Question about Hell from another thread.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Also, if that doesn't clear it up, who is it, do you think, that makes really old people "go to sleep" by "natural causes?" Who is the natural cause? Why, then, is it any different if God made Ezekiel's wife "go to sleep"?

Are you suggesting that God is exempt from his own law? If so, how is he good? If God gave the law to us, how are we supposed to define "goodness" when God doesn't keep that law? Are we to believe God is good simply because he tells us, rather than judging him by his actions?

What happens if you find yourself worshipping an unjust deity who is exempt from his own laws? A deity who will kill on a whim? How is this not different from living under someone like Stalin or Hitler?

Why, then, is it any different if God made Ezekiel's wife "go to sleep"?

Because God said he was going to kill her. That's what makes the difference.

 

[ChristianT]

Because God said he was going to kill her. That's what makes the difference.

He said Adam and Eve would die after eating the fruit.

 

[Timothew]

Agreed.

Disagree. Anyone who honestly looks at our societal practices or even at the OT can find scripture that does not agree with what we think to be "good."

straw man

straw man

Again you have created yet another straw man to argue. I have repeatedly said I do not know what God will do with those in Hell. (Why must you try and vilify my words to respond to them?) Why won't you answer my questions?

I have asked you over and over what will you do with God if He commits a sin by your standard? If you can not openly admit your heart felt response then know you do not have the relationship with God that is required of you.

I do not want my Father to burn in Hell forever, but at the same time I can yield my ideas of righteousness to the God of the bible. Meaning, no matter what God decides to do with those in Hell it will be accepted by me. He will still be my God even if I can not understand or see the value of eternal Damnation. I trust in Him no matter what He decides, even if it means He decides that I myself am not worthy of Heaven.

That is what It means to Love God with all of your;
Heart (That no one or nothing including the eternal state of your loved ones comes first)

All of your Mind( that you love God above the understanding you have built through study and earnest seeking)

Spirit (Beyond the need to preserve one's self)

Strength (With every physical aspect of your being)

If you can not love God beyond your understanding of Him for the sake of some ill fated loved ones then know you have Failed our Greatest Commandment.

Ask God to make it well with you, or make you into the person you need to be no matter what the cost, and your faithfulness will be rewarded. Otherwise know you may hear personally what Christ says in Mt.7 And know there are no other words that can be uttered that will bring so much pain and sadness.

The bible is the standard, not you.
No amount of your words is going to make me believe sonething contrary to what the bible says. You can say "Straw man, Straw man" until you are blue in the face, it won't make the bible say that God tortures people for all eternity. You can insult me, and it won't change my mind. You can say I have some obscure motive for wanting to believe different than you, but that also won't change the words of the bible and turn God into a torturer.

 

[drich0150]

The bible is the standard, not you.
No amount of your words is going to make me believe something contrary to what the bible says. You can say "Straw man, Straw man" until you are blue in the face, it won't make the bible say that God tortures people for all eternity. You can insult me, and it won't change my mind. You can say I have some obscure motive for wanting to believe different than you, but that also won't change the words of the bible and turn God into a torturer.

This is the sum total of your straw man argument. Because I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are completely misrepresenting my argument so you do not have to address the fatal flaw in your personal theology. Other wise acknowledge by answering the one line of questions i have asked. What if God is not the sum of the total of your bible studies? What if God's righteousness and mercy looks different that what you think by your bible studies, it should look like? Will He still be your God even if His Nature exceeds you ability to comprehend it?

Or do you contend you have the complete nature of God contained well with in your cognitive abilities?

I personally know that I do not have the cognitive abilities in order to claim a complete understanding of the nature of God. That does not mean I am completely clueless. I have built a picture based on what i have studied as you have. Where we seem to differ is that I humbled myself and my understanding of the nature of God in a way for God to be different than how I have imagined Him. Meaning I can have my personal understanding based on the bible or even personal experience, but I know God is not limited to my understanding of Him. That is why i have accepted the fact that God has the freedom to exceed my understanding of Him and still be God. Do you also have this understanding? Or does your god live in a box that you control through your personal understanding of the bible?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

He said Adam and Eve would die after eating the fruit.

