Freewill

[mymistake]

 

 

If you're referring to Jesus setting aside the disciples to go out and preach while He was still around (Mark 6, Matthew 10), the message wasn't much different from what Paul preached. 

 

Paul preached that Jesus had to die.  Back when Jesus was supposedly alive the disciples had no clue that Jesus had to die.  This is a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

Paul was preaching on repentance and the kingdom of Heaven.  The only difference is this is after the reported resurrection of Jesus, which the original disciples preached.  Paul confirmed in his letters that the message he was preaching and some of the original disciples were preaching is the same, so he's not warning others to not listen to them.  He was warning not to listen to any other gospel then what was given to them.

 

Christianity started out divided.  Anybody could claim they received a dream or vision and them appoint themselves to be an apostle.  Naturally all the other self-apointed apostles were false and their teachings were false.  It's a lot like today were we have all these denominations and each thinks most Christians are not the real true Christians.

 

 

So Jesus gave the disciples the authority to preach about the kingdom of heaven being near.  The message became fully realized after Jesus rose again.  My question to you is do you believe Paul made up the story of Jesus rising again and claiming that His death was for the sins of the world?

 

Of course he did.  However Paul predates the other gospel messages seen in the Bible.  Those were made up later or as a response to Paul.

 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Ah, Paul learned the Gospel from the super disciples that he mocked?  The same disciples he warned his followers to not listen to them, and not listen to that other Gospel?  Face it.  Paul's gospel requires that Jesus die and the other Gospel was compete supposedly while Jesus was still alive.  It's a fundamental contradiction.  Paul's gospel was invented later.  The original gospel was to be Jewish.

 

You see it as the message maintained but if you had seen the original message you would reject it as a false religion and if the original disciples could see your religion they would reject you as an idolator.

 

 

If you're referring to Jesus setting aside the disciples to go out and preach while He was still around (Mark 6, Matthew 10), the message wasn't much different from what Paul preached.  Paul was preaching on repentance and the kingdom of Heaven.  The only difference is this is after the reported resurrection of Jesus, which the original disciples preached.  Paul confirmed in his letters that the message he was preaching and some of the original disciples were preaching is the same, so he's not warning others to not listen to them.  He was warning not to listen to any other gospel then what was given to them.

 

 

So Jesus gave the disciples the authority to preach about the kingdom of heaven being near.  The message became fully realized after Jesus rose again.  My question to you is do you believe Paul made up the story of Jesus rising again and claiming that His death was for the sins of the world?

 

 

 

 

Word of mouth seems to be the primary route of transmission of the Christian mind virus.

 

 

 

Real Christianity, that if all the things reported concerning Jesus is true, should be based on more than word of mouth.

 

 

Yes, there ought to be some evidence. Or better yet, if Jesus wants to have a personal relationship with me why doesn't he just appear in the flesh?

[Heavenese]

 

What miracles?

 

 

 

That's what I'm researching.  Sure there are accounts of miracles, but no confirmation.  There's definitely no pouring of miracles like is mentioned in the NT.  Right now I believe it's the teaching.

 

 

 

But is this true?  God simply let men do their own thing for a while?  This is flatly false as you can read all throughout the OT where God is pronouncing and supposedly exacting judgement on not only Israel, but every other known kingdom as well.  God had the Israelites wander through the desert not only because of their unbelief, but also because the wickedness of the people in Canaan was not full yet.

Why would god judge these nations surrounding Israel, and yet not the Greeks or Mayans, or other ancient nations?  

 

Where was the mercy of God towards the people in Canaan who never heard of any gospel and were wiped out by the Jews in a crusade for the promised land?

 

Also, your remarks betray a central tenant of Christianity, and that is salvation through Christ alone.  Jesus declared that there is no other way to the Father except through me, and yet you're willing to say that god will be merciful and save someone based on what they know.  Your argument is with the Bible as there is no way to get around the idea that there is no other way to salvation apart from faith in Jesus.  Otherwise why preach to unreached people groups as you would then be condemning the majority of them who in their ignorance could have been more easily saved?

 

You just claim to extra-biblical opinion when your god's word betrays your conscience.  

 

 

 

In terms of beliefs.  God let the people do their own thing.  Yet Canaan wasn't judged because of their beliefs, but because of their wickedness.  No where in the Bible do you find people (other than Israel of course) condemned because they believed in another god.

 

Secondly, I believe everyone who will enter God's presence, will receive Jesus as their Savior.  The point of God's mercy on those who haven't heard, is just that.  Had they heard, they would have received, because their hearts were open.  They wanted righteousness, and they are given it.  For those who haven't heard, but are murderers for instance, they wouldn't receive Jesus anyway.  So God looks at the heart.  So what's the purpose for teaching if the heart is what matters?  For one, Jesus offers Heaven right here on earth.  So our suffering as far as sickness and other things, can end right now through Jesus.  Secondly, there is the possibility the hard hearted man/woman can have a change of heart.  One thing I want to mention is that salvation isn't just about Heaven and Hell.  This is one area where Christianity has been muddled.  Salvation includes being saved in every area possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're referring to Jesus setting aside the disciples to go out and preach while He was still around (Mark 6, Matthew 10), the message wasn't much different from what Paul preached. 

