"You're going to hell!"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2011, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2011 09:21 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
It's nice that you see the separation of Sheol and Hell S.T. It's widely believed that hell simply always existed so it's good to discuss the fact that this is more a point of Jesus' intervention. The need for "hell" is that after Jesus there is a separation of where the dead go o the general place needs a new name. I say you're spot on in this idea in context.

My opinion of hell is that from all I've gathered on the accounts of heaven I would prefer anything to the extreme boredom of heaven. I don't like being heavily restricted or forced into things. Heaven is not a place of free roaming as there are many things it is said people are expected to do. Yes I understand that upon entering the gates they are alleviated of their sinful selves and able to fully enjoy the role god intended, but that just means you die a second time when you go through the gates. There is nothing that suggests those in hell are separated from the selves they were in this world so if I want to actually exist I would need to prefer hell. I much prefer someone laughing at my misfortune than suggesting I'm free within mechanical actions. Of the concepts hell sounds like a more truthful existence.

You've discussed way too many things on top of the idea of hell, so it would take too long to mention everything. One thing I would like to point out is that no one (Secondly, and of more importance, He came , as I am sure most here know, for the purpose of one thing...to die in the place of sinners.) since there is no real reason for anyone to have certainty in discussion of a figure known as Jesus who was the son of god/messiah/prophet depending on which gospel we're discussing. Just mentioning that when you come in here even if you feel a strong conviction that what you believe in is true, remember that it's still not something you can hold complete certainty in. It's perfectly admirable for a person to have strong convictions as long as they can accept that convictions are not a demonstrable proof. (while this quote does not significantly suggest you meant it this way it seemed to push that way. So I'm sorry that most likely I'm discussing a misinterpretation of your words.)

And if this didn't seem obvious I'm discussing the idea of something not the actuality.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 09:07 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(31-08-2011 12:47 AM)Hunted By A Freak Wrote:  
(30-08-2011 03:46 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  So a belief in blind chance is highly rational.
Ah so that would make belief in design highly irrational...

Design requires intelligence, and every example of intelligence we have ever had requires a physical brain. Since there is absolutely no evidence that disembodied intelligence exists or is possible, then belief in intelligent design of the universe IS highly irrational.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 09:13 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2011 09:57 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(31-08-2011 08:06 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Could the "double think and double talk" be pointed out specifically?

Thanks,

S.T.

No, i'm not getting sucked into yet another futile line-by-line argument.
I can point it out generally:
If your god were as good as he's supposed to be, he wouldn't have made sin, Satan, Hell, hemophilia or HIV. If your god were as loving as he's supposed to be, he couldn't have come up with the horrid idea of redemption for one individual through the killing of another. You guys keep making out as how little, imperfect man has free will, and he is therefore responsible for everything that goes wrong in creation, while big, omnipotent, omniscient god is helpless to change the situation.
No matter how you juggle the OT and NT, no matter how you translate or interpret the stories, those fundamental concepts just won't fit under any rug.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
01-09-2011, 04:59 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2011 05:19 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  It's nice that you see the separation of Sheol and Hell S.T. It's widely believed that hell simply always existed so it's good to discuss the fact that this is more a point of Jesus' intervention. The need for "hell" is that after Jesus there is a separation of where the dead go o the general place needs a new name. I say you're spot on in this idea in context.

My opinion of hell is that from all I've gathered on the accounts of heaven I would prefer anything to the extreme boredom of heaven. I don't like being heavily restricted or forced into things. Heaven is not a place of free roaming as there are many things it is said people are expected to do. Yes I understand that upon entering the gates they are alleviated of their sinful selves and able to fully enjoy the role god intended, but that just means you die a second time when you go through the gates. There is nothing that suggests those in hell are separated from the selves they were in this world so if I want to actually exist I would need to prefer hell. I much prefer someone laughing at my misfortune than suggesting I'm free within mechanical actions. Of the concepts hell sounds like a more truthful existence.

You've discussed way too many things on top of the idea of hell, so it would take too long to mention everything. One thing I would like to point out is that no one (Secondly, and of more importance, He came , as I am sure most here know, for the purpose of one thing...to die in the place of sinners.) since there is no real reason for anyone to have certainty in discussion of a figure known as Jesus who was the son of god/messiah/prophet depending on which gospel we're discussing. Just mentioning that when you come in here even if you feel a strong conviction that what you believe in is true, remember that it's still not something you can hold complete certainty in. It's perfectly admirable for a person to have strong convictions as long as they can accept that convictions are not a demonstrable proof. (while this quote does not significantly suggest you meant it this way it seemed to push that way. So I'm sorry that most likely I'm discussing a misinterpretation of your words.)

