Question For The Christians

[rayskidude]

they come to it already believing it was true, usually and do there work for a more mission fieldesque kind of goal.

 

And in their studies they find nothing that causes them to jettison the faith, but actually see how God uses believers to accomplish tons of good in this world. Why turn from your studied conclusions and the evidence from life?

 

"My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself."

 

What I see here is a man who is accurately describing the basis for his faith - the most convincing evidence will always be your first-hand experience. But in addition to his own experience - and that of many people close to him - he also has a set of rational arguments that point to the fact that the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation for all that we see and experience is the Biblical God.

 

rayskidude - Why would the firm belief in the virgin birth, miracles, transfiguration, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah necessitate a belief in other "miracles" from other sources - especially given the fact that miracles have a very specific purpose >> God is revealing Himself to Man in remarkable ways, so that Man will turn from false pursuits to follow after the one & only valid pursuit - to know the only true God, the Triune God of the Bible.

 

Without theology, dealing with purely factual persuits you would have to. What i bolded is theology.

 

But remember, the Biblical theology presents Satan as our adversary who inspires false prophets and who can & does perform 'miracles' to get people to look away from God.

[rayskidude]

You claim Jesus fulfilled the law when he didn’t.

You then engage in blatant special pleading to escape the dilemma you created for yourself.

You preach on and on about a holy God but when it comes to walking the walk instead of only talking the talk, you collapse like a cheap tent.

You wave away the obvious problems and contradictions by falsely labeling them as a "straw man".

The so-called straw man rests firmly on the foundation of God's word, which you edit and revise as you see fit.

 

You have not answered my response to your straw man argument. And I know why - because you cannot, so you dream up some 'special pleading' excuse for yourself. Now, just get back in that corner you painted yourself into and cuddle with that straw man you've built for yourself. And then everything will be fine.

 

List some of the requirements for a sin sacrifice and show how Jesus complied with the law.

Show where the new covenant as defined in the Hebrew scriptures, states that obedience to the law would be replaced by faith in a vicarious human sacrifice.

Also, there is no God the Son, as the Hebrew deity is not a three headed hydra.

 

Read the Book of Hebrews - then get back to me.

[DesertBob]

They will NOT ACKNOWLEDGE GOD AS GOD - this says nothing about not believing that God exists. It simply means they refuse His Godship over them, as does Satan. Satan knows God exists - he simply refuses to live under God's lordship.

It is quite a stretch to imagine that everyone who actually ends up eternally punished in hell will ultimately not see the error of their ways -- that is the whole point of punishment, is it not? I have known many, many Christians (including the inimitable Jack Chick) depict the damned bemoaning their lost state, once they realize it -- though of course by then it's too late. Even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has the wishing that his surviving loved ones could see the truth and escape his fate. That doesn't sound like someone who refuses to submit to god -- such a person wouldn't want anyone else to, either, most particularly his or her family, and they certainly wouldn't acknowledge what they are still rejecting as truth by suggesting that others should be made aware of it and submit to it -- and by extension, that they should have done so.

 

Even from a selfish standpoint, if you're in agony with no end in sight, you'd do anything to get out of it, even something that under other circumstances you'd rather not.

 

You know, every time someone commits or allows someone to commit an atrocity on a fellow human being, it's always preceded by dehumanizing the victim. The Nazis dehumanized anyone not of the Aryan "race" and in particular dehumanized Jews as human garbage. That's all you're doing here. You're saying these people are depraved subhumans who would never repent anyway, so they can be safely consigned to hell and forgotten. Good riddance.

 

What you know in your heart is that eternal torment is a disproportionate punishment for any conceivable offense and therefore immoral. You also know that any just punishment is meted out for corrective purposes, and the fact that eternal punishment of any kind implies there is no rehabilitation means that this is not punishment; it's sadistic torture. That's why you're going to such lengths to justify it.

 

Since god is supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent there can be no such thing as a moral or spiritual defect that cannot be repaired. But even if some things cannot be corrected, such that these depraved souls can only harm themselves and others, the logical thing to do is to simply wink them out of existence and into oblivion. Think of the heating bills it would save. But no ... god has to keep them sentient and aware and then fill their field of awareness with unending pain.

 

If you want to expend all this effort justifying the inherently unjustifiable, feel free. I for one am not going to.

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1289875991' post='622325']

ascension of Jesus

 

is not mentioned in any of the gospels. Only Luke suggests it ever happened (in Acts) and Luke was not an eyewitness to anything connected to 'Jesus.'

I've come to the conclusion that Ray is really only just a feeble minded dunce.

