Adolf Hitler

[HomeBound]

Yet another one... ok, here goes...
*cracks knuckles, prepared to repeat something he's typed over and over again...*

Why would you type garbage like that over and over again?
Stop listening to those apostate sermons and READ your bible. I mean really read it. God loves every one of us way more than you portray him to.

Man is no longer bound to hell thanks to Jesus. Whether they recognize that fact or not. I'm serious.... Read it... it's in there. However... it wont be in there when you have preconceived beliefs of the contrary, so you may have to discard that trash first.

 

[TheReasoner]

No. God's call who goes there and who doesn't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God doesn't send people to Hell in the sense you are thinking. Rather, it is man himself who does this when he rejects Christ as his personal savior. Technically, man is bound to hell first. When he accepts Christ's forgiveness of his sins and his sacrifice on the Cross, he changes teh status quo and is not in danger of hell anymore. When he rejects Christ, he has merely changed nothing. It is by man's choice that God makes his decisions. We damn ourselves, so to speak.

The emboldened sentence intrigues me. First, God presumably created Hell during the six days of Creation; why? If he loves us, why would allow for the possibility of people being hell-bound in the first place?

Second, if God loves us and is omnipotent, why on Earth does he base his decisions on the choices of humans?

Third, why does God make the choice so vague and nebulous? Why not manifest before each and every person and say "Oi, do you accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour?" (or something like that)? It would certainly be less hand-wavey that "Just believe", and it would still allow for free will.
Indeed, it seems that God set us up to fail from the very beginning: he created beings with no sense of right or wrong and an innate curiosity, in a garden with a Forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (patent pending), and a being whose sole purpose was to tempt mankind into sin. I mean, what did he think would happen?

But yes, why does God require us to believe in a certain proposition before being saved from Hell?

 

[lionscradle]

The emboldened sentence intrigues me. First, God presumably created Hell during the six days of Creation; why? If he loves us, why would allow for the possibility of people being hell-bound in the first place?

Second, if God loves us and is omnipotent, why on Earth does he base his decisions on the choices of humans?

Third, why does God make the choice so vague and nebulous? Why not manifest before each and every person and say "Oi, do you accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour?" (or something like that)? It would certainly be less hand-wavey that "Just believe", and it would still allow for free will.
Indeed, it seems that God set us up to fail from the very beginning: he created beings with no sense of right or wrong and an innate curiosity, in a garden with a Forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (patent pending), and a being whose sole purpose was to tempt mankind into sin. I mean, what did he think would happen?

But yes, why does God require us to believe in a certain proposition before being saved from Hell?

i think this situation is a matter of wording; God doesn't base his "decisions" on the choices of humans.. instead he gave us Free Will, and that's the ability to decide for ourselves, using the body, spirit, mind he has given us .. instead of spoon feeding us what we "ought" to do and "ought not to do" he gave us the freedom to decide what we want to believe, what to follow, where we put our faith.
Adam and Eve did have a sense of right or wrong-- that's just it. They were told that they should not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God instructed them, but they disobeyed him.

 

[theQuestionist]

Adam and Eve did have a sense of right or wrong-- that's just it. They were told that they should not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God instructed them, but they disobeyed him.

No, actually the tree was titled "The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (or something similar, depending on the translation)...not just "the tree of knowledge". Interesting that you left that part out....

The whole point is that they didn't know right from wrong before eating from the tree....hence the fact that the whole thing was a setup. Another reason why the Bible is an incredibly immoral book --- it teaches that all of humanity is accountable (and should be punished) for the actions of two individuals who were setup by the same god everyone is supposed to be worshipping. Disgusting.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i think this situation is a matter of wording; God doesn't base his "decisions" on the choices of humans.. instead he gave us Free Will, and that's the ability to decide for ourselves, using the body, spirit, mind he has given us .. instead of spoon feeding us what we "ought" to do and "ought not to do" he gave us the freedom to decide what we want to believe, what to follow, where we put our faith.

It is not as simple as that: he created a world that looks exactly like a world that formed naturally, and he hides himself from existence. The only way one can make the 'right' choice is by being born in the right culture at the right time. Moreover, you have not explained why God requires us to choose: why not let everyone into Heaven? Hell, why not just poof into existence giant flaming letters in the sky saying "Do x to be Heaven-bound"?

Adam and Eve did have a sense of right or wrong-- that's just it. They were told that they should not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God instructed them, but they disobeyed him.

There's a difference between being told what to do, and having a sense of morality. Young children often disobey their parents and do something they later learn to be wrong. And even if they did, God lied to them: they did not die the day they ate the fruit, nor did he warn them of the myriad of other punishments and curses.
Again, God set us up to fail.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, actually the tree was titled "The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (or something similar, depending on the translation)...not just "the tree of knowledge". Interesting that you left that part out....

Well, to his credit, the "knowledge of good and of evil" bit is a merism, like "they came, great and small": it simply means they all came. Likewise, "knowledge of good and of evil" coudle simply be poetic for "all knowledge". But that, of course, would be a lie: Adam and Eve didn't gain "all knowledge" upon eating the fruit.

 

[theQuestionist]

Well, to his credit, the "knowledge of good and of evil" bit is a merism, like "they came, great and small": it simply means they all came. Likewise, "knowledge of good and of evil" coudle simply be poetic for "all knowledge". But that, of course, would be a lie: Adam and Eve didn't gain "all knowledge" upon eating the fruit.

Well the problem is not merely that he left it out assuming we'd extrapolate the extra "good and evil"....but that his whole argument rests on them having a knowledge of good and evil beforehand (re-read his post)---in other words, the argument hinges on us not extrapolating the extra info.

 

[onemessiah]

i think this situation is a matter of wording; God doesn't base his "decisions" on the choices of humans.. instead he gave us Free Will, and that's the ability to decide for ourselves, using the body, spirit, mind he has given us .. instead of spoon feeding us what we "ought" to do and "ought not to do" he gave us the freedom to decide what we want to believe, what to follow, where we put our faith.
Adam and Eve did have a sense of right or wrong-- that's just it. They were told that they should not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God instructed them, but they disobeyed him.

So...you basically just agreed that he bases his decisions on the choices of humans. Which is about what it amounts to.

 

[WarEagle]

In responce to NewGuy101 claim... according to fundamentalist scripture all Jews post-Jesus are in hell.

I've been a fundamentalist for about twenty years and have never heard this. Would you mind showing me where this is found in scripture?

 

[WarEagle]

It is not as simple as that: he created a world that looks exactly like a world that formed naturally, and he hides himself from existence.

How does God hide from existence? He created a universe that testifies to His existence, He gave us the Bible, which testifies to His existence, He became a man and lived among us.

The only way one can make the 'right' choice is by being born in the right culture at the right time.

Then how do you explain all of the people who were born in the "wrong culture" who became Christians?

Moreover, you have not explained why God requires us to choose: why not let everyone into Heaven?

Because they're sinners.

Hell, why not just poof into existence giant flaming letters in the sky saying "Do x to be Heaven-bound"?

Two problems with this.

First, God did give us very specific and very simple instructions to tell us how to be saved.

Second, you're assuming that even if God did put "giant flaming letters in the sky" to tell people how to be saved, that they would want to be saved.

And even if they did, God lied to them: they did not die the day they ate the fruit, nor did he warn them of the myriad of other punishments and curses.

Actually, they did die spiritually and physical death was introduced into the world. Read Romans 5. It explains all of this.

 

[WarEagle]

The whole point is that they didn't know right from wrong before eating from the tree

Who says they didn't know right from wrong? The whole reason Adam resisted Eve was that he knew it was wrong to go against God's command.

Another reason why the Bible is an incredibly immoral book --- it teaches that all of humanity is accountable (and should be punished) for the actions of two individuals

Actually, it teaches that all of humanity is accountable for their own actions.

That's why the Bible tells us to repent of our own sins, not Adam's sin.

 

[theQuestionist]

Who says they didn't know right from wrong? The whole reason Adam resisted Eve was that he knew it was wrong to go against God's command.

Ok...so they had a knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

So why was it bad to eat from the tree then? Why does Satan tempt them by saying they'll gain knowledge if they eat from the tree, if they already had the knowledge?

Actually, it teaches that all of humanity is accountable for their own actions.

That's why the Bible tells us to repent of our own sins, not Adam's sin.

And yet we wouldn't have to be repenting for sins, be it not for Adam's actions. Interesting contradiction.

 

[WarEagle]

Ok...so they had a knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

As the Bible defines it, yes.

So why was it bad to eat from the tree then?

Because God said not to.

Why does Satan tempt them by saying they'll gain knowledge if they eat from the tree, if they already had the knowledge?

It doesn't mean that they did not know the difference between good and evil. It simply means that they'll experience the consequences of good acts and evil acts.

That's why the Hebrew says yada towb ra and not yada towb roa.

Ra refers to moral consequences. Roa refers to the ability to discern that which is evil.

And yet we wouldn't have to be repenting for sins, be it not for Adam's actions. Interesting contradiction.

In a sense, but the bottom line is still that we repent for our own sin, not Adam's sin.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How does God hide from existence? He created a universe that testifies to His existence,

Do elaborate.

He gave us the Bible, which testifies to His existence, He became a man and lived among us.

We also have the Qu'ran, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Vedas, and any number of other religious texts. We also have a myriad of Avatar- and Messiah-class myths, from Egypt's Osiris to Rome's Mithras to India's Vishnuian Incarnations. We also have the Bible and the Jesus manifestation.

So which one is right? And, most importantly, why?

Then how do you explain all of the people who were born in the "wrong culture" who became Christians?

The same way I explain all those people born in non-XYZian cultures converting to XYZianism (a Londoner converting to Buddhism; an Iranian converting to Jainism, etc): statistical chance.

Because they're sinners.

And that's a problem because...? This is God. He made the laws. He's omnipotent. It can't be that he can't let us into Heaven, so... what?

Two problems with this.

First, God did give us very specific and very simple instructions to tell us how to be saved.

Which amount to forcing yourself to believe something on the off-chance that, upon death, you'll be told whether you picked the right religion or not. In the words of Homer Simpsons, "What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we’re just making God madder and madder!".

Second, you're assuming that even if God did put "giant flaming letters in the sky" to tell people how to be saved, that they would want to be saved.

Ah, no. I'm saying that God could make it much clearer and obvious than he has: it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true. But giant flaming letters in the sky makes it pretty damn hard to deny.

Actually, they did die spiritually and physical death was introduced into the world. Read Romans 5. It explains all of this.

It's an ad hoc continuity reboot.

 

[WarEagle]

Do elaborate.

Creation requires a creator.

We also have the Qu'ran, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Vedas, and any number of other religious texts. We also have a myriad of Avatar- and Messiah-class myths, from Egypt's Osiris to Rome's Mithras to India's Vishnuian Incarnations.

Yes, we do. However, none of those testify to the existence of God.

So which one is right? And, most importantly, why?

That's another topic for another thread.

The same way I explain all those people born in non-XYZian cultures converting to XYZianism (a Londoner converting to Buddhism; an Iranian converting to Jainism, etc): statistical chance.

So then, you're now arguing against your previous claim?

And that's a problem because...? This is God. He made the laws. He's omnipotent. It can't be that he can't let us into Heaven, so... what?

God cannot be just and, at the same time, act unjustly. To not punish sin would be unjust.

Which amount to forcing yourself to believe something on the off-chance that, upon death, you'll be told whether you picked the right religion or not.

The point is that God did give very specific and simple instructions. Whether or not you choose to believe and follow those instructions is another matter entirely.

Ah, no. I'm saying that God could make it much clearer and obvious than he has: it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true.

That's certainly not true of the non-Christians in my experience. It wasn't true in my own case. I knew the Gospel to be true for years and rejected it because I did not want to face the fact that I was accountable before God.

I have non-Christians tell me all the time that the Gospel makes sense and some tell me that they know in their heart that it's true, but they still reject it because they love their sin and they love their flesh too much.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Creation requires a creator.

Intuitively, yes. But reality has a habit of ignoring intuition. The quantum foam, for instance, is a phenomenon whereby quantum particles pop into and out of existence all the time (the Casimir effect is a direct result of this).

Yes, we do. However, none of those testify to the existence of God.

Sure they do. They each testify to the deity or deities portrayed therein. The Qu'ran testifies to the existence of Allah, the Vedas testify to Brahman, etc.

So then, you're now arguing against your previous claim?

No. They are exceptions that prove the rule: it is improbable that a person born in the US Bible Belt will convert from their parent's Christianity to Jainism, but, in the limit of large numbers, the improbable becomes the inevitable.

God cannot be just and, at the same time, act unjustly. To not punish sin would be unjust.

Why? Also, this would imply that God's omni-just-ness takes precedent over his almost-omni-benevolence. Indeed, I don't know anyone who you equate good parenting with Nazi-esque brutality (Godwin, I think you).

The point is that God did give very specific and simple instructions. Whether or not you choose to believe and follow those instructions is another matter entirely.

No, the point is that a wide variety of religions are claiming that they have the specific instructions from specific deities to achieve specific means. There is, as yet, no way to differentiate between any of them. That is why giant flaming words in the sky attesting to the Christian faith would make it less "can't see the woods for the trees".

That's certainly not true of the non-Christians in my experience. It wasn't true in my own case. I knew the Gospel to be true for years and rejected it because I did not want to face the fact that I was accountable before God.

Then you were not, by conventional definitions, a non-Christian.

I have non-Christians tell me all the time that the Gospel makes sense and some tell me that they know in their heart that it's true, but they still reject it because they love their sin and they love their flesh too much.

I have never heard anyone say this. Not ever on this forum, via PM, anywhere. What kind of people were you talking to?

 

[theQuestionist]

As the Bible defines it, yes.

Ok, so now it's clear that you're asserting they possessed a knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree. Please post the scriptures which back up that claim.

It doesn't mean that they did not know the difference between good and evil. It simply means that they'll experience the consequences of good acts and evil acts.

This makes no sense. Good and Evil are words used to denote the consequences of certain actions.

That's why the Hebrew says yada towb ra and not yada towb roa.

Ra refers to moral consequences. Roa refers to the ability to discern that which is evil.

Oh really? Post your source please. I'd be happy to be corrected, but I'm skeptical of this claim because:

a) the Hebrew language has no vowels, and yet it appears as though your subtle distinction is dependent on vowel placement. Also, the necessary annotation usually found in Hebrew to infer vowel placement is lacking from both your quotations (although you may have simply left them out)

b) searching for the definitions of "ra" and "roa" in online Hebrew->English dictionaries yielded no result similar to your claim. In fact, most stated that "ra" refers to some sort of army.

In a sense, but the bottom line is still that we repent for our own sin, not Adam's sin.

Well that's just silly. The fact of the matter is, according to biblical teachings, none of us would be in this boat be it not for Adam's choice. Thus, we are all being held accountable for Adam's choice.

If that were not the case, then there would be no such thing as original sin, and no need for Jesus, according to the Bible.

 

[WarEagle]

Ok, so now it's clear that you're asserting they possessed a knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree. Please post the scriptures which back up that claim.

The same example that I gave the last time.

This makes no sense. Good and Evil are words used to denote the consequences of certain actions.

Oh really? Post your source please.

The verse we're discussing is my source.

I'd be happy to be corrected, but I'm skeptical of this claim because:

a) the Hebrew language has no vowels, and yet it appears as though your subtle distinction is dependent on vowel placement. Also, the necessary annotation usually found in Hebrew to infer vowel placement is lacking from both your quotations (although you may have simply left them out)

Do you know what transliteration is?

Well that's just silly. The fact of the matter is, according to biblical teachings, none of us would be in this boat be it not for Adam's choice. Thus, we are all being held accountable for Adam's choice.

The Bible is very clear that we are judged because of our own sin, not Adam's or anybody else's.

If that were not the case, then there would be no such thing as original sin, and no need for Jesus, according to the Bible.

Actually, "original sin" is a Roman Catholic idea, not a Biblical one.

 

[WarEagle]

Sure they do. They each testify to the deity or deities portrayed therein. The Qu'ran testifies to the existence of Allah, the Vedas testify to Brahman, etc.

That's right. But we're not talking about Allah, Brahman, or the gods described in other religions' texts. We're talking about God and how the Bible testifies to God.

No. They are exceptions that prove the rule: it is improbable that a person born in the US Bible Belt will convert from their parent's Christianity to Jainism, but, in the limit of large numbers, the improbable becomes the inevitable.

But, by your own admission, it does happen, which makes your previous claim that it does not, untrue.

Why? Also, this would imply that God's omni-just-ness takes precedent over his almost-omni-benevolence. Indeed, I don't know anyone who you equate good parenting with Nazi-esque brutality (Godwin, I think you).

Nor do I. God is not a "parent", nor is He brutal. He punishes sinners, but He is not capricious.

No, the point is that a wide variety of religions are claiming that they have the specific instructions from specific deities to achieve specific means.

No, if that were my point, then I would have said that. But I did not.

I didn't say anything like that.

Then you were not, by conventional definitions, a non-Christian.

Perhaps not. But by Biblical definition, I was not a Christian.

I have never heard anyone say this. Not ever on this forum, via PM, anywhere. What kind of people were you talking to?

I talk to all sorts of people, depending on where I go to preach or to share the Gospel.