And if this didn't seem obvious I'm discussing the idea of something not the actuality.

Hello LP, just trying to see if my post will go through. Thanks for the response, I would address it in further detail, but, at this point my posts are not going through, and unfortunately, I lost the response I made in the Hal thread.

I will just say this, in the hope that this might go through, that the believer can have evidence, and, I believe the non-believer can as well. My suggestion to those who do not believe in God is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the non-believer. Simply find a bible-believing church...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe scripture teaches will happen. God will speak to your heart.

As a former drug and alcohol abuser, as well as a heavy metal musician, many of the beliefs and sentiments that I see here mirror those which I myself held to.

Okay, wish I knew that I could post. Hope to get to these eventually,

S.T.
(31-08-2011 09:13 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  
(31-08-2011 08:06 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Could the "double think and double talk" be pointed out specifically?

Thanks,

S.T.

No, i'm not getting sucked into yet another futile line-by-line argument.

Whew! I hate those things (lol).


(31-08-2011 09:13 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  I can point it out generally:
If your god were as good as he's supposed to be, he wouldn't have made sin, Satan, Hell, hemophilia or HIV.

On this list, only Satan and Hell can be said to be created by God.

However, Satan was not made evil by God, but chose to behave the way he did of his own accord, thus, Hell was created as a consequence to his actions.

Is our government evil because they "created" prisons? Should those who rightfully sit behind bars be said to be products of the government?


(31-08-2011 09:13 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  If your god were as loving as he's supposed to be, he couldn't have come up with the horrid idea of redemption for one individual through the killing of another.

According to biblical doctrine, sin receives the penalty of death.

God's love extends to the point that His death is not just the redemption of one the the killing of another, but the redemption of all who will receive this gift, which is offered freely.

What greater expression could be made, that one would die in the place of another? How could that be thought to be horrible?

It isn't a matter of God making "someone else die in another's place," but He Himself took on the form of a man and died in the place of the sinner.

(31-08-2011 09:13 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  You guys keep making out as how little, imperfect man has free will, and he is therefore responsible for everything that goes wrong in creation, while big, omnipotent, omniscient god is helpless to change the situation.

That position has never been something I have said. Could we not first understand our individual beliefs before ascribing presuppositions?

God is able, to be sure, to keep evil from wreaking the consequences that come due to the wickedness of man.

Why doesn't He? I have no clue, just my opinion: God has through the course of history spoken to man in many ways, but at this time, in this Age, He has spoken to man through Jesus Christ.

That is the revelation man is to respond to. Rather than telling God how things will go.

(31-08-2011 09:13 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  No matter how you juggle the OT and NT, no matter how you translate or interpret the stories, those fundamental concepts just won't fit under any rug.

Neither can they be put under a basket.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 05:28 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 04:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I will just say this, in the hope that this might go through, that the believer can have evidence, and, I believe the non-believer can as well. My suggestion to those who do not believe in God is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the non-believer. Simply find a bible-believing church...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe scripture teaches will happen. God will speak to your heart.

As a former drug and alcohol abuser, as well as a heavy metal musician, many of the beliefs and sentiments that I see here mirror those which I myself held to.

Okay, wish I knew that I could post. Hope to get to these eventually,

S.T.

Been there, done that, proves nothing. I went even further, spoke in tongues and had "out-of-body" experiences as well. Proves nothing at all. Everything you are calling "evidence" in this context is nothing more than your subconsciousness supplying you with what you are expecting to see.

You are seeing what you think the scripture is promising because being in a "bible believing church" you are conditioned to see what they have prepared you to experience, an entirely internally supplied experience. What you feel and experience IS real, because it is you.

Try claiming some of the promises that scripture makes that requires external supernatural force. Pray for a mountain to be moved, or go into a hospital and pray for a critically ill patient to be healed, see how that works for you. They are biblical promises as well.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nontheocrat's post
01-09-2011, 05:31 AM
 
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 04:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  My suggestion to those who do not believe in God is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the non-believer. Simply find a bible-believing church...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe scripture teaches will happen. God will speak to your heart.