Adam and Eve was an entirely different set of circumstances. Firstly, they actually did sin, and God promised them they would die as a consequence of that sin. Secondly, they did not die immediately; rather, they died of natural causes hundreds of years later. Therefore this story is neither a precedent to, nor mitigates the murder of Ezekiel's wife. Did you actually think about this response at all before you typed it in? It's probably the dumbest response I've ever seen to a question of mine on this forum.

 

[Timothew]

This is the sum total of your straw man argument. Because I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are completely misrepresenting my argument so you do not have to address the fatal flaw in your personal theology. Other wise acknowledge by answering the one line of questions i have asked. What if God is not the sum of the total of your bible studies? What if God's righteousness and mercy looks different that what you think by your bible studies, it should look like? Will He still be your God even if His Nature exceeds you ability to comprehend it?

Or do you contend you have the complete nature of God contained well with in your cognitive abilities?

I personally know that I do not have the cognitive abilities in order to claim a complete understanding of the nature of God. That does not mean I am completely clueless. I have built a picture based on what i have studied as you have. Where we seem to differ is that I humbled myself and my understanding of the nature of God in a way for God to be different than how I have imagined Him. Meaning I can have my personal understanding based on the bible or even personal experience, but I know God is not limited to my understanding of Him. That is why i have accepted the fact that God has the freedom to exceed my understanding of Him and still be God. Do you also have this understanding? Or does your god live in a box that you control through your personal understanding of the bible?

You have set my beliefs up in your mind as a set of simplistic beliefs that you can knock down, rather than deal with my true belief which is that we can understand what God is like by looking at the image of God in the person of the Man-God Jesus Christ, and by knowing God through scriptures. I'm sorry, but that is the Straw Man Fallacy.

You are attempting to say that since I can't know what God is really like, He could be a torturer. A torturer is the opposite of everything I know that God is. He can be better than I can imagine, but He is not worse.

By the way, I have answered your question. You asked if it turns out that God really does torture people would I still love God. I answered no, I couldn't love a god that tortures people. But you were never able to supply the bible verse that says "God tortures people forever in hell." I know, I know...strawman strawman. Don't avoid the issue. If you want me to believe something about God, show me proof from the bible. You say I have a "fatal flaw" in my "personal theology" because I don't believe that God tortures people in hell forever. So correct me. Show the verse in the bible that says "God tortures people in hell forever." Stop saying "strawmanstrawman" and either show the verse or leave the discussion.

 

[drich0150]

You have set my beliefs up in your mind as a set of simplistic beliefs that you can knock down, rather than deal with my true belief which is that we can understand what God is like by looking at the image of God in the person of the Man-God Jesus Christ, and by knowing God through scriptures. I'm sorry, but that is the Straw Man Fallacy.

You are attempting to say that since I can't know what God is really like, He could be a torturer. A torturer is the opposite of everything I know that God is. He can be better than I can imagine, but He is not worse.

By the way, I have answered your question. You asked if it turns out that God really does torture people would I still love God. I answered no, I couldn't love a god that tortures people. But you were never able to supply the bible verse that says "God tortures people forever in hell." I know, I know...straw man strawman. Don't avoid the issue. If you want me to believe something about God, show me proof from the bible. You say I have a "fatal flaw" in my "personal theology" because I don't believe that God tortures people in hell forever. So correct me. Show the verse in the bible that says "God tortures people in hell forever." Stop saying "strawmanstrawman" and either show the verse or leave the discussion.

How can you not understand the point of my efforts 3 pages of dialog in this conversation? The point is not whether or not God does A or B. The Point is you defining the qualities of God for Him and demanding that He puppet back a response in accordance to Your Will.

Your position should be: according to my research God should do "A" in this given situation, but at the same time it is OK if He also did "B." Why? Because He is God and you are not. Meaning you are not the infinite being God is, and there maybe aspects of His Character that you are not privy to.

