I am going to stop debating with Atheists for various reasons. But I am a saved Christian and my heart breaks to see people going to hell. So I am putting up one last debate. My intention is to try to make at least one person see the truth. There will be some rules and I request all to follow those rules.
1. Strictly stick to the topic of debate and do not deviate from the topic. I will not respond to any post that is completely off the topic.
2. Try not to insult or mock or abuse.
3. Do not post one liners or one words. Post something sensible.
4. Do not condemn a point and leave it at that. (For eg. comments like "That is nonsense" or "that does not make sense") Please explain your condemnation. (Why is it nonsense or why does it not make sense)
5. Follow all these rules.
Now for the topic.
Topic of the debate
May the Lord bless this debate.
I don't think that there is a hell ... unless this is it
I believe in universal salvation (for lack of a better description).
I think that the majority of the punishment that we recieve for our sins are paid during this life.
Some sins (it is said) are passed down a few generations. That is because some of our sins damage both our genetics and our finances which the effects certainly make a difference for generations to come.
What is the truth that you wish to reveal?
Oh, sorry... I was addressing augustine 72. He said he was going to try to "make at least one person see the truth."
I have no truth (my opinion of truth) that I haven't been expressing for quite some time.
I think there are a number of truths .... Can you be just a little bit more specific.
*should* see the truth, *make* someone see the truth... those are the fighting words that others retaliate against. All of us protect our free will very strongly.
And so we should.
And Jesus would agree.
I do have a few "Truths" (in my opinion) that "I think" everyone should know.
In my mind these are absolute truths. And I do not understand why anyone wouldn't see these the same way as I do. I don't think that I have pushed these thoughts upon anyone as being the absolute truth.
I will however throw them out there and see if anyone picks up on them.
At least that is what I think I'm doing.
The problem with trying to affect others, is that no one will be affected in the least. That is my experience! After all, the truth is to be sought after by each person and each person will be led to the truth by the Holy Spirit. Personally, I just love Jesus and the truths he brought to me. To talk about what He said is very enjoyable to me. But, augustine 72 is right ...it is hard to discuss the truth with all the naysayers around.
What do you think of his rules?
The rules are just fine with one exception. Define sticking to the topic.
If strickly followed, then there is no debate just yes and no answers to the question Is there a Hell, and am I going there. NO and NO.
It might seem as though I am getting off topic if I were to go into WHY I believe this way.
I do not see this question. I see "topic of debate" in red and then nothing else.
I see "Topic of the debate"
and in the box below
Does Hell exist? Are you going there?
I just scrolled down and coppied and pasted, then scroled down again and it wasn't there
Is there a hell?
Research has shown that the common understanding of hell is untenable, the word and original meaning comes from the Greek Hades and is no more than an discription of the common grave.
Death is the punishment, resurrection is the reward.
The early roman church sort to control it's followers it therefor had to invent the control measure of a punishment for sins after death thus the common idea of hell controlled by satan for the purpose of eternal punishment.
I shall be going to Hades but I shall leave it toy god to decide if I am deserved of a resurrection.
what?....you lost me here "But I am a saved Christian and my heart breaks to see people going to hell."...ha ha ha....you've seen this happening?....take a pic next time.....
I was just in hell. Could't take a picture, but I can sure tell you about it.
Had the batteries in your camera run out?
Anything you can tell us about hell would be the product of your mind or the collections of other manade hell imagery.
Yep, you are right. I am suffering from a concussion. It is really a drag. (Wear helmets whenever needed to avoid living a hell from a concussion. I fell while jogging with my dogs.) Any brain injury must be really hellish! I feel so sorry for the people in Boston who had to have surgery to remove pieces from brain tissue. ugh! Or any one suffering with brain cancer! ugh! Thank God for your health, your brain, and your mind.
Another totally unrelated thought: We came into the body as spirit and we leave the body as spirit. Doesn't that make us essentially spirit operating a body for a short while on earth?
Are we not what God essentially is? Spirit?
But we have a lot of work to do to be like Jesus.
He loved God.
God loves us.
You forgot the part where Jesus loved us. Your example leaves the diagram open . Like two sides to a triangle, or an unfinished circle. To forget the part where you love your fellow man as he did ensures the love isn't in constant motion. It doesn't run a circuit, but is like a frayed wire; constantly losing electricity. It will either start a fire, or short circuit the appliance it is used to provide energy to. This 'I love God' philosophy doesn't mimic Jesus' thought processes. It's only half the justification for his actions. Ignoring the second half negates 50%.
Have you ever actually SEEN anyone go to hell?
I'm going to assume that you haven't actually seen anyone go to Hell, that you've never watched a human being get cast into a Lake of Fire to be tortured for all eternity. Now, has anyone actually seen Heaven? Has anyone actually seen ANY kind of afterlife?
Near death experiences don't count, because those who experience them are not seeing anything with their physical eyes. Neither do dreams, visions or any other spiritual phenomenon because they are either not received through the physical eyes or are hallucinations over top of the mundane world that cannot be shown to actually exist.
Obviously sight is not the only of the five senses and obviously the human senses have their flaws. There are things that we know exist which we cannot, with our naked senses, actually detect. This is where the tools and instruments of science can step in, to tell us, for example, exactly what the air we feel moving around us is composed of, etc.
No one has ever produced a shred of evidence for the afterlife. No one has ever detected any non-physical (ie Spiritual) substance, essence, particle, or material.
