NationStates Jolt Archive

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

God was not obligated to make any way. He didn't make one for the fallen angels.

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

All sin deserves punishment, even the smallest.

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Again, He didn't even need to make one way.

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

Not necessarily.

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

I'm not a loving God and am so depraved that I cannot imagine such.

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

No, He's a sovereign God, therefore He can do what He wants.

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Well, since I think we're discussing the Christian God, yes, because He is also good and that means He is just, which means He must punish unforgiven sin.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Your mistake is assuming the "loving" part. And as Edwardis points out, God considers Himself under no obligation whatsoever to be nice to humans. There was that little deal after the Flood, but I believe all He promised was not to use water again.

Hey Edwardis,

Cheers for the prompt reply.

A lot of it was the standard Christian fare, but your last comment:

'Well, since I think we're discussing the Christian God, yes, because He is also good and that means He is just, which means He must punish unforgiven sin'

Caught my attention and so I must ask:

God (the Christian concept) is often refered to as the farther. Now I don't know about you, but the majority of the fathers I know would not be as hard on his children as the Christian concept of God would.

I am a dad, and yes I do punish but not for eternity,and I always forgive. Not out of softness but because I love my children so much that it is very hard for me to see them hurt, or hurting.

If God is reflected in man at all, injust the smallest way, then surly we should expect the same treatment back from God.

Why initiate a system of punishment for no more than non belief? It is unGodly, and it is unloving.

Your mistake is assuming the "loving" part. And as Edwardis points out, God considers Himself under no obligation whatsoever to be nice to humans. There was that little deal after the Flood, but I believe all He promised was not to use water again.

So are you saying that God is not a loving God?

Hey Edwardis,

Cheers for the prompt reply.

A lot of it was the standard Christian fare, but your last comment:

'Well, since I think we're discussing the Christian God, yes, because He is also good and that means He is just, which means He must punish unforgiven sin'

Caught my attention and so I must ask:

God (the Christian concept) is often refered to as the farther. Now I don't know about you, but the majority of the fathers I know would not be as hard on his children as the Christian concept of God would.

I am a dad, and yes I do punish but not for eternity,and I always forgive. Not out of softness but because I love my children so much that it is very hard for me to see them hurt, or hurting.

If God is reflected in man at all, injust the smallest way, then surly we should expect the same treatment back from God.

Why initiate a system of punishment for no more than non belief? It is unGodly, and it is unloving.

Umm. Hmmm.

First, the punishemnt is not for unbelief. The punishment is for sin. Is unblief a sin? Yes, but humanity goes furthur. The Bible teaches (though some Biblical Christians will disagree) that Man hates God naturally because of the Fall.

And the short answer to the reflection of God as our Father is that our sin has perverted our responsibility to do justice.

I have to run to class, so I'll respond more fully in about 2 hrs. Sorry. :(

Umm. Hmmm.

First, the punishemnt is not for unbelief. The punishment is for sin. Is unblief a sin? Yes, but humanity goes furthur. The Bible teaches (though some Biblical Christians will disagree) that Man hates God naturally because of the Fall.

And the short answer to the reflection of God as our Father is that our sin has perverted our responsibility to do justice.

I have to run to class, so I'll respond more fully in about 2 hrs. Sorry. :(

Okay well reply when you can biut basicaly that is bollocks.
I take it you mean original sin. Sin that God must have made happen. God is everwhere, and sees all. Why did God not stop eve taking the fruit, why did God let the serpant even talk to eve. Because that concept of God is a lie.

If that was true, that man hates God, then why do we not all hate God? How can say a Hindu love God yet hate God? It like the majority of Christian dogma makes little or no sense to me.

Okay well reply when you can biut basicaly that is bollocks.
I take it you mean original sin. Sin that God must have made happen. God is everwhere, and sees all. Why did God not stop eve taking the fruit, why did God let the serpant even talk to eve. Because that concept of God is a lie.

If that was true, that man hates God, then why do we not all hate God? How can say a Hindu love God yet hate God? It like the majority of Christian dogma makes little or no sense to me.

luckily you dont have to believe any one person or sects answers to those questions. you can make up your own that satisfy you and then look for a sect that agrees with you or go with the closest and keep your own conscience.

to be a (non heretical) christian you have to believe this:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.


youll note that none of the answers of your questions are contained in that basic statement of faith. to me that means that you are free to answer those questions in your own way within your own understanding of god as a loving father and within the bounds of reality (meaning you cant pretend that life on earth is great when it does in fact suck)

Peeplonia, it only means you're going to the wrong church.

Shop around.

So are you saying that God is not a loving God?

Draw your own conclusions from His actions as described in the Bible. I'm thinking the Old testament, mostly, but the "My Way or straight to Hell, you heathen" attitude was not lost on the early Church Fathers. Look at it this way, if you, as a father, treated your children the way the God of the Old Testament treats His, Child Services would have your kids in foster care faster than ... just about anything you care to mention.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Why are these questions only for Christians? Why don't you direct them at Muslims or Jews?

Okay well reply when you can biut basicaly that is bollocks.
I take it you mean original sin. Sin that God must have made happen. God is everwhere, and sees all. Why did God not stop eve taking the fruit, why did God let the serpant even talk to eve. Because that concept of God is a lie.

If that was true, that man hates God, then why do we not all hate God? How can say a Hindu love God yet hate God? It like the majority of Christian dogma makes little or no sense to me.

The short answer is that everything happens for God's glory. Everything. All. For God's glory. Only.

Of course, that takes a lot of explanation, but...

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof

1. Our first parents being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated: and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, the curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all the miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
Of course, the Bible is superior to this, but I think it sums up the teachings of the Bible quite nicely.

Draw your own conclusions from His actions as described in the Bible. I'm thinking the Old testament, mostly, but the "My Way or straight to Hell, you heathen" attitude was not lost on the early Church Fathers. Look at it this way, if you, as a father, treated your children the way the God of the Old Testament treats His, Child Services would have your kids in foster care faster than ... just about anything you care to mention.

I was just wondering what your religious persuasion is.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Been wondering that myself.


Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

I hope he wouldn't I hope that he would judge them base on their action, now how they choose to worship him.


Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

One would think.


Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

One would think.


How would you make it if you where a loving God?

I would let my people worship me however they want, as long as they are good people in this life, their form of worship is fine. How they act in this life would determine their reward or punishment in the after life.


If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

Yea


Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Well you have to give justice to those who were bad in this life.

Hey Edwardis,

Cheers for the prompt reply.

A lot of it was the standard Christian fare, but your last comment:

'Well, since I think we're discussing the Christian God, yes, because He is also good and that means He is just, which means He must punish unforgiven sin'

Caught my attention and so I must ask:

God (the Christian concept) is often refered to as the farther. Now I don't know about you, but the majority of the fathers I know would not be as hard on his children as the Christian concept of God would.

I am a dad, and yes I do punish but not for eternity,and I always forgive. Not out of softness but because I love my children so much that it is very hard for me to see them hurt, or hurting.

If God is reflected in man at all, injust the smallest way, then surly we should expect the same treatment back from God.

Why initiate a system of punishment for no more than non belief? It is unGodly, and it is unloving.


You have to remember. The OT God was the god of a tribe that beats teenagers to death with rocks for having a smart mouth. If I'm not mistaken, their word for love came from their word for pitcher. It literally was not a part of their vocabulary (that last bit was facetious, obviously).

You have to remember. The OT God was the god of a tribe that beats teenagers to death with rocks for having a smart mouth. If I'm not mistaken, their word for love came from their word for pitcher. It literally was not a part of their vocabulary (that last bit was facetious, obviously).

Actually the death penalty was reserved for rebellious children, not one who was merely disobedient (yes, I realize the rebellion is a form of disobedience). The child didn't disobey at times, or go through a phase of "normal teen behavior" (most of which would be solved by a few slaps upside the head). It was reserved for the child who refused to listen to his parents at all. And if he can't obey the first authority over him (his parents), how can he be expected to obey any authority over him? He'll just be disobeying everyone.

Why are these questions only for Christians? Why don't you direct them at Muslims or Jews?

Well, early Judaism, and many Rabbis still affirm this position, believed that other gods existed, but Yahweh was the god of the Jews, and as far as the Jews were concerned there were no other gods. Like in that Christina Aguliera song "ain't no other man." Clearly there are other men. Some of them are playing in the band behind her. She just isn't interested.

As for Muslims. Yeah, same BS as Christianity and any other made up religous bullshit whose only aim is empire-building and producing obedient citizens instead of good ones.

So are you saying that God is not a loving God?

Apparently it's Edwardis who is saying that.

Apparently it's Edwardis who is saying that.

Where did I say that?

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Depends on how narrowly defined that "one way" is and whether or not the differences in people actually affect whether or not they can follow it.

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

If you choose to reject God, is eternal separation from God really punishment?

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Possibly. My parents loved me and used punishment to teach me. Of course, I think humanity, like adults, can move out of the carrot-stick mentality. Christ, I believe, came to turn us to God in love, rather than out of fear of punishment.

Where did I say that?

When asked why he would only produce one way to him, which for many generations was only available to an insignificant portion of the planet's population, your response was "he didn't even have to do that."

It's like saying, why would a loving parent starve their child to death by giving them only a half a slice of white bread a day? and then saying "if he didn't love the kid he wouldn't have even given him the bread."

Loving behavior isn't a matter of obligations, and to say that "lack of obligation" was what led God to fail to offer more paths to salvation does not satisfy the question of "why would a loving God do that?" You're essentially saying that it's because his love is insufficient.

When asked why he would only produce one way to him, which for many generations was only available to an insignificant portion of the planet's population, your response was "he didn't even have to do that."

It's like saying, why would a loving parent starve their child to death by giving them only a half a slice of white bread a day? and then saying "if he didn't love the kid he wouldn't have even given him the bread."

Loving behavior isn't a matter of obligations, and to say that "lack of obligation" was what led God to fail to offer more paths to salvation does not satisfy the question of "why would a loving God do that?" You're essentially saying that it's because his love is insufficient.

I never said that His love was insuffiecient. What I said was that everyone asks "If God is loving, why...?" They forget that He is just and He is sovereign. At least when we're discussing the Christian God. He could have squished you the instant you were conceived. But, in His loving mercy and grace, He didn't. Why? I don't know. I may never know. But I do know that He is not obligated to do anything for me, but because He loves me, He does a lot for me. And because He loves you, He has done a lot for you that He was not obligated to do.

I never said that His love was insuffiecient. What I said was that everyone asks "If God is loving, why...?" They forget that He is just and He is sovereign. At least when we're discussing the Christian God. He could have squished you the instant you were conceived. But, in His loving mercy and grace, He didn't. Why? I don't know. I may never know. But I do know that He is not obligated to do anything for me, but because He loves me, He does a lot for me. And because He loves you, He has done a lot for you that He was not obligated to do.

And because I have a love greater than my own immediate benifit I am left to wonder. What about all those poor souls condemned to eternal hell just because they died an hour before the missionary got to their village? How loving, merciful, or just, to create such a situation? He didn't squash me, but what about all the poor buggers whom he did squash, metaphorically speaking. Did he simply hate them, but love me? What did I do to deserve it, other than mock him snarkishly. If I did nothing to deserve it, and those other poor sods did nothing to deserve their squashing, then how is he just?

And you're still saying "because he didn't have to." And the point is that love isn't about what you must do. It's about what you do to alleviate suffering when you don't have to. And if there's so much that he doesn't do that seems to place such an unreasonable standard on some for avoiding hell (be born thousands of miles from where you were so that you get to hear about Christ) but no burden on others (be born somewhere that you won't even learn about an alternative), then there's a huge lack of mercy on the part of those who've got no chance of salvation.

I was just wondering what your religious persuasion is.

I'm not persuaded, that is to say, I'm an atheist.

Apparently it's Edwardis who is saying that.

Where did I say that?

That was me, I believe, when I said Peeplonia's mistake was assuming God is loving in the first place.

And because I have a love greater than my own immediate benifit I am left to wonder. What about all those poor souls condemned to eternal hell just because they died an hour before the missionary got to their village? How loving, merciful, or just, to create such a situation? He didn't squash me, but what about all the poor buggers whom he did squash, metaphorically speaking. Did he simply hate them, but love me? What did I do to deserve it, other than mock him snarkishly. If I did nothing to deserve it, and those other poor sods did nothing to deserve their squashing, then how is he just?

You are His. He is allowed to do as He wishes. Sound horrible? I know it does, but I can say naught else.

The poor souls were condemned to hell for their sins, not because the missionary "didn't get there in time."

"Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" not meaning that He loved Jacob more, but that His blessing was on Jacob and not Esau. He's God: He's allowed to do that.

You did nothing to deserve it; that's why it's grace. They did everything to deserve squashing, and you did, too. But His grace is His to give to whom He wills.

I'm not persuaded, that is to say, I'm an atheist.

Eh, that's a persuasion of sorts. I have to say I'm surprised.

You are His. He is allowed to do as He wishes. Sound horrible? I know it does, but I can say naught else.

The poor souls were condemned to hell for their sins, not because the missionary "didn't get there in time."

"Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" not meaning that He loved Jacob more, but that His blessing was on Jacob and not Esau. He's God: He's allowed to do that.

You did nothing to deserve it; that's why it's grace. They did everything to deserve squashing, and you did, too. But His grace is His to give to whom He wills.

I always understood that if you never heard the Word, and died, you got a pass, but that if you heard the Word preached to you and refused to listen, you were seriously out of luck.

Eh, that's a persuasion of sorts. I have to say I'm surprised.

Okay, we won't argue the semantics of "persuaded." Why are you surprised?

Okay, we won't argue the semantics of "persuaded." Why are you surprised?

You have (or seem to have) a knowledge of Christian theology that is commonly not held by non-Christians.

You are His. He is allowed to do as He wishes. Sound horrible? I know it does, but I can say naught else.

The poor souls were condemned to hell for their sins, not because the missionary "didn't get there in time."

But the only difference between those sinners and the sinners that live near a church is that there's a guy who lives nearby who can dispense his magic wine and Necco Wafers. Sorry... The Blood Of Christ and Eucharest. If sin is what gets you into hell and lack of sin won't get you out, but happening to live near a priest will... That's just sadistic.


"Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" not meaning that He loved Jacob more, but that His blessing was on Jacob and not Esau. He's God: He's allowed to do that.

You did nothing to deserve it; that's why it's grace. They did everything to deserve squashing, and you did, too. But His grace is His to give to whom He wills.

So he's merciful because he creates horrible fates for some, but not all? I don't buy it. That's what the Columbine kids did and the kids they didn't kill don't remember those wackjobs as merciful.

You have (or seem to have) a knowledge of Christian theology that is commonly not held by non-Christians.

I'm a scholar of many things, theology among them.

I'm a scholar of many things, theology among them.

That's interesting.

I always understood that if you never heard the Word, and died, you got a pass, but that if you heard the Word preached to you and refused to listen, you were seriously out of luck.

For a very long time, the Catholic position was infidels (muslims, apostates, jews and athiests) go to hell. Heathens (pagans, unbaptised infants and the religously uneducated) go to limbo. But the Catholic Church recently (last few months) did away with Limbo. Now it's straight up heaven or hell. They sort of had to because their position is that hell is neither a place nor a punishment, but a metaphor for not being in God's presence. You can't have one benign absence of God be any worse than another.

For a very long time, the Catholic position was infidels (muslims, apostates, jews and athiests) go to hell. Heathens (pagans, unbaptised infants and the religously uneducated) go to limbo. But the Catholic Church recently (last few months) did away with Limbo. Now it's straight up heaven or hell. They sort of had to because their position is that hell is neither a place nor a punishment, but a metaphor for not being in God's presence. You can't have one benign absence of God be any worse than another.

Limbo's been downsized, huh? I didn't know that. Makes a certain sense from what you say. Good thing they waited until now, Dante would have been only two-thirds as interesting had they done that in the 13th century.

But the only difference between those sinners and the sinners that live near a church is that there's a guy who lives nearby who can dispense his magic wine and Necco Wafers. Sorry... The Blood Of Christ and Eucharest. If sin is what gets you into hell and lack of sin won't get you out, but happening to live near a priest will... That's just sadistic.

Eh, no. If you lacked sin, you wouldn't be on the road to hell to begin with. But Jesus was the only Man to fit that description, and you are not He.

So he's merciful because he creates horrible fates for some, but not all? I don't buy it. That's what the Columbine kids did and the kids they didn't kill don't remember those wackjobs as merciful.

He doesn't create the fate. They choose it by their sin.

And the Columbine kids were killing to kill, not because those around them deserved death (which they all did, but is not for us mortals to give out).

Limbo's been downsized, huh? I didn't know that. Makes a certain sense from what you say. Good thing they waited until now, Dante would have been only two-thirds as interesting had they done that in the 13th century.

Limbo /=/ Purgatory

But neither of them exist, so it's no big deal.