 

According to the Gospel of Luke >>

The Ascension

50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Luke 24:50–53). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

From Acts;

9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Acts 1:9–11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

The preaching of Peter - an eyewitness;

32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord,

Sit at my right hand,

35 until I make your enemies your footstool.’

36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Acts 2:32–36). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Acts 3:17–21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[Ouroboros]

I have never - no never - no never - heard of anyone ever referring to Abraham's bosom as 'hell.' Just read the passage, it's so obvious that Lazarus is in the place of blessing. And God says He's the God of Abraham - again, obvious reference to Abraham being in the place of blessing.

No, you're right. I got them mixed up.

 

It was like 15 years at least since I last read it, and it's not like I keep refreshing myself on these stories.

 

Abraham's bosom is obviously the place where you're in fellowship with Abraham, receiving the same blessed after-life as Abraham, 'the friend of God.'

The rich man, however, was somewhere. It was not Hell. It was not 'place of blessing.' And it was not Gehenna.

 

So where was he?

 

Luk 16:19- KJV

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores , 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass , that the beggar died , and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died , and was buried ; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

 

It was a place 'Hades,' translated to Hell in KJV, but as we have agreed on is not the same as Hell (Gehenna), and it's not Abraham's bosom, yet it's just next door.

 

 

I seriously don't know what kind of churches you guys attended prior to your de-conversions - but if this is an example of what you were taught (Abraham's bosom = hell) - well, no wonder you left. I would have left there as fast as I could.

Nah. Not true. It was just so long ago, and I'm starting to forget the details. I just got it mixed up a bit.

 

But you're right it was a crazy-ass religion. One thing, really crazy, I know, totally far-out crazy bat-shit, I actually (don't laugh) thought the world was only 6,000 years old! Isn't that totally insane? Right? And another totally way wacko thing I believed was that evolution was a lie from Satan. Can you believe that? It's messed up, isn't it? Now I know better, and I'm glad for it.

 

Another totally demented idea I had back then was that people who were sinners and didn't believe in Jesus would go to Hell for eternity and suffer, and I thought it was God's justice and totally okay. Sick, right?

 

Oh, wait. That's what you believe now. Isn't it? You're the one who's still stuck in a backwards and deranged belief. I'm so sorry.

[Guest end3]

The fly in the ointment is other people's projections. You end up carrying them until you can't bear it anymore and in general they will not take them back, so you're forced to choose between lugging their projections around or lugging around the sadness of separation and loneliness. Having known both, I choose to bear people's illusions, with people whom I find it to be at least marginally worth the effort to do so.

 

Honest question here....you mention sadness, separation, and loneliness as a function of acceptance for others. My assertion is that this equates to "suffering" and "death to self" when we are able to "overcome" in this specific manner. The point being, that through the suffering, even when we know it to be extremely taxing on oursleves, that the take home message is that ultimately if it doesn't provide immediate relief, that somewhere down the road, that person might consider the interpersonal transaction as being "abnormal" and in the light of time and maturity, have a new thought or just to remember the openness of the relationship to consider for themselves and then subsequently to others. I won't lie Bob....I think if there is a God, then this specific manifestation of grace, openness, and acceptance through a relationship is God or love. When we choose to separate ourselves, even within conversation, is this not essentially "death" in a sense? Ask my 11 year old and the interpersonal realtionship issues she's having......or husbands and wives that sit in silence.

 

OK, end of lecture. I apologize, I just have strong feelings that this is substantial as not just specifically mentioned in Christianity, but seems universally true.

Of course I have my own illusions and probably although I do my best not to burden others with them, to some degree I'm probably guilty of the same thing. That is what motivates me to aggressively deal in reality and let go of my hopes ... it's the only way I know to be a tolerable person to be around.

 

This statement seems like the definition of grace, but I don't understand the "let go of my hopes" part.....if you feel like devulging.

 

 

It is no accident that comedy springs from pain, that most comedians find comedy a defense against their own demons and help us to laugh at the absurdity of life. Yes, my life could make a great sitcom ... and so could yours or anyone else's.

 

I wasn't laughing at you....my buddy and I are always talking about waking up to the 2.5 kids, 1 dog, 2 cats, and the everpresent pressure to be X by our wives. We have equated waking up to this each moring as "flatlining". I was laughing at the commonality of this and your previous remark. I think there is a commercial that used to play of a guy with riding on a mower in a trance as he went through life and was buried in debt......kind of that same sort of thing.

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude'

They will NOT ACKNOWLEDGE GOD AS GOD - this says nothing about not believing that God exists. It simply means they refuse His Godship over them, as does Satan. Satan knows God exists - he simply refuses to live under God's lordship.

