Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on August 20, 2011, 03:32:15 AM
-
What if a feller is a total dumbard such as myself. Will I go to hail if I ain't smart enuf to assep the lord n' savior?
Ok actually serious question. Do mentally challenged sinners go to hell? Or would they be considered like children?
-
I was looking for something I read/heard Erwin Lutzer say about this but I can't find it....will post later if I do.
The following pretty much covers my view:
(from gotquestions.org)
Question: "Do mentally ill people go to heaven? Does God show mercy to those who are mentally retarded, challenged, disabled, or handicapped?"
Answer: The Bible does not specifically say whether or not mentally ill people go to heaven. However, there is some biblical evidence that anyone who is not able to make a decision for salvation is covered by Christ’s death. This is similar to how it is commonly believed that children are automatically taken to heaven when they die until they reach the point in which they are able to make a decision for or against Christ. David had a child die, and he comforted himself with the thought, “Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). David knew that he would see his child in heaven one day. From that statement, we can assume that babies and young children were, by God's grace, covered for salvation by Christ’s death.
We can postulate from this that mentally retarded people are covered by this principle as well. The Word of God does not specifically say this, however. Knowing the love, grace, and mercy of God, this would seem consistent with His character. Any person who is mentally challenged to the extent that he could not be aware of his sinful state and believe in Christ for salvation, is in the same category as a child and it is not unreasonable to assume that person is saved by the grace and mercy of the same God who saves babies and small children.
As in everything, however, we must be careful not to be dogmatic about any issue the Bible does not specifically address. We do know that Jesus receives as His own all that the Father has given to Him and He will lose none of them along the way (John 6:39). Jesus said of these “And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand” (John 10:28). We can take comfort in knowing that our God’s plan is always perfect, He always does what is right and just, and His love and mercy are infinite and everlasting.
Recommended Resource: Safe in the Arms of God: Words from Heaven About the Death of a Child by John MacArthur.
-
What if a feller is a total dumbard such as myself. Will I go to hail if I ain't smart enuf to assep the lord n' savior?
Ok actually serious question. Do mentally challenged sinners go to hell? Or would they be considered like children?
Aren't you an atheist Hugo Chavez?
-
I put mentally disabled people in the same category as kids. People are only held accountable for what they know (or should know):
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17
-
So, in this case it is better to be a mentally handicapped person than a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't believe the evidence supports the bible.... weird system.....
-
So, in this case it is better to be a mentally handicapped person than a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't believe the evidence supports the bible.... weird system.....
Is it really any different than how we operate in society? For example, you cannot treat a 5-year-old kid who commits a crime like an adult. Same concept IMO.
-
I put mentally disabled people in the same category as kids. People are only held accountable for what they know (or should know):
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17
I disagree.
If people are only held accountable for what we know, if we universalize that principle, then it would be the best course of action if nobody ever told anyone about Jesus. Therefore less people will be held accountable and more will go to heaven. I understand your point but it is incompatible with Jesus's teaching about going forth to tell all nations. If I go to nation X as a missionary and preach to all 10,000 residents of that country, and half of them accept Jesus, then 5,000 will die and go to hell. But if what you say is true, it would be better if I never go to nation X (assuming of course nobody else goes to nation X or nobody in nation X leaves nation X) so 10,000 residents of that country will go to heaven.
I'm not saying what I believe, I'm only saying your belief is incompatible with other parts of the Bible.
-
I disagree.
If people are only held accountable for what we know, if we universalize that principle, then it would be the best course of action if nobody ever told anyone about Jesus. Therefore less people will be held accountable and more will go to heaven. I understand your point but it is incompatible with Jesus's teaching about going forth to tell all nations. If I go to nation X as a missionary and preach to all 10,000 residents of that country, and half of them accept Jesus, then 5,000 will die and go to hell. But if what you say is true, it would be better if I never go to nation X (assuming of course nobody else goes to nation X or nobody in nation X leaves nation X) so 10,000 residents of that country will go to heaven.
I'm not saying what I believe, I'm only saying your belief is incompatible with other parts of the Bible.
Telling people to take the message to the world is perfectly compatible with the concept of not holding people accountable for what they haven't heard (yet) or are incapable of understanding.
The problem with your hypothetical is it assumes your missionary trip would be the only way 10,000 people would be able to learn. That's completely unrealistic.
-
Telling people to be take the message to the world is perfectly compatible with the concept of not holding people accountable for what they haven't heard (yet) or are incapable of understanding.
The problem with your hypothetical is it assumes your missionary trip would be the only way 10,000 people would be able to learn. That's completely unrealistic.
Your first sentence doesn't really address my objection.
Let's change the time frame on my hypothetical to 1500-ish and let's make Country X present day cuba (or pick some other island). It is known that spanish explorers read aloud biblical passages to the natives and told them to accept Jesus as their savior, and when they did not, the explorers felt justified in slaughtering them. It never occurred to them that the natives never understood spanish. But I digress, the point being is that my hypothetical is a real historical example. Let's say the spanish explorers really wanted the natives to go to heaven (and this was their only end goal), according to your argument then if only two courses of action were possible A) Preach the word of God and hope they would all get saved or B) Kill all the natives with 100% assurance that all of the natives would go to heaven, the best course of action would be B. It would be the most certain way of accomplishing the end of 100% of population of country X going to heaven.
The historical example of 1500-ish island of Cuba with spanish "missionaries" proves that it is possible for natives of a country to never acquire knowledge of jesus by other means. If what you say is true, it would be best to either do option B as stated above, or never tell them at all about Jesus and refrain from anyone else telling them about Jesus.
Incompatible with "go forth into all nations and teach".
-
Your first sentence doesn't really address my objection.
Let's change the time frame on my hypothetical to 1500-ish and let's make Country X present day cuba (or pick some other island). It is known that spanish explorers read aloud biblical passages to the natives and told them to accept Jesus as their savior, and when they did not, the explorers felt justified in slaughtering them. It never occurred to them that the natives never understood spanish. But I digress, the point being is that my hypothetical is a real historical example. Let's say the spanish explorers really wanted the natives to go to heaven (and this was their only end goal), according to your argument then if only two courses of action were possible A) Preach the word of God and hope they would all get saved or B) Kill all the natives with 100% assurance that all of the natives would go to heaven, the best course of action would be B. It would be the most certain way of accomplishing the end of 100% of population of country X going to heaven.
The historical example of 1500-ish island of Cuba with spanish "missionaries" proves that it is possible for natives of a country to never acquire knowledge of jesus by other means. If what you say is true, it would be best to either do option B as stated above, or never tell them at all about Jesus and refrain from anyone else telling them about Jesus.
Incompatible with "go forth into all nations and teach".
The reason this one makes no sense is it assumes the Spanish explorers were actually trying to preach God's word to the island natives. They were not. They were imperialists trying to take over land and resources. Christianity does not teach that you witness to someone, and if they don't accept your message, you kill them. lol. So no, neither your hypothetical nor your real world example make a whole lot of sense.
-
The reason this one makes no sense is it assumes the Spanish explorers were actually trying to preach God's word to the island natives. They were not. They were imperialists trying to take over land and resources. Christianity does not teach that you witness to someone, and if they don't accept your message, you kill them. lol. So no, neither your hypothetical nor your real world example make a whole lot of sense.
maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying Christianity teaches to kill those who don't believe, I'm saying that your belief leads to both contradictory and undesirable consequences in certain situations. I don't think you can make an adequate reply of "these were not the intentions of the explorers", it's perfectly possible that it was. Or you can just imagine any other hypothetical in which it would be. You don't understand the points of a hypothetical do you?
My hypothetical isn't suppose to make sense, it's suppose to show that your argument leads to absurd consequences which I doubt anyone would agree with. Therefore your belief is somehow mistaken. I'm showing A (your argument) leads to B (and nobody would agree to B) so A is false.
-
What if a feller is a total dumbard such as myself. Will I go to hail if I ain't smart enuf to assep the lord n' savior?
Ok actually serious question. Do mentally challenged sinners go to hell? Or would they be considered like children?
Surely you jest?
-
maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying Christianity teaches to kill those who don't believe, I'm saying that your belief leads to both contradictory and undesirable consequences in certain situations. I don't think you can make an adequate reply of "these were not the intentions of the explorers", it's perfectly possible that it was. Or you can just imagine any other hypothetical in which it would be. You don't understand the points of a hypothetical do you?
My hypothetical isn't suppose to make sense, it's suppose to show that your argument leads to absurd consequences which I doubt anyone would agree with. Therefore your belief is somehow mistaken. I'm showing A (your argument) leads to B (and nobody would agree to B) so A is false.
You're making yourself clear. I'm just disagreeing with you. And I understand hypotheticals enough to know yours make no sense. :)
You can't have contradictory consequences if your entire premise is wrong. The people who purported to be teaching God's message to island natives were not Christians, because Christians would not simply kill people who don't accept the message. And yes, you have to examine whether the people in your hypothetical were Christian, which in turn requires an examination of whether Christianity teaches that you kill people who don't accept a missionary's message. You can't create some scenario based on ridiculous or false facts and expect to carry the scenario to a logical conclusion. You have to start with facts that make sense. Yours don't.
The "consequence" are adverse, but the consequences in your scenario have zero to do with James 4:17 (which was my point in this thread).
-
Is it really any different than how we operate in society? For example, you cannot treat a 5-year-old kid who commits a crime like an adult. Same concept IMO.
The difference is, we are talking eternity here. So like the story of the farmer who was sitting on his porch looking at his hound dog.. he says "All my life I worked hard, provided for my family, treated people right, got up when the sun came up, plowed the fields till dusk and when I die, because I don't believe in that bible, I spend hell in eternity..
Now that old hound dog, he aint never did anything but lay around in the shade sleeping.. when he dies, thats it..
I sure wish I was born that old hound dog..."
Kinda see the point?
-
You're making yourself clear. I'm just disagreeing with you. And I understand hypotheticals enough to know yours make no sense. :)
You can't have contradictory consequences if your entire premise is wrong. The people who purported to be teaching God's message to island natives were not Christians, because Christians would not simply kill people who don't accept the message. And yes, you have to examine whether the people in your hypothetical were Christian, which in turn requires an examination of whether Christianity teaches that you kill people who don't accept a missionary's message. You can't create some scenario based on ridiculous or false facts and expect to carry the scenario to a logical conclusion. You have to start with facts that make sense. Yours don't.
The "consequence" are adverse, but the consequences in your scenario have zero to do with James 4:17 (which was my point in this thread).
The thing is, if as a christian, you tell 1000 people about Jesus and typically 300 believe you, then 700 go to hell.
If you don't tell them anything about Jesus than all 1000 go to heaven. You are doing people no favors informing them about Jesus then making them liable for their decisions.
-
The difference is, we are talking eternity here. So like the story of the farmer who was sitting on his porch looking at his hound dog.. he says "All my life I worked hard, provided for my family, treated people right, got up when the sun came up, plowed the fields till dusk and when I die, because I don't believe in that bible, I spend hell in eternity..
Now that old hound dog, he aint never did anything but lay around in the shade sleeping.. when he dies, thats it..
I sure wish I was born that old hound dog..."
Kinda see the point?
If everything he says in the story is true, then yeah, I see the point.
I don't believe the story. (I know it's fiction.)
-
The thing is, if as a christian, you tell 1000 people about Jesus and typically 300 believe you, then 700 go to hell.
