Question For The Christians

[centauri]

This is a classic example of a christian rewriting their own religion to try and bypass the ugly, embarrassing bits. You just THINK these people will go to heaven because you're too chickenshit scared to face the fact that your bible says they will burn. That embarrasses you, because you can see how inherently unjust it is, but you don't want to admit it because that would mean admitting that god is unjust. You're dishonest.

Very clear and to the point.

This is feel-good, subjective theology on display.

It has precious little to do with "truth" or moral absolutes.

Creating a "God" that provides personal comfort and security is the prime directive.

It molds "God" into something that agrees with their desires and wishes.

Then these zealots go out and preach that their version of reality is binding on all other people and that everyone must comply with their standards in order to be saved.

They have not been able to agree with each other on basic doctrine for ~2,000 years, have killed and condemned each other for centuries, and yet each one is certain that they are right.

They are little more than preaching machines, slaves to their own inner dogma and uncertainty.

[bornagainathiest]

So then O.F., question answered?

It looks to me as if LNC's god condemns most of the human race to hell, giving them no opportunity and/or no ability to believe in and trust in the saving work of Jesus.

 

Yes, and masterfully, I might add.

 

I'd just like to hear a Christian admit the truth of your conclusion. Many won't, though, because it makes them uneasy and reveals their biblical "god" for the tyrant he is portrayed as being (though, of course, he isn't a tyrant since he doesn't exist).

 

 

Thanks again O.F.

 

It think it's prudent to say that LNC might well overturn all of my musings, thru something I've overlooked. But I'd still like to see and understand how he'd do that - hence my keen anticipation of his response.

 

Nevertheless, a little more digging seems to reveal two more anomalies. Two more cases where scripture indicates that Jesus is not the only way to deflect God's wrath and safely enter into the Father's presence. Take Genesis 5: 24. The patriarch Enoch lived in a time before Jesus, before the Prophets, before Moses and before the time of Noah and the Flood. Yet, somehow he was able to walk with God, because God took him away and he did not see death. How? Thru believing in and trusting in Jesus, centuries before the Son of God existed? I'd like to know how Enoch avoided God's justified wrath, wouldn't you, O.F.?

 

Now look at 2 Kings 2: 11 & 12. What's this? Someone else going up into the Father's presence without knowing anything of, letting alone believing in and trusting in Jesus?

We can be absolutely certain that Elijah went into the close presence of the Father without fear or harm because of the Gospel descriptions of Jesus' transfiguration. (See Matthew 17 : 1 - 8 / Mark 9 : 1 - 8 / Luke 9 : 28 - 36) Interestingly, God the Father still cannot be seen at this point. He is hidden from the gaze of Peter, John and James by a bright cloud, much like the OT descriptions of smoke and clouds hiding Him from the gaze of unredeemed sinners. This is significant, because Jesus hadn't completed his work upon the cross yet, so the Apostles were still unredeemed by his blood. God the Father's wrath was still upon them, which explains why they had to be protected from catching sight of Him and being destroyed. That work of redemption (deflecting the Father's wrath away from us and onto himself) wasn't completed until the moment of Jesus' death. We know this because the Gospels tell us that the long-standing separation of God from His disobedient and rebellious creations (us) came to an end right then. Not in the time of Enoch or Elijah, but then!

 

So, what started with Adam and Eve's temptation and transgression in Genesis was finished when Jesus breathed his last and died. (See Matthew 27 : 50 - 53 / Mark 15 : 37 & 38 / Luke 23 : 44 - 46 / John 19 : 30)

The confirming signs that God's wrath was deflected away from us and onto Jesus can be clearly seen.

1.

The temple curtain, which separated unredeemed sinners from the very presence of God in the, 'holy-of-holies', was torn in two. Note that it was torn from top-to-bottom, from heaven-down-to-earth. The way into the presence of the Father had been opened, not by the works or efforts of man, but by God-incarnated-as-a-man, that is Jesus Christ. That is why, 'Nobody comes to the Father, except thru me." So how did Enoch and Elijah do it then?

2.

Tombs broke open and holy people were raised back to life, appearing to many in Jerusalem. This event is a lesser and earlier symbol of the greater resurrection that will take place on the Last Day. Once again, it would not have been possible unless Jesus had successfully completed his work of wrath-deflection upon the cross. And... once again, we have the same problem as before. Enoch and Elijah were both taken up alive into heaven, centuries before the crucifixion. How was that possible, with the Father's wrath still upon them?

