"You're going to hell!"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2011, 12:46 PM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  To make matters worse the story suggests that what is wrong for them punishes the entire world.

I cannot explain as to why the Lord would allow this, except to say, even we as humans do not abandon something we wish to accomplish because we know there will be problems.

The best analogy I can use is the desire of some to have pets.

Despite the fact that we know that if we want to have a dog that there are going to be messes (literally), inconveniences, things chewed up, et cetera.

That does not discourage us from getting a puppy, though, does it? Even when we know in advance that these things will surely take place.

God seeks to create a people (Israel is an earthly picture of this principle), and His desire is to have a people that He can be in relationship with.

Just like when we decide to get a dog, most people will opt for a puppy. There is a similarity between that and God's creation of a people: and that is the relationship itself.

We could go out and buy a trained working dog, which will obey every command, do our bidding, et cetera. There might even be a relationship established between us.

But, it will not be like the relationship between a dog that has from a pup known only one master, and of course the illustration will break down as all illustrations must, but that is how I view God's desire for a relationship with us.

He wants us to love him because of that relationship, as in the case of the puppy, not because we have to, as in the case of the working dog.

And we can return to the parent/child analogy and admit that we would want our children to love us, not because we told them they have to, but because of the relationship, when it is right, they love us as a reaction...not a command.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Humans eat an apple: there is no longer a plentiful harvest and things must survive off of the sacrifice of each other.

I have a slightly different view on the Garden than most. It is assumed by many that Adam and Eve simpletons that had no awareness, that they were childlike. How that can be said of those who had a literal dominion over the earth I don't know.

When they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was an introduction of something that previously was not a part of their life. Eve saw that the fruit was "the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise," showing that she had an understanding of good.

However, the consequences of disobedience brought a knowledge of "good and evil" previously not known, and this was experiencing good and evil in their lives.

I believe she "knew" what good and evil" was, in the sense that she had understanding, but until she disobeyed (and this through deception), she did not "know" good and evil experientially, in the sense of intimate experience such as, "Adam "knew" his wife."



(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Humans lose sight of god: waters envelope the earth decimating everything that exists outside of that which is on a small boat (small in comparison to the world). There is no justification for a world punishment due to an action caused by a single entity, but this book suggests time and time again that everything is punished alongside any wrongdoer.

First, in regards to the flood, this is believed by faith just as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I will not attempt to prove the flood any more than I will attempt to prove God created the earth.

But, concerning everything being punished alongside any wrongdoer, that is something I can speak to. It is true that the fall of man resulted in the creation itself wreaking consequences. However, the flood itself was judgment that had with it mercy. I will not belabor the point that consequences of sin affect both lost and saved, the innocent and guilty. Beyond that, I will say that because I believe God to be sovereign over creation, it is not up to me to judge that which He has done.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Does a parent do these things?

Again, the analogy must be equitable, and I do not feel they have been. The first difference is that God is God, w are humans. I do not equate human parenting to the parent picture given of God as a Father. The differences themselves are significant.

And as to human parents, there are some wicked people in this world. Have you never heard of accounts of some of the things parents do to children? And would you overlook these actions, or would you cry out for justice for these children?

continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2011, 12:53 PM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Since you're confused by what I rejected here is an excerpt the random bible sourced is NKJV. Christianity killed itself in my view. no other religion was required.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is no claim to dominion for all things are alive and all things have the same claim to life. As I said, I would never accept something being over me it does not mean that I'm particularly important to myself, it just means that as I would not consider anything being over something else I will not accept it for myself.

You didn't discuss the fact that I mentioned all life was punished alongside man that was an important point.

I wasn't really asking your opinion about hell-spawn but discussing my circumstances. I used a particular (christian) opinion of my circumstances as emphasis. they are discussed again in a later post so I'll hope for a different response next time.

On the term god, a concept found in all races does not mean it is defined. I'm stating that we cannot discuss the term with you without understanding your personal definition of it, and it would be best if you actually had an impersonal definition as that could truly be shared with others. An intangible thought leads to only subjective conclusions.

No my discussion of hell is not based on the inferno I never even discussed ideas of hell that exist within the inferno, if you had read it you would know Dante does not discuss what we have. I'm simply stating that it was not a huge interest for me and giving the example of something about it that I did find intriguing. I do not agree with the opinions of Dante or refute his claims. I simply read his book and gained an understanding of what he felt.

Dante's Inferno describes his existential journey through hell guided by Virgil a Greek writer. In it he discusses the circles of hell, which is where people came up with the discussions of varying degrees of punishment. Outside of hell were the undecided who were quite tormented and shamed. The first level was for those of antiquity who did not know of christianity there the only thing lost was hope. After that each level goes to detailing a specific sin until you reach the end and see Lucifer himself trapped in ice. that is the inferno which I mentioned was the discussion of hell which most intrigued me. Not what I base my opinions off of.

I've met no christians who can really take the world as it is. None that I have talked with for a long period of time can proclaim that they feel a true nearness to god. Living on this plane makes them feel a separation no matter how sure they are because there is still bad both in themselves and in all that interacts with them. I state it as a separation from god because I've had it described that way by many of different christian views.

Adam and Eve exist for a few days to 2 weeks before being cast out depending on how you wish to read the creation story. During this time it doesn't matter what physical age they are they have not experienced enough to gain the definite concept of eternal punishment with their experiential brains. Just because they are shown to have adult forms does not mean they are not children.

God's justice is worse than the American system. The American system does not convict a man's son when he is sentenced to a crime. Generational guilt is a deplorable concept that is the sort of thing that leads to the wars in the middle east and our current white guilt discussions.

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
02-09-2011, 01:29 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2011 02:16 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  If you don't listen are you and your cat sent to your room? or does the cat get to continue doing it's thing because it had nothing to do with what you did? Few parents will even go so far as to demand that experience is not necessary for understanding. Some do, but there are always those who go too far. There is no reason that a simple mistake should have required the exhaustive actions the christian bible suggests.

One of the basic teachings of scripture is that God is God, and we are to obey His will.

The above analogy makes diminutive this teaching, and I reiterate that the bible is the source of my views.

To say that rejection of God's will is a simple mistake does not truly illustrate what scripture itself teaches, that it is not a mistake, it is a determined response, just the child warned that playing with guns is dangerous. And just like parents would not teach a child not to play with guns and then leave loaded guns on the coffetable, God also takes measures that death might be avoided.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You know how to forgive a sin? give the sinner a second chance. No need to go through all of these hoops just to do exactly the same thing anyway.

I don't quite understand this.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Why don't we look at the fact that many in the world are not in need of being retaught their lesson?

Could you explain this, again, not sure of the intent, so I will not comment until I do.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  This punishment of earth as many who look to the bible see it does not have a finite end.

That is why scripture should be understood if it is going to be criticized.

We are born in a state of separation, and God gives all opportunity to correct this. Hell is a consequence to a determined response, not a simple mistake, not that someone was inadvertantly not told the consequences.

I know this particular view of mine is not one that is received well even by other Christians, but it is a view that I base upon scripture, not just because I want to explain something away.

Scripture is clear throughout that "God is not willing that any should perish," this is just a basic principle.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You do not ascend when you have learned your lesson. You die at whatever point in your life you happen to die and are at that point judged on whichever opinion you currently hold.