 

Paul preached that Jesus had to die.  Back when Jesus was supposedly alive the disciples had no clue that Jesus had to die.  This is a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

Paul was preaching on repentance and the kingdom of Heaven.  The only difference is this is after the reported resurrection of Jesus, which the original disciples preached.  Paul confirmed in his letters that the message he was preaching and some of the original disciples were preaching is the same, so he's not warning others to not listen to them.  He was warning not to listen to any other gospel then what was given to them.

 

Christianity started out divided.  Anybody could claim they received a dream or vision and them appoint themselves to be an apostle.  Naturally all the other self-apointed apostles were false and their teachings were false.  It's a lot like today were we have all these denominations and each thinks most Christians are not the real true Christians.

 

 

So Jesus gave the disciples the authority to preach about the kingdom of heaven being near.  The message became fully realized after Jesus rose again.  My question to you is do you believe Paul made up the story of Jesus rising again and claiming that His death was for the sins of the world?

 

Of course he did.  However Paul predates the other gospel messages seen in the Bible.  Those were made up later or as a response to Paul.

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Of course Jesus told the disciples that He would die, many times throughout their travels.  Yet the message they taught was repentance, and the Kingdom of Heaven.  Then of course after all the events, they fully understood the whole message.  And that message is what they taught Paul, and Paul taught this message.

 

 

2.  There's reason to believe Paul wasn't a false teacher, and did know the original disciples.  Of course Christianity did divide early in it's history.

 

 

3.  It's impossible that Paul began spreading the message that Jesus rose again, that wouldn't make sense.  There were many false messiahs during Jesus day, before and after.  Everytime these guys were brought down, their followers ceased with them.  To say Paul began to spread the message of Christianity, is to say Paul picked up a false messiah's message 10-20 years after it ceased.  That's just not likely.  It would be more likely for Paul to make up his own story, and not use a failed messiah figure as his main attraction.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there ought to be some evidence. Or better yet, if Jesus wants to have a personal relationship with me why doesn't he just appear in the flesh?

 

 

 

It's just not the way He decided to reveal Himself.  Yet for the way He decides, there should be evidence, if He's true.

[RipVanWinkle]

Heavenese: Re post 47. You said: "For those who never heard and yet were merciful in their life ( like the good Samaritan), God will be merciful to them. It depends on the knowledge of the person there."

 

Merciful how often in their life? Once? A million times? Just how much mercy is enough?  Many may have been more merciful if the need were presented to them, but it wasn't. What about them? What about someone who never heard of Jesus but was paralyzed from birth? How could they be merciful? We could go on and on indefinitely like this with examples of the absurdity of what you are saying.

 

Besides, is saving oneself by being merciful set forth in the Bible or is something you have made up because you realize the utter unfairness of condemning a person to eternity who hasn't even heard of Jesus? If it is in the bible, I've never seen it. If the latter I think you would agree you cannot add your words to the bible and claim they are god's word.

 

If one who has not ever heard of jesus can be saved by virtue of  the mercy he/she did in his/her life, why can't everybody, whether they believed in Jesus or not? Is god so egotistical that he has to be part of it, or else?

 

If mercy does the trick, we'd be much kinder to keep Jesus' name secret from people so they could be

judged on their merits rather than the barbaric method you think your god has chosen.

 

Have you been so indoctrinated that you can't see that a kind god would not condemn anybody to any form of eternal punishment for what he did or failed to do in this in this brief "flash in the pan" life we live on earth? Isn't that obvious? If not, why not?   We would have better off not being born. and your god would know that. So why were we born? Sadism?   

 

By this post, I do not intend to insult you or put you down. Almost all of us here thought just like you. Please at least try to look at it like we do now, if only for a test to see where it may lead you. Do you really think god would condemn you for that?    bill

[mymistake]

 

 

1.  Of course Jesus told the disciples that He would die, many times throughout their travels.  Yet the message they taught was repentance, and the Kingdom of Heaven.  Then of course after all the events, they fully understood the whole message.  And that message is what they taught Paul, and Paul taught this message.

 

 

2.  There's reason to believe Paul wasn't a false teacher, and did know the original disciples.  Of course Christianity did divide early in it's history.

 

 

3.  It's impossible that Paul began spreading the message that Jesus rose again, that wouldn't make sense.  There were many false messiahs during Jesus day, before and after.  Everytime these guys were brought down, their followers ceased with them.  To say Paul began to spread the message of Christianity, is to say Paul picked up a false messiah's message 10-20 years after it ceased.  That's just not likely.  It would be more likely for Paul to make up his own story, and not use a failed messiah figure as his main attraction.

