Question For The Christians

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Thank you for offering a response about John 3:18, but it is not a viable answer. I know you feel you gave a legitimate answer, Abiyoyo. While you are welcome to maintain that position, it really isn't legitimate. This is not one of those passages where the word usage is unclear or controversial.

 

You are still saying that condemned is eternal Hell, and it is not. Even punished should imply punishable in a sense of judgment. So, the question is geared around modern interpretation and common fundamental beliefs, not what it really means. You said the answer in your response. Judgment, condemned go side by side, unless the meaning is altered in which it has been by the people that want to alter it.

 

I even gave you an example with the Jewish lady. If she is punished by not believing in Christ, then where will she go by the Jewish Laws? You did answer, yet the point is that eternal destination was a hot topic in that time, and here comes this Jew speaking about the soul and eternal life. The point is that the Jews lack of faith then is comparable to now to some degree, and they rejected Christ.

 

I understand you don't accept this as a legitimate answer, but, I as well don't accept your answer as legitimate. So, this is a matter of disagreement, not if a viable answer has been given.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Alas, it's quite obvious. Anne did not believe in Jesus, she did not accept him as her personal saviour. Because she was not for him, she was against him. If the bible is to be believed, Anne goes to Hell, whether it's eternal suffering, an execution by fire or simply death itself.

 

Challenging one's beliefs is the only sane way to believe. And you are not alone, I have been kicked around for my challenges of the hell doctrine in other forums.

[DesertBob]

I think on an individual basis, God's protection is either random or absent.

I agree. However the Bible generally lacks disclaimers concerning the inapplicability of God's favor / protection to individual situations.

 

The problem isn't what I think "should" be the case or whether or not I have been "disappointed" or was "impatient". The problem is that the Bible doesn't promise protection on some aggregate or eventual basis. It promises it to the individual follower in the here and now. It uses it as an incentive to be a follower and by implication as the evidence that you ARE a follower. And the church -- or at least large parts of it, in important ways -- certainly presents it as an incentive to convert. The slogan, after all, wasn't "Jesus is the answer in some ultimate pie in the sky by and by sense" or "Jesus is the answer in some unreliable sort of way that is indistinguishable from random happenstance".

 

Indeed, in the "name it and claim it" camp, which is a sizeable bunch, especially in the American South, wealth, health and favor are touted as the inevitable result of submitting to God's will, whereas want, sickness and frustration are touted as the incontrovertible evidence of secret sin or rebellion or lack of faith.

 

That a Christian might expect to have to make sacrifices or tough decisions, I see as a separate issue. If I could have known God's promised protection actually meant something I had no problem with the concept that I wasn't guaranteed a life of indolent, self-serving pleasure, or some sort of cosmic candy machine that would deliver my every whim. I never expected instant gratification.

 

It is true that there are a few verses that say you can expect to be persecuted, tested, and the like. To even give up your life. But that, too, is a separate issue. I would willingly lay down my life to protect my loved ones, but that doesn't mean their promises of loyalty, love, and kindness to me aren't relevant, or that I should not reasonably expect that my relationship with them would in the main be a source of happiness and security. In other words, our devotion is mutual.

 

I weary of Christians trotting out character assassination every time it's pointed out that the Bible promises (for example) protection and yet there's no evidence of it in people's lives. When confronted with this inconvenient factoid, either by an outsider or one of their own, they inevitably suggest you are being selfish, lazy, impatient or faithless for simply pointing out facts.

[Abiyoyo]

I guess the christian reluctance to even hypothetically put themselves in god's place is too great.