Eh, no. If you lacked sin, you wouldn't be on the road to hell to begin with. But Jesus was the only Man to fit that description, and you are not He.



He doesn't create the fate. They choose it by their sin.

And the Columbine kids were killing to kill, not because those around them deserved death (which they all did, but is not for us mortals to give out).

They don't choose to live in remote villages where no one has ever heard of Christ. That's where they were born. The choice to accept Christ or to seek forgiveness is not theirs. God has literally placed them beyond forgiveness' reach through no choosing of theirs.

None of what you say puts the love in "loving God." You're essentially saying "he isn't all that loving, but whaddayagonnado?"

Limbo /=/ Purgatory

But neither of them exist, so it's no big deal.

You're right, now I think on it. I suppose Purgatory would still exist, if you assume it exists, as a kind of half-way house for those who didn't quite deserve Hell but couldn't go straight to Heaven.

They don't choose to live in remote villages where no one has ever heard of Christ. That's where they were born. The choice to accept Christ or to seek forgiveness is not theirs. God has literally placed them beyond forgiveness' reach through no choosing of theirs.

Has He? Or is it that if He desired to give them grace, He would send someone to them?

Has He? Or is it that if He desired to give them grace, He would send someone to them?

Having a hard time believing that God would play a game of pick and choose with grace. It's like "Well you get to hear the word and get saved, but you don't!" jeez that's just, wrong.

Limbo /=/ Purgatory

But neither of them exist, so it's no big deal.

Yeah. Limbo would have been more akin to the first layer of Dante's hell. Not bad in any way, but you didn't accept God, so you can't go to heaven. It's more like the rest of hell got an upgrade. No more Cerberus. No more howling winds dashing the lusty on the rocks. Just a dull boring eternity.

Having a hard time believing that God would play a game of pick and choose with grace. It's like "Well you get to hear the word and get saved, but you don't!" jeez that's just, wrong.

We belong to Him, He can do what He wants with us, so long as it is within His nature.

Having a hard time believing that God would play a game of pick and choose with grace. It's like "Well you get to hear the word and get saved, but you don't!" jeez that's just, wrong.

We don't know God's reasoning behind who is given grace and who isn't; the Bible doesn't tell us. We do, however, know that He is a God of order, meaning that there is some reason that we just aren't told.

We belong to Him, He can do what He wants with us, so long as it is within His nature.

You seem pretty laid back about that, I mean I know you're going to say it's because you heard the word and is saved, but what if you wern't? Would you still be laid back about it, and accept that just because you didn't get a chance to hear the word and get saved that you automatically get casted into Hell?

Has He? Or is it that if He desired to give them grace, He would send someone to them?

Exactly my point. It's not loving to cause so many to be born doomed to eternity in hell with no chance to earn salvation. If you produce even one person like that, you are not loving. It's the same pathology as the Columbine kids. Create a personal sense of power by showing off how you can doom or save as suits your whim.

I'm not saying that God is like this. I'm saying that the priests who have come up with these interpretations over the generations are showing that pathology in themselves, and their analysis, which you seem to be advocating, is seriously flawed.

I believe that there are many paths to salvation because a loving God would never make geography a precondition of salvation. A corrupt priest would do that in a heartbeat, and a naive one would believe those lies and repeat them in good, but misguided faith.

You seem pretty laid back about that, I mean I know you're going to say it's because you heard the word and is saved, but what if you wern't? Would you still be laid back about it, and accept that just because you didn't get a chance to hear the word and get saved that you automatically get casted into Hell?

If I hadn't heard the word and were not saved, I would hate this doctrine, because my nature would be totally against it.

Exactly my point. It's not loving to cause so many to be born doomed to eternity in hell with no chance to earn salvation. If you produce even one person like that, you are not loving. It's the same pathology as the Columbine kids. Create a personal sense of power by showing off how you can doom or save as suits your whim.

No. Whim implies no purpose. God certainly has purpose.

I'm not saying that God is like this. I'm saying that the priests who have come up with these interpretations over the generations are showing that pathology in themselves, and their analysis, which you seem to be advocating, is seriously flawed.

Actually, very few preists believe this anymore.

I believe that there are many paths to salvation because a loving God would never make geography a precondition of salvation. A corrupt priest would do that in a heartbeat, and a naive one would believe those lies and repeat them in good, but misguided faith.

Umm, well, I'm sorry, but that's not what the Bible teaches. And it is the sole rule of faith.

You seem pretty laid back about that, I mean I know you're going to say it's because you heard the word and is saved, but what if you wern't? Would you still be laid back about it, and accept that just because you didn't get a chance to hear the word and get saved that you automatically get casted into Hell?

Well, you wouldn't care until you were before God to be judged, seeing as you wouldn't believe in Christianity. Once you were before God, you would recognize your sin and accept your punishment; sinners can't see the full horror of their sin now, but they will when they are judged.

If I hadn't heard the word and were not saved, I would hate this doctrine, because my nature would be totally against it.

Ok, well you admit that it's a doctrine. Doctrines tend to be man made.

What about people who lived good lives, and helped their fellow man. Well, let's use Gandhi. Can you honestly tell me that Gandhi would go to Hell? Personally I think he deserves heaven.

If I hadn't heard the word and were not saved, I would hate this doctrine, because my nature would be totally against it.

But you couldn't form an opinion on this doctrine without hearing "the word." If you were raised muslim and someone showed you a bible and told you what christ was all about, how quick do you think you would be to accept him?

What makes you think that the priest that you grew up with knows any better than the Imam that the next guy grew up with? Or vice versa?

Who knows? Maybe the Romans had it right and Jupiter let it be destroyed as the ultimate test of faith. A test that western society has failed. Are we all doomed to roll the self-refuting boulder of Christian dogma up the hill of our ideological vanity only to watch it roll back down as an enlightened pagan distracts us with "but why would a loving God...?" like so many Sisiphuses (Sisifi? sp)?

Well, you wouldn't care until you were before God to be judged, seeing as you wouldn't believe in Christianity. Once you were before God, you would recognize your sin and accept your punishment; sinners can't see the full horror of their sin now, but they will when they are judged.

*Applause*

This isn't an idea that I would try to convince anyone of, but I think that everyone that in the end is not right with God, will be still defiant and "sticking their tongues out" at God.

Ok, well you admit that it's a doctrine. Doctrines tend to be man made.

What about people who lived good lives, and helped their fellow man. Well, let's use Gandhi. Can you honestly tell me that Gandhi would go to Hell? Personally I think he deserves heaven.

Every mere man deserves hell.

I don't know if Gandhi became a Christian or not and it would be a sin for me to think of guessing.

Every mere man deserves hell.

I don't know if Gandhi became a Christian or not and it would be a sin for me to think of guessing.

I think he was a Hindu...

No. Whim implies no purpose. God certainly has purpose.



Actually, very few preists believe this anymore.



Umm, well, I'm sorry, but that's not what the Bible teaches. And it is the sole rule of faith.

But what makes your bible better than the muslims' Koran? The Vikings' Elder Edda? The Tibetan Book of the Dead?

How do you know that this isn't where God has finally sent someone to save you by showing you that you are responsible for more than hugging a book like it's a life preserver and treating it's contents as nothing more than an instruction manual?

Ok, well you admit that it's a doctrine. Doctrines tend to be man made.

What about people who lived good lives, and helped their fellow man. Well, let's use Gandhi. Can you honestly tell me that Gandhi would go to Hell? Personally I think he deserves heaven.

Ghandi was good by our standards, not God's. Think of it: God is perfect, so why would He tolerate the company of anyone less than perfect? Ghandi may have been good by our standards, but he was still below God's. If Ghandi had had faith in God, then God would have declared him to be perfect, thus allowing Ghandi to enjoy eternity with God; however, if Ghandi never repented of his sins (which he still had, no matter how good he was), then he'll have been sent to Hell.

*Applause*

This isn't an idea that I would try to convince anyone of, but I think that everyone that in the end is not right with God, will be still defiant and "sticking their tongues out" at God.

Just because someone chooses a diffrent path to God doesn't mean they're sticking their tounge out at him.

But you couldn't form an opinion on this doctrine without hearing "the word." If you were raised muslim and someone showed you a bible and told you what christ was all about, how quick do you think you would be to accept him?

I don't know, I was never in that position.

What makes you think that the priest that you grew up with knows any better than the Imam that the next guy grew up with? Or vice versa?

I never grew up with a priest. But a Christian priest would have the Word of God and that is more knowledge than the Imam, definately, in the spiritual realm.

Who knows? Maybe the Romans had it right and Jupiter let it be destroyed as the ultimate test of faith. A test that western society has failed. Are we all doomed to roll the self-refuting boulder of Christian dogma up the hill of our ideological vanity only to watch it roll back down as an enlightened pagan distracts us with "but why would a loving God...?" like so many Sisiphuses (Sisifi? sp)?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I have to go to class (Linguistics is so interesting!), but I'll be back in about 3 hours.

Ghandi was good by our standards, not God's. Think of it: God is perfect, so why would He tolerate the company of anyone less than perfect? Ghandi may have been good by our standards, but he was still below God's. If Ghandi had had faith in God, then God would have declared him to be perfect, thus allowing Ghandi to enjoy eternity with God; however, if Ghandi never repented of his sins (which he still had, no matter how good he was), then he'll have been sent to Hell.

Then by that logic everyone goes to Hell because no one is perfect. Humans are falliable because we're human, it's in our nature.

But what makes your bible better than the muslims' Koran? The Vikings' Elder Edda? The Tibetan Book of the Dead?
The fact that it's true.

But you couldn't form an opinion on this doctrine without hearing "the word." If you were raised muslim and someone showed you a bible and told you what christ was all about, how quick do you think you would be to accept him?

What makes you think that the priest that you grew up with knows any better than the Imam that the next guy grew up with? Or vice versa?

Who knows? Maybe the Romans had it right and Jupiter let it be destroyed as the ultimate test of faith. A test that western society has failed. Are we all doomed to roll the self-refuting boulder of Christian dogma up the hill of our ideological vanity only to watch it roll back down as an enlightened pagan distracts us with "but why would a loving God...?" like so many Sisiphuses (Sisifi? sp)?

Sisyphus, Sisyphi, Sisuphoi if you want the Greek ... Careful, you're flirting with the dark side with that boulder analogy. Faith relieves you of the requirement of thinking about certain things. Not all things, you still have to think about doing right and doing wrong and the difference, but what faith and belief do is give you an instant reference guide. The catch is, you shouldn't question the rules. Of course, if you believe, truly believe, you won't.

Me, I have my own version of WWJD ... "what would Julia (Child) do?" And then I go cook something. :)

I always understood that if you never heard the Word, and died, you got a pass, but that if you heard the Word preached to you and refused to listen, you were seriously out of luck.

Christianity has many different flavours, some that embrace what you're saying here (although rather simplistically) and others that hold to a far more legalistic version where you must recite something like the sinner's prayer or pass through certain rituals with a priest.

I believe the former has a much firmer basis in scripture than the version where God is a mad Queen of Hearts parody saying "Off with their heads" at everyone.

Then by that logic everyone goes to Hell because no one is perfect. Humans are falliable because we're human, it's in our nature.
God can change your nature; that's what grace is all about. A person may have a fallen nature, but God can change that nature to make you righteous. All you have to do is ask and have faith.

By the way, I know that grace and predestination may be extremely paradoxical, and it's probably not a good idea to get into it. Just read a book about it if you really want to know. It's not something that can be well explained in a forum.

So are you saying that God is not a loving God?

Yes.

Ever read the Old Testament?

Not very loving, is He?

Do you concede that the methodological problems inherent to the bible render it a flawed document?

Yes.

Ever read the Old Testament?

Not very loving, is He?

He did a 180 in the NT though.

Do you concede that the methodological problems inherent to the bible render it a flawed document?

Oh dear, questioning the text? Just because there are two creation stories in Genesis ...

Do you concede that the methodological problems inherent to the bible render it a flawed document?
What methodological problems?

Do you concede that the methodological problems inherent to the bible render it a flawed document?

I believe that The Bible, like other religious books are guides more or less.

Oh dear, questioning the text? Just because there are two creation stories in Genesis ...

Ok. I can't be bothered to read the other pages in this thread and thus establish where you stand., so I'll ask nicely; is this sarcasm or simply an obtuse mind?

The fact that it's true.

Um. No. It's not. Many of the OT tales are just Babylonian folktales with the names changed. Even Biblical scholars recognize this. If the other religion is false, then Christianity, based on them, must also be false.

He did a 180 in the NT though.
God never changed. He was saving His people and judging sinners in both Testaments.

Oh dear, questioning the text? Just because there are two creation stories in Genesis ...

Yeah, one describing the general creation and one describing the creation of Man. There's no contradiction.

What methodological problems?

Hmmm...... the fact that the Bible is a translation of a vulgate latin mistranslation of one of many copies of a coptic text that does not co-incide with its counterparts?

Would sir like any more?

God never changed. He was saving His people and judging sinners in both Testaments.

Yea, but he didn't burn down cities, turn people into pillars of salt, or any of that in the NT. Plus there's that whole thou shall not judge thing and yea.

Um. No. It's not. Many of the OT tales are just Babylonian folktales with the names changed. Even Biblical scholars recognize this. If the other religion is false, then Christianity, based on them, must also be false.
Just because they're similar doesn't mean that the Bible is based on them. And by the way, Biblical scholars are just as flawed as anybody else.

Do you concede that the methodological problems inherent to the bible render it a flawed document?

Forget methodological problems. The fact that it was written by human beings makes it fallible.


Yeah, one describing the general creation and one describing the creation of Man. There's no contradiction.

No contradiction except for the fact that the order of creation is different (the second account does entail the creation of plants and animals, but in a different order than the first) and the focus and general idea is different. In the first, God is portrayed as omnipotent and omniscient. In the second, God is anthropomorphized and portrayed as making mistakes. In the first, human beings (male and female) are the pinnacle of creation. In the second, most of creation is made for the man (and gender specificity here is important).

I don't know, I was never in that position.



I never grew up with a priest. But a Christian priest would have the Word of God and that is more knowledge than the Imam, definately, in the spiritual realm.

How so? Islam was being studied by professional religous scholars of a vast empire when Christianity was confined to ill-educated book clubs looking for excuses to kill people who didn't know the handshake. That's the whole basis of their salvation philosophy. That what get's you into the club in the next world is being lucky enough to get into the club in this world. And if you weren't invited, well that's because the all-powerful creator of the universe didn't want you to be. Why else wouldn't you be included? It's a circular argument. It makes no sense.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I have to go to class (Linguistics is so interesting!), but I'll be back in about 3 hours.

I'm getting at the idea that perhaps the state of the world today is Jupiter's punishment for us abandoning the One True Pantheon, and when we die we'll discover that we're to be punished the way that Sissiphus was.

Forget methodological problems. The fact that it was written by human beings makes it fallible.


Perhaps. We accept a pre-existent fallibility in any text when we employ as it as a model of behaviour, and thus pre-suppose infallibility in it. The methodological porblems inherent to the bible preclude infallibility, hence rendering the Bible useless.

Hmmm...... the fact that the Bible is a translation of a vulgate latin mistranslation of one of many copies of a coptic text that does not co-incide with its counterparts?

Would sir like any more?
Modern translations are not based on the latin vulgate, and there have been many identical copies of the Bible found.

This isn't exactly relative to the thread, but I find it interesting that history books will teach history about what a single man wrote in a single document with no corroberating documents (Greek history... can't remember the historian's name), but they're more than happy to claim that the Bible is inaccurate when there have literally been thousands of identical copies found, dating from the 1st-3rd centuries (i.e. when it was first written).

Yea, but he didn't burn down cities, turn people into pillars of salt, or any of that in the NT. Plus there's that whole thou shall not judge thing and yea.
He still struck people dead here and there; and in any case, what he did in the physical world doesn't really matter. I doubt Lot's wife cared about how she died now that she's in Hell, which is infinitely worse than anything that happened in life.

And, as much as I've enjoyed being here, I've got plenty of work to be done, so I'm afraid that I have to go. See y'all later, perhaps.

Forget methodological problems. The fact that it was written by human beings makes it fallible.



No contradiction except for the fact that the order of creation is different (the second account does entail the creation of plants and animals, but in a different order than the first) and the focus and general idea is different. In the first, God is portrayed as omnipotent and omniscient. In the second, God is anthropomorphized and portrayed as making mistakes. In the first, human beings (male and female) are the pinnacle of creation. In the second, most of creation is made for the man (and gender specificity here is important).

What about the 3 different stories about what happened at the resurrection?

What about the fact that the NT keeps saying that noone gets into heaven except through Christ, but then Christ says things like, "just be kind to the unfortunate, consider the sinful to be unfortunate, and love God personally and you'll go to heaven."

The bible has more contradictons than an MC Esher painting.

Ok. I can't be bothered to read the other pages in this thread and thus establish where you stand., so I'll ask nicely; is this sarcasm or simply an obtuse mind?