 

 

 

It's very frustrating trying to talk to somebody who is only interested in believing the theology of a religion.  I can cite all kinds of evidence but since you've already made up your mind you are just going to repeat what you have been told by your religious authority.

 

Jesus the Rabi was a committed Jew who never altered Jewish belief.  He didn't overthrow anything and didn't do any of the things attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels.  He never would have wanted to be worshiped.  He never claimed to be God.  We even have the book his son wrote.  Jesus the Rabi was a bastard.  His followers made up a crazy story about how his mother got pregnant from taking a bath.  Jesus the Rabi was a real person but he lived at the wrong time and wasn't crucified.

 

Jesus Christ was invented hundreds of years later by Paul of Tarsus.  Paul's Christ wasn't a failure.   Christ was a spiritual being who never set foot on earth but instead died as a sacrifice in heaven.  However, Christ is pure fiction.

 

The Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth were invented after Paul and often in response to Paul.  Jesus of Nazareth is also pure fiction.  There was no such person.

 

It's sad that you don't understand your own religion but that really isn't my problem.  Enjoy your theology.

[centauri]

 

No where in the Bible do you find people (other than Israel of course) condemned because they believed in another god.

However, simple unbelief by itself is a sin. (John 16:8-9)

Therefore, believing in a different God would also be a sin as it constitutes a state of unbelief in a particular deity.

[centauri]

 

Paul didn't make up the Gospel.  He learned under the original disciples.

You've contradicted Paul.

Paul claimed he learned his gospel by revelation and not from any man.

 

Gal 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

[mymistake]

 

No where in the Bible do you find people (other than Israel of course) condemned because they believed in another god.

However, simple unbelief by itself is a sin. (John 16:8-9)

Therefore, believing in a different God would also be a sin as it constitutes a state of unbelief in a particular deity.

 

 

 

I must have missed it when Hevenese wrote that.  Wow he denies the entire Old Testament.  All those times entire populations were wiped out down to the animals they owned . . . 

 

I'm sure much of it was exaggeration and legend but in the text people were killed for thought crime.  What a wonderful loving dictator that Yahweh was.

[centauri]

 

 

 

No where in the Bible do you find people (other than Israel of course) condemned because they believed in another god.

However, simple unbelief by itself is a sin. (John 16:8-9)

Therefore, believing in a different God would also be a sin as it constitutes a state of unbelief in a particular deity.

 

 

 

I must have missed it when Hevenese wrote that.  Wow he denies the entire Old Testament.  All those times entire populations were wiped out down to the animals they owned . . . 

 

I'm sure much of it was exaggeration and legend but in the text people were killed for thought crime.  What a wonderful loving dictator that Yahweh was.

 

Well, I think he's saying that it was the "wickedness" of certain populations that doomed them, not the failure to believe in Yahweh per se.

The problem is that the New Testament declares simple unbelief in Jesus as a sin, without regard to other behavior.

It throws all unbelievers into a pot and cooks them.

[Kurari]

I was just arguing with a Christian that I can think of a million things that God could do to help the world that doesn't interfere with free will. Just showing the hell up and letting us confirm that He is, in fact, real would be a good start. I could bet my life savings that a whole lot of crime and other atrocious shit we humans do to each other would take a dive bomb immediately without Him even having to open His mouth. If I can think of that, why can't God? 

 

Their response: "Have you ever read the Book of Job? You're raising a lot of old questions that have already been answered." 

That's verbatim. Just wow. The Book of fucking JOB. It's mind blowing sometimes how bad their cognitive dissonance is. 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

No where in the Bible do you find people (other than Israel of course) condemned because they believed in another god.

However, simple unbelief by itself is a sin. (John 16:8-9)

Therefore, believing in a different God would also be a sin as it constitutes a state of unbelief in a particular deity.

 

 

 

I must have missed it when Hevenese wrote that.  Wow he denies the entire Old Testament.  All those times entire populations were wiped out down to the animals they owned . . . 

 

I'm sure much of it was exaggeration and legend but in the text people were killed for thought crime.  What a wonderful loving dictator that Yahweh was.

 

Well, I think he's saying that it was the "wickedness" of certain populations that doomed them, not the failure to believe in Yahweh per se.

The problem is that the New Testament declares simple unbelief in Jesus as a sin, without regard to other behavior.

It throws all unbelievers into a pot and cooks them.

 

 

It is the very first of the 10 commandments.  Elijah had all the priests of Baal killed for following the wrong God.  Do not suffer a witch to live.  There are so many examples of people being executed for not being god's chosen people.  That is because god was invented as an excuse for genocide.