It is obvious that a Christian's reluctance to answer the question has more to do with foreknowledge of the questions that will inevitably follow their answer and the Christian's desire not to be put in a position of having to answer those questions, as opposed to having such a holy, pious and subservient demeanor in relation to the almighty judgement of God, as you have suggested in the comment above. The reason for the perpetual dodge is clearly due to the fact that all roads lead to faith for the Christian believer, and faith, in general, is the point where Christianity begins to unravel itself from logic and starts to smack of the deliberate burial of ones head in the proverbial sand in an effort to maintain the all-important salvation that comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

Your implication that the Christian is merely cautious of putting themselves in God's place - judging others, is truly ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that you would expect anyone here to buy that excuse. If "only God knows what sends one to hell", then how the hell do you know if YOU are going to heaven or hell? It seems to me that the Christian's job is entirely wrapped up in letting others know that they are "lost" - going to hell - and then telling them what they must do to be saved. Thusly, on one hand, you all seem to know who is lost and who is not, as well as what they should do to remedy the situation, but when put in the position you're now in and knowing that more intense questions will follow, seem strangely and conveniently confused about who is lost and going to hell, or what they must do to be saved.

 

I have said it already, here in this thread, and I will repeat it again. The tactics being used in the last 10 or so pages to avoid giving a clear answer, are elementary and as transparent as the emperor's new clothes! I'm amazed that there is no limit to the depth of the hole you guys are all willing to dig for yourself. My head is spinning at the lack of concern for the damage being done to your credibility as honest and open-minded individuals who cherish "truth" above personal ego. Your salvation does not lie in the protection of old ideas as truth, no matter the cost to your integrity. Your salvation is found in none other than the ability to discover the truth at any cost, including the sacrifice of old ideas and personal egos. Knowledge is salvation.

 

I, ....didn't say that comment you quoted me??

 

I'm not digging a hole, I'm discussing. My reluctance is not in a hiding of the Truth ^TM, but the acceptance that the Bible has been interpreted thousands of different ways and formed that many more special sects having different beliefs.

 

We are talking about belief here, when belief alone is few and far. I believe, yet most consider me heretical, some even would consider me going to hell. Christ said if we confess Him to men, then He will confess us to the Father on the day of Judgment.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

Thank you for offering a response about John 3:18, but it is not a viable answer. I know you feel you gave a legitimate answer, Abiyoyo. While you are welcome to maintain that position, it really isn't legitimate. This is not one of those passages where the word usage is unclear or controversial.

 

You are still saying that condemned is eternal Hell, and it is not. Even punished should imply punishable in a sense of judgment. So, the question is geared around modern interpretation and common fundamental beliefs, not what it really means. You said the answer in your response. Judgment, condemned go side by side, unless the meaning is altered in which it has been by the people that want to alter it.

 

I even gave you an example with the Jewish lady. If she is punished by not believing in Christ, then where will she go by the Jewish Laws? You did answer, yet the point is that eternal destination was a hot topic in that time, and here comes this Jew speaking about the soul and eternal life. The point is that the Jews lack of faith then is comparable to now to some degree, and they rejected Christ.

 

I understand you don't accept this as a legitimate answer, but, I as well don't accept your answer as legitimate. So, this is a matter of disagreement, not if a viable answer has been given.

 

So what do you believe the word "perish" in John 3:16 means? The concept of "judged" (or it's synonym here "condemned") is inescapably bound to that idea.

 

If it is not "eternal hell and torment," then what does it mean to "perish?"

 

I'm also curious as to what you mean by "modern interpretation?" The words "condemned" and "standing under judgment" have been taught to be eternal banishment to hell since the Patristic period. So how then is the interpretation of "condemned/punished/judged" as eternal torment in any way modern?

 

And you really cannot deny that the word krino means condemned in these passages if you are leaning on the lexical support. However, if you just want to make up meanings of words to fit your particular mood, then have at it.

 

But, if that condemnation is a destination or condition other than "hell," then the persons being condemned in this passage would be resigned to that final condition. But what is that condition? Where do you get your support for holding that position?

 

Are you saying that the ultimate destination of unbelievers is whatever Jewish version of final judgment that existed at the time of Jesus?

 

 

P.S. I really don't think you should be trying to answer for LNC in the matter of John 3:18. I don't think he shares the same ideas with you about what "condemned" and "perish" means. If I am recollecting correctly, he does believe in an eternal hell.

[centauri]

 

Define "misinformed" and show exactly why the sin of unbelief is an infidel meme, unsupported by other Christians or the Bible.