My suggestion to those who DO believe in god is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the believers. Simply find an evolution-believing university...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe science teaches will happen. Einstein will speak to your mind. Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 06:22 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  It's nice that you see the separation of Sheol and Hell S.T. It's widely believed that hell simply always existed so it's good to discuss the fact that this is more a point of Jesus' intervention.

I was highly disappointed when my response did not go through in the "Hal thread," and I just want to say first, thanks for the discussion.

I also wanted to let you know that I am a man, not, as it was thought in your first post, a woman.

In the case of sheol, we see phrases in scripture such as slept and gathered to his fathers in the Old Testament, which is really the basis for soul sleep. It is a fascinating discussion.

There is another place taught in scripture that you may or may not be aware of, and that is tartarus. This is thought to be a particular "holding cell" for demons that have committed grievous acts, enough that they are at this time incarcerated, before the judgment in which they will eternally be in Hell.

Just mention this because I thought it might interest you. It is seldom talked about, even in Christian circles.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The need for "hell" is that after Jesus there is a separation of where the dead go o the general place needs a new name. I say you're spot on in this idea in context.

Those who die today, in my understanding and position, go to this holding cell to await eternal judgment.

Luke 16 gives a picture of this.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  My opinion of hell is that from all I've gathered on the accounts of heaven I would prefer anything to the extreme boredom of heaven.

Very little is said about heaven in scripture. We see worship primarily.

However, in the eternal state, scripture tells of a new Heaven and Earth, and I believe that there will be a semblance to that which we have today, in which the beauties of this world will be even more beautiful.

The glorified body of the redeemed will be, I believe, not subject to matter as our current bodies are, but because they are spiritual/physical, I expect to be able to do amazing things, like fly. Imagine flying (really flying) like the birds, able to see great sights from the air.

Sounds like wishful thinking, but that is just my opinion of the glorified body.

Heaven will have worship of God, no doubt, but the idea that heaven will be a 24/7 church service does not do justice to God. Consider: in the believer's life today, there is a 24/7 worship in the spirit, but he does not reside in a church building all week. I believe it will be so in heaven as well.

In the Millennial Kingdom that is described in scripture, I believe that those who are resurrected before this time wil have access to both heaven and earth, even as angels do today. This is a personal belief and opinion, but...I do not expect to be bored in heaven, nor in the New Heaven and Earth (the "heaven" I view to be the sky, not God's realm).

(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I don't like being heavily restricted or forced into things.


No one does. That is just human nature. From our youth we are a rebellious lot, and few there are that would reasonably argue with that (lol). I am pretty sure my first word was "no!"


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Heaven is not a place of free roaming as there are many things it is said people are expected to do.

And this is what interests me: could you expand on what "people are expected to do," and where this information comes from?


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Yes I understand that upon entering the gates they are alleviated of their sinful selves and able to fully enjoy the role god intended, but that just means you die a second time when you go through the gates.

Not according to scripture.

It is like this (and forgive me if I sound like I am preaching, it is hard not to sound like that when talking about theological doctrine): Man is born separated from God. God reveals Himself to man. Man responds one way or the other. If He receives God's call, He is "spiritually resurrected," a recreation that is spiritual, whereby man can now understand beyond the "things of man (that which we can see, feel, et cetera, on a physical level)." When he dies, he goes into the presence of God, not because he was good, or did good deeds, but because of the fact that he has been changed from spiritually separated from God by his nature, to reconciled to God by God's own power. In the Rapture, all those who died will then be physically resurrected into glorified bodies (like that of Christ), followed by those who are still alive (who are also physically changed). There is no future death for these.

For the unbelieving dead, they remain in hades throughout the Millennial Kingdom, which lasts 1000 years, at the end of which time, they also are resurrected, and are judged.

Take note that this is my postion, not that of all Christians. Many of the points which I have made are disputed, such as some believe in soul sleep, annihilation, no Millennial Kingdom, et cetera.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  There is nothing that suggests those in hell are separated from the selves they were in this world so if I want to actually exist I would need to prefer hell.

If personality, or, what many call the "soul" is meant, that I also believe. I believe that the spirit of man is eternal, and while this is debated among Christians, I believe that men retain their individuality eternally.

