Another Hell Thread

[Ouroboros]

Good is a part of God's very character. It is not something he had to create. It is his very being. So things that are not of God are evil.

Evil is eternal, and good is not. Good is just the absence of evil.

 

Satan created the world, and Yahweh rebelled and created evil by disobeying the ultimate evil power. So good was created by Yahweh as the no-evil, or anti-evil. But good doesn't exist, it's just the nothing of evil.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

You lost me with the religion situation. As to your driving analogy, I disagree obviously with your contention that the imaginary danger is imaginary, when in fact for those who are without Jesus very much not.

So you disagree that imaginary danger is imaginary? Perfect Christian logic in action.

 

The fact that I think you are incorrect in calling Hell imaginary by saying that I think it isn't. Yeah, your right, it is pretty good logic. You say not A, I say A. Works for me.

You said "I disagree ... that the imaginary danger is imaginary..."

 

So imaginary danger to you is real danger. Imaginary is real. What's so wrong with me laughing at that statement of yours? You admit that your imagination is real to you. Fantasy is real to you. What your mind makes up is real to you. That's what you say in your statement, isn't it?

 

To be honest, I'm sure that some of my reasoning was based on not wanting to go to Hell. I think over time as one is sanctified though you learn more about the Gospel, and what God did for you. As that happens, love grows. I realize now more than before that God deserves worship because of who he is, not what he has done for me. Certainly what he has done for me speaks of who he is, and that plays into it as well.

What is God? You say he's worthy of worship because of what he is, so what is he?

[walkthehawk]

Funny, but I don't recall the Isrealites of the OT having a different view of Adam and Eve than we do. So could you explain to me how the OT people (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc) felt differently about Adam/Eve and original sin than Christians do?

See this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

 

Ok honestly, you rip on me about the Bible, and you give me a wiki page!?!

 

On top of that, here below is all the parts of that site that talked about how Jews felt differently about Adam, Eve, and original sin:

 

 

...

 

 

Hmmm...

[Deva]

Funny, but I don't recall the Isrealites of the OT having a different view of Adam and Eve than we do. So could you explain to me how the OT people (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc) felt differently about Adam/Eve and original sin than Christians do?

See this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

 

Ok honestly, you rip on me about the Bible, and you give me a wiki page!?!

 

On top of that, here below is all the parts of that site that talked about how Jews felt differently about Adam, Eve, and original sin:

 

 

...

 

 

Hmmm...

 

 

OK genius, cut the comedy act. You have got a lot of nerve coming here and demanding that we clear our sources with you first so that they meet with your advance approval. There is no such thing as "original sin" Got that?

[walkthehawk]

God very well decreed evil, but he did not create it. Evil is not a substance, spirit, etc, that is to be created. Evil, according to the Scriptural definition, is a defect, the deterioration of something good. Scripture is clear that God is not the author nor creator of evil, but he does decree all things.

 

First off decreed/created is semantic nonsense.

 

Second

 

2 Kings 6:33

Behold, this evil is of the Lord.

 

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

Amos 3:6

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

 

Read the Bible WalktheWalk, we all did.

 

de·cree: one of the eternal purposes of God, by which events are foreordained.

 

create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

 

More than mere semantics. I think there are distinct definitions here that separate one idea from another.

 

I also would point out that even one of the people on this board said that other translations say "creates calamity" which many Christian thinkers will claim is closer to what the older texts say.

 

I also don't see how the other two verses point out that God created evil. Sounds more like he decreed it to happen for those situations.

[Deva]

create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

 

More than mere semantics. I think there are distinct definitions here that separate one idea from another.

 

I also would point out that even one of the people on this board said that other translations say "creates calamity" which many Christian thinkers will claim is closer to what the older texts say.

 

I also don't see how the other two verses point out that God created evil. Sounds more like he decreed it to happen for those situations.

 

 

If there are separations in the ideas, please clarify and delineate them. Decreed and created sounds about the same to me. God is the creator, isn't he? If he created good, didn't he have to create evil? Does good have any meaning apart from evil? What is your definition of evil? Where did it come from? What is its purpose?

[walkthehawk]

Funny, but I don't recall the Isrealites of the OT having a different view of Adam and Eve than we do. So could you explain to me how the OT people (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc) felt differently about Adam/Eve and original sin than Christians do?

See this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

 

Ok honestly, you rip on me about the Bible, and you give me a wiki page!?!