 

It is quite a stretch to imagine that everyone who actually ends up eternally punished in hell will ultimately not see the error of their ways -- that is the whole point of punishment, is it not? I have known many, many Christians (including the inimitable Jack Chick) depict the damned bemoaning their lost state, once they realize it -- though of course by then it's too late. Even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has the wishing that his surviving loved ones could see the truth and escape his fate. That doesn't sound like someone who refuses to submit to god -- such a person wouldn't want anyone else to, either, most particularly his or her family, and they certainly wouldn't acknowledge what they are still rejecting as truth by suggesting that others should be made aware of it and submit to it -- and by extension, that they should have done so.

 

May I suggest that you read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis - he does an excellent treatment of this issue. We don't want to admit that people go to Hell by their conscious choice - and remain there for the same reason - because we consider this unthinkable. However, the alternative to Hell is Heaven - which means that you live under the reign of another, God. And to quote someone whose identification escapes me - "rather be a ruler in Hell, than a doorman in Heaven." Again, such a though might seem irrational, but many people have this attitude.

 

Even from a selfish standpoint, if you're in agony with no end in sight, you'd do anything to get out of it, even something that under other circumstances you'd rather not.

 

Would your motives be right - or manipulative? Humility receives grace and forgiveness, manipulation receives its just reward.

 

You're saying these people are depraved subhumans who would never repent anyway, so they can be safely consigned to hell and forgotten. Good riddance.

 

No, I am not. All humans are created in the image & likeness of God - blessed with existence, personality, relationships, happiness, etc. Remember Acts 14? God has blessed people with so much - so the encouragement is to turn to God in appreciation, for forgiveness, for eternal joy, etc.

 

What you know in your heart is that eternal torment is a disproportionate punishment for any conceivable offense and therefore immoral. You also know that any just punishment is meted out for corrective purposes, and the fact that eternal punishment of any kind implies there is no rehabilitation means that this is not punishment; it's sadistic torture. That's why you're going to such lengths to justify it. Since god is supposedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent there can be no such thing as a moral or spiritual defect that cannot be repaired. But even if some things cannot be corrected, such that these depraved souls can only harm themselves and others, the logical thing to do is to simply wink them out of existence and into oblivion. Think of the heating bills it would save. But no ... god has to keep them sentient and aware and then fill their field of awareness with unending pain.

 

If you want to expend all this effort justifying the inherently unjustifiable, feel free. I for one am not going to.

 

I am simply stating fact. These are your sentiments, developed in your mind, to try to explain reality - 'cuz you know there are many truly wicked people. That God's holiness, justice, righteousness is expressed in ways that seem illogical to you, this simply means that you have chosen to be judge over God. So, in your finite nature and imperfect character (which is true of all humans) - you elevate your sentiments as supreme, and accuse others of 'de-humanizing' people whom God created for eternal life and for His Glory.

[bdp]

"It's all God's fault."

 

 

It IS all "god"'s fault. It's game, it's rules, it's preening ego. If it existed. But by the way the myth reads, yes, we get punished for a game of "god"'s own devising that we had no say in - set up to fail, and tortured for not being able to believe in something that there's no objective evidence of.

[bdp]

there is a void, a 'God-shaped hole' in every human heart.

 

No there isn't.

[bdp]

Sin occurs because we reject, ignore, etc God's will for us, and we set out to accomplish "My Will." Because of our sin nature and finiteness - My Will ends in My Destruction, My Ruin. Yet God can and will deliver Me from my path and pursuit toward self-destruction. What's called for is that I abandon "My Will" and return to seeking God's Will.

 

Nobody needs to be 'delivered' from their own path, especially to follow feel-good subjective interpretations of what 'god' wants for them. I so royally fucked up my own life trying to follow 'what god wants' that I still get poisonous resentment about it if I let myself think about it too long. That's what brought me to ruin now - if I had followed my own path I would have been far better off today. If your great big pantsload of crap works for you, like blanket in hand and thumb in mouth, beautiful. It doesn't work for everyone, and you're a horse's ass for continually trying to ram down our throats something that is impossible to believe and that proved terribly harmful to some of us.

[bdp]

ah, nevermind.

[bdp]

 

 

I am simply stating fact.

 

You're stating mythology.

[DesertBob]

Honest question here....you mention sadness, separation, and loneliness as a function of acceptance for others.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I cited sadness and loneliness as a consequence of separation, not a "function of acceptance for others". But maybe you mean, I accept others to avoid the consequence. If so, I would say it's more precise to say that I'm willing to put up with the downside of dealing with people (or at least certain people) because the downside of being estranged from them is even worse.

