Help me.

[visionary]

So now you are saying that all the bible is to be discarded and ONLY the 10 commandments are to be kept? Where does it say that the "curse of the law" is done away with?



This is not a multiple choice question. Either the Bible is God's word or it is not. One cannot choose what to keep and what to ignore!

There are sections that the Lord said are rehearsals, appointments, which He will keep and ask the Israelites to rehearse them and keep them as memorials even before they were fulfilled. There are things that the Lord said are curses, and He said that He bore them to the cross,.. find them in the OT and only them do you put Yeshua's name on them, as He took care of them for us... continue your way through scripture, looking for the sacrifices, and place Yeshua's name there too...

And now go back through again.. looking for the Priest's work and put Yeshua's name there as that is what He is doing now for us in the Heavenly sanctuary.. Now that you have done all that, re-read the scriptures in the light of Yeshua... now it will make more sense... as scripture has indicated that which and how it should be interpretated.

 

[kotwebck]

I think we are getting off topic here ...

 

[tanzanos]

There are sections that the Lord said are rehearsals, appointments, which He will keep and ask the Israelites to rehearse them and keep them as memorials even before they were fulfilled. There are things that the Lord said are curses, and He said that He bore them to the cross,.. find them in the OT and only them do you put Yeshua's name on them, as He took care of them for us... continue your way through scripture, looking for the sacrifices, and place Yeshua's name there too...

And now go back through again.. looking for the Priest's work and put Yeshua's name there as that is what He is doing now for us in the Heavenly sanctuary.. Now that you have done all that, re-read the scriptures in the light of Yeshua... now it will make more sense... as scripture has indicated that which and how it should be interpretated.

Please show me (As I have to you) where in the bible it states that DEUTERENOMY is only a rehearsal?

 

[razzelflabben]

I remember asking myself that question as a young boy. I pulled on that straw and well, now, I'm an atheist. Why would I want to believe in a God who hold as its most important value, above all rest, that I believe in him and love him. Imagine someone for whom the most important thing is that we worship him. What would you think of that person? In some countries the head of the state is a person just like that and I'm more than happy to not live in such country.

Do you feel the same way about a Loving Parent or spouse? When you marry, do you say, oh, can't commit to Loving only you as my husband/wife, because that would be you demanding my love....

One of the ways that God shows or reveals His love to man is bridegroom love. God describes Himself as the bridegroom and the church the bride....so when you ask the question, 'why would I want to believe in a God who hold as it's most important value, above all rest, that I believe in him and love him?' consider what a spouse is asked to do...we as spouse, ask our significant other to be faithful to us, to believe in and trust our love....why should the bridegroom of the church be any different?

Let me add this, just for a preemptive action, God is a supernatural being that mean's that He is not human, yet humans try to understand Him, try to grasp who He is. In order for humans to understand God (supernatural) we use human terms, it would be like trying to explain a complex math problem or scientific experiment without using math or scientific terms and ideas. So in order to apply understanding to what we cannot understand we are asked to see smaller bits and put those smaller bits together to understand the one.

So with God, we understand His love by understanding that He is Father, Creator, Bridegroom, King, Savior, Shepherd, Comforter, Teacher, etc. He is all these things, just like you could be spouse, father, child, etc. all make up who you are, but each is characterized by different things...so with God.

 

[razzelflabben]

So basically You are clearly saying that NOT ALL in the bible is God's word?

not at all, the bible is the ispired word of God, that means all of it, but the OT is mostly a historical account of a God's interaction with the people. So, let's look at your history book, is every word in the book, let's say about Abraham Lincoln, words directly stated by him? Of course not, neither is the historical accounts of the OT all the direct words of God (in fact inspired doesn't mean direct words at all, but that is another discussion) so where it is true as inspired by God, it is not all God's commands given to HIs people.

Please indicate which of the following is wrong and against God's word:

1st. Commandment, Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. Old Testament punishment - Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”. Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God." Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”. New Testament punishment - Mark 16:16 “He that believeth not, shall be damned”.
2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Old Testament punishment- Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.” This is where God tells us not to be artists.

3rd. Commandment, Exodus 20:7 “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 24:16 “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death”, New Testament punishment - Matthew 12:32 “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come”. Mark 3:29 - “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgivness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”.
4th. Commandment, Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”. Numbers 15:32. “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
5th. Commandment, Exodus 20:12 “Honour thy father and thy mother”. Old Testament punishment - Exodus 21:15-17 “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death”. More punishment - Exodus 21:17 “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”.How many of you are willing to kill your children if they curse you?

6th. Commandment, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”. This hypocrisy is beyond me; for it clearly states that you should not kill yet God commands us to kill in the other commandments.

7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”.