If you don't tell them anything about Jesus than all 1000 go to heaven. You are doing people no favors informing them about Jesus then making them liable for their decisions.
It's not that simple IMO. Sitting someone down and talking to them about Jesus doesn't suddenly give them all the knowledge they need to make an informed choice about being a Christian. It's a process. I think it takes time, especially if it's someone who is older and has never really been exposed to Christianity.
If you go back to James 4:17, it's talking about someone who knows they should or should not be doing something. It's not talking about someone who had a person show up at their doorstep and hand them a flier.
-
It's not that simple IMO. Sitting someone down and talking to them about Jesus doesn't suddenly give them all the knowledge they need to make an informed choice about being a Christian. It's a process. I think it takes time, especially if it's someone who is older and has never really been exposed to Christianity.
If you go back to James 4:17, it's talking about someone who knows they should or should not be doing something. It's not talking about someone who had a person show up at their doorstep and hand them a flier.
how do you know? Sounds like interpretation to fit a preconceived notion. But even if what you said is true, it doesn't address the objection that it would still result in a better outcome (100% go to heaven) if Jesus is never mentioned as opposed to teaching about Jesus and 50% go to heaven as a result, assuming your argument is true.
By the way, St. Augustine would say that we all deserve hell so in cases of children and the ignorant, they would go to hell too. But we are in no position to complain because of original sin. I know you're a smart man Beach Bum but I don't think the issue is as clear as you think it is.
Don't think I'm taking an anti-christian viewpoint here. All of my talking points in this thread has come from preachers and St. Augustine, not one non-christian.
-
how do you know? Sounds like interpretation to fit a preconceived notion. But even if what you said is true, it doesn't address the objection that it would still result in a better outcome (100% go to heaven) if Jesus is never mentioned as opposed to teaching about Jesus and 50% go to heaven as a result, assuming your argument is true.
By the way, St. Augustine would say that we all deserve hell so in cases of children and the ignorant, they would go to hell too. But we are in no position to complain because of original sin. I know you're a smart man Beach Bum but I don't think the issue is as clear as you think it is.
Don't think I'm taking an anti-christian viewpoint here. All of my talking points in this thread has come from preachers and St. Augustine, not one non-christian.
How do I know? I don't know. I'm just giving my opinion. I think the verse I posted is pretty clear and my interpretation is reasonable (at least to me). Do you have a different interpretation of that verse? You think it means people are held accountable for what they don't know?
I don't know much about St. Augustine, so I can't comment on whatever he said or believed. But who cares what that guy said anyway? I don't rely on preachers or "saints" to form my opinions on religious issues. I use my own common sense.
-
Aren't you an atheist Hugo Chavez?
I have not idea what I am. I think a lot of religions are made up crap but I think there is something bigger than us we don't understand.
-
I have not idea what I am. I think a lot of religions are made up crap but I think there is something bigger than us we don't understand.
Sadly, in your case (i.e., mental prowess) the above quoted statement covers a wide variety of sentient creatures and perhaps even certain types of plant life. Here, allow me to make it easier on you.
U B 1 dum mofo.
-
Sadly, in your case (i.e., mental prowess) the above quoted statement covers a wide variety of sentient creatures and perhaps even certain types of plant life. Here, allow me to make it easier on you.
U B 1 dum mofo.
Get lost pecker head
-
How do I know? I don't know. I'm just giving my opinion. I think the verse I posted is pretty clear and my interpretation is reasonable (at least to me). Do you have a different interpretation of that verse? You think it means people are held accountable for what they don't know?
I don't know much about St. Augustine, so I can't comment on whatever he said or believed. But who cares what that guy said anyway? I don't rely on preachers or "saints" to form my opinions on religious issues. I use my own common sense.
Isn't that just one massive oxymoron? ???
-
I struggled tremendously with this topic for some time. I've had countless discussions about it with friends and I really never reached clarity with it until a friend sent me this video. Check it out as Chan lays it out pretty cut and dry:
[/youtube]
One of the main reasons that Chan is speaking out in this manner is most likely because of what Rob Bell has proposed in "Love Wins". Bell's premise begins with "God cannot be all powerful and all loving and not eventually save everyone". His conclusion is that God CANNOT be all loving and all powerful if he DOES NOT eventually save everyone. Another premise is along the lines of "The doctrine of an eternal Hell is not Biblical and it has been misinterpreted for the last 2,000 years by the majority". Another premise that is implied is that "No one deserves eternal punishment." Bell concludes professing that a new kind of Christianity is coming, like one that has never been seen.
I wouldn't worry about Bell so much as I would ourselves, but that's the context of Chan's video. Chan points out very well that what chance do we have in knowing the true God if we refuse to let God speak above our desires and wants whenever they conflict with Scripture. Tim Keller does a strong job of speaking to this in The Reason for God -- he says that we are prone to creating a Stepford God, like the Stepford Wives of the movie from a few years ago. He reasons, if God is supreme to us, then there must be times where we are deeply challenged by his ways.
This right here is the dangerous edge we are walking next to, not just Bell. Do you want a "revolution" more than Christ? Do we want a new "Christianity" more than Christ? Do we want to see reconciliation, healing, joy, all things made new more than we want Christ himself? Does our longing for Heaven ultimate rest in a desire to be in the presence of God? Are you worshiping the creation and not the creator Himself?
If Christ is not ultimately supreme in our affections and desires then in my personal experience, and in watching others, that's exactly when we begin to create a self-created version of Christ. That's when we begin to say things like, "Well, I don't understand this and I refuse to believe God knows what he's doing so I will either ignore it or create an opinion that is outside of Scripture".
So when I think about Hell I think less about how people don't deserve it and I think more about how I deserve it. I think about how I've earned it. And then I think about how undeserving I am of Christ's love, his rescuing me, and I am absolutely grateful. Not because of what I've done, but because of what he's done. That doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me feel better about him and my identity in him. This produces joy but a true joy that is overflowed from him.
I cannot begin to presume to know what God's ultimate plan is, I can only hope that He is revealed to me and I can share that with every else that comes into my life.
-
So when I think about Hell I think less about how people don't deserve it and I think more about how I deserve it. I think about how I've earned it. And then I think about how undeserving I am of Christ's love, his rescuing me, and I am absolutely grateful. Not because of what I've done, but because of what he's done. That doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me feel better about him and my identity in him. This produces joy but a true joy that is overflowed from him.
I cannot begin to presume to know what God's ultimate plan is, I can only hope that He is revealed to me and I can share that with every else that comes into my life.
:)
I wonder if some people truly truly would choose hell/separation from God for eternity and these are the people that God allows to go to hell. Even our faith (believers) is a gift from God, and since He knows the heart, perhaps the gift is given to those that would want to believe?
I used to agonize over the thought of anyone not going to heaven but reading many of the posts on this website I do think that some people may truly not wish to spend eternity w/God. It makes me think of bowl judgments in Revelation that are being poured out and men are still cursing God. Imo, the people going through that are not ignorant of what is happening but still curse God.
-
I struggled tremendously with this topic for some time. I've had countless discussions about it with friends and I really never reached clarity with it until a friend sent me this video. Check it out as Chan lays it out pretty cut and dry:
[/youtube]
One of the main reasons that Chan is speaking out in this manner is most likely because of what Rob Bell has proposed in "Love Wins". Bell's premise begins with "God cannot be all powerful and all loving and not eventually save everyone". His conclusion is that God CANNOT be all loving and all powerful if he DOES NOT eventually save everyone. Another premise is along the lines of "The doctrine of an eternal Hell is not Biblical and it has been misinterpreted for the last 2,000 years by the majority". Another premise that is implied is that "No one deserves eternal punishment." Bell concludes professing that a new kind of Christianity is coming, like one that has never been seen.
I wouldn't worry about Bell so much as I would ourselves, but that's the context of Chan's video. Chan points out very well that what chance do we have in knowing the true God if we refuse to let God speak above our desires and wants whenever they conflict with Scripture. Tim Keller does a strong job of speaking to this in The Reason for God -- he says that we are prone to creating a Stepford God, like the Stepford Wives of the movie from a few years ago. He reasons, if God is supreme to us, then there must be times where we are deeply challenged by his ways.
This right here is the dangerous edge we are walking next to, not just Bell. Do you want a "revolution" more than Christ? Do we want a new "Christianity" more than Christ? Do we want to see reconciliation, healing, joy, all things made new more than we want Christ himself? Does our longing for Heaven ultimate rest in a desire to be in the presence of God? Are you worshiping the creation and not the creator Himself?
If Christ is not ultimately supreme in our affections and desires then in my personal experience, and in watching others, that's exactly when we begin to create a self-created version of Christ. That's when we begin to say things like, "Well, I don't understand this and I refuse to believe God knows what he's doing so I will either ignore it or create an opinion that is outside of Scripture".
So when I think about Hell I think less about how people don't deserve it and I think more about how I deserve it. I think about how I've earned it. And then I think about how undeserving I am of Christ's love, his rescuing me, and I am absolutely grateful. Not because of what I've done, but because of what he's done. That doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me feel better about him and my identity in him. This produces joy but a true joy that is overflowed from him.
I cannot begin to presume to know what God's ultimate plan is, I can only hope that He is revealed to me and I can share that with every else that comes into my life.
Im curious, what have you done to deserve an eternity in hell?
-
:)
I wonder if some people truly truly would choose hell/separation from God for eternity and these are the people that God allows to go to hell. Even our faith (believers) is a gift from God, and since He knows the heart, perhaps the gift is given to those that would want to believe?
I used to agonize over the thought of anyone not going to heaven but reading many of the posts on this website I do think that some people may truly not wish to spend eternity w/God. It makes me think of bowl judgments in Revelation that are being poured out and men are still cursing God. Imo, the people going through that are not ignorant of what is happening but still curse God.
If you don't think something is real then you usually don't worry about it. Or is this directed at people who actually in believe in the Christian god?
-
Get lost pecker head
You have a wonderful economy with words. I eagerly await your next mumbling utterance with, if not great anticipation, at least the hope that you will prove to be a lesser disappointment than usual.
While some drank deeply from the fountain of knowledge, others were content with a cup. Still others had but a swallow of the wondrous waters and then there was you. You? You merely "gargled".
-
You have a wonderful economy with words. I eagerly await your next mumbling utterance with, if not great anticipation, at least the hope that you will prove to be a lesser disappointment than usual.
While some drank deeply from the fountain of knowledge, others were content with a cup. Still others had but a swallow of the wondrous waters and then there was you. You? You merely "gargled".
Hi Jag
-
Isn't that just one massive oxymoron? ???
Nope.
-
Nope.
Religious faith has nothing to do with common sense, in fact it requires that you do not use common sense.
-
Religious faith has nothing to do with common sense, in fact it requires that you do not use common sense.
No it doesn't. It requires a great deal of common sense. It's the belief in nothing that doesn't require a whole lot of brain power IMO.
-
No it doesn't. It requires a great deal of common sense. It's the belief in nothing that doesn't require a whole lot of brain power IMO.
Who believes in nothing? I don't know anyone...including myself. I believe in plenty of things just no gods.
-
Who believes in nothing? I don't know anyone...including myself. I believe in plenty of things just no gods.
What's sort of amusing is the people with your mindset who can't just believe in nothing (talking from a faith standpoint), but have to ridicule people of faith. The bulk of the atheist movement is centered around ridiculing religion.