 

On top of that, here below is all the parts of that site that talked about how Jews felt differently about Adam, Eve, and original sin:

 

 

...

 

 

Hmmm...

 

 

OK genius, cut the comedy act. You have got a lot of nerve coming here and demanding that we clear our sources with you first so that they meet with your advance approval. There is no such thing as "original sin" Got that?

 

People on this board would, and have done the same to me. How many times have I been told that my use of Scripture doesn't count because you don't believe in it.

 

I will also say that my "comedy act" as you say is rather tame.

 

How do you know there is no such thing as original sin?

[Deva]

People on this board would, and have done the same to me. How many times have I been told that my use of Scripture doesn't count because you don't believe in it.

 

That's right, we don't -

 

I will also say that my "comedy act" as you say is rather tame.

 

Still, cut the crap.

 

How do you know there is no such thing as original sin?

 

Can you prove that original sin exists outside of the Apostle Paul's rantings?

[walkthehawk]

create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

 

More than mere semantics. I think there are distinct definitions here that separate one idea from another.

 

I also would point out that even one of the people on this board said that other translations say "creates calamity" which many Christian thinkers will claim is closer to what the older texts say.

 

I also don't see how the other two verses point out that God created evil. Sounds more like he decreed it to happen for those situations.

 

 

If there are separations in the ideas, please clarify and delineate them. Decreed and created sounds about the same to me. God is the creator, isn't he? If he created good, didn't he have to create evil? Does good have any meaning apart from evil? What is your definition of evil? Where did it come from? What is its purpose?

 

I think I did clarify and delineate. I gave you the definitions of both terms. Reading those verses seems to be communicating different things. Decree is how things are going to be laid out, a plan if you will. Creating is causing something to come into being: a thing, spirit, object, etc. Something that has substance. Good and evil are not things to be created. They exist because God exists. Good is represented in God's character. Evil is that which is not his character.

 

After that we start to get into a conversation about the problem of evil. That's for another thread, imho, which isn't a bad thing. It's interesting how something like this can springboard into a bunch of other topics.

[walkthehawk]

People on this board would, and have done the same to me. How many times have I been told that my use of Scripture doesn't count because you don't believe in it.

 

That's right, we don't -

 

I will also say that my "comedy act" as you say is rather tame.

 

Still, cut the crap.

 

How do you know there is no such thing as original sin?

 

Can you prove that original sin exists outside of the Apostle Paul's rantings?

 

I would like to know why I have to. You are asking me to approach this from a level of neutrality. That's makes me have to assume that Scripture is not God's word to us, and that it communicates truth on the ideas that it speaks on. There is absolutely no point in me doing that. Also, given that I'm a Christian, one would think I should use the Bible.

[Deva]

I think I did clarify and delineate. I gave you the definitions of both terms. Reading those verses seems to be communicating different things. Decree is how things are going to be laid out, a plan if you will. Creating is causing something to come into being: a thing, spirit, object, etc. Something that has substance. Good and evil are not things to be created. They exist because God exists. Good is represented in God's character. Evil is that which is not his character.

 

You haven't defined evil. WHY is good in God's character and evil is not. This seems entirely arbitrary. I repeat, where did evil originate? What is the difference between planning it and creating it? Who, for example is responsible for creating a building? The builders or the architect? Isn't it both? You are splitting imaginary hairs here. This IS a conversation about the problem of evil. It is relevant to this thread because that is the issue that condemns us to hell.

[walkthehawk]

If you do not know Jesus as Lord and Savior of your life, you have to account for the sin that is in your life, and that sin needs to be judged. The wages of sin is death (spiritual separation from God). This separation is eternal. This judgment is deserved, because based on your sin, you have fallen short of the glory of God.

 

Assume for the moment sin exists (which it really doesn't). How am I responsible in any way for it since I was born with it? Who is really at fault here? What does the "glory of God" mean?

 

So, if you do not know Jesus as Lord ans Savior of your life, you will experience eternal separation from God, and that is deserved.

 

It is not deserved as explained above. How would I know if I "knew Jesus" enough to save me? What is the criterion? How much faith does it take to reach that point? The reason I ask is that I know a lot of church people don't know if they are truly saved or not. This is why long term church members go up on the altar calls.

 

Thankfully, God doesn't end there. Even though we deserve death, he sent his son to die for us, so that we may have eternal life with Him. More so, with Him there is an abundant life here and now.