I already explained this in depth, the short answer would be that parts that are added by man would not be the commands of God....Let me see if this helps you at all to understand what I am saying...The ten commandments are usually referred to as the Ten Commandments and are recorded as the law given to Moses by God on the Mt. None of the Ten commandments offers any kind of punishment for disobedience and only one offers a reward for obedience. The other laws you include here, including and focusing on the punishment for disobedience, are often referred to as the Mosaic law, the Jewish law (note not God's law, not given them by God, but Mosaic) These laws are man's laws and have been tempered by God. These laws as every social law I am aware of, includes punishment for disobedience. So we have the name of the laws identifying which is which, the historical account identifying which is which and we also have the very nature of how the law is constructed telling us which is which....

 

[razzelflabben]

Do you mean that christians should scrap most of the old testament? Those that mean the old testament isn't so sacred after all? I thought it was to words of God. Where is the sacred interpretation guide of the OT?

Should e do away with all history? Would we be better off not knowing anything about the world before we were born, no family history, no national history, no world history, you throw out all of it, including evolution?

This is basically the same question you are asking of the Bible, should we scrap all the history of the OT because life changed over time? Of course not, it is all profitable...

 

[visionary]

Please show me (As I have to you) where in the bible it states that DEUTERENOMY is only a rehearsal?

in the new testament... "a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ" Col 2:17 alludes to this rehearsal..

MOED, Appointed Times, Feasts..Israel's sacred feasts is called in the Hebrew a moed or a "rehearsal". These appointed times are not chosen or set by man, but by the Eternal God. He says that they are His feasts (moed), Leviticus 23:2.

Leviticus 23 summarizes all the major feasts of the Lord. To distinguish between the different characteristics of the various types of days, the Hebrew words help us to understand how God looks at His special times. The word for "feasts of the LORD," and "My feasts," in verse 2, and verses 4, 37, 44 is the Hebrew moed, Strong's #4150, which means "appointed season or set time, solemn feast, congregation, set feast."

The Feasts of the Lord are the Eternal's appointed times, revealing in detail his awesome plan of salvation for mankind through Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah. They begin with Passover when he died as the Lamb of God to take way the sin of the world which were fulfilled at the first coming.

Passover... Our Lord as the Passover Lamb died at the time of the Passover, turning that rehearsal into reality.. and now a memorial which Paul says..

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:8

First Fruits... Our Lord's resurrection on the first day after sabbath as prophesied in the Feasts.. He is our first fruits of them that are raised from the dead..

And then Pentecost 50 days later the Holy Spirit descended... to the time and date just as the appointed times declared they would.


.....and now we await the fall feasts to have their fulfillment which will end with the Feast of Tabernacles, which is the Feast of his return to Jerusalem as King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[tanzanos]

in the new testament... "a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ" Col 2:17 alludes to this rehearsal..

MOED, Appointed Times, Feasts..Israel's sacred feasts is called in the Hebrew a moed or a "rehearsal". These appointed times are not chosen or set by man, but by the Eternal God. He says that they are His feasts (moed), Leviticus 23:2.

Leviticus 23 summarizes all the major feasts of the Lord. To distinguish between the different characteristics of the various types of days, the Hebrew words help us to understand how God looks at His special times. The word for "feasts of the LORD," and "My feasts," in verse 2, and verses 4, 37, 44 is the Hebrew moed, Strong's #4150, which means "appointed season or set time, solemn feast, congregation, set feast."

The Feasts of the Lord are the Eternal's appointed times, revealing in detail his awesome plan of salvation for mankind through Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah. They begin with Passover when he died as the Lamb of God to take way the sin of the world which were fulfilled at the first coming.

Passover... Our Lord as the Passover Lamb died at the time of the Passover, turning that rehearsal into reality.. and now a memorial which Paul says..

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:8

First Fruits... Our Lord's resurrection on the first day after sabbath as prophesied in the Feasts.. He is our first fruits of them that are raised from the dead..

And then Pentecost 50 days later the Holy Spirit descended... to the time and date just as the appointed times declared they would.


.....and now we await the fall feasts to have their fulfillment which will end with the Feast of Tabernacles, which is the Feast of his return to Jerusalem as King of kings and Lord of lords.

None of the above proves your claim of rehearsals. You are interpreting the bible as you see fit. Do you or do you not consider Deuteronomy to be Valid and God's word?

 

[R3quiem]

It's even more dangerous not picking a side. We are not part of this and the battle is over, the satan has been defeated when Jesus died on the cross. Judgement is done we are just awaiting the sentence.

By what basis ... we'll, me personally, I prefer to pick the winning side or the strongest side.

Picking the strongest side...

I'm pretty sure that's what many Germans decided to do when the National Socialism party was rising in power. I don't mean that as a personal attack, like implying you are a Nazi- I'm just pointing out that picking the "strongest" side can often lead to horrible choices.