-
What's sort of amusing is the people with your mindset who can't just believe in nothing (talking from a faith standpoint), but have to ridicule people of faith. The bulk of the atheist movement is centered around ridiculing religion.
Maybe some do but it's a waste of time, people will believe what they believe and some of us (including myself) are such that we cannot believe.
-
What's sort of amusing is the people with your mindset who can't just believe in nothing (talking from a faith standpoint), but have to ridicule people of faith. The bulk of the atheist movement is centered around ridiculing religion.
I guess it's a matter of perception. I percieve the bulk of atheists quietly going about their business while there are some vocal atheists who are concerned that the religious people will continue to trod on their right not to participate in a religion.
-
You have a wonderful economy with words. I eagerly await your next mumbling utterance with, if not great anticipation, at least the hope that you will prove to be a lesser disappointment than usual.
While some drank deeply from the fountain of knowledge, others were content with a cup. Still others had but a swallow of the wondrous waters and then there was you. You? You merely "gargled".
You have a penchant for using a lot of words to say nothing at all. I prefer economy to gluttony.
-
I guess it's a matter of perception. I percieve the bulk of atheists quietly going about their business while there are some vocal atheists who are concerned that the religious people will continue to trod on their right not to participate in a religion.
Texas is very religious, isn't it?
-
I guess it's a matter of perception. I percieve the bulk of atheists quietly going about their business while there are some vocal atheists who are concerned that the religious people will continue to trod on their right not to participate in a religion.
That may be true. I'll bump a thread or two when I get a chance where I posted links and stories about how active atheist groups are (annual conventions, magazines, TV, books, etc.).
I think everyone has the right to practice any religion, or no religion, and should be left alone to do whatever it is they want (within the confines of the law).
-
Texas is very religious, isn't it?
Yes, but Christ like...probably no different than anywhere else
-
Yes, but Christ like...probably no different than anywhere else
NYC is not like that.
-
NYC is not like that.
I mean yes religious.. christ like...no so much
-
You have a penchant for using a lot of words to say nothing at all. I prefer economy to gluttony.
Give it up wishy washy boy. "Gluttony"? What I serve is prime rib while you dish up shitloaf. Agnostic? FTN.
-
Act 24:15
"And I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."
-
Act 24:15
"And I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."
The resurrection of the wicked does not insinuate they will rise to eternal life with God, all still must be judged.
Daniel 12:2
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
-
Give it up wishy washy boy. "Gluttony"? What I serve is prime rib while you dish up shitloaf. Agnostic? FTN.
I checked you're recent posts out of curiosity. I've never noticed you before you chimed in this discussion with no positive contribution, just an unprovoked insult on one of the members of the discussion. Turns out I was unable to find ANY post where you actually contributed anything other than insults. You remind me of that old guy at the office, every office has one, where he is always negative, always chiming in with sarcastic comments, nothing positive to say ever, and never really adds anything meaningful to a conversation. I'd suggest counseling but you are too far gone to believe you need any professional help..(Vicious cycle I know) but in the interim, please go away until you think of something that actually contributes to a discusson.. ok?
-
I checked you're recent posts out of curiosity. I've never noticed you before you chimed in this discussion with no positive contribution, just an unprovoked insult on one of the members of the discussion. Turns out I was unable to find ANY post where you actually contributed anything other than insults. You remind me of that old guy at the office, every office has one, where he is always negative, always chiming in with sarcastic comments, nothing positive to say ever, and never really adds anything meaningful to a conversation. I'd suggest counseling but you are too far gone to believe you need any professional help..(Vicious cycle I know) but in the interim, please go away until you think of something that actually contributes to a discusson.. ok?
Would you like me to call you a Waaaaaaaaaambulance? I am positive where I think I should be and have been so in the past, that you were incapable of finding supportive evidence does not surprise me in the least. Get over it or get used to disappointment, young feller.
Here allow me to be "positive". I am positive that your mental age is somewhere centered around the age of puberty or thereabouts. ;) This would account for your inability to make up your mind (you are an agnostic, correct?) There... Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel better? I don't, but perhaps you do. Latter, kiddo. ;D
-
Would you like me to call you a Waaaaaaaaaambulance? I am positive where I think I should be and have been so in the past, that you were incapable of finding supportive evidence does not surprise me in the least. Get over it or get used to disappointment, young feller.
Here allow me to be "positive". I am positive that your mental age is somewhere centered around the age of puberty or thereabouts. ;) This would account for your inability to make up your mind (you are an agnostic, correct?) There... Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel better? I don't, but perhaps you do. Latter, kiddo. ;D
Thanks for making my point.. have a nice day. ;)
-
Thanks for making my point.. have a nice day. ;)
I'm trying. Thank, man! ;D
-
I'm trying. Thank, man! ;D
I have to retract my earlier statement. I was surfing GetBig in the G&O section and found a contribution from you.. my bad
-
Feel teh love :)
-
Feel teh love :)
I be all about de loves. Positively. ;D
-
I be all about de loves. Positively. ;D
;D
-
I be all about de loves. Positively. ;D
just not cool with any criticism right?
-
just not cool with any criticism right?
It depends entirely upon whether or not I think said criticism is justified or not. For example, criticism regarding Jim and Tammy Baker or any number of false witness, name it and claim it charlatans? Justifiable.
Criticism against the comedic genius that is Bill Murray in the landmark film, "Caddyshack"? Blasphemy. ;D
As would be criticism against the genuine teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
For the greater part (as I am only human and thereby subject to all that entails) I do not play favorites. Unless of course one would call what another holds to be true a "favorite". I have known more phony christians than real Christians and I lambast the former with equal vigor as I do any that come here and espouse lies about what the man Jesus said or belittle his teachings.
I think the tripe homohammed ejaculated upon the world in his fetid tome the Queeran is more deserving of their disgust, but most are too scared to speak against silicon schwartzs than against the Christ.
-
It depends entirely upon whether or not I think said criticism is justified or not. For example, criticism regarding Jim and Tammy Baker or any number of false witness, name it and claim it charlatans? Justifiable.
Criticism against the comedic genius that is Bill Murray in the landmark film, "Caddyshack"? Blasphemy. ;D
As would be criticism against the genuine teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
For the greater part (as I am only human and thereby subject to all that entails) I do not play favorites. Unless of course one would call what another holds to be true a "favorite". I have known more phony christians than real Christians and I lambast the former with equal vigor as I do any that come here and espouse lies about what the man Jesus said or belittle his teachings.
I think the tripe homohammed ejaculated upon the world in his fetid tome the Queeran is more deserving of their disgust, but most are too scared to speak against silicon schwartzs than against the Christ.
you sure hand down judgement pretty quick and show no mercy for what you consider to be bogus criticism.
No big deal, you flipped out so hard, it was kinda funny, just glad you don't mod the forum lol...
-
you sure hand down judgement pretty quick and show no mercy for what you consider to be bogus criticism.
No big deal, you flipped out so hard, it was kinda funny, just glad you don't mod the forum lol...
Oh, please. This little Matrix is so far removed from reality and yet you think someone that writes instead of simply types a reply has "flipped out"? I may not yet think highly of you but neither do I think you are ignorant.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to moderate a forum but I respect those that do. Thanks.
-
The resurrection of the wicked does not insinuate they will rise to eternal life with God, all still must be judged.
Daniel 12:2
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Yes, this is correct. However, the reason I pointed this out was due to the OP. Most professed christian organizations preach the idea that as of now, if one doesn't believe in Jesus they will go to hell. This isn't true.
However, like you pointed out, when this resurrection happens those people who come back that didn't believe will be given a second chance to do so. If they choose to not accept him then, that's when they will be destroyed forever.
-
that's when they will be destroyed forever.
Heh.
-
Yes, this is correct. However, the reason I pointed this out was due to the OP. Most professed christian organizations preach the idea that as of now, if one doesn't believe in Jesus they will go to hell. This isn't true.
However, like you pointed out, when this resurrection happens those people who come back that didn't believe will be given a second chance to do so. If they choose to not accept him then, that's when they will be destroyed forever.
I'm curious as to your belief on this, what exactly do you base this premise on, the giving of a second chance?
-
I'm curious as to your belief on this, what exactly do you base this premise on, the giving of a second chance?
I've never heard of this as well although I must say I think I would like it to be true.
probound, can you please post the scriptures you're basing this on?
-
I'm curious as to your belief on this, what exactly do you base this premise on, the giving of a second chance?
Acts 24:15 - "And I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."
After the battle of Amageddon, Christ will rule for the 1000 years. People will know who he is without a doubt unlike now. After the 1000 years rule by Christ, satan will be loosed from the 'pit' and will be given a chance to mislead people again. The bible says there will be tons of folks, whom, even knowing who Jesus is, without doubt, will still choose to go with the devil and his demons. Then Jesus will execute those people for good along with satan and his demons.
-
Acts 24:15 - "And I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."
After the battle of Amageddon, Christ will rule for the 1000 years. People will know who he is without a doubt unlike now. After the 1000 years rule by Christ, satan will be loosed from the 'pit' and will be given a chance to mislead people again. The bible says there will be tons of folks, whom, even knowing who Jesus is, without doubt, will still choose to go with the devil and his demons. Then Jesus will execute those people for good along with satan and his demons.
So when you say people will have a second chance are you mainly talking about people that are alive in their earthly bodies in the millenium and not those that have lived and died already?
Your Acts 24:15 reference shows that there will indeed be a resurrection..of both the wicked and the dead, but other passages show that these will be judged in different judgments as far as I can tell.
In your passage, Paul is pleading his case in front of Felix explaining that he was not guilty of the things the crowd was accusing him of, and in fact was a former Pharisee who believed everything written in accordance w/the Law and the prophets and also believed in the resurrection of the dead. ...just as they did...and so wouldn't be engaged in the things he was being accused of by the crowd.
I don't see anywhere in that area of scripture where he indicates that people will have a second chance to accept Christ as Savior after they die?
From what I can tell there will be a resurrection of all...and the believers will be judged in one judgment (Judgment Seat of Christ) and unbelievers in another (Great White Throne Judgment).
Rev 20:4-15
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
The Judgment of Satan
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The Judgment of the Dead
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
-
So when you say people will have a second chance are you mainly talking about people that are alive in their earthly bodies in the millenium and not those that have lived and died already?
No, the ones who survive the millennium (which will be all people who made it thru the battle of Armageddon) will be tested one last time by the devil, as evidenced by your scripture you quoted at the bottom in Rev. The bible says that there will be tons of those people who will turn away from God, and go back to being deceived by satan and his demons. At that point, God will destroy them and the devil with the demons. The show is over at this point. The ones who are not deceived will continue to serve God and be spared this everlasting destruction.
Your Acts 24:15 reference shows that there will indeed be a resurrection..of both the wicked and the dead, but other passages show that these will be judged in different judgments as far as I can tell.
Yes, I agree with you on this. During the 1,000 yr reign of Christ, the resurrection will occur. Those wicked ones who were resurrected will essentially be judged during this time, because they didn't show interest in Jesus before the battle of Armageddon. The righteous ones in that scripture, had already proved their loyalty to God before they died, hence, why they won't be considered to be judged during that time frame (1,000 yrs).