[Heavenese]

Heavenese: Re post 47. You said: "For those who never heard and yet were merciful in their life ( like the good Samaritan), God will be merciful to them. It depends on the knowledge of the person there."

 

Merciful how often in their life? Once? A million times? Just how much mercy is enough?  Many may have been more merciful if the need were presented to them, but it wasn't. What about them? What about someone who never heard of Jesus but was paralyzed from birth? How could they be merciful? We could go on and on indefinitely like this with examples of the absurdity of what you are saying.

 

Besides, is saving oneself by being merciful set forth in the Bible or is something you have made up because you realize the utter unfairness of condemning a person to eternity who hasn't even heard of Jesus? If it is in the bible, I've never seen it. If the latter I think you would agree you cannot add your words to the bible and claim they are god's word.

 

If one who has not ever heard of jesus can be saved by virtue of  the mercy he/she did in his/her life, why can't everybody, whether they believed in Jesus or not? Is god so egotistical that he has to be part of it, or else?

 

If mercy does the trick, we'd be much kinder to keep Jesus' name secret from people so they could be

judged on their merits rather than the barbaric method you think your god has chosen.

 

Have you been so indoctrinated that you can't see that a kind god would not condemn anybody to any form of eternal punishment for what he did or failed to do in this in this brief "flash in the pan" life we live on earth? Isn't that obvious? If not, why not?   We would have better off not being born. and your god would know that. So why were we born? Sadism?   

 

By this post, I do not intend to insult you or put you down. Almost all of us here thought just like you. Please at least try to look at it like we do now, if only for a test to see where it may lead you. Do you really think god would condemn you for that?    bill

 

 

It's not a matter of how much mercy one gives, but the attitude, not condemning one another.  Going back to the samaritan, he wasn't doing anything to earn something.  It was simply his heart, that he looked on the injured man and probably saw himself in him.  Where do I get this teaching from?  Am I making it up?  No, these come from Jesus own words.  Jesus basically put the Law back in it's truest form while on earth. (If you lust after people, you commit adultery, if you hate someone, you commit murder)  So in no uncertain terms, He basically stated everyone broke God's laws and you can't keep them.  Now, the only way to receive God's blessings, as the people of Israel knew, was to keep the Law.  So while Jesus was on the earth, before He fulfilled the Law and died on the cross, Jesus taught the people to have mercy on one another, to develop that attitude.  To turn the other cheek, to walk two miles, and so forth.  Basically if someone trangress against you, give them mercy.  So that God can have mercy on you when you trangress against Him.

 

 

For those who haven't heard of Jesus and died, if they had that attitude (having nothing to do with how much mercy they gave, but the heart.  The actions will reflect the heart, and you will do what's in your heart.), God will be merciful to them, and they will have that opportunity to receive Christ.  What Jesus offers is righteousness.  If you had the opportunity to receive it, would you?  Chances are anyone who fully understands they are not perfect, will have an attitude of mercy towards others.  Had they heard the full Gospel, they would have received it on this earth.  So God is merciful to them, and give them that opportunity after death.

 

 

You may not believe it from just reading my words, but I do understand where everyone is coming from.  I also know that everyone know where I'm coming from, but I'll say my experience is a little different, from the study of these scriptures.  Most Christians come from a background of the overall sense of what Christianity is.  Then once reviewing some of the science and history, change their opinions.  With me, I come from a different way of understanding concerning the science, history, and study of the language.  It may seem like I'm repeating the same old things, sprinkled in with my own created words, but I'm not.  I'll come back and start my own topic, and fully lay out where I'm coming from at a later date.

 

 

 

 

It's very frustrating trying to talk to somebody who is only interested in believing the theology of a religion.  I can cite all kinds of evidence but since you've already made up your mind you are just going to repeat what you have been told by your religious authority.

 

Jesus the Rabi was a committed Jew who never altered Jewish belief.  He didn't overthrow anything and didn't do any of the things attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels.  He never would have wanted to be worshiped.  He never claimed to be God.  We even have the book his son wrote.  Jesus the Rabi was a bastard.  His followers made up a crazy story about how his mother got pregnant from taking a bath.  Jesus the Rabi was a real person but he lived at the wrong time and wasn't crucified.

 

Jesus Christ was invented hundreds of years later by Paul of Tarsus.  Paul's Christ wasn't a failure.   Christ was a spiritual being who never set foot on earth but instead died as a sacrifice in heaven.  However, Christ is pure fiction.

 

The Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth were invented after Paul and often in response to Paul.  Jesus of Nazareth is also pure fiction.  There was no such person.

 

It's sad that you don't understand your own religion but that really isn't my problem.  Enjoy your theology.