This and the following would only be confirmed by those who believe that salvation is something that "can be lost," walked away from," or "taken back."

I believe firmly that salvation in the spiritual sense is a one-time event that scripture teaches nowhere is reversed.

Even as we cannot be unborn physically, we cannot be unborn spiritually, in relation to the new birth.

So all of the following will of course be in contradiction to my belief, and the only suggestion I can give is that one must first understand biblical teaching concerning salvation before using illustrations such as these.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  That is not learning that is taking a crap-shoot.

Those who feel that salvation is a "partnership" or endeavor that includes not just the work of the Cross, but is dependant upon man's effort to "retain salvation" that it might be lost will come to see it this way.

And I would not blame one for rejecting such a notion...I reject it myself. This demeans the death of Christ which was specifically for the purpose of doing what we could not: which is to be brought to a standing before God which allows the separation to legally be ended without violating the law itself.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Our opinions change quite frequently.

lol...mine don't, which some see as unfortunate. But I will agree that we can see things differently from that which we did once, which is where I get my interest in speaking to those who believe differently than me.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  What if a true believer dies in a moment of doubt?

"To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord..."

Scripture teaches consequences for believers as well as unbelievers. God will end the life of a sinning Christian at times, due to the sin in their life.

But salvation is not dependant upon being a bible scholar, for most are saved without having a thorough knowledge.

Christ commended the faith of children, which is a simplistic faith, such as most children do not have concerns that their parents will take care of them.

After salvation occurs, one thing I believe firmly: As God has commanded man to "raise up our children in the way they should go," He will not fail to do this very thing, which is to raise us up in the way we should go. God does not demand of people something that they cannot accomplish.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Does that condemn them forever due to the fact they happened to doubt at the wrong moment?

Absolutely not. Will a sinning Christian be judged? Yes. But, salvation includes deliverance from condemnation itself, and this is an entirely different issue than being condemned to hell. This condemnation is already in place due to our nature, which is separation from God. It is reconciliation with God that displaces us from being to condemned to delivered from condemnation.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  How about someone who has no interest in the issue dying at the one point in their life they start to attempt seeing this truth are they rewarded even though they never actually showed an attempt of trying to understand the lesson?

Salvation is just not so complicated. Condensed, it is something like this: man is separated from God, God reveals this to man as well as a belief that he is in need of saving, he makes a response to this conviction...he is saved. Simple as that.

It can happen just as quick as can be imagined. This I believe, because deep down I think that most of us are aware that there is something missing, something "wrong with us," something needed. When the holy Spirit convicts the heart, it becomes as apparent as dawn breaking the horizon.


(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  If there were really a lesson to be learned then there would be no need to continue punishing those who learn it.

Putting this in perspective, should we say to the murderer, "No need to go to prison, I think you have learned your lesson."

The general state of man is not an excuse for us individually to live as we want to. Society demands on a very basic level much that could be said of God. If one goes into a mall and shoots ten people, society will exact justice on this person. And every person that has committed such crimes did so because they disregarded the lives of others, and decided that they would do contrary to what would be ordinarily considered acceptable.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The idea of the earth created in genesis is that of a paradise which will last forever in which many creatures live in harmony.

I agree in part, but I am running out of time (about two hours ago...lol) and need to finish this up.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  If salvation is a return to that then people who correctly answer the test should be spirited away once they do.

Salvation is not a return to that here. Only in the eternal state will salvation reach its end (completion).

However, concerning our standing before God, in this life salvation was brought to completion in the sacrifice of Christ, that, when we die, because there is a legal obligation for justice, we will not have to die for our sin, for Christ has taken upon Himself the penalty of our sin.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Punishing the righteous is not right.

I can say that in an eternal perspective, only God is righteous. But I agree, punishing the righteous is not right, in my perspective. It is not right that One that was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners should suffer for things I have done, and wrongs I have committed.

But God in His love for the world, manifested in human form to take away my sins, and has promised not to remember them.

It is not right, but it is God's mercy bestowed upon man, upon those He loves, who do not love Him. I love Him, because He first loved me...not the other way around.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  When a man is convicted of a crime and sentenced to a life imprisonment. If, after the fact, it is learned that he never committed this crime then he will be exonerated. Why?

because he is not in need of correction. Any of our ideas on justice do not suggest that those who are correct need to be judged the same as those who are incorrect but the idea of life being a test with no determinable ending suggests the exact opposite.

Look at it this way. What about the one who is guilty, who gets off on a technicality?

He is deemed to be innocent. This is the standing of man before God when he is saved.

The illustration above seeks to emphasize innocence, but scripture teaches that all are guilty.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  There's a few statements on "god's" punishment. definitely fits into the threads overall theme. I'm not here to preach to you I just want to discuss. Hopefully you can take some time to think about what I say, because I do think about what you say.

This is one of the reasons I feel compelled to repond on a point by point basis, that it is clear that I have considered every word.

I have enjoyed the conversation, but I need to get going, I will return when I can, but this will be a busy weekend.

Thanks,

S.t.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Since you're confused by what I rejected here is an excerpt the random bible sourced is NKJV. Christianity killed itself in my view. no other religion was required.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is no claim to dominion for all things are alive and all things have the same claim to life. As I said, I would never accept something being over me it does not mean that I'm particularly important to myself, it just means that as I would not consider anything being over something else I will not accept it for myself.

Would it not be better to say that both: the "christianity of your parents" was not enough to lead to a belief and that it has already been admitted that this decision was made without a thorough understanding?

Concerning the above, would it be a hard decision for you if you were faced with choosing whether a man lived, or, perhaps your cat?

In all of creation is there an animal that man fears will take over control of the earth? Or are we reasonably confident that because we are different than they, we do not need fear being in subjection to them? I.e., "we need to keep an eye on monkeys, they are beginning to get smarter every day!"

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You didn't discuss the fact that I mentioned all life was punished alongside man that was an important point.

I did, but, in some of this, I am not sure waht the intent is or the answer sought. If it is a reference to animals eating each other as a result of the fall, I am aware of this, as well as the introction of thorns and thistles. As I said, I cannot give an answer for this, other than before the fall, God dwelt among men. After the fall, man wa separated from God...and the Garden.

Much conjecture could be offered, as well as opinion, but we have a limited amount of information to go on. It is like the issue of the death of animals given in place of the person for atonement for sin. We do not read specific instruction about it, but we see it anyway.

As far as man being separate from the animal kingdom, this is just how I see it. I love my dog, but if I had to choose between him and the life of a human, I would sacrifice my dog without hesitation, and though there would be remorse, I would not do otherwise, nor regret the decision. I would think it irrational to place an animals life on a par with a human's.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I wasn't really asking your opinion about hell-spawn but discussing my circumstances. I used a particular (christian) opinion of my circumstances as emphasis. they are discussed again in a later post so I'll hope for a different response next time.

Well, concerning personal lives, my intention is not to get involved in discussing lifestyles. I am inclined to see this as baiting, hoping that I will get into that argument. My interests are concerning salvation, not issues such as evolution, animal rights, or lifestyles.