3.

"It is finished!" Exactly! Jesus' work of wrath-deflection was completed there and then. Not in the time of Enoch and not in the time of Elijah.

 

Y'know what, O.F.?

 

I'm coming round to the idea that LNC's a Calvinist. That might just fit, if we take the concept of Irresistible Grace into account when examining his p.o.v. That would explain quite a lot, imho.

 

So, if we look at Exodus 9 : 16, Romans 9 : 14 - 24 and Malachi 1 : 1 - 3, it could be that the Pharaoh of Egypt and Esau aren't exceptions - they're the rule. Everyone whom God hasn't predestined to believe in and trust in Jesus (LNC's parameters for salvation, remember!) is simply an 'object of wrath - prepared (before the foundation of the world) for destruction'. Yep! You, me, my brother Paul, my unborn sister and all the unborn dead, all of the mentally unfit, all those (like your Amazonian native) who lived and died without hearing the Good News via a Christian Missionary, all of us are... DOOMED!

 

Tyrant, eh? Oh well, if the hat fits...

 

BAA.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To LNC...

 

Please respond to our questions. As you can see, we are earnestly trying to understand your position and are coming to conclusions that could well be off-beam. Please help us out here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

 

If my earlier post about irresistible force and immovable object has upset you, I apologize. I mistakenly thought you were avoiding the issue of John 3:18. Thank you for clarifying that.

[LNC]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to comment.

 

Most of us here are rather well versed in the Bible. We just have concluded it isn't a reliable source. Christians and non-Christians alike can't agree on what the book says. What is so curious about your stance in this thread, LNC, is how you're splitting hairs for no apparent reason other than to muddy the waters.

 

According to the book, (and the common Christian understanding), we are born condemned. The only way out is belief in Jesus. In practice one is condemned unless he has the belief, so that is tantamount to being condemned for non-belief. I understand the nuance that makes this somehow all our own fault, but it seems irrelevant to the OP.

 

I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of those that don't, the fact that people can't agree upon the meaning of a document doesn't mean that it is unreliable. Judges and Supreme Court Justices have argued for centuries about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and have varied greatly in that understanding, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is unreliable.

 

What you see as splitting hairs, i see as key distinctions. There is a distinction in concepts as to what saves a person versus what condemns a person. Would you not agree that they are different concepts? If not, how do you reconcile them as one concept? I have given examples throughout this thread as to why and how they are different, and that being the case, the treatment of each is different.

 

According to the Bible, we are born under the sin of Adam and we are tainted by that sin. However, we don't just leave it there, we each pile up a lot of sins on our own by which we are justly condemned. We will be condemned for our sins more than we will for the sin of Adam. God could, in fact, ignore completely the sin of Adam and we would all still be guilty, so I think that is a red herring to this conversation. And no, the sin of Adam is not tantamount to the sin of unbelief, it is tantamount to the sin of rebellion. Again, no one is condemned for not believing in Jesus. Unbelievers who heard the gospel, however, will be condemned (along with their other sins) for the sin of rejecting Jesus. That is more serious than mere passive unbelief. That is hearing the good news of Christ's offer to free you from your sins (yes, sins) and knowingly rejecting him and his offer. I think that unbelievers want to play it down to simple unbelief, but it is more actively rebellion and rejection of Jesus, and yes, that is sin.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Hey LNC - define "proper interpretation" of the Bible.

 

Interpreting as the author intended it to be understood. I believe that this can be accomplished through the right hermeneutics (method of interpretation). We do it with ancient documents all the time. Thanks for the question, I think it is helpful to clarify these concepts.

 

LNC

[bdp]

Hey LNC - define "proper interpretation" of the Bible.

 

Interpreting as the author intended it to be understood. I believe that this can be accomplished through the right hermeneutics (method of interpretation). We do it with ancient documents all the time. Thanks for the question, I think it is helpful to clarify these concepts.

 

LNC

 

Discussing 'interpretation' is pointless if you can't establish AUTHORITY. And you can't.

[LNC]

And again I say this:

 

Regardless, god’s convoluted plan for salvation – which you took years of study to supposedly comprehend – relegates the majority of his earthly children to an eternity of suffering in hell.