Sarcasm, mild, I hoped. And there are two creation stories in Genesis. 1:1 to 2:3 is held by some scholars to be from the Priestly source (he always uses Elohim to describe God) and 2:4 to 2:24 is from the Yahwist source (Yahweh Elohim is used throughout).

Modern translations are not based on the latin vulgate, and there have been many identical copies of the Bible found.

This isn't exactly relative to the thread, but I find it interesting that history books will teach history about what a single man wrote in a single document with no corroberating documents (Greek history... can't remember the historian's name), but they're more than happy to claim that the Bible is inaccurate when there have literally been thousands of identical copies found, dating from the 1st-3rd centuries (i.e. when it was first written).


No. "Literally thousands of copies" would be an impossibility in a generally illiterate epoch. What on earth are modern translations based upon then? English bibles translated from the latin?

He still struck people dead here and there; and in any case, what he did in the physical world doesn't really matter. I doubt Lot's wife cared about how she died now that she's in Hell, which is infinitely worse than anything that happened in life.

And, as much as I've enjoyed being here, I've got plenty of work to be done, so I'm afraid that I have to go. See y'all later, perhaps.

How do you know that she's in Hell?

Sarcasm, mild, I hoped. And there are two creation stories in Genesis. 1:1 to 2:3 is held by some scholars to be from the Priestly source (he always uses Elohim to describe God) and 2:4 to 2:24 is from the Yahwist source (Yahweh Elohim is used throughout).

Oh dear god.... how can people buy into that crap?

Oh, before I go: Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ is supposed to be a very good book about historical evidence for Christianity. I haven't read it yet, but I see it everywhere and here a lot of good things about it (from Christians and non-Christians). If you're serious about trying to use history to prove or disprove Christianity, then you should read it.

Just because they're similar doesn't mean that the Bible is based on them.

Yes it does. Judaica contains no such stories until the Babylonian exile and then it does. They were lifted wholesale and then given a flimsy makeover.

And by the way, Biblical scholars are just as flawed as anybody else.

Absolutly right. As flawed as anyone. Like, for example, the authors of the stories in the Bible.

It's just a compilation of folktales. You would be just as well off looking for salvation in a Brothers Grimm book.

Oh dear god.... how can people buy into that crap?

I'm sorry, but what's crap? That people, most all of them believers, I'm sure, have studied the texts and come to these conclusions?

The more modern transalations use Both Hebrew and Greek texts for the Old Testament, and a variety for the New, but mainly Greek. The Latin version didn't happen until Saint Jerome, I believe, at least, it was he who made what is now known as the Vulgate. There are several 3rd or 4th century Greek texts, but I think the best is considered the Sinaiatica (I think that's the spelling), which was found in the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai. Anyway, I could go on and on, but I won't.

I'm sorry, but what's crap? That people, most all of them believers, I'm sure, have studied the texts and come to these conclusions?

The more modern transalations use Both Hebrew and Greek texts for the Old Testament, and a variety for the New, but mainly Greek. The Latin version didn't happen until Saint Jerome, I believe, at least, it was he who made what is now known as the Vulgate. There are several 3rd or 4th century Greek texts, but I think the best is considered the Sinaiatica (I think that's the spelling), which was found in the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai. Anyway, I could go on and on, but I won't.

I can appreciate that any methodological debate has counter-arguments, however its the ambiguity that gets me. God did mightily command thee to smite the unholy, until four pages later....:rolleyes:

God was not obligated to make any way. He didn't make one for the fallen angels.



All sin deserves punishment, even the smallest.



Again, He didn't even need to make one way.



Not necessarily.



I'm not a loving God and am so depraved that I cannot imagine such.



No, He's a sovereign God, therefore He can do what He wants.



Well, since I think we're discussing the Christian God, yes, because He is also good and that means He is just, which means He must punish unforgiven sin.

Didn't you just go over the fact that he didn't have to do anything he didn't want?

Perhaps. We accept a pre-existent fallibility in any text when we employ as it as a model of behaviour, and thus pre-suppose infallibility in it. The methodological porblems inherent to the bible preclude infallibility, hence rendering the Bible useless.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You basically just said, "We accept that it is fallible, but figure it's infallible anyways."

Anything and everything in which humans have been involved is fallible, that doesn't render it useless, it just means we shouldn't view it as infallible - we should question it.


Modern translations are not based on the latin vulgate, and there have been many identical copies of the Bible found.

Some are, some are not. Take, for instance, the KJV, which many people see as being infallible. It is an English translation of the Latin texts, which were translated from Greek, some of which were translated from Hebrew. Throw in that King James basically had editorial power (ie. nothing went in that the king might get mad about) and suddenly you've got problems. And there are quite a few versions that are just modernized English "translations" of the KJV.

Some versions, on the other hand, are translated directly to English from the oldest available texts. My version of the NRSV is one of these. Interestingly enough, among other things, it contains footnotes on disputed translations and words.

This isn't exactly relative to the thread, but I find it interesting that history books will teach history about what a single man wrote in a single document with no corroberating documents (Greek history... can't remember the historian's name), but they're more than happy to claim that the Bible is inaccurate when there have literally been thousands of identical copies found, dating from the 1st-3rd centuries (i.e. when it was first written).

I'm not aware of any history regularly taught without corroborating evidence and/or texts.


What about the 3 different stories about what happened at the resurrection?

Or the fact that Christ was born in two different years, under two different kings?

What about the fact that the NT keeps saying that noone gets into heaven except through Christ, but then Christ says things like, "just be kind to the unfortunate, consider the sinful to be unfortunate, and love God personally and you'll go to heaven."

Could following the teachings of Christ not be considered "getting to heaven through Christ" and considering them holy?

I won't dispute that there are contradictions in the Bible, but I certainly wouldn't count this as one of them.

Just because someone chooses a diffrent path to God doesn't mean they're sticking their tounge out at him.

My friend says you need to learn proper English. :p

There is only one way to God.

How so? Islam was being studied by professional religous scholars of a vast empire when Christianity was confined to ill-educated book clubs looking for excuses to kill people who didn't know the handshake. That's the whole basis of their salvation philosophy. That what get's you into the club in the next world is being lucky enough to get into the club in this world. And if you weren't invited, well that's because the all-powerful creator of the universe didn't want you to be. Why else wouldn't you be included? It's a circular argument. It makes no sense.

It's much more complicated than you're making it in some areas and much less complicated in other.

I'm getting at the idea that perhaps the state of the world today is Jupiter's punishment for us abandoning the One True Pantheon, and when we die we'll discover that we're to be punished the way that Sissiphus was.

:confused:

Didn't you just go over the fact that he didn't have to do anything he didn't want?

But He wants to obey His nature (otherwise He wouldn't be God). And His nature requires that He be just.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?


I'm not a Christian, but I think I can provide a sensible answer for you anyway.
A loving God would only create one type of person. It's the people themselves that create different types of people. If people were born with no physical differences, people would create them. If people had no ideological differences, people would create those too. Much in the same way, people created this idea that there is only one way to reach God. My bet is on anyone that tells you the correct way to reach God doesn't know what they are talking about and anyone that actually did find the correct way to reach God wouldn't be able to put it into words.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't change a thing. There's nothing wrong with the way the world is. The only thing wrong is how we perceive it to be and how we act in it.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

Actually Christianity has only two rules: Love God; Love everyone else.

All of the other things various people drop on you are unneeded burdens.

Christians will say you need to "know" Jesus. But the BIBLE actually says that anyone can look at creation and see the creator. And honor that creator.

What many neo-pharisees fail to understand is that which became Jesus (actually Yashua) was in the beginning the CREATOR. So since creation is available to everyone, everyone can see Jesus in the creation regardless of the name that they give that creator.

The answer to the original question is YES! God is available to everyone with many types of worship.

I am a dad, and yes I do punish but not for eternity,and I always forgive. Not out of softness but because I love my children so much that it is very hard for me to see them hurt, or hurting.

Would you, on the flip side, eternally sentence them to exist in the presence of everything which they absolutely hate?

Heaven would be a much worse place for those in rebellion.

So are you saying that God is not a loving God?

The christian god

No

Edit: On what I have heard and come to associate with the reality of the situation ... I do not mean to slam thoes that believe in such things but have repsect for others

And because I have a love greater than my own immediate benifit I am left to wonder. What about all those poor souls condemned to eternal hell just because they died an hour before the missionary got to their village? How loving, merciful, or just, to create such a situation? He didn't squash me, but what about all the poor buggers whom he did squash, metaphorically speaking. Did he simply hate them, but love me? What did I do to deserve it, other than mock him snarkishly. If I did nothing to deserve it, and those other poor sods did nothing to deserve their squashing, then how is he just?

And you're still saying "because he didn't have to." And the point is that love isn't about what you must do. It's about what you do to alleviate suffering when you don't have to. And if there's so much that he doesn't do that seems to place such an unreasonable standard on some for avoiding hell (be born thousands of miles from where you were so that you get to hear about Christ) but no burden on others (be born somewhere that you won't even learn about an alternative), then there's a huge lack of mercy on the part of those who've got no chance of salvation.

I think it's important to realize the multiple facets of God...

To save all would be loving and merciful, but not just.
To condemn all would be just, but not loving and merciful.

Why are these questions only for Christians? Why don't you direct them at Muslims or Jews?


Umm let me think about that one... Ohhh yeah coz I have no beef with the Jewish faith, and only a little with Islam.

Depends on how narrowly defined that "one way" is and whether or not the differences in people actually affect whether or not they can follow it.

Umm the old pygmy thing pops into my head here. What if in the ddepest darkesk hardest toreach place on |Earth lived a trib of pygmy's who nobody has ever seen, let alone Christion missionarys. If they have never heard of Jesus, then are they going to heaven of hell?



If you choose to reject God, is eternal separation from God really punishment?

Ahhh so you subscribe to the hell is seperation from God idea? I can get more with that than the idea of a place of fire and brimstone. Can I ask though what if you belived that God is all, then how can anything be possibly seperated from God?



Possibly. My parents loved me and used punishment to teach me. Of course, I think humanity, like adults, can move out of the carrot-stick mentality. Christ, I believe, came to turn us to God in love, rather than out of fear of punishment.

Yes I agree, but your parents are not still punishing you now are they? Nor would they do for eternaty wiould they?

I never said that His love was insuffiecient. What I said was that everyone asks "If God is loving, why...?" They forget that He is just and He is sovereign. At least when we're discussing the Christian God. He could have squished you the instant you were conceived. But, in His loving mercy and grace, He didn't. Why? I don't know. I may never know. But I do know that He is not obligated to do anything for me, but because He loves me, He does a lot for me. And because He loves you, He has done a lot for you that He was not obligated to do.

Sorry then you belive that the creator has no obligation to the created?
That a father has no oblication to his son?

interesting debate!

if in doubt be a Buddhist :)

Umm the old pygmy thing pops into my head here. What if in the ddepest darkesk hardest toreach place on |Earth lived a trib of pygmy's who nobody has ever seen, let alone Christion missionarys. If they have never heard of Jesus, then are they going to heaven of hell?

I can't speak for Dempublicents, but the pygmy would go to hell, because he would be an unrepentent sinner.



Ahhh so you subscribe to the hell is seperation from God idea? I can get more with that than the idea of a place of fire and brimstone. Can I ask though what if you belived that God is all, then how can anything be possibly seperated from God?

That's speaking more about the physical realm. We don't really understand the spiritual realm as much. And so, there if you aren't in God's presence, you may be in fire and brimstone.

Sorry then you belive that the creator has no obligation to the created?
That a father has no oblication to his son?

Yes and no.

The Father being the Creator has no obligation.

A father has an obligation because the Creator commands him to do certain things for and to his son.

[QUOTE=Peepelonia;11653871]Umm the old pygmy thing pops into my head here. What if in the ddepest darkesk hardest toreach place on |Earth lived a trib of pygmy's who nobody has ever seen, let alone Christion missionarys. If they have never heard of Jesus, then are they going to heaven of hell?

With you on this one, surley you don't nee to know of Jesus or missionarys to find god?

I can't speak for Dempublicents, but the pygmy would go to hell, because he would be an unrepentent sinner.

Why should an ancient celt, induit, or mesopatanian go to hell just because he was born a thousand years before the birth of Judaism (let alone the birth of Jesus!)? S/He never had a chance of repentance - and neither did the pygmy in the other example.

Exactly my point. It's not loving to cause so many to be born doomed to eternity in hell with no chance to earn salvation. If you produce even one person like that, you are not loving. It's the same pathology as the Columbine kids. Create a personal sense of power by showing off how you can doom or save as suits your whim.

I'm not saying that God is like this. I'm saying that the priests who have come up with these interpretations over the generations are showing that pathology in themselves, and their analysis, which you seem to be advocating, is seriously flawed.

I believe that there are many paths to salvation because a loving God would never make geography a precondition of salvation. A corrupt priest would do that in a heartbeat, and a naive one would believe those lies and repeat them in good, but misguided faith.

Ahhh thank you , that is where I have been leading. I have no problem with God, nor Christianity, but only the Christian church that preaches of a loving God who does not seem loviong at all.

Why should an ancient celt, induit, or mesopatanian go to hell just because he was born a thousand years before the birth of Judaism (let alone the birth of Jesus!)? S/He never had a chance of repentance.

Becasue he deserves it and God was under no obligation to allow him to live past conception. If God had no mercy, the pygmy would have died at conception and would be in hell now. But, right now he is alive and sitting in the jungle where God might send a missionary in the future.

I have another question for the God-ites myself.

What makes God male? I mean, obviously not biology. And everything we know as male is defined by and/or has its roots in sexually reproducing biological species. So why not just an It?

*Applause*

This isn't an idea that I would try to convince anyone of, but I think that everyone that in the end is not right with God, will be still defiant and "sticking their tongues out" at God.


Yeah but when not right with God means, your following the wrong way, then I ask what is right with such a concept of God?

I am absolutly convinced beyond any doubt at all that I am fine with God, in fact me and God are spar!(to use and old word). Yet my dogma tells me that so are you even if your concept of God is differant from mine. However your dogma says that I am doomed to an everlasting punishment becuase I don't think like you do? Madness pure madness.

Becasue he deserves it and God was under no obligation to allow him to live past conception. If God had no mercy, the pygmy would have died at conception and would be in hell now. But, right now he is alive and sitting in the jungle where God might send a missionary in the future.

But what about those who lived and died before Judaism (and never mind Christianity) even existed? It was wholly impossible for them to repent according to the precepts of a religion they couldn't have heard about. Do they not count, did they not deserve a chance of salvation?

I have another question for the God-ites myself.

What makes God male? I mean, obviously not biology. And everything we know as male is defined by and/or has its roots in sexually reproducing biological species. So why not just an It?

Jesus was male and He called God, Father. God doesn't have a gender, but that's what He called himself (Jesus was God, remember. Christianity is trinitarian), so we should call Him what He wants to be called.

Sisyphus, Sisyphi, Sisuphoi if you want the Greek ... Careful, you're flirting with the dark side with that boulder analogy. Faith relieves you of the requirement of thinking about certain things. Not all things, you still have to think about doing right and doing wrong and the difference, but what faith and belief do is give you an instant reference guide. The catch is, you shouldn't question the rules. Of course, if you believe, truly believe, you won't.

Me, I have my own version of WWJD ... "what would Julia (Child) do?" And then I go cook something. :)

Then that is not a faith that I can get with. My faith tells me to not take peoples words for it, and to in fact question everything, even my own faith if I feel that's what I need to do, even the very existance of God, if that is where Gods will leads me.

Yeah but when not right with God means, your following the wrong way, then I ask what is right with such a concept of God?

I am absolutly convinced beyond any doubt at all that I am fine with God, in fact me and God are spar!(to use and old word). Yet my dogma tells me that so are you even if your concept of God is differant from mine. However your dogma says that I am doomed to an everlasting punishment becuase I don't think like you do? Madness pure madness.

No, you are not doomed because you have a different concept of God than I do. You are doomed because you don't want the God of the Bible. I'm using you hypothetically. I really don't know your spiritual life, so I can't speak to you particurally.

But what about those who lived and died before Judaism (and never mind Christianity) even existed? It was wholly impossible for them to repent according to the precepts of a religion they couldn't have heard about. Do they not count, did they not deserve a chance of salvation?

No one deserves anything but death. So, no, they didn't deserve a chance. But before Judaism, there were people who served God. Remember Noah?

Jesus was male and He called God, Father. God doesn't have a gender, but that's what He called himself (Jesus was God, remember. Christianity is trinitarian), so we should call Him what He wants to be called.

Hmm. Well of course Jesus was a male. But why would an omnipresent, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being retain male-ness just because it incarnated itself as a male for a few years out of an eternity? That'd be like me calling myself an alcoholic just because I had a beer when I was 5.

Actually Christianity has only two rules: Love God; Love everyone else.

All of the other things various people drop on you are unneeded burdens.

Christians will say you need to "know" Jesus. But the BIBLE actually says that anyone can look at creation and see the creator. And honor that creator.