 

We can't "deserve" death if we were born with a condition repugnant to God. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. Do babies go to hell, or do you have an age of accountability?

 

Why would 3 hours on a cross save us? Please address Grandpa Harley's point that Jesus' death was nothing special. In fact, he got off easy compared to a lot of people who were crucified. Abundant life? You must be kidding. Christians are just as fearful, just as depressed, with just as many problems as everyone else. Life is life. If there were any evidence whatsoever that Christians had a different or better life than everyone would be jamming the churches rather than the steady exodus we have seen from them over the last 50 years.

 

Since you have asked about how the amount of time Jesus spent on the cross impacts this discussion, I will do so. I will say that I haven't bothered to address Grandpa with anything because it seems his only approach with me is name-calling, and I see no point in debating with someone who does that.

 

I don't see how the amount of time spent on the cross matters. Will I admit that others spent more time. Sure. Don't know how that matters. Jesus died on the cross, as opposed to eating a bunch of hard-boiled eggs because there was a sacrificial system set up to deal with the sins of people. The amount of time it took to kill a sheep was short, but it didn't change the impact. So why should it matter in this situation? Personally, even if it was only three hours, I still wouldn't want to endure it, keeping in mind that Jesus also had the spiritual weight of the elect to bear.

[walkthehawk]

Allright christians, I have something quite frightening for you to consider. You all basically say that whoever isn't saved will go to hell when they die and suffer eternal torment. Now I want you to think about something. If God is so hateful, so vengeful, dare I say it so psychotic that he'd let even the kindest person, much less the most wicked scream and cry and writhe in eternal agony for not being saved, what makes you think you'll be safe in heaven? What if after a few billion years of listening to the pitiful screams of the damned, he gets bored with it, and/or thinks you're not singing him praises with enough enthusiasm and starts throwing you christians into hell for shits and giggles?

 

I can hear your jaws drop through the floor from here.

 

Now consider this: If God as you say is omnipotent, omniscient omni-etc, the absolute creator and ruler of everything, what does he need worshippers for? He would be content in himself, being the Absolute Reality wanting or needing nothing. No angels needed to serve, no rebels angels to be cast out of heaven, and most certainly no petty set up with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to test loyalty. Who needs worshippers when reality is whatever you want it to be? I believe there is some sort of God, but I don't think he's the hateful old man in the clouds you believe him to be.

 

You've created quite a straw man to be knocked down there.

 

Anyway, the Bible shows that the hypothetical that you came up with is inconsistent with who God is and what he has promised.

 

I don't think God needs us. He created us to glorify Him. He desires worship, but that doesn't mean he is in need of anything we possess.

[walkthehawk]

Nearly being the operative word... but based on the fact he's just saying the same thing over and over, I don't see it's a much better than a blanket 'you're all wrong and you all smell of wee'

 

Which is why I've pretty much opted out of my own thread. The dipshit's saying absolutely nothing different that we haven't heard a thousand times before. Typical, typical, typical. If I'd wanted to hear that crap AGAIN I would have asked a different question, but he can't answer the question straight without dragging the Bible and his bastard God into the argument.

 

I don't quite see how I haven't answered your question. I think I have been pretty clear. However, I guess I can try one more time.

 

If you do not know Jesus as Lord and Savior of your life, you have to account for the sin that is in your life, and that sin needs to be judged. The wages of sin is death (spiritual separation from God). This separation is eternal. This judgment is deserved, because based on your sin, you have fallen short of the glory of God.

 

So, if you do not know Jesus as Lord ans Savior of your life, you will experience eternal separation from God, and that is deserved.

 

[sarcasm]Gee...uh...I didn't know that![/sarcasm]

 

I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW what the fucking Bible says about the matter! If I'd wanted its opinion I'd have asked for it.

 

I want YOUR opinion as a human being, not as a fundy clone with your brain full of religious bullshit. You don't get what I'm asking because you refuse to take yourself out of the, "I'm a piece of shit without God," mode for even 5 seconds.

 

I'm completely at a loss here. I am a Christian. What I think is dictated in large part to what God says about the matter. It is who I am. How exactly am I to be expected to just throw the Bible away for a moment to answer your question, when I think it is needed in order to answer it. It's just amazing really. Am I asking you to take yourself out of your belief system for 5 seconds to debate. No! What we do is debate what we think is true. That is what debate is. Asking me to throw away that position to answer your questions is totally nonsensical.

