- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,613
- 52,512
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you want him to do, Jane? bleed on a cross?In light of the above sentiment, this sounds more like a shrug than any real concern for the well-being of others.
I want him to love his neighbour as he loves himself - just as Jesus commands. It's not a coincidence that he used a Samaritan to illustrate just who one's neighbour is, either. The Samaritans were reviled heretics who discarded vast portions of Scripture and followed their own version of Mosaic law.What do you want him to do, Jane? bleed on a cross?
It saddens me that those who resist the gospel may go to hell.
In light of the above sentiment, this sounds more like a shrug than any real concern for the well-being of others.
What do you want him to do, Jane? bleed on a cross?
Can he do that while being saddened that those who resist the Gospel may go to Hell?I want him to love his neighbour as he loves himself - just as Jesus commands.
In context, his expression of sadness does not amount to much more than saying: "Yeah, it's sad that people are homeless, but I and my family have got a roof over our head, so I do not worry about that too much."Can he do that while being saddened that those who resist the Gospel may go to Hell?
Was that Jesus' sentiment as well?In context, his expression of sadness does not amount to much more than saying: "Yeah, it's sad that people are homeless, but I and my family have got a roof over our head, so I do not worry about that too much."
Are you seriously saying that there are no people who grieve loved ones whom they fear are in hell?
Really?
Wow, mindlight!I send noone to hell. It is not by my testimony that people will be sent there as I hold no bitter grudges against anyone.
It is not an immediate concern for me and I would prefer to focus on God rather than hell anyway. The idea that we should get all wound up about people who are too stupid or rather too wicked to choose eternity with God over hell is what is silly here. They are no brothers or sisters of mine so I want nothing to do with them. I will be honest as I can with people about where their choices point. We are all called to be witnesses but God does not need us to be so. One lady close to me died recently and the burden of her life pointed to hell. But I do not know for sure So there is little point wallowing on that. For my part I have forgiven her any wrongs she did me. But that will not save her from God if she has not accepted His Sons sacrifice. That is sad - there is not really anything more to say. Love carries the risk of the pain of loss. But a heart that loves also forgives and forgets faster and is better equipped to move on when its own responsibility is no longer active.
Is that not a horribly selfish sentiment? Can this be reconciled with the greatest commandment as laid out in the New Testament and its parables? "Who cares if my neighbours burn: everyone I *really* care about is on the save side."
My concern is not based on selfish fears, and I would feel the same way if I believed in all of this and was entirely certain that I (and my loved ones) would end up in heaven.
Maybe a little context is in order here: I'm German on my mother's side, so the Holocaust looms large in my family's history (even though there were no Nazis among my direct ancestors, and my grandfather only escaped jail time for being a Social Democrat because he was working as a coal miner). And I cannot help seeing parallels between your attitude and that exhibited by the average German in the 1930s and 1940s: "Who cares if they arrest the communists, homosexuals, gypsies and Jews? *My* family isn't in any danger of ending up in a concentration camp, and while it's sad that others must suffer that, they could have just chosen to embrace the party line instead of being filthy Marxists or man-lovers. I'm sure they deserve everything that's coming to them, for else the authorities would not have arrested them to begin with."
To me, the concept of a literalist hell is irreconcilable with the concept of a good/just deity. Its very existence (hypothetical though it may be) would countermand any claims to being on the right side, any protestations of being champions of light and justice - just as the gas chambers of Auschwitz disqualified the Nazis as anything other than monsters.
If I believed that there was such a deity and such a place, I could not in good conscience worship him and call him good and just. Even if it was the only way to avoid being deported to the cosmic death camp.
Love means giving freewill. Heaven must coexist with hell for love to be real. You cannot force love on those who do not want it.
Nice phrases, all. But what do they *mean*?
Yes, I agree that granting freedom is an expression of love - but what freedom is there if there's exactly ONE valid choice, while everything else inevitably leads to unimaginable suffering for eternity? It's as if you tell your child that he's free to pick any food item, as long as it's the salad. If he chooses the chocolate bar, the spaghetti, or the cream cake, you'll whip him with your belt until he bleeds. Or telling your love interest that she's free to accept or reject you - but if she doesn't agree to marry you, you'll ascertain that her life will become a living hell.
Genuine freedom would necessitate genuine options, and not penalize all but one choice with eternal damnation. Especially if we take into account that choosing necessitates believing in the first place. For example, I cannot "choose to believe in Allah's messenger and the veracity of his revelation" because I do not believe that there is an Allah to begin with. It's the same with Christianity and other religions. I do not reject their deities' offers - I do not believe that there are any to make these offers to begin with. And I am certainly not alone in this. Nobody "chooses hell". Not being convinced by ancient mythologies does not equate rejecting a genuine offer.
But gay doesn't denote happiness today as it once did. So if I tell you I am gay today - are you going to assume I am happy today, or that I might be homosexual?
The Bible uses the term "highminded" for these educated people.It is only among theological students that the other references are made.
Nice phrases, all. But what do they *mean*?
Yes, I agree that granting freedom is an expression of love - but what freedom is there if there's exactly ONE valid choice, while everything else inevitably leads to unimaginable suffering for eternity? It's as if you tell your child that he's free to pick any food item, as long as it's the salad. If he chooses the chocolate bar, the spaghetti, or the cream cake, you'll whip him with your belt until he bleeds. Or telling your love interest that she's free to accept or reject you - but if she doesn't agree to marry you, you'll ascertain that her life will become a living hell.
