13 Apr 05
1 edit
The model you seem to be suggesting, Darfius, is that love and happiness and all pleasures come from closeness to God, and that all pain and suffering comes from being far from God in some sense. Hell will be a state of being even farther from God then the current material world, while Heaven will be a state closer to God then the material world. After death, we will have to accept one of these two extremes. You claim this is due to our "free will".
What if it's our free choice to be kinda close to God as we are now, but not as close as a fundamentalist Born Again? Why can't we live for eternity with the same quality of life we experience during our Earthly life? How come God will be sorta close for a while and we have to move away from him, inflicting torture upon ourselves, instead of remaining the same distance away? Sounds like we're being denied free choice.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI got that "stuff" from Darfius; he believe that Hell is a seperation from God for all eternity. If you have a problem with Darfius' beliefs take it up with him.
Were do you get this stuff???
And how do you define a Christian anyway?!?
I would define a Christian who believes in the philosophy expressed by Jesus in the Gospels; as a Buddhist would be someone who believe in the philosophy of Buddha. I would think at the very least a Christian would take Jesus' words seriously. How do you define a Christian?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI define a Christian as someone who believes the Bible is God's truth (which accords to Christ's philosophy on Scripture).
I got that "stuff" from Darfius; he believe that Hell is a seperation from God for all eternity. If you have a problem with Darfius' beliefs take it up with him.
I would define a Christian who believes in the philosophy expressed by Jesus in the Gospels; as a Buddhist would be someone who believe in the philosophy of Buddha. I wou ...[text shortened]... at the very least a Christian would take Jesus' words seriously. How do you define a Christian?
Darfius clarified his belief to bbarr - "It is completely devoid of happiness, joy, peace and love because the source of all that comes from God."
That does not seem to agree with what you wrote "...Hell won't be a bad place anyway."
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiAs nemesio has pointed out many times, what's in the Bible and what is not was decided hundreds of years after Christ. To define someone as a "Christian" based on their belief in Scriptures which were decided to be included in a "book" hundreds of years after the person the religion is named after is a bit odd. And of course, the entire New Testament was written after Jesus died so that seems even more problematical if your claim is that "accords to Christ's philosophy on Scripture" (how do we know?).
I define a Christian as someone who believes the Bible is God's truth (which accords to Christ's philosophy on Scripture).
Darfius clarified his belief to bbarr - "It is completely devoid of happiness, joy, peace and love because the source of all that comes from God."
That does not seem to agree with what you wrote "...Hell won't be a bad place anyway."
Since according to Darfius we're "incapable of happiness" on Earth if we don't believe in the belief system of his fundamentalist cult, I'll be in the same position in Hell as I am on Earth. Since to me Earth ain't that bad, then by analogy Hell won't be that bad either.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo do you discount the whole of scripture? But you are using the same text you are discounting to define a Christian. You can't have it both ways.
As nemesio has pointed out many times, what's in the Bible and what is not was decided hundreds of years after Christ. To define someone as a "Christian" based on their belief in Scriptures which were decided to be included in a "book" hundreds of years after the person the religion is named after is a bit odd. And of course, the entire New ...[text shortened]... tical if your claim is that "accords to Christ's philosophy on Scripture" (how do we know?).
Christ considered Scripture to be the knowledge of God. And the he was one with God, and spoke with the authority of God. He tied his spoken words to the written words of the OT.
Now if you discount the words of the gospel because they were written after Christ's death and resurrection, then you discount the OT also. And if the OT and the Gospel, the the rest of the New Testament has no foundation. All the scriptures were written before and after Christ. It does not make sense to accept the Gospels, and ignore the rest of Scripture.
So I take the whole Bible to be scripture.
The time-line of the assemble of the books of the Bible is interesting, but does invalidate any part or make it less reliably God's truth. Except for the differences in the Catholic bible, the issue for Christians has been settled.
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiI don't know what you mean by do I "discount the whole of scripture". I assume by scripture you mean the Protestant Bible, but I'm not sure what you mean by "discount". You were the one who defined a Christian by reference to the Bible in toto; I defined a Christian as someone who believes in the philosophy of Christ. My definition seems to make more sense in a direct way, but I suppose you would argue that the whole of scripture is consistent with Christ's philosophy. To me, it's very difficult to reconcile the words in the Gospels with atrocities like the Midianite Massacre in the OT.
So do you discount the whole of scripture? But you are using the same text you are discounting to define a Christian. You can't have it both ways.
Christ considered Scripture to be the knowledge of God. And the he was one with God, ...[text shortened]... in the Catholic bible, the issue for Christians has been settled.
I am willing to say that the Gospels are most likely an accurate rendering of the ideas of the Jesus, but beyond that I wouldn't go. I am willing to say that the rest of the Bible has historical truth in part, but beyond that I won't go. The Bible has clear contradictions (when the Last Supper was, who carried the cross to Golgotha, etc. etc.) in it so it can't all be valid and there seems to be clear disagreements among major denominations over matter of a fundamental nature (like whether the Garden of Eden story is metaphor or not). So I don't agree that "the issue for Christians" regarding the Bible have been settled.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI completely agree with you on this. I realizing (for the upteenth time) that there is no point in arguing with Darfius. Did you check out the snippets of scripture that he used to support his positions? I'm telling you they are completely taken out of contest.