My response was addressing condemnation of one person by another, when, I understand I have been called to the position of judge, but a position of witness.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  On the term god, a concept found in all races does not mean it is defined. I'm stating that we cannot discuss the term with you without understanding your personal definition of it, and it would be best if you actually had an impersonal definition as that could truly be shared with others. An intangible thought leads to only subjective conclusions.

I still do not understand what is being sought. Apparently this must be a "magic-bullet" question asked frequently here, I guess.

Perhaps if you could give an example of how one could give an undefined definition I might be able to adequately answer the question.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  No my discussion of hell is not based on the inferno I never even discussed ideas of hell that exist within the inferno, if you had read it you would know Dante does not discuss what we have. I'm simply stating that it was not a huge interest for me and giving the example of something about it that I did find intriguing. I do not agree with the opinions of Dante or refute his claims. I simply read his book and gained an understanding of what he felt.


Dante's Inferno describes his existential journey through hell guided by Virgil a Greek writer. In it he discusses the circles of hell, which is where people came up with the discussions of varying degrees of punishment. Outside of hell were the undecided who were quite tormented and shamed. The first level was for those of antiquity who did not know of christianity there the only thing lost was hope. After that each level goes to detailing a specific sin until you reach the end and see Lucifer himself trapped in ice. that is the inferno which I mentioned was the discussion of hell which most intrigued me. Not what I base my opinions off of.

I cannot recall commenting on "inferno" itself.

I thought it was more along the lines of merely pointing out what was said.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I've met no christians who can really take the world as it is. None that I have talked with for a long period of time can proclaim that they feel a true nearness to god.

Well, I can say that I do feel the presence of God. His presence is felt more when I am witnessing. But at no time do I feel He is not there, nor are there times when I have doubts to His existence.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Living on this plane makes them feel a separation no matter how sure they are because there is still bad both in themselves and in all that interacts with them.

Well, sure. There is a separation in the sense that we are not physically standing before the God of scripture. But that has nothing to do with His drawing near to us, and us recognizing His presence. Two entirely different issues.

I believe that sin in our lives affects this fellowship, and can cause us to "avoid" Him at times, but our standing and our fellowship are two different issues.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I state it as a separation from god because I've had it described that way by many of different christian views.

And from what it sounds like, it seems that it is thought that this must be true of all Christians.

It is a little presumptive, but, I see the same thing from both sides, so, no worries.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Adam and Eve exist for a few days to 2 weeks before being cast out depending on how you wish to read the creation story.

Scripture does not give a timeline for the amount of time man was in the Garden. This is only conjecture on the part of those who would insert this in the text.

Only Adam's physical life, which could include the time in the Garden, is given in concrete numbers.

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  During this time it doesn't matter what physical age they are they have not experienced enough to gain the definite concept of eternal punishment with their experiential brains. Just because they are shown to have adult forms does not mean they are not children.

So is it your belief that they were, as I said many believe...childlike?

(02-09-2011 12:53 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  God's justice is worse than the American system. The American system does not convict a man's son when he is sentenced to a crime. Generational guilt is a deplorable concept that is the sort of thing that leads to the wars in the middle east and our current white guilt discussions.

Why would we compare God's justice to man's?

And not compare man's righteousness to God's? Is there a man or woman alive who has lived perfectly? Yet scripture teaches that God ot only has not sinned, but is holy because that is His nature. Whereas man commits the evil he does because it is in his nature to do so.

One difference between God's justice and man's is this: man executes justice immediately, whereas God not only shows patience, but also gives man the option to be delivered from...the execution.

Need to get going, but it is hard for me to walk away from a conversation. I will try, though.

S.T.

(01-09-2011 10:33 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  That always bugs the rice out of me.

Excellent...that is funny!

I thought you would like it -- you and rice go hand in hand! Big Grin

[quote]


[quote='Zatamon' pid='43815' dateline='1314894820']
Without that definition, we might as well talk about the word 'tops' -- 'spot' spelled backwards.

Not sure exactly what point is to be made here.

I will give you a clue.

What is the name 'Spot' usually used for?

I recognized the slur concerning God's name, I just didn't see a need to dignify it with a response. I still ask, what point is trying to be made? Surely there is something there.

As far as "you and rice go hand in hand," I will have to yield to superior knowledge and ask that this be explained. This surely goes over the head of one as slow-witted as I.

Thanks,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2011, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2011 09:41 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 09:01 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T. , good to see you are having more success on this post. I'm enjoying reading your discussion with L.P.

Hi Mark, good morning. This will be my last post this morning, but I have a hard time leaving posts unanswered, so, I will do one more, then off to work I go.

Thanks for this response, as it directs conversation to the topic, and I appreciate your views being given.

HI ST, I HAVE REPLIED IN CAPITALS AS I'M TOO CONFUSED AS TO HOW TO QUOTE YOU. MARK



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

That He would derive satisfaction contradicts the very purpose scripture teaches for His coming: God so loved the world...

S.T., YOU ARE AVOIDING THE CENTRAL ISSUE...."GOD" IS THREATENING TO BURN PEOPLE FOREVER IN HELL....THAT IS NOT LOVE

I will try (try...lol) to limit my comments to yours.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

They were not threats, merely staments of fact. NO ....THESE ARE UNEQUIVOCAL THREATS.

"And of course I am giving my perspective from a position of belief, as well as one that views Jesus as God manifest in the flesh." TRUE, AND YOU ARE PLAINLY WRONG

The following argument that is presented I will address as I go:

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

"In New Testament doctrine, it the new creation that is evidence that belief is true. I would have to get seriously involved in explaining this through scripture, but here, I am merely addressing the statements of belief or non-belief depending on context."
YOUR STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AND MAKES NO SENSE.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If Jesus had eloquently spoken what was obviously the truth, the crowds would have believed him.

"We see that it was not just a matter of unbelief, but of rebellion".IRRELEVANT.

"We see the same thing in the wilderness with the children of Israel. They were in rebellion. In John 6 the "disciples" (learners of Jesus) believed as long as they were being fed and seeing miracles, but when the weightier meaning of Who Christ was was taught, it was rejected. You have to understand that even as today, man takes the word of God and conform it to what they want it to say, eisegeting the text, rather than finding what is actually there." IRRELEVANT

This was the error so vehemently rebuked by the Lord concerning the religgious leaders, who can be likened to the caricature that the media presents to the world today. IRRELEVANT

The Sadducees, for instance, did not have a belief in anything supernatural.WRONG. THE SADDUCEES BELIEVED IN GOD.

"The Pharisees took the word of God and added to them. An example of this last would be the modern thought that one must attend every sunday or they will go to hell, despite the fact that this is not taught by scripture, but is man's traditional teaching." THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.


I agree, they were not stupid, they were rebellious. OK...THINK ABOUT THIS. IF THEY HAD REALLY WITNESSED ALL THOSE MIRACLES THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REBELLIOUS! THEY WOULD HAVE NO DOUBT JESUS WAS GOD! GET IT? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT JESUS' MIRACLES?

Going back to the earlier concept mentioned, take the twelve disciples, who walked with the Lord and sat under His direct teaching: did they believe? Truly?

If you say yes I will have to disagree, and I can show in scripture that they did not.

