Question about Hell from another thread.

[Timothew]

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.

There is no reason to be nasty in a bible study.

It's not my personal picture of God. Grumpy has a point. There are things in the OT that aren't nice. Even so, I dare you to show me one OT passage that says anything about eternal torment.

I think you have a personal problem with me. Why don't we agree to not have contact?

 

[razeontherock]

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.

OR - God has set times for dealing with mankind in set ways. This is supported Biblically, and a pattern you have not deduced.

We clearly see impending doom / Judgment, similar to prior doom / Judgment, with a window of Mercy in between. That window is where we live, and we are told not to abuse the privelege of Grace. If you can chew on that, I'd truly like to see you refute it, if you can.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

OR - God has set times for dealing with mankind in set ways. This is supported Biblically, and a pattern you have not deduced.

We clearly see impending doom / Judgment, similar to prior doom / Judgment, with a window of Mercy in between. That window is where we live, and we are told not to abuse the privelege of Grace. If you can chew on that, I'd truly like to see you refute it, if you can.

I'm aware of Dispensationalism, if that's what you're describing. I used to follow that school of thought to a certain extent (without fully understanding all of it - I was mostly concerned with the eschatology and rapture side of it).

This, however, still doesn't account for the overall personality or character of God. Yes, maybe God deals with humanity differently in different "seasons", but then doesn't this make God somewhat schizophrenic (for want of a better word)? Why would God need two plans anyway (Law and Grace)?

I've heard some Christians say that the Law was given to shore up evil. But this cannot be true because the Law was only given to the Hebrews; no one else obeyed it during that time, nor did they believe in Israel's God. In fact, Israel failed in keeping the Law themselves, so God would have been unjust in expecting those other nations to adhere to it (especially since he had not given it to them anyway). Furthermore, giving the Law did not prevent evil in the other nations of the world; war, rape, slavery, murder, etc, still continued (even in Israel after the law had been given). So in general, the world was not a better place after God gave the Law.

My point in that rambling paragraph was simply to say that it probably would have been better if God had just skipped to Jesus straight away. Obviously Jesus' message would have been a bit different (no Law).

It was probably silly of me to say that, but nonetheless, it makes sense (to me) in that, despite what Paul wrote, the Law really served no purpose. Morality is a cultural thing; I know what's right and wrong in my mind aside from Moses' Law, in fact, despite Moses' Law. There's no way I would consider raping a woman and then buying her as my wife for 50 shekels of silver, or whatever it is. I wouldn't sell my daughter into slavery. There's a lot in the Law that none of would agree with today if it were given to us. It's outdated and is merely a moral code reflecting the times the Hebrews were living in. But we've argued this before and I'd rather not get into that again.

Suffice it to say, I don't think the Law was necessary. In fact, I'm pretty certain, as I've said in other threads, that we can pretty much ignore everything from Genesis to Joshua with respect that these things did not happen literally or historically. They're just stories written by zealous Priests who wanted to record their own version of how Israel came to be and what the Israelites needed to do to please their God.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm aware of Dispensationalism, if that's what you're describing.

Dispensationalism is itself a very loaded theological term. Much like current US politics, where you can't even introduce a bill that only addresses a reasonable issue, it has to have all sorts of unrelated stuff tacked onto it, most of which nobody ever takes the time to even read

So in the very simplistic sense of the word, yes I did say G-d tells us He deals with people in differing "dispensations." I just feel the need to qualify that as not being connected to the relevant "ism."

Yes, maybe God deals with humanity differently in different "seasons", but then doesn't this make God somewhat schizophrenic (for want of a better word)? Why would God need two plans anyway (Law and Grace)?

So in general, the world was not a better place after God gave the Law.

it probably would have been better if God had just skipped to Jesus straight away.

From our perspective? Yes, certainly! And yet this will tie into what Drich has been saying, that God is God and we are not. He seems big on us getting that idea, and accepting the difference.

And yet the world existing for however long before Jesus' Incarnation, subjected mankind to Hope. And today, we are still subject to Hope. This is an important connection ...