Genuine freedom would necessitate genuine options, and not penalize all but one choice with eternal damnation. Especially if we take into account that choosing necessitates believing in the first place. For example, I cannot "choose to believe in Allah's messenger and the veracity of his revelation" because I do not believe that there is an Allah to begin with. It's the same with Christianity and other religions. I do not reject their deities' offers - I do not believe that there are any to make these offers to begin with. And I am certainly not alone in this. Nobody "chooses hell". Not being convinced by ancient mythologies does not equate rejecting a genuine offer.
So, let me think. Let's say there are two sinners. Both deserve hell.
One sinner believes in God and Christ. Another sinner is an atheist.
Are you telling us that God will show only Mercy and no Justice to that sinner who believes in Him and who DESERVES hell? And that God will show only Justice and not a drop of Mercy to atheist sinner who also DESERVES hell?
How does BELIEF make the difference when BOTH DESERVE THE SAME THING - HELL?
That is the point I'm making. Hell doesn't mean the grave or the place of the dead today [most commonly, that is]; these things are referred to as the grave and death. If you're an atheist you do not believe in the unseen place of the dead - its a hole in the ground. Hell in its simplest definition always refers to the future lake of fire. It is only among theological students that the other references are made. So the OP is using the term in its simplest form and all other discussions are kind of off topic.
So, let me think. Let's say there are two sinners. Both deserve hell.
One sinner believes in God and Christ. Another sinner is an atheist.
Are you telling us that God will show only Mercy and no Justice to that sinner who believes in Him and who DESERVES hell? And that God will show only Justice and not a drop of Mercy to atheist sinner who also DESERVES hell?
How does BELIEF make the difference when BOTH DESERVE THE SAME THING - HELL?
There is a basic error in the idea that God grants freedom, actually he does not. There is no where in Scripture that states that God allows you to choose your own way. This is actually where the problem began - people choosing their own way, and the choice is usually bad.
Did God create people with a will? Let me ask you, how does our will develop? Yes God created us with the potential to will, yet it was the misuse of the will that led to sin.
God said, "Don't eat that fruit, its poisonous and will kill you."
The serpent said, "Hah! God's lying, its good for you and it looks and tastes great."
Eve and Adam both ate the fruit and we have been dying ever since.
Tell me two things... Who chose to eat the fruit? Did God ever say if you want to eat the fruit its up to you, I won't let it hurt you?
The Scripture plainly shows that God never gave us the freedom to choose. That would be like me setting a bottle of cyanide in front of my child and saying that as far as I know its poisonous and deadly but its his choice if he wants to drink it. Would you honestly believe I love my child? Of course not; you would have me arrested.
If God granted freedom it would show that he does not love, however he chooses to point you in the right direction so that you may be saved.
The Bible does not say don't worry, just make good choices in your life and you will be saved without believing in Jesus Christ; it says believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Like an antidote there is no other way. You're sick unto death and Jesus is the only medicine.
Is that not a horribly selfish sentiment? Can this be reconciled with the greatest commandment as laid out in the New Testament and its parables? "Who cares if my neighbours burn: everyone I *really* care about is on the save side."
In light of the above sentiment, this sounds more like a shrug than any real concern for the well-being of others.
My concern is not based on selfish fears, and I would feel the same way if I believed in all of this and was entirely certain that I (and my loved ones) would end up in heaven.
Maybe a little context is in order here: I'm German on my mother's side, so the Holocaust looms large in my family's history (even though there were no Nazis among my direct ancestors, and my grandfather only escaped jail time for being a Social Democrat because he was working as a coal miner). And I cannot help seeing parallels between your attitude and that exhibited by the average German in the 1930s and 1940s: "Who cares if they arrest the communists, homosexuals, gypsies and Jews? *My* family isn't in any danger of ending up in a concentration camp, and while it's sad that others must suffer that, they could have just chosen to embrace the party line instead of being filthy Marxists or man-lovers. I'm sure they deserve everything that's coming to them, for else the authorities would not have arrested them to begin with."
To me, the concept of a literalist hell is irreconcilable with the concept of a good/just deity. Its very existence (hypothetical though it may be) would countermand any claims to being on the right side, any protestations of being champions of light and justice - just as the gas chambers of Auschwitz disqualified the Nazis as anything other than monsters.
If I believed that there was such a deity and such a place, I could not in good conscience worship him and call him good and just. Even if it was the only way to avoid being deported to the cosmic death camp.
For the same reason I have not rid myself of thetans with dianetics, did not cure my cold with quartz crystal therapy, or declared my willingness to be uploaded to the Raelian mothership: taking offers you consider fictitious is kinda impossible.Jane, can I ask why you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior?
So in your estimation, what does explain the world and our place in it?For the same reason I have not rid myself of thetans with dianetics, did not cure my cold with quartz crystal therapy, or declared my willingness to be uploaded to the Raelian mothership: taking offers you consider fictitious is kinda impossible.
I am perfectly willing to adjust my world view if some new information shows me I was wrong, though. In fact, I'd be thrilled by the prospect. But from where I am standing right now, religions fail at explaining the world and our place within it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?