Why? For the simple fact that they were not as yet born again, which is something that even my brethren (some of them) disagree with me about. But I am confident that not until Pentecost did they truly believe, meaning, they believed to the saving of the soul. YOU HAVE A POWERFUL IMAGINATION WHICH DOESN'T QUALIFY YOU TO STATE YOUR BELIEFS AS FACT.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Secondly, it is clear Jesus considered the love of the divine arbitrator was only granted to those who behaved in a certain way.


Just not taught in scripture. I'VE JUST QUOTED THE SCRIPTURE THAT PROVES IT. Some will go through the gospels and say, "See, Jesus is teaching good works for salvation, not belief!"

I am more than willing to discuss as well as debate that teaching.

Believe it or not, the number of Christians that truly "believe" on the name of Christ is very limited in this day. This is due to the teaching found in modern Christendom, which leads the one that relies on man's teaching to confusion.

But if truth is sought, God will do as He said, and lead and guide us into all truth. WHY THEN, ARE YOU AND OTHER CHRISTIANS SO AFRAID OF DISCOVERING TRUTH? YOU SIT AND PORE OVER SCRIPTURE, MAKE UP YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF IT (AD NAUSEUM), AND THEN CLAIM YOU HAVE DISCOVERED TRUTH. "TRUTH" IS DISCOVERED BY THE CONTINUAL EXAMINATION OF NEW FACTS, NOT RUMINATING OVER AND INTERPRETING ANCIENT DOCUMENTS.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Most people today would say that true, real love, such that a parent has for a child, is unconditional.

I would agree that the love of a parent is normally conditional (lets face it, there are some strange and unloving people out there), when conditions are normal. BUT I JUST SAID TRUE LOVE IS UNCONDITIONAL!

Now the heart of the argument that is presented here is that if God warns (seen as threatening) one of Hell, He is then charged as unloving, GLAD YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT thereby elevating the moral righteousness of man above that of God.HUH?

Scripture teaches this very thing.YEP!

Now, to put it in perspective, do we not raise our children with threats? "Look both ways before crossing the road!"

"Don't talk to strangers!"

"Don't stick anything into electriacal sockets or your ears!"

How unloving that is. NOPE. THAT IS LOVE. Who do we think we are, to threaten children thus? LOVING PARENTS.I mean, what's wrong with us anyway? NOTHING

A little facetious, I know, but think back to childhood. Can one of us not remember a time when we questioned our parent's wisdom? That we did not rebel against what they said? Iknow I can, and it led to drugs, alcohol, and, yes...rock 'n' roll.

I was threatened about what would happen if I messed with drugs and alcohol, but when I saw my friends do it, well, it couldn't be as bad as mom and dad said after all.

Right? YEP. PUNISHMENT CORRECTS WAYWARD BEHAVIOUR. ETERNAL HELL FIRE MEANS THERE IS NEVER A SECOND CHANCE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.


I would agree for the most part, just adding, "...for His own satisfaction and for man's good." YOU GOTTA BE TOTALLY DELUSIONAL TO THINK THAT BURNING SOMEONE IN HELL FOREVER IS GOOD FOR THEM!

Admit it: if there was a God and you could believe that, would you view the things He has in store for His children as bad things? YES! WHAT COULD BE MORE BAD THAN BURNING IN HELL FOREVER?

As far as God being vindictive, it goes back to there are consequences for wrongdoing.

It is true in the parent/child relationship, why would we not use this same illustration when considering the God/man relationship. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU? NO LOVING PARENT WOULD CONDEMN THEIR CHILD TO ETERNAL HELL FIRE.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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!


Not rationalizing, putting them in context. JESUS SAYS WHAT HE SAYS. YOU REPEATEDLY CLAIM SCRIPTURE IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD, AND THAT MAN'S INTERPRETATION OF IT IS FLAWED, YET YOU REFUSE TO TAKE IT AT "FACE VALUE" Syllogistic conclusions can usually be shown when doctrine is in error.

I cannot emphasize enough, nor cause one to accept...that man decides for himself, and the charge that God forces people to go to hell is unjust. YEAH, WELL...WHO'S GOING TO HELL THEN? NOONE! YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE STUPID TO CHOOSE HELL.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Fourth, one wonders on what basis God made the decision on who goes to hell?


He did not. And He does not. He has given His word, which states that only through faith in Christ (primarily that He died in my place) can man be reconciled.

This reconciliation did not occur until the Cross. Man was not resurrected (spiritually, the new birth) until Pentecost. We have to understand redemptive history as the progressive revelation to man that it is before we can put all these pieces together to find harmony in God's will.

When we approach it with a patch-work quilt theology (whether for or against) we are apt to misunderstand. S.T., YOU HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY BRAINWASHED BY THE SCRIPTURE YOU HOLD SO DEAR. PAUL MADE THESE IDEAS UP. JESUS AND HIS ORIGINAL DISCIPLES WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS AS BLASPHEMY. PAUL WAS CREATING A CULT, SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM THE ORIGINAL DOCTRINE, JUDAISM, AND YOU HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED INTO THE CULT.

THERE IS NO "HARMONY IN GOD'S WILL." THERE IS ONLY DISHARMONY TO BE FOUND IN THE JAUNDICED IDEA ONE HAS TO HAVE FAITH IN THE REDEEMING DEATH OF A JEWISH PEASANT TO GET TO LIVE WITH THE JEWISH BIG DADDY IN THE SKY FOREVER.




(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

There is not. There are the saved, and the lost. Look, I know this terminology is going to be offensive at times, BINGO! even as scripture teaches, but if we want to speak about what scripture teaches...we have to speak about what scripture teaches. YEAH, SCRIPTURE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY AN ANXIOUS OVERIMAGINATIVE SEXIST LITTLE WEAZEL NAMED PAUL.

And it clearly is a division between those who are separated from God, and those who are not.

I can't argue against a basis that denies this, but I can argue for what scripture teaches, keeping in mind my limitations also. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am seeing some pretty basic errors that cannot be said to represent the teaching of God's word. YOU KEEP GOING BACK TO SCRIPTURE AS THE BE ALL AND END ALL OF EVERY DISCUSSION. THIS IS A TIMELESS AND VERY BORING ARGUMENT THAT MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS HAVE USED OVER THE CENTURIES. YET YOU AND ALL THOSE OTHER CHRISTIANS FAIL TO ASK THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF ALL...WHO WROTE THIS BIBLE, WHEN AND WHY? IS THERE ANY GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IT IS REALLY "GOD'S WORD?" NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER PROVIDED THE SLIGHTEST SCRAP OF EVIDENCE THE BIBLE COMES FROM A GOD.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

This is natural, to want things to be as we want them to be. I speak generally, I am guilty of this at times. In some issues, because revelation is limited about some things, I have opinions that I hope are right, but I cannot know for sure, because I have to admit that it is opinion only, not something I can be dogmatic about. Mmmm......YOU ARE STARTING TO COME BACK TO PLANET EARTH.

One very basic doctrine of the bible is separation. Good from bad...et cetera. In this age, we have a picture of the Church, showing true and false side by side, growing in the same field, so to speak.

But when Christ judges, the tares are separated from the wheat. He does leave some darnel with the wheat at harvest. The harvest in most cases speaks about the end of the tribulation. NOW YOU'RE HEADING BACK TOWARDS OUTER SPACE

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.


I actually believe in differing degrees of punishment for the lost. God is just, and will reward according to works. PAUL WRITES THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN SCRIPTURE.