[Deva]

I don't see how the amount of time spent on the cross matters. Will I admit that others spent more time. Sure. Don't know how that matters. Jesus died on the cross, as opposed to eating a bunch of hard-boiled eggs because there was a sacrificial system set up to deal with the sins of people. The amount of time it took to kill a sheep was short, but it didn't change the impact. So why should it matter in this situation? Personally, even if it was only three hours, I still wouldn't want to endure it, keeping in mind that Jesus also had the spiritual weight of the elect to bear.

 

It was not a substitutionary sacrificial system. The sacrificed animals in the temple were made holy and offered as a gift to God. There was no concept in Judaism of God coming to earth and offering himself (part of himself?) to himself as a substitutionary atonement for "sin." The sheep were killed quickly because there was not any necessity for long drawn out suffering. It wasn't about suffering. Besides, you haven't demonstrated the reality of "original sin."

 

"Spiritual weight of the elect" -- what exactly does that mean? Cite your scriptural source for this, since I know you don't have any other.

[walkthehawk]

I think the problem is that Walkthehalk doesn't understand the meaning of "Ex" in "Ex-Christian", or he possible think we were never any "True Christians" to begin with and we don't know the Bible or the "Real" faith.

 

Walk, understand one thing. Some of the members here are ex-pastors, ex-evangelists, ex-missionaries and some even have degrees in religious and theological studies. Granted that not all have these colorful backgrounds, so you might encounter many kinds and levels of knowledge. Some are highly educated, some are not. But never assume that you are talking to an ignorant and non-scholar crowd when you enter this place.

 

Whether I think you were "true Christians" or not means nothing to whether or not you have heard the Gospel message or have read and memorized passages of Scripture. Some here have, some here haven't. My use of and appeal to Scripture is not dependent upon how much you already know. You all have read it and have some intellectual concept of what it is saying, great, but that's not the point for me.

 

As I mentioned in the previous post, I am a Christian. I appeal to Scripture, and share the Gospel, because that is part of who I am. My point in sharing what God has done for us is to show that it is not just a "you're going to Hell and that is all that is available" thing. I see that all you focus on is that God is sending me to Hell, and miss the all important part of the fact that he has done something to prevent that from happening.

 

It's all a bit strange how I'm expected to just throw the Bible in the trashcan because you don't like it, and that it is some major big deal that I use it in debate.

 

Well, I'll be gone for a couple of days (I know, I know, try not to applaud too loud hehe). I will say that you have challenged my thinking, and that it has led me to think on these things. I appreciate that. Have a good weekend everyone.

[Deva]

As I mentioned in the previous post, I am a Christian. I appeal to Scripture, and share the Gospel, because that is part of who I am. My point in sharing what God has done for us is to show that it is not just a "you're going to Hell and that is all that is available" thing. I see that all you focus on is that God is sending me to Hell, and miss the all important part of the fact that he has done something to prevent that from happening.

 

Yeah and an ex-christian is who I am, but I don't go where I am plainly not welcome spouting nonsense. That's one difference.

 

"God is sending me to Hell" gee -- we finally got an xtian to admit it.

 

 

It's all a bit strange how I'm expected to just throw the Bible in the trashcan because you don't like it, and that it is some major big deal that I use it in debate.

 

It's not that we don't necessarily like it or don't like it, its that you have absolutely no proof outside of it that anything written it is true.

 

Well, I'll be gone for a couple of days (I know, I know, try not to applaud too loud hehe). I will say that you have challenged my thinking, and that it has led me to think on these things. I appreciate that. Have a good weekend everyone.

 

Same to you - don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[GraphicsGuy]

I'm completely at a loss here. I am a Christian. What I think is dictated in large part to what God says about the matter. It is who I am. How exactly am I to be expected to just throw the Bible away for a moment to answer your question, when I think it is needed in order to answer it. It's just amazing really. Am I asking you to take yourself out of your belief system for 5 seconds to debate. No! What we do is debate what we think is true. That is what debate is. Asking me to throw away that position to answer your questions is totally nonsensical.

 

Regardless of the belief system you hold to you have opinions that are your own and that aren't dictated to you by the Bible or the church or your Xian friends. The things you like, the things you don't like. Things that bug you that don't bother others and vice versa.