My assertion is that this equates to "suffering" and "death to self" when we are able to "overcome" in this specific manner.

I suppose you could couch it in those terms but I think it's limiting to think of it that way because it puts everything in excessively black-and-white, good/evil terms. I am not saying that I am right to be as I am and that others are wrong to be as they are and I just suffer their wrongness. We are just different, and/or have different perceptions and needs; I don't assign absolute value to those difference or perceptions.

 

As an example we all have our particular ideas about how much "space" we need, what constitutes "space" and how much of it is "enough" under what circumstances. My daughter for instance is very invasive and impertinent, in my view, regarding my finances and wants ad hoc access to my largess to cover for whatever financial vicissitudes come her way. To her mind this is what I should cheerfully allow in order to "be there for her". She's almost 32 years old and also wants another kind of mutually exclusive "space" -- the right to be considered a capable, self sufficient adult and to never receive advice or constructive criticism that even remotely suggests otherwise. Our differing views on this greatly limits our relationship, given that the Bank of Dad ™ closed years ago and she does not want my input on anything unless it happens to reflect the predetermined content she wants it to have. She doesn't really want advice, she just "advice shops" until she hears what she wanted to hear in the first place.

 

My GF has a more rational but equally divergent view of "space" which she applies to the area of how much time she has alone or "to herself". I tend to regard together time as an extremely valuable commodity not to be squandered and in modern 21st century America in a two earner household I don't see it as a particularly plentiful commodity in any case. I would like to have more than 10 minutes of quality time together each day; she would like it all to herself and have most of the control over how much of it she gives away. We have hammered out an adequate tap dance regarding this and given that we both are 100% telecommutes it is evolving into this thing where I make busy work for myself outside the home, having coffee with friends, manufacturing clients with onsite work which normally at this point in my professional life I would 100% turn down, taking night classes at the local college, visiting relatives more often than I care to, and the like. This dilutes the potential benefits of the relationship to me, at times in annoying ways, but the alternative is basically to either have constant conflict about it or to break up because these particular thought structures in her head are very strong and of very long standing. Plus, pragmatically, they are not that uncommon. Many, many couples have relationships that are dependent upon having fairly limited meaningful interaction.

 

I had a vision, at one time, to escape that fate, but given how picky I am about other aspects of who I'm willing to be with -- that I need to be with someone with sufficient intelligence, heart and awareness that I can respect them, the odds of such a person placing that much priority on intimate relationship with a life partner are kind of witheringly small. Also, anyone who is open to a relationship at my age is open because they're just as damaged as I am from things like being divorced, widowed, or otherwise screwed over. So I can either accept what to me is an emotionally arm's length relationship that at least allows me to be supportive to someone I care deeply about, which is a major aspect of what I need to get through each day; or I can piss away the relatively few years left to me seeking perfection that mostly doesn't exist and would be very hard to find if it does. Oh, and by the way, I don't really have the energy or heart to keep seeking anyway.

 

This is the kind of thing I mean about "letting go of my hopes". I had, at one time, what I think is a fairly reasonable hope for a mutually respectful relationship with my adult daughter, which involves me in an appropriate role as a father and not as some kind of butt-buddy you can hit up for a twenty when you fetch up short. But it ain't going to happen. To the extent it will ever happen, it's going to require me to completely restructure my expectations and settle for something other, if not actually less, than I wished for. At one time, I also defined myself as a man in terms of being something other than the unattentive, distant, self-absorbed person leading a separate life and dipping into my woman's life at times of my choosing (much less hers!); I wanted to completely devote myself to someone and be fully present for them and have a mutually emotionally satisfying and comfortable experience. Not dependence or codependency, just healthy interdependence. That's never going to happen either. It probably doesn't happen often for many people, actually, and besides, even if it happens it's just a patina over the essential fact that we all ultimately are born, live, and die alone anyway. So ... what is the point of bemoaning it or trying, yet again, at this late stage, to tinker with it? You get to a point in life where you just have to say, fuck it, I'll take what life is willing to begrudge me and be done with it. Let the young dream of how they are going to set the world on fire and do it better. They'll find out soon enough for themselves.

I think if there is a God, then this specific manifestation of grace, openness, and acceptance through a relationship is God or love. When we choose to separate ourselves, even within conversation, is this not essentially "death" in a sense? ... I just have strong feelings that this is substantial as not just specifically mentioned in Christianity, but seems universally true.