 

This would include people like Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, American Indians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, primitive cultures, and so on.

 

It would also include the six million Jews of the holocaust – which was their virtual hell on earth.

 

ALL because they didn’t have your understanding of salvation.

 

The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation

 

God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, (himself) to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, fallible, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus,(Or LNC’s convoluted; interpretive “trusting” explanation of salvation) so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the fallible humans, who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing.

 

--S.

 

Why do you consider the plan of salvation to be "convoluted"? It is actually quite simple to understand. Even my children understood it at an early age. The gospel is simply this: God exists and created people in his image, to have relationship with him. Man rejected and rebelled against God. Man's rebellion has led to a screwed up world where we fight ourselves, we fight others and we continue to fight against God. God sent his son, Jesus to live among us to show us God, to go to the cross to die as a payment for our sins, and to rise again to show us that we could have restored relationship with God. We simply need to repent of our sins (admit we are truly sinful and guilty of that rebellion) and trust in Jesus and his offer of salvation as a free gift. That's it, all in one concise paragraph.

 

I don't judge who goes to hell and who does not, that is God's job. However, if these people didn't trust in Jesus as payment for their sins, then they would be condemned to hell. God offers the same offer to everyone, he cannot force anyone to trust in him for his kind offer. Would you want him to do that? However, you keep putting a straw man up - it is not because they didn't understand the gospel that they are condemned. I will refer you back to my earlier posts rather than continue to repeat myself.

 

Just to be technical, there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son. God the Father sent God the Son, not himself, to earth to take our sins upon us. However, the Son didn't come unwillingly. Jesus said, "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (John 10:17-18)

 

Again, God created free creatures who had intellects and reason, with the ability to make decisions. Given that, he knew that many would likely rebel against him; however, he valued creating free creatures over determined beings, because free creatures have the capacity to love. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, you brought them into the world knowing that they could possibly get hurt, die of some dread disease, or have a tremendously happy and joyful life. We all hope for the latter, but we know of the former, yet we still bring children into the world. We also must know that it is possible that those children could reject us at some point, but we still bring them into the world. In my case, I chose to adopt my children knowing full well that someday that could reject me as their adoptive parent. I know because I know of many families where this has and is happening, yet, we adopted anyway. God values life, but he also values freedom. He won't compel a person to love and trust him.

 

LNC

[DesertBob]

...no one is condemned for not believing in Jesus. Unbelievers who heard the gospel, however, will be condemned (along with their other sins) for the sin of rejecting Jesus. That is more serious than mere passive unbelief. That is hearing the good news of Christ's offer to free you from your sins (yes, sins) and knowingly rejecting him and his offer.

I might not like it if I proposed marriage to a woman and she rejected me, but it's hardly a sin. It's her right. Since when is declining an unwanted relationship worthy of death, much less eternal death? And what do we think of people who attack those who "refuse" to "love" them? Mentally ill, right? We put them in jail before they can hurt people. We don't allow lovers to respond to being jilted by assaulting the object of their "love".

 

At any rate we're left with this:

 

1) Jesus died for someone who never hears the gospel, and they die without accepting = not guilty of rejecting Jesus, but still has original sin, so not saved.

2) Jesus died for someone who hears the gospel, understands it, dies without accepting = not saved

3) Jesus dies for someone who hears the gospel, accepts it = they are saved

 

Therefore Jesus' death on the cross saves (3) but condemns (1) and (2).

 

That leaves us with belief and acceptance being the critical elements -- not the actual sacrifice. Technically it doesn't matter if the sacrifice even happened because it's only effective in the presence of belief. I suppose you could say they have to have the sacrifice to believe in, it can't be any random thing, but it seems odd that if God is not willing that any should perish, he should guarantee huge numbers of them will perish by requiring them to accept his salvation rather than simply saving them unconditionally.

 

I've never understood the argument that failing to give us a choice would violate free will. What violates free will is giving someone a false choice, only one of which is "correct" and the other of which results in eternal punishment. That is coercion.

 

Perhaps the critical element is not merely belief and acceptance, but repentance, since God doesn't want willful sinners and degenerates in heaven. But the Bible teaches that when we are saved we receive a new nature, to replace the old "sin nature", so if God simply unconditionally saved us, heaven would be full of these people with these new natures. Still imperfect, but then so are Christians anyway. If the new nature means anything it results in one's heart inclined to do good rather than evil, which is obviously acceptable to God for heavenly citizenship, since that would describe any "good" Christian.