Not only is it a satisfactory (in the sense of plausibility of course) I believe it is taught. HUH?


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  There is no way churches can justify teaching hell to sensitive, innocent children.



We are commanded to teach the whole counsel of God, not just the nice things. This is one reason God's name is blasphemed among unbelievers, because of the failure of sound doctrine and practice. YOU'VE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD HERE MY FRIEND. God's word does not just speak to unbelievers, but pricks the hearts of every true believer, which is one aspect of the sanctification process. GROUND CONTROL TO S.T., GROUND CONTROL TO S.T., CAN YOU HEAR ME S.T.?

As I said, it is similar to teaching a child about the physical dangers of this life. How much more can we see instruction about eternal separation as the foremost important warning? I will agree that our approach in instruction is vital, and we need not scare our children, AH, BUT THE TEACHING DOES, though we do not fail to teach the whole counsel.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  How can a child reconcile an all-good God with an intense feeling of fear of eternal damnation?


The same way a child can reconcile his own parent chastising him for his wrongdoing. WRONG, THE LOVING PARENT ALWAYS GIVES A CHILD A SECOND CHANCE

The bottom line is this: it is assumed that teaching a child there is a hell equates to the child believing there is a hell. FAIRLY LOGICAL ASSUMPTION, WOULDN'T YOU SAY? I was well aware of hell as I grew up, though I did not grow up in a church. It did not scare me enough to worship God. Or to seek His righteousness. YEAH...YOU WERE REAL ENOUGH TO REALISE IT WAS BULLSHIT! WHAT WENT WRONG WITH YOU S.T.?

Why? Because I wanted to things my way, and believe what I wanted to believe. NO...YOU WERE JUST THINKING MORE CLEARLY WHEN YOU WERE A YOUNGSTER.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Many adults have vivid memories of the fires of hell and the immense, unending, unendurable pain. This psychological bullying is child abuse.


When taught to children in the manner some teach about the "boogey-man," I agree. MMMMMMMM. SO HOW DO YOU TEACH A CHILD THAT THE "BOOGEY-MAN" ISN'T THE "BOOGEY-MAN?"

But there is a right way of instruction, and a wrong. SEE ABOVE.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Christians sometimes claim the individual actually makes his own choice by either accepting or rejecting Jesus.


I affirm that belief, and can from scripture show this to be a sound biblical doctrine. GOOD ON YOU. THAT DON'T MAKE IT TRUE.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  How sincerely must one “accept Jesus” to get into heaven, and how can one prove it?


First, how can one accept Jesus if they do not believe? The problem is that knowledge does not equate to belief. AH...YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. CREDULITY EQUATES TO BELIEF. Many in churches around the world knowledge, but no belief. HUH? True belief evidences itself in the response of the "believer." AND DON'T WE KNOW IT. MILLIONS OF CREDULOUS CHRISTIANS HAVE AN INCESSANT NEED TO SPREAD THEIR DELUSIONS...THE BIBLE TELLS THEM TO.

And, one cannot prove it, God does. HUH? WHEN? WHERE? HOW? I know this will be scorned, but it is true. YEAH, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  By praying to Jesus? Once? A thousand times?


There is only one prayer that God will hear from us before conversion, and that is the prayer of repentance. BIG DADDY WANTS US TO GROVEL=CHURCH PEOPLE WANT US TO GROVEL. This will happen through God's work accomplished in this individual's life, as it is God that gives the ability to believe as is mentioned and asked about here. AH...NO....EVIDENCE GIVES US THE ABILITY TO BELIEVE. No amoutn of preaching, apart from the conviction of the Holy Spirit, will avail man anything. The good news is this: God desires to do this work in the hearts of all. YOU ARE REALLY SPIRALLING INTO OUTER SPACE HERE S.T. CHURCHES DESIRE CHRISTIANS TO SPREAD THE BULLSHIT TO GET MORE PAYING CUSTOMERS.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Does “accepting Jesus” excuse the Christian from heinous crimes he may have committed?



No. GLAD TO HEAR IT. MILLIONS OF OTHER CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITH YOU. Even Christians can fall into sin, though, I do not believe in the way that is implied with the following line of reason.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What does rejecting Jesus mean? Not going to church on Sunday? Every Sunday?


First and foremost it is the rejection of God speaking to the heart of the unbeliever. "GOD SPEAKING TO THE HEART OF THE UNBELIEVER"=CHURCHES SPREADING PROPAGANDA.

There will be many church-going folk in Hell. Because they did not seek God on His terms, according to that which He has spoken. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT ONE HAS TO BELIEVE IN SCRIPTURE, AND IN PARTICULAR ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL. HELL'S GOING TO BE PRETTY CROWDED S.T. YOU MIGHT BE LONELY (LOL)

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU THAT HELL IS JUST A THREAT USED BY CHURCHES TO CONTROL THE BEHAVIOR AND WALLETS OF THE GULLIBLE PUBLIC? THINK ABOUT IT!



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What about the person who has never heard of Jesus? Have they rejected him?

If one of these could step forward, please...lol. I HAVE MANY CHINESE FRIENDS WHO HAVE HONESTLY NEVER HEARD OF JESUS.

God has revealed Himself to all men. NO HE HASN'T. HE'S NEVER REVEALED HIMSELF TO ANYONE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T EXIST. Those who have never, in truth, heard the specific message of the gospel will be judged according to the revelation they do have, and there is not a person who does not have the revelation that God has placed in the hearts of man as well as in creation itself. YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP.

This usually offends the atheist,I'M NOT OFFENDED, JUST AMUSED but, I will say, this is my belief and I think it something that is taught in scripture. I will not argue the point.THAT'S A WISE MOVE S.T, BEST NOT TO ARGUE FOR THINGS YOU CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

Just not true. A man can be saved by his private reading of scripture. MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU HERE S.T. That is not to say that there are not people that God uses to bring the gospel message, this is very evident in scripture. AND EVIDENT IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY...THE CRUSADERS, THE INQUISITORS, THE WITCH HUNTERS, THE NAZIS


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Church people know how to create, then calm, a newcomer’s fears- mention hell and then convince him to embrace Jesus and comply.

This is a view that does not rightly describe evangelism, in my view. SO YOU DON'T THINK EVANGELISM IS ALL ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL OVER OTHERS THEN? DO YOU REALLY TRULY BELIEVE THE JEHOVAH WITNESS KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR ON SATURDAY MORNING CARES ABOUT YOUR WELL BEING? I DON'T THINK YOU'VE THOUGHT TOO MUCH ABOUT THIS S.T.

I will just touch on one part: scripture teaches that God, not "church people," accomplishes the sanctification process in the life of the believer. OF COURSE SCRIPTURE TEACHES THIS...IT WAS WRITTEN BY CHURCH PEOPLE (LOL)

It is the failure of many to understand this, and you do see many in churches who are following a pastor, or a teacher...not Christ. The primary failure is to understand God and His word personally, rather than being bottle-fed an hour or two a week. SO ALMOST EVERY PREACHER WILL TELL US OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY ALL SAY "WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE BIBLE, TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT, TO GOD'S WORD." THEN THEY (AND YOU!) COME UP WITH THEIR OWN VERSION OF WAHT IS AND ISN'T GOD'S WORD. WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT! AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS ALWAYS ALL ABOUT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO THINK AND DO. WHY? MONEY AND POWER. THINK ABOUT IT S.T. DO YOU REALLY THINK BENNY HINN, ORAL ROBERTS, BILLY GRAHAM, THE POPE OR ANY OF THE OTHER MILLIONS OF PREACHERS REALLY CARE ABOUT YOU OR WHAT YOU GET UP TO IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR BEDROOM? NO! THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN COMFORTABLE LIFESTYLES WHICH ARE FINANCED BY PROMOTING BULLSHIT.