If it's a manifestation of the divine then it's like all other manifestations of the divine, it mostly hides and teases you now and then with promises of Wonderfulness, just to yank your chain. My relationship with the divine is no different than my relationship with my loved ones, I just have to accept that it is what it wants to / insists on being, and take what I can from it, when I can.

 

On the flip side, I give my all to it. That is the thing that annoys me. I feel I hold nothing back, but I feel that everything coming back to me is constrained in some way or other, often significantly so. I was raised with the idea that you get back what you give. I now am pretty sure that's another load of BS. It's certainly not my experience. For one thing, we each have only our own kind of love to give -- not the other person's. Giving what you value to others misses the point that they probably don't value the same things. This is where the golden rule breaks down.

 

So I make these tactical decisions: I can't give my daughter what she values without allowing her to disrespect me and take advantage of me, so I distance myself from that relationship pending some change of heart on her part. On the other hand I can give my GF her "space" and she will actually appreciate that at least and will, oddly, feel loved by me because of it, so although it saddens me to miss out on much of the shared experience that is possible between us, at least I have what is achievable and it does in fact contribute to my happiness.

 

Again, it's all a matter of perception and perspective. If there is one thing I totally didn't understand back in the early years it's how utterly different people are from each other. I thought we were all approximately the same, but others really inhabit their own reality "bubble". As do I. Makes your head spin to think about it.

I wasn't laughing at you....my buddy and I are always talking about waking up to the 2.5 kids, 1 dog, 2 cats, and the everpresent pressure to be X by our wives. We have equated waking up to this each moring as "flatlining". I was laughing at the commonality of this and your previous remark. I think there is a commercial that used to play of a guy with riding on a mower in a trance as he went through life and was buried in debt......kind of that same sort of thing.

Yes, I understand and again, took nothing at all personally. It is funny, looked at from the outside. Regrettably we're all on the inside of our own lives, and it's harder to laugh from there.

[centauri]

You claim Jesus fulfilled the law when he didn’t.

You then engage in blatant special pleading to escape the dilemma you created for yourself.

You preach on and on about a holy God but when it comes to walking the walk instead of only talking the talk, you collapse like a cheap tent.

You wave away the obvious problems and contradictions by falsely labeling them as a "straw man".

The so-called straw man rests firmly on the foundation of God's word, which you edit and revise as you see fit.

 

You have not answered my response to your straw man argument. And I know why - because you cannot, so you dream up some 'special pleading' excuse for yourself.

I didn’t dream up anything, I simply pointed out the obvious.

You completely ignore the point of God’s law because you’ve backed yourself into a corner.

God’s law isn’t a straw man, it’s the essence of the theology presented in the Bible.

You claim Jesus fulfilled the law when he didn’t.

You then engage in blatant special pleading to escape the dilemma you created for yourself.

Jesus is special and exempt from his Father's law, and therefore anything he did must be proper because you say so.

You have not resolved the dilemma you created for yourself and I know why…because you cannot and so in your desperation you try to distract and deflect your contradictions by issuing false claims about “straw man” arguments.

The law of God is a central theme of the Bible.

You ignore the law as part of your dreamy religious doctrine, which is one that relies on special pleading to escape the contradiction.

A human sin sacrifice is illegal according to God’s law, which was binding on Jesus.

 

Now, just get back in that corner you painted yourself into and cuddle with that straw man you've built for yourself. And then everything will be fine.

Translation:

Just go away skeptic and let me preach my dogma uninterrupted!

 

Let’s get back to the corner you’ve painted yourself into and expose your flimsy, convoluted, and revisionist theology.

We’ll go right back to the point, one that you’re working so hard to evade.

You can resolve this quite easily by showing from the Hebrew scriptures where the law of God states that humans are valid sacrifices for sin.

List some of the requirements for a sin sacrifice and show how Jesus complied with the law.

Show where the new covenant as defined in the Hebrew scriptures, states that obedience to the law would be replaced by faith in a vicarious human sacrifice.

God's word says that salvation comes from the law, not through a pagan human sacrifice.

Repenting and obeying the law are the recipe for salvation as Ezek 18:20-27 shows.

 

 

centauri:

List some of the requirements for a sin sacrifice and show how Jesus complied with the law.

Show where the new covenant as defined in the Hebrew scriptures, states that obedience to the law would be replaced by faith in a vicarious human sacrifice.

Also, there is no God the Son, as the Hebrew deity is not a three headed hydra.

 

Rayskidude:

Read the Book of Hebrews - then get back to me.

Your cheap tent just folded again.

You couldn’t answer those basic questions.

You have no answer except to add another layer of special pleading to your rancid theological cake.