[Ouroboros]

That leaves us with belief and acceptance being the critical elements -- not the actual sacrifice. Technically it doesn't matter if the sacrifice even happened because it's only effective in the presence of belief. I suppose you could say they have to have the sacrifice to believe in, it can't be any random thing, but it seems odd that if God is not willing that any should perish, he should guarantee huge numbers of them will perish by requiring them to accept his salvation rather than simply saving them unconditionally.

That's my thoughts as well. The sacrifice is just a symbol or token in which the person has to believe in, and the belief is the actual act of redemption, not the symbol. The symbol has no effect unless the person believes in it. And the symbol could be anything. It has no other meaning that to be the token to which the person puts his faith.

 

I've never understood the argument that failing to give us a choice would violate free will. What violates free will is giving someone a false choice, only one of which is "correct" and the other of which results in eternal punishment. That is coercion.

Agree again.

 

A real choice, out of free will, requires that the person has been given all the options and all the information required to make an informed choice. The Christian argument is that we must make a choice based on incomplete information. It's not a proper choice. There is not enough information to convince me that Christianity is true, so it's not a choice, but rather a default position to be in unbelief. I'll stay an unbeliever until all the information is in and I can make a proper choice. So far, science, reality, and facts of life are proving Christianity wrong, so for each day, Christianity is losing big.

 

Perhaps the critical element is not merely belief and acceptance, but repentance, since God doesn't want willful sinners and degenerates in heaven. But the Bible teaches that when we are saved we receive a new nature, to replace the old "sin nature", so if God simply unconditionally saved us, heaven would be full of these people with these new natures. Still imperfect, but then so are Christians anyway. If the new nature means anything it results in one's heart inclined to do good rather than evil, which is obviously acceptable to God for heavenly citizenship, since that would describe any "good" Christian.

That's right. Which is very odd. If "free will" is so important, then why is it removed in Heave by a replaced "heart" that can't do no evil? So free will is only something great and good right now, but in Heaven it's despised and removed?

[DesertBob]

If "free will" is so important, then why is it removed in Heaven by a replaced "heart" that can't do no evil? So free will is only something great and good right now, but in Heaven it's despised and removed?

The Bible is actually rather fuzzy on this. We are given a new nature, yet Paul writes extensively about the constant hand-wringing struggle between the desire to do good (which is apparently what is installed by the new nature -- as if unbelievers never want to do good, at least not from an honest motivation) and the tendency to default to sinning. "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?!" he despairs at one point.

 

In the main, sin is seen as an annoyance that will be forever banished in heaven, at least after the new heaven and new earth are created. Presumably the impulse or desire to sin will be gone. Nothing says you couldn't theoretically sin, but why would you. There would be no point as there would be no incentive (forbidden pleasure isn't a consideration when you live in complete bliss). Presumably if you did anything "wrong" it would be a total accident for which could not be called rebellion. Mankind is supposed to be restored to a state of innocence in heaven.

 

Is this a lack of free will? I never thought so. It still leaves plenty of free will.

 

Contrary to popular belief there is nothing in the Bible that actually says everyone will spend 100% of their time praising God. I have heard people extemporize that in heaven we will freely roam and explore the universe doing fulfilling work on God's behalf. Nothing in the Bible says so, but nothing says not, either.

 

Not that I believe any of this convenient fiction anymore, but I'm just sayin'.

 

There's an old story about a Southern boy who asked if there'd be any "frahd chicken" in heaven. The answer: all you want. Reminds me of the joke about the guy who goes to heaven and is offered a huge banquet off a table overflowing with delicious foods and desserts. He says no, I can't eat that, it would be bad for me. It's explained that he can eat all he wants without consequence.

 

At this, he turns to his wife and says, "If it wasn't for your damned bran muffins, we could have been here 10 years ago!!"

 

--Bob

[DesertBob]

... the fact that people can't agree upon the meaning of a document doesn't mean that it is unreliable. Judges and Supreme Court Justices have argued for centuries about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and have varied greatly in that understanding, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is unreliable.

It's true that there is debate about interpreting and applying the Constitution or any law or indeed any book. I'm sure that all the people reading this paragraph will come away with somewhat different ideas about what I mean by what I say, what I intended to say, and whether or how to apply what I said. No one is arguing this isn't so.

