Help me.

[Infernalfist]

yep, and your point escapes me? Please explain what point you are trying to make.

you were saying that what you believe to be the holy spirit can't be described as a mental state because of what you see, feel, smell, etc. but the fact that what you see, feel, smell, and such is and interpretation of the mind to what your sensory organs are sending to your brain.

not exactly, but I don't even hope anymore that those who detest God can even bring themselves to a point of discussing Him in terms of what believers find or the bible tells us that He is.

if god exists i do not detest it(even though some of my points may sound like i do) i just understand that fact that, if it does exist, then we have absolutely no way of comprehending the way it works. therefore in the absolute certainty of a god, we still have no way to be sure of what it would want from us.

Interesting, shall we make a challenge and let you put your money where your mouth is? How about a test, since it is internet, we would have to agree to be 100% honest about the results though. Are you up for the challenge of seeing whose god is mightier, the great I Am or you as your own god?

i am not so sure that you and i with our heads put together could make up a test to prove that one of us is right or wrong. i would however agree to whatever is put before me so long as it does not go against anything i find to be immoral. i have always tried and will continue to try to be as honest with myself and others as i possibly can. as for the god matter, i do not come close to considering myself a god, so i don't know, by your definitions, that this "test" would be very accurate. not to mention the fact that most people might have lost interest in this thread a long time ago(including the OP) once it became the razzel and infernal thread.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Funny you use the word if, there is a host of evidence that says he [Jesus] did exist.

Tacitus and Pliny weren't contemporaries of Jesus. They could only report that people believed he existed.

The passage mentioning Jesus in Josephus's writings are now thought to have been inserted later by a Catholic bishop named Eusebius.

So where's this host?

 

[Stinker]

If you can read this, help me:

I used to be proud to call myself a christian, but lately I have had concerns about the faith that worry me deeply.

A scenario that lead to my first questions:

There is a Jewish man, who never believes in Christ, and never will. Yet, everyday he embraces Christ like qualities. He is an excellent father, a pillar to his community, and a joy to pretty much anyone he comes in contact with. But, because he died and never accepted Christ, this man is supposed to burn in hell for all eternity.

On the other hand, there is a child molester, a serial child molester, who for 60 years of his life, molests children as his full time job. This man is responsible for the upheaval of possibly thousands of innocent childrens lives. However, on his deathbed, he has a full legitamate repentance, that leads to his salvation. Only by the grace of God is this man saved and goes to heaven as a result.

Me and a lot of others, find this to be very disturbing. Why would the God that we all love even have a hell, let alone send a good person to one? How would God even justify such a thing?

Some say that the Lord gives us free will, but in a world where God creates us knowing what we are going to do, how can we have free will if essentially the choice has already been made for us? God already knows who will and won't accept him, so why would God even make people who would go to such a place as hell?

What about those who are in living situations that for whatever reason, will never be able to even hear about Christ? Do they go to hell too? Is accepting Christ the only way to elude hell?

And assuming that God would justify hell, of course someone could accept it as truth, but they would accept out of fear, not reverence or love for the Lord, could anyone really love someone that could even create a place like hell? Frankly, I would accept the word as truth, but knowing that there is a place like hell, would make me fearful, and I really can't conceive an all-loving God creating such a place. Better yet, I don't think my love for that God could be genuine.

Have I got things all wrong? Please help me.

-Googledotman

Back in that time, people were dominated by what we would call today, superstition. One's everyday life consisted in what the gods/goddesses had in store for them. If something tragic occurred or something wonderful, it was because the deities wanted such. Everyone believed in a deity or deities. This is why our New Testament records the word believe or believe in over and over and over. The 1st century Christians were trying to persude the followers of other religions to give up believing in their religion and to believe only in theirs.

The impact of the 1st century Christian religion was the proclaimation of their leader being physically, bodily, resurrected from the grave or tomb. This put him on the same level as the greatest deities. That he walked, talked, and performed miracles for the least of people in society, gave this new religion a personal touch that other beliefs lacked.