Your actual position: The Nature of God is "A." why because of my superior intellect, and devotion to a very specific interpretation of One single verse says He will do "A." And further more If He does not do "A" then God can not be God because it would go against all of my higher reasoning abilities. Why? Because I am the authority, and my intellect has deduced the only course of action the god I created could possible take.

Do you not see a problem with this line of reasoning?

 

[Soothfish]

I'm getting a bit off topic here but that is a laughable quote from Sam Harris.

Only an idiot would commit the worst sins imaginable just to accelerate the coming of Christ. That wouldn't do anything whatsoever to spur Jesus and it would result in harsh condemnation upon themselves. They would be ended long before the world ended. The "half" that is the Christian Right is not that stupid. They did successfully predict the economic catastrophe that was created by the spending sprees and bank bailouts. So that's proof of their intelligence and also their desire to see civilization thrive.

To get slightly back on topic, the self-proclaimed "Christians" that Sam Harris describes would be sending themselves to Hell. A label doesn't protect anybody.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I'm getting a bit off topic here but that is a laughable quote from Sam Harris.

Only an idiot would commit the worst sins imaginable just to accelerate the coming of Christ. That wouldn't do anything whatsoever to spur Jesus and it would result in harsh condemnation upon themselves. They would be ended long before the world ended. The "half" that is the Christian Right is not that stupid. They did successfully predict the economic catastrophe that was created by the spending sprees and bank bailouts. So that's proof of their intelligence and also their desire to see civilization thrive.

To get slightly back on topic, the self-proclaimed "Christians" that Sam Harris describes would be sending themselves to Hell. A label doesn't protect anybody.

Only in your view. George W Bush was getting advice from some Evangelical preacher - can't remember his name now, but he's a well known fundie preacher - to attack Iran in order to usher in the rapture. I know many rapturists myself, and they love it when bad things happen in the world because, to them, it means the rapture is close. Also, check out the Rapture Ready forums sometime. That place will make any sane person weep for humanity.

Mainstream Christianity generally wants to see the world thrive, as you say, but rapturists console themselves with fantasies of apocalypse and all the unbelievers begging for mercy while the world is destroyed. I blame Left Behind for this nonsense and the likes of Hal Lindsey who wrote The Late Great Planet Earth during the 70's. He got so tired of waiting for the rapture after the 80's that he's been married 4 times now, despite Jesus' commandment to not divorce and remarry. That pretty much kicks his credibility into the mud as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Timothew]

How can you not understand the point of my efforts 3 pages of dialog in this conversation? The point is not whether or not God does A or B. The Point is you defining the qualities of God for Him and demanding that He puppet back a response in accordance to Your Will.

Your position should be: according to my research God should do "A" in this given situation, but at the same time it is OK if He also did "B." Why? Because He is God and you are not. Meaning you are not the infinite being God is, and there maybe aspects of His Character that you are not privy to.

Your actual position: The Nature of God is "A." why because of my superior intellect, and devotion to a very specific interpretation of One single verse says He will do "A." And further more If He does not do "A" then God can not be God because it would go against all of my higher reasoning abilities. Why? Because I am the authority, and my intellect has deduced the only course of action the god I created could possible take.

Do you not see a problem with this line of reasoning?

Strawmanstrawman

I say that the nature of God is A, because the scriptures say the nature of God is A. It has nothing to do with my superior intellect. It has to do with the fact of my being able to read. Your position should be humility to the scriptures rather than arrogantly telling me what I should believe, and saying I think I'm the authority because I trust the authority of the bible.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

How can you not understand the point of my efforts 3 pages of dialog in this conversation? The point is not whether or not God does A or B. The Point is you defining the qualities of God for Him and demanding that He puppet back a response in accordance to Your Will.

Your position should be: according to my research God should do "A" in this given situation, but at the same time it is OK if He also did "B." Why? Because He is God and you are not. Meaning you are not the infinite being God is, and there maybe aspects of His Character that you are not privy to.