 

There are things in the Bible that you have a hard time with and don't agree with yet you accept them anyway since you believe it's God's word. That's the part of you I want to hear from because it's the down and dirty honest part.

 

Let me rephrase the question. Do you think it is fair that a non-Christian who has lived a good life and never hurt anybody deserves to go to hell for eternity along with Hitler and serial killers/rapists just because they don't believe in Jesus? All have sinned (born to it without a choice), no one but the Father is good, what we do doesn't matter as long as we believe. Are you really saying that you accept this without question and that you totally agree with it?

[Ouroboros]

Whether I think you were "true Christians" or not means nothing to whether or not you have heard the Gospel message or have read and memorized passages of Scripture. Some here have, some here haven't. My use of and appeal to Scripture is not dependent upon how much you already know. You all have read it and have some intellectual concept of what it is saying, great, but that's not the point for me.

Just to give you a background to me, I went to Bible school, and my family, and even distant family, everyone religious. My parents, my grand parents, aunts, uncles, everyone Pentecostal. But I moved into the Word of Faith movement, and went to Bible school. I've been to two mission trips. I was evangelizing once a week for a whole year. Knocking doors, trying to talk to people on the street. I carried a Bible with me everywhere. I read the Bible, from start to finish, 3 times, and the NT separated 10 times. I memorized about 100 verses for the school. I was teaching in Sunday school. I participated in meeting prayers that could last for several hours. I spoke in tongues, and can still do.

 

I just wanted you to get kind of a glimpse of who I am. But there's probably a whole bunch of things I completely forgot.

 

As I mentioned in the previous post, I am a Christian. I appeal to Scripture, and share the Gospel, because that is part of who I am. My point in sharing what God has done for us is to show that it is not just a "you're going to Hell and that is all that is available" thing. I see that all you focus on is that God is sending me to Hell, and miss the all important part of the fact that he has done something to prevent that from happening.

No. No one here is focused on "God is sending me to Hell". We only bring that up, because it is inconsistent with a view that God is the source of good, and he is only good and nothing but good. Evil can't exist, if he was truly good and could never let evil happen. He has the power, you say, but it doesn't seem like it.

 

It's all a bit strange how I'm expected to just throw the Bible in the trashcan because you don't like it, and that it is some major big deal that I use it in debate.

Well. That doesn't apply to me. In conversation with me, you can use the Bible if you want, but just know, I consider it man made, made up, and nothing inspired from any supernatural or extraterrestrial beings and such.

 

Well, I'll be gone for a couple of days (I know, I know, try not to applaud too loud hehe). I will say that you have challenged my thinking, and that it has led me to think on these things. I appreciate that. Have a good weekend everyone.

If we have challenged your thinking, I believe that is good enough. That's the only thing I want people to do. Think for yourself, and don't get stuck in a belief or religion that someone else made up for you, and you never really tested it. The Bible even tell you to do that, and how can you test what is good or not, unless you use your own brain?

[Neon Genesis]

You've created quite a straw man to be knocked down there.

 

Anyway, the Bible shows that the hypothetical that you came up with is inconsistent with who God is and what he has promised.

 

I don't think God needs us. He created us to glorify Him. He desires worship, but that doesn't mean he is in need of anything we possess.

Definition of desire, "to wish or long for; crave; want." Definition of envy, "A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another." The bible says that love is not envy and that being envious is a sin. You say that God does not need us but merely desired us. The definition of envy is DESIRE FOR POSSESSIONS AND QUALITIES. So, if God did not need us, but DESIRED us, then doesn't that prove that GOD SINNED, since God declared that ENVY IS SIN, and DESIRE IS ENVY.

 

 

I see that all you focus on is that God is sending me to Hell, and miss the all important part of the fact that he has done something to prevent that from happening.

No, YOU ARE MISSING THE ALL IMPORTANT FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO PROOF, AND UNLESS YOU HAVE PROOF, THEN THIS IS NOT A FACT.

[Neon Genesis]

So not knowing everything about A implies that we can't know for sure about the things we do know about A? Really? You I'm sure don't know everything about the workings of a atom. Yet I'm sure you don't argue that a atom has protons and electrons.