 

However we're not talking about the Constitution, whose aims are relatively modest compared to the Bible. The Constitution is the basis for law in the United States, not the miraculous revelation of God Almighty relating His claims on your immortal soul. Yet I would submit that the Constitution is more internally consistent, and inspires less debate, than the Bible -- a book that ought to be a model of consistency and clarity.

 

If people's souls hang in the balance, and God actually cares about this fact, God would probably not have been well advised to convey critical information about this matter in a book -- particularly one written long before books were widely available and affordable to everyone. Unambiguous direct revelation would have been a better idea. But given that he went the publishing route, at least you would expect it to produce something other than thousands of warring camps about what the heck it means. God is god ... he's all powerful and "not the author of confusion". The framers of the Constitution did not claim omnipotence. God did.

[Ouroboros]

In the main, sin is seen as an annoyance that will be forever banished in heaven, at least after the new heaven and new earth are created. Presumably the impulse or desire to sin will be gone. Nothing says you couldn't theoretically sin, but why would you. There would be no point as there would be no incentive (forbidden pleasure isn't a consideration when you live in complete bliss). Presumably if you did anything "wrong" it would be a total accident for which could not be called rebellion. Mankind is supposed to be restored to a state of innocence in heaven.

 

Is this a lack of free will? I never thought so. It still leaves plenty of free will.

So what you're saying is that our body wants to sin, but our soul/spirit does not, but we give in to it and use our free will wrong, but in Heaven we won't have the pull to sin so we can use our free will without the danger of being tempted to sin?

 

Does this mean that when some Christians argue in defense for evil in the world, they wrong to point to the free will we have currently. We don't have evil in the world because God wanted us to have free will. There is evil in the world because our free will isn't strong enough to fight off the temptation from the flesh. Right?

 

Contrary to popular belief there is nothing in the Bible that actually says everyone will spend 100% of their time praising God. I have heard people extemporize that in heaven we will freely roam and explore the universe doing fulfilling work on God's behalf. Nothing in the Bible says so, but nothing says not, either.

Yeah. I never thought that either. I'm not sure if you thought that I had that idea; fyi, I don't and didn't in the past.

 

But talking about the ability to sin in Heaven. It is obviously possible (in the mythology) since Satan did.

 

And also, God doesn't have a problem facing sin either (the whole wrath thing is kind of strange) because God talked face-to-face with Satan in Job, and he talked to Adam & Eve after the fall (after their sin). In other words, the excuses don't add up.

 

Not that I believe any of this convenient fiction anymore, but I'm just sayin'.

 

There's an old story about a Southern boy who asked if there'd be any "frahd chicken" in heaven. The answer: all you want. Reminds me of the joke about the guy who goes to heaven and is offered a huge banquet off a table overflowing with delicious foods and desserts. He says no, I can't eat that, it would be bad for me. It's explained that he can eat all he wants without consequence.

 

At this, he turns to his wife and says, "If it wasn't for your damned bran muffins, we could have been here 10 years ago!!"

Heaven is what we make it to be.

[DesertBob]

So what you're saying is that our body wants to sin, but our soul/spirit does not, but we give in to it and use our free will wrong, but in Heaven we won't have the pull to sin so we can use our free will without the danger of being tempted to sin?

 

Does this mean that when some Christians argue in defense for evil in the world, they are wrong to point to the free will we have currently? We don't have evil in the world because God wanted us to have free will. There is evil in the world because our free will isn't strong enough to fight off the temptation from the flesh. Right?

Yes, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." On the other hand we are supposed to be "more than conquerors" through Christ -- although that is spoken of about overcoming adversity, not so much sin or temptation, as what is being "conquered" in that text is "nakedness and peril and sword". As far as I can tell this doctrine of "weak flesh" is necessary to promote dependence on god (= the church).

But talking about the ability to sin in Heaven. It is obviously possible (in the mythology) since Satan did.

 

And also, God doesn't have a problem facing sin either (the whole wrath thing is kind of strange) because God talked face-to-face with Satan in Job, and he talked to Adam & Eve after the fall (after their sin). In other words, the excuses don't add up.

Excellent points. The idea that God must exclude sin from heaven because it's intolerable to his holiness and perfection does not jibe with the story of Job and god's interaction with Satan. And you're right, if he can interact with this sinful world without being sullied, if he can show grace and mercy to one, he can show it to all, if he so chose.

[Phanta]

Just to be technical, there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son. God the Father sent God the Son, not himself, to earth to take our sins upon us.

 

God didn't send himself. This doesn't make any sense to me. This sounds like two different Gods.

 

Also, what is it about Jesus that makes him an offspring of God? How is he "Son? (Why does no one ever want to answer this question?)

 

Phanta

[agnosticator]

...It is actually quite simple to understand. Even my children understood it at an early age. The gospel is simply this: God exists and created people in his image, to have relationship with him. Man rejected and rebelled against God. Man's rebellion has led to a screwed up world where we fight ourselves, we fight others and we continue to fight against God. God sent his son, Jesus to live among us to show us God, to go to the cross to die as a payment for our sins, and to rise again to show us that we could have restored relationship with God. We simply need to repent of our sins (admit we are truly sinful and guilty of that rebellion) and trust in Jesus and his offer of salvation as a free gift. That's it, all in one concise paragraph.

 

I don't BELIEVE the story. So I'm hellbound

 

 

...We also must know that it is possible that those children could reject us at some point, but we still bring them into the world...

 

There is no comparing a real parent/child relationship within material existence to a story. We have NO option but to believe the firsthand experience of our upbringing with our parents actually happened. Even "rejecting" our parents CANNOT negate the experience and fact of a parent/child relationship. The parents will always be the parents regardless of any rejection. But we have the option to believe or not believe any story told to us.

 

According to the story, this is rebellion. But it is a story we haven't experienced. So it takes belief to accept it as being true. Or we don't believe it to be true, so we are condemned. DesertBob and Ouroborus have spelled it out in immaculate detail.

[Ouroboros]

Just to be technical, there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son. God the Father sent God the Son, not himself, to earth to take our sins upon us.

 

God didn't send himself. This doesn't make any sense to me. This sounds like two different Gods.

It sure does. They go back and forth on "one God" and "many gods" in their theology. I believe the trinity idea was invented to supplant pagan polytheism, while being pleasant and approved by the monotheists in the church. It's a poly-mono-theism (tri-unity).

 

Also, what is it about Jesus that makes him an offspring of God? How is he "Son? (Why does no one ever want to answer this question?)

Or why God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirits are all male. Do they have schlongs? Do they have nipples like real human men? Can they reproduce? Does God have an X and a Y chromosome?

 

It's obvious that they're talking in riddles and symbolic language. God isn't a "he" in a physical sense at all, neither is really Jesus or the Holy Spirit (who was most likely borrowed from the idea of a goddess). So if they're talking about their god and his character in symbolic language, then why isn't it obvious that the concepts of sin, redemption, faith, heaven, and hell are all symbolic things, and not necessarily the real things. God isn't a man in a real sense, so why is Heaven a place in a real sense?

[DesertBob]

It's obvious that they're talking in riddles and symbolic language. God isn't a "he" in a physical sense at all, neither is really Jesus or the Holy Spirit (who was most likely borrowed from the idea of a goddess). So if they're talking about their god and his character in symbolic language, then why isn't it obvious that the concepts of sin, redemption, faith, heaven, and hell are all symbolic things, and not necessarily the real things. God isn't a man in a real sense, so why is Heaven a place in a real sense?

There's a big struggle in different Christian factions about how literally vs figuratively vs symbolically to take various things. I've noticed that people who are educated in religious history and comparative religions tend to see things in terms of the commonalities they're aware of and assume that ideas are borrowed from other places rather than handed down as holy writ.

[centauri]

Again, no one is condemned for not believing in Jesus. Unbelievers who heard the gospel, however, will be condemned (along with their other sins) for the sin of rejecting Jesus. That is more serious than mere passive unbelief.

That is hearing the good news of Christ's offer to free you from your sins (yes, sins) and knowingly rejecting him and his offer. I think that unbelievers want to play it down to simple unbelief, but it is more actively rebellion and rejection of Jesus, and yes, that is sin.

The specific case mentioned in this thread was Anne Frank, a Jew.

Either Anne Frank is guilty of the serious sin of unbelief or she isn't.

Which is it?