In your passage, Paul is pleading his case in front of Felix explaining that he was not guilty of the things the crowd was accusing him of, and in fact was a former Pharisee who believed everything written in accordance w/the Law and the prophets and also believed in the resurrection of the dead. ...just as they did...and so wouldn't be engaged in the things he was being accused of by the crowd.
I don't see anywhere in that area of scripture where he indicates that people will have a second chance to accept Christ as Savior after they die?
The second chance I'm referring too, is pertaining to the ones now. In other words, people who have died before Armageddon, whom didn't accept Jesus due to ignorance. However, after the 1,000 yr reign, and the release of satan and his demons to deceive the people whom have lived thru the millennium, there will be no second chance at this point. The bible says they will be destroyed with satan and his demons at that time for good.
This is the wickeds' second chance (living thru the millennium after they are resurrected). But the bible makes it clear that even then, there will be tons of people, that will allow the devil to deceive them, even tho, they know without a doubt God exist and what he expects of them.
-
:)
I wonder if some people truly truly would choose hell/separation from God for eternity and these are the people that God allows to go to hell. Even our faith (believers) is a gift from God, and since He knows the heart, perhaps the gift is given to those that would want to believe?
I used to agonize over the thought of anyone not going to heaven but reading many of the posts on this website I do think that some people may truly not wish to spend eternity w/God. It makes me think of bowl judgments in Revelation that are being poured out and men are still cursing God. Imo, the people going through that are not ignorant of what is happening but still curse God.
Atheist Matt Dillahunty (who says he is morally superior to God) says he wants nothing to do with God. Both he and Christopher Hitchens said they want to be eternally separated from God even if everything in the bible was proven 100% to them and verified completely.
-
:)
I wonder if some people truly truly would choose hell/separation from God for eternity and these are the people that God allows to go to hell. Even our faith (believers) is a gift from God, and since He knows the heart, perhaps the gift is given to those that would want to believe?
I used to agonize over the thought of anyone not going to heaven but reading many of the posts on this website I do think that some people may truly not wish to spend eternity w/God. It makes me think of bowl judgments in Revelation that are being poured out and men are still cursing God. Imo, the people going through that are not ignorant of what is happening but still curse God.
Atheist Matt Dillahunty (who says he is morally superior to God) says he wants nothing to do with God. Both he and Christopher Hitchens said they want to be eternally separated from God even if everything in the bible was proven 100% to them and verified completely.
If I may?
There are more than a few people out there that do not like being "made" to do something. Even being "told" to do something goes against our nature if you will. As I've said in the past, there is much good in the Bible, especially so in the words of the Christ, but...
Men and women will be who and what we are. How many times as a child were you told not to do something and even knowing you would be hurt or punished for the deed you went right ahead and did it? George Washington and the tale of him chopping down the cherry tree comes to mind - "I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the tree." In the telling (and reading) of this story it appears as though our first president was proud of both his act and of admitting to it.
People tend to rebel against authority, especially so when it is as autonomous, omnipotent, omniscient and "self evident" as God is purported to be. Jesus himself posed the question of would God, being so much more loving and benevolent than man, not provide for his children (ref. the parable on what parent would give their child a stone when they asked for bread, etc.)?
In a similar fashion I ask this question. What God would so hide from his children and still expect them to not only believe in him but worship him? If a parent hid from their children as does God, then I can assure you that said children would be given over to the state and placed elsewhere so that someone would care for them. I came to the conclusion that I could not make a leap of faith in two (or more) jumps. Especially since I saw no proof of someone waiting to catch me. ;D
But setting aside all that I can still say with more authority than most that if I were to follow any person's teachings it would be those of Jesus of Nazareth.
-
If I may?
There are more than a few people out there that do not like being "made" to do something. Even being "told" to do something goes against our nature if you will. As I've said in the past, there is much good in the Bible, especially so in the words of the Christ, but...
Men and women will be who and what we are. How many times as a child were you told not to do something and even knowing you would be hurt or punished for the deed you went right ahead and did it? George Washington and the tale of him chopping down the cherry tree comes to mind - "I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the tree." In the telling (and reading) of this story it appears as though our first president was proud of both his act and of admitting to it.
People tend to rebel against authority, especially so when it is as autonomous, omnipotent, omniscient and "self evident" as God is purported to be. Jesus himself posed the question of would God, being so much more loving and benevolent than man, not provide for his children (ref. the parable on what parent would give their child a stone when they asked for bread, etc.)?
In a similar fashion I ask this question. What God would so hide from his children and still expect them to not only believe in him but worship him? If a parent hid from their children as does God, then I can assure you that said children would be given over to the state and placed elsewhere so that someone would care for them. I came to the conclusion that I could not make a leap of faith in two (or more) jumps. Especially since I saw no proof of someone waiting to catch me. ;D
But setting aside all that I can still say with more authority than most that if I were to follow any person's teachings it would be those of Jesus of Nazareth.
Well of course you may LOL!!
In my humble opinion, the evidence for God is now most clearly found/experienced in a personal relationship with his son Christ Jesus. Never in my life has God made his presence known to me more so that when I humbly surrendered to his will. It's the crux of the debate, the missing variable in the equation, the undiscovered element, etc LOL!! A truly humble heart, one that desires to know the real God, is the best way to experience him (again IMHO). God doesn't hide from his children, his children experience him on a daily basis. It's those that don't desire to humble themselves, cast aside their doubts and fully surrender that don't experience him personally. So often I hear how narrow-minded Christians are. It's true, because Christ represents the narrow gate to salvation. Well articulated philosophical positions, peer-reviewed scientific concepts, etc....just kinda fall flat when you experience Christ for yourself. It's not that the philosophy and science isn't relevant, it's just that I've now experienced something that transcends both. I know now I'll never understand enough scripture, read enough philosophy, study enough science, present enough apologetic positions to convince some folks. My best friend, a man I've know since junior high, has witnessed the transformation in my life through Jesus Christ and even still he can't be convinced enough to reconcile his own heart and pursue his own relationship and we've known each other approaching 30 years.
-
Really like your posts MOS.
-
Question: "Do mentally ill people go to heaven? Does God show mercy to those who are mentally retarded, challenged, disabled, or handicapped?"
QUESTION: Hey, what about ants, do ants go to heaven?, I have always wondered if their was like a mini heaven, you know like a small one for insects - do you think that is silly?, or is heaven just for the more intelligent species? Thanks in advance ;)
-
Atheist Matt Dillahunty (who says he is morally superior to God) says he wants nothing to do with God. Both he and Christopher Hitchens said they want to be eternally separated from God even if everything in the bible was proven 100% to them and verified completely.
An atheist can't say he is morally superior to something they don't believe exists.
Having read the bible more than once, I too have a problem with the bible gods character and actions. To kill so many men women and children as the bible god is proclaimed to have done, to make rules about stoning and killing people for such sins as picking up wood on Sunday, and condoning the beating of slaves, to be a jealous god demanding our love or else be damned, I too would have a problem worshipping such a diety were it to exist.
-
its hard to take the Rom 6.23 literally because even an "innocent" child has sinned. we sin without knowing. I think we exist for salvation , we are given many chances to make up good ground.
God is more of a science to me. if i cuss you or belittle you that counts for something against me. But i can make up ground with good intentions. But it gets very confusing and hard to keep track, more than likely under strict ruling we are all in the "red" and should go to hell of varying degrees in order to be fair
who says everlasting life is a good thing or bad. there could be sinister undertones with that word, its difficult to interpret. What is "everlasting life"? "ever" "last"... but either way there isnt any-way out or even heaven
i wouldnt want to burden my god for accepting that he died for me, i would like to repay him if i could even if its not paid in full, i wish to do my best for god.
I think one is less likely to get into a heaven if they just beleived they are saved and do not let logic lead them to make good choices in life. But arguing from your point of view... i would add that alot of good choices are fueled by ego because i cant possibly know the perfect choices because im not the smartest person ever, so i can make bad choices thinking they are good..
so regardless our fate will be decided more with god and less with our decisions and decisions to simply accept him. In conclusion we arent sure what everlasting life is. what does that mean to you? Perhaps the words can trick you in the bible to thinking its all good but there are alot of things left out of the bible wich can only lead to a very permeable understanding of the true meanings. thus we shouldnt hold too tight to any beleifs and still do the right thing brother
-
its hard to take the Rom 6.23 literally because even an "innocent" child has sinned. we sin without knowing. I think we exist for salvation , we are given many chances to make up good ground.
God is more of a science to me. if i cuss you or belittle you that counts for something against me. But i can make up ground with good intentions. But it gets very confusing and hard to keep track, more than likely under strict ruling we are all in the "red" and should go to hell of varying degrees in order to be fair
who says everlasting life is a good thing or bad. there could be sinister undertones with that word, its difficult to interpret. What is "everlasting life"? "ever" "last"... but either way there isnt any-way out or even heaven
i wouldnt want to burden my god for accepting that he died for me, i would like to repay him if i could even if its not paid in full, i wish to do my best for god.
I think one is less likely to get into a heaven if they just beleived they are saved and do not let logic lead them to make good choices in life. But arguing from your point of view... i would add that alot of good choices are fueled by ego because i cant possibly know the perfect choices because im not the smartest person ever, so i can make bad choices thinking they are good..
so regardless our fate will be decided more with god and less with our decisions and decisions to simply accept him. In conclusion we arent sure what everlasting life is. what does that mean to you? Perhaps the words can trick you in the bible to thinking its all good but there are alot of things left out of the bible wich can only lead to a very permeable understanding of the true meanings. thus we shouldnt hold too tight to any beleifs and still do the right thing brother
If sin is death then everlasting life is an existance without sin enjoying an eternity of God's presence and divine, wonderful attributes. An eternity in hell would then be seperation from God and all those same divine, wonderful attributes. We understand the severity of our sin and the ultimate holiness of God and the incompatibility therein. God is essence of life and all that is good, righteous and holy and because of that "condition" sin has a penalty of death.....clearly shows the gravity of our sin as defined by God.
-
An atheist can't say he is morally superior to something they don't believe exists.
Having read the bible more than once, I too have a problem with the bible gods character and actions. To kill so many men women and children as the bible god is proclaimed to have done, to make rules about stoning and killing people for such sins as picking up wood on Sunday, and condoning the beating of slaves, to be a jealous god demanding our love or else be damned, I too would have a problem worshipping such a diety were it to exist.
You know man, I completely understand where you're coming from....I really do; although, a lot of these discussions often require that all important context. That context adds the necessary color that the generalized statements alone can't convey properly (unless a person is highly intuitive...which I am not). I'll address a couple of your examples:
The death of innocent women and children:
From a previous post 1 ==>
The Amalekites had hundreds of years to repent and they did not. Generation after generation of children grew to adults who were fully accountable for their actions and feel prey to the depravity of the generations before them. God stepped in and said enough. And yes the unaccountable 2 year olds lives were ended, but what about the fate of their souls? Their parents choose to rebel and defy God at every point in their lives. God is a god of second, third, fourth, fifth.....chances, but after generations lived and died and refused God's grace they chose to then spend an eternity without him. The 2 year olds you speak of can't make that choice and aren't accountable for their actions, but like generations before them they would've done exactly what their parents and their parent's parent and their parent's parent's parents did......separate themselves from God. God recognized the hopelessness in these people and the idolotrous, depravity they repeatedly chose. That said, he ended their unrepentant ways. The Amalakite children of that last generation, the unaccountable 2 year olds, God showed them mercy and grace because upon their deaths they entered paradise while those before them (accountable adults) remain separate from God (as they chose to be) for all eternity. If you don't believe all you see is death, if you do believe you see mercy, grace and love.