I think this was a a direct slap at the Jews, who had the Law (OT Scriptures), and yet still continues in their blatant sinning. But the Gentiles did not have the OT Law, so they were not guilty of violating the the revealed law. But this does not let the Gentiles off the hook. Paul's going to slap them specifically when he gets to Romans 11.
His only response to my sincere, and frankly far more humble posts, has been to accuse me of ulterior motives. If Darfius has studied the Bible half as much as he boasts, then I am baffled at how he can in clear conscience so blatantly misrepresent the scripture.
Trust me. I have no ulterior motive here. I simply disagree with Darfius. I see no foundation in the scripture for his statements, and having spent the better part of my life devoted to the scripture, I see no reason to not to challenge him on it. I'm just suprised more of his brothren haven't rebuked him for abusing the scripture.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIt's really not basic knowledge Darfius. You haven't given any relevant scripture yet that makes it so. Instead, you've asked us to take a verse or two completely out of context and by selectively interpreting a phrase from each you construct a story. Ironically, all of the verses you quoted from Romans only reinforced the position that every human in a state of sin and seperation from God. Unless, you can put forth an honest case and desist with the abusive language, then I will take our conversation on this matter as closed.
Why would God spare the children so they could enter the Promised Land and then not spare them after they die? You make no sense. You clearly want children to go to Hell to justify your anger against God, tel.
I can show you several more instances of God sparing children. This is getting ridiculous. Children who do not understand what sinning is do not go to Hell for their sin. That is basic knowledge of God.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionIf you'd like to think infants go to hell, then fine, tel. 🙂 Doesn't change the fact that they don't.
It's really not basic knowledge Darfius. You haven't given any relevant scripture yet that makes it so. Instead, you've asked us to take a verse or two completely out of context and by selectively interpreting a phrase from each you construct a story. Ironically, all of the verses you quoted from Romans only reinforced the position that every human in ...[text shortened]... d desist with the abusive language, then I will take our conversation on this matter as closed.
13 Apr 05
1 edit
To answer the original question of this thread: It is logically contradictory for a being to love someone and yet send them to hell.
Here, yet again, is the verse that Christians love to ignore in this type of debate:
Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
It's important to understand the full meaning of this verse! God is not portrayed as a passive actor, innocently waiting for humans to make a decision. He actively destroys both the body and the soul.
This offends my sense of justice and my sense of logic. For one who has never murdered, is it a just punishment to destroy the body? The soul??
Would a parent who loves their own child be able to throw the switch on the electric chair, or depress the plunger for a lethal injection on their own child, even if the child was guilty of murder? What do you think the reaction might be if they did throw the switch? Now lessen the offense to robbery. If Dad still throws the switch and electrocutes his own son, whose act is the more monstrous?
No, the question posted at the start of this thread does not have a satisfactory answer. If humanity's love produces more compassion than that claimed for God, then it makes no sense to say that God is (the embodiment) of love.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusWell, then to conclude:
If you'd like to think infants go to hell, then fine, tel. 🙂 Doesn't change the fact that they don't.
I've clearly demonstrated that the Bible offers no support for the either of your claims (i.e. children are innocent and thus automatically admitted into heaven, and some adults who never heard the message of Christ will gain admittance to heaven based solely upon the righteousness of their life). The statements you made are not the teachings of God, but rather they are the traditions of men. Moreover, I have submitted compelling evidence that the Bible lends more support for the position that every human is in a state of sin and thus stands in peril of hell if (s)he does not accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
I have backed it up with solid, in-context passages of scripture from the New Testament. I have made clear for all to see that the snippets of scripture that you mined and distorted did not speak to your claim.
Thus, it has been demonstrated that your positions are extra-Biblical. You have either created or adopted these false teachings and will go to any lengths to maintain them, even subverting the word of your god.
Given your present attitude and behavior, it would be uncivil of me to continue. At this point, having been soundly rebuked by the very text you claim to hold as divine, you have turned to cheap, lazy mischaracterizations of my person. I will do all the other xtians on this board a favor and give you no more opportunity to drag their faith and their scriptures through the mud with your insolence.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672The day shall come when all will be asked, Did you hear about JESUS CHRIST? All will answer YES, I knew about Christ.
That's right. You got it. You got the right answer. And so, in the famous words of my platoon leader, "Yew werry abowt yeeew, 'n Ah'll werry abowt mey."
They will be asked, did you hear/read about the good works that HE done? All will say, yes I did hear/read about His good works.
Then why did you not believe?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101Then why bother asking if the answer will be the same? Is redundancy a characteristic of a perfect God? Not all will answer yes, you simpleton. Some won't even be able to speak and some may have been raised in a jungle or a desert or whatever god-forsaken place you can dream of.
The day shall come when all will be asked, Did you hear about JESUS CHRIST? All will answer YES, I knew about Christ.