What many neo-pharisees fail to understand is that which became Jesus (actually Yashua) was in the beginning the CREATOR. So since creation is available to everyone, everyone can see Jesus in the creation regardless of the name that they give that creator.

The answer to the original question is YES! God is available to everyone with many types of worship.



Ahhh now that is a Christianity that I could get with. I agree I find myself that Christianity as with all faiths only have two rules, I normaly render it thusly: Love your God, and love Gods creation as you would your God.

Hmm. Well of course Jesus was a male. But why would an omnipresent, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being retain male-ness just because it incarnated itself as a male for a few years out of an eternity? That'd be like me calling myself an alcoholic just because I had a beer when I was 5.

God was male because of language. Most langauges don't have 'it', everything is masculine or feminine, as most translators were male that is what got used. this is just my take knowing abit about translation. It would have been better if the word god had just been used all the time.

No one deserves anything but death. So, no, they didn't deserve a chance. But before Judaism, there were people who served God. Remember Noah?

Noah... Noah the myth? The archetypal flood idea that was incorporated into several religions both within and without the region over different time periods?

But that doesn't answer why God suddenly chose to allow judaism/christianity to be created only a few thousand years ago, if they were the only ways to get a chance of salvation? Why give _us_ a chance, if we all deserve death? Why bother with us at all? Why not ignore us, as He had earlier people, what made us special?

Or are you saying there were ways before that to get a chance to be saved, ways outwith the Jewish/Christian tradition, when you say 'before Judaism, there were people who served God'?

God was male because of language. Most langauges don't have 'it', everything is masculine or feminine, as most translators were male that is what got used. this is just my take knowing abit about translation. It would have been better if the word god had just been used all the time.

Ah, so calling God a male is purely semantics and has nothing to do with male-ness?

I can't speak for Dempublicents, but the pygmy would go to hell, because he would be an unrepentent sinner.

Yet you still maintian this is the actions of a loving God? Nobody was there to teach the pygmy of God or Christ, yet he still goes to hell?

Hmm. Well of course Jesus was a male. But why would an omnipresent, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being retain male-ness just because it incarnated itself as a male for a few years out of an eternity? That'd be like me calling myself an alcoholic just because I had a beer when I was 5.

Because that is what we were told to call Him? Why would anyone call God anything other than what He wanted to be called?

Yes and no.

The Father being the Creator has no obligation.

A father has an obligation because the Creator commands him to do certain things for and to his son.


So you belive that there is no spark of divinity in the human species?

how much freetime does chris have to answer all my questions?

what does he like to eat?

is christian an to old beleive to be true?

why is god never among us?

does god like potato chips?

is my world superior above the others?

do you have a superiority complex to know all my answers?

well did you answer the last question fair?

why didnt you ?

well if you have so much free time would you clean my room?

if you didnt clean my room would you at least do my laundry?

if you cant do my laundry would you send on a msg ?

tell satan he is gay ^^

did you send the msg ?"

why didnt you send the msg?

the adress is :" hell"

did you finally send the msg ?

why havent you eaten yet?

how much time did it take to fill in all these answers?

Noah... Noah the myth? The archetypal flood idea that was incorporated into several religions both within and without the region over different time periods?

But that doesn't answer why God suddenly chose to allow judaism/christianity to be created only a few thousand years ago, if they were the only ways to get a chance of salvation? Why give _us_ a chance, if we all deserve death? Why bother with us at all? Why not ignore us, as He had earlier people, what made us special?

Or are you saying there were ways before that to get a chance to be saved, ways outwith the Jewish/Christian tradition, when you say 'before Judaism, there were people who served God'?

There is only one way to be saved - by grace, through faith. God changes your heart so that you want to believe and it is as natural to you to believe as it is to natural Man to hate to believe. The believers were never organized until Abraham, but they were around.

Ah, so calling God a male is purely semantics and has nothing to do with male-ness?

That is certainly my view.

Like many questions in faith they are interesting to debate, but does it really matter? I think not personnaly

So you belive that there is no spark of divinity in the human species?

No. Do we have a soul? Yes, but there is no part of God in us, if that's what you're saying.

In fairness, I don't think it's fair that it's a lot of people questioning Edwardis at this point; it's not a nice feeling to be the only one on one side of a debate on a forum - come on, Christian folk, help a brother out! And if you can't get to us all just now, Edwardis, dinnae worry - there's a lot of folk wanting answers, you're not expected to be able to get to us all at the same time :)

No, you are not doomed because you have a different concept of God than I do. You are doomed because you don't want the God of the Bible. I'm using you hypothetically. I really don't know your spiritual life, so I can't speak to you particurally.


It's not a case of not wanting the God of the bible, it is more a case of beliveing that such a concpt of god is hugely flawed, and I think basicaly wrong.

Towhit I ask my serious of why... questions. Yet no answer has yet convinced me.

That God is a loving God, I am certian, that a loving God would punish anybody at all for any reason, rather than say for example, give everybody as many chances as they needed, is questionable, and so I question.

There is only one way to be saved - by grace, through faith. God changes your heart so that you want to believe and it is as natural to you to believe as it is to natural Man to hate to believe. The believers were never organized until Abraham, but they were around.

What an interesting answer, thank you. But does it not imply that 'natural man', however you define him, has, without organised religions of judaism or christianity, the wherewithal to be saved?

Anyway, it does vary a bit from 'well, they all deserved to die', though! You getting a new source, or just putting a different, more acceptable spin on the same one? kudos, either way :)

what does he like to eat?

He's a spirit, he doesn't eat and the Bible doesn't say that Jesus had a particular preference in food when He was on earth.

is christian an to old beleive to be true?

This isn't a very coherent question.

why is god never among us?

What reason does He have to be?

does god like potato chips?

He's a spirit.

is my world superior above the others?

I don't know. What world do you live in?

do you have a superiority complex to know all my answers?

No.

well did you answer the last question fair?

I think so; others may disagree.

why didnt you ?

I did.

well if you have so much free time would you clean my room?

That would require knowing where you live, and I don't want to know that.

if you didnt clean my room would you at least do my laundry?

I have a problem with touching other people's undies.

if you cant do my laundry would you send on a msg ?
tell satan he is gay ^^

Satan can't be gay, because he is spirit, also.

did you send the msg ?"

No.

why didnt you send the msg?

It would be pointless to do so.

the adress is :" hell"

Actually, he's not there yet.

did you finally send the msg ?

No.

why havent you eaten yet?

I'm eating right now.

how much time did it take to fill in all these answers?

About 3 min.

It's not a case of not wanting the God of the bible, it is more a case of beliveing that such a concpt of god is hugely flawed, and I think basicaly wrong.

Towhit I ask my serious of why... questions. Yet no answer has yet convinced me.

That God is a loving God, I am certian, that a loving God would punish anybody at all for any reason, rather than say for example, give everybody as many chances as they needed, is questionable, and so I question.

Romans 3:11

No one understands, no one seeks for God.

What an interesting answer, thank you. But does it not imply that 'natural man', however you define him, has, without organised religions of judaism or christianity, the wherewithal to be saved?

Anyway, it does vary a bit from 'well, they all deserved to die', though! You getting a new source, or just putting a different, more acceptable spin on the same one? kudos, either way :)

It's mentioning what most people don't like to hear, but usually always comes out anyway.

That God initiates personal salvation, not Man.

Natural Man does not want to be saved. He is totally averse (sp?) to God. So God is only giving him what he wants when he is sent to hell: to be outside God's presence.

No. Do we have a soul? Yes, but there is no part of God in us, if that's what you're saying.


That is what I was asking yes. So what then does Christianity teach is the soul, if not a spark of divinity within humanity? What do you make of God breathing the breath of life into Adam, was not that imparting God into humanity?

What exactly did God create with, if before God there was nothing, surly it must have been Godself?

In fairness, I don't think it's fair that it's a lot of people questioning Edwardis at this point; it's not a nice feeling to be the only one on one side of a debate on a forum - come on, Christian folk, help a brother out! And if you can't get to us all just now, Edwardis, dinnae worry - there's a lot of folk wanting answers, you're not expected to be able to get to us all at the same time :)


Heh yeah I agree, but by the same token if he doesn't want to play, he doesn't have to does he. It's his choice, free will and all that!

A couple of personal questions for Christians:

Isn't God a bit of a bastard if "he" creates us all at his whim, only for us to go through a trial of whether we get punished or go to heaven? In that scenario, people are being created simply so that God can test the faith in him of the people he's created. If one is cynical, and does not believe that God exists, and commits "sins in the eyes of the Lord" that he does not believe are sins, then God has created a cynical person just for the purposes of punishing him when he inevitably goes to hell.

Is this an example of God loving people?

It seems an awful lot like:

"Yo! Welcome to the world, my friend. I created you, your body, your personality, everything. Now I'm going to trail you your whole life and if you're not up to my standards of morality then you'll burn in hell forever. I love you, man!"

In this scenario, God may have the power to create us, but is he given the right to force his own opinions on everybody else, simply because we capitalise his name, the scare tactics of hell he uses, and he can turn people into pillars of salt? (Genesis, 19:26)

Finally, why should I worship God? For all these reasons? Because you want a little helping hand in life, because you're scared of the world and it's consequences? If God loves you, why did he create such a world for you to live in? Another of his lifelong trials, to prove your faith? Then what the heck is the point of creating you in the first place?

If it's some hidden meaning, in case this comes up as an answer, I certainly don't see anybody in today's world, with our mass media showing me all the corners of the globe, that goes to church regularly, leads a good life etc., being 'enlightened' in such a fashion, whatever that fashion may be. If enlightenment is just simply smiling, then I refer to my previous question about the standards of morality. If you're smiling as God enlightens you but your reason for smiling doesn't comply with Gods, consequently you burn in hell, is this an entire contradiction of my hypothetical enlightenment situation?

And if God DOESN'T create every person on this planet, but rather started off the human race with Adam and Eve, and he's looking for faith, why was he stupid enough to create beings with temptation, greed, lust, etc., that disobey his word?

It's like creating an intelligent robot that can kill people, and then telling it that it musn't do that, it must obey your every word and that if it doesn't it shall suffer in robot hell for eternity. Why the hell would I give it the power to kill?

But if God can't control man's less desirable conditions, and he isn't in charge of how we are created, or how the human being IS, then he seems to be a pretty useless God, using scare tactics to get love from an independent race. Seems like a clingy, needy God to me. He even admits his own insecurity by telling the world he is a jealous God, in Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 4:24. And if the word 'jealous' is used out of context here, as in it's not compatible with the meaning of 'envy,' then how can that be true, because God is evidently envying someone else's faith, and that he is angry because he's losing out on his love?

I hope that Christianity can answer these questions, providing me with a greater insight into them.

That is what I was asking yes. So what then does Christianity teach is the soul, if not a spark of divinity within humanity? What do you make of God breathing the breath of life into Adam, was not that imparting God into humanity?

What exactly did God create with, if before God there was nothing, surly it must have been Godself?

Animals = matter
Man = matter and spirit
Angels = spirit

God created all these things from nothing. Not from Himself, but by His power.

Heh yeah I agree, but by the same token if he doesn't want to play, he doesn't have to does he. It's his choice, free will and all that!

Actually, I'm a Calvinist, so.... :p

Romans 3:11

No one understands, no one seeks for God.

You see in my faith we are told that it is better to quote the whole page so as to get the full meaning. I don't know what that means. But I understand a lot, and indeed I do seek for God. So what are you on about?

if god is a spirit would that make you his subordinate?

why is it that when you got in the church the songs the sphere its just plain death hanging around you. how come?

why issnt church a happy place? like allot of happy black churches on movies?

why should we praise the lord if the church is soo boring ?

why are all your questions religions one?

what are your hobby's?

would you go out on a blind date?

if satan existed would he be your friend?

if bush was a bush would you pee on him ?

have you answered one of this questions on this whole topic wrong or would you like to have answered otherwise?

have you ever heard of www.spacesradio.com?

and btw it took me 3 min to make it ^^ so were equal

if you have to choose between "to have sex with 50 lesbiens with uncurable diceases" or "a grenade going off in your balls"
what would you rather have ?

if god had a body and would have a scooter mobile which colour would it be?

Actually, I'm a Calvinist, so.... :p


Ohh heh so I should the tell you I'm a Sikh.:eek:

Isn't God a bit of a * if "he" creates us all at his whim, only for us to go through a trial of whether we get punished or go to heaven? In that scenario, people are being created simply so that God can test the faith in him of the people he's created. If one is cynical, and does not believe that God exists, and commits "sins in the eyes of the Lord" that he does not believe are sins, then God has created a cynical person just for the purposes of punishing him when he inevitably goes to hell.

Whim inplies that there is no purpose, but God has a purpose. God cannot tempt anyone, though He can and does allow people to be tempted. Everyone has some system of morality (even if it may not be the right one) and they are unable to live up to it.

In this scenario, God may have the power to create us, but is he given the right to force his own opinions on everybody else, simply because we capitalise his name, the scare tactics of hell he uses, and he can turn people into pillars of salt? (Genesis, 19:26)

He's our Creator. He can require whatever He wants of us.

Finally, why should I worship God? For all these reasons? Because you want a little helping hand in life, because you're scared of the world and it's consequences? If God loves you, why did he create such a world for you to live in? Another of his lifelong trials, to prove your faith? Then what the heck is the point of creating you in the first place?

Because God commands you to worship Him. He didn't create the world this way. Adam and Eve's sin corrupted it and it's being getting worse ever since.

If it's some hidden meaning, in case this comes up as an answer, I certainly don't see anybody in today's world, with our mass media showing me all the corners of the globe, that goes to church regularly, leads a good life etc., being 'enlightened' in such a fashion, whatever that fashion may be. If enlightenment is just simply smiling, then I refer to my previous question about the standards of morality. If you're smiling as God enlightens you but your reason for smiling doesn't comply with Gods, consequently you burn in hell, is this an entire contradiction of my hypothetical enlightenment situation?

Natural Man smiles because He hates God.

And if God DOESN'T create every person on this planet, but rather started off the human race with Adam and Eve, and he's looking for faith, why was he stupid enough to create beings with temptation, greed, lust, etc., that disobey his word?

He didn't create them that way. Sin made them that way.

It's like creating an intelligent robot that can kill people, and then telling it that it musn't do that, it must obey your every word and that if it doesn't it shall suffer in robot hell for eternity. Why the hell would I give it the power to kill?

Because it would be worthless if it didn't have the power to kill. Just as Man would be worthless if He didn't have the power to choose.

But if God can't control man's less desirable conditions, and he isn't in charge of how we are created, or how the human being IS, then he seems to be a pretty useless God, using scare tactics to get love from an independent race. Seems like a clingy, needy God to me. He even admits his own insecurity by telling the world he is a jealous God, in Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 4:24. And if the word 'jealous' is used out of context here, as in it's not compatible with the meaning of 'envy,' then how can that be true, because God is evidently envying someone else's faith, and that he is angry because he's losing out on his love?

It's used to make a comparison between our jealousy and His desire for us to give Him due homage.

I hope that Christianity can answer these questions, providing me with a greater insight into them.

I hope so too.

It's mentioning what most people don't like to hear, but usually always comes out anyway.

That God initiates personal salvation, not Man.

Natural Man does not want to be saved. He is totally averse (sp?) to God. So God is only giving him what he wants when he is sent to hell: to be outside God's presence.

And yet you've said that Man served God, and was, presumably, saved prior to and without Judaism and Christianity, while knowing nothing of their precepts, and having no formal knowledge of God as put down in later religious writings; although, if ever they were subsequently exposed to them, they might recognise and identify with them. So, by that logic, are there not many 'ways' - formal or informal religions, that share the commonalities of grace and faith - to salvation, potentially outside Judaism/Christianity?

You see in my faith we are told that it is better to quote the whole page so as to get the full meaning. I don't know what that means. But I understand a lot, and indeed I do seek for God. So what are you on about?

If you have a Bible, you can read it yourself. I'm not going to type in the whole page.

You may seek A God, but not THE God. And it's speaking to understanding of God, not understanding in general.

Because God commands you to worship Him.`

why does he commands to worship us ? if we dont care about him but beleive in a being up there issnt that what its all about beleiving in an afterlive?

he may not be here in our present time/life but he is lurking in the shadows of space helping with a little bit of power he has , guiding humankind

but you dont have to worship him, because i think he already knows we care about him or a being like him because it has not proven that god really exists.

if god is a spirit would that make you his subordinate?

No - Satan is spirit, but I'm not his subordinate. We are God's subordinates because He is our Creator.

why is it that when you got in the church the songs the sphere its just plain death hanging around you. how come?

People aren't radical enough about their faith. Radical meaning down to the roots, not as in whacko.

why issnt church a happy place? like allot of happy black churches on movies?

See above answer.

why should we praise the lord if the church is soo boring ?

Because you're commanded to. Find a different church!

why are all your questions religions one?