Today, a look into the resurrection morning accounts in the 4 Gospels may make one wonder how anyone could come to believe that such a thing could have occurred, what with all the contradictions. The ancient Jews believed that the gardener removed the body. Others, that Mary Magdalene may have put him up to it. Anyway, there is the story of the missing body. The Apostle Paul does not used the Koine Greek word for resurrection in 1Cor.15 (his resurrection proclaimation), but uses the word for awaken . This word is used for 'arise' and 'arisen' . This is really what God wants from us anyway. To spiritually 'awaken' from our spiritual sleep. To be morally reformed (Acts 3:19). To see things from a completely different perspective. To believe.

What about those who have died never having had the opportunity to hear and understand the Gospel? The writer Pauls says:



Romans 2:14-16 (The Message)

14-16When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.

 

[razzelflabben]

you were saying that what you believe to be the holy spirit can't be described as a mental state because of what you see, feel, smell, etc. but the fact that what you see, feel, smell, and such is and interpretation of the mind to what your sensory organs are sending to your brain.

so then, are you saying, that there is no reality but what we perceive reality to be.

Heard a comedian once talk about this, it was really funny stuff. In fact, it would mean that the chair I am currently sitting in, and the computer I am typing at, don't really exist at all to anyone but me....I got a lot of people that would disagree with you on that. If that is in fact what your point is...mine was that the existance of God isn't a mental state, but rather an experiential state, in which we can test, predict, etc.

if god exists i do not detest it(even though some of my points may sound like i do) i just understand that fact that, if it does exist, then we have absolutely no way of comprehending the way it works. therefore in the absolute certainty of a god, we still have no way to be sure of what it would want from us.

Actually, according to the bible, the authoritative word on God, does tell us that we can test and should test for God. We are told what the evidence of God would be even. So I think you would be wrong. If we can evidence God, then, we can know whether or not He exists. If we can test for God, then we can know whether or not He exists. It's a matter of simple scientific principals, and applying them to something bigger than we are.

i am not so sure that you and i with our heads put together could make up a test to prove that one of us is right or wrong. i would however agree to whatever is put before me so long as it does not go against anything i find to be immoral. i have always tried and will continue to try to be as honest with myself and others as i possibly can. as for the god matter, i do not come close to considering myself a god, so i don't know, by your definitions, that this "test" would be very accurate. not to mention the fact that most people might have lost interest in this thread a long time ago(including the OP) once it became the razzel and infernal thread.

I don't think that very many people would find the test conclusive, most people already have their mind made up, but I would purpose since we can only communicate long distance through the web, that we look at some situations that come up in life and explore the difference between a believers reaction and the worlds reaction. In order for this to be fair, we both must be painfully honest in our answers.

If you agree, let's take the first from a real life experience...

1. You grow up with an abusive father, a jealous mother, a brother that molests you...because they need help, you loan them money, but when they inherit over 1 million dollars, they neither pay you back nor help you feed your kids, who are hungry because you don't make enough to provide food.

1. How would the majority of people react?
2. How would you personally react?
3. How would the spirit led person react? I'll be glad to be this test dummy, especially since I have lived through every question I intend to offer as a test.

Remember, your claim is that anyone can act with as much love as the man/woman/child that is led by the Holy Spirit. I also have several more awesome examples for you.

 

[razzelflabben]

Tacitus and Pliny weren't contemporaries of Jesus. They could only report that people believed he existed.

The passage mentioning Jesus in Josephus's writings are now thought to have been inserted later by a Catholic bishop named Eusebius.

So where's this host?

wow, there are so many, let me recommend that you start with the book, The Case for Christ and cross reference from there.

Here are a few more interesting sites to review as well
CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ToddNotTodd]

wow, there are so many, let me recommend that you start with the book, The Case for Christ and cross reference from there.

Here are a few more interesting sites to review as well
CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've read Strobel. He's quite humorous. He's great at preaching to the choir, but I can't imaging him converting an atheist with any critical thinking skills. His wife was a devout christian when he was an atheist. I'm guessing he convinced himself of the truth of Christianity because it was causing a problem in his marriage. I've seen that kind of thing before...

Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST

As for the James ossuary, it's thought to be a fake, just like the shroud of Turin.

Voice of Reason: The 'James Ossuary' and the Need for Skepticism | LiveScience

And of course, even if Jesus did actually live, there's no evidence of any supernatural elements outside the Bible.

 

[Infernalfist]

1. You grow up with an abusive father, a jealous mother, a brother that molests you...because they need help, you loan them money, but when they inherit over 1 million dollars, they neither pay you back nor help you feed your kids, who are hungry because you don't make enough to provide food.

1. How would the majority of people react?
2. How would you personally react?
3. How would the spirit led person react? I'll be glad to be this test dummy, especially since I have lived through every question I intend to offer as a test.

Remember, your claim is that anyone can act with as much love as the man/woman/child that is led by the Holy Spirit. I also have several more awesome examples for you.

most people would react with either anger and resentment, or the flip side of the coin with submission and low self worth. even though i myself would be angry to start with, i believe the best course of action would be to walk away from those negative elements. Leave those particular family members to their own devices. plus your primary focus shouldn't be the uncaring family, but your children whom you are needing to care for. how can you possibly care for and love your children who need it the most, when your heart is filled with negative energy?

 

[razzelflabben]

most people would react with either anger and resentment, or the flip side of the coin with submission and low self worth. even though i myself would be angry to start with, i believe the best course of action would be to walk away from those negative elements. Leave those particular family members to their own devices. plus your primary focus shouldn't be the uncaring family, but your children whom you are needing to care for. how can you possibly care for and love your children who need it the most, when your heart is filled with negative energy?

Fair enough, now with the power of the Holy Spirit within, I have learned to forgive, to move on without the low self worth, well, to be painfully honest, I still fight self worth, but it is no longer about them, but now about myself. I show them grace, compassion, and yes, love.

So bottom line, in our first experiment, we see that the Holy Spirit within provides us with reaction, one that is making a difference to everyone involved, in fact, it is because of this love that they even have any contact with their grandchildren, which ultimately means they see the Christ we speak of lived out.

2. (btw, how many shall we do?) You are hired to do a job. You do the job and do it well, but, despite your good work ethics, some people get angry because they wanted you to do something outside your job description, something that would have jeprdized your ability to do the job well. But it gets worse, because the people who were angry, were so angry, that they took it out on your family.

again, same criteria 1. what would the world do?
2. What would you do?
3. what would the one living in the Spirit of the living God do?

 

[Stinker]

I've read Strobel. He's quite humorous. He's great at preaching to the choir, but I can't imaging him converting an atheist with any critical thinking skills. His wife was a devout christian when he was an atheist. I'm guessing he convinced himself of the truth of Christianity because it was causing a problem in his marriage. I've seen that kind of thing before...

Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST

As for the James ossuary, it's thought to be a fake, just like the shroud of Turin.

Voice of Reason: The 'James Ossuary' and the Need for Skepticism | LiveScience

And of course, even if Jesus did actually live, there's no evidence of any supernatural elements outside the Bible.

The ancient Jews wrote in their Babylonian Talmud, that Yeshua practiced sorcery and led much of Israel astray. (b. Sanhedrin 43a There is much more that these ancient Jews wrote concerning Jesus(Yeshua) that the general public should know about. One can see in these writings, that they went out of their way in trying to paint Him as a villain while making their teachers out to be saints.

 

[razzelflabben]

I've read Strobel. He's quite humorous. He's great at preaching to the choir, but I can't imaging him converting an atheist with any critical thinking skills. His wife was a devout christian when he was an atheist. I'm guessing he convinced himself of the truth of Christianity because it was causing a problem in his marriage. I've seen that kind of thing before...

Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST

As for the James ossuary, it's thought to be a fake, just like the shroud of Turin.