By the way, I use "man" and "men" generally of the human race, and am speaking about both men and women.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I much prefer someone laughing at my misfortune than suggesting I'm free within mechanical actions.

God does not work mankind like puppets, but has given man freedom to "do that which is right in their own eyes."




(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Of the concepts hell sounds like a more truthful existence.


Fascinating statement. Is this to say that it is more plausible than heaven?


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You've discussed way too many things on top of the idea of hell, so it would take too long to mention everything.


lol...sorry, I am a windbag.

Respond to what you wish, I just appreciate the conversation, and I apologize for introducing too much, I have a bad habit of that.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  One thing I would like to point out is that no one (Secondly, and of more importance, He came , as I am sure most here know, for the purpose of one thing...to die in the place of sinners.) since there is no real reason for anyone to have certainty in discussion of a figure known as Jesus


Does this mean that Jesus as a literal historical figure is not believed, or just His role as Prophet, Priest and King?

Further on I understand what you mean, but I would seek clarification, that i might understand completely your thoughts about Him.

(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  who was the son of god/messiah/prophet depending on which gospel we're discussing.

In all of the Gospels, Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ/Messiah, and a Prophet. However, each gospel highlights a different perspective of Christ, such as John, which centers around His Deity.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Just mentioning that when you come in here even if you feel a strong conviction that what you believe in is true, remember that it's still not something you can hold complete certainty in.


I personally can, but I agree, it is not something I can transfer to others.

Understanding how God has communicated with man is part of understanding why God does not, as He did in the Old Testament, just appear before men and say "Here I am...do you believe now?"

Even in the case of Abraham, where we see God manifest in a physical human form in order to interact with Abraham (Genesis 18), we see that Abraham's faith was not fully realized because God spoke with him.

Just as in the case with Adam. God's physical presence in the Garden did not lead to complete obedience.

We live in a time in which the gospel has been given, and this is the means by which God speaks to man. Jesus foretold the coming of the Comforter, Who would convict the world of si, righteousness, and judgment.

When I came to believe, I was convicted of sin (my ways which previously I saw to be okay, I came to see as wrong), righteousness (I realized that those ways were far from righteous, and saw myself as something I myself detested), and judgment (I understood that if anybody was guilty and deserving of being judged...it was me!).

Even now, when I read scripture, I am continually learning that I am far from a good man, even in human terms. I have a long way to go. But the good news is that I have God's word that He will conform me to the image of Christ, and that He will finish the work He has begun. In the meantime, I just do the best I can with what I have to work with (lol).


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  It's perfectly admirable for a person to have strong convictions as long as they can accept that convictions are not a demonstrable proof.

I cannot entirely agree with that. I understand the premise, but I can see demonstrable proof in the lives of believers I know, who are transformed by God's word. I can see how my thoughts are far replaced from what they once were.

I know that it is thought that Christians merely read scripture and try to replicate what they say and teach, but apart from God, I do not believe this is possible in an internal ssense. Sure, we can see religious action in the lives of religionists, but when it is external, even the world can recognize that.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  (while this quote does not significantly suggest you meant it this way it seemed to push that way. So I'm sorry that most likely I'm discussing a misinterpretation of your words.)


No worries. I will clarify, though: I do not think that I can cause anyone to believe...scripture does not teach this. Salvation is wholly the work of God, namely, in this age, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in conviction.


(31-08-2011 08:33 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  And if this didn't seem obvious I'm discussing the idea of something not the actuality.


I understand. Thanks again for the response, wish I had time to redo the post in the Hal thread, but I am out of time this morning.

If the problem is corrected in that thread (very strange) I will reply.

Even now, a slowness is occuring that was not present when I began this post. Have to go,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 06:30 AM
 
RE: "You're going to hell!"
No response to my challenge?

I was afraid of that. Sad
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 06:36 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2011 06:39 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 05:31 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 04:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  My suggestion to those who do not believe in God is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the non-believer. Simply find a bible-believing church...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe scripture teaches will happen. God will speak to your heart.

My suggestion to those who DO believe in god is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the believers. Simply find an evolution-believing university...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe science teaches will happen. Einstein will speak to your mind. Big Grin

Is it thought that I have not examined the "evidence for evolution?"

I have. Perhaps not on a level that is taught in universities, but, I have seen enough to know that it does not seem rational.