The Book of Hebrews is not the Old Testament, aka: the Hebrew scriptures.

The Book of Hebrews is not the law of God as given by Moses.

The new covenant is described and defined in Jeremiah.

Answer the questions from the Hebrew scriptures, not from revisionist theology that appeared long after the fact.

[DesertBob]

And to quote someone whose identification escapes me - "rather be a ruler in Hell, than a doorman in Heaven." Again, such a though might seem irrational, but many people have this attitude.

That's Milton, in Dante's Inferno. But it's a remark from outside of hell, not inside it. I think hell, if it existed, would turn anyone into a foxhole Christian. God would have no end of cowering toadies.

Humility receives grace and forgiveness, manipulation receives its just reward.

Eternal torment isn't just for any offense, much less the arguable offense of attempting to gain an advantage or avoid misery. You are trying to manipulate words to persuade me, does this make you worthy of hellfire?

 

You are not addressing my objection at all, which is that punishment must be just, swift and appropriate in order to achieve any reasonable end -- such as rehabilitation. Hell fails all these tests. It's unjust, it's not in any kind of chronological proximity to the offense and it's inappropriately long, as in, infinitely. And it has no legitimate objective -- not rehabilitation, not healing, not reconciliation -- just to hurt, without limit.

 

You can hand wave these objections as impertinent given my insignificant standing before god, but in order to do that you have to give god a free pass for any apparent injustice, because he's god and must be right, because it's what the Bible says and it must be right. All the folks in this forum do is take the other tack and say, hey, if god has the attributes of a petty, vindictive asshole, maybe the Bible was written by petty, vindictive assholes and not by a supposedly omnibenevolent god.

You're saying these people are depraved subhumans who would never repent anyway, so they can be safely consigned to hell and forgotten. Good riddance.

No, I am not. All humans are created in the image & likeness of God - blessed with existence, personality, relationships, happiness, etc. Remember Acts 14? God has blessed people with so much - so the encouragement is to turn to God in appreciation, for forgiveness, for eternal joy, etc.

You can't have it both ways. If people have inherent value for having been created after the likeness of god himself then they cannot be consigned to eternal punishment. If they can be discarded in hell then they have no value. Which is it?

I am simply stating fact.

Actually, you are simply parroting scripture.

... you know there are many truly wicked people.

There are truly dysfunctional people. "Wicked" is a concept grounded in dualistic, either/or, good/bad thinking. People just are. Some are appropriately socialized and some are not. The appropriate response to the sociopath is to either fix him or put him where he can't harm anyone, not to lower us all to his level by torturing him and certainly not to torture him forever and ever. If I, a mere human, can figure this out, then any god worth the name certainly will have command of it.

 

If this seems arrogant to you it's only because you've predetermined that god must have a free pass in all things, that he gets to operate by some ineffable logic that is incomprehensible to us. I maintain that god will have superior ethics to me, not inferior ethics. You simply suspend all judgement of ethics and uncritically accept the human judgments recorded in a particular book that you deem holy and call that "god's holiness".

[Legion]

Women's hips are like parentheses around the important parts.

 

Carry on.

[Guest ephymeris]

We don't want to admit that people go to Hell by their conscious choice - and remain there for the same reason - because we consider this unthinkable. However, the alternative to Hell is Heaven - which means that you live under the reign of another, God. And to quote someone whose identification escapes me - "rather be a ruler in Hell, than a doorman in Heaven." Again, such a though might seem irrational, but many people have this attitude.

 

Yes, my need to have a kickass position in hell vs. my inability to submit to god is definitely the reason I rejected and continue to reject christianity (and all other religions for that matter). I have such a desire for power that I choose an eternity of unimaginable torture. Makes complete sense to me.

 

I don't know how you can really look at other humans and tell yourself this line of thinking makes sense. I don't think you find the idea of people going to hell by their own choice is "unthinkable", it seems to be just the opposite. How can this make sense to you? How can you be in this world and look around at other beings and think their burning is not your (or your god's) problem? This kind of thinking just riles me up. According to your beliefs I WILL BURN AND SUFFER FOR ETERNITY. I don't know how people reconcile this. The whole "it's your choice" is just so lame and wrong.

 

As a christian, I just kept making up loopholes that would get everyone into heaven but the worst murderers, rapists, and pedofiles. It was the only way I could tolerate the thought of an omnipotent being inflicting unending pain on "his" creations especially since we humans were only doing what it we are allowed and designed to do.

 

I know this post will make no impression on you because you are so invested in your beliefs but I just can't stay silent when I see someone really okay with this. I find this complete lack of empathy and concern for others to be the most disturbing thing to me and ultimately why I left the church.