Plus, propaganda can lead one to believe that one side is somehow stronger than the other when really it is the weaker of the two.

No ... seriously, pick the side that would take care of you, love you and help you, no matter who you are or what you've done etc. That way even life on this earth could be bearable - and you get yourself saved for eternity, with a God as a best friend and Father.

Well, in the Bible, Satan's character killed something like 10 people (Job's family and servants) and God directly killed or ordered the killing of thousands or millions.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, in the Bible, Satan's character killed something like 10 people (Job's family and servants) and God directly killed or ordered the killing of thousands or millions.

that is the worlds understanding, but God thinks more in the eternal (notice the word more, indication that He thinks in both) than in the temperal and the battle referred to in the post is more spiritual (eternal) than temperal. This ultimately means that you cannot understand what is being said when your understanding is based on the temperal only....

 

[R3quiem]

that is the worlds understanding, but God thinks more in the eternal (notice the word more, indication that He thinks in both) than in the temperal and the battle referred to in the post is more spiritual (eternal) than temperal. This ultimately means that you cannot understand what is being said when your understanding is based on the temperal only....

Look, what it comes down to is claims.

Claim: Christianity is the only way to god, and he will send you to hell if you are not Christian.
Claim: Jesus was just a man, teaching radical things that are not in line with Judaism.
Claim: Islam is the only way to god, and he will send you to hell if you are not Muslim.
Claim: There are many ways to god, but Hinduism is the best way.
Claim: Following the eightfold path of Buddhism is the only way to end suffering.
Claim: There are many gods, with different expectations.

Claim: You cannot understand any of these claims, just pick one and hope it's right.

Pick a side? How about just take a reasonable approach, point out that none of these claims can be verified or shown to be any more accurate than their competing claims, and decide to not form a definitive conclusion that would only be based on incomplete information?

 

[razzelflabben]

Look, I respect your decision to not believe, I respect your disagreement, but what I have a problem with is that you insist that there is no way of understanding the "Christian" point of view, let me explain by going into more depth below...

Look, what it comes down to is claims.

Claim: Christianity is the only way to god, and he will send you to hell if you are not Christian.

as already talked about in great detail, God doesn't "send" anyone to hell, hell/also known as eternal death, it is a consequence of sin, not the punishment for it, therefore it is a personal responsibility issue not a punishment issue....now as stated above, whether you go along with this or not, find it to be truth or fiction, is purely yours, but what I have a hard time with is your assumption that it isn't answered, isn't addressed, isn't satisfied in discussion.

If I can take a belief that I hold so seriously and so strongly that it has taken me through the years unwavering, and accept that you might not agree with what I believe, it seems to me that you should be able to grasp what is being said and instead of making excuses, come right out and say, I simply don't agree....or maybe, I hear what is being said, but can't grasp why you would believe that, instead of pretending it wasn't answered.[/quote]

Claim: Jesus was just a man, teaching radical things that are not in line with Judaism. [/quote]Actually this claim is not "Christian" for the believer, and this is important, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, God Himself....it is this belief that separates the believer from the other religions of the world and btw, it is the belief that saves you as well as the belief that the bible uses to identify a false teacher of the "christian" religions of the world. So yeah, it's a big deal to get right, Jesus wasn't just a man, He is the Christ, God Himself...

It is also why if His teaching is counter to that of Judaism, we need to investigate further, you see, the Jews are looking for the Messiah, the believers see Jesus as the Messiah...both are based on the same understanding of God only one sees the Messiah as already come, the other is still waiting for that Messiah...

Claim: Islam is the only way to god, and he will send you to hell if you are not Muslim.

A Muslim is one who accepts Islam as the religion of GOD to follow....

now on this one, you are closer than most, but still, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what each believes,

Muslims fail to realize that the Islaamic concept of salvation is not based upon good deeds, but is based primarily upon faith

More can be found here How does a muslim get to Heaven, saved, reach a state of perfect harmony with God? bottom line, faith and good works are the way to Allah according to Islam
[/quote]
Claim: There are many ways to god, but Hinduism is the best way.[/quote]again, you seem to only understand the populous misconceptions, for the Hindu, revelation/realizations is the answer, enlightenment as it were. The Hindu : Miscellaneous / Religion : Way to God realisation realizations are not limited to Hinduism but can be found in Hindu.

Claim: Following the eightfold path of Buddhism is the only way to end suffering.

Their focus is not to end suffering, but to live lives that are moral and ethical...Basics of Buddhism

The goal of the Buddhist is Nervana, nothingness....

Claim: There are many gods, with different expectations.

First I got to ask, who makes this claim, it's a new one to me, in fact, most people believe that there are many gods and they all require the same thing, worship/appeasment.

Claim: You cannot understand any of these claims, just pick one and hope it's right.

again, I don't know who is making this claim, most people believe that it is easy to understand each claim, difficult to determine which claim is truth.

Pick a side? How about just take a reasonable approach, point out that none of these claims can be verified or shown to be any more accurate than their competing claims, and decide to not form a definitive conclusion that would only be based on incomplete information?

I have a better suggestion, study them, compare their evidences, and then decide if any have merit and if so, which....

 

[R3quiem]

as already talked about in great detail, God doesn't "send" anyone to hell, hell/also known as eternal death, it is a consequence of sin, not the punishment for it, therefore it is a personal responsibility issue not a punishment issue....now as stated above, whether you go along with this or not, find it to be truth or fiction, is purely yours, but what I have a hard time with is your assumption that it isn't answered, isn't addressed, isn't satisfied in discussion.

Of the hundred+ of Christians I have talked to on this website, some believe that God does send people to hell, others believe that people "send themselves there" but cannot explain how they do so, and then there are those such as many Orthodox Christians that believe heaven and hell are the same place, but that God's love is somehow unbearable for some and hence it is "hell" for them.

Obviously you are of the second variety. If you care to defend your position, please describe how committing "sins" in this life puts someone in "hell" or "eternal death" without the aid of a deity actually sending the person there. (Also, you may need to define what you mean by "eternal death", because there are Christians that believe "hell" is death or nonexistence, and there are those who believe hell is a state of eternal suffering and therefore quite different from what the definition of "death" implies.)

If I can take a belief that I hold so seriously and so strongly that it has taken me through the years unwavering, and accept that you might not agree with what I believe, it seems to me that you should be able to grasp what is being said and instead of making excuses, come right out and say, I simply don't agree....or maybe, I hear what is being said, but can't grasp why you would believe that, instead of pretending it wasn't answered.

I can grasp why some people believe it. The majority of Christians have not studied other religions and have never given serious thought to why they are Christian as opposed to any other belief. The minority that appear to have seriously considered their religion have a wide variety of reasons to believe what they do, but so far I have not found one that seems to be a completely logical position to hold.

I do not agree with the belief, and furthermore, find the belief in many (though not necessarily all) of its versions and variants to be damaging to society and progress as well as somewhat hateful towards certain groups.

Claim: Jesus was just a man, teaching radical things that are not in line with Judaism. Actually this claim is not "Christian" for the believer, and this is important, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, God Himself....it is this belief that separates the believer from the other religions of the world and btw, it is the belief that saves you as well as the belief that the bible uses to identify a false teacher of the "christian" religions of the world. So yeah, it's a big deal to get right, Jesus wasn't just a man, He is the Christ, God Himself...

It is also why if His teaching is counter to that of Judaism, we need to investigate further, you see, the Jews are looking for the Messiah, the believers see Jesus as the Messiah...both are based on the same understanding of God only one sees the Messiah as already come, the other is still waiting for that Messiah... A Muslim is one who accepts Islam as the religion of GOD to follow....

I did not say that claim was Christian. If you noticed my list of claims, one of them was Christian, one was Jewish (this one), one was Muslim, one was Hindu, one was Buddhist, and one was Pagan. Each claim was meant to be a sample from each religion, because each religion is so diverse and offer a nearly countless number of individual claims.

This claim was Jewish claim, as I have seen many Jews state that they believe Jesus was a rabbi who taught rather radical things that are not in line with Judaism. They do not believe he fulfilled prophecy, and many go further as to say that Christians do not even accurately understand the prophecies.

now on this one, you are closer than most, but still, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what each believes,

Muslims fail to realize that the Islaamic concept of salvation is not based upon good deeds, but is based primarily upon faith

More can be found here How does a muslim get to Heaven, saved, reach a state of perfect harmony with God? bottom line, faith and good works are the way to Allah according to Islam

Each claim was a sample. It is impossible to fully describe a religion, and all of its details and variances, in a single sentence.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God (quite literally word for word, as said from God to the angel Gabriel to Mohammad). You are correct in saying that faith and good works are what the Qur'an says that Allah desires from his worshipers. Muslims believe that Jesus was not God, but simply a prophet, and that those who worship Jesus are blasphemous to Allah.

Claim: There are many ways to god, but Hinduism is the best way.
again, you seem to only understand the populous misconceptions, for the Hindu, revelation/realizations is the answer, enlightenment as it were. The Hindu : Miscellaneous / Religion : Way to God realisation realizations are not limited to Hinduism but can be found in Hindu.

Again, my claim was a sample. In the Non-Christian religion section, a Hindu made that claim today, and I have seen it before, so I used it as a sample. Many Hindus I have talked to believe that multiple religions can get people to God/Moksha, but that Hinduism is the most complete of these religions.

Claim: Following the eightfold path of Buddhism is the only way to end suffering.
Their focus is not to end suffering, but to live lives that are moral and ethical...Basics of Buddhism

The goal of the Buddhist is Nervana, nothingness....

The claim I gave about Buddhism is the most streamlined way I can put it.

The four "noble truths" of Buddhism, paraphrased, are:
1. Life leads to suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by craving/desire.
3. Putting an end to craving/desire puts an end to suffering.
4. Reaching this state can be achieved by following the Buddha's teachings, including the eightfold path and the middle way.

So to say that the focus is not to end suffering goes against the very core of what Buddhism teaches- to end suffering.

As far as Nirvana being nothingness, I doubt many knowledgeable Buddhists would completely agree with that definition. While it means "blowing out", I have not seen a knowledgeable Buddhist agree that Nirvana is synonymous with complete non-existence.

First I got to ask, who makes this claim, it's a new one to me, in fact, most people believe that there are many gods and they all require the same thing, worship/appeasment.

That was a sample pagan claim. Many pagans believe in multiple gods that desire different things.

again, I don't know who is making this claim, most people believe that it is easy to understand each claim, difficult to determine which claim is truth.

This is who makes this claim, earlier in this thread:

Number one hell was not created for us. it is for the enemy/satan or his real name Lusifer, it's just that he (satan) then decided to pick us humans to go with him.

Jesus promised us that everyone will hear his name and have a choice to follow him or not.

Yes it is scary ... lol ... but not believing in God and his Son ain't gonna make Him go away ... we are locked in a war we do not even understand, all we have to really do is pick sides.

So ... yeah hell is real, but so is Jesus ... Jesus saves just got new meaning I bet.

His statement is that we do not understand the war, but must pick a side. MANY people I have talked to believe that we can not fully grasp what "god" is or how to get to him, and that a certain amount of "faith" is necessary. What they never fully explain, however, is how they think one should decide to put their "faith" into without actually understanding each claim.

I have a better suggestion, study them, compare their evidences, and then decide if any have merit and if so, which....

I have done so, and have concluded that none of the religions I am aware of have been able to show that they are more valid than any of their competitors, that they are true, or that they are worth continuing further.

I find certain aspects of religion to be good, but not many. For example, I find some merit in Buddhism and Hinduism. I find a select few teachings of Jesus to be reasonable. I feel that Abrahamic religions, as a whole, bring more negativity and damage than they bring goodness and progress.

 

[tanzanos]

that is the worlds understanding, but God thinks more in the eternal (notice the word more, indication that He thinks in both) than in the temperal and the battle referred to in the post is more spiritual (eternal) than temperal. This ultimately means that you cannot understand what is being said when your understanding is based on the temperal only....

What is there to understand when God orders the massacre of "suckling babes".
You keep trying to justify the unjustifiable. You speak as if only you understand and as if you have knowledge of what god is thinking.
I am only glad such an evil god does not exist; otherwise it would be preferable to have Lucifer rule since he is not evil like God. Poor sod; all he did was offer the fruit of knowledge to man and rebel against the boss and he gets to be the evil one? Since history is written by the victors; then whose to say Lucifer was not right?

 

[razzelflabben]

Of the hundred+ of Christians I have talked to on this website, some believe that God does send people to hell, others believe that people "send themselves there" but cannot explain how they do so, and then there are those such as many Orthodox Christians that believe heaven and hell are the same place, but that God's love is somehow unbearable for some and hence it is "hell" for them.

I have seen very few people who think God sends us to hell, in fact, most of the responses here were we send ourselves....and just for the record it has been explained to you....as to the "orthodox", very small group

Obviously you are of the second variety. If you care to defend your position, please describe how committing "sins" in this life puts someone in "hell" or "eternal death" without the aid of a deity actually sending the person there. (Also, you may need to define what you mean by "eternal death", because there are Christians that believe "hell" is death or nonexistence, and there are those who believe hell is a state of eternal suffering and therefore quite different from what the definition of "death" implies.)

that is what I have been doing and you have raised no objections until right now. So what don't you understand? What part are you missing? as to the definition, that also has been well covered, I got to know what part you missed in order to cover it again.

I can grasp why some people believe it. The majority of Christians have not studied other religions and have never given serious thought to why they are Christian as opposed to any other belief. The minority that appear to have seriously considered their religion have a wide variety of reasons to believe what they do, but so far I have not found one that seems to be a completely logical position to hold.

as I and others have stated, and yes some of us have studied other religions, it's all about the evidence.

I do not agree with the belief, and furthermore, find the belief in many (though not necessarily all) of its versions and variants to be damaging to society and progress as well as somewhat hateful towards certain groups.

the general conclusion of all "Christian" groups, the unifying teaching is love for all men, so I'm very curious, what is socially damaging about loving all people? Now if you are talking about the carrying out of the idea, that is living what one believes, I got to agree, but as to the teaching, don't see any way you can be right on that issue.

I did not say that claim was Christian. If you noticed my list of claims, one of them was Christian, one was Jewish (this one), one was Muslim, one was Hindu, one was Buddhist, and one was Pagan. Each claim was meant to be a sample from each religion, because each religion is so diverse and offer a nearly countless number of individual claims.

and I showed you in each, that you didn't understand the teaching of the religion but rather a populous, idealism that varies from individual to individual which means discussion can't happen.

This claim was Jewish claim, as I have seen many Jews state that they believe Jesus was a rabbi who taught rather radical things that are not in line with Judaism. They do not believe he fulfilled prophecy, and many go further as to say that Christians do not even accurately understand the prophecies.

Each claim was a sample. It is impossible to fully describe a religion, and all of its details and variances, in a single sentence.

but that is the very point I'm making, any discussion of a religion and how it explain something or what it believes about something, must be based on the actually teaching of the religion not on the varying individual influences of that religion. You don't seem to know the basics of any that you listed. IF you don't, how can you hope to discuss or understand?

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God (quite literally word for word, as said from God to the angel Gabriel to Mohammad). You are correct in saying that faith and good works are what the Qur'an says that Allah desires from his worshipers. Muslims believe that Jesus was not God, but simply a prophet, and that those who worship Jesus are blasphemous to Allah.

Again, my claim was a sample. In the Non-Christian religion section, a Hindu made that claim today, and I have seen it before, so I used it as a sample. Many Hindus I have talked to believe that multiple religions can get people to God/Moksha, but that Hinduism is the most complete of these religions.

but you can't base your understanding on what one person believes, but rather on what the religion teaches.

The claim I gave about Buddhism is the most streamlined way I can put it.

The four "noble truths" of Buddhism, paraphrased, are:
1. Life leads to suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by craving/desire.
3. Putting an end to craving/desire puts an end to suffering.
4. Reaching this state can be achieved by following the Buddha's teachings, including the eightfold path and the middle way.

So to say that the focus is not to end suffering goes against the very core of what Buddhism teaches- to end suffering.

As far as Nirvana being nothingness, I doubt many knowledgeable Buddhists would completely agree with that definition. While it means "blowing out", I have not seen a knowledgeable Buddhist agree that Nirvana is synonymous with complete non-existence.

right, it means that one no longer lives for the selfish desires...hum, the same basic understanding of what biblical love is, but christianity is so dangerous to society, do you feel the same danger around Buddhism?

That was a sample pagan claim. Many pagans believe in multiple gods that desire different things.

This is who makes this claim, earlier in this thread:

His statement is that we do not understand the war, but must pick a side. MANY people I have talked to believe that we can not fully grasp what "god" is or how to get to him, and that a certain amount of "faith" is necessary. What they never fully explain, however, is how they think one should decide to put their "faith" into without actually understanding each claim.

so after all this long post, the question comes down to this, do you want a biblical answer to your questions, the teaching of the religion, or do you want an personal answer based on the individual variations of the religious beliefs and practises, I have been dealing with the first, apparently you want each individual to give you a different answer....how will that help you understand anything?

I have done so, and have concluded that none of the religions I am aware of have been able to show that they are more valid than any of their competitors, that they are true, or that they are worth continuing further.

that is your individual personal ideas, thanks for sharing but how does that address the OP?

I find certain aspects of religion to be good, but not many. For example, I find some merit in Buddhism and Hinduism. I find a select few teachings of Jesus to be reasonable. I feel that Abrahamic religions, as a whole, bring more negativity and damage than they bring goodness and progress.

More personal, individual ideas, thanks, but again, how does your personal opinion answer the OP?

 

[razzelflabben]

What is there to understand when God orders the massacre of "suckling babes".

why it was ordered for one.

You keep trying to justify the unjustifiable.

I justify nothing, all I have done this entire thread is explain the questions as best I can from the standpoint of the bible. Nothing needs to be justified when what we are doing is exploring the whys of anothers belief.

You speak as if only you understand and as if you have knowledge of what god is thinking.

Why because I speak as someone who has explored the same questions and studied their answers in the text of the religion is question?

I am only glad such an evil god does not exist; otherwise it would be preferable to have Lucifer rule since he is not evil like God.

you do realize I hope that good and evil are relative terms?!?

Poor sod; all he did was offer the fruit of knowledge to man and rebel against the boss and he gets to be the evil one? Since history is written by the victors; then whose to say Lucifer was not right?

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong, until then, I will continue to see truth wherever it may be found, and that starts with trying to understand what others are saying, not just dismissing their ideas because they do not fit with mine....

