Because the Bible says God is love. This verse is not compatible with that. It is either symbolizm or just not true and not from God. Revelation is a book of signs and symbols.
So? Why trust the biblical assertion that "God is love" and not the ones that say God is wrathful, or jealous, or vengeful? It is completely inconsistent and illogical to deny the Bible speaks the truth about God on one hand and then reference it as a source of truth about Him on the other.
Is it completely inconsistent and illogical to assume a preacher is wrong about everything if you find him wrong about something?
You utterly destroy any serious argument you might make from Scripture about the nature of God when you deny that Scripture is divine in origin.
Only to someone who believes the only authority is the Bible and it is without error.
If its just another man-made book, whose to say the human makers of it know any more than the Hindu does about who and what God is?
I agree a Hindu might get something correct that one of the writer of the Bible did not. If a Hindu says God is loving and will not torture people after they die, I go with him on divine truth.
I know torture is not love. You have admited you know that also. If God is love is true, then God tortures is not true.
This is such bad logic - and such obviously bad logic - it pains me to read it!
An equivalent to your statement above would be:
If the earth is hot, then the earth is cold cannot be true.
The earth is very hot in places; its core is made up of boiling, bubbling magma. But the earth is also very cold; the polar ice caps are covered in vast sheets of ice and snow. Obviously, then, the earth can be both very hot and very cold and the above assertion is false. So, too, with God. He is loving and He is wrathful; He is gracious and He is jealous; He is merciful and He is vengeful. He can be all these things without any logical contradiction whatsoever - just as any human father can be.
So you believe in a Creator that is both good and evil. I don't. I believe in a Creator that is consistently good just as He does not lie. I believe in the one Jesus referred to being good.
Your opinion that torture is not loving.
I'm flattered that you would think so much of my opinion as to use it in defense of your own, but one opinion coupled to another does not make either opinion anything other than...opinion.
When it comes to God, both of us have nothing but opinion.
If you think God is only loving, I can see your problem. But the Bible makes it clear that He is not.
The Bible goes both ways on it. Make your choice. I chose a loving God that can be trusted to be good all the time.
I think the Bible makes it clear that God is love. That means He will not be unloving just as God will not lie.
No, this is unreasonable. First of all, you're trying to use the Bible as an authority on God when you've denied that it is. This is a self-destructing argument. Second, the Bible makes it clear that God is many things, including loving. On what basis do you assert that God cannot be all these things together?
Someone who torture other people especially if they do it forever is not a loving and good person.
If humans can have more than one dimension to their character, certainly God can!
Humans are a mixture of good and evil. God can be a mixture of good and evil but God can be trusted to not be evil and be good all the time.
The existence of heaven is not dependent upon our belief in it.
How do you know that?
Think about it. It our belief is what makes heaven real, then heaven is just our imagination.
This is amazing stuff. Oblivion is nothing to be concerned about? Loss of eternal life is nothing to provoke sober second thought on our part? Not much of a down side?
There have been several infamous atheists who have craved the forgetfulness of oblivion. There have been criminals as well who have relished the thought of oblivion and thus escape their own guilty conscience and the condemnation of society. For many, annihilation is a welcome relief, not a horror.
Why does this prove in your mind that oblivion is to be desired and life, especially eternal life with God, is not to be desired?
It says God is loving and tortures people. It says God does not lie, and sends lying spirits to decieve. It says all sorts of things--kill your children if they are disrepectful. Love your neighbor. It says hell is death and destruction and a bottomless pit and outer darkness and a lake of fire.
Well, if this is the way you've framed your understanding of the contents of the Bible, no wonder you don't trust it. What you've described here is a very superficial and very confused rendering of the Bible, however. It all makes good sense if you take the time to study and synthesize together all that Scripture teaches.
The Bible says what I just said it says. That is not opinion but fact. You can only syntesize those things by self delusion.
You seem content instead to let it appear the contradictory mess you have depicted above.
I did not depect falsely. I depicted what is in it.
You don't do this with, say, the concept of water, do you? I mean, water can be hot or cold, liquid, solid or vapor, it can be blue in color, or white, or black, or green. You can drown in it or drink it, wash in it, or climb it, or make a snowman out of it. Water can be all sorts of contradictory things -- or so it appears. With some study, however, all the contradictions can be resolved into a perfectly reasonable set of explanations -- just like the Bible.
No they cannot be resolved into perfectly reasonable explanation. They can be ignored or it can be denied that they actually say what they say, but only can they be perfectly reasonably explaned if one is will to accept an unreasonable explanation as reasonable.
I do not believe the Bible is perfectly correct nor do I believe the Bible is perfectly wrong. Why am I not allowed to believe in Jesus if I reject the perfection of a man made book?
Hey, you can believe anything you want. Just don't try to suggest to others that your belief, which is completely drawn from your own preferences and biases, legitimately reflects objective truth.
I have never claimed my theology is objective truth. Neither is yours.
If the Bible says God is love and then says God tortures people, why am I not allowed to believe in a loving God but not believe in an unloving God who tortures people? Why must I be forced to accept inconsistency?
Sir, you aren't forced to accept inconsistency; you appear to embrace it wholeheartedly!
If the medicine label says the medicine will make you feel better and then says it can potentially kill you, why should you not be allowed to believe it can make you well but not believe it can kill you? Why should you be forced to accept such inconsistency?
Weak. Torturing forever is not loving--that is contradictory to say torturing forever is loving.
Actually the Bible does not claim to be the Word of God. It says very clearly in the first chapter of John that Jesus is the Word of God.
How does David refer to the OT Scripture? "Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against you." (Ps. 119:11)
Where does David list the books he is referring to? What makes David without error? He was an adulter and murderer.
What is Paul talking about when he writes,
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It does not define what Paul was talking about. It probably was not refering to the gospels or what Paul was writting. It most likely was referring to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, would be my guess, but it really does not say.
How is the God-inspired Scripture communicated to us?
God writes it on our hearts.
In word. In other words (no pun intended), Scripture is God's Word.
Define scripture.
This doesn't deny that Jesus is the Word of God as spoken of in the Gospel of John; there is the incarnate Word of God, Jesus, and the inspired Word of God, the Bible. These are not mutually-exclusive things.
These are faith position, not objective truth.
Are you aware that for several hundred years after the death of Jesus there was no Bible, yet people had faith in Him and God?
They didn't have the Bible in the form that we have today. But the Bible we read today originates with the letters of the apostles and the OT Hebrew Scriptures that were available to and used by the Early Church.
Not to everyone.
Now you seem to question that I or anyone could possibly have faith in Jesus unless we have your version of the Bible and unless we worship at your alter to the Book.
My version of the Bible? Cute. I use the NKJV, NSV, and NASB. These aren't my versions, though. And did I say I have an altar for the Bible? Nope. I respect the Bible deeply as God's word to humanity - as you should - but I don't worship it. I worship the One whom it reveals.
When you deem it perfect, without error, you equate it with God who really is perfect.
Well, I think I'm all done discussing this matter with you. We've made our respective viewpoints pretty clear, I think, and neither of us seems inclined to budge from them. Thanks for the discussion. Its been...interesting.
Yes it has.
