taught us not to take life because it belongs to Him. That's like dad telling you not to drive his car because it's his car. If you see him driving it, does that mean it's now okay to do it?

 

[Chazman]

Chazman, everything you just said is meaningless, and I'll tell you why.

*Chazman: all the word is true, or none of it is true
*Chazman: what are we to do when we find out that God did or said something in the past that did not line-up to our all good definition.

Ok. From the way you speak in your post I assume that you take the Bible word for word as utter and total truth, even in the literal sense. Therefore, when God commanded that the men, women and children (innocent) be slaughtered, you take that as something God really commanded. If I assume correctly then I question why you take is as literal, entirely.

I question it because, what reason do you have to do so? The reason, I assume, you would argue is that the Bible was inspired by God. While I agree with this, I don't agree with the conclusion that it is all, therefore, to be taken literally, and as truth in every form. However, even though I agree with the idea that it is inspired by God, I ask, from whence do you come to this belief? Have you felt God in your life? Or have felt God in the reading of Scripture? Perhaps you were given the Scriptures by your family, or loved ones, or simply by good people. In each of these cases you are either relying on your internal senses, or your trust in others. Neither of which guarantee the absolote truth of the Bible. Therefore, I have to also assume that ultimately your belief in the Bible rests solely in faith.

If this is true (and only you can confirm or deny my assumptions here), then your belief in the absolute truth of the Bible is also totally held in faith. Since this is true, then the truths of God revealed in the Bible, which you hold, must also be held entirely in faith. THEREFORE, you may never use logic when speaking of God, since everything you hold as true about God comes entirely out of faith.

SO, the logic which you presented in you last post is therefore meaningless, since it is entirely your own words, the words of a man, which cannot be trusted. This is because, by such reasoning as, *all the word is true, or none of it is true* only God's word is entire truth. So, it must therefore remain as also true that your words cannot be ENTIRELY true, but only partially true, and therefore not to be trusted, or given consideration, since we may be deceived in believing a lie.

*sigh*... however, by the same logic, you would also discount what I have just said as "untrustworthy" and deceptive words.

OK, OK too funny.
everything you just wrote was dismissed with your last sentence.
sooo, does this mean you did not even reply to my post??

Your assumptions, of me and my post are way off base, sorry if I
mislead you, as to were I am coming from. your shallow perseption of me
and my simple post, leads me to believe you have not the faith nor
the belief in the whole word of God ,nor do you understand it. but only
logic, therefore YOUR faith, and YOUR belief
and belief is based on your OWN logic, of what YOU believe to be true.....
some things in the bible are very literal others are symbolic..

let's start from the top of your reply, shall we ?

If I understand you correctly :
*Chazman: all the word is true, or none of it is true.
( this statment is refering to ,--> one must ask them self ,
side note"--> if you believe the WORD ( as one word ) not ( WORDS )
people refer to the word of God, not words of God. ( meaning complete,
as in whole ) this has nothing to do with literal meaning.
BUT this has everything to do with,, if they believe, it is ALL inspired by God
which you say you do believe this , BUT then you say
***beyondtimeandspace QUOTE:
While I agree with this, I don't agree with the conclusion that it is all, therefore, to be taken literally, and as truth in every form.
This: to me what you are trying to say is Gods truth is relivent..
I think you are the one that is assuming that , If a person says IF
they say "yes I believe the total word OF God to be totaly true." that this
means WOW they belive in what is actualy says? yes they do
BUT this does not mean they understand it all ,, but do Have faith
that it is all truth.

*Chazman: what are we to do when we find out that God did or said something in the past that did not line-up to our all good definition.

This is where many people have a problem with who God is. because
they ask them self . WHY OH WHY would a loving God do that, or why if God
loves us so much why would he let that happen....
This just goes to show: we were told be others while growing up ,
WHO WHAT WERE AND HOW ---> all about God.
do we realy know for ourself??? as you said or do we just believe other men
and people and what they tell us?

If this is true (and only you can confirm or deny my assumptions here), then your belief in the absolute truth of the Bible is also totally held in faith. Since this is true, then the truths of God revealed in the Bible, which you hold, must also be held entirely in faith. THEREFORE, you may never use logic when speaking of God, since everything you hold as true about God comes entirely out of faith.
This for the most part is correct, however your logic in your following
statement is Far fetched and unfair, otherwise I would only be able to
quote scriptures to make a post for you to believe me, UNLESS however
it did not line up to your logic,, as to be taken literal, none the less, it still
came from ME, and would be my reply and/or post.

IS this following stament literal, or symbolic:

I suppose maybe if I started a post,,,, then sometime in the middle of it
someone could come and finish it for me.
would that mean it is still from me ??? would It then be a lie? would that be
deceptive??
Now that I have lied and deceived you once more. does this mean you will
only believe some of what I have written? :~}

 

[what768]

Listen to me, what I have to say about hell and satan.

In Hell you have no understanding of time. That is why it seems eternal. There is only darkness and nothing to compare time with... we have no body in Hell, there's just you and satan. Time does not exist when we are happy, only when it ends, then we see that time has passed. In Hell time is like frozen. Yet time passes, but we have no understanding of it... and we will be born on earth again. God is all mercy full and all good and he is all knowing.....