That's what I know best and it's the most important thing to me.

what are your hobby's?

Conlanging

would you go out on a blind date?

No

if satan existed would he be your friend?

Yes he does and no he wouldn't.


have you answered one of this questions on this whole topic wrong or would you like to have answered otherwise?

Your posts are strange.

have you ever heard of www.spacesradio.com?

No.

if you have to choose between "to have sex with 50 lesbiens with uncurable diceases" or "a grenade going off in your balls"
what would you rather have ?

Thank heaven I don't have that choice before me: I don't know.

if god had a body and would have a scooter mobile which colour would it be?

I don't know.

And yet you've said that Man served God, and was, presumably, saved prior to and without Judaism and Christianity, while knowing nothing of their precepts, and having no formal knowledge of God as put down in later religious writings; although, if ever they were subsequently exposed to them, they might recognise and identify with them. So, by that logic, are there not many 'ways' - formal or informal religions, that share the commonalities of grace and faith - to salvation, potentially outside Judaism/Christianity?

Saint = believer from any time any place. So there were saints who were neither Jew nor Christian. There were saints who were Jews, but not Christian. And now there are saints who are only Christian. They can be Jews by heritage, but not by faith. So it's the same salvation, but under different systems. The preJudaism and Judaism systems were basically the same, except that the Judaism system was confined to one people as a whole.

If you have a Bible, you can read it yourself. I'm not going to type in the whole page.

You may seek A God, but not THE God. And it's speaking to understanding of God, not understanding in general.


So the Bible says that there is more than one God?

Naaa I disagree there is only one God.

Because God commands you to worship Him.`
why does he commands to worship us ? if we dont care about him but beleive in a being up there issnt that what its all about beleiving in an afterlive?

He's God: He can command what He wants. No, there is much more than just believing in some guy up there.

he may not be here in our present time/life but he is lurking in the shadows of space helping with a little bit of power he has , guiding humankind

I understand your point, but it's a little more complicated than that.

but you dont have to worship him, because i think he already knows we care about him or a being like him because it has not proven that god really exists.

It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. God commands us to worship Him, so we are in sin if we do not.

There is a difference between knowing and proving.

So the Bible says that there is more than one God?

Naaa I disagree there is only one God.

No, the Bible teaches that there is only one God. It talks about other gods when speaking about the idols of Man.

This is very interesting and I enjoy discussing it with all of you. I have to do my homework for class, though, so I have to leave for right now. :(

Saint = believer from any time any place. So there were saints who were neither Jew nor Christian. There were saints who were Jews, but not Christian. And now there are saints who are only Christian. They can be Jews by heritage, but not by faith. So it's the same salvation, but under different systems. The preJudaism and Judaism systems were basically the same, except that the Judaism system was confined to one people as a whole.

I think I'd argue with you on the "preJudaism and Judaism systems were basically the same" bit - that which is recorded in the OT may have many similiarities, but the hypothetical anytime&anyplace saints of europe, the americas, Oceania, far east etc etc might not have. And I still don't understand why God would not be content with this system, why He limited it to one people, and subsequently one faith, at all. But you've got a lot of people asking you questions, so I'm bowing out - you've done more than enough for me for one day!

edit: lol, posted at the same time as post above, sorry!

Who says the pygmies who never heard of God is damned to hell for all eternity? If God is truly a God of love and mercy, then He will judge us all on a sliding scale based upon our individual life experiences. Sure there will be plenty of deluded people who believe themselves to be inherently and basically 'good', whether pagan, heathen or even christian, who will be banished to hell. But there will be many good people who have never heard the word of God, and they will be welcomed with open arms.

No, the Bible teaches that there is only one God. It talks about other gods when speaking about the idols of Man.

Ahhh so I was correct then when I said that according to Christian dogma I am doomed for having a differant concept of God.

I seek God, not a man made idol, not a false God, but the one the only God. In my faith you can disagree with each other about what God is, and what God wants and what Gods plan is, which in reality is all that is differant in any faith, but according to the Christian faith, I am wrong in thinking this and I am due to be punished for it.

So how do you know that Christianity has it corrrect? Does not my view make more sense of what aloving God is?

youre just made one remark

the bible teaches us

so what ever is written in the bible is what god word has given

have you ever thought that the bible is some what outdated/ not correctly updated?

because the bible was made by men not by some holy person up there.
just by human hands. so couldnt it be you have the wrong version of the bible? ( not meant by pc understandment )

and afterall Jesus could be a random person ( or a fool) but some persons in a book made him great and spread the best selling book ever and called it the bible .... couldnt it all be fairytales?

have you ever thought that what you beleive should be spread amongst the people?

If he really does exist, he's laughing his three asses off at you guys.

Ahhh so I was correct then when I said that according to Christian dogma I am doomed for having a differant concept of God.

I seek God, not a man made idol, not a false God, but the one the only God. In my faith you can disagree with each other about what God is, and what God wants and what Gods plan is, which in reality is all that is differant in any faith, but according to the Christian faith, I am wrong in thinking this and I am due to be punished for it.

So how do you know that Christianity has it corrrect? Does not my view make more sense of what aloving God is?

the word is in my opinion is that what you beleive is what you truly think what is right :) what do you think about it is what is not be juged by others .
you can do whatever you want aslong as it doessnt hurt anyone . thats my beleive :) and theyre is something there that helps us with bits and parts but you dont have to pray for it everyday. or every hour just be yourself and just knowing is enough :)

3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

Doesn't the Bible also say that the sins of the father will not become the sins of the son?

You are His. He is allowed to do as He wishes.
I belong to no one.

And yet you've said that Man served God, and was, presumably, saved prior to and without Judaism and Christianity, while knowing nothing of their precepts, and having no formal knowledge of God as put down in later religious writings; although, if ever they were subsequently exposed to them, they might recognise and identify with them. So, by that logic, are there not many 'ways' - formal or informal religions, that share the commonalities of grace and faith - to salvation, potentially outside Judaism/Christianity?

Not "ways" really, God judges in accordance with the revelation that has been received, natural, general or special.

Who says the pygmies who never heard of God is damned to hell for all eternity? If God is truly a God of love and mercy, then He will judge us all on a sliding scale based upon our individual life experiences. Sure there will be plenty of deluded people who believe themselves to be inherently and basically 'good', whether pagan, heathen or even christian, who will be banished to hell. But there will be many good people who have never heard the word of God, and they will be welcomed with open arms.

if there is no god but GOD, then when the "pygmies" worship their "gods" using their cultural understanding of the divine, they MUST be worshipping the same god we do.

there is only the one.

why would god not be pleased with that?

Just because they're similar doesn't mean that the Bible is based on them. And by the way, Biblical scholars are just as flawed as anybody else.
So the book is right, but the people who dedicate their lives to sturdying it are wrong, and you, a person who may not have even read the whole thing through, are the true authority on the subject. :rolleyes:

Ahhh so I was correct then when I said that according to Christian dogma I am doomed for having a differant concept of God.

I seek God, not a man made idol, not a false God, but the one the only God. In my faith you can disagree with each other about what God is, and what God wants and what Gods plan is, which in reality is all that is differant in any faith, but according to the Christian faith, I am wrong in thinking this and I am due to be punished for it.

So how do you know that Christianity has it corrrect? Does not my view make more sense of what aloving God is?

**correction**: according to the christian dogma put forth by edwardis you are doomed for having a different concept of god.

there are plenty of other christian denominations, including the most populous forms, that would concede that a faithful loving person of another faith can attain the same heaven that christians do. that would, after alll, be up to god, not man.

**correction**: according to the christian dogma put forth by edwardis you are doomed for having a different concept of god.

there are plenty of other christian denominations, including the most populous forms, that would concede that a faithful loving person of another faith can attain the same heaven that christians do. that would, after alll, be up to god, not man.


Then I have no problems with these denominations, which ones are they BTW?

No one deserves anything but death.
Why does everyone only deserve death? You keep saying that but never explaining it.

**correction**: according to the christian dogma put forth by edwardis you are doomed for having a different concept of god.

there are plenty of other christian denominations, including the most populous forms, that would concede that a faithful loving person of another faith can attain the same heaven that christians do. that would, after alll, be up to god, not man.

Do you mean these other Christian denominations concede that a devout Jew or Muslim or Buddhist can attain Heaven, without accepting Jesus Christ? Or just that Christians of other denominations are okay? I would agree to the latter but find the formar hard to believe (or I might be misunderstanding what you wrote, a not unlikely circumstance).

There is only one way to be saved - by grace, through faith. God changes your heart so that you want to believe and it is as natural to you to believe as it is to natural Man to hate to believe. The believers were never organized until Abraham, but they were around.
Wait, so it isn't even a choice to believe? It's up to god to change our hearts and make us believe? So all non-believers are going to hell and burn in a sulphorous lake for eternity because god chose to make them not believe in him? What the fuck kind of system are you supporting here?

Why does everyone only deserve death? You keep saying that but never explaining it.

The punishment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, when they disobeyed God and ate of the tree of Knowledge, is death. After lives of toil and hardship and labor pains for Eve, that is. That sin taints all their descendants, until the ending of the world.

The punishment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, when they disobeyed God and ate of the tree of Knowledge, is death. After lives of toil and hardship and labor pains for Eve, that is. That sin taints all their descendants, until the ending of the world.

Heh yeah after this version of God just happend to be looking at something else?

Wait, so it isn't even a choice to believe? It's up to god to change our hearts and make us believe? So all non-believers are going to hell and burn in a sulphorous lake for eternity because god chose to make them not believe in him? What the fuck kind of system are you supporting here?

There's a choice, certainly, and there are consequences to choosing. Christians believe that once you have heard the gospel and the sacrifice Jesus made for you, if you then accept Him as your savior and follow the teachings of his Church, you've got it made (it's a lifelong commitment, though, and you need to keep working at it). If you choose not to follow Him after hearing the word, well, that's your choice and the consequences are pretty nasty.

I haven't read back through the thread to see if we settled the point about where someone who has never heard the Word ends up.

The punishment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, when they disobeyed God and ate of the tree of Knowledge, is death. After lives of toil and hardship and labor pains for Eve, that is. That sin taints all their descendants, until the ending of the world.
But Exodus 20:5 says that the sins of those who hate god will only be visited upon those to the third or fourth generation, the "original sin" would surely have stopped affecting us by now, and even then, eating the fruit from the tree would hardly be considered hating god, meerly disobeying him and those sorts of sins don't pass on.

There's a choice, certainly, and there are consequences to choosing. Christians believe that once you have heard the gospel and the sacrifice Jesus made for you, if you then accept Him as your savior and follow the teachings of his Church, you've got it made (it's a lifelong commitment, though, and you need to keep working at it). If you choose not to follow Him after hearing the word, well, that's your choice and the consequences are pretty nasty.

I haven't read back through the thread to see if we settled the point about where someone who has never heard the Word ends up.
Oh no, that's not what your friend over there said. He definitely said that it's up to god to change our hearts to make us believe. You might believe a different brand of christianity than he, but that's what he said and I would really like him to address that point.

It's kind of like that crap when Moses asked Pharoh to free the slaves and Pharoh kept wanting to free them, but god kept hardening his heart... why did god do that, did he just want to punish the people of Egypt? If this god does the same thing with salvation then it seems that it just wants to punish people with eternal damnation...

Heh yeah after this version of God just happend to be looking at something else?

You mean, if He's Omnipotent, why didn't he stop them and toss the Snake out of Eden on his ... okay, snakes don't have asses, exactly, but you know what I mean? I think the idea is that God said to the Man and the Woman, "Don't do this," and He trusted them not to do it. They did it anyway and so had to be punished. You can argue that this was a trap and that Adam and Eve were framed, but most modern Christian denominations I know of don't think that way.

You mean, if He's Omnipotent, why didn't he stop them and toss the Snake out of Eden on his ... okay, snakes don't have asses, exactly, but you know what I mean? I think the idea is that God said to the Man and the Woman, "Don't do this," and He trusted them not to do it. They did it anyway and so had to be punished. You can argue that this was a trap and that Adam and Eve were framed, but most modern Christian denominations I know of don't think that way.
However, god built Adam and Eve without an idea of what was good and what was evil, thus they believed whatever anyone came along and told them. It's like a 5 year old is told not to eat the candy out of the dish by one adult and another adult comes along and says it's ok to eat the candy then the first adult punishes the child severely (with death and pain) for eating the candy.

While I am not Christian, I am a student of theology, and I have recently been looking into some interesting aspects in Catholicism. Some of this, if not all of it, applies to many other christian groups as well as catholics.

There is a concept of a person known as the 'Anonymous Christian.'
I will not go into full detail, but the arguement can be paraphrased rather simply. If a person has never been instructed in in the 'truth' that is Jesus then there is another way for them to be saved. Because 'Christ' is truth, then any person who engages in an honest and soulful search for truth through his/her life has in fact been a true christian and is saved, because searching for truth is searching for 'christ.'

Now, there is debate about what counts as instruction. There are many opinions. Some say that only people of a culture who have never encountered a representative of the church are capable of being anonymous christians, while others argue that anyone who honestly searches for truth and is not christian must not have been taught the truth of christianity that is self evident, and so qualifies.

Either way, it is clear that G_d, in the christian view, did not create only one path to salvation.

But Exodus 20:5 says that the sins of those who hate god will only be visited upon those to the third or fourth generation, the "original sin" would surely have stopped affecting us by now, and even then, eating the fruit from the tree would hardly be considered hating god, meerly disobeying him and those sorts of sins don't pass on.

I agree, but my understanding of Christian doctrine is that the opposite is what is believed. And you need to separate what the Old testament says and what Christians believe. There has been a lot of development between Exodus 20:5 and now.

Specifically, the doctrine of Original Sin came into Christianity courtesy of Saint Augustine. I'm summarizing a lot and I have't brushed up lately, but Augustine converted to Christianity from Manicheanism, in which the spirit is considered created by God directly, but the flesh only indirectly and so is corrupt by its very nature. Augustine brought this belief with him, it seems. There was at the same time as Augustine a Church Father from britain named Pelagius, who fought Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin, saying it made humans into automatons with no free will and no capacity to choose to live moral lives, and that God wouldn't do that. Pelagius lost, needless to say. There are some interesting Wiki articles on this (which all happened between 350 and 450 AD, by the way). I can also recommend Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity, too, for the historical perspective.

As to the current specific topic, the sin in the garden is not the consumption of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, but the perversion of G_ds comandment, and the sin of pride. Adam was told by G_d not to eat of the tree. Adam then perverted G_ds word by telling Eve not to touch the tree, on pain of death. This enabled Eve to doubt G_d because she expected to 'drop dead' on touching the tree.

Eating of the fruit was a direct result of Adams not being faithful to G_d, and being prideful, by deciding that he can improve on G_ds word.

While I am not Christian, I am a student of theology, and I have recently been looking into some interesting aspects in Catholicism. Some of this, if not all of it, applies to many other christian groups as well as catholics.

There is a concept of a person known as the 'Anonymous Christian.'
I will not go into full detail, but the arguement can be paraphrased rather simply. If a person has never been instructed in in the 'truth' that is Jesus then there is another way for them to be saved. Because 'Christ' is truth, then any person who engages in an honest and soulful search for truth through his/her life has in fact been a true christian and is saved, because searching for truth is searching for 'christ.'

Now, there is debate about what counts as instruction. There are many opinions. Some say that only people of a culture who have never encountered a representative of the church are capable of being anonymous christians, while others argue that anyone who honestly searches for truth and is not christian must not have been taught the truth of christianity that is self evident, and so qualifies.

Either way, it is clear that G_d, in the christian view, did not create only one path to salvation.

So it is only in our ego that we misinturpret the words of God so that they can mean anything that we want?

As to the current specific topic, the sin in the garden is not the consumption of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, but the perversion of G_ds comandment, and the sin of pride. Adam was told by G_d not to eat of the tree. Adam then perverted G_ds word by telling Eve not to touch the tree, on pain of death. This enabled Eve to doubt G_d because she expected to 'drop dead' on touching the tree.

Eating of the fruit was a direct result of Adams not being faithful to G_d, and being prideful, by deciding that he can improve on G_ds word.

Okay, good details. It boils down to God saying, "And don't mess with the Tree of Knowledge," and they messed with it anyway, through Adam's pride and Eve's doubt. From what I understand, that error corrupts all mankind for all time except if they accept Jesus Christ.

I agree, but my understanding of Christian doctrine is that the opposite is what is believed. And you need to separate what the Old testament says and what Christians believe. There has been a lot of development between Exodus 20:5 and now.
Yes, but the Adam and Eve bit was in the Old Testament, it really doesn't seem right to pick and choose what is good in the old testament based on what's convenient to believe.

So it is only in our ego that we misinturpret the words of God so that they can mean anything that we want?

Perhaps. Certainly a lot of Christian controversy, for the last 2,000 years, comes from different interpretations of God's Word.

So it is only in our ego that we misinturpret the words of God so that they can mean anything that we want?