 

 

 

Woah, you lost me a little bit there concerning Jesus' son and so forth.  Even scholars would disagree there.  Yet I've had this discussion in the past before.  Yes, most believe Paul invented Christianity, but I've shown that can't be true.  Scholars could make the argument Paul played a hand in it's spread, that he changed things so gentiles could convert easily, but there's no mistake he didn't make up the belief entirely.  I already mentioned that wouldn't make historical sense at all.  By the way, it's weird for scholars to use the Gospels to say Jesus didn't preach He was God and things of that nature, but then say the Gospels were manufactured around Paul's version of Christianity.  You can't use the Gospels as you see fit.

 

 

 

 

However, simple unbelief by itself is a sin. (John 16:8-9)

Therefore, believing in a different God would also be a sin as it constitutes a state of unbelief in a particular deity.

 

 

Like I said concerning what Paul told the greeks, God allowed people to follow the beliefs of other gods for a time.

 

 

 

 

 

There is so much error here it's hard to know where to begin, even if I was still a Christian I would disagree with you.  I'll try and be organized with my response as to why I differ in opinion to you.

 

1. You are right in a certain way that god judges based on a person's actions, their own wickedness.  According to Paul though, human depravity is as a RESULT of idolatry.  Romans 1 is a great example of this:

 

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:23-25(NIV)

 

Notice, that in Paul's indictment of mankind he says that we committed a dark exchange, that instead of worshiping and glorifying God, we worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.  THEREFORE, this word therefore is Διὸ  in the Greek is an explanatory conjunction, he is saying that because of this exchange.. god then chose to give them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity.. etc. etc.

 

It is idolatry, the preference and worship of other things over the god of the Bible that leads to depravity in the views of the author's of scripture and that is why the 1st Commandment is the exclusive worship of Yahweh.

 

2. Ask yourself this question, why did god allow the Israelites to remain slaves in Egypt for over 400 years?  This question actually has a definitive answer:

 

Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” Genesis 15:13-16(ESV)

 

Yahweh is telling Abram that his descendants will be afflicted with slavery for 400 years, but will come back here (to the promised land) in the fourth generation.. why?  FOR, the iniquity of the Amorites (those who inhabited Canaan) is not yet complete, full, or run it's course as some translations render it.

 

God made the Israelites suffer in slavery for hundreds of years away from the land, just so that he could use them as a weapon of mass destruction and genocide on the peoples that inhabited the land of Canaan.  

 

Why not keep the Israelites there and help those idolaters convert and reform their ways?  Why not at least spare the innocent children who could have been brought up on the ways of god?  No, god commanded the slaughter of every last woman and child..

 

Is this your merciful god?

 

 

 

1.  I see your points, how Paul connects idolatry to those actions, but as you keep reading, Paul goes on to say through the law, everyone is condemned and worthy of death. All these things Paul mentioned, had to do with the commands.  That was the overall picture Paul was setting up.  If you asked me if we are all deserving of punishment, I would say yes.  The thing is though if God was always intending to punish, He would have done it from the beginning with Adam and Eve, and we wouldn't exist.  Yet God gave Adam and Eve grace, and that was extended to their children.  So I was responding to the question of why would God send people who never heard of Jesus to Hell?  My answer based on Scripture, and Paul's own thinking here, is He doesn't.  (Read Romans 2 verses 11-16, then read Romans 3 verses 9-20, and finally read Romans 3 verses 21-22)

 

So if it were possible for a gentile to do the things of the law, without having the law, and be justified before God, then I imagine the same way works concerning mercy and grace.  Even though they never heard of Jesus, and was born under another religion, God will be merciful to those who were merciful.  Some said it's because of the beliefs of the Canaanites that God ultimately judged them, and so every nation with different beliefs will be judged to Hell.  While woshipping things as a god is a sin, you can't connect that everyone who grew up in another religion will be doomed to Hell.  Again, Paul was setting up his points in Romans 1, to show we are guilty through God's laws.  Yet in Romans 3 verse 25 it states....

 

"whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed"

 

 

This agrees with what's written in Acts, how God allowed the different religions of the world for a time, but now command the whole world to repent.

 

 

 

2.  I guess I would like to ask why should it be viewed that God made the Israelites suffer?  I would think if God made the Israelites suffer, why would He judge Egypt afterwards.  But He definitely allowed it to happen.  So I won't argue that point.  Yet overall, I think my answer here concerning the statement about the sins of the Amorites not being complete, would be seen as opinion.  So I'll leave those things in the air for now.

 

 

 

I was just arguing with a Christian that I can think of a million things that God could do to help the world that doesn't interfere with free will. Just showing the hell up and letting us confirm that He is, in fact, real would be a good start. I could bet my life savings that a whole lot of crime and other atrocious shit we humans do to each other would take a dive bomb immediately without Him even having to open His mouth. If I can think of that, why can't God? 

 

Their response: "Have you ever read the Book of Job? You're raising a lot of old questions that have already been answered." 