But, I am a new earth believer, while there are many believers that try to reconcile evolution with creation. I don't have a problem with that. One of the teachers I admire was a believer in an old earth.

It is not an issue that I feel is a fellowship breaker...if that is what one believes, they have every right to do so. This is not something that is of soteriological importance, I believe, and I try not to get into debate about things I consider secondary issues.

I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?

I recently saw a documentary that said that "evidence" of man's descent was found in Africa, based on a skull. Now that is certainly evidence that cannot be refuted...right?

I saw a documentary about a snake that adapted from a mainland cousin given as evidence of evolution. I see it as adaptation.

I scanned through the thread dealing with the diversity of races, saying this was proof of evolution, rather than seeing that this stems from adaptation to climate and geography. Of course, that is just my personal opinion.

I see the latino people, and the great diversity among that one race alone, and what is the primary factor? Their location.

But, like I said, this test is available, to both sides, I admit. It is doubtful that either will accept the challenge, for various reasons, but that is okay.

As I said, evolution does not preclude a postion of belief or atheism, as there are those on both sides that believe in it.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 06:30 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  No response to my challenge?

I was afraid of that. Sad

Cheer up!

No need for sad faces...lol.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2011 07:12 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(29-08-2011 05:46 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(28-08-2011 09:55 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  Someone asks me...

"Do you believe in god?"

I say, "no".

They ask, "Then you don't believe in hell?"

My response, "no".

They may say, "What if you're wrong?"

I just say, "Then I will burn for a billion-billion years... But at least I'll be honest."

That usually ends it.

...and sometimes it doesn't (lol).

Hi guys, tried to post a minute ago and was timed out. I will try again.

As I said in my first post, I do not believe that I can change minds, as I believe only God can change a heart.

I was impressed at this post, in which the thought of burning for "billion-billion years" is nothing to worry about. Followed by the claim that this would keep them honest, and I would just ask, what exactly do those here know about the topic of Hell?

That is a sincere question. I saw on the home page the boast that those here knew the bible better than anyone that thought about "cluttering the walls" here, and this is a remarkable thing to me.

So, I am just curious to see this great knowledge. I can expect that there may be those here that "grew up in the church" but have since, despite their association with the church, have come to a better understanding and rejected religion.

I can understand rejecting religion, I do as well, and think it will be a far worse fate in store for the religionist.

But, just a few words to introduce myself, and to say I look forward to speaking with you guys.

Understand that I do not despise atheists, as I believe many have valid reasons to reject religion, and I would make it clear that I am not an advocate of religion.

I would ask, though, that serious conversation is sought, and I would prefer to speak to people that reject God who have a basic understanding of God's word.

Don't get me wrong, I will speak to all, but if one is an atheist based upon nothing, we will not have much to disuss, unless of course, you are willing to listen to me "ramble" while I try desperately not to "cluster the walls."

Have to go, just wanted to jump in and thought that Hell is actually a pretty good subject to start with.

S.T.

Hi S.T. , good to see you are having more success on this post. I'm enjoying reading your discussion with L.P.

Re..."what exactly do those here know about the topic of Hell?" Well....I can quote what "Jesus" said about hell, and what I think of "Jesus'" hell (Apologies to anyone who has read this before)

Jesus said,
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!...You blind men!...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matthew 23:13-34 NJB).
“Well then, just as the darnel is gathered up and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of time. The Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that provoke offences and all who do evil, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth” (Matthew 13:40-43 NJB).
“Next he will say to those on his left hand ‘Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’’’ (Matthew 25:41 NJB).

Jesus was undoubtedly convinced of the reality of hell. He seemed to get great satisfaction out of imagining people he disliked burning in agony for all eternity.
His threats raise four key issues.

Firstly, he would have had no need to threaten people with hell-fire if he had made a convincing case that what he talked about was fact. The very fact that disbelief would be met with punishment (argumentum ad baculum, or, literally an “argument with a cudgel”), is not evidence the belief is true. If Jesus had eloquently spoken what was obviously the truth, the crowds would have believed him. If he had actually performed miracles, there could have been no doubt he was the real thing. People weren’t stupid. It is obvious he resorted to threats after he’d failed to convince them.

Secondly, it is clear Jesus considered the love of the divine arbitrator was only granted to those who behaved in a certain way. Most people today would say that true, real love, such that a parent has for a child, is unconditional. Jesus portrays God as being in a relationship with man for his own satisfaction. If God doesn’t get what he wants he becomes a vindictive, evil tyrant who would burn people in hell forever, not something a loving father would do.