No, the arguement doesn't say that. This is theology, remember. The STARTING assumption is that Jesus is the Word and the Word is Lord, and that that *is* the TRUTH. The people making this arguement within the church were saying that searching for truth is searching for christ, but FAILING to find christ in a search for christ isn't a problem because humans are imperfect, and our sources of information are imperfect.

This means that they are saying that anyone who doesn't find christ in an honest search has FAILED to find any truth. However, because their search was honest, they can be saved anyway, as searching for christ *is* being saved.

Then I have no problems with these denominations, which ones are they BTW?

now dont get me wrong, no christian denomination that im aware of thinks that all religions are equal. im sure there are one or 2 that do but they arent common.

the roman catholic church and the anglican church basically believe that other religions may have aspects of truth but not the fully correct view of god contained in their own denomination. faithful believers of those nonchristian faiths may well be accepted into heaven, that part is up to god.

the mormon church (as far as i know) believes that if you never hear of the truth of the mormon church you wont be held responsible by god for not becoming a mormon so you dont automatically go to hell for incorrect belief.

personally i find this prideful protestant view that a tiny minority of all people who have ever lived are accepted into heaven (and the person who is putting forth this view is always one of that tiny minority) very creepy. it supposes a hateful god who creates billions of people who are doomed to eternal torment through no fault of their own.

Do you mean these other Christian denominations concede that a devout Jew or Muslim or Buddhist can attain Heaven, without accepting Jesus Christ? Or just that Christians of other denominations are okay? I would agree to the latter but find the formar hard to believe (or I might be misunderstanding what you wrote, a not unlikely circumstance).


it seems to me that the roman catholic church is more lenient in its views of non christians than of other christian denominations. (the catholic church is always seeking reconcilliation with other christian denominations but most have unsurmoutable obstacles to reconcilliation)

a faithful buddhist--the dalai lama for example-- might well be accepted into heaven but a calvinist or southern baptist is unlikely to due to incorrect christian practices.

i would disagree with the church on that, of course, but it does have its tradition and revenue stream to think of.

youre just made one remark

the bible teaches us

so what ever is written in the bible is what god word has given

have you ever thought that the bible is some what outdated/ not correctly updated?

because the bible was made by men not by some holy person up there.
just by human hands. so couldnt it be you have the wrong version of the bible? ( not meant by pc understandment )

and afterall Jesus could be a random person ( or a fool) but some persons in a book made him great and spread the best selling book ever and called it the bible .... couldnt it all be fairytales?

have you ever thought that what you beleive should be spread amongst the people?

Faith is the answer and I have thought about spreading God's Word: that's what I'm doing now.

Doesn't the Bible also say that the sins of the father will not become the sins of the son?

That's speaking of particular sin. Humans work corporately as well as individualy (where as the angels work only individually). The sin of our first head Adam brought the guilt of sin to the whole corprate body of humanity.

I belong to no one.

And that's the essence of sin, which we all share.

Why does everyone only deserve death? You keep saying that but never explaining it.

The Fall of our corporate head Adam brought guilt on all of us.

ummm... no. The bible says that the sins of the father WILL be visited on the son, up to 3 generations. The good acts of the father will also be visited on the son, up to 10 generations.

Wait, so it isn't even a choice to believe? It's up to god to change our hearts and make us believe? So all non-believers are going to hell and burn in a sulphorous lake for eternity because god chose to make them not believe in him? What the fuck kind of system are you supporting here?

Of course it's our choice to believe. But we only want to believe if God changes us. Otherwise, we naturally choose to not believe.

But Exodus 20:5 says that the sins of those who hate god will only be visited upon those to the third or fourth generation, the "original sin" would surely have stopped affecting us by now, and even then, eating the fruit from the tree would hardly be considered hating god, meerly disobeying him and those sorts of sins don't pass on.

Speaking of the corporate aspect of race or a people, not of humanity toatlly.

it seems to me that the roman catholic church is more lenient in its views of non christians than of other christian denominations. (the catholic church is always seeking reconcilliation with other christian denominations but most have unsurmoutable obstacles to reconcilliation)

a faithful buddhist--the dalai lama for example-- might well be accepted into heaven but a calvinist or southern baptist is unlikely to due to incorrect christian practices.

i would disagree with the church on that, of course, but it does have its tradition and revenue stream to think of.

Yes, well, those Southern Baptists ... ;)

It's unfair, to my mind, to put the workings of the Catholic Church down to concern about its "revenue stream." Maybe I'm in a good mood this morning, but I don't doubt that the vast majority of priests and bishops and on up the line believe in what they preach. I'm sure they do believe. The wealth of the Church is a consequence of 2,000 years of European history, not a millenium-spanning plot.

So it is only in our ego that we misinturpret the words of God so that they can mean anything that we want?

Yes.

Of course it's our choice to believe. But we only want to believe if God changes us. Otherwise, we naturally choose to not believe.

Maybe I see where this has gone off the rails a little. Edwardis, when you say "God changes us," do you mean that God ACTS to change us or that we are changed by becoming aware of God's love, and so choose to follow Him?

ummm... no. The bible says that the sins of the father WILL be visited on the son, up to 3 generations. The good acts of the father will also be visited on the son, up to 10 generations.

"So in Adam all die." The Bible cannot contradict itself. And it is only through the idea of corporate responsibility that it works out.

Maybe I see where this has gone off the rails a little. Edwardis, when you say "God changes us," do you mean that God ACTS to change us or that we are changed by becoming aware of God's love, and so choose to follow Him?

God acts to change us. He must, otherwise, no one would be saved. Or rather, because He wants to save people, He must change them. He is in no way obligated to save anyone.

Yes.

As I said above, NO, that is NOT the arguement of the theology I was discussing.

Edwardis, I would appreciate it if you didn't take a single statement or question of an arguement out of context like that.

As I said above, NO, that is NOT the arguement of the theology I was discussing.

Edwardis, I would appreciate it if you didn't single statements or questions of an arguement out of context like that.

I wasn't part of your argument. I was agreeing with that particular statement, removed from any other context. I'm sorry if that bothers you. I'll try not to do it again. :(

Yes, well, those Southern Baptists ... ;)

It's unfair, to my mind, to put the workings of the Catholic Church down to concern about its "revenue stream." Maybe I'm in a good mood this morning, but I don't doubt that the vast majority of priests and bishops and on up the line believe in what they preach. I'm sure they do believe. The wealth of the Church is a consequence of 2,000 years of European history, not a millenium-spanning plot.

all human institutions have to worry about revenue. most of the wealth of the catholic church is held in long standing historical treasures that cant be liquidated to pay current expenses. its not a matter of conspiracy to hoard wealth but a need to keep up with inflation.

of course they believe that the catholic church is the best way to get into heaven, the best representation of the word of god on earth. the question remains, why consider southern baptists damned when they get MOST of it right? when they do indeed accept the teachings of jesus for the most part? (not that southern baptists dont beleive that catholics are damned but thats not the point)

if a buddhist can get it right accidentally and get into heaven, why cant a calvinist who got it 98% right get in?

it seems to me that its keeping a hard line in order to stop catholics from migrating over to protestant denominations that might be more pleasant for them to belong to or whose politics fit them better.

...
if a buddhist can get it right accidentally and get into heaven, why cant a calvinist who got it 98% right get in?

it seems to me that its keeping a hard line in order to stop catholics from migrating over to protestant denominations that might be more pleasant for them to belong to or whose politics fit them better.

From the view of the Catholic Church, getting it wrong or right is not the point. For the buddhist, it is the honesty of his search for truth that lead him to salvation. For the Christian who won't submit to Catholic dogma, he - accordoing to the church - has FOUND the truth and rejected it. Therefore is not worthy of salvation.

A Heretic is damned, but a heathen has a chance. I'm not sure that viewpoint didn't develop so people could be converted without having to believe that all of their ancestors went to hell.

Umm the old pygmy thing pops into my head here. What if in the ddepest darkesk hardest toreach place on |Earth lived a trib of pygmy's who nobody has ever seen, let alone Christion missionarys. If they have never heard of Jesus, then are they going to heaven of hell?

Do you have to call Jesus by name to follow Him? It is not possible that you could seek a relationship with God and follow the teachings of Christ through that relationship without ever actually hearing the name Jesus? I think it is.

Ahhh so you subscribe to the hell is seperation from God idea?

Yes.

I can get more with that than the idea of a place of fire and brimstone.

The fire and brimstone descriptions are, I believe, metaphorical. They describe what it would be like for one who loves God to be separated from God for eternity. What I don't know is what it would be like for someone who has willfully rejected God to be thus separated.

Can I ask though what if you belived that God is all, then how can anything be possibly seperated from God?

If God is all, then one could only be separated from God by ceasing to exist. Of course, that's what most atheists I know think will happen when they die anyways...

Do you have to call Jesus by name to follow Him? It is not possible that you could seek a relationship with God and follow the teachings of Christ through that relationship without ever actually hearing the name Jesus? I think it is...

That is the orrigin of the arguement for the 'Anonymous Christian.'

From the view of the Catholic Church, getting it wrong or right is not the point. For the buddhist, it is the honesty of his search for truth that lead him to salvation. For the Christian who won't submit to Catholic dogma, he - accordoing to the church - has FOUND the truth and rejected it. Therefore is not worthy of salvation.

A Heretic is damned, but a heathen has a chance. I'm not sure that viewpoint didn't develop so people could be converted without having to believe that all of their ancestors went to hell.
yeah i know. it makes sense when you are bound by dogma. most christian denominations do the same thing for various reasons. personally i find it an ugly and incorrect line of thought. but i dont have to support a congregation eh?

the mormons did the catholics one better in that you dont have to just hope that your ancestors accidentally got into heaven, you can have them retroactively baptised so that you can be sure that they have the chance to get into heaven. good for the revenue stream AND keeps you sleeping well at night.

No, the arguement doesn't say that. This is theology, remember. The STARTING assumption is that Jesus is the Word and the Word is Lord, and that that *is* the TRUTH. The people making this arguement within the church were saying that searching for truth is searching for christ, but FAILING to find christ in a search for christ isn't a problem because humans are imperfect, and our sources of information are imperfect.

This means that they are saying that anyone who doesn't find christ in an honest search has FAILED to find any truth. However, because their search was honest, they can be saved anyway, as searching for christ *is* being saved.

Yep Theology meaning study of God, or Gods attributes, or relgion. Nowhere in the definitiuojn of the word does it mention only the Christian concept of God.

The starting assumption was that God is loving, and the question was why would a loving God create so many types of people yet only one way to reach God?

Yes.

And to my mind it seems tha the Christian church has done exactly that. Although I suppose you are going to say that no, the Christian church has it correct?

Hey, I'm new to this topic. I read through about page 6 and my eyes started glazing over. I'm a youth pastor at a church in Oklahoma. I don't have all the answers by any means, but I'd like to address the original questions from a Biblical stand point. All of these verses are coming from the New International Version - http://www.ibs.org/niv

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

There’s only one way because one way is adequate. Why is there a need for an additional way? As hard as it is to believe, salvation is a simple concept.

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. - Romans 10:10

For, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. - Romans 10:13

According to the Bible, salvation is a matter of belief that Jesus was God in human form, that he died and that he rose again. This death was payment for our sins.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23


Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?

As stated at the beginning of this topic, God is a just God. By His nature He is perfect. He can't even look at sin. The Bible talks about God looking away from Jesus as he is on the cross because Jesus became sin for us.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - 2 Corinthians 5:21

Since God is just and He can not look at sin, it follows that there must be a place for those who's sin has not been covered. Thus, there is hell, a physical place that one who is separated from God goes to when they die.

So, you see, in a since, God doesn't send anyone to hell. Hell is a place that someone chooses. God freely offers tickets to heaven. Someone ends up in hell because they did not choose to be with God.


Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?

Same answer as the first question.

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?

Again, same answer as the first question

How would you make it if you where a loving God?

I wouldn't even know where to start. My mind is so limited compared to God's. There is no way that I could foresee the implications of my decisions until it was too late.

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishment as a scare tatic?

I don't believe that I would be morally better. And, as for part 2 of the question, God doesn't use punishment as a scare tactic.

If you're referring to stuff that happens in life, then I'd respond that this world is fallen. Look around you, man is depraved; sin is in the world because of man's original fall (Genesis 3.) However, God has put a plan into motion to redeem the world. Part of it is done, man's way to God, Jesus. The second part will be the destruction of all that is evil, described in Revelations.

On the other hand, if you're referring to punishment as hell, then look at my answer to the second question.


Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?

God is not only loving, but just. In order for God to remain true to his character he must punish evil. This evil comes from man choosing to disobey God. And, by the way, the free choice that God gave us is the ultimate sign of love. God wants us to choose Him and love Him as he loves us. He didn't create robots, which he could have done. He created individuals with the ability to choose Him or to not choose Him. Heaven or Hell, it's our own choice.



If you disagree with me, please let me know. But if you do disagree, please back your opinion up somehow. I’ve used the Bible. You can use whatever you like; I just don’t want to argue someone’s opinion that is based on ‘their own personal revelations.’

Additionally, if you have any further questions about Christianity, I’ll give ‘em my best shot.

As I said above, NO, that is NOT the arguement of the theology I was discussing.

Edwardis, I would appreciate it if you didn't take a single statement or question of an arguement out of context like that.

I think he was replying to me not you.

Yep Theology meaning study of God, or Gods attributes, or relgion. Nowhere in the definitiuojn of the word does it mention only the Christian concept of God.

The starting assumption was that God is loving, and the question was why would a loving God create so many types of people yet only one way to reach God?

Right, but in the quote that spawned your first question I made clear I was *not* a chistian, but I was discussing some catholic theology that is also accepted by other christian groups (as it's orrigins predate Luther and Calvin).

Inside of those limitations, that is the answer - a large portion of christianity does NOT limit people to only the way to reach G_d. Christ is THRUTH, but truth can be saught and to some extent found even where christ is not known.

I just want to know why the christian god is so self-involved that he wants people to worship him for all eternity. Seems like a bit of an egoist to me.

Yes, but the Adam and Eve bit was in the Old Testament, it really doesn't seem right to pick and choose what is good in the old testament based on what's convenient to believe.

A lot of people do it ... I have never seen a good basis for deciding what parts god REALLY want followed and which parts he does not

I haven't read any subsequent replies because I don'wt want them to influence my answers.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?

There are many cultures of humans, but what we all have in common is that we are ALL His children, and we all have the same capacity for love. Why would it be necessary to have dozens of different paths?


Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?
To answer that question, some clarification is needed.

Have you ever seen the Chronicles of Narnia? When C.S. Lewis wrote that story, he used a LOT of Christian symbolism, and makes it very easy to illustrate how this works.

Edmund had betrayed his family. He had gone against Aslan and therefore he was no longer under the protection of the "good guys." The evil Queen had a claim on him then, and on his blood.

In order to save Edmund, Aslan sacrificed himself, substituting his own blood for Edmund's. In that way, Edmund was freed from his sin and it was Aslan who suffered and died. As a part of this, Edmund had to agree to repent of what he had done.

This is how it really works. Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of all people, everywhere. EVERYONE. We do nothing to "earn" the benefits of this sacrifice, it is given freely to those who CHOOSE to accept Him as their savior and follow Him.

When people choose not to accept Him, then their sin is not paid for, and they separate themselves from the presence of the Father. He does not send anyone to Hell as "punishment." They go to that place of outer darkness because in their impure state they CANNOT be in God's presence.

Yes, there are millions who never had the opportunity to make that choice. For those people there is a mechanism in place to give them such an opportunity, as God is a God of justice and fairness. Not all Christian flavors believe in this however, so I will leave it at that for now.


Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?
Why?


Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?
This seems to be a re-statement of the previous question.


How would you make it if you where a loving God?
I wouldn't presume to second-guess the Being who created the Universe, but I think I can safely say I couldn't come up with a better solution.


If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?
I don't find any way to answer this, since the idea of hell is not supposed to be a "scare tactic." (Yes, I know that not all Christians would agree with that, but I can only say what I know to be true.)


Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?
If your sins are paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ, then you face no punishment. Whether those sins are paid for is your choice, therefore the question is meaningless.

But I will note that God does sometimes admonish His people in order to set them back on the right path, in the same way any loving father would correct his children. I see no contradiction here.

"So in Adam all die." The Bible cannot contradict itself. And it is only through the idea of corporate responsibility that it works out.

The new testament regularly contradicts the old. The various translations of the old testament regularly contradict each other. This is why learning ancient Hebrew (easier then learning modern hebrew) is vital to bible study.

I wasn't part of your argument. I was agreeing with that particular statement, removed from any other context. I'm sorry if that bothers you. I'll try not to do it again. :(

Edwardis, I am sorry. I was rude in the way I responded to you. Sometimes text lacks intended tone, and sometimes I fail to phrase things properly. In this case, I think I am guilty of both, and I hope you are not greatly offended.

Hey Edmundtonville,

Thanks for having a bash but you have only served to further my confussion.
Let me see if I have this right.