From a previous post 2 ==>
If children are not accountable for the difference between right and wrong, they can't be held accountable for a making a choice for salvation. None are more precious to God than the children and unaccountable children aren't banished to an eternity without God because they weren't saved like their accountable elders.
Luke 17:2
"It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. "
The babies and other unaccountables have no reason to repent and were taken to God's eternal kingdom upon their death.....another aspect of love and mercy.
Condoning the beating of slaves:
Excerpt from a saved link ==>
Does the Old Testament condone slavery?
Absolutely not.
The Old Testament speaks of slavery often, and lays out rules on how slaves were to be treated. This has caused some to become confused...but a basic understanding of the context for ancient near-eastern slavery shows that the Old Testament does not condone slavery. Let's look at some common assumptions:
ASSUMPTION #1: Regulating a behavior shows approval
There are 33 Bible verses (NIV) containing the word "divorce". Divorce is specifically regulated in Scripture, but does that mean that the Bible condones divorce? Let's see:
I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel...
God hates divorce. Why would He give specific instructions governing it? Simple: because divorce was a fact of life. Failing to provide practical instructions on divorce would be like pretending it didn't actually happen. Well, slavery was also a fact of life. Regulations for slavery should not be confused with the approval of slavery. The existence of regulations for specific behaviors is not the same as approval for those behaviors.
However, Assumption #1 is not relevant to the issue of slavery in the Old Testament. As we'll see, other faulty assumptions are at work:
ASSUMPTION #2: Slavery was involuntary servitude
Many incorrectly assume that the slavery in the Old Testament was like the modern western slavery of the 1700's and 1800's. Western slavery primarily benefited the rich, but Israelite slavery primarily benefited the poor. You see, slavery was almost always voluntary...the basic types of "enslavement" are known as self-sale, family sale, and indentured servitude. These relationships were usually initiated by the slave as a remedy for poverty.
Poor families would sometimes sell their children as slaves. Were this situation like modern western slavery, we could justifiably condemn the practice...but the reality is that this was of great benefit to the child.
Slavery contracts often emphasized that the slave agreed to work in exchange for economic security and personal protection. While modern western slaves were forbidden to own property of any kind, Hebrew slaves could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their own freedom...in other words, they were free to "buy out" the contract they'd made. They were also able to own property, pay betrothal monies, and pay civic fines. Slaves could appear in court as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.
Many ancient near-eastern slaves were able to buy time off as well, paying a fixed fee called a "quitrent" to their owner. This bought them a year where they didn't have to work. The amount paid was roughly equivalent to the average annual pay of a hired worker, regardless of whether he was free or a slave.
ASSUMPTION #3: Slavery was cruel and inhumane
While human nature tells us that abuse certainly must have occurred, the Old Testament forbids the cruel treatment of slaves. In fact, slaves were afforded the same legal protections as free citizens.
Leviticus 25 instructed Israelites to not mistreat slaves:
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
...you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
...you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.
Instead of being cruel and inhumane, the relationships between slaves and owners appear to have been, at the very least, respectful. Many slaves were treated much like members of the owner's family. Deuteronomy 15 has a very instructive passage regarding setting a slave free:
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.
Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do.
The personal rights and responsibilities of a slave were clearly more important than the owner's "property rights". Slavery was generally an economic transaction and not a human rights violation. As but one example, slaves were forbidden to work on the Sabbath and were expected to take part in social celebrations...just like their masters. It's clear that the slavery in the Old Testament wasn't like modern western slavery at all. Obviously, these slaves recieved great benefits from making such arrangements.
Assumption #4: It was okay to harm a slave
If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.
Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that Assumption #4 is accurate:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.
Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:
If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.
Assumption #5: Women were sex slaves
Women were sometimes sold into slavery (self-sale or family sale) as concubines. While westerners typically consider this the equivalent of being an involuntary sex slave, that's clearly not the case, as we read in Exodus 21:
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
A concubine wasn't held against her will and used for sex. She was a true wife, but a secondary or subordinate one. The phrase "marital rights" as well as those in Judges 3 give us insight into a concubine's life: the man who bought her is her husband, his father is her father-in-law, and so on. The practice of keeping concubines is related to polygamy and not to enforced servitude.
These relationships could hardly be considered negative. They let young women voluntarily escape poverty, offered them security and protection, and gave them upward social mobility in the home of a wealthy family. They were also safe from favoritism: if the man took another wife, she was afforded the same basic legal protections as any other wife: food, clothing, and conjugal rights.
Exodus 21:8 says that such women could not be sold to foreigners. The implication is that foreigners wouldn't recognize her personal rights as afforded by Israeli law, and so she could never be redeemed. This shows that a slave's personal rights were more important than a slave owner's "property rights".
Assumption #6: The Old Testament condones involuntary slavery
The Old Testament is clear in its position on involuntary slavery: it was punishable by death:
Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. Exodus 21:16
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 24:7
Involuntary enslavement was, according to the Old Testament, evil.
Assumption #7: The selling of slaves is proof of cruelty
The most common verse used for this claim is Leviticus 25:44...
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
The assumption here is that this sale would be against the slave's will. However, there's nothing in the Old Testament to bear this out. The Hebrew word from that verse that's translated "buy" suggests a transaction. Considering the Old Testament's view of slavery and the lack of contrary evidence, one could reasonably assume that these transactions were entirely voluntary.
The ancient definitions of freedom and slavery were more relative than absolute. Kings were masters and their subjects were slaves. Rulers subject to others (e.g. emperors) were slaves. Child adoptions were recorded as sales transactions, with the new parents being considered masters. Virtually any subordinate could be considered a slave. The modern definitions of freedom, slavery, property, and ownership don't adequately express the ancient reality.
For an example, read the 15th and 16th verses of Deuteronomy 23:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.
The implication here is that the slave belongs to a foreigner, but should be allowed to make a home among the Israelites as he pleases. If slaves were considered property, extradition would have been immediate...since the slave would "belong" to someone else. Extradition back to a foreign slave owner was forbidden, and we might safely assume that this had to do with the difference in how slaves were treated by other cultures.
Note as well the wording of Leviticus 25:46...
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...
While it was possible to will foreign slaves to your children, that was not the default. While it was possible to make them slaves for life, that was not the default. It's entirely reasonable to assume that the 'slave for life' clause would be based on the slave's wishes, as it would be for a Hebrew slave.
Assumption #8: Slaves were captured in wartime
During wartime, a city might surrender to Israel. It would then become a vassal state to Israel, and its people would be considered serfs instead of slaves. They would be expected to work on civic projects, as the Israelites did under Solomon's rule.
Considering the fact that such conscriptions included both Hebrews and foreigners, such serfdom would be entirely voluntary. The serf as well as the slave enjoyed the protection and prosperity of the community.
Conclusion
While the Old Testament clearly lists guidelines regarding slavery, it's clear that the type of slavery involved was overwhelmingly voluntary. Most relationships were either initiated by the slave or as an arrangement by the family of the slave as an economic and social benefit. Mistreatment of a slave was forbidden, and slaves were afforded most of the same freedoms and responsibilities as free citizens. The charge that the Bible condones slavery, as the modern western world understands it, is entirely without merit.
Jealous god demanding our love or else be damned:
Absolutely God wants us to love him with all our being, but that love pales in comparison to his love for us. It pales in comparison to his payment for our sin. You want to talk the death of a true innocent then consider Jesus Christ....the one without sin, the lamb worthy to be slain. He gave his life (and experienced a horrific death) as the ultimate payment for our sins. We neglect the severity of sin because we can only view it with human eyes.
From post above ==>
If sin is death then everlasting life is an existance without sin enjoying an eternity of God's presence and divine, wonderful attributes. An eternity in hell would then be seperation from God and all those same divine, wonderful attributes. We understand the severity of our sin and the ultimate holiness of God and the incompatibility therein. God is essence of life and all that is good, righteous and holy and because of that "condition" sin has a penalty of death.....clearly shows the gravity of our sin as defined by God.
At this time, that's all I can provide.....thx!!
-
It's a lot of information, and a lot of assumptions addressing assumptions.
I'm sure, giving the opportunity, Hitler would pose a similar argument as to why his actions were reasonable given "context". The bible CLEARLY condoned slavery and if God had one iota of problem with slavery he could have forbade it as easily as he forbade adultery, murder, worshipping other gods. Just my 2 cents.
-
It's a lot of information, and a lot of assumptions addressing assumptions.
I'm sure, giving the opportunity, Hitler would pose a similar argument as to why his actions were reasonable given "context". The bible CLEARLY condoned slavery and if God had one iota of problem with slavery he could have forbade it as easily as he forbade adultery, murder, worshipping other gods. Just my 2 cents.
My bad, it was a wall of text LOL!!
You seem to attribute the controlled slavery in the bible to that of say Civil War slavery....forced labor that would work some to death. This isn't the same situation. Also remember that the Israelites were delivered from slavery in Egypt. That was a clear example of forced labor in which people were worked to death. The slavery depicted among the Israelites is not forced servitude. This type of slavery was readily used a method for payment of debt when families owing a sum of money had no means to pay. In essence these men, women and children entered into an agreement with the lender to work off their debt, but they weren't in chains or working day and night with no rest. There did not exist a formal Human Resources center to protect the worker; therefore, God implemented rules for the ethical treatment of slaves (indebted workers with no other means but sweat to repay said debt). Some owners of slaves (debt lenders) would get out of hand and beat their slaves (workers)....this treatment wasn't tolerated and was punishable. No where in scripture does it say we are not to work for others....God wants us to work and work ethically. Sometimes the sweat from our brows is the only way to pay debt. People barter their physical services to this day. Again, this slavery is not Civil War based slavery...this is entirely different. Why would God deliver the Israelites from forced bondage and then institute forced bondage within their ranks? And no, the Hilter-context situation, again, the workcamps for the Jews was forced labor, torture, etc.....that relates to the Egyptian slavery God delivered the Israelites from. The rules for slavery are not about Civil War, Jewish workcamps and that tortorous, barbaric, hellish slavery. This slavery is about folks working off debt with their hands and being treated appropriately and fairly while doing so.
-
If sin is death ...
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If sin is death then everlasting life is an existance without sin enjoying an eternity of God's presence and divine, wonderful attributes. An eternity in hell would then be seperation from God and all those same divine, wonderful attributes. We understand the severity of our sin and the ultimate holiness of God and the incompatibility therein. God is essence of life and all that is good, righteous and holy and because of that "condition" sin has a penalty of death.....clearly shows the gravity of our sin as defined by God.
You know, I've been pleasantly surprised by your willingness to at least discuss the issue politely. I've always been curious about something; perhaps you can give me an answer:
According to Christianity (modulo differences between particular sects) what it boils down to is this:
God creates everything. Satan corrupts man, so God punishes man. Sin -- something we're supposedly born with, and can never escape -- pushes us away from God, despite the love that he has for us. Rather that simply snap his proverbial fingers and make everything right, he apparently decrees that "the wages of sin is death." Then stuff happens. And one third of the triune God sacrifices itself to another third of the triune God so that the "debt" that we owe God for our sin is paid off and wiped clean.
My questions are:
(a) WHY? Why all this insane complexity? If the Christian God is the God of love, as some parts of the Bible proclaim, why go through all this? He is all powerful, after all. If he's a vengeful God, as other parts of the Bible proclaim, why not simply destroy us and be done with it and go play with Humans 2.0? Why all the theater around us?
(b) Why require anything of us? If God loves us and wants to be with us, then why not just love us and be with us? Simply that. Why force us to go through some sort of test?
(c) If God knows that you will be a true believer and thus be saved, but I will be an atheist, who won't be, why create me to begin with so that I may end up <destroyed/annihilated/eternally tortured>?
(d) If he loves me so much, why not simply prove to me He exists? No need for Jesus dying or anything like that - a relatively simple proof would be all that was needed.
(e) What's with Original Sin? How can you have sin without volition?
-
The stock answer for (C) is that God did prove he existed to the Israelites and yet in Moses' brief absense, after they had witnessed the parting of the seas they still built golden statues and worshipped them because humans are weak people and will forget about God the second he is out of our sight..
-
The stock answer for (C) is that God did prove he existed to the Israelites and yet in Moses' brief absense, after they had witnessed the parting of the seas they still built golden statues and worshipped them because humans are weak people and will forget about God the second he is out of our sight..
Did you mean to say "(D)?" Wouldn't (C) be more Romans 9?
-
Did you mean to say "(D)?" Wouldn't (C) be more Romans 9?
Yep, thanks!
-
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
You know, I've been pleasantly surprised by your willingness to at least discuss the issue politely. I've always been curious about something; perhaps you can give me an answer:
According to Christianity (modulo differences between particular sects) what it boils down to is this:
God creates everything. Satan corrupts man, so God punishes man. Sin -- something we're supposedly born with, and can never escape -- pushes us away from God, despite the love that he has for us. Rather that simply snap his proverbial fingers and make everything right, he apparently decrees that "the wages of sin is death." Then stuff happens. And one third of the triune God sacrifices itself to another third of the triune God so that the "debt" that we owe God for our sin is paid off and wiped clean.
My questions are:
(a) WHY? Why all this insane complexity? If the Christian God is the God of love, as some parts of the Bible proclaim, why go through all this? He is all powerful, after all. If he's a vengeful God, as other parts of the Bible proclaim, why not simply destroy us and be done with it and go play with Humans 2.0? Why all the theater around us?
(b) Why require anything of us? If God loves us and wants to be with us, then why not just love us and be with us? Simply that. Why force us to go through some sort of test?
(c) If God knows that you will be a true believer and thus be saved, but I will be an atheist, who won't be, why create me to begin with so that I may end up <destroyed/annihilated/eternally tortured>?
(d) If he loves me so much, why not simply prove to me He exists? No need for Jesus dying or anything like that - a relatively simple proof would be all that was needed.
(e) What's with Original Sin? How can you have sin without volition?
Sorry, I've been sick for the last several days so I haven't been online much at all and my head is still a bit fuzzy, but I'm getting better today.
All good questions and I'm happy to answer as best I'm able so here goes LOL!!!
My questions are:
(a) WHY? Why all this insane complexity? If the Christian God is the God of love, as some parts of the Bible proclaim, why go through all this? He is all powerful, after all. If he's a vengeful God, as other parts of the Bible proclaim, why not simply destroy us and be done with it and go play with Humans 2.0? Why all the theater around us?
I can’t speak to the insane complexity piece because I’m not sure what is meant by insane complexity – maybe you can expand on that idea for me? Without adding too much language, God loves his creation and God wants his creation to choose him as he chooses his creation. When we consider the attributes of God we often choose love, grace, mercy, etc…..the easily digestible attributes. Although, jealousy, anger, justice, wrath and vengeance are no less divine and reconcile perfectly with the total character of God. References to God’s wrath, jealousy and vengeance aren’t capricious or unjust…they’re in response to acts of wickedness and unrighteousness. God has basically commanded us to love him with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. He has also commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. The theater around us we’ve created ourselves.
(b) Why require anything of us? If God loves us and wants to be with us, then why not just love us and be with us? Simply that. Why force us to go through some sort of test?
In my humble opinion, this life is about a choice to spend an eternity with God or an eternity without God…either option will be honored and all choices are individually based. Although, God takes no pleasure in the death of those that deny him. That said, it’s our sin that must be reconciled in order for any of us to align ourselves with the righteousness of God. The love of God and his desire to be with us is always there during our lives, but we must be willing, faithful, repentant and desirous in order to claim that ever-present love and relationship with God.
(c) If God knows that you will be a true believer and thus be saved, but I will be an atheist, who won't be, why create me to begin with so that I may end up <destroyed/annihilated/eternally tortured>?
If you’re asking me to take my finite, human perspective and use it to encapsulate God’s infinite perspective I’m afraid I’m going to fail miserably LOL!! It’s those qualities of finite perspective that leave many flat because it’s all we have at any given moment…right now is what we know about ourselves. Your stance as an atheist today may not be your stance in 5 years, but as of right now you’re an atheist. Did God know you’d be an atheist today? Yes…he’s God. Can I explain away God’s all-knowing divine qualities LOL? No I can’t. I do know that regardless of your stance today God did give us the freedom to alter our position. I also know that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. I’ll never be able to reconcile that transcendence. God didn’t create you to become an atheist and thereby reject him and spend an eternity without him. On the contrary, we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(d) If he loves me so much, why not simply prove to me He exists? No need for Jesus dying or anything like that - a relatively simple proof would be all that was needed.
God reveals himself to us in his living Word. God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. God has revealed himself through his creation. God has revealed himself through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself through the testimony of believers. Christ interacted with numerous people, performed miracles before them and some of that same audience rejected him despite the proof of his divinity directly in their faces. Or consider the testimony of a man that was dying in intensive care from massive blood clotting in his lungs due to complications from a thigh/knee surgery. This man that had once believed had fallen into depression and was considering suicide because of his condition; essentially he had become corrupted by demonic forces that used his vulnerability against him. During his intensive care stay at the hospital family and friends prayed vigilantly for him and in less than 3 days he was moved from intensive care and placed in progressive care despite every doctor and nurse telling family that the blood clot in his lung that he entered the hospital with was the largest they’d ever seen and could easily take his life at that time. During his stay in the progressive care unit this man threw his hands in air and surrendered to Christ in his hospital room. In that moment of surrender the Holy Spirit filled the room and from the point of his surgical thigh incision to the tips of his toes on that repaired leg (also full of blood clots) began to tingle and grow warm as though it was being invisibly wrapped. The next day family game to visit and upon the man’s father entering his hospital room the man’s father was struck with the presence of the Holy Spirit and noticed that his son’s face appeared somehow translucent as if he was surrounded by a covering. In time the covering faded, but the man was released from the hospital days later and made a full recovery and his life was transformed by the Holy Spirit. This was tangible, physical proof and something spiritual and transcendent that the man has shared with others, but more so it’s the work that’s been done is this man’s life that is truly great….he has turned from old ways and is a new creature in Christ. This is just one testimony of the transformative power of God.
(e) What's with Original Sin? How can you have sin without volition?
Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. I believe that those folks that are unable to make a conscious choice for God or for sin will be judged accordingly and justly. I do not believe they will be held accountable for wrong doing as they can’t comprehend the difference. God knows who we truly are on the inside and he also knows our thoughts and the motivations behind those thoughts and he will also judge us individually and accordingly.
-
Sorry, I've been sick for the last several days so I haven't been online much at all and my head is still a bit fuzzy, but I'm getting better today.
Glad to hear you're feeling better.
(a) WHY? Why all this insane complexity? If the Christian God is the God of love, as some parts of the Bible proclaim, why go through all this? He is all powerful, after all. If he's a vengeful God, as other parts of the Bible proclaim, why not simply destroy us and be done with it and go play with Humans 2.0? Why all the theater around us?
I can’t speak to the insane complexity piece because I’m not sure what is meant by insane complexity – maybe you can expand on that idea for me? Without adding too much language, God loves his creation and God wants his creation to choose him as he chooses his creation. When we consider the attributes of God we often choose love, grace, mercy, etc…..the easily digestible attributes. Although, jealousy, anger, justice, wrath and vengeance are no less divine and reconcile perfectly with the total character of God. References to God’s wrath, jealousy and vengeance aren’t capricious or unjust…they’re in response to acts of wickedness and unrighteousness. God has basically commanded us to love him with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. He has also commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. The theater around us we’ve created ourselves.
By insane complexity I mean why did God need to sacrifice himself to appease himself (in essence that's what supposedly happened according to the Christian Bible)? Do you not see how illogical and unnecessary this step seems? In a way it's no different than if I were to hand you a $10 with my left hand and ask you, point blank, "hey bro, can you can spot me $10?"
God makes something a "capital crime" (for lack of a better term). Someone commits this "capital crime." That person is guilty, and is cast out of paradise, has to work and eventually dies. All his descendants are also punished, and this goes on for a few millenia. Then God decides that he's changed his mind - somewhat. Rather than say "all is forgiven!" he splits himself into three, and allows one third of himself to be killed. This, somehow, appeases the other two thirds (or is it just the other one third?). Now rather that say "all is forgiven!" he decrees that we must each believe that the sacrifice of the one third has somehow cleansed us
and accept him as a savior. Still things aren't right - people will still die. After a few more millenia, he will return, fight evil, rule over us for a thousand years, then release evil again (what? why?) only to defeat it once and for all. Then all those who believe will live happily ever after.
Do you, seriously, not consider the above insane complexity?
(b) Why require anything of us? If God loves us and wants to be with us, then why not just love us and be with us? Simply that. Why force us to go through some sort of test?
In my humble opinion, this life is about a choice to spend an eternity with God or an eternity without God…either option will be honored and all choices are individually based. Although, God takes no pleasure in the death of those that deny him. That said, it’s our sin that must be reconciled in order for any of us to align ourselves with the righteousness of God. The love of God and his desire to be with us is always there during our lives, but we must be willing, faithful, repentant and desirous in order to claim that ever-present love and relationship with God.
First of all, it's not about choice. It can't be about choice. You admitted that God knew ahead of time that I would be an atheist today, and he knows if I'll be an atheist tomorrow, and the day after and so on. If he knows what I will do before I know it then I don't have free will to choose. Free will with a predetermined outcome isn't free will.
And why must our sin "be reconciled"? Why can't God say "aww shucks guys, I love you all so much that I can't stay mad at you! Come here y'all!"? Please don't hide behind your finger by saying you can't know what's in the mind of God. You can and should judge the kind of entity God is by his actions - or lack thereof.
(c) If God knows that you will be a true believer and thus be saved, but I will be an atheist, who won't be, why create me to begin with so that I may end up <destroyed/annihilated/eternally tortured>?
If you’re asking me to take my finite, human perspective and use it to encapsulate God’s infinite perspective I’m afraid I’m going to fail miserably LOL!! It’s those qualities of finite perspective that leave many flat because it’s all we have at any given moment…right now is what we know about ourselves. Your stance as an atheist today may not be your stance in 5 years, but as of right now you’re an atheist. Did God know you’d be an atheist today? Yes…he’d God. Can I explain away God’s all-knowing divine qualities LOL? No I can’t. I do know that regardless of your stance today God did give us the freedom to alter our position. I also know that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. I’ll never be able to reconcile that transcendence. God didn’t create you to become an atheist and thereby reject him and spend an eternity without him. On the contrary, we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that I die soon after typing this. I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as a personal savior etc; indeed, I die an atheist, who rejects the concept of the Christian God as logically incoherent. Now, let's assume that the Christian God exists and created humans. You have admitted that he knew I'd still be an atheist today, and you presumably agree that he knew I would die today. Leaving aside questions of free will for the moment, it's hard to escape the conclusion that when he created me, he knew full well I'd die 'unsaved' and be punished (whether the punishment is hell or eternal separation or whatever your particular belief calls for is not important).