 

That's verbatim. Just wow. The Book of fucking JOB. It's mind blowing sometimes how bad their cognitive dissonance is. 

 

 

I asked myself that question as well.  Why doesn't God just show up.  I believe it's because if He did, it would be like a star appearing on earth.  Imagine the sun being right in our face, and what would happen.  I came across this thought by remembering what God told Moses.  That Moses couldn't see His face and live.  Yet He would cover Moses up with His hand, and as He passed by, He would remove His hand and Moses could see His back/glory.  So God reveals Himself, in cloaked form.  So that's my thinking based on what's written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is the very first of the 10 commandments.  Elijah had all the priests of Baal killed for following the wrong God.  Do not suffer a witch to live.  There are so many examples of people being executed for not being god's chosen people.  That is because god was invented as an excuse for genocide.

 

 

 

If that is really the case, Israel should have been the first ones to initiate the crusades.  No, the priests/prophets of Baal tried to get the people to worship another god.  It was for that reason, they were put to death.  And anyone who did the same, the commandments state they be put to death.  Yet for those nations outside of the Law, it didn't apply to them.  I'm not saying worshipping (I would like to say giving God's credit of creation to something else) other things and persons wasn't considered a sin.  It was.  What I'm saying is for people who grew up and never hearing about Jesus, or for all those nations who never heard of the true God, that doesn't automatically mean they will be judged for it.

 

 

 

So this is my last post here for a while.  I enjoyed all the conversation, and I do plan to come back, with updates to my research.

[Ralet]

 

For those who haven't heard of Jesus and died, if they had that attitude (having nothing to do with how much mercy they gave, but the heart.  The actions will reflect the heart, and you will do what's in your heart.), God will be merciful to them, and they will have that opportunity to receive Christ.  What Jesus offers is righteousness.  If you had the opportunity to receive it, would you?  Chances are anyone who fully understands they are not perfect, will have an attitude of mercy towards others.  Had they heard the full Gospel, they would have received it on this earth.  So God is merciful to them, and give them that opportunity after death.

....

1.  I see your points, how Paul connects idolatry to those actions, but as you keep reading, Paul goes on to say through the law, everyone is condemned and worthy of death. All these things Paul mentioned, had to do with the commands.  That was the overall picture Paul was setting up.  If you asked me if we are all deserving of punishment, I would say yes.  The thing is though if God was always intending to punish, He would have done it from the beginning with Adam and Eve, and we wouldn't exist.  Yet God gave Adam and Eve grace, and that was extended to their children.  So I was responding to the question of why would God send people who never heard of Jesus to Hell?  My answer based on Scripture, and Paul's own thinking here, is He doesn't.  (Read Romans 2 verses 11-16, then read Romans 3 verses 9-20, and finally read Romans 3 verses 21-22)

 

 

Lets look into the Bible texts you proposed as an answer:

 

Romans 2:

¹²For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

It is not clear, if they will go to heaven or get judged for not following the law(that they didn't knew).They simply die without the law.

 

³ for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

¹⁴ (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;

¹⁵ in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

¹⁶ in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.

So if you happen to have the same views on morality as god you might go to heaven. This moral view or the law is written in their hearts. By whom? God? Does he randomly decide who he should give the right moral views and who he give the wrong ones? Can a Atheist go into heaven by accidentally doing the right things? We shouldn't worry about that, because: ¹⁰ as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;(Romans 3, which is btw a contradiction to Job being righteous)

²¹ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

²² Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.

³⁰ Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

 

=> What I learned from this verses: People that haven't heard about Jesus might have the ability to be righteous (knowledge of the law written in their heart), but they cant because nobody is righteous. And because nobody is righteous, everyone can be saved by faith in Jesus, which this people do not have,because they never heard of him. GREAT

[Deva]

Heavenese, what the hell?  I can't get beyond this "via their free agency to reproduce with certain innate depravities.." What??!! If man has innate depravities, then how can man's will be free??

 

And, Hell is justice? An eternity of torture for at most, 115 years of a life of "sin"?

 

I have always said, and still say, that "free will" is just an excuse for Bible God.  It is a poor excuse, but it is the only one that Christians think they have.

[mymistake]

 

 

Woah, you lost me a little bit there concerning Jesus' son and so forth.

 

His name was Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sirah and he wrote the book "Wisdom of Jesus" regarding the teachings of his father.  You see there were real people named Jesus before Paul used that name.

 

 

Even scholars would disagree there. 

 

When you say scholars you mean Bible scholars - those who uphold some religion.  There was no Jesus of Nazareth.  He was as real as the Easter Bunny.

 

 

Yet I've had this discussion in the past before.  Yes, most believe Paul invented Christianity, but I've shown that can't be true.

 

Very funny.  Paul's Christianity, of course, never survived.  Rome invented the oldest Christianity that persists to this day.  But Paul did invent a form of Christianity based on a blood cult.