Also show that Jews actually believe in a triune God, which is the same God as Yahweh.

 

There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, some have different thoughts on our eternal whereabouts. There are some Christian groups that do believe that the sin of unbelief is not an eternal sin.

The inability of the Holy Spirit to guide Christians into consistent beliefs isn’t the primary issue.

LNC tried to dishonestly classify a common Christian belief as an “infidel meme”, when in fact it’s a Christian meme.

 

Last I checked, unbelief is the meat and potatoes of the whole religion in whole, witnessing to those that don't believe, never heard, showing the Christian Godpowers^TM to the unbelieving. So, different sects have different views.

Then the Bible should not be advertised as the Word of God.

You’ve just argued that its proponents cannot establish truth from it, even regarding an issue as basic as the status of an unbeliever.

However, unbelief in Jesus merits punishment per the New Testament.

Unbelief is sin and is equated to evil, darkness, and damnation.

 

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

John 16:8-9

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

 

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

Rev 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

Heb 3:12

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

 

2 Cor 6:14

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

[Mister Pappy]

I assume you will post scripture to back your claim(s) of the last paragraph.

No .... why would I post a Bible verse to back up one of my statements as true? That makes no sense.

[LNC]

No, no one goes to hell for being Jewish.

 

LNC

Not that right religion, you burn right. Of course your going to be talking about sins and all. But its really just who believes in the right books right?

 

No. Its not about believing in the right books.

[LNC]

He's a Habermas bot, and incredibly he's probably the most creditable Xtian we've seen around here.

 

Although I've taken a class with Gary Habermas and like him as a person, I don't think that I could be qualified as a Habermas bot. He's way smarter than me.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

No, no one goes to hell for being Jewish.

 

LNC

Not that right religion, you burn right. Of course your going to be talking about sins and all. But its really just who believes in the right books right?

 

No. Its not about believing in the right books.

Its belief that Jesus is the son of god, and died for you. I only hear of that in the NT, a collection of books. If you believe in what those collection of books says, you go to heaven. So its just believing in the NT.

[LNC]

...according to your interpretation - not according to LNC's. 'god' couldn't be bothered to speak plainly?

 

God has spoken very clearly and plainly, we just need to read what he has said and understand it in context.

 

LNC

[bdp]

He's a Habermas bot, and incredibly he's probably the most creditable Xtian we've seen around here.

 

Although I've taken a class with Gary Habermas and like him as a person, I don't think that I could be qualified as a Habermas bot. He's way smarter than me.

 

LNC

 

Habermas isn't smarter than anybody. In fact he's either a dunce or just dishonest.

 

And yes you are a bot.

[bdp]

...according to your interpretation - not according to LNC's. 'god' couldn't be bothered to speak plainly?

 

God has spoken very clearly and plainly, we just need to read what he has said and understand it in context.

 

LNC

 

'god' has yet to speak. At all.

 

But why are you messing with my piddly insignificant little posts when there are people waiting for you to answer really substantial questions?

[Guest end3]

I assume you will post scripture to back your claim(s) of the last paragraph.

No .... why would I post a Bible verse to back up one of my statements as true? That makes no sense.

 

It makes perfect sense...you are making statements about salvation that is for me, derived from the Bible. You said that knowledge was salvation. If you can't show me where it says that, then your definition is just that, yours, not mine.

[Mister Pappy]

you are making statements about salvation that is for me, derived from the Bible.

What you may not know is that I am not very concerned about where you derive your interpretation of what salvation is.

 

You said that knowledge was salvation. If you can't show me where it says that, then your definition is just that, yours, not mine.

Am I supposed to be interested in whether you are convinced that I am right?

[Mister Pappy]

I don't think that I could be qualified as a Habermas bot. He's way smarter than me.

 

LNC

If I were you, I wouldn't let too many people, who have ever read anything this fool has written, know that he is smarter than me.

[Guest end3]

What you may not know is that I am not very concerned about where you derive your interpretation of what salvation is.

 

Yes, it would be hard not to gather that from your "mutual respect" of the other person's position.

 

 

Am I supposed to be interested in whether you are convinced that I am right?

 

Are you interested in a respectful conversation as you stated or ?

[Sconnor]

...according to your interpretation - not according to LNC's. 'god' couldn't be bothered to speak plainly?

 

God has spoken very clearly and plainly, we just need to read what he has said and understand it in context.

 

LNC

 

That’s right – that’s why god gave us the Qur’an and the book of Mormon.

[Mister Pappy]

What you may not know is that I am not very concerned about where you derive your interpretation of what salvation is.

 

Yes, it would be hard not to gather that from your "mutual respect" of the other person's position.

You say that your interpretation of salvation comes from the Bible. I have no problem with wherever you derive your interpretation, however, I do not have to derive my philosophies from the same place you do, and I do not.

 

Am I supposed to be interested in whether you are convinced that I am right?

 

Are you interested in a respectful conversation as you stated or ?

Respectful conversation is always a good thing ... yes.

[Mister Pappy]

...according to your interpretation - not according to LNC's. 'god' couldn't be bothered to speak plainly?

 

God has spoken very clearly and plainly, we just need to read what he has said and understand it in context.

 

LNC

 

That’s right – that’s why god gave us the Qur’an and the book of Mormon.

That's fucking awesome! Gotta put this one in a safe place.

[Sconnor]

What you may not know is that I am not very concerned about where you derive your interpretation of what salvation is.

 

Yes, it would be hard not to gather that from your "mutual respect" of the other person's position.

 

 

Am I supposed to be interested in whether you are convinced that I am right?

 

Are you interested in a respectful conversation as you stated or ?

 

I notice you pussed out and didn’t address post #242 -- go figure?

 

And while I’m thinking of it – your explanation for god’s excuse does NOT address why god’s plan for managing conflict through the holy spirit, fails miserably to protect anyone from harm – including you and my son and christians who are wallowing in the holy spirit.

 

You have NOT substantiated your bullshit claim that god protects us.

 

So now what are you left with?

 

You’ll play your diverging games.

 

And you’ll say you already addressed it.

 

And excuse, excuse, excuse............

 

And you’ll do ANYTHING except actually prove god protects us from harm.

 

Again, as always, you can NOT substantiate ANY of your bullshit god claims – you have zero credibility.

 

You continue to make fantasy-laden claims that contradicts reality, which you can NOT back up – complete blatherskite that only exists in the confines of your stunted mind. You are NOT deserving of respect because you are a deranged christian lunatic asshole, who makes shit up and passes it off as holy writ from gods mind to yours.

 

--S.

[Guest end3]

 

You continue to make fantasy-laden claims that contradicts reality, which you can NOT back up – complete blatherskite that only exists in the confines of your stunted mind. You are NOT deserving of respect because you are a deranged christian lunatic asshole, who makes shit up and passes it off as holy writ from gods mind to yours.

 

--S.

 

You better hope that you are right.

[Mister Pappy]

You better hope that you are right.

Because your God is going to body-slam his ass if he isn't? sounds reasonable...

[Ouroboros]

I don't think that I could be qualified as a Habermas bot. He's way smarter than me.

 

LNC

If I were you, I wouldn't let too many people, who have ever read anything this fool has written, know that he is smarter than me.

I think it was Habermas who came up with the "minimalist" argument for the historical Jesus. If I remember right, it's the idea that since the majority (70%?) of the scholars believe Jesus was historical (or certain aspects of some of the key events) therefore it must be true. (I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.)

[Guest Valk0010]

I don't think that I could be qualified as a Habermas bot. He's way smarter than me.

 

LNC

If I were you, I wouldn't let too many people, who have ever read anything this fool has written, know that he is smarter than me.

I think it was Habermas who came up with the "minimalist" argument for the historical Jesus. If I remember right, it's the idea that since the majority (70%?) of the scholars believe Jesus was historical (or certain aspects of some of the key events) therefore it must be true. (I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.)

Doesn't that count as a appeal to consensus?