You said before that God loves us. How is this love? Consider the love a parent has for a child. If God loves us at least that much, then doesn't it seem kind of incongruent that he wouldn't say "aww, I know this whole sin thing is punishable by death. But I love you so much that I can't go through with it. You're saved. Here are the keys to your new heavenly home!"
(d) If he loves me so much, why not simply prove to me He exists? No need for Jesus dying or anything like that - a relatively simple proof would be all that was needed.
God reveals himself to us in his living Word. God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. God has revealed himself through his creation. God has revealed himself through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself through the testimony of believers. Christ interacted with numerous people, performed miracles before them and some of that same audience rejected him despite the proof of his divinity directly in their faces. Or consider the testimony of a man that was dying in intensive care from massive blood clotting in his lungs due to complications from a thigh/knee surgery. This man that had once believed had fallen into depression and was considering suicide because of his condition; essentially he had become corrupted by demonic forces that used his vulnerability against him. During his intensive care stay at the hospital family and friends prayed vigilantly for him and in less than 3 days he was moved from intensive care and placed in progressive care despite every doctor and nurse telling family that the blood clot in his lung that he entered the hospital with was the largest they’d ever seen and could easily take his life at that time. During his stay in the progressive care unit this man threw his hands in air and surrendered to Christ in his hospital room. In that moment of surrender the Holy Spirit filled the room and from the point of his surgical thigh incision to the tips of his toes on that repaired leg (also full of blood clots) began to tingle and grow warm as though it was being invisibly wrapped. The next day family game to visit and upon the man’s father entering his hospital room the man’s father was struck with the presence of the Holy Spirit and noticed that his son’s face appeared somehow translucent as if he was surrounded by a covering. In time the covering faded, but the man was released from the hospital days later and made a full recovery and his life was transformed by the Holy Spirit. This was tangible, physical proof and something spiritual and transcendent that the man has shared with others, but more so it’s the work that’s been done is this man’s life that is truly great….he has turned from old ways and is a new creature in Christ. This is just one testimony of the transformative power of God.
Tangible, physical proof? Hardly. It's hearsay and personal interpretation of events with a good amount of fantasy thrown in. And don't forget: two can play that game. Why, I can quote the example of a man who swears that he was actually cured by another deity and who is quite adamant that his deity is not only real and quite different than your deity, but that his is the only real deity and yours is just a figment of your imagination.
Indeed, the whole point is that God doesn't provide any tangible, physical proof. He requires faith. Unfortunately, faith isn't a valid means of acquiring knowledge. Nobody every learned math, or physics or chemistry by faith.
(e) What's with Original Sin? How can you have sin without volition?
Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. I believe that those folks that are unable to make a conscious choice for God or for sin will be judged accordingly and justly. I do not believe they will be held accountable for wrong doing as they can’t comprehend the difference. God knows who we truly are on the inside and he also knows our thoughts and the motivations behind those thoughts and he will also judge us individually and accordingly.
That side-stepped my question. Why would the actions of one man taint all of us? How is it just for use to be held accountable for the actions of someone who, if he existed, had already turned to dust a few thousand years ago? Do you really believe that it is just to punish a child from the actions of the father?
-
Glad to hear you're feeling better.
By insane complexity I mean why did God need to sacrifice himself to appease himself (in essence that's what supposedly happened according to the Christian Bible)? Do you not see how illogical and unnecessary this step seems? In a way it's no different than if I were to hand you a $10 with my left hand and ask you, point blank, "hey bro, can you can spot me $10?"
God makes something a "capital crime" (for lack of a better term). Someone commits this "capital crime." That person is guilty, and is cast out of paradise, has to work and eventually dies. All his descendants are also punished, and this goes on for a few millenia. Then God decides that he's changed his mind - somewhat. Rather than say "all is forgiven!" he splits himself into three, and allows one third of himself to be killed. This, somehow, appeases the other two thirds (or is it just the other one third?). Now rather that say "all is forgiven!" he decrees that we must each believe that the sacrifice of the one third has somehow cleansed us
and accept him as a savior. Still things aren't right - people will still die. After a few more millenia, he will return, fight evil, rule over us for a thousand years, then release evil again (what? why?) only to defeat it once and for all. Then all those who believe will live happily ever after.
Do you, seriously, not consider the above insane complexity?
First of all, it's not about choice. It can't be about choice. You admitted that God knew ahead of time that I would be an atheist today, and he knows if I'll be an atheist tomorrow, and the day after and so on. If he knows what I will do before I know it then I don't have free will to choose. Free will with a predetermined outcome isn't free will.
And why must our sin "be reconciled"? Why can't God say "aww shucks guys, I love you all so much that I can't stay mad at you! Come here y'all!"? Please don't hide behind your finger by saying you can't know what's in the mind of God. You can and should judge the kind of entity God is by his actions - or lack thereof.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that I die soon after typing this. I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as a personal savior etc; indeed, I die an atheist, who rejects the concept of the Christian God as logically incoherent. Now, let's assume that the Christian God exists and created humans. You have admitted that he knew I'd still be an atheist today, and you presumably agree that he knew I would die today. Leaving aside questions of free will for the moment, it's hard to escape the conclusion that when he created me, he knew full well I'd die 'unsaved' and be punished (whether the punishment is hell or eternal separation or whatever your particular belief calls for is not important).
You said before that God loves us. How is this love? Consider the love a parent has for a child. If God loves us at least that much, then doesn't it seem kind of incongruent that he wouldn't say "aww, I know this whole sin thing is punishable by death. But I love you so much that I can't go through with it. You're saved. Here are the keys to your new heavenly home!"
Tangible, physical proof? Hardly. It's hearsay and personal interpretation of events with a good amount of fantasy thrown in. And don't forget: two can play that game. Why, I can quote the example of a man who swears that he was actually cured by another deity and who is quite adamant that his deity is not only real and quite different than your deity, but that his is the only real deity and yours is just a figment of your imagination.
Indeed, the whole point is that God doesn't provide any tangible, physical proof. He requires faith. Unfortunately, faith isn't a valid means of acquiring knowledge. Nobody every learned math, or physics or chemistry by faith.
That side-stepped my question. Why would the actions of one man taint all of us? How is it just for use to be held accountable for the actions of someone who, if he existed, had already turned to dust a few thousand years ago? Do you really believe that it is just to punish a child from the actions of the father?
I did read your response, but I'll have to respond tomorrow; unfortunately, I'm quite tired tonight (meds are knocking me out).
-
Glad to hear you're feeling better.
By insane complexity I mean why did God need to sacrifice himself to appease himself (in essence that's what supposedly happened according to the Christian Bible)? Do you not see how illogical and unnecessary this step seems? In a way it's no different than if I were to hand you a $10 with my left hand and ask you, point blank, "hey bro, can you can spot me $10?"
God makes something a "capital crime" (for lack of a better term). Someone commits this "capital crime." That person is guilty, and is cast out of paradise, has to work and eventually dies. All his descendants are also punished, and this goes on for a few millenia. Then God decides that he's changed his mind - somewhat. Rather than say "all is forgiven!" he splits himself into three, and allows one third of himself to be killed. This, somehow, appeases the other two thirds (or is it just the other one third?). Now rather that say "all is forgiven!" he decrees that we must each believe that the sacrifice of the one third has somehow cleansed us
and accept him as a savior. Still things aren't right - people will still die. After a few more millenia, he will return, fight evil, rule over us for a thousand years, then release evil again (what? why?) only to defeat it once and for all. Then all those who believe will live happily ever after.
Do you, seriously, not consider the above insane complexity?
First of all, it's not about choice. It can't be about choice. You admitted that God knew ahead of time that I would be an atheist today, and he knows if I'll be an atheist tomorrow, and the day after and so on. If he knows what I will do before I know it then I don't have free will to choose. Free will with a predetermined outcome isn't free will.
And why must our sin "be reconciled"? Why can't God say "aww shucks guys, I love you all so much that I can't stay mad at you! Come here y'all!"? Please don't hide behind your finger by saying you can't know what's in the mind of God. You can and should judge the kind of entity God is by his actions - or lack thereof.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that I die soon after typing this. I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as a personal savior etc; indeed, I die an atheist, who rejects the concept of the Christian God as logically incoherent. Now, let's assume that the Christian God exists and created humans. You have admitted that he knew I'd still be an atheist today, and you presumably agree that he knew I would die today. Leaving aside questions of free will for the moment, it's hard to escape the conclusion that when he created me, he knew full well I'd die 'unsaved' and be punished (whether the punishment is hell or eternal separation or whatever your particular belief calls for is not important).
You said before that God loves us. How is this love? Consider the love a parent has for a child. If God loves us at least that much, then doesn't it seem kind of incongruent that he wouldn't say "aww, I know this whole sin thing is punishable by death. But I love you so much that I can't go through with it. You're saved. Here are the keys to your new heavenly home!"
Tangible, physical proof? Hardly. It's hearsay and personal interpretation of events with a good amount of fantasy thrown in. And don't forget: two can play that game. Why, I can quote the example of a man who swears that he was actually cured by another deity and who is quite adamant that his deity is not only real and quite different than your deity, but that his is the only real deity and yours is just a figment of your imagination.
Indeed, the whole point is that God doesn't provide any tangible, physical proof. He requires faith. Unfortunately, faith isn't a valid means of acquiring knowledge. Nobody every learned math, or physics or chemistry by faith.
That side-stepped my question. Why would the actions of one man taint all of us? How is it just for use to be held accountable for the actions of someone who, if he existed, had already turned to dust a few thousand years ago? Do you really believe that it is just to punish a child from the actions of the father?
I did read your response, but I'll have to respond tomorrow; unfortunately, I'm quite tired tonight (meds are knocking me out).
By insane complexity I mean why did God need to sacrifice himself to appease himself (in essence that's what supposedly happened according to the Christian Bible)? Do you not see how illogical and unnecessary this step seems? In a way it's no different than if I were to hand you a $10 with my left hand and ask you, point blank, "hey bro, can you can spot me $10?"
God makes something a "capital crime" (for lack of a better term). Someone commits this "capital crime." That person is guilty, and is cast out of paradise, has to work and eventually dies. All his descendants are also punished, and this goes on for a few millenia. Then God decides that he's changed his mind - somewhat. Rather than say "all is forgiven!" he splits himself into three, and allows one third of himself to be killed. This, somehow, appeases the other two thirds (or is it just the other one third?). Now rather that say "all is forgiven!" he decrees that we must each believe that the sacrifice of the one third has somehow cleansed us
and accept him as a savior. Still things aren't right - people will still die. After a few more millenia, he will return, fight evil, rule over us for a thousand years, then release evil again (what? why?) only to defeat it once and for all. Then all those who believe will live happily ever after.
Do you, seriously, not consider the above insane complexity?