Voice of Reason: The 'James Ossuary' and the Need for Skepticism | LiveScience

And of course, even if Jesus did actually live, there's no evidence of any supernatural elements outside the Bible.

somehow I missed this post, sorry....as I said previously, most people already have made up their minds and don't look at things objectively. Which is why it is always best to approach any topic with the assumption that you don't know it all. (I said that on the creation/evolution thread once and was told that I can't understand the missing link because I strongly believe that we cannot look at anything thinking we already have all the answers, but I digress).

As to the existance of Jesus, as the referenced sites stated, few people even doubt that Jesus existed, and that extends to all kinds of religions, as well as the atheists among us. As to the miracles, that is a different matter. So let me ask you this, if you review all the evidence that is available to you, including but not limited to the sources I referred you to, one of which was wikipedia, and included a lot of material to cross reference, do you still doubt that Jesus existed? Not who he was, or what He did or didn't do, but only the question, did He exist? Do you doubt that Caesar existed? How about Alaxander the Great? What of Hitler? There is a current movement to try to dismiss some of these people from existing in our history, so in order to move forward in this part of our discussion I think it is important to know if you are one of those whose revisionary history tries to eleminate those in history with unfavorable legacies? While on that topic, what would be necessary to evidence a historical figures existance in your mind?

Edit: btw, just an interesting note, my husband personally knows and studied under Witherington, one of the people interviewed in The Case for Christ. Really interesting dude.

 

[Infernalfist]

Fair enough, now with the power of the Holy Spirit within, I have learned to forgive, to move on without the low self worth, well, to be painfully honest, I still fight self worth, but it is no longer about them, but now about myself. I show them grace, compassion, and yes, love.

So bottom line, in our first experiment, we see that the Holy Spirit within provides us with reaction, one that is making a difference to everyone involved, in fact, it is because of this love that they even have any contact with their grandchildren, which ultimately means they see the Christ we speak of lived out.

i see how this is going and i half expected it. so in your case the holy spirit will lead not only you, but your children into heartache from an uncaring family. if you spend too much time and energy trying to show love to those who don't appreciate it, and you may just miss out on showing your love to someone who needs it and will actually take something good from it. it is very clear that you and i will continue to disagree by great lengths. the only true and balanced test is to see the fruits that someone produces in life. since i refuse to start a brag fest, i will bow out from this test and you may declare yourself the winner if you like.

 

[razzelflabben]

i see how this is going and i half expected it. so in your case the holy spirit will lead not only you, but your children into heartache from an uncaring family.

not at all, that is the point, my family is still a part of our lives, but they hold nothing over us. They upset us, sometimes, it even hurts a bit, but they don't case us heartache, at least anyone than we would grieve over never talking to them from here on out. The point is that the Holy Spirit within, and the Love He brings, changes our situation and transforms our lives. That is the mark of love that differs from the love the world holds. In the world, without the HS, we have a choice, walk away, or stay and be further put down, just as you said. You spoke truth....but with the HS within, we have another choice, we can be transformed, we can love, and in that love, see lives transformed. In fact, that transformation could (we are still waiting for a legal answer about something, long story not worth going into) result in a gift to us by those very same people who didn't even as much as say thank you, of more than enough to help our family with the things we can't provide for ourselves. That transformation would not have occured in either of the worlds answers, only in the answer of God's love.

if you spend too much time and energy trying to show love to those who don't appreciate it, and you may just miss out on showing your love to someone who needs it and will actually take something good from it.

right, but in the power of the HS, showing love is part of every day existance, not some great and glorious effort that takes from others. Which again is the point, it's a different love. HS love is not on our own power, but on the power of the HS therefore does not take from anyone. Let's see....it's more like I have this battery that is dieing, and so playing music, begins to become shaky and spotty. But if I plug it in, new life comes to my tunes, and suddenly the slagging, the weakness, vanishes. The HS is kind of like that. On our own, we are a pale attempt at love, at playing the music to the full potential of the machine we are using. But the HS is kind of like the plug of energy that keeps it playing without all the bogging down.

it is very clear that you and i will continue to disagree by great lengths. the only true and balanced test is to see the fruits that someone produces in life.

Exactly the point, it is the fruit, it is the quality that identifies who one is living for.

since i refuse to start a brag fest, i will bow out from this test and you may declare yourself the winner if you like.

I would love to hear your "bragging", I long to learn all I can and if you have some bragging to do, please offer it....it will help us to learn. All I ask is that you listen to what I am saying and don't just dismiss it without at least rolling it around in your brain once or twice. We can all learn from each other.

In fact, I was thinking when I logged on this AM how much I enjoy that you haven't fled yet. I would love for you to show me how your own personal love is greater than the Love of the HS within.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

somehow I missed this post, sorry....as I said previously, most people already have made up their minds and don't look at things objectively. Which is why it is always best to approach any topic with the assumption that you don't know it all. (I said that on the creation/evolution thread once and was told that I can't understand the missing link because I strongly believe that we cannot look at anything thinking we already have all the answers, but I digress).

As to the existance of Jesus, as the referenced sites stated, few people even doubt that Jesus existed, and that extends to all kinds of religions, as well as the atheists among us. As to the miracles, that is a different matter. So let me ask you this, if you review all the evidence that is available to you, including but not limited to the sources I referred you to, one of which was wikipedia, and included a lot of material to cross reference, do you still doubt that Jesus existed? Not who he was, or what He did or didn't do, but only the question, did He exist? Do you doubt that Caesar existed? How about Alaxander the Great? What of Hitler? There is a current movement to try to dismiss some of these people from existing in our history, so in order to move forward in this part of our discussion I think it is important to know if you are one of those whose revisionary history tries to eleminate those in history with unfavorable legacies? While on that topic, what would be necessary to evidence a historical figures existance in your mind?

Edit: btw, just an interesting note, my husband personally knows and studied under Witherington, one of the people interviewed in The Case for Christ. Really interesting dude.

My initial objection with your post wasn't so much in saying that Jesus didn't exist, but in your saying there was a host of evidence. I'll stand by my assertion that the evidence isn't very concrete, and a lot of what has passed as evidence has been shown to be fake (the shroud, the ossuary, Josephus' writings, NASA finding a "missing day" etc.). And there are scholars who aren't convinced. I think your wikipedia article mentioned some.

Personally, I have no problem in accepting Jesus' existence. It doesn't particularly change anything to accept that.

 

[razzelflabben]

My initial objection with your post wasn't so much in saying that Jesus didn't exist, but in your saying there was a host of evidence. I'll stand by my assertion that the evidence isn't very concrete, and a lot of what has passed as evidence has been shown to be fake (the shroud, the ossuary, Josephus' writings, NASA finding a "missing day" etc.). And there are scholars who aren't convinced. I think your wikipedia article mentioned some.

but all these "objections" you offer are against the claims of who Jesus was/is, not on whether or not he did actually exist.

Personally, I have no problem in accepting Jesus' existence. It doesn't particularly change anything to accept that.

But, why believe He existed if there is no evidence to support His existance. What evidence would you want? What is evidence that a person in history actually did exist? Most of the time, we can't have remains, occasionally, but the further back in history we go, the less likely that is....so what? writings? How do we know that Homer existed? You asked about the evidence supporting the existance of Jesus...I told you there was all kinds of it, and pointed you to several good sources of evidence that Jesus did exist, that He did walk on this earth....for evidence of who He was, that, is a different question and needs to be dealt with differently.

So before we can go on, I need to make sure, that is we need to clarify what you intended to say....Did you mean there is no evidence to support that Jesus was a real guy that lived on this earth, or did you intend to say that there was no evidence to support the claims Jesus and others made of who He was?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

but all these "objections" you offer are against the claims of who Jesus was/is, not on whether or not he did actually exist. But, why believe He existed if there is no evidence to support His existance. What evidence would you want? What is evidence that a person in history actually did exist? Most of the time, we can't have remains, occasionally, but the further back in history we go, the less likely that is....so what? writings? How do we know that Homer existed? You asked about the evidence supporting the existance of Jesus...I told you there was all kinds of it, and pointed you to several good sources of evidence that Jesus did exist, that He did walk on this earth....for evidence of who He was, that, is a different question and needs to be dealt with differently.