There is only one way because one way is adequete This cannot be true, what about the inherent differances in culture, let alone from person to person.

Everybody that calls on the name of the lord will be saved, even if that name is Allah, or Ganesh, or Waheguru, or even Odin?

According to the Bible, salvation is a matter of belief that Jesus was God in human form, that he died and that he rose again. This death was payment for our sins. And then you say...

As stated at the beginning of this topic, God is a just God. By His nature He is perfect. He can't even look at sin. The Bible talks about God looking away from Jesus as he is on the cross because Jesus became sin for us.

Now this is really confusing. So God is perfect yet he can't even look upon sin(that he created) but where does the Bible say Jesus is now, and how can God be Jesus but not be able to handle sin? This isn't an answer it's a smoke screen, it's like stage magic, look at this hand, look at this hand, look at this hand(so you can't see what the othet hand is doing)

Since God is just and He can not look at sin, it follows that there must be a place for those who's sin has not been covered. Thus, there is hell, a physical place that one who is separated from God goes to when they die.
So, you see, in a since, God doesn't send anyone to hell. Hell is a place that someone chooses. God freely offers tickets to heaven. Someone ends up in hell because they did not choose to be with God.

Yeah but what if I freely choose to be with God, but not in a way that Christianity says is correct? Then it all becomes a matter of a differane of opinion, you say I will still go to hell?

I don't believe that I would be morally better. And, as for part 2 of the question, God doesn't use punishment as a scare tactic. No but the Christian church does. Is not the church an extension of Christ, therefore an extention of God?

God is not only loving, but just. In order for God to remain true to his character he must punish evil. This evil comes from man choosing to disobey God. And, by the way, the free choice that God gave us is the ultimate sign of love. God wants us to choose Him and love Him as he loves us. He didn't create robots, which he could have done. He created individuals with the ability to choose Him or to not choose Him. Heaven or Hell, it's our own choice. It is no choice when one of the options is certian doom, this is in fact called blackmail. Are you suggesting that blackmail is what God wants to do to us?



If you disagree with me, please let me know. But if you do disagree, please back your opinion up somehow. I’ve used the Bible. You can use whatever you like; I just don’t want to argue someone’s opinion that is based on ‘their own personal revelations.’

I agree but I'll not make it into a lets quote differant books at each other, that does not work, easpecily if either side can see no wrong in their book.

Right, but in the quote that spawned your first question I made clear I was *not* a chistian, but I was discussing some catholic theology that is also accepted by other christian groups (as it's orrigins predate Luther and Calvin).

Inside of those limitations, that is the answer - a large portion of christianity does NOT limit people to only the way to reach G_d. Christ is THRUTH, but truth can be saught and to some extent found even where christ is not known.

Ahh okay I understand, but you would still say that truth is jesus?

Hey New Bretonnia,

Cheers for your repliy and after taking on board all that you say I still can't get past this little detail.

God created sin, then God come up with some really convaluted way for us to expunge our sin(sin that God created for us) instead of just a) not creating the concept of original sin in the first place, or b) just forgiving us anyhoo. That's what a loving God would do, and you have not convinced me otherwise.

Peepelonia

I could see that there could be more than one way if the process was complicated or difficult. However, the process for salvation is incredibly simple. I think that more than one way would complicate the matter.

The verse about calling on the Lord would have to refer to God since the verse comes from the Christian Bible.

Now the next one I don’t totally understand. How God could come down and be 100% God and 100% human is incomprehensible to me. So I don’t know how Jesus took on sin even though God can’t look on it. That is part of where the faith element comes into the picture, which I obviously can’t explain. Also, God didn’t create sin. God created the world in perfection and gave humans free will. Sin entered the picture when humans chose to go against what God told them to do. If you want more detail on that, let me know and I’ll dig a little deeper.

Next, I don’t see how you can choose God, but not in the Christian way. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through me.” According to God, there is only one way to choose Him. So, bluntly, you will go to hell because of a difference of opinion. When we put our opinion against God’s opinion, we will loose every time. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I don’t know of a better way to phrase it.

As for your next question, you right, God doesn’t use punishment as a scare tactic, and yes, some churches do use hell as a scare tactic. However, the church is made up of imperfect people. I am a follower of Christ, but I still do a lot of stupid stuff. The medieval crusades are a perfect example of when the church did something terribly wrong. In no way was the church right in killing Muslims. The church makes mistakes, sometime very big mistakes. But, this isn’t a reflection on how God works, it’s a reflection of our fallen nature, our depravity.

Finally, God isn’t blackmailing us. If you don’t want to be with Him, why should He force you to go to heaven where you would be with Him for eternity?

Hey New Bretonnia,

Cheers for your repliy and after taking on board all that you say I still can't get past this little detail.

God created sin, then God come up with some really convaluted way for us to expunge our sin(sin that God created for us) instead of just a) not creating the concept of original sin in the first place, or b) just forgiving us anyhoo. That's what a loving God would do, and you have not convinced me otherwise.
Agreed. I also find the whole "free will" thing to be such an obviously-flawed cop-out. Give me godlike powers for 20 minutes, and I'll bet I can get rid of most human evil without mucking up free will one bit.

Seriously, an all-powerful diety claiming that the best he could come up with was to have his kid tortured to death?! That's barely one step up from claiming that his dog ate the first draft of the Commandments.

Ahh okay I understand, but you would still say that truth is jesus?

Would *I* say that. No. I am not a christian. Individuals of standing and recognition within the catholic church, however, have made this arguement: Christ is The Word, The Word is Truth.

In that way, searching for Truth is searching for Christ, even if you don't know it.

Agreed. I also find the whole "free will" thing to be such an obviously-flawed cop-out. Give me godlike powers for 20 minutes, and I'll bet I can get rid of most human evil without mucking up free will one bit.

Seriously, an all-powerful diety claiming that the best he could come up with was to have his kid tortured to death?! That's barely one step up from claiming that his dog ate the first draft of the Commandments.

Hey Bottle,

Revelations lays out God's plan for destroying evil.

Also, Jesus comming to die was the payment for all of our sins. Look at my first post, the Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." That 'gift' was paid for though Jesus' death.

<snip>
Finally, God isn’t blackmailing us. If you don’t want to be with Him, why should He force you to go to heaven where you would be with Him for eternity?

no god isnt blackmailing us, he is playing a sick game of hide and seek.

according to your belief, god has hidden the one true path somewhere on the earth mixed in with 100,000 other, equally believable paths. we are required to figure out which is the ONE TRUE PATH even when there are dozens that look exactly the same. to choose wrong is to suffer eternal torment.

few people ever reject god. they make what seem to them to be the best choices based on their circumstance, personality and culture. the majority of all the people who have ever lived have never even heard of christianity. to suggest that they rejected anything is ludicrous.

if god wanted us all to have one belief set that we all must follow in order to get to heaven and avoid hell, he would be here all the time telling everyone in the world exactly what that belief has to be. only then would rejecting him be a choice rather than the default setting.

Agreed. I also find the whole "free will" thing to be such an obviously-flawed cop-out. Give me godlike powers for 20 minutes, and I'll bet I can get rid of most human evil without mucking up free will one bit.

Seriously, an all-powerful diety claiming that the best he could come up with was to have his kid tortured to death?! That's barely one step up from claiming that his dog ate the first draft of the Commandments.

Didn't Moses break the first set? Yeah, he did... hrm... to G*d, would Moses be just a loyal Dog?

Peepelonia

I could see that there could be more than one way if the process was complicated or difficult. However, the process for salvation is incredibly simple. I think that more than one way would complicate the matter.

No I totaly disagree. Yes if we all thought the same way, one way to God would be fine. But we don't, what about the Atheists? How shuold they get to God if they don't belive in God. Is it the sign of a loving God that says, no let them suffer. Or would a loving God find a way to make sure that even the unbelivers reach God?

The verse about calling on the Lord would have to refer to God since the verse comes from the Christian Bible.

I dont see what that has to do with the bible at all. There is only one God, so what evername you want to use is fine surley. Lord, or God, or Jehova, or YHVH, or Odin, or whatever.


Now the next one I don’t totally understand. How God could come down and be 100% God and 100% human is incomprehensible to me. So I don’t know how Jesus took on sin even though God can’t look on it. That is part of where the faith element comes into the picture, which I obviously can’t explain. Also, God didn’t create sin. God created the world in perfection and gave humans free will. Sin entered the picture when humans chose to go against what God told them to do. If you want more detail on that, let me know and I’ll dig a little deeper.

So basicaly what you say is anything that we don't understand or seems contradictory is to be lumpped under the heading of 'well you gota have faith!' That is a cop out are you suggesting that God does not want us to think?

Next, I don’t see how you can choose God, but not in the Christian way. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through me.” According to God, there is only one way to choose Him. So, bluntly, you will go to hell because of a difference of opinion. When we put our opinion against God’s opinion, we will loose every time. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I don’t know of a better way to phrase it.

No I guess you wouldn't. What though if you where Muslim? Or a Hindu? Are their holy books then full of crap and not to be bothered with? Is it a Christian trait to not put your self in the other mans shoes? Putting yourself in the other mans shoes is a totaly valid way of obtaining empathy with your fellow man, is Christianity agaisnt such empathy?

As for your next question, you right, God doesn’t use punishment as a scare tactic, and yes, some churches do use hell as a scare tactic. However, the church is made up of imperfect people. I am a follower of Christ, but I still do a lot of stupid stuff. The medieval crusades are a perfect example of when the church did something terribly wrong. In no way was the church right in killing Muslims. The church makes mistakes, sometime very big mistakes. But, this isn’t a reflection on how God works, it’s a reflection of our fallen nature, our depravity.

Yes but what about the history of the Christian movement. Is not the Pope meant to be Gods representative on Earth as laid dowwn in a line from Christ? Are you saying that the church does not reperesent God? Is that line of thinking heresy?

Finally, God isn’t blackmailing us. If you don’t want to be with Him, why should He force you to go to heaven where you would be with Him for eternity?

No if the bible is Gods word and the bible tells me that if I do not become Christian then I shall go to hell, that is God blackmailing me.

If you where to tell me do this, or suffer these consequences, you would be blackmailing me. So if God does this then the same is true for God.

Hey Bottle,

Revelations lays out God's plan for destroying evil.

Let's hope not, because if that's really God's plan then we are all pretty well fucked. I can come up with better solutions, for pity's sake, and I'm not terribly bright.


Also, Jesus comming to die was the payment for all of our sins. Look at my first post, the Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." That 'gift' was paid for though Jesus' death.
I think it would be wise to politely decline gifts from people who deliberately engineer the violent murder of their children, no matter what generous motives they profess.

Would *I* say that. No. I am not a christian. Individuals of standing and recognition within the catholic church, however, have made this arguement: Christ is The Word, The Word is Truth.

In that way, searching for Truth is searching for Christ, even if you don't know it.


Ahhhh I see, and are there any Christains (of whichever denomination) out there that want to back this one up?

Hey New Bretonnia,

Cheers for your repliy and after taking on board all that you say I still can't get past this little detail.

God created sin, then God come up with some really convaluted way for us to expunge our sin(sin that God created for us) instead of just a) not creating the concept of original sin in the first place, or b) just forgiving us anyhoo. That's what a loving God would do, and you have not convinced me otherwise.

Hey Peepelonia,

Thanks for your approach... most people set up threads like this because they've made up their miunda rleady and just want to validate, but I get the impression you're really serious about getting this stuff straight, and it's really refreshing.

I wouldn't say God created sin as such. Sin, by definition, is the willful disobedience to God's will.

Original Sin is the idea that we all inherited the taint of Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience. Some Christian groups believe that, some don't. I do not. The reason is that as I said, sin is the WILLFUL disobedience to God's will. That means that one has to knowingly act in opposition to His commandments/instructions. Small children or the mentally infirm aren't capable of sin for that reason.

Forgiveness is not so simple, because it seems that once we've borne the taint of sin, we cannot survive in God's presence. We MUST be cleansed of that sin before we can return to Him. The mechanism by which Jesus' sacrifice cleanses us is apparently one that even God the Father Himself will not override. The reason is this:

When we are first born, we are in a state of complete innocence. We do not understand good, we do not understand evil. Our spirit is a blank slate, sent down here to earth from Him who created us. Our purpose for being here is to learn, by experience, the difference between good and evil. We cannot understand the goodness of God without having the evil we experience on this earth to compare it to. (How many times have we heard this very concept? There is no good without evil, no light without dark)

Now, once we are here, we have a choice to make. We've learnt good and we've learnt evil. Now, which do we choose? This is why freewill is important. Could God just make all bad stuff go away? Yeah, He could... but then we'd learn nothing. Could He force us all to choose good? Yeah, but then we haven't really CHOSEN it, have we?

That's why the system is as it is. We have to get down here in the sludge and muck in order to learn an object lesson, but we need to be purified before our return. That is the choice we must make.

No I totaly disagree. Yes if we all thought the same way, one way to God would be fine. But we don't, what about the Atheists? How shuold they get to God if they don't belive in God. Is it the sign of a loving God that says, no let them suffer. Or would a loving God find a way to make sure that even the unbelivers reach God?



I dont see what that has to do with the bible at all. There is only one God, so what evername you want to use is fine surley. Lord, or God, or Jehova, or YHVH, or Odin, or whatever.




So basicaly what you say is anything that we don't understand or seems contradictory is to be lumpped under the heading of 'well you gota have faith!' That is a cop out are you suggesting that God does not want us to think?



No I guess you wouldn't. What though if you where Muslim? Or a Hindu? Are their holy books then full of crap and not to be bothered with? Is it a Christian trait to not put your self in the other mans shoes? Putting yourself in the other mans shoes is a totaly valid way of obtaining empathy with your fellow man, is Christianity agaisnt such empathy?



Yes but what about the history of the Christian movement. Is not the Pope meant to be Gods representative on Earth as laid dowwn in a line from Christ? Are you saying that the church does not reperesent God? Is that line of thinking heresy?



No if the bible is Gods word and the bible tells me that if I do not become Christian then I shall go to hell, that is God blackmailing me.

If you where to tell me do this, or suffer these consequences, you would be blackmailing me. So if God does this then the same is true for God.



Most of your arguments are invalid. Why would an atheist, who doesn't believe in God, want to go to the place where God is?

Also, New Bretonnia has phrased the concept of some of my thoughts much more simply.

And to my mind it seems tha the Christian church has done exactly that. Although I suppose you are going to say that no, the Christian church has it correct?

Of course, you can say that. I disagree: the Church (not the Pope or the bishops: sorry to my RC and EO brethren) has apostolic authority and is preserved by God.

Most of your arguments are invalid. Why would an atheist, who doesn't believe in God, want to go to the place where God is?
Don't change the subject. Whether or not atheists want to spend time with God is a totally different matter than the Heaven vs. Hell extortion racket.

Hell is a place of endless torture, for crying out loud, and it should go without saying that an atheist would prefer NOT to end up there. Furthermore, atheists lack belief in God, but most atheists will freely tell you that they'd be delighted to meet your God if you'd care to introduce them personally. They have no more reason to believe God is real than they have to believe leprechauns are real, but most of them would be quite interested to visit a place where they could experience concrete evidence for the existence of either.

Let's hope not, because if that's really God's plan then we are all pretty well fucked. I can come up with better solutions, for pity's sake, and I'm not terribly bright.


I think it would be wise to politely decline gifts from people who deliberately engineer the violent murder of their children, no matter what generous motives they profess.


Followers of Christ will be taken to heaven before the mess starts. So those who are not in a relationship with God will be the ones who are left.


Sin has to be paid for. Because of our guilt, we are sentanced to death. But, Christ stepped in and accepted our sentance for us. Because He loves us so much, he was willing to sacrifice himself to pay our debt.

The new testament regularly contradicts the old. The various translations of the old testament regularly contradict each other. This is why learning ancient Hebrew (easier then learning modern hebrew) is vital to bible study.

The NT repeals some of the OT and clarifies some, but it does not contradict. As for the translations contradicting, the only way that would happen is if someone was creating a revisionist translation. Like the Inner City Bible. *shudders*

Edwardis, I am sorry. I was rude in the way I responded to you. Sometimes text lacks intended tone, and sometimes I fail to phrase things properly. In this case, I think I am guilty of both, and I hope you are not greatly offended.

I'm not offended, it just sounded like you were and I didn't want that to happen. But it looks like it was just a misunderstanding.

Don't change the subject. Whether or not atheists want to spend time with God is a totally different matter than the Heaven vs. Hell extortion racket.

Hell is a place of endless torture, for crying out loud, and it should go without saying that an atheist would prefer NOT to end up there. Furthermore, atheists lack belief in God, but most atheists will freely tell you that they'd be delighted to meet your God if you'd care to introduce them personally. They have no more reason to believe God is real than they have to believe leprechauns are real, but most of them would be quite interested to visit a place where they could experience concrete evidence for the existence of either.

