NationStates Jolt Archive

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

Well, I've always felt it was more important for God to believe in me than me believe in God ;)

The notion of this kind of god is highly illogical.
It's the biggest fraud in history.

Science and logic are my gods.

Well, many Christians believe that God really does care a great deal more about whether one is a good person than whether one believes in the correct deity. The notion that one has to belong to the proper denomination to get into heaven seems to be largely limited to evangelical Protestants, in fact.

Well, many Christians believe that God really does care a great deal more about whether one is a good person than whether one believes in the correct deity. The notion that one has to belong to the proper denomination to get into heaven seems to be largely limited to evangelical Protestants, in fact.

No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.
If, as you say only one particular sect believes this, this would assume the rest of them are what, simply choosing to ignore that quote?

If they are indeed conviently ignoring that quote, then why are they bothering to follow any of it, since once the notion that doctrine can be ignored, or that these laws should be obeyed, and these shouldnt?

If you take a loose interperetation with the word of God, then how can any of it apply?

If Hindus, and Muslims, and anyone other than a Christian is doomed to Hell for not believing, as it says in John 14:6, if a Christian chooses not to actually believe this, is that not heresy, and in a sense, second guessing "God"?

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

From what I understand from talking with various pastors on this issue, if someone dies without ever hearing about Christ, then YHWH will judge them based on the laws and traditions they were supposed to live by in their society. I'm not for sure though if I can pull up a verse on that, I'll try to look.

Science and logic are my gods.

They demand a sacrifice.

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.
If, as you say only one particular sect believes this, this would assume the rest of them are what, simply choosing to ignore that quote?

If they are indeed conviently ignoring that quote, then why are they bothering to follow any of it, since once the notion that doctrine can be ignored, or that these laws should be obeyed, and these shouldnt?

If you take a loose interperetation with the word of God, then how can any of it apply?

If Hindus, and Muslims, and anyone other than a Christian is doomed to Hell for not believing, as it says in John 14:6, if a Christian chooses not to actually believe this, is that not heresy, and in a sense, second guessing "God"?

Lotta "if"'s in there ..... to be followed by a "then" ... (if/then)
.... then it's quite probably a fetid pile of horseshit.
You know what's cool though? Even Moses second guessed "God".

http://bible.cc/exodus/32-14.htm
And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.
If, as you say only one particular sect believes this, this would assume the rest of them are what, simply choosing to ignore that quote?

If they are indeed conviently ignoring that quote, then why are they bothering to follow any of it, since once the notion that doctrine can be ignored, or that these laws should be obeyed, and these shouldnt?

If you take a loose interperetation with the word of God, then how can any of it apply?

If Hindus, and Muslims, and anyone other than a Christian is doomed to Hell for not believing, as it says in John 14:6, if a Christian chooses not to actually believe this, is that not heresy, and in a sense, second guessing "God"?

That quote does seem to suggest that faith is the most important requirement for getting into heaven...but then, we can also find quotes like this:


Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


...which appears to say just the opposite.

The simple truth is that the Bible contradicts itself rather a lot, which means it's really up to individuals to decide which bits, if any, they consider most accurate and reflective of their beliefs.

The simple truth is that the Bible contradicts itself rather a lot, which means it's really up to individuals to decide which bits, if any, they consider most accurate and reflective of their beliefs.

Which in a better world would result less in the Hal-9000 mindset.

...The simple truth is that the Bible contradicts itself rather a lot, which means it's really up to individuals to decide which bits, if any, they consider most accurate and reflective of their beliefs.

Heathen! Heresy! The Bible is the Word of God and must be followed to the letter! Which is why my secretary is condemning himself to eternal punishment for utilising the intranets and I am busy wearing sackcloth and walking barefoot to Jerusalem via the mediterranean seafloor. :D

Well, many Christians believe that God really does care a great deal more about whether one is a good person than whether one believes in the correct deity. The notion that one has to belong to the proper denomination to get into heaven seems to be largely limited to evangelical Protestants, in fact.

Actually, the belief of exclusiveness would be closer to a Catholic thing. One cannot go to Heaven (according to Catholics) unless one is both baptized, and confirmed Catholic (unless their just a baby, then they still need to be baptized). That is, I'm pretty sure the official Catholic doctrinal belief, it's why they practice closed communion... don't want no one stealing their sacred juice and getting to heaven on their own!

That quote does seem to suggest that faith is the most important requirement for getting into heaven...but then, we can also find quotes like this:



...which appears to say just the opposite.

The simple truth is that the Bible contradicts itself rather a lot, which means it's really up to individuals to decide which bits, if any, they consider most accurate and reflective of their beliefs.

Actually, they say (or imply rather) the same thing... that a man's faith (though required) is not the lone factor in determination.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe?
Christian faith isn't so much about a belief in facts and figures ("I believe that Jesus did such-and-such at this time in that place"). It is about belief in moral principles and abstract concepts ("I believe that humans are plagued by vice and evil; I recognize that I myself suffer from vice and evil; I believe in a Supreme Being to whom I owe loyalty and love, and who has sacrificed a great deal of Itself to bring humanity to virtue; I believe that I, too, must guide my life according to principles of self-sacrifice and love").

Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion?
Christian doctrine states that in the time between His death and ressurection, Jesus went down to hell and released all the righteous souls who had died in the period before His coming. Something similar probably applies to those who died without ever hearing the Gospel.

Note, by the way, that human population growth is exponential, which means that far more people lived after Jesus than before Jesus. In fact, the people alive today are an estimated 20% of all the people who ever lived.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

As the only Chrisitan to yet post (I believe, according to the mostly anti-Christian responses), Jesus was God's show of compassion. I can honestly tell you that Jesus changed my life. I am more generous, more loving, less violent, and so forth. Jews, of the pre-Christ era are presumed certainly in Heaven, the reason for this is that, though only through Christ can salvation be attained, the Jews were told to wait on their messiah. Righteous Jewish people could live their lives for the glory of God, and wait for their messiah (Jesus) to come. Though He didn't in their lifetime, they still effectively lived their lives for him. (Not all people of ancient Jewish origins, reference to any religious person in this post is solely toa ctive participants of that particular faith, not people who happened to be born into a family that happened to have Jewish ancestry, but practices it not at all).

The compassion is that God sacrificed His Son for us. Had He not done that, instead of the remission of our sins, we could only attain (through animal sacrifice) a coating over our sin, rather than a cleansing from our sin. We are freed from the burden of the Law, which means that we do not need to uphold, unfailingly, all of those little, and sometimes (in today's culter) rediculous OT Laws, by which one culd have his sin covered before Jesus.

On the otehr hand, why even have existence if God is just going to hand out Redemption to everyone... Biblically He has done quite a lot for us, and desires us to recognize Him, should we do so in the matter proscribed by Christ, who is God, we can 'earn' Salvation (the term 'earn' is not meant to imply that, I, for example, deserve Salvation, but rather that it is given to me for my faith in Christ, and my laying down my sin for Him.)

Hope that answers your question!

EDIT: Also, God might well have a different (and therefore better) definition of compassion, to quote the Newsboys 'Jesus doesn't fit that profil, His ways aren't mine' referring to my natural tendencies go against everyhting Christ preached.

No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6
If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.
Err, no. Nowhere does the quote mention faith. It doesn't say "you must believe in Me as the ressurected Son of God to enter heaven," it only says "you need My help to enter heaven."

All Christians agree that, yes, we can only enter heaven with the help of Jesus. The question is what is required of us to earn that help. Some believe that a strict faith is required, others believe that good works are required, and so on.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.


Despite what organized religion might want you to believe, you don't go to Hell for not being a christian. Jesus Christ's life was meant to deliver a message on how to live a life that would earn you eternal peace in the afterlife. It's faith to that message and that lifestyle that you need. Jesus made it very clear what constituted a good life. DOn't let Catholic doctrine muck that up. As for those who died before Christ, well if you believe, apparently Christ took care of them during a visit to Hell between His death and resurrection.

Despite what organized religion might want you to believe, you don't go to Hell for not being a christian. Jesus Christ's life was meant to deliver a message on how to live a life that would earn you eternal peace in the afterlife. It's faith to that message and that lifestyle that you need. Jesus made it very clear what constituted a good life. DOn't let Catholic doctrine muck that up. As for those who died before Christ, well if you believe, apparently Christ took care of them during a visit to Hell between His death and resurrection.

If it's Christ's example that was the important part, why did Christ die? Was it really necessary?

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe?

The Bible makes it clear that no one is perfect. God, being a perfect Being, cannot allow anything imperfect in His presence. He has provided a way to be cleansed of our imperfections through Jesus. By not believing, we reject that way that He provided, and there is no way to do it on our own. In other words, God is simply respecting the choices that we made.

Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Der Teutoniker answered this part fine.

If it's Christ's example that was the important part, why did Christ die? Was it really necessary?

I suspect his Death and Resurrection were an elaborate plan to give us a reason to eat chocolate and jelly beans. *nod*

I suspect his Death and Resurrection were an elaborate plan to give us a reason to eat chocolate and jelly beans. *nod*

I do that anyway.

I do that anyway.

Some people need a pretext. Jesus Provides. *nods solemnly*

As LG and others said, Jesus just showed us the way. Delivered the message of love. That's what I believe He meant - noone comes to the God but by love.
So I love this forum! :D

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

First of all, where did you get the idea that Christians believe their God is "infinitely compassionate"? Every bit of Christian dogma I've studied or read, speaks of Judgement Day when God will judge you for your sins and cast you into hell for eternity, or give you everlasting life in heaven, and nothing about compassion for you. Clearly God could prevent earthquakes or volcanoes, tsunami's, floods, hurricanes, fires... if he were a compassionate God, he would most likely do that, don't you think?

Pardon the blasphemy, but God doesn't give a rats ass about you. He is completely intolerant of you in every possible way, and will probably enjoy sending you to the fiery pits of hell. You had the chance to believe and didn't, or at least claimed you didn't, I have my doubts. If you really do believe in God, it's even worse, you are mocking him, and that ain't good.

Now, Jesus? Different story here! Jesus Loves You! He is forgiving and benevolent and was very compassionate, he taught a compassionate message to mankind. Through acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior, you are redeemed and washed clean of all your sins. It doesn't matter how much you've managed to piss God off in your life, or how much trouble you think you are in with the big guy, if you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you are born again in God's eye. If not, oh well... nice knowing you before you were toast!

Anyway, that's my take on it, I am not a member of the Christian party myself, I do know a few of them, and this is what I get from them. For me, I think conventional concepts of God are inadequate. I believe in a superior power, just not the conventional ideas of one. As for Heaven and Hell? I am not sure, although I assume if there is one, there is the other. I also have to think there is some reward or motivation for following the wishes of a superior power through a lifetime, but maybe not. For whatever unexplained reasons, my superior power leads me to do good and help others, to be a good person and a good steward of the planet. Maybe I feel compelled to follow this because I am grateful for every day I have on this amazing planet?

More religious debates! Its like saturday night movies on thrusday! :p

As LG and others said, Jesus just showed us the way. Delivered the message of love.Not unconditional.

Wheres RB or one of the other fanatics when you need 'em?

Wheres RB or one of the other fanatics when you need 'em?

It's the "holi"-days. We're hiding under our rocks in perhaps vain effort to avoid the insipid music, garb, minions and gregarious merchandising.

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.
If, as you say only one particular sect believes this, this would assume the rest of them are what, simply choosing to ignore that quote?

If they are indeed conviently ignoring that quote, then why are they bothering to follow any of it, since once the notion that doctrine can be ignored, or that these laws should be obeyed, and these shouldnt?

If you take a loose interperetation with the word of God, then how can any of it apply?

If Hindus, and Muslims, and anyone other than a Christian is doomed to Hell for not believing, as it says in John 14:6, if a Christian chooses not to actually believe this, is that not heresy, and in a sense, second guessing "God"?

Or what if the quote actually means you're just supposed to act the way Jesus suggested, you know, being a kind person and all that good shit.

What if it means that Jesus is like a celestial messenger boy and prayers actually go to him first, even if they're addressed to "the father"?

Or what if you don't take the Bible as infallible, accepting the fact that it's been quite mangled throughout history?

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

Your second question is the easier to answer, so I'll start there:

It is made clear in the Gospel of John that when Jesus descended in to the darkness, he stole the keys of Hell from the devil, and freed mankind. Though it's not directly stated, it can be presumed from this that those who had gone to hell were thence released. It is also made clear in the bible, particularly in Genesis, that mankind was of a very different nature in those early days: "There were giants in those days, men of old, men of renown." (Genesis)

As for the first question, that's more compicated, so rather then try to explain it myself, I'm going to give you a story, the story of Lazarus: Lazarus spends his life a beggar outside the door of a very rich man, and asks him for scraps from his table. He has a horrible skin disease, and is unable to work. The rich man refuses him, and feasts lavishly while he starves, barely taking notice of him. In a few years, Lazarus dies. Soon after, the rich man dies.

The rich man burns in hell and is now covered with the same sores that Lazarus once wore, but he can see up in to heaven, and can see a now healthy, ressurected, well-fed Lazarus standing next to Abraham. "Oh please, send Lazarus down to lick my wounds!" the rich man shouts to Abraham. "We would like to help you rich man, but there is a great chasm between us, and what goes there cannot reach here, and vice versa." Abraham replies. "Well then, send him down to earth to warn my brothers, that they may not act as I did." The rich man cries. "They have moses, they have the prophets." Abraham speaks back. "But... but... this would do so much better." "No, rich man, if they won't listen to the prophets, not even a man rising from the dead can persuade them." [Paraphrased from King James Bible, Gospel of Luke]

"No, rich man, if they won't listen to the prophets, not even a man rising from the dead can persuade them."
Which ones? There was always a plethora of them.

Which ones? There was always a plethora of them.

Implicitly the sum of the prophets.

Implicitly the sum of the prophets.
....explicitly, certainly the difference. :p

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

Not all Christians believe this. The Orthodox Church teaches that anyone who willfully rejects Christianity is destined for hell. The fate of those who are ignorant of Christianity is known only to God.

Implicitly the sum of the prophets.
....explicitly, certainly the difference. :p
Or perhaps the weighted average? :confused:

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

He gave us freewill, the will to do as we please and to believe in him without any knowledge or proof. But as you say, millions of people do wrong and he does nothing to save them from Hell. Well you may think that but the Bible is there and being read aloud everyday for people to hear, all you need to do is listen and believe and it'll probably save you from a damnation of sorts- I'm not perfect, i'm a terrible sinner and so I won't go to heaven but spend a long time in purgatory (assuming I don't do anything extremely evil).

My point is that people have the ability to save themselves with relying on God to save them, we have the freewill to do and say as we please which is why I hold nothing against people who don't believe in God or Christ. But Christ said: "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe". God holds nothing against those who do not believe but asks them to believe when their death is near. Those who already believe are not quite saved but are likely to go to heaven.

To answer your question about Christ coming to Earth, well he came when the Earth was a darn sight less civilised than it is today which makes more sense to the people who worship "logic". The Book of Revelations talks a lot about the coming of Christ once again as as the Beast is raied from the pitt.

The long and short of it is that it's not all about Christianity, it's about the Jews as well. Both Christians and the Jews worship the same God. Judaism did not spread as well as God hoped which brought about the paganist religions all around the world. Christianity started after Christ's death and from that point on, the word has actually become a better place (give or take a few terrible things).

Also, one shouldn't rely on the Son of God to convert people.... there were hundreds of prophets preaching the same thing all over the world before and after Christ and today there are millions. An athiest shouldn't just sit and wait for Chirst to come and convert them, they should just listen to what they are already being told.

EDIT: He wasn't infinitly compassionate... read the Book of Exodus and Macabees and you'll see his bad side.

The long and short of it is that it's not all about Christianity, it's about the Jews as well. Both Christians and the Jews worship the same God.

Not true - Jews do not worship the Christian God, Jesus Christ. Likewise, Christians do not worship the Jewish God, because the Jewish God is not Jesus Christ.

Judaism did not spread as well as God hoped which brought about the paganist religions all around the world.
Oh, and earlier it was like "Gosh darn, it didn't work out as I hoped at all, at all. I'll flush this mess down the toilet. Except this guy, he's kinda nice. I hope this time it will turn out okay, fingers crossed."
You're taking the Bible much too seriously. It's terrrrribly (but not hopelessly) stained by human translators.