 

 

Scholars could make the argument Paul played a hand in it's spread, that he changed things so gentiles could convert easily, but there's no mistake he didn't make up the belief entirely.

 

There were many sects with a wide variety of beliefs in the 1st century.  That does not take away from Paul's efforts to create a Mirthra-style religion built around Paul's Christ.

 

I already mentioned that wouldn't make historical sense at all.

 

You mean it doesn't fit with your theology.  It fits history perfectly.  There is no historical mention of any Jesus of Nazareth.  Some acts attributed to Jesus of N were ripped from other sources or other stories.  The very day that Jesus of N dies is unknown and must be calculated by the faithful followers from the moon and sun.  Really?  It must be calculated?  It's a different date every year.  This started out as a pagan worship of the Spring Equinox.

 

 

By the way, it's weird for scholars to use the Gospels to say Jesus didn't preach He was God and things of that nature, but then say the Gospels were manufactured around Paul's version of Christianity.  You can't use the Gospels as you see fit.

 

I don't use the Gospels like that.  I'm not a pastor.  Whoever wrote John had the theology of a divine Jesus.  However that didn't develop until at least the second century.

 

 

{snip}

 

If that is really the case, Israel should have been the first ones to initiate the crusades. 

 

Are you ignorant of history?  Rome destoryed Israel and turned it into Palestine.  Israel was never a proper empire.  At best it was a hilltop kingdom.

 

 

No, the priests/prophets of Baal tried to get the people to worship another god.  It was for that reason, they were put to death. 

 

God killed people for thought crime.  The Old Testament is propaganda.  Control people by controlling what they worship.  Then you can impose any law you want and call it God's word.  Hey don't get mad at the king because God gave us those laws and God anointed the King.  You see it is kings that need gods.

 

 

And anyone who did the same, the commandments state they be put to death.  Yet for those nations outside of the Law, it didn't apply to them. 

 

Don't make me go through the book of Joshua.  It never happened, of course, but in the theology God ordered genocide to clear out all those naughty pagans.  (The irony was that back then Israel was pagan.  It only appears as monotheism today due to revisionist history.)

 

 

I'm not saying worshipping (I would like to say giving God's credit of creation to something else) other things and persons wasn't considered a sin.  It was.  What I'm saying is for people who grew up and never hearing about Jesus, or for all those nations who never heard of the true God, that doesn't automatically mean they will be judged for it.

 

Then the natural conclusion is to never tell anybody the gospel so that they will all go to heaven.  Your religion is self-contraditory.  Sending out missionaries would send people to hell.

 

 

[Ralet]

Freewill means nothing without free physical abilities. If the concept of freewill is to test us on what we do, we should have the abilities to cure people by touch,to take their burden,turn of our "sinful desires" or to fly. If it is all a test we should be able to do everything we want to do.

If it just a test on what we want to do and if we are condemned if we want to commit sin, there is no need for the physical execution of those sins. If we go to hell for wanting to kill or rape and this desire already earns us eternal torture, why should it actually hurt innocent people? I cant fly, because God doesn't want me to, instead I can hurt people. What a great loving god.

[sdelsolray]

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

Could you define "free will" first?  Also, please identify whether the "christian god" in your post is omniscient.

[RipVanWinkle]

Do angels have free will? Will christians have free will in heaven? If they have desires that are not proper, will they give in to them? Would they then be sent back to hell?

 

If the christians in heaven will have a free will and are not to be tempted and so won't go to hell, why didn't god set it up that way on earth in the first place?  bill

[gall]

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

 

 

You don't even believe in god according to your avatar??? You have as much free will as the next meat bag so whats the deal?

 

If you don't believe in a god then none of this matter. You either choose to control yourself or act like a child the rest of your days.

 

No one that doesn't believe in god would disagree that asking that out of a follower is nothing but toture and wrong. Thankfully there is no one out there demanding that from us.

[Ralet]

 

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

 

 

You don't even believe in god according to your avatar??? You have as much free will as the next meat bag so whats the deal?

 

If you don't believe in a god then none of this matter. You either choose to control yourself or act like a child the rest of your days.

 

No one that doesn't believe in god would disagree that asking that out of a follower is nothing but toture and wrong. Thankfully there is no one out there demanding that from us.

 

Yes I don't believe in god anymore but i like to think about the concepts i believed in and many people still believe in. if we just say "there is no god, there is no need to discuss anything" then we don't need most of the topics in "General Christian Theological Issues". I am not worried about whether I have freewill or not, but discussion like this stop me from missing Christianity.

[Ralet]

 

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

Could you define "free will" first?  Also, please identify whether the "christian god" in your post is omniscient.

 

For me freewill is the ability to form an opinion, make decisions and the freedom of action (which is restrained by the physical reality of this world). And I believed in an omniscient,omnipresent and omnipotent god.