This explains the slow maturation rate of many who are genuinely saved. SLOW BRAINWASHING IS THE REALITY. BEING "SAVED" IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HOOK USED TO GET YOU CONTRIBUTING TO THE COFFERS OF A CHURCH.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.


Their actions show an ignorance of sound doctrine. AH...NO...THEY WERE DOING GOD'S WORK.

An understanding of the First covenant in contrast to the New Covenant ratified by the blood (death) of Christ goes a long way in gaining insight as to why those who burned people at the stake were in all probablity not Christians. WRONG. THEY WERE DYED IN THE WOOL CHRISTIANS DOING GOD'S (IE THE CHURCHS') WORK.

But it this kind of "Christian" that makes the headlines of history, isn't it. YEP. Where is the mention of those that applied sound doctrine and application? Never hear about them being mentioned. YOU'RE PROBABLY REFERRING TO THE MILLIONS OF PREACHERS, NUNS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS THAT HAVE BRAINWASHED INNOCENT CHILDREN WITH IMMORAL BELIEFS OVER THE CENTURIES. DON'T WORRY. THEIR LEGACY LIVES ON IN THE MEMORIES OF THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE DAMAGED.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The whole concept of punishing people forever is immoral!

Is it immoral to put a murderer in prison? No. it is justice. YES , BECAUSE IT ACHIEVES SOMETHING POSITIVE. BURNING PEOPLE IN HELL ACHIEVES NOTHING. To see it as unjust or immoral is the most basic human reaction to the gospel...that man is just and righteous, undeserving of justice. WHEREAS IN FACT WE ARE ALL DIRTY FILTHY SINNERS IN NEED OF GOD'S GRACE, RIGHT? AND WHERE WILL WE FIND GOD'S GRACE? SURPRISE SURPRISE...IN A CHURCH!

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.


I disagree. I believe I hold the same beliefs that were taught in the first century. WELL...THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE NEW TESTAMENT DIDN'T FINISH EVOLVING UNTIL THE LATE 4TH CENTURY. This is an argument used by some Christians as well.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.


If the church you use to attend was like this, it is no wonder you left. Just don't think that I am controlled by a fear of Hell, my standing before God is of one who has been justified and has had this condemnation removed. I do not fear Hell.

I only fear for those I believe are headed to this judgment. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, BUT DON'T WORRY ABOUT ME THANKS. I'LL BE QUITE HAPPY TO NOT EXIST WHEN I DIE. IF YOU'RE RIGHT AND I END UP IN HELL I WILL CONSOLE MYSELF THAT I RESPECTED MY OWN INTELLIGENCE ENOUGH TO HAVE NOT BE A CREDULOUS SHEEP.



(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. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, AD NAUSEUM, NO GOD...EVER...SPOKE TO ME.

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
.I'LL SECOND THAT.

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. YOU HAVEN'T TRIED HARD ENOUGH BECAUSE YOU VERY OBVIOUSLY DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION.

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!

Actually, no, I was not being serious. It is just a thought that amuses me.

And, sorry my question was stupid...never said I was smart. Blush


(01-09-2011 07:15 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 06:36 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?

I believe this has been pointed out to you before: monkeys are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree.




Seriously, attitude to evolution is not my main problem with believers.

My main problem is that they can not define the words they are using (starting with the word 'god') on a solid epistemological basis.

All the definitions I have ever heard (and I have heard quite a few) are going around in circles.

I think you would agree that someone who can not define the words he uses does not make any sense.

So my usual response to proselytizers is "what the hell are you talking about?"

(I realize that 'hell' is also an undefined word, I just used it for fun).

I will hve to respond to this as a whole, there are some strange things occurring with my computer.

What I am talking about should not be too hard to figure out. Is derailing the topic at hand is sought, I am okay with that, but why one would want to discuss the Name of Someone they do not believe in is beyond me.

As far as my attitude towards evolution, I have said, it is a non-issue for me. If the text-books teach that monkeys are on a different branch and one wishes to subscribe to that belief...have at it, it doesn't bother me at all. That this is of critical importance to many atheists is not lost on me, but unfortunately, atheists are not the only ones that wish to show their superiority of knowledge on this issue.

You have books you use as a basis of belief, I have mine. The issue at hand is Hell, and the point raised is what exactly it is according to Christian belief, seeing there are so mny varied beliefs about this, mostly based on personal opinion, rather than scripture.

By the way...I love your rice.

(just kidding, I know you don't own a rice company, I just use this for fun)

And just so you know, I have an odd sense of humor, usually unrecognizable, leaving me to explain it. How sad is that...

Gotta go, fellas, I have enjoyed the conversation, though.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 07:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Human Lineage in a nutshell

Common ancestor ------->Humans
_______________\------->Monkeys

We share a common ancestor with monkeys just like you share a common ancestor with you 15th cousin. We did not evolve FROM them but alongside them. Just like you were not born as a product of your 15th cousing but grew up at the same time.

Hello BeardedDude, thanks for the info.

Would you mind giving your take on the subject of Hell?

I will be back when I can to see the replies, but hae to get to work...should have left hours ago, but the conversation has been great.

S.T.

PS-if someone could let me know where to find the thread "Five things Christians don't believe themselves" or something along those lines I would appreciate it. I saw it when logging on but have since not been able to find it.

Thanks, S.T.
[/quote]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2011, 07:22 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
First off that cat is getting saved. Life is life and it's all important. Whether my parents were strong enough believers or not wouldn't have mattered because I'm a very determined and deep thinking individual. You can presume whatever you like. after trying to find a better answer for me, my mom came up with a better answer for herself instead. Superiority is in no way a required question. When man was without complex tools he feared everything that lived, none of it was superior. Now man has complex tools and thinks it's the ruler of the world. It still fears mosquitoes. There is no reason to see a hierarchy when there is no need for one to be placed. Such things as control do not take great achievements they can be simple.

You're now really just discussing scapegoating which is a horrid practice gained by your book. The act of creating a prop which takes away your wrongdoings. There is no reason for sacrifice to lead to salvation and christianity stated this by suggesting that the only chance for salvation was after Jesus. Not because there needed to be an ultimate sacrifice but because the sacrifices were in vain. I will most likely refrain from arguments along this line or possibly stop talking to you due to your diminutive view of life. It is a big deal to me. My question though was what is the purpose of punishing that which in no way participated? The snake is punished for being possessed and everything is punished for a mistake done by something else. I hold life at a larger scale than you do and so it seems pointless to continue discussing this because you don't seem to see what I'm asking.