[centauri]

God sent his son, Jesus to live among us to show us God, to go to the cross to die as a payment for our sins, and to rise again to show us that we could have restored relationship with God.

Under this scenario, God violated his own law and lied about what was needed for salvation.

 

We simply need to repent of our sins (admit we are truly sinful and guilty of that rebellion) and trust in Jesus and his offer of salvation as a free gift.

It's not a free gift.

Free gifts require nothing in return.

What you've described is actually a barter exchange, where worship and the performance of certain actions are required in order to receive the "gift".

 

Just to be technical, there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son. God the Father sent God the Son, not himself, to earth to take our sins upon us.

There is no "God the Son".

God is not a man, nor a son of man. (Num 23:19)

 

Again, God created free creatures who had intellects and reason, with the ability to make decisions. Given that, he knew that many would likely rebel against him; however, he valued creating free creatures over determined beings, because free creatures have the capacity to love.

God's works are declared to be perfect.

Perfect works cannot rebel, sin, or make imperfect choices.

Either God created imperfect works, or rebellion is not sin.

Adam and Eve didn't even know what good and evil was until after they ate from the tree.

 

God values life, but he also values freedom. He won't compel a person to love and trust him.

Not according to the Bible.

Using threats of damnation and hellfire to coerce people into making a particular choice is compelling them.

Ultimatums are not freedom.

[oddbird1963]

Again, no one is condemned for not believing in Jesus.

 

 

Again, the character in John 3:18 whom you consider to be the "Son of God" contradicts you word for word. It completely blows your theological word spinning, so you ignored it.

 

You say A: No one is condemned for non believing in Jesus.

 

The character Jesus says NOT A: "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

 

You're only attempt to try to resolve the contradiction is to throw up a smokescreen of verbosity:

 

So, let's deal with this verse which seems to indicate what you say on the surface; however, it is always important to take context into account, as well as the rest of the NT. So, for context, here the passage

 

You pull the usual christian trick when caught with a contradiction in your own theology: You claim that it only appears to be a contradiction and then blah blah blah (using some authority who ignores the same phrase as well to add more smoke to the smokescreen).

 

But you never address the issue: How does what Jesus said "because he has not believed. . ." NOT contradict what you have stated several times? You say a person is under condemnation for sin and rebellion and not for not believing in Jesus. Jesus said a person IS under condemnation for NOT believing in him.

 

Your Bible and your theology contains contradictions. This is clearly one of them. And your solution is to ignore the contradiction and either hope nobody notices or bedazzle people with b.s. until they are so tired of your words that they don't care anymore.

[violentlygraceful]

These questions are based upon three assumptions regarding the Christian's beliefs in the afterlife:

 

1) heaven is a place or state of reward,

2) hell is a place or state of punishment,

3) both of these places or states are eternal.

 

The questions are:

 

1) Why is it not possible for someone to rescind their reward of heaven, in order that someone may be spared the punishment of hell?

2) Why is it not possible for someone currently in hell to repent, worship God, and be allowed into heaven?

3) Modern rabbinic Judaism believes in a place of punishment for the unrighteous after death, but it is only temporary. Thus, while it is punitive, it is also remedial. Being punished for an eternity is not remedial, but only retributive. Why is a remedial punishment inferior to a purely retributive punishment?

[Realist]

 

Why do you consider the plan of salvation to be "convoluted"? It is actually quite simple to understand. Even my children understood it at an early age.

 

 

... That's pretty SIMPLE to answer! Because they understand your indoctrinated interpretation of it because they idolise you as a parent!

 

Simply so you can understand it ... its called "brainwashing!" Their version no doubt will be what YOU believe!

 

Ever wonder why there are 30,000 odd denominations of the same religion?? Because that's how well written the guidebook is! That's because man wrote it for man!

[Phanta]

Just to be technical, there is a difference between God the Father and God the Son. God the Father sent God the Son, not himself, to earth to take our sins upon us.

 

God didn't send himself. This doesn't make any sense to me. This sounds like two different Gods.

It sure does. They go back and forth on "one God" and "many gods" in their theology. I believe the trinity idea was invented to supplant pagan polytheism, while being pleasant and approved by the monotheists in the church. It's a poly-mono-theism (tri-unity).

 

Also, what is it about Jesus that makes him an offspring of God? How is he "Son? (Why does no one ever want to answer this question?)