Thirdly, these quotes cause confusion in anyone trying to rationalize Jesus’ doctrine. Jesus advised people to love their enemies, bless those that curse them and to forgive seventy times seven times. He hardly set an example by threatening to burn people in hell forever!

Fourth, one wonders on what basis God made the decision on who goes to hell? Jesus claimed God will put sheep on his right, goats on his left. There must be borderline people with who God will need to decide what to do. He could put a gate in the fence and have some goats some days in heaven, some days in hell, or there could be some goats with two feet in heaven, two in hell. Perhaps God could turn the furnace on full for the really bad goats and on simmer for the not so bad? It is obvious these possibilities are not satisfactory.

There is no way churches can justify teaching hell to sensitive, innocent children. How can a child reconcile an all-good God with an intense feeling of fear of eternal damnation? Many adults have vivid memories of the fires of hell and the immense, unending, unendurable pain. This psychological bullying is child abuse.

Christians sometimes claim the individual actually makes his own choice by either accepting or rejecting Jesus. How sincerely must one “accept Jesus” to get into heaven, and how can one prove it? By praying to Jesus? Once? A thousand times? Does “accepting Jesus” excuse the Christian from heinous crimes he may have committed? What does rejecting Jesus mean? Not going to church on Sunday? Every Sunday? What about the person who has never heard of Jesus? Have they rejected him? The truth about this, the bottom line, is that “accepting Jesus” means accepting being told what to believe by someone authoritative from a church, and all the different churches have their own interpretations. Church people know how to create, then calm, a newcomer’s fears- mention hell and then convince him to embrace Jesus and comply.

In the past, the idea of hell justified terrible behavior by churches. It gave them a license to burn any helpless person they didn’t like, claiming they were just beginning on earth the roasting God was to continue for all eternity.

The whole concept of punishing people forever is immoral!

Our understanding of time has changed since the Bible was written. People living in 150AD would have thought 200 years was an eternity...we now understand mind boggling numbers like “trillions” and mathematical concepts like “infinity”. They didn’t.

But, churches still commonly use hell to control people’s behavior. It is quite rightly an embarrassment to many modern Christians, who choose not to talk about hell anymore.

(01-09-2011 06:36 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 05:31 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 04:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  My suggestion to those who do not believe in God is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the non-believer. Simply find a bible-believing church...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe scripture teaches will happen. God will speak to your heart.

My suggestion to those who DO believe in god is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the believers. Simply find an evolution-believing university...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe science teaches will happen. Einstein will speak to your mind. Big Grin

Is it thought that I have not examined the "evidence for evolution?"

I have. Perhaps not on a level that is taught in universities, but, I have seen enough to know that it does not seem rational.

But, I am a new earth believer, while there are many believers that try to reconcile evolution with creation. I don't have a problem with that. One of the teachers I admire was a believer in an old earth.

It is not an issue that I feel is a fellowship breaker...if that is what one believes, they have every right to do so. This is not something that is of soteriological importance, I believe, and I try not to get into debate about things I consider secondary issues.

I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?

I recently saw a documentary that said that "evidence" of man's descent was found in Africa, based on a skull. Now that is certainly evidence that cannot be refuted...right?

I saw a documentary about a snake that adapted from a mainland cousin given as evidence of evolution. I see it as adaptation.

I scanned through the thread dealing with the diversity of races, saying this was proof of evolution, rather than seeing that this stems from adaptation to climate and geography. Of course, that is just my personal opinion.

I see the latino people, and the great diversity among that one race alone, and what is the primary factor? Their location.

But, like I said, this test is available, to both sides, I admit. It is doubtful that either will accept the challenge, for various reasons, but that is okay.

As I said, evolution does not preclude a postion of belief or atheism, as there are those on both sides that believe in it.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 06:30 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  No response to my challenge?

I was afraid of that. Sad

Cheer up!

No need for sad faces...lol.

S.T.

Hi S.T., re "I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?" PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS QUESTION! If you are serious, you clearly have no real understanding of evolution. Please reread some basic textbooks. Oops...I forgot...you adamantly refuse to do that...you don't value scientists' theories when you have the bible to tell you how things are! Guess that explains your stupid question then, doesn't it!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: