Of course life is a journey, hey, one martini and I am singing old REO Speedwagon songs and sliding under the table. Never had a cigar, and you know what? I don't believe I ever will!!! But you ENJOY yours and your life. . . drink a toast to me!!
I saw compassion in the posting of that clip. . . . we are moved by the same kind of things.
Bramble
I didn't realize Jesus came for the protestant. . . . thanks for clearing that up. . . I was under the impression He came for all people and all we had to do was repent and believe on Him. What a ditz I am . . . it is just the protestants who get it.
Then again. . . we can actually read what is written and said without an agenda if we are discussing hell. . . or not discuss it. . .
I guess we will see on that day. . . the heavens declare the Glory of God . . . The earth shows His handiwork. . . for me Bramble I choose to worship the designer over the design. SUE ME!
You are free to do whatever you want. . . . but, I would appreciate as much respect for my beliefs from you. . . as yours are given on this forum.
Hey, shave your head and sell poppies in the airport for all I care. . . but here's a question for you. . .
If you don't even believe in the concept of a hell. . . why do you EVEN care that I do? . . . sport maybe? I don't care that you are a witch, but maybe I should post on Wicca and what it is. . . or is it a secret? That way you can comment on the faith you actually believe on. . . .
Oh yeah. . . I forgot. . . it IS a secret. LOL Your comment did me harm. . . . it was harmful to me. . . .the misrepresentation of my beliefs hurt my feelings. . . I am insulted.
Maybe I will just turn the other cheek and let you have that one too.
OR, we can talk about how Jesus is for all mankind. . . why He is the way. . . and how pluralism is an illogical concept.
I choose . . . . the latter.Pluralism is illogical. . . either you are right. . . or I am. . . and Jesus is the only way. . . let's discuss it based on more than what "Feels right".
The law of non contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true
IF it is true for you and not for me. . . . it is still true. . . is illogical.
IF truth is objective. . . . meaning it has a corresponding object. . . than the logic follows. . . one truth. . . .
When dealing with heady issues of faith and the concept of eternity. . . while it may feel good to say it doesn't matter. . . or we can't really know. . . or that it is just intolerance to believe one way and all other ways are wrong. . . arrogant. . . .
The law of non contradiction states otherwise. . . pluralism contradicts the law of non contradiction.
There are ways to reason out and follow a pattern of logic here. . . . it takes some effort and a true desire to go beyond feelings. . . there has to be a hunger inside. . . if one simply doesn't care. . . and anothers well thought out and reasoned faith is simply an irritant. . . then so be it. .. but integrity requires one state that position. I don't care. . . I don't like what you have reasoned out.
How can one come to the conclusion Jesus is the only way to salvation with a modicum of assurety? The nature of the Christian faith is not given to this rationale because it believe and then see. . . . a paradox or is it??. . . . one can certainly evaluate other faiths. . . other ways and make a decision on what to believe.
Or one can say all paths lead to God. . . a direct contradiction to scripture and often a position based in feeling. It sounds good. . . your way, my way, the highway, it is all the same. BUT. . . besides being a somewhat irrational position. . . . if scripture is correct. . . it is a damning position.
I respect the agnostic more. . . "I don't care" is much more honest to my ears.
"All logic depends on this simple principle. Rational thought and meaningful discourse demand it.To deny it is to deny all truth in one fell swoop."
The first thing that get's attacked in any discusssion about the God of the bible is the integrity of the bible. For the sake of argument. . . let us state up front. . . the canon is not infalliable. . . man made. . . and we can rely heavily on something called "The providence of God" which is revealed in life as a whole. Without the fall back position of scripture. . . .
I won't get bogged down in that discussion. . . and I will talk this out with myself if I have to. . . my buttons are offically pushed.
If you don't believe that the bible is nothing more than another book. . . some true, some not. . . I respect that. . . I truly do. . . that is your understanding. . . I in no way seek to disabuse you of it. . . but I will defend why I believe it. . . hey, I will even say I could be wrong. . . but I do not think so.
The bible is an amazing piece of work. . . and while I understand it has its detractors. . .it is the number one selling book of all time. . . the little red book is up there too, but I can make a strong argument as to why. . . .
So, despite our own little ex-cult UNDERSTANDABLE reaction to the "Word of God" as it was shoved down our throats. . . . the bible is a popular book. I SO
understand why people would be turned off by the very mention. . . God magnified His word above His name. . . and BTW. . . I do believe that was a twisted understanding of that passage. . . used to control. But, that is an aside. I do get it and EMPATHIZE with the cringe that can come with. . . . the bible is the only way. . . .
Continuing. . . .
The collection of books we have come to know as the bible was made slowly. When Moses wrote the first 5 books. . . they were taken and put in the most Holy place. . . Joshua added to them. . . The prophets who came after. . . added to the collection. . . .
There is a reason the apocrypha are not in the protestant bible. Unlike the books included. . . . these books do not have an explicit or implicit claim to having been inspired by God. Some even DISCLAIM to being prophetic. Josephus gave the names of the authentic Jewish OT. . . which is what we have in the bible today.
Judaism doesn't accept them. . . Jesus nor the Apostles never cited them as inspired. . . . they were added to the Catholic bible as a response to the Reformation.
NT books were written by the Apostles and prophets of the same God and were accepted into the canon of growing scripture. . . . so here is what I believe. . . the 66 books we have today. . . the collection known as the bible. . . claim within themselves to be divinely inspired, ifalliable, and the inerrant Word of God. Only these books are acceptable as being inspired of God and written by His prophets. . . . I truly believe they have been preserved by the providence of God for edification of His people. Which is somewhat self-evident as you can buy a bible today!! The detractors continue to go to their just reward. . . the book remains.
The agnostic says "I don't know", not "I don't care."
I disagree that pluralism is illogical. It is only illogical in the context of a belief that one position among the many out there is right or true on all points.
Now, I understand that this is the biblical literalist position, and in the context of that position there is a position that is right and true on all points, i.e. the bible. However, in the context of a discussion where the issue of biblical innerrancy is not a universally accepted premise, that position cannot be the arbiter of what is logical.
I won't attempt to speak for any of the other disbelievers of Christianity around here, but my opinion is that seemingly mutually contradictory beliefs can both be "subjectively true" for the adherants of those beliefs. It is my position that none of the beliefs systems have a lock on the truth and all see "through a glass darkly; only part of the whole. That's not arrogant IMHO, that's humility.
They, Pluralistic viewpoints are not objectively True; which is without bias and without being influenced by personal feelings and opinions. Subjectively is based on opinions and feelings rather than facts or evidence Subjective is not at all indicative of truth. Pluralistic viewpoints have no real measure of accuracy.
Interesting usage of :1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
"Now I know in part" what I need to know to receive eternal life in GOD's presence based on GOD and the Bible.
The Thread is: Why Would A Good God Send People To an Everlasting Hell?
They, Pluralistic viewpoints are not objectively True; which is without bias and without being influenced by personal feelings and opinions. Subjectively is based on opinions and feelings rather than facts or evidence Subjective is not at all indicative of truth. Pluralistic viewpoints have no real measure of accuracy.
I agree.
Where we disagree is that many viewpoints that claim objectivity are actually subjective. I would add (without knowing for sure whether you would agree or disagree) that a person's spiritual relationship is by necessity subjective and "accuracy" in this realm is irrelevant.
Interesting usage of :1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Thank you
The Thread is: Why Would A Good God Send People To an Everlasting Hell?
The agnostic says "I don't know", not "I don't care."
I disagree that pluralism is illogical. It is only illogical in the context of a belief that one position among the many out there is right or true on all points.
Now, I understand that this is the biblical literalist position, and in the context of that position there is a position that is right and true on all points, i.e. the bible. However, in the context of a discussion where the issue of biblical innerrancy is not a universally accepted premise, that position cannot be the arbiter of what is logical.
I won't attempt to speak for any of the other disbelievers of Christianity around here, but my opinion is that seemingly mutually contradictory beliefs can both be "subjectively true" for the adherants of those beliefs. It is my position that none of the beliefs systems have a lock on the truth and all see "through a glass darkly; only part of the whole. That's not arrogant IMHO, that's humility.
Oakspear,
I understand that is a position. . . yours. . . I respect that.
I see your point. . . in a way. . . if I were to say to you. . . I have all truth and know everything about God. . . I don't. I state that I know absolute truth in a person.
The nature of Jesus' claims BEGS the question. . . . was He telling the truth. . . the nature of His statements BEGS the question. Who was this guy. . . As C.S Lewis was known to say. . . was he a liar and a lunatic? He claimed to be the Son of God. . . He claimed He was the only way to salvation. . . He claimed all other ways lead to destruction. . . He spoke of a hell. . . . He spoke of consequences. . . .He was unequivacle. . . the humilty He required was to Him. . . to accepting Him as the only way. . . . The narrow gate. . . His way or the Highway.
Now, if He was just some nut. . . no problem. . .call me crazy too. . . BUT, if He is who He says He is. . . uh oh. . . because He will have the power and authority to back up His claim.
I can understand the temptation to brush aside the scriptures. . . but they are still with us. . .Jesus. . . still rearing His head. . . His claims are incredible. . . they are either true or a lie. . . their very nature leaves no room for an in between.
So, if you really consider His claims. . . the question which presents itself is not are there many ways, but is He the only way as He claimed. . . was He who He claimed? If so, and you believe Him. . . . He is the only way to escape judgement. . . if you believe Him to be a liar. . . .
We still have the human condition. . . the God vaccuum as it is called. . .
We all know all Christians don't believe the same doctrine. How does a good God draw that line?
What about non trinitarians? Those Christian that don't believe in an inerrant Bible?, The Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the TWI, the Mormons...what about the Christians who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Please note that my question is ON TOPIC and I have used no names or personal attacks.
So, using the Bible as a reference, have you considered that at the end of the book of Job, God soundly reprooves everyone for thinking they could figure him out?
How are you going to contain him? in a book, for crying out loud? How are you going to understand him?
All the miserable comforters and Job are told that they really don't know what they are talking about.
The problem is NOT in any one belief or belief system. The problem comes from the fact that the longer the discussion continues, the more adamant the arguments become. Who's trying to convince who? (whom?) The closer even the most seemingly loving of all get to their true nature and the gloves come off. The presumptuousness of man is astounding. Get a little knowledge and all of a sudden you're an expert. All of a sudden you're a spokesperson on Gawd's evening news. "Good night and good luck!"
Short posts are answered with multiple long posts. I don't recall records of Jesus doing such a thing. He walked in, did his thing and walked out.
I tend to think that Ockham's Razor should be used concerning arguments of this matter:
As to the question at hand in the title of the thread, I'd say first you'd have to define your terms.
What is hell? (that should take you about ten threads.)
Where is hell? (more threads)
Who goes to hell? (maybe just a one post answer - LOL!)
Is there a 'Get of hell free" card and do I collect $200.00?
Is hell everlasting? (what I should have stated in the last question.)
Have we all already died and hell is where we are right now?
Why is hell necessary?
I came to the realization that no matter how many verses I know, I still don't know anything. The newspapers are filled with stories of Sunday school teachers who leave their classes and go home and abuse their wife and children, priests who do unspeakable things to the young boys in their parishes, and the many, many motorcoach monsters there are in the world today. Sounding good is easy. Living right - not so much.
Where we disagree is that many viewpoints that claim objectivity are actually subjective. I would add (without knowing for sure whether you would agree or disagree) that a person's spiritual relationship is by necessity subjective and "accuracy" in this realm is irrelevant.
Thank you
Yeah? <_<
Oak,
Biblically objectivity has withstood the test of time, when it it not intermingled with subjective doctrines of men it has been historically documented by biblical researchers (not TWI, as their research was a farce). This is not to say that there are no errors in translations by the handling of men, but biblical scholar's are more often than not able to point out these added or substracted by men errors. These errors have usually been incorporated into translation to line up with the varying subjective doctrines of men!
An example I will cite is the book of Daniel (old testament) was written long before the book of Revelation and it actuatly lines up with scriptural references of then yet future events that are refered to in Revelation and beyond the Bible history. Both Daniel and Revelation make reference to Alexander The Great:
[edit] Four Persian Kings
In Daniel 11:2-4, the angel Gabriel informs the prophet that there will be four Persian kings before the coming of Alexander the Great.
And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven.
Since the author of Daniel wrote during the reign of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1), this would then make him the first Persian king of Daniel 11:2. Cyrus defeated Babylon in 536 BC. Alexander took the kingdom from the last Persian king in 333 BC. This gives us 203 years for the Persian reign. Split among four kings, we get an average of about 51 years each, which is somewhat excessive.
There were nine Persian kings from Cyrus to Alexander. They are:
Cyrus (549 - 529 BC)
Cambyses (529 - 522 BC)
Darius I (521 - 485 BC)
Xerxes (485 - 465 BC)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BC)
Darius II (425 - 405 BC)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BC)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BC)
Darius III (338 - 330 BC)
The author of Daniel may have been misled by the fact that the Old Testament only mentions four of the nine Persian kings - Cyrus (Ezra 1:1), Darius I (Ezra 4:5), Xerxes I (Ahasuerus - Ezra 4:6) and Artaxerxes I (Ezra 4:7).[9]
However, Xerxes I, the fourth king from the time of history in the book of Daniel, did in fact invade Greece and instigated the Greco-Persian wars, in which he was ultimately defeated.[24] Since it is normal in prophetic sections of the Hebrew Bible to have no mention of large chronological gaps between historical events, the predictions regarding the fourth king of Persia warring in Greece and that of Alexander the Great are not necessarily to be understood as one immediately following the other.[original research?] The successive sentences indicate a successive thematic relationship, i.e. the struggle between Persia and Greece, rather than a chronological one
Old Testament Bible prophesies concerning Jesus Christ shows the objectivity and inerrant accuracy of GOD's Word. Jesus Christ fulfilled all the old testiment prophesie concerning himself True Christianity is a logical faith...You either believe it or You don't
we can't just dismiss the bible out of hand....... IT IS a phenomenon in and of itself
The Bible was written:
over a 1500 year span (from 1400 B.C to A.D. 100)
over 40 generations
over 40 authors from many walks of life (i.e. - kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars)
in different places (i.e. - wilderness, dungeon, palaces)
at different times (i.e. - war, peace)
in different moods (i.e. - heights of joy, depths of despair)
The nature of Jesus' claims BEGS the question. . . . was He telling the truth. . . the nature of His statements BEGS the question. Who was this guy. . . As C.S Lewis was known to say. . . was he a liar and a lunatic? He claimed to be the Son of God. . . He claimed He was the only way to salvation. . . He claimed all other ways lead to destruction. . . He spoke of a hell. . . . He spoke of consequences. . . .He was unequivacle. . . the humilty He required was to Him. . . to accepting Him as the only way. . . . The narrow gate. . . His way or the Highway.
Now, if He was just some nut. . . no problem. . .call me crazy too. . . BUT, if He is who He says He is. . . uh oh. . . because He will have the power and authority to back up His claim.
Okay, I will be the first to admit I am getting rusty on the gospels, but I'm going to toss this into the mix anyway.
Lets say Jesus was telling the truth and not a nut case. Well, first Jesus was Jewish, so of course he believed he was a son of God. The (as in the only) that is not what I believe he was teaching, it would be contradictory with the teachings of Judaism, the teachings Jesus studied.
So, what was his way? Was it the book of Romans? Nope, Romans wasn't written in Jesus' life time and Jesus didn't author it. Nor did he author any of the other epistles. So, what was his way? His way was to love the samaritan. To love the "sinner." To say, simply, "go and sin no more." I guess then, we would have to do, is understand what sin was, in the mind of Jesus.
But his way was not "worship me, bow bow down to me, etc. etc." Jesus' way was simply to love. It had absolutely nothing to do with books that were written after he died. Books by people who claim they received revelation from God, which may or MAY NOT be true. There are still plenty of people out there, even today (aka VPW) who claim to get revelation from God - that doesn't make it so.
So, if one assigns themself the name "Wiccan" or "Jew" or "Muslem" or "Christian" those are nothing but labels. Words. Words that mean entirely different things to different people. Jesus didn't use such words. His way was to love. He loved the Jews, he loved the samaritans, he loved the sinners. The only ones who seemed to truly anger him were those who were caught so caught up in religion and laws they couldn't see the forest for the trees. They couldn't love, they could only impose their wills upon the wills of others.
BTW, I'm not sure Jesus ever did teach much that would "define" God. He offered us some glimpses of characteristics. He may have referred to him as the God of Moses, etc (though I am not sure if he did or didn't), but I don't think he ever stated one must believe in a trinity or lablel themselves Christian, or believe in Rom 10:9 & 10. I think he wanted us to follow his example of love. He wanted us to toss aside religious doctrines that enslaved and oppressed people.
Geisha, you know I like you and I truly believe your intentions are good. I understand where you are coming from. But honestly, I find that what you teach is the very enslavement and oppression that Jesus stood against. I know that is a very harsh thing for me to say, given your beliefs about Jesus. But I am being honest here. I don't think you intend to enslave or oppress, but I do think that is the result nontheless.
Geisha, do not even your epistles speak somewher of those who "know not God" yet do the things of God, as being better than those who know God but do not do the things of God?
It is, IMO, quite possible to follow Jesus' example without ever having heard of him. It is my opinion that "everlasting hell" is not for those who are agnostic, athiest, or some variety of non-christian. "Everlasting hell" is for those who do not love. For the religious leaders, politicians, executives, rapists, serial killers, pedophiles who are motivated by nothing more than their own greed for power, money, lust, etc. etc. Those who will knowingly and intentionally harm others to get what they want.
I had to laugh at the ad that popped up at the mention of all the Persian rulers: one for single Iranians!
Anyway, I don't believe that C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" Trilemma is valid. Obviously he could have been mistaken, we could be mistaking him or his words could have been recorded inaccurately to mention just three that come to mind.
Regarding your example from Daniel about the fullfilled prophesies, I think that your point is that an accurate prophesy indicates that the bible is true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming that the prophesy in Daniel is correct, all that tells us is that somebody predicted the future. But reading your explanation of it, there appears to be enough wiggle room to allow for a flexible interpretation. It reminds me of Nostradamus' prophesies, which seem to be remarkably accurate looking back on them...if you're willing to be broad in your interpretation. I'll tell you what though, I won't dismiss this particular example out of hand, I'll look at it independently.
Another point that I want to address is:
Biblically objectivity has withstood the test of time, when it it not intermingled with subjective doctrines of men it has been historically documented by biblical researchers
I don't think that the bible is, nor does it pretend to be, objective. It's purpose seems to be to reveal the god of the Hebrews, not to be an historically accurate document.
No doubt there are events, places and people that line up quite nicely with what non-biblical historians have determined, you can say the same thing about James Michener's Centenniel. What can't be objectively verified is the existance and attributes of a god.
Baptist dunk. . . . others sprinkle. . . . some raise hands and voices other quietly contemplate. . . . but all Christian denominations hold to the basic tenants of Christianity. . . other things are personal preference . . . . some things are cultural influences. Others are a focus on an aspect of faith.
If I bow to Mecca 6 times a day and claim Allah as my God and then proclaim myself a Christian. . . . well, am I? No, not likely.
There are basic tenants to the Christian faith. . . . creeds are an attempt to establish these basic traditional tenants. If this is not the case. . . . than there is no foundation for faith. . . no abberant practices and no wrong way. People CAN have a relativist view of Christianity from outside the faith. . . or stand outside it while trying to redefine it. That is what we did in TWI. Nothing new.
Which is why we have what is known as Christian cults from a Christian perspective. Heretical or wrong understanding from traditional Christianity. Christianity defined by tradition, the bible, and creeds to establish these tenants. . . are often under attack by those who don't believe them.
If really curious. . . denominations often begin as a renewal. . . . the reformation spawned denominations to restore teachings of justification by faith. . . . and God's sovereignty in salvation. . . denominations split when parts cave to a more liberal view. . . . Baptistis came within the reformation tradition. . .
I am more non-denominational which is almost a denomination within itself. . . LOL
Diversity within the church is not always a bad thing. . . . as long as false teaching is avoided. . . . there is such a thing as apostasy within the church. It is important as a Christian to really examine a church teaching and practice...
There is a great website for anyone interested. . . . on how to find a good church. . . . http://www.9marks.org/
As for what about a Christian(Key word Christ) who doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus? You got me on that one. . . . do they really exist?
So, using the Bible as a reference, have you considered that at the end of the book of Job, God soundly reprooves everyone for thinking they could figure him out?
Absolutely, GOD's thoughts and ways are absolutely higher than man's thoughts and ways no question;
It is what He does proclaim in HIS word that is my responsibility. Jesus Christ either lied or He didn't; that He alone is the way and the only way to GOD. You choose what ever suits You. I have chosen!!!
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
How are you going to contain him? in a book, for crying out loud? How are you going to understand him?
1Cr 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
All the miserable comforters and Job are told that they really don't know what they are talking about.
The problem is NOT in any one belief or belief system. The problem comes from the fact that the longer the discussion continues, the more adamant the arguments become. Who's trying to convince who? (whom?) The closer even the most seemingly loving of all get to their true nature and the gloves come off. The presumptuousness of man is astounding. Get a little knowledge and all of a sudden you're an expert. All of a sudden you're a spokesperson on Gawd's evening news. "Good night and good luck!"
I am not concerned with your personal problems, They are not the issue. GOD and His Word are the issue; This is a doctrinal thread!!!
Short posts are answered with multiple long posts. I don't recall records of Jesus doing such a thing. He walked in, did his thing and walked out.
I tend to think that Ockham's Razor should be used concerning arguments of this matter:
As to the question at hand in the title of the thread, I'd say first you'd have to define your terms.
"I'd" being the operative word here ...go for it yourself, You define these as you see fit and build You own case as You see it. You should be more than capable of answering Your questions and their relevance. I have defined what I find pertinent to this thread: The real point and issue is that:
2Th 1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
2Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:
2Th 1:12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is hell? (that should take you about ten threads.)
Where is hell? (more threads)
Who goes to hell? (maybe just a one post answer - LOL!)
Is there a 'Get of hell free" card and do I collect $200.00?
Is hell everlasting? (what I should have stated in the last question.)
Have we all already died and hell is where we are right now?
Why is hell necessary?
I came to the realization that no matter how many verses I know, I still don't know anything. The newspapers are filled with stories of Sunday school teachers who leave their classes and go home and abuse their wife and children, priests who do unspeakable things to the young boys in their parishes, and the many, many motorcoach monsters there are in the world today. Sounding good is easy. Living right - not so much.
Baptist dunk. . . . others sprinkle. . . . some raise hands and voices other quietly contemplate. . . . but all Christian denominations hold to the basic tenants of Christianity. . . other things are personal preference . . . . some things are cultural influences. Others are a focus on an aspect of faith.
If I bow to Mecca 6 times a day and claim Allah as my God and then proclaim myself a Christian. . . . well, am I? No, not likely.
Well, you certainly wouldn't label yourself Christian, no. But what is the word "Allah?" Is it not simply another name for God? As is Jehovah to some and Jesus to others. Words are used to communicate an idea. Allah communicates to me the concept of God, just as the word God, Jehovah, Elohim, etc. etc.
There are basic tenants to the Christian faith. . . . creeds are an attempt to establish these basic traditional tenants. If this is not the case. . . . than there is no foundation for faith. . . no abberant practices and no wrong way. People CAN have a relativist view of Christianity from outside the faith. . . or stand outside it while trying to redefine it. That is what we did in TWI. Nothing new.
There are basic tenants to all faiths. And when you remove the labels, the common thread among them is love, which is exactly what Jesus taught. Now, you can argue over semantics, labels and rituals and most do, even within their own sect, but that doesn't remove what is supposed to be the common theme of love.
If really curious. . . denominations often begin as a renewal. . . . the reformation spawned denominations to restore teachings of justification by faith. . . . and God's sovereignty in salvation. . . denominations split when parts cave to a more liberal view. . . . Baptistis came within the reformation tradition. . .
See, I believe differently. I believe denominations split when love begins being replaced by laws, rituals, greed for money or power. They fight over whether or not to dunk, instead of simply loving one another.
Diversity within the church is not always a bad thing. . . . as long as false teaching is avoided. . . . there is such a thing as apostasy within the church. It is important as a Christian to really examine a church teaching and practice...
diversity in a church is awesome, as long as love remains. False teachings is often a lack of love. The teachings themselves may or may not be false. But it is the lack of love for one another and the love for laws and rituals that divides.
There is a great website for anyone interested. . . . on how to find a good church. . . . http://www.9marks.org/
As for what about a Christian(Key word Christ) who doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus? You got me on that one. . . . do they really exist?
Geisha, do not even your epistles speak somewher of those who "know not God" yet do the things of God, as being better than those who know God but do not do the things of God?
It is, IMO, quite possible to follow Jesus' example without ever having heard of him. It is my opinion that "everlasting hell" is not for those who are agnostic, athiest, or some variety of non-christian. "Everlasting hell" is for those who do not love. For the religious leaders, politicians, executives, rapists, serial killers, pedophiles who are motivated by nothing more than their own greed for power, money, lust, etc. etc. Those who will knowingly and intentionally harm others to get what they want.
Hi Abi,
I am so glad to see you!! I can also understand that you don't count the NT in your faith. . . you are Jewish right? That makes sense.
So, I do have to wonder why you would use the epistles as a basis for explaining something? :)
First let me say this. . . it is important to really express this. . . I see compassion in the pluralistic perspective. . . I see a non-judgmental attitiude. . . I really do see good hearts. . . I have become quite fond of some of you heathen hoard.( Referencing a JOKE!!) I promise . . . a lame attempt at humor.
And YES. . . . these are the ones Jesus did not take to. . . the greedy, mean, religious, politicians. . . yes yes yes!! I don't know. . . but from reading the gospels, I get the sense He did not like them.
I would go so far as to say. . . there may be some who post here who exhibit more love and understanding IRL more than some who call themselves Christian. I mean that.
However, Jesus did speak often of judgement. . . often of hell. . . and also of salvation. He claimed to be the Messiah. The Son of God. He told the rich young ruler that he was to sell His things and follow Jesus. . . but how do you follow someone you don't believe is who He says He is? He then becomes a liar. But, if He is whom He claims. . . and we reject His claim. . . where is the salvation. . . and if there is no hell. . . what are we saved from?
Abi, if He was the promised Messiah. . . the one sent to save us from our sin. . . to redeem us. . .and the OT is true concerning it telling of Him. . . HE has to be the way to salvation.
I try not to quote to much scripture here. . . I imagine people scroll down like I do!! LOL But I just have to . . . .
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 53:1-3
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Sombody's wrong here. . . either Jesus was a liar or He is the Messiah foretold of in the OT. . . . and if He is. . . and it is true that we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. . . this is the way God made for us to be redeemed. . . no matter how good we are. I guess all the OT accounts of the holiness of God are helpful in understanding why we need a savior.
I surely do NOT believe I am better than anyone. . . maybe I think I am worse in many ways. But, Abi, I want you to really consider my POV, I ask you because I know you actually do consider things. . .
I see compassion in accepting all ways. . . but. . . if there is really only ONE way as I believe and as the bible states . . . all other paths lead to destruction. . . how compassionate would I be . . . how loving. . . how really caring. . . if I did not share this?
The problem is NOT in any one belief or belief system. The problem comes from the fact that the longer the discussion continues, the more adamant the arguments become. Who's trying to convince who? (whom?) The closer even the most seemingly loving of all get to their true nature and the gloves come off. The presumptuousness of man is astounding. Get a little knowledge and all of a sudden you're an expert. All of a sudden you're a spokesperson on Gawd's evening news. "Good night and good luck!"
I am not concerned with your personal problems, They are not the issue. GOD and His Word are the issue; This is a doctrinal thread!!!
Who said they were personal problems. Geez...Abigail was making a general observation...regarding the doctrinal discussion.
I had to laugh at the ad that popped up at the mention of all the Persian rulers: one for single Iranians!
Anyway, I don't believe that C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" Trilemma is valid. Obviously he could have been mistaken, we could be mistaking him or his words could have been recorded inaccurately to mention just three that come to mind.
Regarding your example from Daniel about the fullfilled prophesies, I think that your point is that an accurate prophesy indicates that the bible is true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming that the prophesy in Daniel is correct, all that tells us is that somebody predicted the future. But reading your explanation of it, there appears to be enough wiggle room to allow for a flexible interpretation. It reminds me of Nostradamus' prophesies, which seem to be remarkably accurate looking back on them...if you're willing to be broad in your interpretation. I'll tell you what though, I won't dismiss this particular example out of hand, I'll look at it independently.
Another point that I want to address is:
I don't think that the bible is, nor does it pretend to be, objective. It's purpose seems to be to reveal the god of the Hebrews, not to be an historically accurate document.
No doubt there are events, places and people that line up quite nicely with what non-biblical historians have determined, you can say the same thing about James Michener's Centenniel. What can't be objectively verified is the existance and attributes of a god.
It all depends on how much evidence you need....it is not like Jesus came in the flesh to declare GOD or anything. :)
I am so glad to see you!! I can also understand that you don't count the NT in your faith. . . you are Jewish right? That makes sense.
So, I do have to wonder why you would use the epistles as a basis for explaining something? :)
I use them for a couple of different reasons. First, because I recognize them as books that you use, and thus assume they communicate well to you. So, while I suppose I could have said the same thing without them, I think my meaning is more easily communicated by using them.
I also use them because they are filled with the teachings of Judaism. Paul, for instance, was extremely well versed in Judaism. His writings contain many of those teachings. He took the lessons from the stories in the OT and wrote them down in a way that was probably quite easily understood by the culture to whom he was writing.
First let me say this. . . it is important to really express this. . . I see compassion in the pluralistic perspective. . . I see a non-judgmental attitiude. . . I really do see good hearts. . . I have become quite fond of some of you heathen hoard.( Referencing a JOKE!!) I promise . . . a lame attempt at humor.
I saw it earlier and got a chuckle. Believe me when I say, while I disagree with you doctrinally on some things, I do believe you are a loving soul with nothing but the best of intent. And man, am I thankful that (IMO) intent of the heart is what matters most to God. I don't think he could care one lick (for instance) if someone is dunked or not. Similarly, I'm not convinced he cares whether or not we eat pork. Nor, do I believe he cares if we call him Allah or God or whatever.
And YES. . . . these are the ones Jesus did not take to. . . the greedy, mean, religious, politicians. . . yes yes yes!! I don't know. . . but from reading the gospels, I get the sense He did not like them.
I would go so far as to say. . . there may be some who post here who exhibit more love and understanding IRL more than some who call themselves Christian. I mean that.
However, Jesus did speak often of judgement. . . often of hell. . . and also of salvation. He claimed to be the Messiah. The Son of God. He told the rich young ruler that he was to sell His things and follow Jesus. . . but how do you follow someone you don't believe is who He says He is? He then becomes a liar. But, if He is whom He claims. . . and we reject His claim. . . where is the salvation. . . and if there is no hell. . . what are we saved from?
What, exactly, does it mean to follow Jesus? It certainly must be more than TWI taught - giving lip service to a couple of verses while inflicting pain upon your brother and sister, yes? It certainly must be more than simply labelling yourself as Christian or Jew or Muslem, no? WHY would he tell the rich young ruler to sell his things and follow him? What was Jesus really saying? Perhaps the rich young ruler was caught up in the love of power and greed and Jesus was simply telling him to give up that love and replace it with a love for his fellow man?
Abi, if He was the promised Messiah. . . the one sent to save us from our sin. . . to redeem us. . .and the OT is true concerning it telling of Him. . . HE has to be the way to salvation.
Does he save us from our sin by dying? Or does he save us from our sin by setting the example of being WILLING to die because he so LOVED? I don't believe the act of dying, in and of itself, saved anyone. I don't believe resurrection saved anyone. I do believe by following the example he set, we do cast away our sins and become the loving people God desires us to be. We are saved from sin by following the example of love. By setting aside greed, lust, selfishness, etc. etc.
I try not to quote to much scripture here. . . I imagine people scroll down like I do!! LOL But I just have to . . . .
Geisha, I understand the Christian interpretation of those verses. But surely you must realize that Jewish people understand those verses differently, no? And while I could go through them and give you the Jewish understanding of them, it would probably completely derail this thread. So, I would propose, at some point if you'd like to, start another thread or 5 (it may take at least that many) and we can go through them. And really, I think it would be quite a challenge and really fun to do so! We could take on a similar endeavor with the Epistles and I could show you what I meat earlier. I must warn you though, tt may take a few years to get through it all though :)
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 53:1-3
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Sombody's wrong here. . . either Jesus was a liar or He is the Messiah foretold of in the OT. . . . and if He is. . . and it is true that we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. . . this is the way God made for us to be redeemed. . . no matter how good we are. I guess all the OT accounts of the holiness of God are helpful in understanding why we need a savior.
The either or is a logical fallacy, Geisha, because there are other options. Sure, Jesus could have been a liar (and I do not believe he was) or Jesus could have been the Messiah foretold of in the OT (which I also don't believe) or it could simply be a misundertanding of what Jesus was saying, or it could be there were translational erros, or . . . .
I surely do NOT believe I am better than anyone. . . maybe I think I am worse in many ways. But, Abi, I want you to really consider my POV, I ask you because I know you actually do consider things. . .
I do get your POV, Geisha, really. It is because I understand your point of view that I don't take offense by some of the things you write. It is because I get your POV that I can say with honestly that I like you and think you have a good heart with good intentions, even if I disagee with you.
I see compassion in accepting all ways. . . but. . . if there is really only ONE way as I believe and as the bible states . . . all other paths lead to destruction. . . how compassionate would I be . . . how loving. . . how really caring. . . if I did not share this?
And I do get that. I might even go so far as to say I hedge towards the notion of there being only one way. I just happen to disagree with what that one way is. While you see the one way as having some relationship with Jesus (which I can understand in an esoteric kind of way but cannot understand in any experiential way) I believe the one way is rooted in love - regardles of what label you give to yourself or what name you call upon God with, or what rituals you perform.
It still comes down to "Who is Jesus".
Who said they were personal problems. Geez...Abigail was making a general observation...regarding the doctrinal discussion.
heehee, thanks Oaks. But I think Rainbow was actually quoting and responding to Dooj, not me. :) Still, I am guessing your sentiment applies eithe way. :)
The problem is NOT in any one belief or belief system. The problem comes from the fact that the longer the discussion continues, the more adamant the arguments become. Who's trying to convince who? (whom?) The closer even the most seemingly loving of all get to their true nature and the gloves come off. The presumptuousness of man is astounding. Get a little knowledge and all of a sudden you're an expert. All of a sudden you're a spokesperson on Gawd's evening news. "Good night and good luck!"
I am not concerned with your personal problems, They are not the issue. GOD and His Word are the issue; This is a doctrinal thread!!!
Who said they were personal problems. Geez...Abigail was making a general observation...regarding the doctrinal discussion.
That was a response to me Oak.
I was making observations regarding doctrinal discussion. I was taught that terms need to be defined so that everyone is talking about the same thing.
It all depends on how much evidence you need....it is not like Jesus came in the flesh to declare GOD or anything. :)
Obviously you and I need differing amounts and different kinds...but I think we'd already established that
I thought we were talking about biblical objectivity? Any personal relationship that someone has with God can't be experienced by someone else, even if I have a personal experience with God, that doesn't objectively verify that you have one, it's subjective. Any actions, like miracles, healing, phenomena of any kind, answers to prayer can objectively be anything. People talk all the time about praying and getting the result that they asked for as if that proved God's existance. I know some people who attribute all kinds of things to aliens, others to fairies, still others to "The Universe". We all tend to attribute the unexplainable to what we have already decided is the answer.
Oak,I was not addressing Abigail, and I stand by my statements to Doojable for the reason I stated!
Oops...my bad
I couldn't find any posts where dooj was talking specifically about her problems. But thanks Dooj, Abi & RG for setting me straight ;)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
14
29
23
Popular Days
Jan 25
37
Jan 22
20
Jan 31
13
Jan 26
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 13 posts
Oakspear 14 posts
geisha779 29 posts
RainbowsGirl 23 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2009
37 posts
Jan 22 2009
20 posts
Jan 31 2009
13 posts
Jan 26 2009
11 posts
geisha779
Rummrunner,
Of course life is a journey, hey, one martini and I am singing old REO Speedwagon songs and sliding under the table. Never had a cigar, and you know what? I don't believe I ever will!!! But you ENJOY yours and your life. . . drink a toast to me!!
I saw compassion in the posting of that clip. . . . we are moved by the same kind of things.
Bramble
I didn't realize Jesus came for the protestant. . . . thanks for clearing that up. . . I was under the impression He came for all people and all we had to do was repent and believe on Him. What a ditz I am . . . it is just the protestants who get it.
Then again. . . we can actually read what is written and said without an agenda if we are discussing hell. . . or not discuss it. . .
I guess we will see on that day. . . the heavens declare the Glory of God . . . The earth shows His handiwork. . . for me Bramble I choose to worship the designer over the design. SUE ME!
You are free to do whatever you want. . . . but, I would appreciate as much respect for my beliefs from you. . . as yours are given on this forum.
Hey, shave your head and sell poppies in the airport for all I care. . . but here's a question for you. . .
If you don't even believe in the concept of a hell. . . why do you EVEN care that I do? . . . sport maybe? I don't care that you are a witch, but maybe I should post on Wicca and what it is. . . or is it a secret? That way you can comment on the faith you actually believe on. . . .
Oh yeah. . . I forgot. . . it IS a secret. LOL Your comment did me harm. . . . it was harmful to me. . . .the misrepresentation of my beliefs hurt my feelings. . . I am insulted.
Maybe I will just turn the other cheek and let you have that one too.
OR, we can talk about how Jesus is for all mankind. . . why He is the way. . . and how pluralism is an illogical concept.
I choose . . . . the latter.Pluralism is illogical. . . either you are right. . . or I am. . . and Jesus is the only way. . . let's discuss it based on more than what "Feels right".
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The law of non contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true
IF it is true for you and not for me. . . . it is still true. . . is illogical.
IF truth is objective. . . . meaning it has a corresponding object. . . than the logic follows. . . one truth. . . .
When dealing with heady issues of faith and the concept of eternity. . . while it may feel good to say it doesn't matter. . . or we can't really know. . . or that it is just intolerance to believe one way and all other ways are wrong. . . arrogant. . . .
The law of non contradiction states otherwise. . . pluralism contradicts the law of non contradiction.
There are ways to reason out and follow a pattern of logic here. . . . it takes some effort and a true desire to go beyond feelings. . . there has to be a hunger inside. . . if one simply doesn't care. . . and anothers well thought out and reasoned faith is simply an irritant. . . then so be it. .. but integrity requires one state that position. I don't care. . . I don't like what you have reasoned out.
How can one come to the conclusion Jesus is the only way to salvation with a modicum of assurety? The nature of the Christian faith is not given to this rationale because it believe and then see. . . . a paradox or is it??. . . . one can certainly evaluate other faiths. . . other ways and make a decision on what to believe.
Or one can say all paths lead to God. . . a direct contradiction to scripture and often a position based in feeling. It sounds good. . . your way, my way, the highway, it is all the same. BUT. . . besides being a somewhat irrational position. . . . if scripture is correct. . . it is a damning position.
I respect the agnostic more. . . "I don't care" is much more honest to my ears.
"All logic depends on this simple principle. Rational thought and meaningful discourse demand it. To deny it is to deny all truth in one fell swoop."
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The first thing that get's attacked in any discusssion about the God of the bible is the integrity of the bible. For the sake of argument. . . let us state up front. . . the canon is not infalliable. . . man made. . . and we can rely heavily on something called "The providence of God" which is revealed in life as a whole. Without the fall back position of scripture. . . .
I won't get bogged down in that discussion. . . and I will talk this out with myself if I have to. . . my buttons are offically pushed.
If you don't believe that the bible is nothing more than another book. . . some true, some not. . . I respect that. . . I truly do. . . that is your understanding. . . I in no way seek to disabuse you of it. . . but I will defend why I believe it. . . hey, I will even say I could be wrong. . . but I do not think so.
The bible is an amazing piece of work. . . and while I understand it has its detractors. . .it is the number one selling book of all time. . . the little red book is up there too, but I can make a strong argument as to why. . . .
So, despite our own little ex-cult UNDERSTANDABLE reaction to the "Word of God" as it was shoved down our throats. . . . the bible is a popular book. I SO
understand why people would be turned off by the very mention. . . God magnified His word above His name. . . and BTW. . . I do believe that was a twisted understanding of that passage. . . used to control. But, that is an aside. I do get it and EMPATHIZE with the cringe that can come with. . . . the bible is the only way. . . .
Continuing. . . .
The collection of books we have come to know as the bible was made slowly. When Moses wrote the first 5 books. . . they were taken and put in the most Holy place. . . Joshua added to them. . . The prophets who came after. . . added to the collection. . . .
There is a reason the apocrypha are not in the protestant bible. Unlike the books included. . . . these books do not have an explicit or implicit claim to having been inspired by God. Some even DISCLAIM to being prophetic. Josephus gave the names of the authentic Jewish OT. . . which is what we have in the bible today.
Judaism doesn't accept them. . . Jesus nor the Apostles never cited them as inspired. . . . they were added to the Catholic bible as a response to the Reformation.
NT books were written by the Apostles and prophets of the same God and were accepted into the canon of growing scripture. . . . so here is what I believe. . . the 66 books we have today. . . the collection known as the bible. . . claim within themselves to be divinely inspired, ifalliable, and the inerrant Word of God. Only these books are acceptable as being inspired of God and written by His prophets. . . . I truly believe they have been preserved by the providence of God for edification of His people. Which is somewhat self-evident as you can buy a bible today!! The detractors continue to go to their just reward. . . the book remains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The agnostic says "I don't know", not "I don't care."
I disagree that pluralism is illogical. It is only illogical in the context of a belief that one position among the many out there is right or true on all points.
Now, I understand that this is the biblical literalist position, and in the context of that position there is a position that is right and true on all points, i.e. the bible. However, in the context of a discussion where the issue of biblical innerrancy is not a universally accepted premise, that position cannot be the arbiter of what is logical.
I won't attempt to speak for any of the other disbelievers of Christianity around here, but my opinion is that seemingly mutually contradictory beliefs can both be "subjectively true" for the adherants of those beliefs. It is my position that none of the beliefs systems have a lock on the truth and all see "through a glass darkly; only part of the whole. That's not arrogant IMHO, that's humility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Oak,
They, Pluralistic viewpoints are not objectively True; which is without bias and without being influenced by personal feelings and opinions. Subjectively is based on opinions and feelings rather than facts or evidence Subjective is not at all indicative of truth. Pluralistic viewpoints have no real measure of accuracy.
Interesting usage of :1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
"Now I know in part" what I need to know to receive eternal life in GOD's presence based on GOD and the Bible.
The Thread is: Why Would A Good God Send People To an Everlasting Hell?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Where we disagree is that many viewpoints that claim objectivity are actually subjective. I would add (without knowing for sure whether you would agree or disagree) that a person's spiritual relationship is by necessity subjective and "accuracy" in this realm is irrelevant.
Thank youYeah? <_<Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oakspear,
I understand that is a position. . . yours. . . I respect that.
I see your point. . . in a way. . . if I were to say to you. . . I have all truth and know everything about God. . . I don't. I state that I know absolute truth in a person.
The nature of Jesus' claims BEGS the question. . . . was He telling the truth. . . the nature of His statements BEGS the question. Who was this guy. . . As C.S Lewis was known to say. . . was he a liar and a lunatic? He claimed to be the Son of God. . . He claimed He was the only way to salvation. . . He claimed all other ways lead to destruction. . . He spoke of a hell. . . . He spoke of consequences. . . .He was unequivacle. . . the humilty He required was to Him. . . to accepting Him as the only way. . . . The narrow gate. . . His way or the Highway.
Now, if He was just some nut. . . no problem. . .call me crazy too. . . BUT, if He is who He says He is. . . uh oh. . . because He will have the power and authority to back up His claim.
I can understand the temptation to brush aside the scriptures. . . but they are still with us. . .Jesus. . . still rearing His head. . . His claims are incredible. . . they are either true or a lie. . . their very nature leaves no room for an in between.
So, if you really consider His claims. . . the question which presents itself is not are there many ways, but is He the only way as He claimed. . . was He who He claimed? If so, and you believe Him. . . . He is the only way to escape judgement. . . if you believe Him to be a liar. . . .
We still have the human condition. . . the God vaccuum as it is called. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
We all know all Christians don't believe the same doctrine. How does a good God draw that line?
What about non trinitarians? Those Christian that don't believe in an inerrant Bible?, The Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the TWI, the Mormons...what about the Christians who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Please note that my question is ON TOPIC and I have used no names or personal attacks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
So, using the Bible as a reference, have you considered that at the end of the book of Job, God soundly reprooves everyone for thinking they could figure him out?
How are you going to contain him? in a book, for crying out loud? How are you going to understand him?
All the miserable comforters and Job are told that they really don't know what they are talking about.
The problem is NOT in any one belief or belief system. The problem comes from the fact that the longer the discussion continues, the more adamant the arguments become. Who's trying to convince who? (whom?) The closer even the most seemingly loving of all get to their true nature and the gloves come off. The presumptuousness of man is astounding. Get a little knowledge and all of a sudden you're an expert. All of a sudden you're a spokesperson on Gawd's evening news. "Good night and good luck!"
Short posts are answered with multiple long posts. I don't recall records of Jesus doing such a thing. He walked in, did his thing and walked out.
I tend to think that Ockham's Razor should be used concerning arguments of this matter:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
As to the question at hand in the title of the thread, I'd say first you'd have to define your terms.
What is hell? (that should take you about ten threads.)
Where is hell? (more threads)
Who goes to hell? (maybe just a one post answer - LOL!)
Is there a 'Get of hell free" card and do I collect $200.00?
Is hell everlasting? (what I should have stated in the last question.)
Have we all already died and hell is where we are right now?
Why is hell necessary?
I came to the realization that no matter how many verses I know, I still don't know anything. The newspapers are filled with stories of Sunday school teachers who leave their classes and go home and abuse their wife and children, priests who do unspeakable things to the young boys in their parishes, and the many, many motorcoach monsters there are in the world today. Sounding good is easy. Living right - not so much.
Good luck with this thread.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Oak,
Biblically objectivity has withstood the test of time, when it it not intermingled with subjective doctrines of men it has been historically documented by biblical researchers (not TWI, as their research was a farce). This is not to say that there are no errors in translations by the handling of men, but biblical scholar's are more often than not able to point out these added or substracted by men errors. These errors have usually been incorporated into translation to line up with the varying subjective doctrines of men!
An example I will cite is the book of Daniel (old testament) was written long before the book of Revelation and it actuatly lines up with scriptural references of then yet future events that are refered to in Revelation and beyond the Bible history. Both Daniel and Revelation make reference to Alexander The Great:
[edit] Four Persian Kings
In Daniel 11:2-4, the angel Gabriel informs the prophet that there will be four Persian kings before the coming of Alexander the Great.
And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven.
Since the author of Daniel wrote during the reign of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1), this would then make him the first Persian king of Daniel 11:2. Cyrus defeated Babylon in 536 BC. Alexander took the kingdom from the last Persian king in 333 BC. This gives us 203 years for the Persian reign. Split among four kings, we get an average of about 51 years each, which is somewhat excessive.
There were nine Persian kings from Cyrus to Alexander. They are:
Cyrus (549 - 529 BC)
Cambyses (529 - 522 BC)
Darius I (521 - 485 BC)
Xerxes (485 - 465 BC)
Artaxerxes I (465 - 425 BC)
Darius II (425 - 405 BC)
Artaxerxes II (404 - 358 BC)
Artaxerxes III (358 - 338 BC)
Darius III (338 - 330 BC)
The author of Daniel may have been misled by the fact that the Old Testament only mentions four of the nine Persian kings - Cyrus (Ezra 1:1), Darius I (Ezra 4:5), Xerxes I (Ahasuerus - Ezra 4:6) and Artaxerxes I (Ezra 4:7).[9]
However, Xerxes I, the fourth king from the time of history in the book of Daniel, did in fact invade Greece and instigated the Greco-Persian wars, in which he was ultimately defeated.[24] Since it is normal in prophetic sections of the Hebrew Bible to have no mention of large chronological gaps between historical events, the predictions regarding the fourth king of Persia warring in Greece and that of Alexander the Great are not necessarily to be understood as one immediately following the other.[original research?] The successive sentences indicate a successive thematic relationship, i.e. the struggle between Persia and Greece, rather than a chronological one
Old Testament Bible prophesies concerning Jesus Christ shows the objectivity and inerrant accuracy of GOD's Word. Jesus Christ fulfilled all the old testiment prophesie concerning himself True Christianity is a logical faith...You either believe it or You don't
we can't just dismiss the bible out of hand....... IT IS a phenomenon in and of itself
The Bible was written:
over a 1500 year span (from 1400 B.C to A.D. 100)
over 40 generations
over 40 authors from many walks of life (i.e. - kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars)
in different places (i.e. - wilderness, dungeon, palaces)
at different times (i.e. - war, peace)
in different moods (i.e. - heights of joy, depths of despair)
on three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe)
in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Okay, I will be the first to admit I am getting rusty on the gospels, but I'm going to toss this into the mix anyway.
Lets say Jesus was telling the truth and not a nut case. Well, first Jesus was Jewish, so of course he believed he was a son of God. The (as in the only) that is not what I believe he was teaching, it would be contradictory with the teachings of Judaism, the teachings Jesus studied.
So, what was his way? Was it the book of Romans? Nope, Romans wasn't written in Jesus' life time and Jesus didn't author it. Nor did he author any of the other epistles. So, what was his way? His way was to love the samaritan. To love the "sinner." To say, simply, "go and sin no more." I guess then, we would have to do, is understand what sin was, in the mind of Jesus.
But his way was not "worship me, bow bow down to me, etc. etc." Jesus' way was simply to love. It had absolutely nothing to do with books that were written after he died. Books by people who claim they received revelation from God, which may or MAY NOT be true. There are still plenty of people out there, even today (aka VPW) who claim to get revelation from God - that doesn't make it so.
So, if one assigns themself the name "Wiccan" or "Jew" or "Muslem" or "Christian" those are nothing but labels. Words. Words that mean entirely different things to different people. Jesus didn't use such words. His way was to love. He loved the Jews, he loved the samaritans, he loved the sinners. The only ones who seemed to truly anger him were those who were caught so caught up in religion and laws they couldn't see the forest for the trees. They couldn't love, they could only impose their wills upon the wills of others.
BTW, I'm not sure Jesus ever did teach much that would "define" God. He offered us some glimpses of characteristics. He may have referred to him as the God of Moses, etc (though I am not sure if he did or didn't), but I don't think he ever stated one must believe in a trinity or lablel themselves Christian, or believe in Rom 10:9 & 10. I think he wanted us to follow his example of love. He wanted us to toss aside religious doctrines that enslaved and oppressed people.
Geisha, you know I like you and I truly believe your intentions are good. I understand where you are coming from. But honestly, I find that what you teach is the very enslavement and oppression that Jesus stood against. I know that is a very harsh thing for me to say, given your beliefs about Jesus. But I am being honest here. I don't think you intend to enslave or oppress, but I do think that is the result nontheless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Geisha, do not even your epistles speak somewher of those who "know not God" yet do the things of God, as being better than those who know God but do not do the things of God?
It is, IMO, quite possible to follow Jesus' example without ever having heard of him. It is my opinion that "everlasting hell" is not for those who are agnostic, athiest, or some variety of non-christian. "Everlasting hell" is for those who do not love. For the religious leaders, politicians, executives, rapists, serial killers, pedophiles who are motivated by nothing more than their own greed for power, money, lust, etc. etc. Those who will knowingly and intentionally harm others to get what they want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I had to laugh at the ad that popped up at the mention of all the Persian rulers: one for single Iranians!
Anyway, I don't believe that C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" Trilemma is valid. Obviously he could have been mistaken, we could be mistaking him or his words could have been recorded inaccurately to mention just three that come to mind.
Regarding your example from Daniel about the fullfilled prophesies, I think that your point is that an accurate prophesy indicates that the bible is true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming that the prophesy in Daniel is correct, all that tells us is that somebody predicted the future. But reading your explanation of it, there appears to be enough wiggle room to allow for a flexible interpretation. It reminds me of Nostradamus' prophesies, which seem to be remarkably accurate looking back on them...if you're willing to be broad in your interpretation. I'll tell you what though, I won't dismiss this particular example out of hand, I'll look at it independently.
Another point that I want to address is:
I don't think that the bible is, nor does it pretend to be, objective. It's purpose seems to be to reveal the god of the Hebrews, not to be an historically accurate document.No doubt there are events, places and people that line up quite nicely with what non-biblical historians have determined, you can say the same thing about James Michener's Centenniel. What can't be objectively verified is the existance and attributes of a god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Baptist dunk. . . . others sprinkle. . . . some raise hands and voices other quietly contemplate. . . . but all Christian denominations hold to the basic tenants of Christianity. . . other things are personal preference . . . . some things are cultural influences. Others are a focus on an aspect of faith.
If I bow to Mecca 6 times a day and claim Allah as my God and then proclaim myself a Christian. . . . well, am I? No, not likely.
There are basic tenants to the Christian faith. . . . creeds are an attempt to establish these basic traditional tenants. If this is not the case. . . . than there is no foundation for faith. . . no abberant practices and no wrong way. People CAN have a relativist view of Christianity from outside the faith. . . or stand outside it while trying to redefine it. That is what we did in TWI. Nothing new.
Which is why we have what is known as Christian cults from a Christian perspective. Heretical or wrong understanding from traditional Christianity. Christianity defined by tradition, the bible, and creeds to establish these tenants. . . are often under attack by those who don't believe them.
If really curious. . . denominations often begin as a renewal. . . . the reformation spawned denominations to restore teachings of justification by faith. . . . and God's sovereignty in salvation. . . denominations split when parts cave to a more liberal view. . . . Baptistis came within the reformation tradition. . .
I am more non-denominational which is almost a denomination within itself. . . LOL
Diversity within the church is not always a bad thing. . . . as long as false teaching is avoided. . . . there is such a thing as apostasy within the church. It is important as a Christian to really examine a church teaching and practice...
There is a great website for anyone interested. . . . on how to find a good church. . . . http://www.9marks.org/
As for what about a Christian(Key word Christ) who doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus? You got me on that one. . . . do they really exist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Abi,
I am so glad to see you!! I can also understand that you don't count the NT in your faith. . . you are Jewish right? That makes sense.
So, I do have to wonder why you would use the epistles as a basis for explaining something? :)
First let me say this. . . it is important to really express this. . . I see compassion in the pluralistic perspective. . . I see a non-judgmental attitiude. . . I really do see good hearts. . . I have become quite fond of some of you heathen hoard.( Referencing a JOKE!!) I promise . . . a lame attempt at humor.
And YES. . . . these are the ones Jesus did not take to. . . the greedy, mean, religious, politicians. . . yes yes yes!! I don't know. . . but from reading the gospels, I get the sense He did not like them.
I would go so far as to say. . . there may be some who post here who exhibit more love and understanding IRL more than some who call themselves Christian. I mean that.
However, Jesus did speak often of judgement. . . often of hell. . . and also of salvation. He claimed to be the Messiah. The Son of God. He told the rich young ruler that he was to sell His things and follow Jesus. . . but how do you follow someone you don't believe is who He says He is? He then becomes a liar. But, if He is whom He claims. . . and we reject His claim. . . where is the salvation. . . and if there is no hell. . . what are we saved from?
Abi, if He was the promised Messiah. . . the one sent to save us from our sin. . . to redeem us. . .and the OT is true concerning it telling of Him. . . HE has to be the way to salvation.
I try not to quote to much scripture here. . . I imagine people scroll down like I do!! LOL But I just have to . . . .
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 53:1-3
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Sombody's wrong here. . . either Jesus was a liar or He is the Messiah foretold of in the OT. . . . and if He is. . . and it is true that we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. . . this is the way God made for us to be redeemed. . . no matter how good we are. I guess all the OT accounts of the holiness of God are helpful in understanding why we need a savior.
I surely do NOT believe I am better than anyone. . . maybe I think I am worse in many ways. But, Abi, I want you to really consider my POV, I ask you because I know you actually do consider things. . .
I see compassion in accepting all ways. . . but. . . if there is really only ONE way as I believe and as the bible states . . . all other paths lead to destruction. . . how compassionate would I be . . . how loving. . . how really caring. . . if I did not share this?
It still comes down to "Who is Jesus".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It's funny.....
Hi Abigail!
Yes love one another.
Love God.
Can't separate the two.
yup.....
the way can be seen and done
too simple maybe....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
It all depends on how much evidence you need....it is not like Jesus came in the flesh to declare GOD or anything. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
heehee, thanks Oaks. But I think Rainbow was actually quoting and responding to Dooj, not me. :) Still, I am guessing your sentiment applies eithe way. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
That was a response to me Oak.
I was making observations regarding doctrinal discussion. I was taught that terms need to be defined so that everyone is talking about the same thing.
I think my point was made rather vividly, though.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Oak,I was not addressing Abigail, and I stand by my statements to Doojable for the reason I stated!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I thought we were talking about biblical objectivity? Any personal relationship that someone has with God can't be experienced by someone else, even if I have a personal experience with God, that doesn't objectively verify that you have one, it's subjective. Any actions, like miracles, healing, phenomena of any kind, answers to prayer can objectively be anything. People talk all the time about praying and getting the result that they asked for as if that proved God's existance. I know some people who attribute all kinds of things to aliens, others to fairies, still others to "The Universe". We all tend to attribute the unexplainable to what we have already decided is the answer.
Oops...my badI couldn't find any posts where dooj was talking specifically about her problems. But thanks Dooj, Abi & RG for setting me straight ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.