Your actual position: The Nature of God is "A." why because of my superior intellect, and devotion to a very specific interpretation of One single verse says He will do "A." And further more If He does not do "A" then God can not be God because it would go against all of my higher reasoning abilities. Why? Because I am the authority, and my intellect has deduced the only course of action the god I created could possible take.

Do you not see a problem with this line of reasoning?

Do you prefer the idea of hell over the idea that hell doesn't exist? I don't think I've ever seen someone defend the notion of an eternal hell quite so valiantly. It's almost as if you'd prefer to go there yourself, rather than heaven.

Personally, I don't know what to believe. However, watching yourself and Tim debate has been quite fascinating.

 

[Timothew]

However, watching yourself and Tim debate has been quite fascinating.

It doesn't feel like a debate to me.
It feels like drich saying "You believe this"
me: No, I don't"
Do too!
Don't
Do
Don't
Do
Don't
Do
Don't
You're Arrogant
Aren't
Are too

 

[drich0150]

Do you prefer the idea of hell over the idea that hell doesn't exist? I don't think I've ever seen someone defend the notion of an eternal hell quite so valiantly. It's almost as if you'd prefer to go there yourself, rather than heaven.

Personally, I don't know what to believe. However, watching yourself and Tim debate has been quite fascinating.

Neither do I, know what to believe If you have closely follow the discussion you would have noted, That I have said at least 5 times that I do not know if Hell is eternal or not. My personal understanding is that it is not eternal. What the discussion is actually about is not about the nature of Hell, but one's understanding of the nature of God. And if God's nature is different than your understanding of Him Then i asked, will you still worship Him as God?

For me and my house we will worship God no matter what He decides to do with those in Hell, or who He decides to puts there. Not all agree with this philosophy. Some endeavor to put restrictions and conditions on the love they show God if He does not perform the way they want Him to, or understand that He should.

I know this is not exactly what you had in mind when you open this thread and I do apologize for hijacking it, and taking it in a different direction.

 

[drich0150]

It doesn't feel like a debate to me.
It feels like drich saying "You believe this"
me: No, I don't"
Do too!
Don't
Do
Don't
Do
Don't
Do
Don't
You're Arrogant
Aren't
Are too

I also see things differently:
I ask what if God does not adhere to your understanding of Him? Will you still worship him?
(Personal attack and threating PM's aside)
You insist that I believe that people burn forever in Hell.

I tell you it is my understanding that they do not burn in Hell forever, But I will still love God if they do. I ask do you also believe this way?

You ask for proof that people burn in Hell, because you insist that this is my belief.

And we go back and fourth for 5 pages of you trying to vilify my position so you do not have to answer the question till finally you do.

Then I show you where the fatal flaw is in your understanding of Faith and how it contradicts our Greatest Commandment.
There by leaving it to you reconcile this discrepancy with God.

Instead you went back to your original plan to vilify my position so you could move to dismiss my work. So you ask again what proof I have that God burns people in Hell forever again.

So I rehashed my argument more like a math equation, as an effort to take the variable of Hell out of the discussion. (Which seems to have worked)

Because, Instead of addressing anything I have pointed out, you now move to dismiss the bulk of my efforts by liking them to a childish taunt.

Understand if you wish to end this conversation this way then you are more than free to do so. Also know that you are completely responsible for everything you wrote and have read.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Neither do I, know what to believe If you have closely follow the discussion you would have noted, That I have said at least 5 times that I do not know if Hell is eternal or not. My personal understanding is that it is not eternal. What the discussion is actually about is not about the nature of Hell, but one's understanding of the nature of God. And if God's nature is different than your understanding of Him Then i asked, will you still worship Him as God?

I wouldn't worship a God who sends people to hell for eternity. Someone claiming to be full of love and mercy is logically inconsistent with the idea that that person would make someone suffer for eternity. A sadist lacks mercy and compassion. If there is an eternal hell, then God cannot be merciful, or is not as merciful as he believes himself to be.