[LNC]

The fact is that he is using statistics of the number of supporters of what he is trying to judge to be a fact is in fact a way of using ad populum argument.

 

Over 90% of biological anthropologists agree to 100% about more than 90% of the different aspect of Evolution, therefore at least 90% of Evolution is to 100% absolute true.

 

You must agree, it is stupid to use the number of people who agree to a certain idea to be the foundation to how reliable the idea is to be a fact.

 

It is plain stupid, irrational, and illogical, and you know it.

 

So, should we just forget what the experts conclude about issues and just go with our gut? I'm not sure what you are suggesting as an alternative. Help me out.

 

LNC

[Guest end3]

Honest question here....you mention sadness, separation, and loneliness as a function of acceptance for others.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I cited sadness and loneliness as a consequence of separation, not a "function of acceptance for others". But maybe you mean, I accept others to avoid the consequence. If so, I would say it's more precise to say that I'm willing to put up with the downside of dealing with people (or at least certain people) because the downside of being estranged from them is even worse.

 

I am suggesting that you intentionally burden yourself with the pain. And I realize you understand this concept, but in burden, for whatever reason, intellectual differences perhaps, it's a twofold benefit.....because one, you just "overcame" by making time for that person when you really didn't want to, and in that, they felt accepted or "known". The key to me, is in the somewhat physical carrying out of the relationship, even though you might consider yourself in a "higher" position.

 

Please note that I fail in this regard with certain people, namely my sister, as I even now, cannot muster enough to burden myself with the pain she has caused me. I fully realize that if I were to shoulder the pain, then it would reopen the relationship. Like you say, the separation in this case, is less pain than the relationship. I need to fix that.

 

But this happens all the time....in this thread with Ray......he won't accept some of the pain(doctrine swallowing) , to know the people here, and they won't accept some of the pain(experiential pain), so that they both stand side by side to at least listen to what each is saying...or to consider it.

 

I suppose you could couch it in those terms but I think it's limiting to think of it that way because it puts everything in excessively black-and-white, good/evil terms. I am not saying that I am right to be as I am and that others are wrong to be as they are and I just suffer their wrongness. We are just different, and/or have different perceptions and needs; I don't assign absolute value to those difference or perceptions.

 

Well, that is exactly it IMO, that we are different expressly by experience, i.e. time and maturity, yet we are all humans. I just think when we choose this mechanism.....I like to call it a mechanism.....that the result transcends the differences and the resulting manifestation is on a worse case scenario, politeness.....which leaves the door open. But again, it all comes down to how much much "pain, suffering" we are willing to bear ourselves. Sorry, I must insert Bible quote here: that few of us suffer to the point of bleeding.

 

If it's a manifestation of the divine then it's like all other manifestations of the divine, it mostly hides and teases you now and then with promises of Wonderfulness, just to yank your chain. My relationship with the divine is no different than my relationship with my loved ones, I just have to accept that it is what it wants to / insists on being, and take what I can from it, when I can.

 

Well, it seems apparent that you understand the mechanism that I blather on about...and I appreciate you sharing your stories. I derive some selfish satisfaction in knowing that I am helping people progress in some understanding that I feel to be correct and that may help them when they mature. Specifically in your case, it seems like your expectations are for them to readily understand your attempts....and to "get it" and change. I do agree with you on both accounts btw.

 

On the flip side, I give my all to it. That is the thing that annoys me. I feel I hold nothing back, but I feel that everything coming back to me is constrained in some way or other, often significantly so. I was raised with the idea that you get back what you give. I now am pretty sure that's another load of BS. It's certainly not my experience. For one thing, we each have only our own kind of love to give -- not the other person's. Giving what you value to others misses the point that they probably don't value the same things. This is where the golden rule breaks down.

 

I don't know Bob...it has taken me many years just to put down the baggage I was carrying and only recently at 45, am I able to understand this. You know, many many folks sit in church and I doubt ever get it.

 

So I make these tactical decisions: I can't give my daughter what she values without allowing her to disrespect me and take advantage of me, so I distance myself from that relationship pending some change of heart on her part. On the other hand I can give my GF her "space" and she will actually appreciate that at least and will, oddly, feel loved by me because of it, so although it saddens me to miss out on much of the shared experience that is possible between us, at least I have what is achievable and it does in fact contribute to my happiness.

 

Well the obvious is that Christianity assumes Heaven for those willing to do what you are doing.....being made perfect as Hebrews states. Without a theory, and no other revelations in my pocket at the moment, I believe you to be right.....it is "what is". Fwiw, I respect you for the consistant attempt, but would urge you not distance yourself from your daughter, but just take the pain......with discernment of course.