Well, I suppose when you put it in those terms it looks complex and odd; although, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross wasn’t about God the Son, God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice was for us. Christ, the lamb worthy to be slain, the one without sin became the perfect sacrifice and payment for all of our sin. Did he have to die? No. He could’ve called to his side any multitude of angels and destroyed the Sanhedrin, the Roman guard and the screaming crowd demanding his life be taken. Instead, he chose to sacrifice himself for you, for me and for everyone else and pay the debt for our sin thereby providing all who believe the gift of life.
I believe that Satan is released after the conclusion of the millennial kingdom so that those born during that thousand years can once again make a genuine choice to accept or reject God once and for all. Why a thousand year kingdom? I don’t know, but again he wants the choice to be ours.
First of all, it's not about choice. It can't be about choice. You admitted that God knew ahead of time that I would be an atheist today, and he knows if I'll be an atheist tomorrow, and the day after and so on. If he knows what I will do before I know it then I don't have free will to choose. Free will with a predetermined outcome isn't free will.
This idea assumes that God both knows all and influences your choices and that simply isn’t the case. God can absolutely be all-knowing and still give you the freedom to choose and honor you choices. He doesn’t influence your choice or predetermine it. Further, many will say “what’s the point of prayer if God knows all….why doesn’t he just do something about it?” Prayer isn’t about God’s benefit, it’s about ours. It’s about drawing closer to our God and developing our faith and trust in the Lord. We should seek God on a daily basis, confess our sins and continually seek to draw closer to the Holy Spirit so that we can more fully stand as representatives of Christ allowing him to work through us. I also believe that God can choose to intervene in our lives whenever he feels it appropriate; although, not at the expense of our freedom to choose. He may test us from time to time in order to help us draw closer to him, but these tests/trials/seasons won't compromise our choice. Further, I believe can make a square peg fit into a round hole if he so chooses. How does he do this? LOL, that I can’t say.
And why must our sin "be reconciled"? Why can't God say "aww shucks guys, I love you all so much that I can't stay mad at you! Come here y'all!"? Please don't hide behind your finger by saying you can't know what's in the mind of God. You can and should judge the kind of entity God is by his actions - or lack thereof.
LOL, well, for a believer God will basically say that about our sin provided we’re willing to confess our sins and repent of them. If I never disciplined my child and I continually allowed her to break dishes or get into Mommy’s purse and steal makeup and just said, “I love you honey so all is forgiven,” I’d be doing her a disservice by not requiring her to first recognize her wrongdoing. Parents that truly love their children look at their sweet little faces and still discipline them for their actions, educate them about what they’ve done wrong and then help them develop an appreciation for the difference between right and wrong and turn from that wrong. Again, it’s not about the development of the parent, it’s about the development of the child. God knows the contents of our hearts. He knows the motivations behind our actions and whether or thoughts are genuine and pure. If we approach him with a truly repentant heart we will be forgiven.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that I die soon after typing this. I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as a personal savior etc; indeed, I die an atheist, who rejects the concept of the Christian God as logically incoherent. Now, let's assume that the Christian God exists and created humans. You have admitted that he knew I'd still be an atheist today, and you presumably agree that he knew I would die today. Leaving aside questions of free will for the moment, it's hard to escape the conclusion that when he created me, he knew full well I'd die 'unsaved' and be punished (whether the punishment is hell or eternal separation or whatever your particular belief calls for is not important).
You said before that God loves us. How is this love? Consider the love a parent has for a child. If God loves us at least that much, then doesn't it seem kind of incongruent that he wouldn't say "aww, I know this whole sin thing is punishable by death. But I love you so much that I can't go through with it. You're saved. Here are the keys to your new heavenly home!"
Again, God wants us to choose him as he has chosen us. He takes no pleasure in the deaths of those that reject him, but he honors their choice to reject him. I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but C.S. Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'”
Tangible, physical proof? Hardly. It's hearsay and personal interpretation of events with a good amount of fantasy thrown in. And don't forget: two can play that game. Why, I can quote the example of a man who swears that he was actually cured by another deity and who is quite adamant that his deity is not only real and quite different than your deity, but that his is the only real deity and yours is just a figment of your imagination.
Indeed, the whole point is that God doesn't provide any tangible, physical proof. He requires faith. Unfortunately, faith isn't a valid means of acquiring knowledge. Nobody every learned math, or physics or chemistry by faith.
God reveals himself to those who believe and yes we must have faith; although, the man in the story is me and I have no reason to lie. I share because I want others to experience the love of God like I have.
That side-stepped my question. Why would the actions of one man taint all of us? How is it just for use to be held accountable for the actions of someone who, if he existed, had already turned to dust a few thousand years ago? Do you really believe that it is just to punish a child from the actions of the father?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to side step anything…I didn’t understand your question. You lead with a very general “What’s with original sin” and then followed up with “how can there be sin without volition”. I thought you were drawing the two questions into one concerning those folks that can’t make decisions for themselves because they’re simply unable. I threw in a bit of scripture for color, but addressed what I thought was your question.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," This is more in reference to learned, sinful behavior passed from generation to generation. It’s about the actions of parents that influence their children. For example, children that witness drug use by parents are likely to adopt those same sinful tendencies. Although, within that same book it states that, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." In essence, it’s up to each generation to draw a close to the learned, sinful behavior of the previous generation, but regardless we are individually responsible for our own sins.
-
Well, I suppose when you put it in those terms it looks complex and odd; although, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross wasn’t about God the Son, God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice was for us. Christ, the lamb worthy to be slain, the one without sin became the perfect sacrifice and payment for all of our sin. Did he have to die? No. He could’ve called to his side any multitude of angels and destroyed the Sanhedrin, the Roman guard and the screaming crowd demanding his life be taken. Instead, he chose to sacrifice himself for you, for me and for everyone else and pay the debt for our sin thereby providing all who believe the gift of life.
But why was a sacrifice even necessary? Remember, this "debt" is supposedly owed to God who then turns around and collects it from (in essence) himself! Why would God not say "all is forgiven! It is done!" and lo, our "debt" is paid. I understand that this might be a difficult question vis-a-vis 'not knowing the mind of God' but I'm sure you'll agree it's enough to give anyone pause.
I believe that Satan is released after the conclusion of the millennial kingdom so that those born during that thousand years can once again make a genuine choice to accept or reject God once and for all. Why a thousand year kingdom? I don’t know, but again he wants the choice to be ours.
The length of time is irrelevant to me. What I find interesting is the notion of "I'm here, I defeat evil and all is well. But wait! There's more. I have now let evil loose again for one more final battle." It just sounds like a UFC promotion, to me.
Now, I'll tell you why I don't quite 'buy' your answer (pardon the term)... If we assume God created everything and the Bible is truth, then clearly God intended for a certain total number of people -- let's call it x -- to be born. So, he could have achieved the same result (i.e. people "choosing" to accept or reject God) by simply postponing the Second Coming for a thousand years.
This idea assumes that God both knows all and influences your choices and that simply isn’t the case. God can absolutely be all-knowing and still give you the freedom to choose and honor you choices. He doesn’t influence your choice or predetermine it.
??? How can he "absolutely be all-knowing and still give [me] the freedom to choose"? Free will and omniscience are irreconcilable.
If God is omniscient then he unerringly knows what I will choose to do then my choice isn't free (although I might *think* that it is free - but that's not the same thing as actual freedom). If this is the case, nothing we do matters: we're puppets, moved by invisible string according to a script.
If, on the other hand, my choice is, actually, free, then God simply can't know what I will choose; ergo he isn't omniscient and omniscience is a key attribute of the Christian God.
Further, I believe can make a square peg fit into a round hole if he so chooses. How does he do this? LOL, that I can’t say.
That's an interesting choice of words -- you believe that he can do that. Belief is fine, and sometimes it can even be rational. But not always. While anyone of us could, given a big enough hammer, fit a square peg into a round hole, it is impossible to make a square circle. If you believe, contrary to logic and the nature of a 'circle' and a 'square', that someone can actually make a square circle, then there's really nothing else to say.
LOL, well, for a believer God will basically say that about our sin provided we’re willing to confess our sins and repent of them. If I never disciplined my child and I continually allowed her to break dishes or get into Mommy’s purse and steal makeup and just said, “I love you honey so all is forgiven,” I’d be doing her a disservice by not requiring her to first recognize her wrongdoing. Parents that truly love their children look at their sweet little faces and still discipline them for their actions, educate them about what they’ve done wrong and then help them develop an appreciation for the difference between right and wrong and turn from that wrong. Again, it’s not about the development of the parent, it’s about the development of the child. God knows the contents of our hearts. He knows the motivations behind our actions and whether or thoughts are genuine and pure. If we approach him with a truly repentant heart we will be forgiven.
That's an awesome example and I am glad that you brought it up. Unfortunately, it's not quite accurate. First of all, when a parent punishes a child in the manner you suggest, they do it personally and they usually explain why. God never personally disciplined you nor does he explain why discipline is necessary. Any discipline you will get from him directly, will come after you're dead -- when it's too late to change.
Second, you say that simply saying "I love you honey so all is forgiven" would be to do the child a disservice. But isn't that exactly what you claim the Christian God does? It doesn't matter what I do, as long as I accept Jesus Christ, all is forgiven.
Again, God wants us to choose him as he has chosen us. He takes no pleasure in the deaths of those that reject him, but he honors their choice to reject him. I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but C.S. Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'”
C.S. Lewis was great at wordplay. But there's still a lingering question: according to you God knows you'll be saved and I won't, before we were even "created." So he knowingly created me knowing I'd reject him. Why?
God reveals himself to those who believe and yes we must have faith; although, the man in the story is me and I have no reason to lie. I share because I want others to experience the love of God like I have.
I don't think you have a reason to lie - nor did I want to suggest that. I apologize if it came across that way. Nor am saying that the experience you had wasn't meaningful to you; please don't misunderstand. My point was that people interpret things based on their own personal beliefs and experiences. Someone who believes in eastern medicine or new-age stuff, might very well have credited unblocking the chakras, or releasing the chi or somesuch. Someone who was born and raised in a Muslim environment might have very well credited Allah. A Catholic might very well credit intercession by a Saint.
But not all those interpretations can be right. You are, by virtue of your belief, saying all those other people, whose interpretations of their own experience lead them to a different conclusion, are wrong. They might, very well, say the same about your interpretation. How can we tell who's right and who's wrong in this scenario? The answer is we cannot.
That's why personal experiences aren't useful in this context. You see a miraculous recovery. I see advanced medical knowledge and resources, good doctors and a bit of luck.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to side step anything…I didn’t understand your question. You lead with a very general “What’s with original sin” and then followed up with “how can there be sin without volition”. I thought you were drawing the two questions into one concerning those folks that can’t make decisions for themselves because they’re simply unable. I threw in a bit of scripture for color, but addressed what I thought was your question.
No worries - I didn't think you did it on purpose.
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," This is more in reference to learned, sinful behavior passed from generation to generation. It’s about the actions of parents that influence their children. For example, children that witness drug use by parents are likely to adopt those same sinful tendencies. Although, within that same book it states that, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." In essence, it’s up to each generation to draw a close to the learned, sinful behavior of the previous generation, but regardless we are individually responsible for our own sins.
Then we agree that it's "unfair" to visit the sins of the father on the children. But then how do you reconcile that with the "original sin" that is "inherent" in us because of Adam? That's why I mentioned sin without volition in the context of original sin -- we are supposedly born sinners, for something that we didn't do and was completely outside of our control.