 

[Jackinbox78]

Do you feel the same way about a Loving Parent or spouse? When you marry, do you say, oh, can't commit to Loving only you as my husband/wife, because that would be you demanding my love....

One of the ways that God shows or reveals His love to man is bridegroom love. God describes Himself as the bridegroom and the church the bride....so when you ask the question, 'why would I want to believe in a God who hold as it's most important value, above all rest, that I believe in him and love him?' consider what a spouse is asked to do...we as spouse, ask our significant other to be faithful to us, to believe in and trust our love....why should the bridegroom of the church be any different?

Let me add this, just for a preemptive action, God is a supernatural being that mean's that He is not human, yet humans try to understand Him, try to grasp who He is. In order for humans to understand God (supernatural) we use human terms, it would be like trying to explain a complex math problem or scientific experiment without using math or scientific terms and ideas. So in order to apply understanding to what we cannot understand we are asked to see smaller bits and put those smaller bits together to understand the one.

So with God, we understand His love by understanding that He is Father, Creator, Bridegroom, King, Savior, Shepherd, Comforter, Teacher, etc. He is all these things, just like you could be spouse, father, child, etc. all make up who you are, but each is characterized by different things...so with God.

I don't ask others to worship nor do I ask them unconditional love. I can't imagine saying to my eventual children that they have prove them are willing to do anything I ask of them or they will burn in hell for eternity.

A God shouldn't expect that the people he created judge him with anything else that the capacity he provided to them. In other words, if he created me as a human, he should accept me as a human and should understand that for human what he ask for doesn't make much sense.

 

[Jackinbox78]

Should e do away with all history? Would we be better off not knowing anything about the world before we were born, no family history, no national history, no world history, you throw out all of it, including evolution?

This is basically the same question you are asking of the Bible, should we scrap all the history of the OT because life changed over time? Of course not, it is all profitable...

For your analogy to be valid you would have to consider the bible at the same level than our history books and work of fiction. It should be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism. I have been raised to believe that the bible was the word of God. We were discouraged to question it. Many Christians have been raised the same way. Presenting something so flawed as being sacred is a dangerous idea, especially if it's not possible to criticize it.

 

[Jackinbox78]

I have seen very few people who think God sends us to hell, in fact, most of the responses here were we send ourselves....and just for the record it has been explained to you....as to the "orthodox", very small group that is what I have been doing and you have raised no objections until right now. So what don't you understand? What part are you missing? as to the definition, that also has been well covered, I got to know what part you missed in order to cover it again. as I and others have stated, and yes some of us have studied other religions, it's all about the evidence.

I do not agree with the belief, and furthermore, find the belief in many (though not necessarily all) of its versions and variants to be damaging to society and progress as well as somewhat hateful towards certain groups.

the general conclusion of all "Christian" groups, the unifying teaching is love for all men, so I'm very curious, what is socially damaging about loving all people? Now if you are talking about the carrying out of the idea, that is living what one believes, I got to agree, but as to the teaching, don't see any way you can be right on that issue. and I showed you in each, that you didn't understand the teaching of the religion but rather a populous, idealism that varies from individual to individual which means discussion can't happen. but that is the very point I'm making, any discussion of a religion and how it explain something or what it believes about something, must be based on the actually teaching of the religion not on the varying individual influences of that religion. You don't seem to know the basics of any that you listed. IF you don't, how can you hope to discuss or understand? but you can't base your understanding on what one person believes, but rather on what the religion teaches. right, it means that one no longer lives for the selfish desires...hum, the same basic understanding of what biblical love is, but christianity is so dangerous to society, do you feel the same danger around Buddhism? so after all this long post, the question comes down to this, do you want a biblical answer to your questions, the teaching of the religion, or do you want an personal answer based on the individual variations of the religious beliefs and practises, I have been dealing with the first, apparently you want each individual to give you a different answer....how will that help you understand anything? that is your individual personal ideas, thanks for sharing but how does that address the OP?
More personal, individual ideas, thanks, but again, how does your personal opinion answer the OP?

But the actual "teaching" of a religion like Christianity depend pretty much on the interpretation of the believers. You still have to pick and choose, reject some part of it, keep some others. How do you know that what you pick is what is correct?

 

[R3quiem]

I have seen very few people who think God sends us to hell,

I have seen many.

in fact, most of the responses here were we send ourselves....and just for the record it has been explained to you....as to the "orthodox", very small group

Orthodox, a small group? It's dominant in most of Eastern Europe and Russia, and has presence in parts of Africa and Asia.

that is what I have been doing and you have raised no objections until right now. So what don't you understand? What part are you missing? as to the definition, that also has been well covered, I got to know what part you missed in order to cover it again. as I and others have stated, and yes some of us have studied other religions, it's all about the evidence.

I find the concept that people send themselves to hell to be an attempt to relieve the consciences of Christians who want to reconcile an angry god with a benevolent one. Who created hell? Who "allows" people to suffer eternally?

Besides, many biblical passages, such as quotes from Jesus, take a very action-oriented approach by God to salvation or damnation. Jesus, for example, uses parables about people being sent to destruction. In Matthew 13 for example, Jesus uses weeds as a parable for his followers and those who do not follow him. The weeds will be "thrown" into the fire by his servants. He also uses a parable of a net, where the bad fish are "thrown" away to gnashing of teeth and such. And then there's Revelation, which although appears to be written as an attack against Rome, many Christians take it as an account of what will happen at the end of time. And in that story, God is quite action-oriented instead of the passive-oriented, "people send themselves to hell" concept.

the general conclusion of all "Christian" groups, the unifying teaching is love for all men, so I'm very curious, what is socially damaging about loving all people? Now if you are talking about the carrying out of the idea, that is living what one believes, I got to agree, but as to the teaching, don't see any way you can be right on that issue.

Christian teachings often interrupt the progress of science. Most Christian denominations teach that anyone different from them, that does not believe what they believe, will be burned away by their god. That's off topic of the OP, but I am answering your question.

and I showed you in each, that you didn't understand the teaching of the religion but rather a populous, idealism that varies from individual to individual which means discussion can't happen. but that is the very point I'm making, any discussion of a religion and how it explain something or what it believes about something, must be based on the actually teaching of the religion not on the varying individual influences of that religion. You don't seem to know the basics of any that you listed. IF you don't, how can you hope to discuss or understand? but you can't base your understanding on what one person believes, but rather on what the religion teaches.

None of my examples of claims were inaccurate. And, as I stated before, with each religion being very diverse, no sentence can fully detail all of their claims. The claims were based both on the fundamental texts as well as interpretation of them by their followers. You tried to point out where I went wrong, but I showed you where you misunderstood.

You say that I rely what the individuals teach about religion and not on what the religion itself teaches, but seeing as how religions are created by people for people, there is no difference. Each religion is very diverse, and each has a core set of teachings.

right, it means that one no longer lives for the selfish desires...hum, the same basic understanding of what biblical love is, but christianity is so dangerous to society, do you feel the same danger around Buddhism?

No, in Buddhism, it's not just about being selfish. ALL desires according to Buddhism, even ones we think are generally "good" desires to have, are paths to suffering. For example, in Buddhism, the desire to have a "self", that is, a permanent representation of what you are, is a path to suffering because Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as a permanent self.

so after all this long post, the question comes down to this, do you want a biblical answer to your questions, the teaching of the religion, or do you want an personal answer based on the individual variations of the religious beliefs and practises, I have been dealing with the first, apparently you want each individual to give you a different answer....how will that help you understand anything?

I, presumably along with the OP, want reasonable answers.

I know what the Bible says, do you? Part of the problem is that the Bible is written by so many people over a long period of time, so one can extract and defend pretty much any position they want out of the Bible.

People can state that God does indeed send people to hell, and can cite passages like Matthew 13 which are parables of the servants of God throwing the evil ones into fire. Then of course there are people who will try to say that we "send ourselves" to hell, and will bring up passages on their own or argue that the other passages are misinterpreted. All parties involved will claim that their interpretation is correct, but the argument never ends.

Here is a list of reasons why people sending themselves to hell is nonsensical or morally questionable.

1. According to Christians, God can see the future. He also made hell, according to Christians. Therefore, when he made hell, he knew exactly who would go there. So to argue that he made hell for demons, and not for people, is nonsensical. He made it and knew exactly who would end up there. If he had a problem with who would end up there, he would have done it differently. And arguing that God made that place, a place of continuous suffering, for ANY being is morally horrible and is what the OP seems to object to.

2. God does not "warn" people of hell or that their consequences will send them there. PEOPLE warn other people of this, and they all disagree on what will bring people to heaven or hell. For example: Christians state that believing in Jesus is the only way to not go to hell. Muslims believe following the Qur'an will keep people from hell, and believe that the worship of Jesus is blasphemous. "God" himself is not saying what to do (I would argue it's because he probably doesn't exist, but that's a different story entirely). People are the ones arguing on his behalf, and they all teach different things and arrive at different conclusions.

3. Standing back and watching people who have been given a limited and incomplete amount of information suffer continuously due to choices they made based on that incomplete information is morally horrible.

4. Christians generally believe that anyone who is not Christian will go to hell, or whatever they believe the opposite of heaven is. This is a rather core teaching of the religion. It is also believed that God does not desire this to happen; that he wishes for all people to go to heaven. To argue that God wants people to go to heaven, but that the majority of people do not (because the majority of people are not Christian), is to argue that God is bad at what he attempts to do.