As for understanding God, I don't think anybody does. God's nature in the Bible often contradicts itself, especially when you compare the Old and New Testaments. I've been over this already in many of my other threads, but the God of the OT and the Jesus of the NT appear to be entirely different people. This is why we have Christians who preach grace and mercy and forgiveness in conflict with those Christians who prefer to preach wrath and hellfire. Because the Bible was written by fallible humans such contradictions in their descriptions of who they believed God to be is to be expected.

 

[Timothew]

I wouldn't worship a God who sends people to hell for eternity. Someone claiming to be full of love and mercy is logically inconsistent with the idea that that person would make someone suffer for eternity. A sadist lacks mercy and compassion. If there is an eternal hell, then God cannot be merciful, or is not as merciful as he believes himself to be.

As for understanding God, I don't think anybody does. God's nature in the Bible often contradicts itself, especially when you compare the Old and New Testaments. I've been over this already in many of my other threads, but the God of the OT and the Jesus of the NT appear to be entirely different people. This is why we have Christians who preach grace and mercy and forgiveness in conflict with those Christians who prefer to preach wrath and hellfire. Because the Bible was written by fallible humans such contradictions in their descriptions of who they believed God to be is to be expected.

I don't worship a God who sends people to hell for eternal torture either.

Even the old testament doesn't say that people are tortured in hell forever.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Even the old testament doesn't say that people are tortured in hell forever.

True, but the OT records many occasions in which God was just plain nasty; genocide, ethnic cleansing, random slaughter of his own people, etc. I find this God to be entirely inconsistent with the God Jesus tells us about.

 

[Timothew]

True, but the OT records many occasions in which God was just plain nasty; genocide, ethnic cleansing, random slaughter of his own people, etc. I find this God to be entirely inconsistent with the God Jesus tells us about.

Yes, I don't understand most of the OT. I know that they didn't believe in a hell of eternal torture. ET isn't in the NT either.

 

[drich0150]

I wouldn't worship a God who sends people to hell for eternity. Someone claiming to be full of love and mercy is logically inconsistent with the idea that that person would make someone suffer for eternity.

Love and mercy are only two attributes of God. God is above all else a righteous God. Righteousness demands blood/death for sin.

A sadist lacks mercy and compassion. If there is an eternal hell, then God cannot be merciful, or is not as merciful as he believes himself to be.

Putting Mercy and the contemporary understanding of Love as the leading attributes of God is man's doing. If one read the bible without the aid of a specific doctrine guiding his efforts, the leading attribute of God is made very clear in the OT and NT.

As for understanding God, I don't think anybody does. God's nature in the Bible often contradicts itself, especially when you compare the Old and New Testaments.

The OT shows Unregulated wrath of God on the sins of Man. The New Testament Shows the wrath of God being turned on His son for the sake of man. Nothing contradicts, if you understand the the whole of scripture.

I've been over this already in many of my other threads, but the God of the OT and the Jesus of the NT appear to be entirely different people.

Did you know the role of the son in OT Jewish culture was modeled after the role of God the Son? In both roles the Son enacts the will of the Father. So to say the God of the NT and OT are different is to not understand that any intervention made in the Name of God was carried out by the Son. From Sodom and Gomorrah, to The Flood, and to the blood shed on the Cross, looking forward to the Judgment of man in revelations the actions/interventions of God in all instances were the doings of the same incarnation of God. God the Son.

This is why we have Christians who preach grace and mercy and forgiveness in conflict with those Christians who prefer to preach wrath and hellfire. Because the Bible was written by fallible humans such contradictions in their descriptions of who they believed God to be is to be expected

. Ah, no, or I should give 1/2 a credit. The bible has been interpreted by fallible man and they preach whatever they prefer. (Hell fire and brimstone or a hippie God.)

As for me, I teach what I understand, but leave myself and teaching open to be wrong about the nature of God. Which is the bulk of my message. Because we truly do not or will not ever understand the whole nature of God.

 

[drich0150]

Yes, I don't understand most of the OT. I know that they didn't believe in a hell of eternal torture. ET isn't in the NT either.

Look at the sacrifice you have made for your personal picture of God. When building a true representation of God we must reconcile all of the written record, not just the parts you want to include.