Oh, and earlier it was like "Gosh darn, it didn't work out as I hoped at all, at all. I'll flush this mess down the toilet. Except this guy, he's kinda nice. I hope this time it will turn out okay, fingers crossed."
You're taking the Bible much too seriously. It's terrrrribly (but not hopelessly) stained by human translators.

I'm surprised you would criticize the translation rather than the original words. Even virtually all critics of the Bible agree that some of the new English translations of the Bible very accurately and precisely translate the original words. It is the supposed divinity of the original words that those critics doubt.

Not true - Jews do not worship the Christian God, Jesus Christ. Likewise, Christians do not worship the Jewish God, because the Jewish God is not Jesus Christ.

Or rather, they worship the same God, but Christians will say "he came to earth," and Jews will reply "no he didn't."

I'm surprised you would criticize the translation rather than the original words.
I'm sorry, I was thinking about the original translators - the ones who wrote down the God's words, adding their own.

Or rather, they worship the same God, but Christians will say "he came to earth," and Jews will reply "no he didn't."

To the Christian, anything that is not the Son, the Father, or the Holy Spirit, is not God. Therefore, the Jewish God, who isn't any of those three, is not the Christian God.

Can we stop bandying "the Christian God" around as if every denomination recognises Jesus as God? As far as I'm concerned and I'm sure I'm not alone in the slightest, Jesus is the Son of God, but he is not God.

God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-etc supreme entity "up there", so it is rather irrelevant where you worship Jesus (idolatry in some faiths) or worship God and his prophet(s), be they Jesus, Mohammed* or Abraham/Moses.

To suggest that there is in fact heaven and hell and only the good people enter heaven is to suggest that God is not all-powerful and that there is indeed some supreme evil being trying to corrupt souls. This works in fantasy literature and in mediaeval times, but it is patently ridiculous nowadays, especially if you try to posit that God is the supreme benevolent being without peer or equal.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

Wow, this is possibly the worst misunderstanding of Christianity I have ever seen (or is it the best? I'm not sure how that works). To answer your questions:

God does have compassion on those who don't believe, it is sinful humans who do not.
This did not happen. For a long time, the Church had a special limbo for these people, but about fifty years ago they realized that there was no basis for it anywhere, at all. We don't really know where they are, the good are presumably in heaven.

Wow, this is possibly the worst misunderstanding of Christianity I have ever seen
But wouldn't you say that's also quite widely spread?

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.

No. If we take it literally, we have to believe that Jesus is actually some sort of weird door and that we actually have to go through him to get to Heaven. Since no Christian believes this, we can safely say that all Christians believe that these words must be interpreted in some other way.

There are many different beliefs as to how this should be interpreted. Many of these are consistent with an omnibenevolent God.

Good questions!

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe?


Well, it's really a little more complex than that. We know that God is a being who is of perfect light and purity. Just by coming to this earth and being exposed to the evils and temptations of the world, we become stained by it. Once that's done, we cannot return to His presence. We just can't. It would be like trying to land a spacecraft on the Sun.

There is a process by which we can be cleansed and purified to once again be in His presence, but the first step of that is to sincerely and honestly believe in Him and in His son, Jesus Christ.

God's compassion for us is reflected in the fact that he sacrificed His only begotten Son to save us all. (At least, those who were willing to be redeemed.)


Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

2 Part answer here:

For those who lived before the arrival of Christ, His sacrifice extends also to them. During the 3 days that He was dead in the tomb, he (spiritually) released those who were imprisoned in the afterlife. (among other things). One could wonder why they had to wait in that spiritual prison so long buut I'd point out that in the afterlife, what meaning does time have? 1,000 years, 10 minutes.

For those after His arrival but who never had a fair chance to learn about Him and accept Him, there's a mechanism by which they too can be redeemed. For people who couldn't be baptized in their lifetimes it is possible to baptize them poshumously, and the difference is made in the afterlife.

Begin discussion.[/QUOTE]

Let me put the answer to your first question in an anology... There is a rich CEO of a company, he decides to give everyone 5 million dollers in a year. All they have to do is admit that his company exists to get the money. Sorry best anology I could come up with

Actually, the belief of exclusiveness would be closer to a Catholic thing. One cannot go to Heaven (according to Catholics) unless one is both baptized, and confirmed Catholic (unless their just a baby, then they still need to be baptized). That is, I'm pretty sure the official Catholic doctrinal belief, it's why they practice closed communion... don't want no one stealing their sacred juice and getting to heaven on their own!

Nope they changed it back in the 70's. It's any Christian and not just Catholic can now go to heaven. lol

Nope they changed it back in the 70's. It's any Christian and not just Catholic can now go to heaven. lol

But just about 3 years ago they revised it again to exclude Mormons. :p

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

god exists outside of time. when jesus fixed that whole "no one gets into heaven" thing he fixed it for all time, past present and future.

all the righteous dead were claimed from hell by jesus when he died. they existed in a part of hell known as LIMBO where they did not suffer except for that interminable waiting part.

same with the righteous who live after the time of jesus. they are judged by their actions, not but some stupid incantation they may not have been able to say (i accept jesus as my personal lord and savior)

No. If we take it literally, we have to believe that Jesus is actually some sort of weird door and that we actually have to go through him to get to Heaven. Since no Christian believes this, we can safely say that all Christians believe that these words must be interpreted in some other way.

There are many different beliefs as to how this should be interpreted. Many of these are consistent with an omnibenevolent God.

we have to believe that Jesus is actually some sort of weird door and that we actually have to go through him to get to Heaven.
Actually, that's about right. Jesus IS the door through which we can achieve eternal life, through the wall of death. He is the bridge over the chasm that seperates us from God, he is narrow path which we must follow for salvation.

Since no Christian believes this
I have NO idea why you think no Christian believes this. I believe it, and I think all Christians believe it, if they don't believe it, they aren't "Christians."

we have to believe that Jesus is actually some sort of weird door and that we actually have to go through him to get to Heaven.
Actually, that's about right. Jesus IS the door through which we can achieve eternal life, through the wall of death. He is the bridge over the chasm that seperates us from God, he is narrow path which we must follow for salvation.

Since no Christian believes this
I have NO idea why you think no Christian believes this. I believe it, and I think all Christians believe it, if they don't believe it, they aren't "Christians."

Do you know the difference between literal and figurative? Is Jesus actually a door? One you can touch, with hinges and all that jazz?

Do you actually believe that one day you are going to meet Jesus in the flesh and literally crawl through His torso to get to a physical place called Heaven which can only be accessed through climbing His aforementioned holy body mass? Do you believe that everyone who entered Heaven did it this way?

No. You do not. Therefore you are interpreting Jesus' words in a metaphorical way on at least some level.

Well, I've always felt it was more important for God to believe in me than me believe in God ;)

that is fraud!

Do you know the difference between literal and figurative? Is Jesus actually a door? One you can touch, with hinges and all that jazz?

Do you actually believe that one day you are going to meet Jesus in the flesh and literally crawl through His torso to get to a physical place called Heaven which can only be accessed through climbing His aforementioned holy body mass? Do you believe that everyone who entered Heaven did it this way?

No. You do not. Therefore you are interpreting Jesus' words in a metaphorical way on at least some level.

Who said the door was in his torso? Jesus IS the door. The door is not in Jesus. Jesus IS the door, AND more. Jesus is the Door AND he is the good Sheppard.

John 10: ...7-11
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep…

Jesus also knocks on the door

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Jesus IS his own door when he wants to be, he doesn’t need to use normal doors like you or me…

John 20
Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."

Jesus is not contained by the physical world and it’s laws, like you suggest when you say people can’t pass through his torso in a physical way now. But they can, Jesus blood IS real and physical and enabling of passage through him, His body and blood IS the only door to eternal life.

Matthew 26: 27-28
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

I can give you my view on these questions.
My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe?
I've got to be honest, I dont' have an answer for that. And believe me, I've thought about it. I do believe God is reasonable. I do believe He'd take mitigating circumstances into consideration. I don't know beyond that.

Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion?
I do believe it's in the Bible that people who haven't heard of Christianity do get a pass. And by heard I mean taught enough to make an decision.

As for those that lived before Jesus. The God of the OT was much more interactive. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% convinced the OT is supposed to be taken 100% literally (translation aside). And Abraham kind of vouched for people before Jesus, so to speak. The people before him? You can't be responsible for knowledge you don't have.

If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...
I think He was/is.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

If the God of the Bible is really who he says he is... then He gets to make the rules whether we like them or not. The problem is ours, not His.

Who said the door was in his torso? Jesus IS the door. The door is not in Jesus. Jesus IS the door, AND more. Jesus is the Door AND he is the good Sheppard.

John 10: ...7-11
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep…

Jesus also knocks on the door

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Jesus IS his own door when he wants to be, he doesn’t need to use normal doors like you or me…

John 20
Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."

Jesus is not contained by the physical world and it’s laws, like you suggest when you say people can’t pass through his torso in a physical way now. But they can, Jesus blood IS real and physical and enabling of passage through him, His body and blood IS the only door to eternal life.

Matthew 26: 27-28
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

So then you don't know the difference between 'literal' and 'figurative', I take it?

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.
If, as you say only one particular sect believes this, this would assume the rest of them are what, simply choosing to ignore that quote?

If they are indeed conviently ignoring that quote, then why are they bothering to follow any of it, since once the notion that doctrine can be ignored, or that these laws should be obeyed, and these shouldnt?

If you take a loose interperetation with the word of God, then how can any of it apply?

If Hindus, and Muslims, and anyone other than a Christian is doomed to Hell for not believing, as it says in John 14:6, if a Christian chooses not to actually believe this, is that not heresy, and in a sense, second guessing "God"?

each gospel was a person's reflections, thoughts, dreams of Jesus. in the Catholic belief, that leaves them open for interpretation. This is obviously not a direct quote of Christ's, so must be a person's opinion. Only the direct quotes are used literally in Catholicism (ie. the Eucharist; Peter and the authority of the Pope etc.) Catholics teaching is that each religion must be met with the utmost respect, as we would have them respect our religion. The problem is, that's from Vatican II, and the old pundits have yet to change. Also, in the teachings of the Church, good works are needed as well as faith in order to be saved.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.
You bring up a good question. Well first things first if you read the old testament then you would know that they didn't go to hell they burnt offerings and sacrificed the most perfect of there animals, usually lambs, to the lord in atonement for their sins. The lord sent down Jesus as the perfect sacrifice because he wanted everyone to be able to go to heaven. You see he was the sacrifice and all we have to do is accept and believe that he was sent as atonement for our sins and then we are saved. Now I don't want to give you the impression that all you have to do is believe and then you can go out an do whatever you want to. When you truly believe then you want to please the lord in honor of what he has done so you try to do good that doesn't mean that you are perfect but that you make a concouse effort to improve. Also, if you look at it Christianity did spread faster then any other known religion has. Also I would like to know what is your reasoning for not honistly believing?

So then you don't know the difference between 'literal' and 'figurative', I take it?

Jesus' Resurrection was literal. Jesus BODILY rose from the dead, Jesus' blood is the body that is the door to eternal life.

Jesus Resurrection was literal. Jesus BODILY rose from the dead, Jesus blood is the body that is the door to eternal life.

Point to the Jesus-door. Show it to me. If it is literally a door, then you should be able to touch it.

Point to the Jesus-door. Show it to me. If it is literally a door, then you should be able to touch it.

That's the best post ever. You just made me squirt hot coffee out my nose.

Jesus' Resurrection was literal. Jesus BODILY rose from the dead, Jesus' blood is the body that is the door to eternal life.

I'm guessing you're Catholic then, because that's the only faith I know of that insists that the communion wine is magically transformed into the blood of Christ. Is everyone else, to coin a phrase, "shit out of luck"?

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

In the divine comedy, it says pious pagans who'd never heard the word of God went to Limbo. Bonus.

In the divine comedy, it says pious pagans who'd never heard the word of God went to Limbo. Bonus.

Impossible. Nobody is allowed in Limbo because if there were anyone in Limbo, it wouldn't be Limbo anymore; it would just be another place. :p

Unless they refer to this limbo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3fe-v7dnrI

:)

You bring up a good question. Well first things first if you read the old testament then you would know that they didn't go to hell they burnt offerings and sacrificed the most perfect of there animals, usually lambs, to the lord in atonement for their sins. The lord sent down Jesus as the perfect sacrifice because he wanted everyone to be able to go to heaven. You see he was the sacrifice and all we have to do is accept and believe that he was sent as atonement for our sins and then we are saved. Now I don't want to give you the impression that all you have to do is believe and then you can go out an do whatever you want to. When you truly believe then you want to please the lord in honor of what he has done so you try to do good that doesn't mean that you are perfect but that you make a concouse effort to improve. Also, if you look at it Christianity did spread faster then any other known religion has. Also I would like to know what is your reasoning for not honistly believing?

what denomination do you belong to that has such a silly theology

jesus had to die on the cross to save us from the pain of killing sheep?

i mean really, if we could get into heaven by animal sacrifice whats the point of the whole jesus thing? it just doesnt have the same punch when its a simple substitute for a more messy method.

Point to the Jesus-door. Show it to me. If it is literally a door, then you should be able to touch it.
Jesus was asked about how he could be the door and how his body and blood could be enough to sustain the entire world...

John 6:52-59
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not scriptural.

I'm guessing you're Catholic then, because that's the only faith I know of that insists that the communion wine is magically transformed into the blood of Christ. Is everyone else, to coin a phrase, "shit out of luck"?

It isn’t just Catholic it’s Christian. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, some Anglicans and some (if not all) Presbyterians believe in the real pressence of Christ in the eucharist or communion meal, and THAT is more than ¾ of all Christians. Any church that participates in serving the Lord’s supper is doing well, whatever their doctrine of understanding about that supper are, Christ said do it, he doesn't seem to have said everyone must have perfect understanding of it. I’m not going to sit here and post or pretend that I know who is and who is not saved, or who is “shit out of luck” as you put it. But I do know that anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, I’m just not going to pretend to be able to give you a copy of the Book of Life, you’ll have to ask Christ for that, I don’t have it.

So basically, you're cannibals.

Jesus was asked about how he could be the door and how his body and blood could be enough to sustain the entire world...

John 6:52-59
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not scriptural.



It isn’t just Catholic it’s Christian. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, some Anglicans and some (if not all) Presbyterians believe in the real pressence of Christ in the eucharist or communion meal, and THAT is more than ¾ of all Christians. Any church that participates in serving the Lord’s supper is doing well, whatever their doctrine of understanding about that supper are, Christ said do it, he doesn't seem to have said everyone must have perfect understanding of it. I’m not going to sit here and post or pretend that I know who is and who is not saved, or who is “shit out of luck” as you put it. But I do know that anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, I’m just not going to pretend to be able to give you a copy of the Book of Life, you’ll have to ask Christ for that, I don’t have it.

Have you realized that there's no historical evidence that Jesus actually lived? I'm guessing you didn't because if you did you might have realized that you have deceived yourself your entire life.

Have you realized that there's no historical evidence that Jesus actually lived? I'm guessing you didn't because if you did you might have realized that you have deceived yourself your entire life.

I think you misunderstand your own words. Did you mean to say there is no historical 'evidence' or did you really mean to say that I can't convince you of it? Because really, there is all sorts of 'evidence.' The fact that the church exists at all is 'evidence'

Jesus was asked about how he could be the door and how his body and blood could be enough to sustain the entire world...

John 6:52-59
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not scriptural.



It isn’t just Catholic it’s Christian. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, some Anglicans and some (if not all) Presbyterians believe in the real pressence of Christ in the eucharist or communion meal, and THAT is more than ¾ of all Christians. Any church that participates in serving the Lord’s supper is doing well, whatever their doctrine of understanding about that supper are, Christ said do it, he doesn't seem to have said everyone must have perfect understanding of it. I’m not going to sit here and post or pretend that I know who is and who is not saved, or who is “shit out of luck” as you put it. But I do know that anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, I’m just not going to pretend to be able to give you a copy of the Book of Life, you’ll have to ask Christ for that, I don’t have it.
I approve. It is clear that you are a man of God.

So basically, you're cannibals.

Have you realized that there's no historical evidence that Jesus actually lived? I'm guessing you didn't because if you did you might have realized that you have deceived yourself your entire life.
You two, on the other hand, are heathens. Repent now, or the LORD will meet you with his eternal and righteous wrath!