 

Again, it's all a matter of perception and perspective. If there is one thing I totally didn't understand back in the early years it's how utterly different people are from each other. I thought we were all approximately the same, but others really inhabit their own reality "bubble". As do I. Makes your head spin to think about it.

 

I will take that to heart even though you aren't officially old enought to be considered as "an old wise one".

[LNC]

God killed innocent people in the Bible, you seem to be okay with that. Can you explain that to me?

 

First, show me where God killed innocent people in the Bible.

 

Everyone has sinned. Therefore, the "sin" factor can be reduce in the expression. It's superfluous as a parameter for deciding salvation. No one is without sin.

 

God's wrath rests upon all of us, therefore, the "wrath" factor can be reduced in the expression. Same thing here, it's superfluous in deciding who is saved or not. Everyone is on the same page here.

 

The only factor (variable) which the whole formula is dependent upon is belief (faith).

 

You have faith -> go to Heaven.

You do not have faith -> you do not go to Heaven.

 

Unless you decide to say that some people do not sin and do not have God's wrath over them, and that would be very unbiblical.

 

Simple logic. You know, "logic", that's the thing you're supposed to know by now after all your studies but still seem to not fully grasp.

 

Do you know Boolean algebra. Set up the expression for redemption and then simplify (reduce) the formula to its optimal state.

 

 

If no one is without sin, then your first statement is false (i.e., that God killed innocent people). However, if you are suggesting that if everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty, then your logic is flawed. Everyone has lied in the course of his/her life. Does that mean that lying is no longer an issue about which we should be concerned? Faith is only effective if the object of the faith is worthy of it. IOW, I can have faith in the POTUS to get us out of this recession; however, if he is not capable or competent to deliver that result, then my faith is in vain and ineffective. So, faith is not the deciding factor, it is the object of the faith that is.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

Read back on my posts and you will find my explanation of John 3:18 if you haven't found it already.

 

 

 

No, LNC. You don't explain John 3:18. You merely restate your prior theological position. You do not explain how the words of Jesus which directly contradicts your assertions are NOT contradictions.

 

You have no explanation to offer. You just repeat yourself and hope it passes for explanation.

 

Sorry OB, now you are misrepresenting the facts, as well as the Scriptures. I can't help you any further on this issue if you are going to do that.

 

LNC

[Guest end3]

Women's hips are like parentheses around the important parts.

 

Carry on.

 

(.)(.)

/ \

( v )

l l

l l

 

...this artistry is copyright protected.

 

the out of place abdomen and legs are what makes it a master"piece"

[LNC]

Given the fact that religionists tend to "speak ministerially" and exaggerate, there is a more than reasonable explanation.

 

Some of the disciples did , in fact, continue speaking for their dead leader after the fact. The stories got blown out of proportion, added to, embellished and then repeated. After many cycles of repeating and embellishing the story, voila! You have stories about changed lives and risen saviors where there really was none before. These are called legends.

 

Totally reasonable, especially since there is no need to explain or account for stories in anonymous books claiming miraculous events that were written down years after the supposed events took place.

 

Now, I suppose you have some evidence to back up these assertions? Please provide it if you have it.

 

LNC

[Guest end3]

this thread is like the battle royale of Ex C....is this pay per view?

[DesertBob]

Fwiw, I respect you for the consistant attempt, but would urge you not distance yourself from your daughter, but just take the pain......with discernment of course.

I have not disowned her or anything like that. My door is always open to mutually respectful interaction. It's one of those situations I'll never have perfect clarity on or be certain I'm doing the right thing. It's easier to deal with people who you disagree with but at least you can see their point of view and see that it's basically rational for them. In this situation she is angry at me and I'm not sure what the projection is but know that I have not done anything to deserve her resentment or at least not anything remotely proportionate. It's a little like the way adolescents think their parents are a humiliation to them when in fact they aren't. So it's one of those deals where you're dealing with an irrational response of uncertain provenance. We'll work it out -- or not -- and like all else it will be what it will be.

 

Being a parent is often a shit-for-thanks proposition, innit? Relationships in general are hard work for uncertain result, but there's something about the parent-child dynamic, particularly post-puberty, that is far from all sweetness and light. I'm not sure I'd do it again, if I had it to do over. Two of my three older brothers did not have children by choice and in retrospect I see why. My GF is going through a lot of grief with her two teens and they are really model kids in many respects, straight A students, self-directed, smart, but also much of the time are self-absorbed boogers like any other teens.

 

Ah well. Onward ...