Or why God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirits are all male. Do they have schlongs? Do they have nipples like real human men? Can they reproduce? Does God have an X and a Y chromosome?

 

It's obvious that they're talking in riddles and symbolic language. God isn't a "he" in a physical sense at all, neither is really Jesus or the Holy Spirit (who was most likely borrowed from the idea of a goddess). So if they're talking about their god and his character in symbolic language, then why isn't it obvious that the concepts of sin, redemption, faith, heaven, and hell are all symbolic things, and not necessarily the real things. God isn't a man in a real sense, so why is Heaven a place in a real sense?

 

Great questions, Hans. Perhaps LNC will have an answer.

 

What you said about poly-mono-theism resonates. It sure looks that way.

 

Phanta

[LNC]

I realized as a kid that my good works would never outweigh my bad works and realized that I would be doomed.

 

I'm betting you didn't "realize" it until someone told you that you were a hopeless sinner.

 

No, I actually realized it on my own. I was raised in a church that told me that I could do something about my sin by living a good life. I realized that that would not deal with the problem.

 

We are saved based upon the work that Jesus did for us, not based upon anything we could do.

 

Then you are saying everyone is saved. Universalist, huh?

 

I don't remember saying that. I keep hearing that people on this site are familiar with the Bible, and if that is the case, then you would know that it is based upon regeneration by the Holy Spirit evidenced by our repentance and trust in Jesus.

 

On the philosophical side, I would suggest that we all worship something (or things) during our lifetimes. The problem is that most of the things that we worship are not worthy of worship. We are, in that sense, committing idolatry. If God exists, as I believe he does, then by virtue of who he is he deserves our worship. I can go into more detail as to why later if anyone is curious. I think that when Christianity is properly understood, it is the most logical system of belief out there.

 

Isn't "worth" entirely relative?

 

It is relative in the sense of relation. What I mean is that I am big relative to my children; however, I am small relative to the size of the universe. In fact, all of us are small relative to the size of the universe. In fact, all material objects are small, relative to the size of the universe. So, in that sense, size is not necessarily relative. If there is a transcendent and perfect standard, then comparison to that standard is not relative in the sense of somethings might be better or worse than it. In regard to worship, it is relative when we think of earthly things, but not in relation to God, who is perfect and completely worthy of everyone's worship. In that sense, everything else is less worthy of worship than God and when a thing is worshiped in place of God, that is idolatry - the worship of a physical object as a god.

 

When you think about the idea that a Sovereign of the universe would be rebelled against by his creation,....

 

We have thought about it, and we think it is a wrong and mistaken idea. No evidence for it whatsoever.

 

That is a false statement. I have provided plenty of evidence for the existence of God and the evidence of rebellion against him. You may not like it or accept it, but it doesn't mean that evidence does not exist or has not been presented.

 

LNC

[LNC]

A man was shot dead.

 

Was it the exsanguination (hypovolemia), the wound, the bullet, the gun, or the shooter that killed the man?

 

So what sends a person to Hell? The sin, the unbelief, rebellion, or God?

 

It depends on view, doesn't it?

 

Actually, it depends upon the type of cause to which you are referring. The lead and metal is the material cause, the bullet and the gun are the formal causes, the gun is the efficient cause as it fires the bullet, and the shooter's intent to kill is the final cause.

 

What sends a person to hell? The person is the efficient cause, their sin is the formal cause, rebellion is the final cause. God is sovereign against whom the rebellion is directed, but also the one who provides payment for that act of rebellion.

 

LNC

[LNC]

God will judge each person according to how he/she responded to the light that he or she had.

 

Hi LNC. I wasn't going to post anything until you said this. You jogged my memory. This is a popular Ellen White quote among SDA's. Hmm...

 

I should say to Ex-Cers one reason why you respond as you do, aside from apologetics. It is also because you desire philosophical discussions and debates. Enjoy!

 

If Ellen White said this, I'm sure that she had a different intention in mind. However, if you want to understand this concept biblically, read Romans chapter 2. Paul explains:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Rom. 2:12-16

 

Guilt by association isn't a valid way to argue a case. I would suggest that you are not good at reading my motives or intentions either. It seems that many on this site enjoy philosophical discussion, apologetics (which simply means, to give an answer back - so it seems that everyone on this site is doing apologetics) and debate, what does your comment say about them?

 

LNC