The world is a better place after the giving of the Law, for a couple very important reasons you're not looking at:

1. From a purely practical standpoint, Christ came from Israel. The Law preserved Israel's physical existence, just long enough for Messiah to arrive. Then, poof! No more national Israel. (What the significance of the modern reiteration of Israel may or may not be is still interesting)

2. The Law advanced God's Covenant with man. It was step 3, with the flood being step 2, clothes made for Adam and Eve instituting sacrifice being step 1, and Grace via the Gospel being step 4. An interesting way of looking at "the 4 corners of the world," if you will. (Not geographically, but time-wise, relative to human history) This can also help you see Spiritual application to all of this, w/o needing to be hung up on past history. The prior 3 steps do indeed help us to fathom what the Gospel does and does not say. And in this way, being in Christ can be seen as "fulfilling the Law."

I know what's right and wrong in my mind aside from Moses' Law, in fact, despite Moses' Law.

Please notice that my above version of the benefits of the Law do NOT include teaching us right from wrong. And the fact that globally, people know
the practical components of the 10 commandments even apart from any Judeo-Christian tradition, speaks to me of the reality of God. Apart from the Law

we can pretty much ignore everything from Genesis to Joshua with respect that these things did not happen literally or historically. They're just stories written by zealous Priests who wanted to record their own version of how Israel came to be and what the Israelites needed to do to please their God.

Many Christians ignore much more of the OT than that. They also miss the richness of the Gospel, and at least some of the subsequent Life in Christ, but can still be saved. Even so, I still encourage you to focus on the Gospels which you say you're doing, leave off the OT for a while at least, and if you maintain that Gen - Judges is myth with moral, that will not hamper Faith in any way.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Many Christians ignore much more of the OT than that. They also miss the richness of the Gospel, and at least some of the subsequent Life in Christ, but can still be saved. Even so, I still encourage you to focus on the Gospels which you say you're doing, leave off the OT for a while at least, and if you maintain that Gen - Judges is myth with moral, that will not hamper Faith in any way.

I think we can agree on that. The OT just gives me a headache these days. Well, the early parts of it anyway. I think there's still a lot of good stuff in the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. I'm not a fan of Job though. It's an odd story and asks more questions on the nature of suffering than it answers.

 

[razeontherock]

I think we can agree on that. The OT just gives me a headache these days. Well, the early parts of it anyway. I think there's still a lot of good stuff in the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. I'm not a fan of Job though. It's an odd story and asks more questions on the nature of suffering than it answers.

Hey, we agree! Take a picture. And G-d Bless.

 

[drich0150]

There is no reason to be nasty in a bible study.

It's not my personal picture of God. Grumpy has a point. There are things in the OT that aren't nice. Even so, I dare you to show me one OT passage that says anything about eternal torment.

I think you have a personal problem with me. Why don't we agree to not have contact?

Why are you reading hostility in anything that I have written? I am not hostile to you. Simply read the words as I have written them and try and not ascribe any emotion to what is being said. In my last post to you I simply wanted you to see what creating your own version of God has cost you. In a sense of the known aspects of God 2/3's of them are foreign to you simply because you have refused to make allowances for a God you can not immediately comprehend. Like it or not The God of the OT is also the God of the NT. Which means you have to reconcile yourself to this fact. Otherwise know, the God you worship is not the God of the Bible. I mean how could he be if you have taken away 2/3's of what is known about Him.

Also You need to acknowledge to yourself that my position is not one of eternal torment. At this point i have told you that 9 times in this thread. What type of great denial or huge need do you have to trivialize and dismiss my work? Do you honestly think if you can dismiss me publicly it changes the nature of the relationship you have with God, or the god you have created? That said if you have no more questions or challenges for me and you want to end this conversation then you are more than free to do so.

Good luck with you walk, and I hope you find and accept the God of the Bible somewhere along the way.

 

[Timothew]

I didn't create God. I discovered what was written about him in the Bible.

I don't know why you find this incredible.