Expect that there's a really big difference between a scientist' hypothesis and your beliefs in the bible and that's this. SCIENTISTS DO NOT CLAIM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT YOUR BIBLE DOES CLAIM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, YET CLEARLY IT DOESN'T, THEREFORE THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUST-WORTHY. Furthermore, scientists are open to the possibility that they could be wrong and are not married to their hypothesis, and are more than willing to change their hypothesis and theories if more evidence to the contrary presents itself. Christians, on the other hand. continue to insist that their way is the only right way, that it is impossible for them to ever be wrong about anything, and that we must all conform to their ways. To put it in simpler terms, CHRISTIANITY IS CONFORMITY, SCIENCE IS NOT. THAT IS BECAUSE SCIENCE IS NOT A DOGMA.

[The-Captain]

I don't quite know how this is all 1+1=5. Reverence is different from fear like a phobia or something of that nature. How this somehow becomes illogical I am unsure. Perhaps its just because I am incapable of being logical because I'm a Christian, which seems more and more to be the general vibe I'm getting around here.

 

No I reserve that judgment till they've hung around and made their case. It isn't a blanket thing, we have some rather logical, bright Xians hanging about that could probably put me to shame in a real debate. However I do think that there is an abundance of illogical tripe inherent in literal belief of xian dogma, and thus far that is all you really present.

 

 

To be honest, I'm sure that some of my reasoning was based on not wanting to go to Hell. I think over time as one is sanctified though you learn more about the Gospel, and what God did for you. As that happens, love grows. I realize now more than before that God deserves worship because of who he is, not what he has done for me. Certainly what he has done for me speaks of who he is, and that plays into it as well.

 

Whoa someone please put this in the Stocholm Syndrome thread.

 

So not knowing everything about A implies that we can't know for sure about the things we do know about A? Really? You I'm sure don't know everything about the workings of a atom. Yet I'm sure you don't argue that a atom has protons and electrons.

 

So God has not revealed everything about Himself to us, but he has revealed some things to us that we can know. Some of his ways are unknown to us, it doesn't mean all of them are.

 

Arghh!! Revelation!? How has there been a "revealing" of things about hell on par with the observations of the atom? And you wonder why we question your logic?

 

Okay I realize that you are trying to debate with about 4 people at once, so I understand if you miss a few things. But when you bring up and try something I already provided a rebuttal to It annoys me a bit. Either respond to my first assessment of that line with a dismissal or an answer, but please don't ignore it completely. There were two replies you only took one.

 

Reposted:

I contend that there has been no "revelation" from God concerning hell. A second hand revelation is no more than a rumor. It is as credible as someone telling you that Gandalf died for your sins. It is to be viewed with extreme skepticism, and if unprovable need not be believed.

 

(Probably shouldn't be believed lest you be considered gullible in the extreme, and slightly loopy to boot)

 

Jupiter can be observed with a telescope its reality is not in question, and any claims about its details would have to be analyzed and corroborated. The same goes for a cell, take a microscope and you can see everything the scientist sees and you are free to develop your own conclusions about its workings. We know enough about Washington from multiple sources to confirm that he lived, from there we go on to figure the details based on credible historical reporting, not every claim is accepted.

 

 

de·cree: one of the eternal purposes of God, by which events are foreordained.

 

create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

 

More than mere semantics. I think there are distinct definitions here that separate one idea from another.

 

I also would point out that even one of the people on this board said that other translations say "creates calamity" which many Christian thinkers will claim is closer to what the older texts say.

 

I also don't see how the other two verses point out that God created evil. Sounds more like he decreed it to happen for those situations.

 

Where exactly are you getting your definition for decree anyway? The two words are very similar in an important way given the context. They imply authorship and a point of origin, a deliberate act as it were.

 

 

2 Kings 6:33

Behold, this evil is of the Lord.

 

 

Amos 3:6

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

 

Very well disregard the verse from Isaiah if you will, but the other two bits of "holy writ" attribute evil to Jehovah. Why exactly do you dispute that, you didn't really say. Even if you don't see him creating evil in the said passages, then he is at least carrying out evil, what does that say about the ole unchangeable's character?

 

 

 

You are asking me to approach this from a level of neutrality. That's makes me have to assume that Scripture is not God's word to us, and that it communicates truth on the ideas that it speaks on. There is absolutely no point in me doing that. Also, given that I'm a Christian, one would think I should use the Bible.

 

Okay folks to me this is the final sign that all further discussion is futile.

 

I will say that you have challenged my thinking, and that it has led me to think on these things. I appreciate that.

 

Given the aforementioned statement I find that hard to believe. More likely he/she means that they have been led to revise their bullshit a bit more.