My arguments are against the "host" of evidence of the existence of Jesus. Tacitus and Pliny not being contemporaries means that all they confirm is the existence of Christians. And Josephus is in question because scholars think passages were inserted by someone else. Etc. etc...

Again, I'm arguing against some kind of overwhelming evidence that Jesus lived. I'd do the same for Socrates, since there is some evidence that he was invented by Aristotle. And what about you? Do you admit that some evidence might not be what you thought it was? I'm speaking of the ossuary in particular, but it extends to Josephus, the Shroud, etc.

So before we can go on, I need to make sure, that is we need to clarify what you intended to say....Did you mean there is no evidence to support that Jesus was a real guy that lived on this earth, or did you intend to say that there was no evidence to support the claims Jesus and others made of who He was?

I never said there was no evidence of his existence, just questionable evidence. Whether or not Jesus existed means little to me. But, I'll definitely assert that there's no convincing evidence of Jesus being a supernatural entity. Because if there was... I'd be a Christian...

 

[DaisyDay]

How do we know that Homer existed?

We don't.

 

[Gracchus]

How do we know that Homer existed?

We don't.

I read once about a very eminent scholar who spent most of his life trying to prove that the Odyssey and the Iliad were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name.

I think that the biblical Jesus may be a conflation of two or more men, a firebrand would-be messiah, crucified by the Romans for fomenting rebellion, and a Pharasaical rabbi who thought he could change the world by convincing people to treat each other decently, to love mercy, to deal fairly, and to be humble enough to admit to themselves they could be wrong.


But I could be wrong.

 

[razzelflabben]

My arguments are against the "host" of evidence of the existence of Jesus. Tacitus and Pliny not being contemporaries means that all they confirm is the existence of Christians. And Josephus is in question because scholars think passages were inserted by someone else. Etc. etc...

Again, I'm arguing against some kind of overwhelming evidence that Jesus lived. I'd do the same for Socrates, since there is some evidence that he was invented by Aristotle. And what about you? Do you admit that some evidence might not be what you thought it was? I'm speaking of the ossuary in particular, but it extends to Josephus, the Shroud, etc.

what I am saying is that compared to the evidence that could possibly still exist, it is overwhelming. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Consider yourself, what evidence exists that you exist? How much of that evidence will still exist in a thousand years? My grandmother needed to prove her "existance" once, she didn't have a birth certificate, hall records had burnt, witnesses to her birth were all dead, what evidence remained? Lots of people claim lack of evidence for something without ever considering that the only evidence we leave behind in this world, is the witnesses and memories that we leave behind, especially after all or most of the records are destroyed by time, or before records were even kept. The evidence that Jesus did exist is pretty extensive considering what evidence is possible to collect on anyone's existance from the time.

I never said there was no evidence of his existence, just questionable evidence. Whether or not Jesus existed means little to me. But, I'll definitely assert that there's no convincing evidence of Jesus being a supernatural entity. Because if there was... I'd be a Christian...

Evidence is a funny thing, it requires premise to understand it's significance. For example, I watched a documentary on the scientists that were looking for signs of water on Mars. They were so convinced that there was water on Mars that the evidence that they were wrong was dismissed as inconclusive, time and time again. We do the same thing with anything we want to dismiss, and find evidence where it is not for anything we want to accept, the key to knowing truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[razzelflabben]

I read once about a very eminent scholar who spent most of his life trying to prove that the Odyssey and the Iliad were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name.

I think that the biblical Jesus may be a conflation of two or more men, a firebrand would-be messiah, crucified by the Romans for fomenting rebellion, and a Pharasaical rabbi who thought he could change the world by convincing people to treat each other decently, to love mercy, to deal fairly, and to be humble enough to admit to themselves they could be wrong.


But I could be wrong.

I've seen enough evidence to convince me that Jesus was the Christ. So we now have two theories, any more?

 

[Blackmarch]

If you can read this, help me:

I used to be proud to call myself a christian, but lately I have had concerns about the faith that worry me deeply.

A scenario that lead to my first questions:

There is a Jewish man, who never believes in Christ, and never will. Yet, everyday he embraces Christ like qualities. He is an excellent father, a pillar to his community, and a joy to pretty much anyone he comes in contact with. But, because he died and never accepted Christ, this man is supposed to burn in hell for all eternity.

On the other hand, there is a child molester, a serial child molester, who for 60 years of his life, molests children as his full time job. This man is responsible for the upheaval of possibly thousands of innocent childrens lives. However, on his deathbed, he has a full legitamate repentance, that leads to his salvation. Only by the grace of God is this man saved and goes to heaven as a result.

Me and a lot of others, find this to be very disturbing. Why would the God that we all love even have a hell, let alone send a good person to one? How would God even justify such a thing?

Some say that the Lord gives us free will, but in a world where God creates us knowing what we are going to do, how can we have free will if essentially the choice has already been made for us? God already knows who will and won't accept him, so why would God even make people who would go to such a place as hell?

What about those who are in living situations that for whatever reason, will never be able to even hear about Christ? Do they go to hell too? Is accepting Christ the only way to elude hell?

And assuming that God would justify hell, of course someone could accept it as truth, but they would accept out of fear, not reverence or love for the Lord, could anyone really love someone that could even create a place like hell? Frankly, I would accept the word as truth, but knowing that there is a place like hell, would make me fearful, and I really can't conceive an all-loving God creating such a place. Better yet, I don't think my love for that God could be genuine.

Have I got things all wrong? Please help me.

-Googledotman

My experiences over the last couple years have been leading me to this direction;
That to be Christian and to follow Christ are different things. I care not whether I am Christian or not, but whether I follow what I know of Christ. Sometimes others call me christian, at other times say that I am anything but.
As to the questions you pose here are only held by certain parts of christianity, some more than others. I'd suggest looking into what other sects say about such.

"There is a Jewish man, who never believes in Christ, and never will. Yet, everyday he embraces Christ like qualities. He is an excellent father, a pillar to his community, and a joy to pretty much anyone he comes in contact with. But, because he died and never accepted Christ, this man is supposed to burn in hell for all eternity. "
There isn't much to lead me to believe this from the bible. Scriptures such as 1st peter chapter 4, verses 5 and 6 give me hope for such people.

"On the other hand, there is a child molester, a serial child molester, who for 60 years of his life, molests children as his full time job. This man is responsible for the upheaval of possibly thousands of innocent childrens lives. However, on his deathbed, he has a full legitamate repentance, that leads to his salvation. Only by the grace of God is this man saved and goes to heaven as a result."
I cannot find anything in the bible to support this.

"Some say that the Lord gives us free will, but in a world where God creates us knowing what we are going to do, how can we have free will if essentially the choice has already been made for us?..."
My knowing of what an opponent in chess can or will do does not limit their choice or will any more the lack of such knowledge does. I don't see how it would be different for everything else in life. Or why it would be different with God for that matter.

"... God already knows who will and won't accept him, so why would God even make people who would go to such a place as hell?"
God cannot justly judge people unless they act. If they had acted with evil before their being here they would have been banished with the hosts of heaven that followed Lucifer. As for how they are rewarded is a bit more complex than just being pass/fail.

"And assuming that God would justify hell, of course someone could accept it as truth, but they would accept out of fear, not reverence or love for the Lord, could anyone really love someone that could even create a place like hell? Frankly, I would accept the word as truth, but knowing that there is a place like hell, would make me fearful, and I really can't conceive an all-loving God creating such a place. Better yet, I don't think my love for that God could be genuine." I agree. And I do not agree with the general christian view of hell. (and considering there is little explained about it in the bible I don't think that one has to worry much about it- I think christianity has generally tried to focus on it too much).