(02-09-2011 06:35 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You know how to forgive a sin? give the sinner a second chance. No need to go through all of these hoops just to do exactly the same thing anyway.
A single act was committed that made god feel humans were a sin, but the exact same experiment could be reattempted. Humans are experiential and they make mistakes. To state that a single mistake requires a world of sin for generations followed by a catastrophic flood followed by more sin and completed by a personal representation having itself killed for everything is going a bit further than saying You have upset me and I will make life a little harder and giving different rules and seeing what is done. An omnipotent being knows that humans as experiential beings will eventually seek and test out things. It's how they are made.

please don't worry about the idea of presumptuousness. People are presumptive due to their experiential minds. When they ask a question it is to check whether their preconceived answer is correct or not. It is impossible for the human mind to come up with a thought without at least a brief rationalization of the thought.

S.T. Ranger Wrote:We do not, as Americans, put law to the side because the offender is related to us (not supposed to, anyway). Neither does God set aside His law.

The warning was given, the instruction was given, yet by his own choice to rebel, our hypothetical drug dealer receives the consequences.

The good news, though, is that unlike the justice system in this world, God first implores the sinner to not take such a course, and actually stands in the place of the condemned, leaving them free from fulfilling the prison sentence.
I am comparing god's justice to man's because you are comparing god's justice to man's this was a response to you saying god's justice is better since after convicting you he will take the punishment on himself. This original discussion of parent/god was started by mark, but you went along with it. This would be an example of doubletalk.

S.T. Ranger Wrote:Well, concerning personal lives, my intention is not to get involved in discussing lifestyles. I am inclined to see this as baiting, hoping that I will get into that argument. My interests are concerning salvation, not issues such as evolution, animal rights, or lifestyles.

My response was addressing condemnation of one person by another, when, I understand I have been called to the position of judge, but a position of witness.

I have asked your opinions of these things because they are interests of mine. I have been very giving in discussing the bible with you though I state it is not a topic of serious interest for me. Extend the favor and let me know your opinions of these things. And as was said being intersexed is not a lifestyle it is something that is wholly apparent at birth I didn't choose it.

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
03-09-2011, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2011 08:14 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2011, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2011 09:33 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
"And of course I am giving my perspective from a position of belief, as well as one that views Jesus as God manifest in the flesh." TRUE, AND YOU ARE PLAINLY WRONG


[quote]

I am wrong, then I am wrong and will "blink out of existence like everyone else.

If I am right...


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']

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.
[/quote]

"In New Testament doctrine, it the new creation that is evidence that belief is true. I would have to get seriously involved in explaining this through scripture, but here, I am merely addressing the statements of belief or non-belief depending on context."
YOUR STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AND MAKES NO SENSE.
[quote]

It is relevant, but then, I am inclined to think that what I am saying is not even being considered in even a context of argument.

Thats okay.

The challenge is posed to "prove God's existence." I say that scripture teaches that those who reject Him cannot know the things of God. It is not until one honestly approaches God in a sincere manner, which cannot be done when one is in rebellion to Him.

The responses to my posts illustrate this. Whether God is real or not, whether scripture is truly given to man from God through inspired writers or not, at the very least, consider the arguments presented here.

I read that there are those here who "know the bible better than Christians," yet, it is that very thing I have sought to address.

All that has been offered are positions that are based, not on a reasonable examination of scripture, but on personal desires and theology offered by groups that I also challenge as having a wrested interpretation of scripture.

This is like saying that I can judge evolution by the uneducated assertions of those who believe in evolution.

But it is not surprising that this point is missed.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']

If Jesus had eloquently spoken what was obviously the truth, the crowds would have believed him.
[/quote]

"We see that it was not just a matter of unbelief, but of rebellion".IRRELEVANT.
[quote]

Not irrelevant.

The assertion is that "if Jesus was teaching truth...the people would have believed Him."

Consider: evolutionists say that evolution is true. They tell people. People do not believe.

Does this mean that this is conclusive proof that evolution is false?

What is amazing, though, further in this discussion Paul is pitted against Jesus, saying that they taught a different message. This shows a lack of actual scriptural familiarity, which can be shown by ezamining the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

I am said to be brainwashed, but I can point out something that if one is honest, they will be forced to admit: I doubt seriously that this statement was made based upon a thorough examination of the teachings of Jesus and Paul, but is a parroted sentiment derived from the doctrine taught by Secular Humanism.

And I am brainwashed? Lets be fair, here.

continued....


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
"We see the same thing in the wilderness with the children of Israel. They were in rebellion. In John 6 the "disciples" (learners of Jesus) believed as long as they were being fed and seeing miracles, but when the weightier meaning of Who Christ was was taught, it was rejected. You have to understand that even as today, man takes the word of God and conform it to what they want it to say, eisegeting the text, rather than finding what is actually there." IRRELEVANT
[quote]

Not irrelevant.

Either that, or you have supplied those who reject evolution with the "magic bullet" proof that evolution is false.

This example of the rebellion of man is just one of the very basic teachings that are found in scripture.

God could stand before men, speak to them, do miracles, fulfill any request...and man will, because of a rebellious nature, do that which is right in their own eyes.

In the wilderness, we are given the miracles of the provision of food. Despite this, despite the fact that they had seen Egypt plagued with incredible events, despite all that had occurred...they fell into sin against a God that evidenced Himself before them in great and mighty ways.

That is the relevance. Man will do according to his own will, unless the Spirit of God speaks to his heart. And when He does do so, sadly, man will more often than not...still cling to the desires of their own hearts, rather than obey.

I can speak to this personally, from my own experience. As the old saying goes, "But for the grace of God...there go I."


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
This was the error so vehemently rebuked by the Lord concerning the religious leaders, who can be likened to the caricature that the media presents to the world today. IRRELEVANT
[quote]

How is it irrelevant? Is it not more true to say, "Well, I just do not know how to answer this?"

Relevance: Christianity is judged by the spectacle and caricature of groups that claim to represent Christianity. The world sees these groups, and condemns Christianity, when they should, before condemning Christianity, have something to base their condemnation on.

We see the same thing from those who claim to be Christians, piling all atheists into the same category. I see this on Christian forums as well as expressed by those who are atheists, and both sides display their ignorance. Atheists because they do not know scriptural doctrine, "christians" because they...do not know scriptural doctrine. Or worse: they know it but DO NOT APPLY it.

Jesus Himself rebuked those who "represented" God. Why? Because they DID NOT APPLY what they knew, because they did not understand what they knew. (note-caps are not yelling, I am responding to this in wordpad due to the troube I am having with the forum, and I do not have the ability to italicize...so caps are for emphasis only)


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
The Sadducees, for instance, did not have a belief in anything supernatural.WRONG. THE SADDUCEES BELIEVED IN GOD.
[quote]

In the context of the conversation, the reference was directed at ghosts, angels, demons, et cetera.

But, you say they believed in God, can you show me in scripture where their belief is real? I can already tell you, scripture does not teach that it was, but the reverse...they worshipped in vain, because they KNEW NOT GOD.

This also is a basic principle that even the newest of bible students can recognize.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
"The Pharisees took the word of God and added to them. An example of this last would be the modern thought that one must attend every sunday or they will go to hell, despite the fact that this is not taught by scripture, but is man's traditional teaching." THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING
[quote]

Relevance: denial of Hell is based upon extrabiblical sources and misunderstanding of the purpose of Hell. This understanding that provides a fasle security to those who reject scripture as the very word of God given to man can be seen in the misunderstanding of the Sadducees themselves.