[Tabula Rasa]

You've created quite a straw man to be knocked down there.

 

Anyway, the Bible shows that the hypothetical that you came up with is inconsistent with who God is and what he has promised.

It is neither a strawman nor is it inconsistent. In the Old Testament , God is the architect of genocide by way of deluge, the only survivors being Noah and his family, only 8 people. He wipes Sodom and Gommorah off the map. Utterly without pity, he lets Satan mercilesly torment Job, who tries to live as a righteous man. When the Hebrews enter the promised land, God commands them to pretty much slaughter all the inhabitants of all the cities. Men, women, and children. In the few instances women and girls are spared, it's only if they're virgins.

 

That's just a taste of how vicious Yahweh is. Let go of it man, let go of the hell terror. The boundless wondrous universe could not have been created by a being who's so vicious and petty that he'd kill and eternally torment any of his creations just because they didn't worship him.

 

Whatever "God" is , it is far beyond the human mind's ability to comprehend. If I might borrow a little from the Tao Te Ching...

 

14

We look at it, and we do not see it, and we name it 'the

Equable.' We listen to it, and we do not hear it, and we name it 'the

Inaudible.' We try to grasp it, and do not get hold of it, and we

name it 'the Subtle.' With these three qualities, it cannot be made

the subject of description; and hence we blend them together and

obtain The One.

 

Its upper part is not bright, and its lower part is not obscure.

Ceaseless in its action, it yet cannot be named, and then it again

returns and becomes nothing. This is called the Form of the Formless,

and the Semblance of the Invisible; this is called the Fleeting and

Indeterminable.

 

We meet it and do not see its Front; we follow it, and do not see

its Back. When we can lay hold of the Tao of old to direct the things

of the present day, and are able to know it as it was of old in the

beginning, this is called (unwinding) the clue of Tao.

 

All things are produced by the Tao, and nourished by its

outflowing operation. They receive their forms according to the

nature of each, and are completed according to the circumstances of

their condition. Therefore all things without exception honour the

Tao, and exalt its outflowing operation.

 

This honouring of the Tao and exalting of its operation is not the

result of any ordination, but always a spontaneous tribute.

 

Thus it is that the Tao produces (all things), nourishes them,

brings them to their full growth, nurses them, completes them, matures

them, maintains them, and overspreads them.

 

It produces them and makes no claim to the possession of them; it

carries them through their processes and does not vaunt its ability in

doing so; it brings them to maturity and exercises no control over

them;--this is called its mysterious operation.

 

Pay attention to this part especially:It produces them and makes no claim to the possession of them; it

carries them through their processes and does not vaunt its ability in

doing so; it brings them to maturity and exercises no control over

them;--this is called its mysterious operation.

[Grandpa Harley]

Awww was iddums oopset by being asked his sin...

 

Seems that the wee man just has nothing to add here other than piss about... name calling... he called me a sinner then gets antsy about my calling him names back... like all Christians, gutless, brainless, hypocritial and lying...

[Evolution_beyond]

Wow! My computer is down for nearly a week - and look how much I miss!

 

I'm nearly finished reading it all but I couldn't help but comment on this:

 

I don't think God needs us. He created us to glorify Him. He desires worship, but that doesn't mean he is in need of anything we possess.

 

If God doesn't need anything from us - but he desires to be worshipped. Then doesn't that make him some kind of obscene egotist? That kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't want to worship some kind of nauseating egotist, who apparently only created us so that he could have someone stoke his ego by worshipping him. What kind of monster is this God of yours?

 

Many people have made this point more eloquently than I could. But a God who is truly all-powerful - doesn't need anything from us but still desires to be worshipped - has the power to nullify the hell effect and provide us with some other salvation plan (honestly the sky's the limit, this God is all-powerful, which means he can do anything) but instead prefers to just let people burn unless they grovel and ask forgiveness (ego again!) - and even constructs an elaborate theatre of coming down to earth and 'dying for us' but only so that those who grovel and worship can be saved, a gesture so empty of either necessity (sacrificing himself to himself? WTF?!) or any real benefit to anyone (most still are not saved) that it seems it was only so that he could fool us into thinking he is good and loving)

 

OMG - good? That God is an evil monster!

[Kratos]

I don't think worship is for God's sake. I believe that He desires it for us because it gets our focus off ourselves and it is not healthy for people to be the ones who we look up to.

 

John