[gall]

 

 

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

 

 

You don't even believe in god according to your avatar??? You have as much free will as the next meat bag so whats the deal?

 

If you don't believe in a god then none of this matter. You either choose to control yourself or act like a child the rest of your days.

 

No one that doesn't believe in god would disagree that asking that out of a follower is nothing but toture and wrong. Thankfully there is no one out there demanding that from us.

 

Yes I don't believe in god anymore but i like to think about the concepts i believed in and many people still believe in. if we just say "there is no god, there is no need to discuss anything" then we don't need most of the topics in "General Christian Theological Issues". I am not worried about whether I have freewill or not, but discussion like this stop me from missing Christianity.

 

 

If you spent all of your time believing before and now you still spend time on it I would ask why. I do understand if this was a recent thing in your life that you are trying to understand the decisions you are making and that I can empathize with for sure. If that is the case do what you need to in order to live again.

 

You have as much free will as any of us do. There are things we get to decide and things we must simply live inside of. I cannot choose what actions or thoughts you take and have but I can try to influence them. That is all in the end that any church or religion is doing. You must make the decision to believe them and follow or find another way. No one makes you believe anything unless you have been physically manipulated. I understand that the clergy and religious zealots use tricky means to get you to believe but seriously in the end you decide what you think and how you feel period. So unless someone held you down taped open your eye lids and then literally brainwashed you CIA style I would say you are leading yourself down the path you walk.

 

Thankfully you sound like you have at least are moving away from the sickness of religion and imaginary gods.

[gall]

 

 

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

Could you define "free will" first?  Also, please identify whether the "christian god" in your post is omniscient.

 

For me freewill is the ability to form an opinion, make decisions and the freedom of action (which is restrained by the physical reality of this world). And I believed in an omniscient,omnipresent and omnipotent god.

 

 

what game are you playing at? I swear you are saying you don't believe in god but your post here says the exact opposite of that? Which is it?

[Ralet]

 

 

 

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

Could you define "free will" first?  Also, please identify whether the "christian god" in your post is omniscient.

 

For me freewill is the ability to form an opinion, make decisions and the freedom of action (which is restrained by the physical reality of this world). And I believed in an omniscient,omnipresent and omnipotent god.

 

 

what game are you playing at? I swear you are saying you don't believe in god but your post here says the exact opposite of that? Which is it?

 

 

  The underlying assumption is "if god/the bible/... were true,..." it doesnt mean I believe in this stuff. the point is to look at christian concepts from an outside view.

same as saying "if santa was real, he would have to travel with X mph" it doesnt mean i believe in santa or that the result is relevant for anything, but i can still make this conclusion.

[Ralet]

 

 

 

the concept of freewill always confused me. The christan god gave humans to ability to make decisions, but not to control their feelings and desires. What is so great about freewill if our only choises are to fight our own desires?

god didnt want us be his slaves but he also wants us to follow his rules. So we have the freedom to make choises, but only the right one. and if we dont then we go to hell. this is not freedom, this is torture.

 

 

You don't even believe in god according to your avatar??? You have as much free will as the next meat bag so whats the deal?

 

If you don't believe in a god then none of this matter. You either choose to control yourself or act like a child the rest of your days.

 

No one that doesn't believe in god would disagree that asking that out of a follower is nothing but toture and wrong. Thankfully there is no one out there demanding that from us.

 

Yes I don't believe in god anymore but i like to think about the concepts i believed in and many people still believe in. if we just say "there is no god, there is no need to discuss anything" then we don't need most of the topics in "General Christian Theological Issues". I am not worried about whether I have freewill or not, but discussion like this stop me from missing Christianity.

 

 

If you spent all of your time believing before and now you still spend time on it I would ask why. I do understand if this was a recent thing in your life that you are trying to understand the decisions you are making and that I can empathize with for sure. If that is the case do what you need to in order to live again.

 

You have as much free will as any of us do. There are things we get to decide and things we must simply live inside of. I cannot choose what actions or thoughts you take and have but I can try to influence them. That is all in the end that any church or religion is doing. You must make the decision to believe them and follow or find another way. No one makes you believe anything unless you have been physically manipulated. I understand that the clergy and religious zealots use tricky means to get you to believe but seriously in the end you decide what you think and how you feel period. So unless someone held you down taped open your eye lids and then literally brainwashed you CIA style I would say you are leading yourself down the path you walk.

 

Thankfully you sound like you have at least are moving away from the sickness of religion and imaginary gods.

 

Have you ever been a christian yourself? Even if I don't believe in the bible and the christian god anymore I am still "emotional attached". On the logical level I know that none of this is true, but it takes time to adapted to it. A helpful tool is to figure out how different, cruel and contradicting biblical concepts are if one looks at the bible without "christian glasses" and without the need of denying unpleasant truth and results.