They rejected an afterlife. That is why they were sad, you see?

Address the responses with more than IRRELEVANT. It makes for very boring conversation.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
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.



I agree, they were not stupid, they were rebellious. OK...THINK ABOUT THIS. IF THEY HAD REALLY WITNESSED ALL THOSE MIRACLES THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REBELLIOUS!
[quote]

Okay, think about this: if I can look at proof about evolution, which I have, why is it that I do not see it as proof? In the mind of the evolutionist, it is unthinkable that such evidence could result in anything but acceptance of that proof. Right?

It is no different than the miracles Jesus performed. Because I see scripture as a record of historical events, I have no problem believing that the God Who created the earth could accomplish a task as easy as feeding five thousand people with what amount to "a basket of food." And still have many baskets left over.

When we go back to human nature, to say that man will, because he is so wise, live according to what he knows in his heart to be the right way, is just ridiculous. How many parents brought their children up to be drug and alcohol abusers, murderers, abusers of children...this list could go on and on, never lacking for the wickedness that man is capable of.

But many of these had proof that such actions would result in serious consequences and death. Did that change their course of action? No.

Why? Because despite the "proof" offered, it is just a general fact that man will do that which is right in his own eyes, and "don't you dare tell me that how I live is wrong!"

This is the nature that is separated from God.

continued...
Note-I will try to post in an older post to see if it will post.






[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']THEY WOULD HAVE NO DOUBT JESUS WAS GOD!
[quote]

Just not taught in scripture, either by the events, or actual statement.


[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']GET IT? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT JESUS' MIRACLES?
[quote]

It tells me that "proof" is not found in "evidences," because these miracles occur throughout scripture and are never said to be what saves.

This applies to the science of evolution, as well. To me, because I believe scripture records truth, I am amazed that God is rejected.

To the atheist, because they view scientific findings as true, find it incredible that those who reject evolution could reject such truth.

So what is the answer: some would say it is a matter of believing what we want to believe, but it goes beyond that on both sides. For the Christian, he cxan see evidences of salvation and relationship with God; for the atheist, he can see scientific evidences. As I have said, I have no interest in debating those issues, as seldom will anyone change their mind, despite the fact that many of them have such a limited knowledge of their "proof" a to not be able to sufficiently defend their beliefs with those evidences.

It has been repeatedly said that my statements are irrelevant, but I am at least defending the "proof" of my faith, by defending that which I base my faith on, namely what scripture teaches.

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']
Going back to the earlier concept mentioned, take the twelve disciples, who walked with the Lord and sat under His direct teaching: did they believe? Truly?

If you say yes I will have to disagree, and I can show in scripture that they did not.

Why? For the simple fact that they were not as yet born again, which is something that even my brethren (some of them) disagree with me about. But I am confident that not until Pentecost did they truly believe, meaning, they believed to the saving of the soul. YOU HAVE A POWERFUL IMAGINATION WHICH DOESN'T QUALIFY YOU TO STATE YOUR BELIEFS AS FACT.
[quote]

If it is wished to show that this is just the product of my imagination, we would first have to engage in discussion as to why I make this claim.

That would be better than just dismissing my defense of the charges levied against me.

Whether my beliefs are FACT or not is not the question, the question is, is there sufficient knowledge and understanding of scripture to actually dispute my beliefs?

And the answer is no.

If I say, "Well, a snake that has become black is not in my estimation a proof of evolution, nor is a deformed skull found in Africa either a proof," the burden is on the evolutionist to show me why my rejection of this proof is in error.

But I do not engage in evolution discussions very often, and I will not do so at this time. I simply await discussion concerning my belief that there is a Hell, what scripture says about Hell, and why my conclusions are wrong because my doctrine does not meet what scripture teaches. It has to be said, "Even though I reject scripture, it is obvious that scripture teaches..." Just like I could say, Even though I do not believe Middle-Earth to be a real place, clearly the book teaches that Frodo was a whiner."

[quote='Mark Fulton' pid='43759' dateline='1314881509']

Secondly, it is clear Jesus considered the love of the divine arbitrator was only granted to those who behaved in a certain way.



Just not taught in scripture. I'VE JUST QUOTED THE SCRIPTURE THAT PROVES IT. Some will go through the gospels and say, "See, Jesus is teaching good works for salvation, not belief!"
[quote]


You quoted a verse that teaches that salvation is by works?

Not hardly. This is a false doctrine that seeks to glorify man, not Jesus Christ. If righteousness had been possible, or could be possible through deeds accomplished by man, or obedience even to the Law of God...Christ need not have died on the Cross.

This is a very basic principle that is misunderstood by sincere believers and for gain falsely taught by false teachers.

These are they that creep in unawares into the hearts of those who do not have a solid grasp of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and are easily manipulated.

I look at false teachers to be by far a greater hindrance to the gospel than any atheist. One reason would be that the truth mixed with a little false doctrine is more readily embraced by many than the rejection of God's existence, seeing that God has given an internal witness to very man and woman of His existence.

It is like a drink that is poisoned...it only takes a little poison to kill, but if a full glass of poison is presented, few would fall prey to it.


continued...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2011, 10:03 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2011, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2011 11:48 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2011, 03:30 PM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Sorry if I'm missing something, but long topic. You talk almost as much as I do Tongue So, jumping in on a couple of points. Trying to keep it short, but I'm really bad at that.

(02-09-2011 12:46 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I cannot explain as to why the Lord would allow this

Then perhaps your current explanation for events is wrong? If I hear a crashing noise, I might think something fell off a shelf. So, I check my closet, the cabinets, the refridgerator, etc... and there's nothing on the ground. Everything is where it was, and where it should be. I check outside. No fallen branches, nothing on the ground that wasn't there last time I went outside.

But there must have been something that fell! I just cannot explain what it was, or why I cannot find it!

Or maybe, just maybe... nothing at all fell. And maybe, just maybe, the reason Yahweh's actions don't make sense, is because they're ascribed to an entity that doesn't actually exist. Maybe they're nothing more than divine plot holes.

Quote:except to say, even we as humans do not abandon something we wish to accomplish because we know there will be problems.

Of course. But do you know one of the really big differences between Yahweh and me? Yahweh is supposed to be all-powerful. A lot of christians don't seem to understand what this means. All-powerful means possessing all possible powers. All of them. Creating a world where everything goes exactly as he wants is one of the many powers contained in the set of 'all powers'.

I go skiing, acknowledging that sometimes I'll hurt myself, or get stuck on chairlifts for 10 minutes. I do it because the benefits outweigh the problems. But Yahweh doesn't have to settle for second best. He knows everything, and he can do everything. Things should go exactly the way he wants every single time. With no deviations. Not a single electron out of place. For Yahweh to do something, knowing there will be problems, doesn't make sense. Either he desires those bumps in the road (And considering some of those bumps are vast human suffering, that would make him evil), or he is an utter fool for forgetting that he can fix the problems with less than a wave of his hand.

I cannot comprehend how difficult it is for Christians to forget what all-powerful means. It's not a complex or subtle word. It means Yahweh can do ANYTHING. Period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: