Atheists go to hell even if they are good!?

[Zaac]

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/5-12.htm

What do you then say about this ? It is obvious that we are not...But it is ok. so we disagree No sweat have a great night Zaac

I am well aware of the verse. But if the verse means what you are saying it means, there would be no reason to share the Gospel with anyone because you could never righteously judge that they were unforgiven sinners in need of a Savior.

Would John the Baptist have ever called anyone to repent without righteously judging their need for a Savior?

Would Jesus have ever called anyone to repentance without righteously judging their need for a Savior?

Judgment is just one of those things that is vastly misunderstood. Yet God's word shows repeatedly that the basis for pointing someone to the love of Christ is to show them why they need a Savior.

That's why we GO! and preach the word.

Judgment is not a dirty word.

 

[Tergle]

I don't think Rome fits easily into progressive or, I'm assuming, conservative. Modern political alignments really don't apply that well to antiquity.

Then why the stupidity embraced to bring up the Crusades? And besides, "ancient" Roman practices look to be alive and well in modern day Europe and America.

Thank you for that information though. Paul, to me, is a very fascinating person as well as a very infuriating one.

You are very welcome. Paul was an example of the excellence found in a common Jewish teacher. BTW, one of my most valued mentors is an influential Rabbi in the Chicago area.

And yes, he is an orthodox Rabbi.

 

[Tergle]

I am well aware of the verse. But if the verse means what you are saying it means, there would be no reason to share the Gospel with anyone because you could never righteously judge that they were unforgiven sinners in need of a Savior.

Would John the Baptist have ever called anyone to repent without righteously judging their need for a Savior?

Would Jesus have ever called anyone to repentance without righteously judging their need for a Savior?

Judgment is just one of those things that is vastly misunderstood. Yet God's word shows repeatedly that the basis for pointing someone to the love of Christ is to show them why they need a Savior.

That's why we GO! and preach the word.

Judgment is not a dirty word.

Zaac, how do you manage to stay here for 9673 posts?

Well done . . .

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, how do you manage to stay here for 9673 posts?

Well done . . .

I'm just leaning on the everlasting arms of Christ.

 

[b&wpac7]

Then why the stupidity embraced to bring up the Crusades? And besides, "ancient" Roman practices look to be alive and well in modern day Europe and America.

Did I bring up the Crusades?

You can't single out a few things you don't like from Roman culture and a few things you don't like in current culture and declare Roman culture to be the same. There's a lot of things that don't overlap between the two and I'd say it is a disservice to Roman culture to dismiss it as just an old version of ours.

You are very welcome. Paul was an example of the excellence found in a common Jewish teacher. BTW, one of my most valued mentors is an influential Rabbi in the Chicago area.

And yes, he is an orthodox Rabbi.

Well, for my money, Paul was the best at what he did and the best at figuring out where to go. Going after the gentiles was a stroke of genius and, without that, there would be no Christianity. It simply wasn't a strong enough Jewish movement and would have probably been wiped out during the revolt or Temple destruction. Only the Pharisee movement survived those two events.

 

[razeontherock]

there would be no reason to share the Gospel with anyone because you could never righteously judge that they were unforgiven sinners in need of a Savior.

Judgment is just one of those things that is vastly misunderstood. Yet God's word shows repeatedly that the basis for pointing someone to the love of Christ is to show them why they need a Savior.

1) The 1 English word "judgment" has 2 different biblical meanings: 1) discernment 2) condemnation. While we are prohibited from 2), we are responsible for 1).

2) I can admire zeal, but question your motive for sharing the Gospel. It is not we who can convict anyone of sin; it is the Spirit that does that. W/o Him no one comes to the Father either. It is also the Spirit that shows people why they need a Savior. Yes, we can utter words, but that utterance is not what brings forth fruit.

 

[Tergle]

I'm just leaning on the everlasting arms of Christ.

Me too. From nausea of having to deal with the rote of our adversaries.

I'm done for the night.

IHS

 

[Zaac]

My motive for sharing the Gospel is to share the Gospel in obedience to what is commanded, and then get out of the way and let the Holy Spirit do what only the Holy Spirit can do.

That's why I don't debate God's word with people or go back and forth with them on it.

The Holy Spirit convicts. I'm only to make His truth known in love.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

My motive for sharing the Gospel is to share the Gospel in obedience to what is commanded, and then get out of the way and let the Holy Spirit do what only the Holy Spirit can do.

That's why I don't debate God's word with people or go back and forth with them on it.

The Holy Spirit convicts. I'm only to make His truth known in love.

I'm curious. Since you believe only the Holy Spirit convicts (a very common belief), do you think there are better and worse ways of evangelizing, or do you believe all approaches are the same?

 

[Freodin]

I had to take a day off, so I apologize if the debate has already passed that point. I just can't let it lie.

I disagree, and suggest that doveaman hasn't considered why I say that yes, hell is a reconciliation of sorts.

No. Judgment Day is a sure thing. All things will be reconciled. Those that insist upon this as their only means, will be graciously afforded that choice, although I suggest it is a ... poor choice.

So now you say that eternal damnation / eternal Hell / separation from God is reconcilaiation.

But here you said:

This much is honest. You still fail to account for the fact that the point of G-d's forgiveness is reconciliation.

So how can the point of forgiveness be reconciliation, when the point of non-forgiveness is also reconciliation?

And to add to that contradiction:

According to that doctrine, reconciliation with some can occur no other way. Why is this much not obvious? My only advice is - don't go!

If eternal damnation is the only way for God to reconcile with "some"... what is the point of forgiveness then?

 

[Tergle]

Did I bring up the Crusades?

No. But so many do when trying to use antiquity to bash modern Christians with. Nothing of an accusation toward you I assure you.

You can't single out a few things you don't like from Roman culture and a few things you don't like in current culture and declare Roman culture to be the same. There's a lot of things that don't overlap between the two and I'd say it is a disservice to Roman culture to dismiss it as just an old version of ours.

We are a version of theirs.

Well, for my money, Paul was the best at what he did and the best at figuring out where to go. Going after the gentiles was a stroke of genius and, without that, there would be no Christianity.

A great (x's whatever) grand mother of King David was a gentile. Conversiion does not change the DNA. And withour Ruth, there is no messiah.

It simply wasn't a strong enough Jewish movement and would have probably been wiped out during the revolt or Temple destruction. Only the Pharisee movement survived those two events.

The origin of Judaism: From diaspora to Herod's political appointee's. Certainly the Pharisee movement was not from Moshe. BTW, Where is the Beit Din today? It appers that Judaism has spread out too far and wide to be of one body of believers.

I'll have to take your reply later on today or tomorrow.

Have a great day.

 

[razeontherock]

Human beings define terms. You engaged me in a discussion about free will, and when presented with the definition of free will, you were completely flummoxed because you don't understand what the term means. And then you seemingly get angry

How many assumptions can you make in such a tiny space?

1) You "presented" me with anything
2) I was flummoxed; either partially or completely
3) I don't understand
4) I don't understand YOUR inability to grasp the context, that this discussion is about a Christian concept, on a Christian site
5) You have to assume the emotions of others, via a medium that gives you no clue about that.

And there are many more I skipped over. Why would you presume to have anything beneficial to offer? Just look at your first 4 words here. Your definition is used by the minority on this website, and is rejected by me personally as being perverse, and I have clearly demonstrated why. You can't even engage on that level, and have no choice but to reduce to ad hom and semantics

Atheists can be such fun Such a wonderful philosophy you have
Can't even tell when you're beat. Note to self: remember that name, ToddnotTodd. Better than John Stewart?

 

[Philothei]

I am well aware of the verse. But if the verse means what you are saying it means, there would be no reason to share the Gospel with anyone because you could never righteously judge that they were unforgiven sinners in need of a Savior.

Would John the Baptist have ever called anyone to repent without righteously judging their need for a Savior?

Would Jesus have ever called anyone to repentance without righteously judging their need for a Savior?

Judgment is just one of those things that is vastly misunderstood. Yet God's word shows repeatedly that the basis for pointing someone to the love of Christ is to show them why they need a Savior.

That's why we GO! and preach the word.

Judgment is not a dirty word.

The judging that John the Baptist did was not to 'tell the ones who are not baptized that they are going to hell" though KWIM?

He just did it!! He told them if they believed that they are sinners and if they admit to it and wanted to be baptized he just did... He preached against the ones who lived in sin.... that it is bad no doubt about it!! But rependance is a choice and no matter how bad of a picture we paint if the ones who needs to come to Christ do not realize their responsibility in doing so... the threat of hell won't do the trick either


We all need our Saviour ... we need to repent daily just like we need to stay in a relationship with Christ constantly.. I agree... We go and preach no question about that Zaac ! God bless ya brother

 

[Zaac]

I'm curious. Since you believe only the Holy Spirit convicts (a very common belief), do you think there are better and worse ways of evangelizing, or do you believe all approaches are the same?

Perhaps the church has already put more emphasis on the how than the why?

I submit that we just preach the Word and get out of God's way. Once you cut through the bells and whistles, none of it means anything if God doesn't do what only God can do.

It's the Holy Spirit, not our methods, that draw men.

 

[BleedingHeart]

We know you love arguing with us. BTW I don't hate being right. You guys validate that all the time.



Like live to argue with Christians (theists)?



Their arguments are immersed in evolutionary support. There's even Darwin celebration days now.



If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .



Prove scientifically how life stays in a corporeal body? How a memory stays in living organ matter. Why anyone cares about a stranger in far off lands?



There's enough experience in the college milieu for enough canned reponse to know them thoroughly. And again, you guys here are as typical as it gets. Plus the books they write are regurgited comebacks again and again.



Egotists are rarely fascinating for more than a moment. And even more rare as entertainment or enlightenment.

1. Well you were wrong about atheists thinking the same. Something you will never admit to obviously.

2. Only ones like you that continue to lie and belittle them. Did you not see the other thread in this forum when a Christian asked atheists what they thought about Christians. The response was generally positive. Mine was considerably positive. I come from a Christian family that is very loving. I go to church with a friend (a conservative Christian) who is very sweet and kind.

3. There's a difference between accepting evolution and saying Darwin can "save" someone in the context you are implying. Atheists have never done the later.

4. Except we don't. You just call us ducks based on ignorant preconceived notions and automatically label anything we say as quacks.

5. You are falling into a God of the Gap's argument, which is a logical fallacy (the pointing out of which is a "cliche" to you). Just because science cannot explain something now, does not mean you can make up an answer with no scientific backing (God) and criticize a group of people for not accepting it.

6. Yes, we have regurgitated comebacks. I've seen enough shows on the Atheist Experience. Do you know why? Because you theists regurgitate the same claims. You are the perfect microcosm of this. How many times have you accused atheists of being a homogenized group? How many times have I explained to you why you are wrong? How many times have you ignored me and just repeated the same claim either in another claim or in response to me, showing that you do not care about any semblance of truth? If you want different comebacks, start making different irrational claims so we can correct those as well.
Let me put this a different way...a way that is--Foghorn Leghorn
Tergle: 2 plus 2 equals fish.
Me: No it doesn't, it equals 4.
[Ten posts later...]
Tergle: 2 plus 2 equals fish.
Me: No it doesn't, it equals 4.
Tergle: why do you keep saying the same thing?

7. You are most certainly enlightening Tergle. That I can assure you.

 

[Philothei]

I'm only to make His truth known in love.

Yeah... in love and truth I think when one is there the other follows We are to witness in both love and truth...for withough love we are cymbals ... I love the Love passage soooo true and so inspiring to me

 

[Philothei]

I'm curious. Since you believe only the Holy Spirit convicts (a very common belief), do you think there are better and worse ways of evangelizing, or do you believe all approaches are the same?

Were the Apostles evangelizing the same way?

 

[Zaac]

The judging that John the Baptist did was not to 'tell the ones who are not baptized that they are going to hell" though KWIM?

So at issue is telling folks that they are going to hell?

He just did it!! He told them if they believed that they are sinners and if they admit to it and wanted to be baptized he just did... He preached against the ones who lived in sin.... that it is bad no doubt about it!! But rependance is a choice and no matter how bad of a picture we paint if the ones who needs to come to Christ do not realize their responsibility in doing so... the threat of hell won't do the trick either

I'm confused here. What did Jesus go to the Cross for? Would there be a reason to repent if there were no impending punishment for not repenting?

I think sometimes that we look at John 3:16 and forget that there is a verse 18 following.

16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. John 3:16-18

There is a judgment and a penalty for sin. It's impossible to preach the Gospel and separate God's wrath from His love.

 

[b&wpac7]

A great (x's whatever) grand mother of King David was a gentile. Conversiion does not change the DNA. And withour Ruth, there is no messiah.

Great grandmother. I am a convert myself. I am fully Jewish through my conversion and I found it along the same paths she did.

The origin of Judaism: From diaspora to Herod's political appointee's. Certainly the Pharisee movement was not from Moshe.

That is debatable. The Pharisee movement, going by the full movement not just those who are depicted in the New Testament, stayed true to the teachings of the Torah and emphasized living one's life using the Torah as a guide. Those that would have followed the teachings of Hillel, for example, could not have been the same men shown in the NT.

BTW, Where is the Beit Din today? It appers that Judaism has spread out too far and wide to be of one body of believers.

Completely expected by Hosea and other prophets. It was known we would be dispersed into the nations of the world. Hosea's message to us is clear: Turn back to God and keep His commandments. I try.

Have a great day.

You as well.

 

[b&wpac7]

Would there be a reason to repent if there were no impending punishment for not repenting?

For the same reason I repent when I sin? To be close to the Holy One of Israel.