I think you misunderstand your own words. Did you mean to say there is no historical 'evidence' or did you really mean to say that I can't convince you of it? Because really, there is all sorts of 'evidence.' The fact that the church exists at all is 'evidence'

Don't bother with these heathens. Infidels can never see past their own blindness to the obvious truth.

I think you misunderstand your own words. Did you mean to say there is no historical 'evidence' or did you really mean to say that I can't convince you of it? Because really, there is all sorts of 'evidence.' The fact that the church exists at all is 'evidence'Actually, if there was no god, no greater being, people would make up stories, stories about greater beings

I approve. It is clear that you are a man of God.

You two, on the other hand, are heathens. Repent now, or the LORD will meet you with his eternal and righteous wrath!

Don't bother with these heathens. Infidels can never see past their own blindness to the obvious truth.

Lord? What lord? *looks around* No lords here. I know there's a Lourdes somewhere, but I'm pretty far from it.

You two, on the other hand, are heathens. Repent now, or the LORD will meet you with his eternal and righteous wrath!



Don't bother with these heathens. Infidels can never see past their own blindness to the obvious truth.

Do you actually believe that? If so that you are proving yourself wrong, saying that God is all-loving, then saying he will punish me for not believing that he exists, while he never tells anyone if he exists.

Do you actually believe that? If so that you are proving yourself wrong, saying that God is all-loving, then saying he will punish me for not believing that he exists, while he never tells anyone if he exists.

He has told us he exists, through the Holy Bible. Furthermore, creation is a testament to power of the LORD.

He has told us he exists, through the Holy Bible. Furthermore, creation is a testament to power of the LORD.

Not really. If it's the Lord I'm thinking of, he spends most of his time giggling to himself in a padded 9x9 cell.

He has told us he exists, through the Holy Bible. Furthermore, creation is a testament to power of the LORD.
Who created the Bible? Some guys saying they were preists

Not really. If it's the Lord I'm thinking of, he spends most of his time giggling to himself in a padded 9x9 cell.

That is blasphemy, and I will pray for your soul.

Who created the Bible? Some guys saying they were preists

The Bible was inspired by God.

Those radical Christians! They think that they are better than everyone else! They are the terrorists, all of them are!

That is blasphemy, and I will pray for your soul.

Good. Get right on that. In fact, get off the forum and get right on that.

Those radical Christians! They think that they are better than everyone else! They are the terrorists, all of them are!

I will pray for your soul, Kontor. I hope that you will see God before it is too late or else you will burn in the lake of fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.

I will pray for your soul, Kontor. I hope that you will see God before it is too late or else you will burn in the lake of fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.

Oh the irony.

I will pray for your soul, Kontor. I hope that you will see God before it is too late or else you will burn in the lake of fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.

Because of this one comment every Christian is stupid and evil, and, I as a Communist anti-american, hate all Christians and will mock them and wish them dead. I would rather have my head cut off by a (peacefull) muslim then even THINK about Christianity!

Because of this one comment every Christian is stupid and evil, and, I as a Communist anti-american, hate all Christians and will mock them and wish them dead. I would rather have my head cut off by a (peacefull) muslim then even THINK about Christianity!

I think you need to lay off whatever drug it is you're doing. Drugs are the work of SATAN. Trust me, I know. I used to be a druggie. I used to get high. I used to listen to Rock and Roll and Gangster Rap. But then I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and now I'm clean.

Get off the drugs, and come to Jesus Christ! It may be your last chance, for you could die tomorrow, or the second coming could be any day! All the signs point to Armageddon happening any day now! Repent, or you risk eternal damnation!

I think you need to lay off whatever drug it is you're doing. Drugs are the work of SATAN. Trust me, I know. I used to be a druggie. I used to get high. I used to listen to Rock and Roll and Gangster Rap. But then I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and now I'm clean.

Get off the drugs, and come to Jesus Christ! It may be your last chance, for you could die tomorrow, or the second coming could be any day! All the signs point to Armageddon happening any day now! Repent, or you risk eternal damnation!

(Psst..buddy, I was being sarcastic) Where was I.....ah yea. America is evil.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

I was raised Catholic, so I'll give you the answers that I was taught:
To question #1- God is supposed to be infinitely compassionate and infinitely just. I was told he gave man free will to decide which path he wants to take and, though he may be upset with the path you choose, allows you to live with those consequences.
Question #2- I was always taught that people who live without knowledge of Christianity do not go to hell. They go to purgatory for a while and then go to heaven, because it is not their fault that they're unaware of Christian doctrine.

That's what I was always told, anyway.

Question #2- I was always taught that people who live without knowledge of Christianity do not go to hell. They go to purgatory for a while and then go to heaven, because it is not their fault that they're unaware of Christian doctrine.

That's what I was always told, anyway.

I never understood this. By this logic, wouldn't it be better to not spread Christianity, because most people who hear it (unless they're indoctrinated as a child) reject it? Essentially, telling somebody who doesn't know about Jesus is making it so they might go to Hell, whereas before, they'd get into heaven eventually.

if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe
If they cannot bring themselves to honestly believe, then it's THEIR fault. Namely because THEY can't believe in what God asks THEM to believe in.

Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion?
Who has been teaching you Christian theology? They've been doing a bad job.

The book of Hebrews states that before Jesus came, you had to believe in the COMING of the Messiah, and the He WOULD come. Once He did come, then you had to believe that He died to save your sins, and is true God and true Man. So they are still saved by faith in God.

Btw, the Holy Bible also states that "men are without excuse" (Rom 1:20) since the works of God are plain all around us. Habbakuk states that God cannot excuse evil, either.

Also, a little googling found this, which is a nice little read: http://www.bible.org/qa.php?qa_id=261&topic_id=9

It answers both of your questions better than I.

I never understood this. By this logic, wouldn't it be better to not spread Christianity, because most people who hear it (unless they're indoctrinated as a child) reject it? Essentially, telling somebody who doesn't know about Jesus is making it so they might go to Hell, whereas before, they'd get into heaven eventually.

It probably has something to do with the fact that Christians are commanded in the Gospels to spread Christianity as far as possible. Probably coupled with the belief that Christianity enlightens and helps people. Purgatory, according to Catholic dogma, is just as bad as hell except that it's only temporary. If you can skip it, then by all means...

GodsAmerica, I think you need to read your bible.

as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

God doesn't condemn anyone... not since Christ came. Christ came to be the "second Adam," Adam as he should have been. Christ's love and salvation are for ALL.

So, to answer the question in the first post, I don't believe most of that. I am a Christian Universalist. I believe all will eventually go to heaven. You can read the case for Universal Salvation at www.tentmaker.org

I believe that science and nature are gifts from God for curious minds. I believe that God will not punish anyone for the path they are led to. I have a degree in child development, and I know that children will almost always follow what they were taught when they were young. I simply do not believe that God would create us this way and then send us to hell because we were taught differently. We were created to be unique, to have inquisitive minds, to have free will, to question authority... why would we have these instincts if we were not allowed to use them?

You know, screaming "blasphemy!" like a mediaeval priest or member of the Inquisition is not going to garner you any favours...

I think you need to lay off whatever drug it is you're doing. Drugs are the work of SATAN. Trust me, I know. I used to be a druggie. I used to get high. I used to listen to Rock and Roll and Gangster Rap. But then I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and now I'm clean.

Get off the drugs, and come to Jesus Christ! It may be your last chance, for you could die tomorrow, or the second coming could be any day! All the signs point to Armageddon happening any day now! Repent, or you risk eternal damnation!

Oh, good Lord, are you for real? You sound like a stereotypical "born-again" fundamentalist Christian...

Oh, good Lord, are you for real? You sound like a stereotypical "born-again" fundamentalist Christian...

no he's not for real.

duh

he's the puppet of one of our long time posters who is having fun taking the piss on (with?) any fool willing to give him the attention.

That explains the massively stereotypical response then.

In regards to the bible.org response above:

Books are opened which contain a record of every person’s works (and this includes their motives). This will prove without a doubt that they are unrighteous and fall short of God’s glory and deserve eternal separation from God.

That does not square with the teachings of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God. That view of God would mean that no one would ever be consigned to an illusory damnation, simply by not meeting up to God's standards. His only standard that I know of is to love one another etc. This is fundamentally incompatible with original sin, yadda yadda yadda.

In regards to the bible.org response above:

Books are opened which contain a record of every person’s works (and this includes their motives). This will prove without a doubt that they are unrighteous and fall short of God’s glory and deserve eternal separation from God.

That does not square with the teachings of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God. That view of God would mean that no one would ever be consigned to an illusory damnation, simply by not meeting up to God's standards. His only standard that I know of is to love one another etc. This is fundamentally incompatible with original sin, yadda yadda yadda.

Actually, that squares very well with Christian theology. An all powerful, all knowing and all loving God knew that everyone will fail on judgment day, that no one would be able to enter heaven on their own accord or their own works. That's exactly why he sent Jesus, so that Jesus could redeem us and cleanse us, purify us by blood. Through the law (of the books you are questioning), we all deserve death. Jesus saves us apart from the law.

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In Jesus there is hope, and we have Jesus and salvation only because God IS all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving or we would have no hope at all.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

Actually, there are no "firm" answers to any of your questions... They can very from particular to particular....

On your first question: Some people think God does show compassion to unbelievers: Some don't, and then there is no straight answer in regards to expecting someone to bring themselves to belief; some viewpoints see belief itself as a grace bestowed by God...

On your second question... Most of mainstream Christianity do not believe that Christ "came too late"... But that in the OT dispensation, the operations where a form of "looking into the future" towards Christ's future sacrifice...

I simply do not believe in original sin or any concept of "you're not religious - you're damned".

I do believe Jesus came to show us a way to transcend mortality and become one with God (or at least to know God's eternal love a little better).

Actually, there are no "firm" answers to any of your questions...
No firm answers? You put firm in quotation marks, so I assume that you mean some other connotation of firm that is not the steadfast definition.

However, his question is a Christian theology question, and the basis for Christian theology is the Holy Bible. Therefore, wouldn't an answer derived from the Holy Bible, which is the foundation and structure of the entire Christian faith, be very firm indeed? Considering, y'know, the answer comes from the foundation of the very basis of the faith that he has a question about.

That explains the massively stereotypical response then.

In regards to the bible.org response above:



That does not square with the teachings of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God. That view of God would mean that no one would ever be consigned to an illusory damnation, simply by not meeting up to God's standards. His only standard that I know of is to love one another etc. This is fundamentally incompatible with original sin, yadda yadda yadda.

yeah i didnt find the bible.org explanation particularly convincing. i dont know what denomination sponsors that site but i wouldnt sign up with them.

there are ugly versions of christianity and beautiful ones. i dont see any reason to use the ugly stuff when its as legitimate to go with the nice explanations.

No firm answers? You put firm in quotation marks, so I assume that you mean some other connotation of firm that is not the steadfast definition.

However, his question is a Christian theology question, and the basis for Christian theology is the Holy Bible. Therefore, wouldn't an answer derived from the Holy Bible, which is the foundation and structure of the entire Christian faith, be very firm indeed? Considering, y'know, the answer comes from the foundation of the very basis of the faith that he has a question about.

Yes, it is a "Christian Theology" question... But the answer would very depending on particular theological outlooks... The answers one holding an Arminian Soterology would not be the same as a Pelagian, Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist... The second question would very between Dispensationalists, Fundamentalists and Covenanters... The questions are posed as if he was actually posing this as if they were valid towards all of Christian Theology... When in truth, it is not... For example, his second question is totally invalid from anyone holding a dispensational or covenantal theological viewpoint... No one of that view believes that people born before Christ were doomed to hell merely because they pre-dated His atoning work on the cross...

I have a somewhat simple view on the answer to this question. God does not condemn those who find it difficult to believe, or believe in a different faith. Take for example the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans had religious views that differed from the religious views of the Jews, yet Jesus said that the Samaritan was the most righteous of the group. So it is more important to be a good person than to have the same religious beliefs Christians do. Not only that, but I believe God does not simply send people to hell. I believe hell is a choice made by the one going to hell. (some will disagree) One cannot go to hell unless they have such a hatred of God that they cannot stand him, nor will they ask for forgiveness. Take for example, the story of the Prodigal son. The father welcomed his son with a feast and open arms, despite the fact that his son ran away and blew all his money. All because the son was humble and willing to say sorry. Not only that, but Jesus also told a prisoner who was crucified next to him that the prisoner would go to heaven, because the prisoner was sorry, and accepted Jesus. So not only did Jesus actually accomplish something by dying for us (God wasn't as merciful in the old testament), but it is more important to be righteous than to be Christian.

I have a somewhat simple view on the answer to this question. God does not condemn those who find it difficult to believe, or believe in a different faith. Take for example the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans had religious views that differed from the religious views of the Jews, yet Jesus said that the Samaritan was the most righteous of the group. So it is more important to be a good person than to have the same religious beliefs Christians do. Not only that, but I believe God does not simply send people to hell. I believe hell is a choice made by the one going to hell. (some will disagree) One cannot go to hell unless they have such a hatred of God that they cannot stand him, nor will they ask for forgiveness. Take for example, the story of the Prodigal son. The father welcomed his son with a feast and open arms, despite the fact that his son ran away and blew all his money. All because the son was humble and willing to say sorry. Not only that, but Jesus also told a prisoner who was crucified next to him that the prisoner would go to heaven, because the prisoner was sorry, and accepted Jesus. So not only did Jesus actually accomplish something by dying for us (God wasn't as merciful in the old testament), but it is more important to be righteous than to be Christian.

if you look at luke where that story comes from


Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us."

The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation?

And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal."

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

He replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."


the man didnt "accept jesus as his personal lord and savior", he didnt have a correct understanding of who jesus was and what he was doing on the cross. he may not even have truly believed that jesus HAD a kingdom. he merely recognized that jesus was being wrongly punished. his compassion saved him.

if you look at luke where that story comes from
the man didnt "accept jesus as his personal lord and savior", he didnt have a correct understanding of who jesus was and what he was doing on the cross. he may not even have truly believed that jesus HAD a kingdom. he merely recognized that jesus was being wrongly punished. his compassion saved him.
I can see what you are saying, but regardless, his compassion saved him. So even if he was saved simply for being compassionate, it does not disprove the points I was trying to make.

You know, screaming "blasphemy!" like a mediaeval priest or member of the Inquisition is not going to garner you any favours...

Seems to work pretty well in the U.S. political arena. :(

You know, screaming "blasphemy!" like a mediaeval priest or member of the Inquisition is not going to garner you any favours...

Seems to work pretty well in the U.S. political arena. :(

The notion of this kind of god is highly illogical.
It's the biggest fraud in history.

Yeah, and it still goes on, unfortunately... :)

Actually, that squares very well with Christian theology. An all powerful, all knowing and all loving God knew that everyone will fail on judgment day, that no one would be able to enter heaven on their own accord or their own works. That's exactly why he sent Jesus, so that Jesus could redeem us and cleanse us, purify us by blood. Through the law (of the books you are questioning), we all deserve death. Jesus saves us apart from the law.

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In Jesus there is hope, and we have Jesus and salvation only because God IS all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving or we would have no hope at all.

The problem is the assumption (which you have no problem swallowing) that being born according to the design of an infallible creator... is somehow a failing in ourselves that we must seek to have corrected.

Where I come from, if someone claims to be a master artisan, but it turns out their work ain't worth shit, we don't blame the work - we blame the craftsman.

Where I come from, if someone claims to be a master artisan, but it turns out their work ain't worth shit, we don't blame the work - we blame the craftsman.

"If sex is dirty, and therefore wrong, then the fault lies with the manufacturer."
-Lenny Bruce.

The problem is the assumption (which you have no problem swallowing) that being born according to the design of an infallible creator... is somehow a failing in ourselves that we must seek to have corrected.

Where I come from, if someone claims to be a master artisan, but it turns out their work ain't worth shit, we don't blame the work - we blame the craftsman.

Hallelujah.

I can see what you are saying, but regardless, his compassion saved him. So even if he was saved simply for being compassionate, it does not disprove the points I was trying to make.

lol

yeah i know, i was supporting your point.

ya know, sometimes people agree with you and have more to add.

The simple truth is that the Bible contradicts itself rather a lot, which means it's really up to individuals to decide which bits, if any, they consider most accurate and reflective of their beliefs.

Regarding the original one before, the 'only through me' business from John - one can interpret that two ways, 'through me' as 'to live a life like me' which would re-enforce what James said, rather than believing in Jesus. So one, in other words, could live a life similar to Jesus, never know Jesus, and still get into heaven.

what denomination do you belong to that has such a silly theology

jesus had to die on the cross to save us from the pain of killing sheep?

i mean really, if we could get into heaven by animal sacrifice whats the point of the whole jesus thing? it just doesnt have the same punch when its a simple substitute for a more messy method.

OK, first I am actually an ARP and souther Baptist. Ok, now that that is out of the way, He did not die to save us from the pain of killing sheep I was trying to keep it simple for non-believers to grasp. If you read the old testament things were different for them because God actually talked to them and wanted sacrifices in return for atoinment of sin. The problem was that only the rich could preform these sacrifices and they abused this. Also the church turned away from God so he sent down his son and made a new covenant. So that the old ways of sacrifice were no longer needed and he rebuilt the church, as we know it today, the people who rejected his teachings and stayed with the old ways are what we now call Jews and the Roman Catholic church evolved from the church that Jesus and his deciples started through his teachings. So he did have to come down and it was not just a trade off to stop us form killing sheep.
So i have a question for you why must believers have to defend the faith even from fellow believers? is it perhaps because other believers don't know the Word or that they just don't understand it.

OK, first I am actually an ARP and souther Baptist. Ok, now that that is out of the way, He did not die to save us from the pain of killing sheep I was trying to keep it simple for non-believers to grasp. If you read the old testament things were different for them because God actually talked to them and wanted sacrifices in return for atoinment of sin. The problem was that only the rich could preform these sacrifices and they abused this. Also the church turned away from God so he sent down his son and made a new covenant. So that the old ways of sacrifice were no longer needed and he rebuilt the church, as we know it today, the people who rejected his teachings and stayed with the old ways are what we now call Jews and the Roman Catholic church evolved from the church that Jesus and his deciples started through his teachings. So he did have to come down and it was not just a trade off to stop us form killing sheep.
So i have a question for you why must believers have to defend the faith even from fellow believers? is it perhaps because other believers don't know the Word or that they just don't understand it. Some people ask questions, others follow mindlessly. I prefer to be a inqusitive person rather then a lemming. My religion is (I named it)Questianity.

OK, first I am actually an ARP and souther Baptist. Ok, now that that is out of the way, He did not die to save us from the pain of killing sheep I was trying to keep it simple for non-believers to grasp. If you read the old testament things were different for them because God actually talked to them and wanted sacrifices in return for atoinment of sin. The problem was that only the rich could preform these sacrifices and they abused this. Also the church turned away from God so he sent down his son and made a new covenant. So that the old ways of sacrifice were no longer needed and he rebuilt the church, as we know it today, the people who rejected his teachings and stayed with the old ways are what we now call Jews and the Roman Catholic church evolved from the church that Jesus and his deciples started through his teachings. So he did have to come down and it was not just a trade off to stop us form killing sheep.
So i have a question for you why must believers have to defend the faith even from fellow believers? is it perhaps because other believers don't know the Word or that they just don't understand it.

because your belief is not standard christian theology.

and i dont know that ARP is.

because your belief is not standard christian theology.

and i dont know that ARP is.

Associate Reformed Presbyterian it is almost like a baptist church except that they do the sprinkling baptism instead of the full submersion that the baptist use. Also it is the standard baptist and or ARP believe just not standard catholic believe that most people just assume is what all Christians believe which is not so because every Cristian denomination that is not catholic left the catholic church when it was show to be corrupt and decided to follow the bible instead of the preaching of the priest and/or the words of the pope. Baptist and ARP along with some others believe that you can not earn salvation but that you have to accept it. We believe in divine love and mercy instead of the catholic version were God is the police officer up in the sky waiting for you to make a mistake and then demanding that you go to the priest and seek forgiveness. We believe that you can ask for forgiveness without having to go through the priest or marry and that we pray to Jesus and he prays for us to GOD. He is or median instead of a priest and or Marry.

because your belief is not standard christian theology.what is the standard? catholicism?

<snip>Now, Jesus? Different story here! Jesus Loves You! <snip>

http://www.journerdism.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/buddychrist1.jpg

The problem is the assumption (which you have no problem swallowing) that being born according to the design of an infallible creator... is somehow a failing in ourselves that we must seek to have corrected.

Where I come from, if someone claims to be a master artisan, but it turns out their work ain't worth shit, we don't blame the work - we blame the craftsman.

The problem with analogies is that they can be turned around and used right back at you, and in ways you don't like...

How many drawings does even a master artist draw that are never finished or are simply thrown away in-between the few that are 'keepers' and are framed and put on the wall?

Does the clay complain to the sculptor? No. But in this case, the clay gets to 'allow' itself to be moldable or not. It can choose to be good and manageable clay or it can choose to be hard and tainted clay that won’t hold the shape the sculptor puts it in. If clay is useless to the sculptor the artist has no choice but to throw it away and get new and more manageable clay… Anything else is just a waste of time for the sculptor and an annoyance to the tainted clay.

Point to the Jesus-door. Show it to me. If it is literally a door, then you should be able to touch it.

I love that

*sigged*

Associate Reformed Presbyterian it is almost like a baptist church except that they do the sprinkling baptism instead of the full submersion that the baptist use. Also it is the standard baptist and or ARP believe just not standard catholic believe that most people just assume is what all Christians believe which is not so because every Cristian denomination that is not catholic left the catholic church when it was show to be corrupt and decided to follow the bible instead of the preaching of the priest and/or the words of the pope. Baptist and ARP along with some others believe that you can not earn salvation but that you have to accept it. We believe in divine love and mercy instead of the catholic version were God is the police officer up in the sky waiting for you to make a mistake and then demanding that you go to the priest and seek forgiveness. We believe that you can ask for forgiveness without having to go through the priest or marry and that we pray to Jesus and he prays for us to GOD. He is or median instead of a priest and or Marry.

yes but you have said that the quote from earlier in the thread that i wont bother to look up to quote exactly...

i am the way the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me

really means

no one comes to the father except through me... oh and those guys who do that animal sacrifice thing.

so god didnt open the gates of heaven, he just changed the rules on how to get there?

maybe you should run that one past your minister again in just that bald a question and see if he says that "yes, jesus just came to change the rules of how to get into heaven"

Often when i see questions raised such as this, I get reminded of this story.

Im not saying that you must then all just follow Christianity, im just saying, read the story, hear it out, then i want to hear what you have to say.

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.


The student was Albert Einstein.

what is the standard? catholicism?

welll.... yes....

except that certain ideas are standard amongst virtually all christian denominations including the various orthodox churches, the various lutheran branches, the methodists, the anglicans.

its a pretty standard idea that only the sacrifice of jesus got anyone into heaven. im sure the protestants work it out in some other way than the catholic church does but its pretty hard to get past that "no one comes to the father but through me" thing.

...
"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

...

The student was Albert Einstein.

?? Einstein was not a Christian.
And I would love so see some evidence for this event to have taken place. Sources?

<snip>
The student was Albert Einstein.

If true this only proves that Einstein was a smart ass since he wasn't a christian, he was a jew

welll.... yes....

except that certain ideas are standard amongst virtually all christian denominations including the various orthodox churches, the various lutheran branches, the methodists, the anglicans.

its a pretty standard idea that only the sacrifice of jesus got anyone into heaven. im sure the protestants work it out in some other way than the catholic church does but its pretty hard to get past that "no one comes to the father but through me" thing.Ah, the "no one comes to the father but through me" thing. The thing that blows up the idea of god's unconditional love.

Ah, the "no one comes to the father but through me" thing. The thing that blows up the idea of god's unconditional love.

Shush, you are supposed to point that out :p

?? Einstein was not a Christian.
And I would love so see some evidence for this event to have taken place. Sources?

SHHHHHH

dont ruin the perfect strawman story with reality!

lets just enjoy our little evangelical einstein until we start to giggle.

Ah, the "no one comes to the father but through me" thing. The thing that blows up the idea of god's unconditional love.

one does have to do a bit of "out of the box thinking" to get around that one.

?? Einstein was not a Christian.
And I would love so see some evidence for this event to have taken place. Sources?

Okay, i just got the story from an email, didnt feel like typing the whole thing myself. But whether he be christian or not, do they not follow similar beliefs? Besides the fact that the Christians did not believe that Jesus was a saviour but a disciple. But that cancels the fact that Albert Einstein was even the student. Whether it is Einstein or not, is this not a good reason?

Okay, i just got the story from an email, didnt feel like typing the whole thing myself, but whether he be christian or not, do they not follow similar beliefs?

Yes and no

Okay, i just got the story from an email, didnt feel like typing the whole thing myself. But whether he be christian or not, do they not follow similar beliefs? Besides the fact that the Christians did not believe that Jesus was a saviour but a disciple. But that cancels the fact that Albert Einstein was even the student. Whether it is Einstein or not, is this not a good reason?What?

And sources?

Btw "absence of god" does not exist in abrahamic religions. EVAR.

<snip> Whether it is Einstein or not, is this not a good reason?

No

The notion of this kind of god is highly illogical.
It's the biggest fraud in history.

Science and logic are my gods.

No contradiction there then!

Okay, i just got the story from an email, didnt feel like typing the whole thing myself. But whether he be christian or not, do they not follow similar beliefs? Besides the fact that the Christians did not believe that Jesus was a saviour but a disciple. But that cancels the fact that Albert Einstein was even the student. Whether it is Einstein or not, is this not a good reason?

no, just no.

and the story is stupid. no professor would be so easily caught by a student's ploy.

at least no professor worth taking a class from.

This Einstein story is a classic evil fundamentalist Christian lie. Check out
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Besides, the argument doesn't even make sense. Did God chose to make himself absent? Isn't he omnibenevolent?

What?

And sources?

Btw "absence of god" does not exist in abrahamic religions. EVAR.

Well we're not discussing an abrahamic religion at the moment and there are no sources that Einstein was christian as you said because i already explained so in my latter thread.

Well we're not discussing an abrahamic religion at the moment <snip>

We aren't? Have you looked at the title of this thread?

Well we're not discussing an abrahamic religion at the moment and there are no sources that Einstein was christian as you said because i already explained so in my latter thread.Sources for this or any similar event to have taken place EVER, and that it is not some made up crap.

Okay, i just got the story from an email, didnt feel like typing the whole thing myself. But whether he be christian or not, do they not follow similar beliefs? Besides the fact that the Christians did not believe that Jesus was a saviour but a disciple. But that cancels the fact that Albert Einstein was even the student. Whether it is Einstein or not, is this not a good reason?

no, it's a shitty reason, so full of logic holes you could drive a truck through it.

no, it's a shitty reason, so full of logic holes you could drive a truck through it.Freightliner or Sterling?

Okay, i just got the story from an email
Must be that ebil libruhl media we keep hearing about, huh?

Oh, thanks for the bullshit anecdote. It helps.

Regarding the original one before, the 'only through me' business from John - one can interpret that two ways, 'through me' as 'to live a life like me' which would re-enforce what James said, rather than believing in Jesus. So one, in other words, could live a life similar to Jesus, never know Jesus, and still get into heaven.

Nicely put. I have that argument often with people.

is it perhaps because other believers don't know the Word or that they just don't understand it.Perhaps it's the obvious bigotry of arguing the concept that "other people don't understand" what is clearly, when tested, bullshit.
Perhaps "understand" is yet ANOTHER word hijacked by delusional zealots, lamentably.

welll.... yes....

except that certain ideas are standard amongst virtually all christian denominations including the various orthodox churches, the various lutheran branches, the methodists, the anglicans.

its a pretty standard idea that only the sacrifice of jesus got anyone into heaven. im sure the protestants work it out in some other way than the catholic church does but its pretty hard to get past that "no one comes to the father but through me" thing.

And the general consensus across most of christendom is that the sacrifice was effective on cleansing all sins, past, present and future.... So it kind of nullifies the OP suggestive question hinting that Christians believe people around prior to Christ's sacrifice are automatically hell bound...

And the general consensus across most of christendom is that the sacrifice was effective on cleansing all sins, past, present and future....

No reason for further baptism then, either. We're all good from here and can do whatever we want to do - tabula rasa! w00t!

No reason for further baptism then, either. We're all good from here and can do whatever we want to do - tabula rasa! w00t!

I said the sacrifice was EFFECTIVE ON, not necessarily that it is applied upon all sins... Whether it is applied to ALL SINS depends on soterological particulars... Only a pelagian would say that it is universally applied to all sins, but then Pelagianism has been rejected by the bulk of Christendom for centuries... So once again that OP point is only valid when posited to some minority group of Christendom, which has been historically catagorized as "heretic" by the bulk of Christendom.

Read the book entitled "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a reporter in Chicago for the justice and crime section of a major newspaper in that city. One day his wife told him that she just converted to Christianity. He wasn't terribly happy about it but he decided to give it a fighting chance before he dismissed it. He then interviewed almost every major Christian expert alive today and asked them the most difficult questions possible in an effort to get them to say "I don't know." However, he got some very specific answers to questions I bet you haven't even thought of. If you have difficult questions about the Christian religion, I'd suggest you read that book. That book is written to non-believers from a non-believer with some very hard questions. I promise you won't be disappointed!

In closing I'd like to say, in my opinion I think the biggest injustice today is people that take someone else's opinion and make it their own without actually checking up on it. Don't except a pre-chewed belief! Do your own unbiased research and come up with your own conclusions. BTW, the book I mentioned will be a HUGE help toward that end. Also, just because everyone says something is a huge crock of sh!t doesn't mean they did their own homework, don't take someone else's word for anything! Figure it out for yourself!

That book is written to non-believers from a non-believer with some very hard questions. Perhaps this is your own issue of "belief", since Strobel is *not* a "non-believer".

http://www.leestrobel.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strobel
Remember, only "non-believers" would be teaching pastors.

In closing I'd like to say, in my opinion I think the biggest injustice today is people that take someone else's opinion and make it their own without actually checking up on it. Don't except a pre-chewed belief! Do your own unbiased research and come up with your own conclusions. BTW, the book I mentioned will be a HUGE help toward that end. Also, just because everyone says something is a huge crock of sh!t doesn't mean they did their own homework, don't take someone else's word for anything! Figure it out for yourself!Agreed. For example, i'm not taking your word that Strobel is a "non-believer". What do you think?

I said the sacrifice was EFFECTIVE ON, not necessarily that it is applied upon all sinsSo when you said,
the sacrifice was effective on cleansing all sins, past, present and future
you didn't really mean it?
Whether it is applied to ALL SINS depends on soterological particulars... Only a pelagian would say that it is universally applied to all sins, but then Pelagianism has been rejected by the bulk of Christendom for centuries... So once again that OP point is only valid when posited to some minority group of Christendom, which has been historically catagorized as "heretic" by the bulk of Christendom.Good thing too, what with the bulk of christendom being neck-deep in inconsistency and such.

Read the book entitled "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a reporter in Chicago for the justice and crime section of a major newspaper in that city. One day his wife told him that she just converted to Christianity. He wasn't terribly happy about it but he decided to give it a fighting chance before he dismissed it. He then interviewed almost every major Christian expert alive today and asked them the most difficult questions possible in an effort to get them to say "I don't know." However, he got some very specific answers to questions I bet you haven't even thought of. If you have difficult questions about the Christian religion, I'd suggest you read that book. That book is written to non-believers from a non-believer with some very hard questions. I promise you won't be disappointed!


i think you must mean "the case for faith" rather than "the case for christ" as it covers the tough questions of faith like "If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?"

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Faith-Journalist-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310234697/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197862632&sr=8-4

Perhaps this is your own issue of "belief", since Strobel is *not* a "non-believer".

http://www.leestrobel.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strobel
Remember, only "non-believers" would be teaching pastors.
Agreed. For example, i'm not taking your word that Strobel is a "non-believer". What do you think?

I've never read the book, didn't really recognize the name Lee Strobel... Then I read the Wiki link, and it says: The Case for Christ is described by Strobel as a retracing and expansion of the spiritual journey he undertook in becoming a Christian. It contains a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading evangelical apologists, ... and the poster who you implied wasn't telling the truth about him said: He was a reporter in Chicago for the justice and crime section of a major newspaper in that city. One day his wife told him that she just converted to Christianity. He wasn't terribly happy about it but he decided to give it a fighting chance before he dismissed it....

It looks to me like you don't have the smoking gun accusation you seem to have thought you did. The Wiki article says the book recounts how he became a Christian and Holendel told us more specifics about 'why' Lee Strobel began his research in the first place that lead to him becoming a Christian. So unless you are simply saying people aren't allowed to become convinced of a new belief after making research into it, or you think all Christians are by default liars, your objection fails.

I've never read the book, didn't really recognize the name Lee Strobel... Then I read the Wiki link, and it says: The Case for Christ is described by Strobel as a retracing and expansion of the spiritual journey he undertook in becoming a Christian. It contains a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading evangelical apologists, ... and the poster who you implied wasn't telling the truth about him said: He was a reporter in Chicago for the justice and crime section of a major newspaper in that city. One day his wife told him that she just converted to Christianity. He wasn't terribly happy about it but he decided to give it a fighting chance before he dismissed it....

It looks to me like you don't have the smoking gun accusation you seem to have thought you did. You're notorious for paying attention. :rolleyes:
You can tell that being a pastor means "i've got no smoking gun". Perhaps ... just perhaps ... he wasn't a christian at the first book, he still is one now in spades.
The Wiki article says the book recounts how he became a Christian and Holendel told us more specifics about 'why' Lee Strobel began his research in the first place that lead to him becoming a Christian. So unless you are simply saying people aren't allowed to become convinced of a new belief after making research into it, or you think all Christians are by default liars, your objection fails.You don't even get my objection, and by extension, every assertion you're attempting here actually fails. Funny how you used the
unless you are simply saying qualifier to insert your own misconceptions.
I'll take, however, this opportunity to address one of your misconceptions about "thinking all christians are by default liars".
I don't think that. I will, however, point out that the vast majority of them are by definition delusional.
A few of them obviously pursue the fancy of "christianity" as a course of understanding for betterment of themselves and the people they deal with, regardless of any veracity of the sources of their studies. But they also understand that it's not only a personal pursuit, but something they can't qualify enough to "prove" that it's true for anyone else. I couldn't qualify those kinds of people as liars.

You're notorious for paying attention. :rolleyes:
And you're notorious for being bias against Christianity, but that's not the point here is it.

You can tell that being a pastor means "i've got no smoking gun". Perhaps ... just perhaps ... he wasn't a christian at the first book, he still is one now in spades.
I reassert that I have not read the book, but just from what we've seen from your link and Ashmoria's link now, the book is recounting his past events, his memoirs of the research that led him to become a Christian. Hardly deceptive. And yes, he seems to have many Christian books out now. He seems to be saying, this is when, how and why I became a Christian.

You don't even get my objection, and by extension, every assertion you're attempting here actually fails. Funny how you used the
qualifier to insert your own misconceptions.
I'll take, however, this opportunity to address one of your misconceptions about "thinking all christians are by default liars".
I don't think that. I will, however, point out that the vast majority of them are by definition delusional.
A few of them obviously pursue the fancy of "christianity" as a course of understanding for betterment of themselves and the people they deal with, regardless of any veracity of the sources of their studies. But they also understand that it's not only a personal pursuit, but something they can't qualify enough to "prove" that it's true for anyone else. I couldn't qualify those kinds of people as liars.

And all this means what? Because Lee Strobel is a Christian now he isn't allowed a write about when he wasn't a Christian? Rather shallow opinion I would think. Is it okay for an atheist to write about when they were a believer and tell in a book why they are not now? Or can I assume that they are simply pessimists and depressed socialists and lack any real insight and I can assume this because I know the end result before reading the book story about 'how it came to be' that they are a non-believer now?

Jesus was asked about how he could be the door and how his body and blood could be enough to sustain the entire world...

John 6:52-59
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not scriptural.

Jesus is not literally a door. It is a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is? I refuse to explain this anymore. Either you understand the difference between literal and figurative language, or you don't.

Ah, the "no one comes to the father but through me" thing. The thing that blows up the idea of god's unconditional love.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how you interpret it. Most of the Christians I have workde with in activist circles interpret this passage as saying that the only way for us to enter heaven is to live as Jesus did: by spreading love and goodness to all. In other words, no one enters heaven except by practicing unconditional love.

And all this means what? Because Lee Strobel is a Christian now he isn't allowed a write about when he wasn't a Christian? Rather shallow opinion I would think.Only if you took it personally.
And no, i didn't say that.
Is it okay for an atheist to write about when they were a believer and tell in a book why they are not now? Or can I assume that they are simply pessimists and depressed socialists and lack any real insight and I can assume this because I know the end result before reading the book story about 'how it came to be' that they are a non-believer now?You've missed the *whole* point. Wow.

Jesus is not literally a door. It is a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is? I refuse to explain this anymore. Either you understand the difference between literal and figurative language, or you don't.

Jesus meant it literally. Jesus used metaphors too, I know what they are, and Jesus knows what they are, he uses them too. But he says, something is like when he uses metaphors and says, I am when it’s not a metaphor but a truth.

Sometimes he says:
Matthew 13:47
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind.
Matthew 20:1
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
Revelation 16:15
"Behold, I am coming like a thief!

Here it's different, here we see that he IS something, not like it, not similar to it, but he IS it.
John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
John 8:12
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
John 10:7
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

But he says, something is like when he uses metaphors and says, I am when it’s not a metaphor but a truth.


Something like,
http://bible.cc/matthew/27-46.htm
... where he makes it patently obvious that he isn't god?

Or this
http://bible.cc/mark/11-13.htm
where it clearly states it's not the season for figs, he gets pissed off and literally curses the fig tree to never again bear fruit?
http://bible.cc/mark/11-14.htm

Something like,
http://bible.cc/matthew/27-46.htm
... where he makes it patently obvious that he isn't god?
How does reciting Psalm 22, Why Have You Forsaken Me? passage…
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?"
Saying that he is not God? It seems to me that it is just proving yet again that he was fulfilling ancient prophesy.

Or this
http://bible.cc/mark/11-13.htm
where it clearly states it's not the season for figs, he gets pissed off and literally curses the fig tree to never again bear fruit?
http://bible.cc/mark/11-14.htm
How do you think killing a tree with just his words proves he is not God? I suppose calming the wild waves and stormy weather proves he isn’t God too then huh?

For one, he's not "my" God, he is everyone's God.

Secondly, God gave humans free will. It's as simple as that. God is far more passive than most people make him out to be. Frankly, I don't think He does much of anything. I am a devout Christian, but I don't think much of anything is a miracle. At the same time, just look at the beautiful world we live in. It's a miracle unto itself.

Thirdly, you don't even understand Christianity too much, do you? Before Christ, not everyone just automatically went to hell. They could have their sins forgiven but by different means, such as animal sacrifice. However, Christ has served as our "lamb" for us.

How does reciting Psalm 22, Why Have You Forsaken Me? passage…
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?"
Saying that he is not God? It seems to me that it is just proving yet again that he was fulfilling ancient prophesy.
Yoda said it best:
THAT is why you fail.


How do you think killing a tree with just his words proves he is not God? I suppose calming the wild waves and stormy weather proves he isn’t God too then huh?It's really hard not to think of you as intellectually removed from the intent of this conversation, seriously. What part of it not being in season did you miss?

How does reciting Psalm 22, Why Have You Forsaken Me? passage…
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?"
Saying that he is not God? It seems to me that it is just proving yet again that he was fulfilling ancient prophesy.


Heheheheheeeheheheheheheeee...glee.

Do you usually cry out to the heavens while speaking in the third person about yourself?

Clearly this God is a separate entity.

"Bann-ed oh Bann-ed why hath you skewered me with your....wait...why the heck am I talking to myself...*dies*"

Yoda said it best:

It's really hard not to think of you as intellectually removed from the intent of this conversation, seriously. What part of it not being in season did you miss?


What part of creating an opportunity just to teach a lesson to your followers did you miss?

Mark 11
20 As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21And Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered." 22And Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."

Wax on, Wax off.

For one, he's not "my" God, he is everyone's God.Not mine, and certainly, not many peoples' in much of the Old Testament.
Funny which quotes are used against Islam aren't considered the same from their own source material:
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deuteronomy 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Kinda what lent to all the barbarism and bloodlust.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 35:5 And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob.
Exodus 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.
Exodus 11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.
11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Secondly, God gave humans free will. It's as simple as that.Whatever caveat there be in that, like the disproportionate "punishment" of eternal damnation for a temporal slight.
Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
God is far more passive than most people make him out to be.Could it be, maybe, the source material itself?
http://scripturetext.com/malachi/2-3.htm
Frankly, I don't think He does much of anything. He loses battles to people with iron chariots,
Judges 1:19
http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html

...when he's not giving advice on how to abuse slaves.
Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
At the same time, just look at the beautiful world we live in. It's a miracle unto itself.Not much argument there, for what it's worth.
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/earth%20NOAA.jpg
http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/images/se_spaceshuttle_orbit_insert_600.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg


Thirdly, you don't even understand Christianity too much, do you? Bigot much? Don't make delusional assertions like that if you want people to take you seriously.
However, Christ has served as our "lamb" for us.
Mmmmm, veal transubstantiation.

Jesus meant it literally. Jesus used metaphors too, I know what they are, and Jesus knows what they are, he uses them too. But he says, something is like when he uses metaphors and says, I am when it’s not a metaphor but a truth.

I hope at least Jesus knows. Let's all take a step back to primary/elementary school now:
A similie is a comparison using "like" or "as."
A metaphor is a comparison that does not use "like" or "as."

Besides, I don't see how metaphors and truth are mutually exclusive.

Heheheheheeeheheheheheheeee...glee.

Do you usually cry out to the heavens while speaking in the third person about yourself?God's a schizo! :eek:



"Bann-ed oh Bann-ed why hath you skewered me with your....wait...why the heck am I talking to myself...*dies*":fluffle:

What part of creating an opportunity just to teach a lesson to your followers did you miss?Not a one, as evidenced by how many of these kinds of arguments you enjoy losing here on NS. Repeatedly. Unabashedly. :p
blabbityblabooI'm not particularly impressed with someone so petty as to curse a tree for not bearing fruit when it's clearly stated and observed to be out of season to do something, naturally. It would even indicate a significant delusion ... huh, where's that come up before, hmmm?

Wax on, Wax off.
Oh, and there you go out of context again. If you were sincere, you'd include the part where you use *some* part of your body to nail some wood. :p

Heheheheheeeheheheheheheeee...glee.

Do you usually cry out to the heavens while speaking in the third person about yourself?

Clearly this God is a separate entity.

"Bann-ed oh Bann-ed why hath you skewered me with your....wait...why the heck am I talking to myself...*dies*"

What makes you think that God should act like we do?

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 8
55But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." 57So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Jesus is not literally a door. It is a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is? I refuse to explain this anymore. Either you understand the difference between literal and figurative language, or you don't.
Ever heard of transubstantiation? Or the Lutheran, "in, with and under" explanation for how Holy Communion is at the same time literally Jesus Christ's flesh and blood, and at the same time bread and wine? You see, spiritually speaking, the bread is God's flesh, although you eat it as bread. It not only represents God's Flesh, it IS God's Flesh, albeit not physically.

I'm a Lutheran. We take the Holy Bible very literally. Oh yes, there are parts that are allegorical, for example, the parables (if God can speak allegories through Jesus Christ, He sure as Hell could probably do it in His own Word. Also, did you notice my pun there, y'know, with the Hell. Pretty clever, if I might say so myself.) and that the Earth was created in seven days. Since time has no meaning to God, and Man had yet to be made (except on the seventh) who is to say how long seven days is?

However, when the Holy Bible says that God is the ONLY way to Heaven, by golly, He IS. I'm not denying that you can go to Heaven if you are perfect like Jesus, oh no. It's just that it's impossible to go to Heaven without Jesus Christ. As a Lutheran, I am also a predeterminationist, although not a fully committed one. You see, I will hold an opinion on religion UNTIL I find a verse that proves it wrong. If I have doubts, I will not stop holding that opinion until I have proof (theologically speaking, of course) that that opinion is scriptural. I don't really know enough about the subject of predetermination to really hold any meaningful conversation about it. I'm really not the best source, since I still haven't fully thought this out.

Anyway, back to Jesus being the only way.

Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ."

The verse before that also states, Timothy 2:3b-4 "God our savior who wants all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth." (Just so you know, I just came across this verse which states that He wishes all men to be saved. Why then, with my predetermination beliefs would God still condemn them? This, I will have to pray about for insight and continue to look at scriptures. Now do you see how a Christian goes about his faith? It is a JOURNEY. A Spiritual JOURNEY. There are many things that it means to be a Christian, and it is a long, long path, with much studying and many hard decisions. I'm getting off-topic)

John 3:18 says: "Whoever believes in him [Jesus Christ] is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son."

In other words you MUST believe in Jesus Christ. Simply acting like Him is not the criteria given for eternal life, it is believing in him.

John 6:57, which ties in with the verse given that I quoted about God's flesh and blood: "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."

Key note on the "live because of me," which also ties in with the Roman verses that we are dead in sin, but are alive in Christ.


Acts 4:12, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we are saved." Pretty explicit; Jesus is the only way.

Also, here's the BIG verse that goes against the "Jesus was just an example by which are to be saved by, not necessarily that we have to believe in him."

Ephesians 2:8-10 "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith -- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Just do you know, Ephesians 1:11-12 are some of the big verses about predetermination in case you're interested.

Galatians 1:6-8, which brings into question the scriptural validity Unitarian belief (or is it Universalism belief? I get them confused) that everyone eventually goes to Heaven: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you, let him be eternally condemned."

Also, did you notice the grace part? That ties in with the Ephesians verse I quoted.

This verse also brings into question that scriptural validity of the Church of Latter-day Saints, which states that all the other gospels the other denominations are false, and that another book OTHER than the Holy Bible is required to go to Heaven. Mormons also believe that Jesus Christ only later became part of the Triune God, and was actually a man who transcended to become God, and is savior only in the sense that He is an example of what to do in order to become a God. Bear in mind that Joseph Smith says that it was angels (look at the Galatians verse again, it mentions angels) who showed him the Book of Mormon. Of course, this is just a part of the argument against the claim that Mormons are in fact Christians (which varies based upon your definition) and is not the full argument. You can get that elsewhere. Not that it really matters, though, whether you call yourself a Christian or not. It's whether you love Jesus Christ, and that you want to be His representative on Earth, and believe that He died for your sins, and it is through Him and Him ONLY that you are saved.

Anyway, I bet this will get lost amidst all the bickering and arguing about Christ, but I put up God's Word right there. Also, note that I wrote this at 11 PM, high on tea and rushing to finish it so my bro can check football scores. Excuse any theological errors on interpretation, or just plain inane grammar that makes no sense. Tea can do amazing things to your mind, like make you jittery and think really fast about God. Not that you need tea to think about God and oh God there I go again. Excuse me!

What makes you think that God should act like we do?
Could be the idiocy of some people assigning characteristics to god that directly mirror humankind at its most petty, immature, bloodthirsty and vile?
Or that part about humans being "in God's image"?
You're right, we should act much more responsibly and maturely than this "God" you keep mentioning.

I'm not particularly impressed with someone so petty as to curse a tree for not bearing fruit when it's clearly stated and observed to be out of season to do something, naturally. It would even indicate a significant delusion ... huh, where's that come up before, hmmm?

You're mad at Jesus because he killed a tree to teach a lesson to his apostles? I suppose an extreme tree hugger might get upset by the death of the tree, like Jonah got mad at God for killing plants too.

God kills plants to teach us lessons sometimes... Jonah 4
6Now the LORD God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort. So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of the plant. 7But when dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint. And he asked that he might die and said, "It is better for me to die than to live." 9But God said to Jonah, "Do you do well to be angry for the plant?" And he said, "Yes, I do well to be angry, angry enough to die." 10And the LORD said, "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"

*sniped good post*

QFT

The Brevious:

When I said that Lee Strobel wrote that book to non-believers from a non-believer, I was right. You pointed out that he's NOT an un-believer. You were right too. The difference is that I said he WAS an un-believer, you said he ISn't an un-believer. I said past tense, you said present tense.