Satan is but the law of matter without man. Only when man, as a spiritual creature, obeys the material law, he becomes "satanic" himself! This way Satan can only get a life through man.

We all know the law of good and the law of evil, i hope so. This is not written down, but in ourselves.

If we have great powers, when we have the power to be almost like god... if we then use the powers wrong, we might be born as animals or trees for thousands of years, like it happened with some witches who could not control their powers. but there were many good witches and they treated them badly. There are no evil things in the world, only powers we misuse... it depends on what we think about them. But it is not always so easy.

I have heard of those who call muslims evil because there are terrorists who call themselves muslims. But I say, there are those who call temselves atheists and they faithfull to god than those who call them religious.

When we are on earth, we have a chance to repent. The daily mistakes we make. We must forgive them who do us evil and when we do evil against them. We must believe in ourselves. God loves those who repent their sins... blessed are those people who admit that they did the wrong thing... god will correct all to the right path and they can be forgiven, whatever they have done.

Everyone of us know what right is. It is possible for all people to listen to themselves. We should let go of some desires and just do the right thing..... we should believe ourselves, the voice inside which tells us the truth has never lied to us. Still we disobey. Do not hesitate to do the right thing.

I wish a happy day for all people.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Alright, *ahem* stretched,

you are correct, what I believe wouldn't be considered "mainstream" Chrsitianity. However, the "mainstream" Christianity is also "modern Christianity." What I profess is Catholocism, which is the Church that follows the lineage of Popes right back to Saint Peter, the Apostle, to whom was said by Christ, "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

The following statement:

"Those who refuse salvation through God's son Jesus have automatically chosen eternal separation from God with conscious torment in Hell."

which you quoted, is true GIVEN THAT, a.) you believe Jesus to be God's son, b.) you understand the choice that you're making, c.) you fully choose to reject the salvation wrought by Jesus. This means that if you are unconvinced (for whatever reason) of Christ's divinity, His salvific act, or the need for salvation, then you cannot be held fully responsible for severing yourself from that act. Therefore, you may still receive redemption. It also means that if you are forced to choose against Christ (for whatever reason, and by whatever means) then you, again, cannot be held fully responsible for severing youself from that act. Therefore, you may still receive redemption. It ALSO means that if you have never even heard of Jesus (for whatever reason), and therefore aren't capable of making the conscious choice of accepting Jesus' salvific act (as such), then you cannot be fully held responsible for not accepting it (you may, in fact, be actively living in unison with it, though unaware that you are). Therefore, you may still receive redemption.

In response to your question about #4, I have answered this already (perhaps not in this thread, I'm not sure) in saying that the deaths, either commanded by God, or wrought by God Himself, as spoken by Old Testament authors, cannot be seen as true, as such. What is written in the Old Testament was written for a great many reasons, the least of which was to show that God acted out violently against humans. In fact, what is considered in the Old Testament to be violent acts of God against mankind, or men, is almost always so by very indirect means, none of which could be considered willed activities of God. I reiterate that many of the stories illustrate a human way of justifying bad actions by using God as a front (kinda like what Bush is doing, as well as the terrorists who also use God as a front). Also, many of those stories were simply written from the perspective of humans trying to understand catastrophes (like the flood), and often drew the correlation between wickedness and punishment, and so concluded that it was an action of God (much like many old pagan religions who would perform human sacrifices to the "gods" in order to appease their anger). The enlightened Christian would recognize this and admit that such things could not possible have been done by God, He being, as is asserted, omnibenevolent.

************************************

Now, in response to Chazman,

thank you for correcting my misconceived assumptions. However, don't consider my perception shallow, for there are MANY Christians to whom my reasoning can be applied. I simply recognized some patternal forms of language that you have used that indicate a person of such belief and reasoning.

However, you have also made the same mistake that I did, and have assumed many incorrect notions about me and my own beliefs.

In fact, I belief first, and then attempt to understand. I apply my logic to my beliefs, and have always found that my beliefs, and my logic can be reconciled. If God really is the creator of all, and the image of God is Intellect and Free Will, then we were meant to use our intellect, and so I do.

I do, also, believe in the entire truth of the Bible. However, in a different sense, than, perhaps (again, I assume) you. I realize that what truth the Bible is intended to reveal, is entirely true. However, I also recognize that there is much in the Bible that does not coincide with other kinds of truths (ie, scientific truths, historical/archaeological truths, etc...). The Bible was not written to present such truths, and so I do not consider areas that have apparent flaws, or contradictions with regard to known present day truths to be of major concern, since those kinds of truths were not meant to be absolute in the Bible, they aren't the reason the Bible was written.

Furthermore, I would like just to say this last thing. There is a different between saying "why did God do such a horrible thing?" and "why did God allow such a horrible thing to happen." It is quite easy to reconcile the second question with the postulation that God is an omnibenevolent being. However, I doubt the first could ever be reconciled with the notion.