Ok, let me try this a different way. I'll get back to what we're talking about, but follow me for a few posts. (Also, let me consolidate this one with the discussion I'm having with Peepelonia)

Simple question...
Do you believe in a higher power?

no god isnt blackmailing us, he is playing a sick game of hide and seek.

according to your belief, god has hidden the one true path somewhere on the earth mixed in with 100,000 other, equally believable paths. we are required to figure out which is the ONE TRUE PATH even when there are dozens that look exactly the same. to choose wrong is to suffer eternal torment.

few people ever reject god. they make what seem to them to be the best choices based on their circumstance, personality and culture. the majority of all the people who have ever lived have never even heard of christianity. to suggest that they rejected anything is ludicrous.

if god wanted us all to have one belief set that we all must follow in order to get to heaven and avoid hell, he would be here all the time telling everyone in the world exactly what that belief has to be. only then would rejecting him be a choice rather than the default setting.

You make a point that few "christians" have looked into. The answer is, you are correct. While the "christians" who argue there is but one path are also correct. What the Bible actually says is that all people can look at creation and realize there is a creator and honor that creator. The creator is the "one way", but the way that creator is honored can be many ways.

What the neo-pharisees will admit but not absorb mentally is that part of God which became Jesus (actually Yashua) was a part of God "in the beginning". In other words you don't need to honor the man who lived for 30 years as long as you are looking at creation and honoring the creator, because they are one in the same.

So the creator is the one way, but the creator can have many names and many ways of honor.

What the neo-pharisees can't stand is the thought that Christianity is the simplest of religions. There are only two rules: Love God; Love everyone else. It's as simple as that. Everything else that they are trying to confuse people with is just commentary. Just as the original pharisees loved to exclude people with rules, regulations, interpreations, etc. The "conservative christian" neo-pharisees do the same thing---the thing that Jesus condemned the most.

Followers of Christ will be taken to heaven before the mess starts. So those who are not in a relationship with God will be the ones who are left.

See what I'm talking about? Sloppy work.


Sin has to be paid for.

This sounds like a melodramatic way of saying that we all have to own up to our mistakes, and make good. That's perfectly reasonable and sane. What is not reasonable or sane is to say that we are all obligated to make good for the mistakes of other human beings who died thousands of years before we were even conceived.

If somebody tries to tell you that you were born dirty or wicked or sinful, that person is not somebody you should trust. They are using a very common tactic of emotional abuse, trying to break you down by stripping away your sense of self-worth.


Because of our guilt, we are sentanced to death.

Death isn't a sentence for a crime, it's simply the natural conclusion of our individual lives. Death is not a punishment. Death is not something to fear, any more than we should fear the final act of a play or the last chapter of a book.


But, Christ stepped in and accepted our sentance for us.

My mistakes are my own, and it would be dishonest of me to have anyone else take the consequences for my actions. No one else can bear the credit or the criticism for me. I am responsible for my choices.

None of which really matters anyhow, since Christ supposedly died to redeem me from mistakes I never made and sins I never committed. Since I am not responsible for other people's sins in the first place, Christ would have done better to spend the rest of his life feeding the hungry and tending the sick.


Because He loves us so much, he was willing to sacrifice himself to pay our debt.
Nobody who loves me would presume to devalue me and my choices. Nobody who cares about me and respects me would try to tempt me into such a dishonorable exchange. Nobody who loves me would try to retroactively claim that I owe them for doing something that I neither requested nor desired.

Those are, again, the actions of an emotional abuser. It is a common ploy of abusers to harm themselves and then attempt to make their partner feel responsible for these injuries. The abuser insists that they did it for their partner, and uses feelings of guilt to create a sense of obligation in their partner. This sense of obligation is used to keep the partner from leaving, and it is also used to silence any criticism or complaint that their partner may have. "Look at what I did for you! I cut your name into my arm! It proves how much I love you. I did this for you...now, here's what you should do for me..."

Working with domestic abuse victims, I've come across this many times. It's sad how many victims become convinced that they owe their abuser something simply because he decided to hurt himself and then blame them for it.

Simple question...
Do you believe in a higher power?
Hardly a "simple question," since you haven't defined what "higher" means, nor have you indicated what standard of measure should be used. Higher than what?

You make a point that few "christians" have looked into. The answer is, you are correct. While the "christians" who argue there is but one path are also correct. What the Bible actually says is that all people can look at creation and realize there is a creator and honor that creator. The creator is the "one way", but the way that creator is honored can be many ways.

What the neo-pharisees will admit but not absorb mentally is that part of God which became Jesus (actually Yashua) was a part of God "in the beginning". In other words you don't need to honor the man who lived for 30 years as long as you are looking at creation and honoring the creator, because they are one in the same.

So the creator is the one way, but the creator can have many names and many ways of honor.

What the neo-pharisees can't stand is the thought that Christianity is the simplest of religions. There are only two rules: Love God; Love everyone else. It's as simple as that. Everything else that they are trying to confuse people with is just commentary. Just as the original pharisees loved to exclude people with rules, regulations, interpreations, etc. The "conservative christian" neo-pharisees do the same thing---the thing that Jesus condemned the most.

nicely said.

it seems logical to me, if jesus IS god and if there is only ONE god then honoring (almost) any god is honoring the one god is honoring jesus. same guy different name.

See what I'm talking about? Sloppy work.


This sounds like a melodramatic way of saying that we all have to own up to our mistakes, and make good. That's perfectly reasonable and sane. What is not reasonable or sane is to say that we are all obligated to make good for the mistakes of other human beings who died thousands of years before we were even conceived.

If somebody tries to tell you that you were born dirty or wicked or sinful, that person is not somebody you should trust. They are using a very common tactic of emotional abuse, trying to break you down by stripping away your sense of self-worth.


Death isn't a sentence for a crime, it's simply the natural conclusion of our individual lives. Death is not a punishment. Death is not something to fear, any more than we should fear the final act of a play or the last chapter of a book.


My mistakes are my own, and it would be dishonest of me to have anyone else take the consequences for my actions. No one else can bear the credit or the criticism for me. I am responsible for my choices.

None of which really matters anyhow, since Christ supposedly died to redeem me from mistakes I never made and sins I never committed. Since I am not responsible for other people's sins in the first place, Christ would have done better to spend the rest of his life feeding the hungry and tending the sick.


Nobody who loves me would presume to devalue me and my choices. Nobody who cares about me and respects me would try to tempt me into such a dishonorable exchange. Nobody who loves me would try to retroactively claim that I owe them for doing something that I neither requested nor desired.

Those are, again, the actions of an emotional abuser. It is a common ploy of abusers to harm themselves and then attempt to make their partner feel responsible for these injuries. The abuser insists that they did it for their partner, and uses feelings of guilt to create a sense of obligation in their partner. This sense of obligation is used to keep the partner from leaving, and it is also used to silence any criticism or complaint that their partner may have. "Look at what I did for you! I cut your name into my arm! It proves how much I love you. I did this for you...now, here's what you should do for me..."

Working with domestic abuse victims, I've come across this many times. It's sad how many victims become convinced that they owe their abuser something simply because he decided to hurt himself and then blame them for it.

It hurts me greatly that you feel this way. I am at a loss of how to convey this concept of Christ’s love. Let me say this as my final post:

Look around you, in the world, people hurt each other. Something is wrong with is world. That wrong is called sin. The sins that I've committed have caused my life to become tainted. I can no longer be near to God in any fashion because God is pure and I am now not. It would be like a muddy dog coming into a house and rolling all over the white carpet. I have no way to clean myself. Jesus, God in human form, stepped in and offered to wash the mud off of me. He won't chase me down to wash me, but he will willingly do it if I come to Him and ask Him to do it. He doesn't want anything in return; he doesn't want me to feel guilty or to repay Him. So I have asked him to clean me. I still mess up in life, but I have been cleaned. So now I can go into this white house and I can be with God because of Jesus cleaning me.


I feel that I am inadequate to express my feelings and my thoughts on this issue. I hope that I have done something to help you understand. I am truly sorry if I have confused you, offended you, or further distorted your view of Christianity. I pray that someone more eloquent and wise will further this discussion in ways that I cannot.

It hurts me greatly that you feel this way. I am at a loss of how to convey this concept of Christ’s love. Let me say this as my final post:

Look around you, in the world, people hurt each other. Something is wrong with is world. That wrong is called sin.

Ok, so far I'm with you.


The sins that I've committed have caused my life to become tainted. I can no longer be near to God in any fashion because God is pure and I am now not.

But this gets wonky.

Look, we're not perfect. We all fuck up sometimes. But that doesn't suddenly make us unworthy or bad to the core.

God is supposed to be our Father, right? Well, my father loves and cherishes me no matter what mistakes I might make. He is far more knowledgable and capable than I am, and he doesn't make mistakes nearly as often as I do, but that doesn't mean that I am "unworthy" to be close to him because of my own mistakes. Even if he were totally perfect and never made a single mistake, he still would never be so hurtful and pointlessly cruel as to shove me away from him. Because it is silly and irrational to expect any human being to be perfect, and thus it is silly and irrational to punish a human being for not being perfect.

My father wants to help me become the best person I can be, and part of that is helping me to understand that good people make mistakes. This doesn't make them bad people, nor does it mean they are dirty or unworthy. It simply means that even the best of us can put a foot wrong. We learn from our mistakes and we try to make things right with the people who we may have hurt. We do not expect others to take on these burdens for us.


It would be like a muddy dog coming into a house and rolling all over the white carpet. I have no way to clean myself. Jesus, God in human form, stepped in and offered to wash the mud off of me. He won't chase me down to wash me, but he will willingly do it if I come to Him and ask Him to do it.

Mistakes are not mud, and they cannot be "washed away" by anybody else. Your mistakes are a part of you, and always will be. That's okay. It doesn't make you bad or dirty, and you don't need to have parts of you scrubbed away to make you worthy. You are okay as the natural, imperfect human that you are.


He doesn't want anything in return; he doesn't want me to feel guilty or to repay Him.

The fact that he wants you to believe that you need him for this "cleaning" is the problem. He can't clean you in the way he says, for one thing. But more importantly, you don't need to be cleaned in the first place. The fact that you have been convinced that you need this is at the root of the abusive system.


I feel that I am inadequate to express my feelings and my thoughts on this issue.

I often feel that I lack the words to express myself on topics like this one. Please don't think that YOU, as a person, are inadequate simply because we don't connect on this topic. Miscommunication does not necessarily mean that either party is at fault!


I hope that I have done something to help you understand.

I think I understand what you are talking about. I think I pretty thoroughly disagree. That's okay, at least from my end.


I am truly sorry if I have confused you, offended you, or further distorted your view of Christianity.

You've been clearer than most, as well as more polite, and your vision of Christianity is as legitimate as anybody else's could be. Don't worry about it.


I pray that someone more eloquent and wise will further this discussion in ways that I cannot.
I think you are well aware that you are more eloquent than the average person around here. If you wish to gracefully bow out of the conversation then that is obviously up to you. Just don't pretend that you couldn't continue it ably if you wanted to do so. :) Give yourself (and your readers) a bit more credit!

The NT repeals some of the OT and clarifies some, but it does not contradict. As for the translations contradicting, the only way that would happen is if someone was creating a revisionist translation. Like the Inner City Bible. *shudders*

1) Repealing and rewriting *is* contradictory in nature when you are doing so to someone else's work. In this case, several hundred years separate the two works, so the NT clearly contradicts the OT. It *claims* to hold a higher authority, but that depends on your POV.

2) Translation contradict one another without being revisionist because Ancient Hebrew is a language with a very different template then modern English, French, or, anything that is not semitic (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic). Translating accross such differences necessarily leads to a great amount of interpretation on the part of the Translator. Try Comparing the NIV to the Good News to the King James to the Artscroll (OT only). None of those are 'fringe' or particularly revisionist, and yet they describe very different things.
Pay particular attention to Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), that gets VERY interesting with Christian translations.

1) Repealing and rewriting *is* contradictory in nature when you are doing so to someone else's work. In this case, several hundred years separate the two works, so the NT clearly contradicts the OT. It *claims* to hold a higher authority, but that depends on your POV.

2) Translation contradict one another without being revisionist because Ancient Hebrew is a language with a very different template then modern English, French, or, anything that is not semitic (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic). Translating accross such differences necessarily leads to a great amount of interpretation on the part of the Translator. Try Comparing the NIV to the Good News to the King James to the Artscroll (OT only). None of those are 'fringe' or particularly revisionist, and yet they describe very different things.
Pay particular attention to Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), that gets VERY interesting with Christian translations.

I consider the NIV revisionist. It focuses so much on making the Bible understnadable it changes the meaning.

I would like to make a point here - a lot of posts have refered to the idea that any G*d is acceptable as just another name for Jehovah. This isn't correct. I mean, there is an arguement that any MONOTHEISTIC G*d is just as good as any other, but biblical paganism (paganim involving human sacrifice) is anathema to monotheists.

To say Allah, Jehovah, YHVH, etc are all the same, is a valid arguement. To add in G*ds like Vishnu or Odin, however, is a much larger step, and not a valid one, I think.

Just to be clear, I *am* using a broad definition of monotheism. In this case, I am uing it to mean both "one G*d only" AND "the universe as one G*d - we are all one." Technically an incorrect use, but unless omeone objects, I'll keep using it that way.

I consider the NIV revisionist. It focuses so much on making the Bible understnadable it changes the meaning.

Fine then, drop the NIV, but that fails to invalidate my point.

Actually, I expected an objection to the Good News before an objection to the NIV.

YOu could just as easily use the Giddion for comparisson, too. You don't get more standard (amoung christians) then that!

Fine then, drop the NIV, but that fails to invalidate my point.

Actually, I expected an objection to the Good News before an objection to the NIV.

YOu could just as easily use the Giddion for comparisson, too. You don't get more standard (amoung christians) then that!

I did drop the NIV, but I keep one (actually) two around for reference. I didn't realize you mentioned the Good News. I haven't used that one much, but I'm not sure that I would like it. Living Translation is on my list of stupid translations, too.

I would like to get at least one copy of every translation. Very impractical, escpecially since I'm a college student.

I did drop the NIV, but I keep one (actually) two around for reference. I didn't realize you mentioned the Good News. I haven't used that one much, but I'm not sure that I would like it. Living Translation is on my list of stupid translations, too.

I would like to get at least one copy of every translation. Very impractical, escpecially since I'm a college student.

The living Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation. The "Good News" bible is okay, but it's really for kids.

The living Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation. The "Good News" bible is okay, but it's really for kids.

If your going to paraphrase it make it clear that your doing so. I never knew that. And people go around using it as their cheif study Bible.

If your going to paraphrase it make it clear that your doing so. I never knew that. And people go around using it as their cheif study Bible.

acutally mine does say on the cover "The Living Bible" and underneath that it says "a paraphrase of the Holy Bible"

I know nobody who uses it as their cheif study Bible, but then the people I know who study the Bible actually study it, not just read it.

Why would a loving God create many types of people yet only give them one way to reach God?
He created one type of people, and they split and decided to believe something else.

Why would a loving God then punish all those that failed to choose the correct way, for eternity?
Because sin is eternal and deserves eternal punishment, this is why He has this thing called... forgiveness. Otherwise, we couldn't make it on our own.

Wouldn't a loving God who created many types of people, create many ways to reach God?
Why would He do this? It defeats the purpose of having faith in Him. Christ would have no purpose. The Bible would have no purpose. Death would have no purpose. And thus, life would lack reason. Why would He create us if there were no test for us?

Wouldn't a loving God have created as many ways to God as God created types of People?
This is the same question as the last.

How would you make it if you where a loving God?
I'm not a God, I can't answer this.

If you would create manys ways to you, can it then be said that you are moraly better than any concept of a loving God that actualy used punishement as a scare tatic?
Eternal punishment was NEVER used as a scare tactic by God. It must be mentioned, but that was not the basis for Christ's teaching. When you speak of life and death situations, such as eternal damnation, it is inevitable that eternal punishment be talked about. That's the most ridiculous question I've ever heard.

Would a loving God use any sort of punishment anyway?
Sin must be dealt with by punishment. And our punishment was put on Christ so we wouldn't have to suffer. He was our scapegoat, and the reason we should follow him and love him.

EDIT: Actually, those are some pretty good questions. I can't ask questions like that by myself, so it was quite refreshing.

acutally mine does say on the cover "The Living Bible" and underneath that it says "a paraphrase of the Holy Bible"

I know nobody who uses it as their cheif study Bible, but then the people I know who study the Bible actually study it, not just read it.

I guess that might be the real problem. I heard it used in the Scripture readings in churches several times, for well known verses (John 3:16 for example) and it changed a lot, so I've avoided it.

Why would He do this? It defeats the purpose of having faith in Him. Christ would have no purpose. The Bible would have no purpose. Death would have no purpose. And thus, life would lack reason. Why would He create us if there were no test for us?

God is not capable of tempting us. He can allow us to be tempted, but He cannot do the tempting.