You're mad at Jesus because he killed a tree to teach a lesson to his apostles?Considering it was overkill, unnecessary, and an abuse of power, you've got a point making Jesus seem more like God than not. Good for you. :)
I suppose an extreme tree hugger might get upset by the death of the tree, like Jonah got mad at God for killing plants too.Heh, now it's with the liberal/conservative bullshit, eh? Classic. You're an extreme but predictable caricature, sweety. Kudso to Jonah, too, since he obviously had a sense of justice that "God" sorely lacked. To clarify for the slower of the two of us here, it's not an issue of being "mad", it's an issue of pointing out the absurdity and clearly delusional nature of the instance, which this particular commerce is doing so much to qualify. :)


God kills plants to teach us lessons sometimes... Jonah 4
6Now the LORD God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort. So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of the plant. 7But when dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint. And he asked that he might die and said, "It is better for me to die than to live." 9But God said to Jonah, "Do you do well to be angry for the plant?" And he said, "Yes, I do well to be angry, angry enough to die." 10And the LORD said, "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"You're awesome. Keep up the cruelty examples. You ever further elucidate my point. I'll help, if you like :)
See: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13298913&postcount=164

The Brevious:

When I said that Lee Strobel wrote that book to non-believers from a non-believer, I was right. You pointed out that he's NOT an un-believer. You were right too. The difference is that I said he WAS an un-believer, you said he ISn't an un-believer. I said past tense, you said present tense.
I extend my appreciations to you for making clear a point that one or another of the posters here seem to keep missing repeatedly.
*bows*

No problem dude. :) I just read the guy's first post and decided to offer some input he could do whatever he wanted with. One thing that makes me scratch my head is how religion gets everyone so riled up. Isn't the topic of religion something we're supposed to agree to disagree on? That's what I thought but no one else seems to agree with me. Kinda confuses me. :confused:

No problem dude. :) I just read the guy's first post and decided to offer some input he could do whatever he wanted with. One thing that makes me scratch my head is how religion gets everyone so riled up. Isn't the topic of religion something we're supposed to agree to disagree on? That's what I thought but no one else seems to agree with me. Kinda confuses me. :confused:I think it would depend upon which end of "damnation" you (a person) might stand on. There's a lot of cultures in the world that don't agree with the hellfire/brimstone philosophy of condemnation and cruelty, and from people like myself, it illicits a pretty vigorous conversation.
I think that religion wouldn't be such fuel for vitriol if it simply accepted its rightful place as an open-ended, unfinished philosophy that attempts to answer some nagging questions to the best of its ability of assuaging of its participants. Obviously, it's not the case when the philosophy becomes doctrine of any kind, and especially one that has designs on destruction of other philosophies, or even, lamentably, science that may disprove it.

Well put, my thoughts exactly.

"Religion is the opium of the masses." - Karl Marx

Thought that kinda fit with the idea. I need to go to bed, I work early in the morning. Good luck with your discussion guys. Umm...and gals.

The problem with analogies is that they can be turned around and used right back at you, and in ways you don't like...

How many drawings does even a master artist draw that are never finished or are simply thrown away in-between the few that are 'keepers' and are framed and put on the wall?

Does the clay complain to the sculptor? No. But in this case, the clay gets to 'allow' itself to be moldable or not. It can choose to be good and manageable clay or it can choose to be hard and tainted clay that won’t hold the shape the sculptor puts it in. If clay is useless to the sculptor the artist has no choice but to throw it away and get new and more manageable clay… Anything else is just a waste of time for the sculptor and an annoyance to the tainted clay.

Cute - but it only works if the system into which we are introduced, was created without knowledge of our design parameters.

If an omnipotent, omniscient god makes the whole system, creating it so that 'sin' (whatever that's supposed to be) matters... or even can exist, is a work of flawed genius, at best.

If the system existed first, God is a klutz. If we were built first, god is an asshole.

If the system existed first, God is a klutz. If we were built first, god is an asshole.
:fluffle: ya

And all this means what? Because Lee Strobel is a Christian now he isn't allowed a write about when he wasn't a Christian?

The other poster claimed the book was written by a non-believer.

The author is a believer. Even if he's describing an earlier event, he was still a believer, when it was written.

Thus - it was simply untrue.

Well put, my thoughts exactly.
Thank you. *bows*

"Religion is the opium of the masses." - Karl Marx

Thought that kinda fit with the idea. I need to go to bed, I work early in the morning. Good luck with your discussion guys. Umm...and gals.
Thank you. Good travels to you as well. :)

How does reciting Psalm 22, Why Have You Forsaken Me? passage…
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?"
Saying that he is not God? It seems to me that it is just proving yet again that he was fulfilling ancient prophesy.


How do you think killing a tree with just his words proves he is not God? I suppose calming the wild waves and stormy weather proves he isn’t God too then huh?

Weren't you the guy that was arguing that Jesus quoting Genesis in his argument against divorce, implied that he was somehow endorsing or defining it?

What makes you think that God should act like we do?

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 8
55But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." 57So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Where's the bit that says he's going to talk to himself?

Weren't you the guy that was arguing that Jesus quoting Genesis in his argument against divorce, implied that he was somehow endorsing or defining it?

That would've been the inspiration for me stating what they were "notorious" for here. :(

That would've been the inspiration for me stating what they were "notorious" for here. :(

The beauty is - our friend is hoist by his own petard.

Either Jesus didn't define marriage, and our compatriot admits his error... or Jesus wasn't quoting on the cross, and our erstwhile colleague shoots down his own argument.

Either way: win-win.

Where's the bit that says he's going to talk to himself?
Perhaps it's why he stopped talking to humans - he's off his nut and we're insensitive to him now. Maybe he's gone home to gnash his slaves' bones, or torture some plants,
or to wile away the minutes in a cave with John the Baptist, or something.
http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2002/images/TheTwoTowers_WormtongueAndKingTheoden.jpg

The beauty is - our friend is hoist by his own petard.That sounds kinda sexy. What cult is it this guy's in? I'm sometimes not busy on the weekends. :p

Either Jesus didn't define marriage, and our compatriot admits his error... or Jesus wasn't quoting on the cross, and our erstwhile colleague shoots down his own argument.

Either way: win-win.Yay! We should have Balderdash at every meal!
*hums the Beans song*

That sounds kinda sexy. What cult is it this guy's in? I'm sometimes not busy on the weekends. :p


If I had to guess, I'd suspect the religious angle is a fairly well acted charade.

If I had to guess, I'd suspect the religious angle is a fairly well acted charade....just like all the other ones in real life? :D
*hi-5*

...just like all the other ones in real life? :D
*hi-5*

Oooh. burn!

*good job!*

Oooh. burn!

*good job!*
*bows*
Speaking of which ... found out today that Mitt Romney's the son of the head of the American Motors Corp. Hmmm.

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe? Secondly on that same note if Jesus came to save all humanity from sin, why did he turn up a few thousand or so years late and let millions of humans die and go to hell, not to mention the millions more who would have died and gone to hell before Christianity became a world religion? If he was infinitely compassionate surely he could have compassion on some person who lived before he did or even had to choice to convert to Christianity in their lifetimes...

Begin discussion.

First let me say that those are VERY good questions. They are questions that a lot of Christians ask themselves but are to chicken to ask God or their Pastor(or they know they are in a narrow minded church where they will be crucified for having doubts). However, there are some problems. Most of your question can be answered simply by clearing some basics up.
Firstly, God is not only infinitely compassionate, he is also infinitely understanding. The Bible says that in the judgment we will be judged by what we know. If we can't truly say we know that what Christians say is true, then why would we be punished for it? But you see, the problem isn't that you don't know, it's that you don't WANT to believe. God gives you plenty of proof that this wasn't all the doing of some scientific miracle. There has to be some supernatural guiding force behind it all. However, you may be saying now, "Ok, but I still don't think it was YOUR God." Well, so long as you admit it was something supernatural, you're on the right path. Then you have one job and one job only to get to heaven. Do your best to find the truth. Pursue it like Indiana Jones tracking something that "Belongs in a museum". God promises in the Bible that if we seek the truth, we will find it. This is a guarantee from God himself.
Your next question is even better, but mainly based on a misunderstanding. Jesus did come to "Save us from our sins". But the interpretation that most people pull from that is wrong. To understand it, you must first know something about God's system of sacrifice.
Here's how it would go:
The Hebrew nation would sin for a year. They would then each gather up a prescribed "Sin Offering" which was a living creature without any blame, spotless and pure. The sins would be laid on that creature and it would die for them.
Jesus came for two reasons. The first was to set up God's Kingdom on Earth. Most people think he failed. He didn't. God's Kingdom isn't physical. It's spiritual. Jesus set up that Kingdom by preparing people's hearts and minds for the Holy Spirit of God that Dwells within a Christian when he asks God with a pure heart. The Holy Spirit is sort of like your conscience on steroids. Once you have learned to listen to it, it can guide and direct you on how to do right and also, can act like a guardian angel, telling you when an action will put you in danger, or when taking an action right at a certain moment would be to your benefit. Also, he can make your mind clearer, and give you supernatural abilities(All of these are listed in the Bible).
The other task he came to fulfill however, had to do with the sacrifice stuff I was just talking about. You see, up until this point, all of those animals had to be sacrificed, plus one perfect lamb. A lamb who had no spots and pure white fleece. Still a virgin. Completely innocent. Jesus was to be even more. Jesus was God in mortal form. As a result, he lived his life perfectly. He didn't always do what everyone else thought was right, but he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord(Him, LOL). Then, when the time came for his crucification, he didn't fight it, but went forth willingly. He sacrificed himself to cover all man's sins and to make it no longer necessary to offer the yearly Sin Offering. He was our Eternal Sin Offering.
As for the people before hand? Those with righteous hearts who truly wanted to please God made it into heaven(A few where so great that he decided they didn't even deserve to taste death!).
I hope this answers your questions, and I encourage you to continue seeking the truth. Now I must go to bed, as I have to get up and take care of my nephews in 5 hours and need sleep. God Bless you, and Good night!
~Aslan

*bows*
Speaking of which ... found out today that Mitt Romney's the son of the head of the American Motors Corp. Hmmm.

Well, cars, oil, drugs or insurance.. one or the other is pretty much a ticket to the whitehouse, I reckon. Time to find out if money really does talk louder than god, now.

However, there are some problems. Most of your question can be answered simply by clearing some basics up.Yep. Just try this link:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13298913&postcount=164

Well put, my thoughts exactly.

"Religion is the opium of the masses." - Karl Marx

Thought that kinda fit with the idea. I need to go to bed, I work early in the morning. Good luck with your discussion guys. Umm...and gals.

I'd actually love to run off on a tangent about the Marxist attitude to religion, but it's rather off-topic, but just so you know it isn't summed up in that quote alone.

Well, cars, oil, drugs or insurance.. one or the other is pretty much a ticket to the whitehouse, I reckon. Time to find out if money really does talk louder than god, now.Well put.

What makes you think that God should act like we do?


That depends. "Created in his image" mean anything to you?


Unless, *gasp* you, like every other christian, interperet any passage of scripture to be congruent with your own personal beliefs, instead of adhering to an existential ideal.

The passage above could be taken to mean many things. Thats the problem with any faith that dwells too much on written dogma, and losing focus on the actual message of peace, or harmony.
Its not just Christianity, either, so dont feel attacked.

Think of this:

I remember a thread in wich you and I went a few rounds debating about dates of origin of certain books of the NT.
Lets say, for a moment, you are right, and they were written before 70 a.d.
Even if that were true, thats almost 40 years after any such events may have transpired.

Do you recall entire conversations you may have had 30 years ago?

Or, maybe its not so much about what happened to him, and more about what he meant.

Original sin is nonsense, all that truly matters is making an effort to get along with one another. Any God that would condemn his creations before they even exist is a retarded concept, clearly meant for Hellfire and Brimstone recuiting tactics.
The God represented by the bible is a mass murdering, cold hearted bastard, who demands'
loyalty, lest ye be punished eternally, capable of petty, and subversive behaviour.

Wait...maybe God DOES think just like us.

Cute - but it only works if the system into which we are introduced, was created without knowledge of our design parameters.

If an omnipotent, omniscient god makes the whole system, creating it so that 'sin' (whatever that's supposed to be) matters... or even can exist, is a work of flawed genius, at best.

If the system existed first, God is a klutz. If we were built first, god is an asshole.

If you don't enjoy this life now, if you can't find anything that makes this life that God created for us worth living for you, then I feel sorry for you but I don't see how it's God's fault that you can't find something to enjoy about it.

If you do enjoy the life you have now though, if you can enjoy the blessings of living this life, then you have no complaints about how God designed the world for us to live in then do you?

So when you said,

you didn't really mean it?
Good thing too, what with the bulk of christendom being neck-deep in inconsistency and such.

Yes, when I said "effective on" relating to "cleansing all sins...(etc)." I meant it... The problem you seem to be having with the language is that saying something is effective upon something else, does not necessarily mean there is an actual action taking place whereby something has occurred, that's an AFFECT... Formula 409 is EFFECTIVE on cleaning mildew from bathtubs, but if the 409 if sitting in its spray-bottle in the closet, it's not actually cleaning ANYTHING... If you spray 409 on the tub, then it will affect the mildew.... In the same standpoint, the widespread view in Christendom is that Christ's sacrifice is effective enough to cleanse any and all sins.... In addition the widespread view is that there has to be an identification with the sacrificial element (Christ) for the sacrifice to affect sin... The general standpoint, catholic/covenential or dispensational is that this element is identified backwards in time by New Testament saints to the past sacrifice of Christ... Whereas this element is viewed forwards in time through the various OT sacrificial elements towards the future sacrifice of Christ.... Christ's sacrifice being the central accomplishment by God towards redemption...

If you don't enjoy this life now, if you can't find anything that makes this life that God created for us worth living for you, then I feel sorry for you but I don't see how it's God's fault that you can't find something to enjoy about it.

If you do enjoy the life you have now though, if you can enjoy the blessings of living this life, then you have no complaints about how God designed the world for us to live in then do you?

Haven't I been through the same with you before?
Assuming that one is depressed, sad, suicidal or has a life that's not worth living simply because that person had a look at the character "god" in the bible and decided that given that the bible is correct on all accounts, god must be a miserable bitch, is not simply annoying, it's building a strawman.

Instead of answering to the questions that were put to you, you went and tried to portray Grave as a poor sod who's got nothing to live for. That's poor tactics in any argument, and nobody here's falling for it.

Weren't you the guy that was arguing that Jesus quoting Genesis in his argument against divorce, implied that he was somehow endorsing or defining it?

Jesus quoting scripture shouldn't surprise anyone. We found Jesus quoting Genesis to answer a question, and he added more to it. Jesus quoting psalms on the cross was to fulfill it. What part of this is contradictory? None of it.

If you don't enjoy this life now, if you can't find anything that makes this life that God created for us worth living for you, then I feel sorry for you but I don't see how it's God's fault that you can't find something to enjoy about it.

If you do enjoy the life you have now though, if you can enjoy the blessings of living this life, then you have no complaints about how God designed the world for us to live in then do you?

Way to avoid the point completely. That's some nice work. I mean, I know I'd hate to have to try and explain why a loving and compassionate god, who is also omnipotent and omniscient, would even allow sin to exist.

Where's the bit that says he's going to talk to himself?

In the same way Jesus prays to God when other people are around so that they can learn how to believe and/or how to behave themselves...

Here is a case that he says to straight up, so that they can believe, he prays and says things just so they can hear it.

John 11:41-42
And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me."

When i started to go to prayer meeting i fell more closer to God then ever! :)

When i started to go to prayer meeting i fell more closer to God then ever! :)

Maybe grammar club meetings would be more beneficial, do you think?

When i started to go to prayer meeting i fell more closer to God then ever! :)

When I went to mass I felt bored, and once I felt dizzy and nauseous. I was fine once I got outside though.

Yep. Just try this link:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13298913&postcount=164

And I suppose you think that those scriptures mean that God is so cruel, that he would simply hide his truth from people, just 'cause. You think he spent 2000 years just giving his truth to the Hebrews and no one else? Don't you realize that all of these faiths you see are simply evolutions of the original which started with Adam and Eve? It would be really hypocritical to sit and claim "My God loves everyone" and then say "All the millions of people who know nothing about my religion are going to Hell, even though they have no way of hearing about it."
That's bull, and that is not the way that God works. Think about it? What loving father punishes his children for doing something they never even knew was wrong. Or for not doing something no one had informed them they had to do? What type of Father rewards one child for doing good and not the other, only because the first child had been taught that if he didn't he would be severely punished. I would think that in the grand scheme of things, the one who decided to do the right thing simply because it was right would have more righteousness then the one who only did it because he thought he might go to hell. This is what I've learned in my readings of the Bible and my personal reflection with God.
Besides, you should know better then to accept everything you read or hear. Even Jesus didn't do that. There was a reason why Jesus only taught out of the Prophets text. Because most of the laws became obsolete when Jesus died, he had to teach the truth while he lived.
One of the biggest reasons that Jesus was killed was because the religious nuts of the day thought they had it all figured out, and Jesus came and let them know that the basic foundations of everything they believed in was wrong. His interpretations showed such different meaning in the scriptures that no one wanted to believe anything they said. The same thing is happening now. I can assure you that if Jesus came again exactly as before, he would be executed once again, and this would be done most likely by a combination effort of the Catholic and Protestant churches. The amount of people who would actually do right by Jesus would be so small as to be insignificant.
So here's my advice. Take the Bible, and read up on Jesus. Then go online and look up all the apocryphal texts that speak of Jesus' life. Pay special attention to the Gospel of Judas, which I truly believe tells the true story of one of the most misunderstood men in history. Now then, I will go. Have fun...

Well, many Christians believe that God really does care a great deal more about whether one is a good person than whether one believes in the correct deity. The notion that one has to belong to the proper denomination to get into heaven seems to be largely limited to evangelical Protestants, in fact.
Actually, it belongs mostly to Catholics. They are more conservative than Protestants, also. For example, the current Pope recently proclaimed officially that the only true church is the Roman Catholic Church, and all others are "sects" and will not lead you to salvation. This included a slightly more liberal but still Catholic Church. Also, that silly Pope has started a process that, if successful, will result in the return of mass in Latin only- you know, that incredibly complex language that only a handful of people know and that has been dead for 3,000 years.
So you see, it is the Roman Catholic Church that proclaims that if you do not belong to their Church you will go to Hell. And really, how many people actually follow every order of the Catholic Church? I mean, it's not only abortion that's been forbidden, sex before marriage is also forbidden AND the use of ANY contraceptive at ANY time, be it condoms, pills, or whatever, because sex's exclusive purpose is to bear children to the marriage (produce heirs).
So anyone that says they're super Catholic and has ever used a condom or pills EVEN WHILE BEING MARRIED should be told that they are in direct disobedience with the mandate of the Pope (not only the current one, but the past one as well- John Paul II).

If we take that quote literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.


Close, but no. If you take the quote LITERALLY, then it means Jesus is the physical entryway to wherever it is his father resides: presumably a section of heaven, although that isn't clear and should not be inferred from a LITERAL reading. Perhaps his body is stretched out, and there is a tunnel through it, and people- who may be Christians, or Jews, or Taoists, or even Athiests- must pass through it to get to his father.

That's Literal.

...
Think of this:

I remember a thread in wich you and I went a few rounds debating about dates of origin of certain books of the NT.
Lets say, for a moment, you are right, and they were written before 70 a.d.
Even if that were true, thats almost 40 years after any such events may have transpired.

Do you recall entire conversations you may have had 30 years ago?
The difference is that the story wasn't over and done when Jesus was crucified. Jesus rose from the dead and 'explained' it all to them after the fact. Without a doubt this would solidify the message and meaning in their heads for the rest of their lives, not something someone is likely to forget, talking and eating with the risen Lord and all.

Luke 24:44-48
Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.


Or, maybe its not so much about what happened to him, and more about what he meant.
It's not just about what he meant, it's about who he was and what he did.

Original sin is nonsense, all that truly matters is making an effort to get along with one another. Any God that would condemn his creations before they even exist is a retarded concept, clearly meant for Hellfire and Brimstone recuiting tactics.
The God represented by the bible is a mass murdering, cold hearted bastard, who demands'
loyalty, lest ye be punished eternally, capable of petty, and subversive behaviour.


Original sin is the condition we are born in. We are here, we live here, Jesus creates a way for us to leave it though and enter eternal life. We aren't taken from life and condemned to death, we are already in death and are given the opportunity to enter real life, through Jesus. If the door is here and open and inviting to all of us, I don’t see how it’s Jesus fault that not everyone enters in through it. He even delays that everyone might come to repentence….

2 Peter 3
I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."…

…The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Haven't I been through the same with you before?
Assuming that one is depressed, sad, suicidal or has a life that's not worth living simply because that person had a look at the character "god" in the bible and decided that given that the bible is correct on all accounts, god must be a miserable bitch, is not simply annoying, it's building a strawman.

Instead of answering to the questions that were put to you, you went and tried to portray Grave as a poor sod who's got nothing to live for. That's poor tactics in any argument, and nobody here's falling for it.

No I didn't intend to portray him as a poor sod, I wanted him to see that if God created this world and we can enjoy it now, who then is to argue that God is an asshole, unless they don't like this gift already given?

No I didn't intend to portray him as a poor sod, I wanted him to see that if God created this world and we can enjoy it now, who then is to argue that God is an asshole, unless they don't like this gift already given?

I'd argue there are a good few hundred thousand people out there who don't exactly enjoy this wonderful world right now. The fact that I don't get beaten up right now doesn't mean that I can't make the observation that being beaten up sucks and that anything or anybody who beats up people is not a very nice person/deity.

No I didn't intend to portray him as a poor sod, I wanted him to see that if God created this world and we can enjoy it now, who then is to argue that God is an asshole, unless they don't like this gift already given?

Say I poisoned puppies in my spare time, cos I'm evil like that, and I also give you a delicious slice of cake, free of charge, cos I'm nice like that. Would you have to dislike the oh so yummy cake I just gave you in order to disapprove of my puppy poisoning? Would that also mean that if you like the delicious cake I gave you that you must also approve of my puppy poisoning?

No I didn't intend to portray him as a poor sod, I wanted him to see that if God created this world and we can enjoy it now, who then is to argue that God is an asshole, unless they don't like this gift already given?
1) Assholes sometimes produce good things. A great many of history's geniuses were total assholes who also did really shitty things, in addition to contributing brilliant works. If humans can be that complex, why not God?

2) The fact that the aforementioned brilliant assholes were brilliant does not at all absolve them from being called assholes. It's not like writing a great symphony earns you the right to murder somebody, for instance. So even if God did some great things, that doesn't mean he's off the hook for also having done shitty things.

3) Being able to enjoy something you were given doesn't mean you have to give up any right to criticize. My mom gave me a book last Christmas that I thought was rotten. I thanked her for the gift, and I was genuinely appreciative, but I also was honest about what I thought of the book. If my mother was able to handle this criticism like a grown-up, I see no reason to think that an all-powerful eternal Creator would be unable to handle constructive feedback on his "gift."

4) God's "gift" wasn't actually much of a gift according to Christian scriptures. Or, at least, it was a gift that came with some pretty fucking epic strings attached. When I give somebody a gift, I don't demand that they worship me to the exclusion of all other gift-givers for the remainder of their existence. I don't threaten them with torture and eternal suffering if they fail to show sufficient gratitude. If I did, I would expect any sane and self-respecting individual to tell me exactly where I could stick my "gift."

Way to avoid the point completely. That's some nice work. I mean, I know I'd hate to have to try and explain why a loving and compassionate god, who is also omnipotent and omniscient, would even allow sin to exist.

If sin didn't exist, there would be nothing to choose from and freewill would be a meaningless phrase. We would be worse than animals, who would do nothing but instinct, or like playing a bad game where there are no bad moves and nothing to be learned from mistakes...

Ultimately, though I admit that I don't know the answer to that question, can we know? Can a human fully understand? We, as finite human beings, probably can't understand an infinite God

Romans 11:33-34
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"

Close, but no. If you take the quote LITERALLY, then it means Jesus is the physical entryway to wherever it is his father resides: presumably a section of heaven, although that isn't clear and should not be inferred from a LITERAL reading. Perhaps his body is stretched out, and there is a tunnel through it, and people- who may be Christians, or Jews, or Taoists, or even Athiests- must pass through it to get to his father.

That's Literal.

His 'body' is stretched out through his blood. It can cover everyone, and everyone can enter through him.

BackwoodsSquatches suggested way back on 13-12-2007 at 8:20 AM that

If we take [John 14:6] literally, then it would surely mean that Christianity must adhere to the idea that only christians get into Heaven, meaning, through Jesus.

Well, if you want to play at bible quotes, note that Revelations 20:4-5 clearly states that only at the time of revelations will those who died for christ be reurected (will you die for christ? No first resurection for you if you die of a car crash, disease or such!). Until that time there is no heaven or hell for us (5. But the rest of the dead lived not again). Then you can live for a millenia, then the rest of us come back and join you too, regardless of our religion or actons.

So there is no heaven or hell upon death, but there is a chance to get into heaven (or new Jerusalem if you consider the two different):

Those who are are sealed away from the horrors and dangers of revelations in Rev 7:4. 144,000 of them. Kind exclusive when you consider all of human kind. Do you make the grade?

Oh, yeah, and you have to be Jewish. Well, of Jewish decent. Only members from the 12 tribes of Israel are allowed. Are your ancestors descended from Abraham?

If so, procede to heaven. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 pounds.

Ever heard of transubstantiation? Or the Lutheran, "in, with and under" explanation for how Holy Communion is at the same time literally Jesus Christ's flesh and blood, and at the same time bread and wine? You see, spiritually speaking, the bread is God's flesh, although you eat it as bread. It not only represents God's Flesh, it IS God's Flesh, albeit not physically.

I'm a Lutheran. We take the Holy Bible very literally. Oh yes, there are parts that are allegorical, for example, the parables (if God can speak allegories through Jesus Christ, He sure as Hell could probably do it in His own Word. Also, did you notice my pun there, y'know, with the Hell. Pretty clever, if I might say so myself.) and that the Earth was created in seven days. Since time has no meaning to God, and Man had yet to be made (except on the seventh) who is to say how long seven days is?


<snip>


PSSSssSsSsst

god made "the earth" in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

If sin didn't exist, there would be nothing to choose from and freewill would be a meaningless phrase.
I hear this all the time, and it's just as silly and untrue each time somebody says it.

The overwhelming majority of choices we make have nothing to do with sin. There are plenty of choices to be made apart from sin. Personally, I can't remember the last time I applied my free will to a choice between "sin" or "not sin." My most recent free-will decisions have had to do with travel arrangements, gift selections, and dinner options. None of which involved me making any choices between sinful and non-sinful options. (If anything, all the choices in each situation were equally sinful or non-sinful.)

It's also 100% possible for a person to have free will and moral consciousness even if they are incapable of a particular sin. Or do you intend to claim that a quadriplegic has less free will because she is unable to physically strangle another human? I don't think that's the case. So if a person can be physically incapable of killing another human, and yet still have free will, then it's obviously possible for somebody to be incapable of a particular sin and yet still retain free will. Hence, it would be totally possible for humans to be incapable of sin and still retain free will.

Finally, most people who've been here a while are familiar with my own personal method for eliminating the majority of human nastiness without in any way removing free will. If I, a human who has seen less than one short lifespan on this Earth, could come up with such a solution, then it's pretty pathetic to think that God couldn't come up with it, don't you think?

It's also pretty lame to claim that it's impossible to do, since it's already been done.

1) Assholes sometimes produce good things. A great many of history's geniuses were total assholes who also did really shitty things, in addition to contributing brilliant works. If humans can be that complex, why not God?
The fact that we are so complex, in fact, very strongly implies that God is too, since we were supposedly created in his image.
If sin didn't exist, there would be nothing to choose from and freewill would be a meaningless phrase.
Wrong. There are more choices that 'Do evil' and 'Do good'. The real world is simply more complicated than that.
We would be worse than animals, who would do nothing but instinct, or like playing a bad game where there are no bad moves and nothing to be learned from mistakes...
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God even require that we learn from our mistakes? Why not simply make us a perfect Paradise and allow us to live there forever in happiness? Why require that we earn a place in heaven at all? Why have a universe outside of heaven?

Ultimately, though I admit that I don't know the answer to that question, can we know? Can a human fully understand? We, as finite human beings, probably can't understand an infinite God
But we were made in the image of that infinite God, so we can attempt to understand it and it's actions, and examine how they fit with it's status as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevlent. And I gotta say, God is failing pretty fucking hard on that last one.

I'd argue there are a good few hundred thousand people out there who don't exactly enjoy this wonderful world right now. The fact that I don't get beaten up right now doesn't mean that I can't make the observation that being beaten up sucks and that anything or anybody who beats up people is not a very nice person/deity.

You can't argue for other people that they would rather not have been born. The arrogance of such a position would be staggering, to 'assume' that they would choose for themselves to have not been born. Would you deny them the right to choose for themselves? Of course not. Thus, as miserable as life is, each is worthy of being lived by the person in their own skin, each person has value in and of themselves even if for no other reason then they were created in God’s image.

The difference is that the story wasn't over and done when Jesus was crucified. Jesus rose from the dead and 'explained' it all to them after the fact. Without a doubt this would solidify the message and meaning in their heads for the rest of their lives, not something someone is likely to forget, talking and eating with the risen Lord and all.

Luke 24:44-48
Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.


It's not just about what he meant, it's about who he was and what he did.


the catholic bible online offers this comment on that passage from luke:

Luke is the only New Testament writer to speak explicitly of a suffering Messiah (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found in the Old Testament or in other Jewish literature prior to the New Testament period...

so when jesus "opened their minds to the scripture" there WAS NO SUCH SCRIPTURE.

You can't argue for other people that they would rather not have been born.
Countless people have said it, and implied it through their actions(suicide). Are you suggesting that nobody in the history of humanity has ever been suicidal or attempted to commit suicide?

Besides, not enjoying life != wishing one had never been born.
Would you deny them the right to choose for themselves?
Mmmmm, delicious non sequitur.
Of course not.
Oooh, rhetorical non sequitur. My favourite. :)
Thus, as miserable as life is, each is worthy of being lived by the person in their own skin, each person has value in and of themselves even if for no other reason then they were created in God’s image.

Even more non sequitur. Cabra never suggested that some people's lives aren't worthy of living. Man you must be some kind of goatse if you cann pull things out of your ass with such ease.

You can't argue for other people that they would rather not have been born. The arrogance of such a position would be staggering, to 'assume' that they would choose for themselves to have not been born. Would you deny them the right to choose for themselves? Of course not. Thus, as miserable as life is, each is worthy of being lived by the person in their own skin, each person has value in and of themselves even if for no other reason then they were created in God’s image.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Have I said anything about not being born? If so, where?
I said that those people would be happier if "god" wasn't being such a dick and had instead chosen given them a life where they are not being beaten about so much. And as those people aren't here today, I will try and make their case, even though "god" hasn't chosen to beat me up.

Which in a better world would result less in the Hal-9000 mindset.

Impressive connection made there...nifty.

Whenever i see these kind of questions it appears to me, although it may not be true, that the person is trying to justify in there own minds that God doesn't exist. If you just want to bash poor answers to your question to justify for yourself you are right i dont know what that is accomplishing.

Also alot of the reasoning for how God did things is the fact that the first Man, Adam, screwed it up. God gave Him perfection and he chose to do an action that is against god. God is also infinitly just and because of Adams fall all men deserve death. Focusing on one aspect of God misses out on the other aspects. He is merciful, but he is also just. I dont pretend to have all the answers though. Hope i didnt step on any toes.

Whenever i see these kind of questions it appears to me, although it may not be true, that the person is trying to justify in there own minds that God doesn't exist.

Allow me to personally disabuse you of that notion. You are mistaken.


If you just want to bash poor answers to your question to justify for yourself you are right i dont know what that is accomplishing.

Discussion on these topics can accomplish any number of things. Discussion will always, without fail, accomplish more than non-discussion.


Also alot of the reasoning for how God did things is the fact that the first Man, Adam, screwed it up. God gave Him perfection and he chose to do an action that is against god.

According to the Bible, God did not give Adam perfection. You should read scriptures more carefully.


God is also infinitly just and because of Adams fall all men deserve death. Focusing on one aspect of God misses out on the other aspects.

Please share the other aspects you think are relevant.


He is merciful, but he is also just.

Please present evidence to support this.


I dont pretend to have all the answers though.

You don't need to have all the answers. If you want to participate in a discussion, however, you might want to have at least one or two answers, or at least some cogent ideas. If you have some, please share them!


Hope i didnt step on any toes.
Not as far as I'm concerned. :D

I hear this all the time, and it's just as silly and untrue each time somebody says it.

The overwhelming majority of choices we make have nothing to do with sin. There are plenty of choices to be made apart from sin. Personally, I can't remember the last time I applied my free will to a choice between "sin" or "not sin." My most recent free-will decisions have had to do with travel arrangements, gift selections, and dinner options. None of which involved me making any choices between sinful and non-sinful options. (If anything, all the choices in each situation were equally sinful or non-sinful.)
The overwhelming majority of decisions have good or bad outcomes. Creating the possibility of good or bad outcomes creates the possibility then for the choice to sin. Free will creates good choices bad choices =/= sinless choices sinful choices. But the creation of good and bad outcomes opens the door to the other.

You could have chosen to eat a bad meal, one that you are allergic to and it could have killed you. You could mistakenly but through your choice pay more than you needed too for your travel tickets and ended up wasting all your money so that you didn't have any left to do other things when you got there. You could have chosen to buy a gift that the recipient finds so offensive that you lose your friendship with that person over it. All of those decisions outcome/positibilities are given to you because you have freewill.

Without freewill you couldn't give a bad gift, or buy a bad ticket, or eat a bad meal... All tickets would be the same, all meals would be the same, all gifts would be the same.

It's also 100% possible for a person to have free will and moral consciousness even if they are incapable of a particular sin. Or do you intend to claim that a quadriplegic has less free will because she is unable to physically strangle another human? I don't think that's the case. So if a person can be physically incapable of killing another human, and yet still have free will, then it's obviously possible for somebody to be incapable of a particular sin and yet still retain free will. Hence, it would be totally possible for humans to be incapable of sin and still retain free will.
Your solution to removing the potential to sin was to deprive the person of freedom? (this time it is the freedom of movement) That's what I've been saying all along, thanks.

Finally, most people who've been here a while are familiar with my own personal method for eliminating the majority of human nastiness without in any way removing free will. If I, a human who has seen less than one short lifespan on this Earth, could come up with such a solution, then it's pretty pathetic to think that God couldn't come up with it, don't you think?

It's also pretty lame to claim that it's impossible to do, since it's already been done.
The only thing that I can think of that you might be talking about here, is something along the lines of "If I feel the outcome I do to others, I won't hurt other people," is that it? If it was that simple then perfect capital punishment for the prevention of future murders would work... Would it? Are you sure? Can't think of anyone that would willing hurt themselves to harm others? I can.

If you are talking about some other method, please explain, I apologize for not knowing what you've said elsewhere.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Have I said anything about not being born? If so, where?
I said that those people would be happier if "god" wasn't being such a dick and had instead chosen given them a life where they are not being beaten about so much. And as those people aren't here today, I will try and make their case, even though "god" hasn't chosen to beat me up.

I left the door open for peole who want to commit suicide. Or they hate life so much they wish they were never born. They can take that up with God. I only said that IF a person doesn't feel that way, they can't really complain because they themselves can enjoy this life.

the catholic bible online offers this comment on that passage from luke:

so when jesus "opened their minds to the scripture" there WAS NO SUCH SCRIPTURE.

Perhaps you can link to such a catholic commentary, I do not have that. From what I understood about Catholic theology they very much do believe in Jesus fulfilling the prophesy of the scripture we call the OT. Why they would argue that there was no scripture to open the apostles minds too makes no sense at all.

I left the door open for peole who want to commit suicide. Or they hate life so much they wish they were never born. They can take that up with God. I only said that IF a person doesn't feel that way, they can't really complain because they themselves can enjoy this life.

So if I haven't been raped, I'm not allowed to say that rape is a terrible thing and shouldn't happen to anybody, is that what you're saying essentially?
Everybody should only care for themselves and not speak up for others who are being mistreated?

So if I haven't been raped, I'm not allowed to say that rape is a terrible thing and shouldn't happen to anybody, is that what you're saying essentially?
Everybody should only care for themselves and not speak up for others who are being mistreated?

Of course that's not what I said. We can work to correct injustices everyday, it would be the 'Christian" thing to do. But to argue that the ability to be raped should be removed is not the same as arguing that Rapist should be stopped and/or punished. To collectively change all of existence because bad things can happen is not within our ability to control even if we don't believe in God. So belief in God or not does not remove or reduce the amount of 'bad' that people can choose to do.

the catholic bible online offers this comment on that passage from luke:

so when jesus "opened their minds to the scripture" there WAS NO SUCH SCRIPTURE.

That commentary is bollocks. The suffering servant is a common theme in Isaiah.

For example:

Fourth song of the servant

As many people were aghast at him
-he was so inhumanly disfigured
that he no longer looked like a man-
so many nations will be astonished
and kings will stay tight-lipped before him,
seeing what had never been told them,
learning what they had not heard before.

Who has given credence to what we have heard?
And who has seen in it a revelation of Yahweh's arm?

Like a sapling he grew up before him,
like a root in arid ground.
He had no form or charm to attract us,
no beauty to win our hearts;
he was despised, the lowest of men,
a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering,
one from whom, as it were,
we averted our gaze, despised,
for whom we had no regard.

(Isaiah 52:14 - 53:3)

Of course that's not what I said. We can work to correct injustices everyday, it would be the 'Christian" thing to do. But to argue that the ability to be raped should be removed is not the same as arguing that Rapist should be stopped and/or punished. To collectively change all of existence because bad things can happen is not within our ability to control even if we don't believe in God. So belief in God or not does not remove or reduce the amount of 'bad' that people can choose to do.

Well, belief in god and in the idea that god created the world and nothing can come into being without god would in consequence mean that the amount of bad people are capable of is god's doing and therefore god's responsibility, wouldn't you say?

Perhaps you can link to such a catholic commentary, I do not have that. From what I understood about Catholic theology they very much do believe in Jesus fulfilling the prophesy of the scripture we call the OT. Why they would argue that there was no scripture to open the apostles minds too makes no sense at all.

Indeed. I'm Catholic, and that commentary is most definitely not in accord with Church teaching as it was conveyed to me and as I've found in my own studies.

Well, belief in god and in the idea that god created the world and nothing can come into being without god would in consequence mean that the amount of bad people are capable of is god's doing and therefore god's responsibility, wouldn't you say?

If so, then he is equally responsible for all the good we are capable of doing, all the blessings we can receive and give to others, all the beauty and the wonder and the greatness of merely existing in this time and place, and he should be thanked for that. I would argue that we are capable of more good (through him) then we are of anything else. Jesus said the light conquers the darkness, and I believe it.

The overwhelming majority of decisions have good or bad outcomes. Creating the possibility of good or bad outcomes creates the possibility then for the choice to sin. Free will creates good choices bad choices =/= sinless choices sinful choices. But the creation of good and bad outcomes opens the door to the other.
So since you can make choice without choosing between sin and not sin, God could remove the possibility of sin without removing free will.

You could have chosen to eat a bad meal, one that you are allergic to and it could have killed you. You could mistakenly but through your choice pay more than you needed too for your travel tickets and ended up wasting all your money so that you didn't have any left to do other things when you got there. You could have chosen to buy a gift that the recipient finds so offensive that you lose your friendship with that person over it. All of those decisions outcome/positibilities are given to you because you have freewill.

Without freewill you couldn't give a bad gift, or buy a bad ticket, or eat a bad meal... All tickets would be the same, all meals would be the same, all gifts would be the same.
That doesn't follow at all. Not even a little bit. Inability to choose does not affect the quality of the outcomes. Not at all. If I throw a rock at the back of your head it will still hurt, regardless of the fact that you made no choice that lead to being hit in the back of the head with a rock.


Your solution to removing the potential to sin was to deprive the person of freedom? (this time it is the freedom of movement) That's what I've been saying all along, thanks.
You can't make up a hypothetical situation and then attribute it to Bottle. Hmmm, Gens Romae did that a lot too, put words in other people's mouths. Odd.


The only thing that I can think of that you might be talking about here, is something along the lines of "If I feel the outcome I do to others, I won't hurt other people," is that it? If it was that simple then perfect capital punishment for the prevention of future murders would work... Would it? Are you sure? Can't think of anyone that would willing hurt themselves to harm others? I can.
Strawman. Not even a strawman, because your pretend point has no relevance at all to Bottle's position, at least not that I can see.

So since you can make choice without choosing between sin and not sin, God could remove the possibility of sin without removing free will.

If God gives you the ability to make bad choices... then you can take your freedom past the limits he set for you, the only way to not give you that freedom is to limit your freedom.

That doesn't follow at all. Not even a little bit. Inability to choose does not affect the quality of the outcomes. Not at all. If I throw a rock at the back of your head it will still hurt, regardless of the fact that you made no choice that lead to being hit in the back of the head with a rock.
If there were no good or bad choices to make or to sin, you couldn't throw a rock at the back of my head.


You can't make up a hypothetical situation and then attribute it to Bottle. Hmmm, Gens Romae did that a lot too, put words in other people's mouths. Odd.

If that was not her argument, I said I was guessing at it, I admitted it, but she didn't say what her argument was, but she used it anyway. How come you don't complain that she asserts a position I'm supposed to know without her even stating what it is?

Strawman. Not even a strawman, because your pretend point has no relevance at all to Bottle's position, at least not that I can see.

I already apologized in advance if her position is something else, hardly a strawman then.

Perhaps you can link to such a catholic commentary, I do not have that. From what I understood about Catholic theology they very much do believe in Jesus fulfilling the prophesy of the scripture we call the OT. Why they would argue that there was no scripture to open the apostles minds too makes no sense at all.

its footnotes to the catholic online bible. i dont usually provide a link because the one i have is in frames so it doesnt link to the right spot. http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

it has nothing whatsoever to do with catholic theology. the point that the comment makes is that the passage from luke has jesus talking about how he fulfilled the OT prophesies but that there ARE NO OT prophesies that foretell of a messiah who has to suffer. luke has jesus refer to prophesies that dont exist.

so either jesus didnt know the scripture or luke didnt remember correctly what jesus said way back when. (probably because the author of luke didnt know jesus personally)

Oh dear, I'm in an apologetical frame of mind today.

Actually, the belief of exclusiveness would be closer to a Catholic thing. One cannot go to Heaven (according to Catholics) unless one is both baptized, and confirmed Catholic (unless their just a baby, then they still need to be baptized). That is, I'm pretty sure the official Catholic doctrinal belief, it's why they practice closed communion... don't want no one stealing their sacred juice and getting to heaven on their own!

Despite what organized religion might want you to believe, you don't go to Hell for not being a christian. Jesus Christ's life was meant to deliver a message on how to live a life that would earn you eternal peace in the afterlife. It's faith to that message and that lifestyle that you need. Jesus made it very clear what constituted a good life. DOn't let Catholic doctrine muck that up. As for those who died before Christ, well if you believe, apparently Christ took care of them during a visit to Hell between His death and resurrection.

As I understand it, current Church teaching is that other religions can lead one to salvation, and that the desire for Baptism (Baptism being essentially a holistic cleansing and renewal of a person) brings about the fruits of Baptism without requiring any official sacrament.

If you don't enjoy this life now, if you can't find anything that makes this life that God created for us worth living for you, then I feel sorry for you but I don't see how it's God's fault that you can't find something to enjoy about it.

If you do enjoy the life you have now though, if you can enjoy the blessings of living this life, then you have no complaints about how God designed the world for us to live in then do you?

What are you wittering about?

I didn't say anything about whether or not I 'enjoy this life'. That's so far off topic it's practically coming back at it from the otehr direction, and it bears no relation to what I said.

You appear to have lost the train of discussion. In the context of the system of 'sin' and punishment, the comments I made were entirely relevent - and nothing to do with this little strawman you appear to have concocted to avoid having to deal with the on-topic response.

The 'world' is not the problem - the idea that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being apparently can't construct a model that allows him to avoid toasting the fuck out of most of his creations... suggests he is either not omnibenevolent, or not omnipotent.

Or he's a figment of the imagination, and thus - both.

That commentary is bollocks. The suffering servant is a common theme in Isaiah.

For example:

Fourth song of the servant

As many people were aghast at him
-he was so inhumanly disfigured
that he no longer looked like a man-
so many nations will be astonished
and kings will stay tight-lipped before him,
seeing what had never been told them,
learning what they had not heard before.

Who has given credence to what we have heard?
And who has seen in it a revelation of Yahweh's arm?

Like a sapling he grew up before him,
like a root in arid ground.
He had no form or charm to attract us,
no beauty to win our hearts;
he was despised, the lowest of men,
a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering,
one from whom, as it were,
we averted our gaze, despised,
for whom we had no regard.

(Isaiah 52:14 - 53:3)


yeah thats where the word "explicitly" comes in.

i dont know crap about isaiah

Haven't I been through the same with you before?
Assuming that one is depressed, sad, suicidal or has a life that's not worth living simply because that person had a look at the character "god" in the bible and decided that given that the bible is correct on all accounts, god must be a miserable bitch, is not simply annoying, it's building a strawman.

Instead of answering to the questions that were put to you, you went and tried to portray Grave as a poor sod who's got nothing to live for. That's poor tactics in any argument, and nobody here's falling for it.

Exactly. Thank you.

Jesus quoting scripture shouldn't surprise anyone. We found Jesus quoting Genesis to answer a question, and he added more to it. Jesus quoting psalms on the cross was to fulfill it. What part of this is contradictory? None of it.

Disingenuous?

Jesus (assuming you are talking about your debunked 'marriage' answer) didn't quote scripture to answer a question - he quoted scripture to support a position on divorce. It was bullshit last time you tried to push it, it's no less bullshit just because you repeat it in a different context.

And what - apart from wishful thinking - supports your argument that "Jesus quoting psalms on the cross was to fulfill it"? Based on his Gethsemene experience, it is at least as likely Jesus was speaking in earnest, rather than quoting anything. You can't even prove that he WAS quoting.

I'm bored with arguing with the bible as you wish it was. I'm all for entertaining different ideas - but you have to be able to support them, or you can't expect others to take them seriously.

yeah thats where the word "explicitly" comes in.

I don't get why "explicitly" makes a difference. Can you elaborate?

i dont know crap about isaiah

Heh, and you shouldn't have to. Apparently the people writing the commentary for the Catholic Online Bible don't either, which I think is a problem. Because they should know about it if they're doing Biblical commentary.

I'd be reluctant to rely on them as a source.

In the same way Jesus prays to God when other people are around so that they can learn how to believe and/or how to behave themselves...

Here is a case that he says to straight up, so that they can believe, he prays and says things just so they can hear it.

John 11:41-42
And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me."

Looks like that verse supports Jesus and God being two different people. Not that uncommon a view when the Gospels were written, not that uncommon a view now.

"...I thank you.. you have heard me... you always hear me... you sent me..." All those things sound like on entity addressing another.

The difference is that the story wasn't over and done when Jesus was crucified. Jesus rose from the dead and 'explained' it all to them after the fact. Without a doubt this would solidify the message and meaning in their heads for the rest of their lives, not something someone is likely to forget, talking and eating with the risen Lord and all.


Except that the resurrection accounts were added later, right?

I don't get why "explicitly" makes a difference. Can you elaborate?



Heh, and you shouldn't have to. Apparently the people writing the commentary for the Catholic Online Bible don't either, which I think is a problem. Because they should know about it if they're doing Biblical commentary.

I'd be reluctant to rely on them as a source.

i dont see how that isaiah passage can refer to the messiah (or jesus as the messiah perhaps) since it ends with "If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him. "

jesus didnt have descendants.

explictly means, i assume, that any passage that refers to the messiah doesnt refer to the messiah suffering. the suffering stuff occurs in cryptic passages like the one you posted where it is unclear who is being talked about.

No I didn't intend to portray him as a poor sod, I wanted him to see that if God created this world and we can enjoy it now, who then is to argue that God is an asshole, unless they don't like this gift already given?

Irrelevent AND a strawman.

The enjoyability of this world has no bearing on whether or not god is an asshole. The argument that god was either incompetent or an asshole, stems from the conflict between alleged omnibenevolence and omnipotence - and the creation of a system of 'rules' that requires that one, or the other, (or both) those claims must be false.

It doesn't impact whether or not it is possible to enjoy this flawed design.