The existence of Hell, or the Underworld, is, however, attested to in dozens of disparate mythologies and the descriptions of the realm of the dead differ greatly. The word Hell itself stems not from Christian tradition but from NORSE MYTHOLOGY.
So what we have is a belief that stems from superstition, not from any demonstrable reality. Belief in Hell is often reinforced by fear or veiled threat in the same manner that fear in the boogeyman might be and is often implanted in the minds of children at a young age to serve much the same purpose, to encourage the obedience of the child.
Mythology, superstition and psychological manipulation are all associated with the idea of Hell. These are typically not the sorts of sources that are reliable in their depictions of reality. The fact that we can trace the evolution of the idea of an afterlife back so far, and watch it change drastically and differ greatly across cultures, religions and regions should tell us that while it has proved a resilient concept it has not been supported by evidence.
Throughout the centuries we've seen our understanding of subjects grow more refined, theories were many and now they are few, whittled down by the scientific method to give us the most reliable answers, the best and most updated information. Our understanding has grown into new areas, new subjects being discovered, and we're constantly updating as new evidence is found. Science is coalescing toward a better understanding. Beliefs about Hell, and religious doctrines in general, however, don't seem to be getting any closer to representing reality more accurately and indeed don't seem at all concerned with that goal in the slightest. We have those who believe Hell is annihilation, we have those that don't believe in it at all but think Gehenna was just a burning trash heap, we have those who believe it is eternal and those who believe it is rehabilitation and those that believe in purgatory and so and so on and so on. The argument can go on forever because there are no facts associated with Hell, it is a pure fantasy.
I submit that Hell does NOT exist.
I agree - which is quite simply why I don't believe in it, and therefore do not have any fear of it - any more than I would fear the hell of Islam or any other religious doctrine.
For me, Since I do not control hell nor who would go there (nor do I want that headache), I do not have the right to try to place anyone there so why even speak on it? Especially since I have no specific proof of the existence of Hell. I have faith that the bible says that God would judge the heart and the actions of man when the decision is made.
While we're on the topic of hell, I've written some new hubs. Check them out, people!
No one has ever produced a shred of evidence for the afterlife. No one has ever detected any non-physical (ie Spiritual) substance, essence, particle, or material.
Not true. There are many people who have died and come back to life. Hence all those "Heaven is So Real" and "90 Minutes in Heaven" books.
There are books on a lot of topics. Writing something down does not automatically make it true. Nde's have been proven to be anything but experiencing the afterlife.
Have you been watching too many Dr. Who? movies?
what truth do you want people to see do u want 2 see Sir.
Kathrin ... You are correct! .. it is hard to have a quality conversation with as you say all the naysayers. I think that some peoples opinions can and have be affected a "little" and very slowly, then we regress.
actually if my conclusions are correct, .. it matters little, if at all, if I were to change anyones/everyones opinions or not.
BTW What IS the topic of this "open debate?" *Debate* means opposing viewpoints. Also, I don't mind one-liners and deviating from the topic is sometimes like comic relief. Also "that does not make sense" allows for others to chime in. Sometimes fewer words are vision-relief. Is the topic about going to hell? what is hell? hell is a state of agony... self imposed.
Jesus teaches us how be proactive and avoid self-induced hell.
The Way I See It
I think "Hell" is probably eternal death, with no hope of eternal life. And nope - I ain't a-goin'!
Is that not wishful thinking?
What is the basis of such an assumption?
I think of Hell as a state of mind. We can wrap ourselves up into our own little hells with our thoughts, feelings, guilt, etc. If God exists, I just don't see him creating a place to send people as punishment for believing in him - that much narcissism and ego is definitely a HUMAN creation.
By sticking to the topic I meant that we do not completely go of track and discuss something else. As long as it is related the topic its fine. By "stick" I did not mean "agree".
I didn't see these last post sorry for not replying sooned
I don't think that there is a hell ... unless this is it
= - = -
Is that not wishful thinking?
= - = -
me, maybe so
I believe in universal salvation (for lack of a better description).
I think that the majority of the punishment that we recieve for our sins are paid during this life.
= - = - =
What is the basis of such an assumption?
= - = -
There isn't a single reason unless it is from observing my own mistakes which many would consider as sins, and recognizing how those things later manifested themselves as hardships in this life.
7 days ago Jerami wrote:
The rules are just fine with one exception. Define sticking to the topic.
If strickly followed, then there is no debate just yes and no answers to the question Is there a Hell, and am I going there. NO and NO.
It might seem as though I am getting off topic if I were to go into WHY I believe this way.
= - = - = -
By sticking to the topic I meant that we do not completely go of track and discuss something else. As long as it is related the topic its fine. By "stick" I did not mean "agree".
me I knew that was just answering Kathryn L Hill's post attempting to add a little humor
I believe there’s a hell, I believe this because I believe and know there are beings called spirits, who do not have physical bodies. These beings existed before we did, it is these fallen beings who have mankind hating the Son of God, and even the mention of His name. These spirit beings have free-will just as most of the creator’s intelligent creatures. These spirit beings break the laws of the universe just as man do, when these spirit beings break the universal laws; they are jailed just as the physical being must be jailed to protect the innocent.
These spirit beings not being physical are not subject to the physical laws of this physical world, therefore physical jails will not hold them, they would simply walk through the walls. To house these spirit criminals, there must be a spiritual sell made up of the material of the spiritual realm that can contain them. Hell is just another name for jail, or prison. What kind of universe would this be if one class of intelligent being were imprisoned for their bad behavior, and another class were allowed to go simply go free for committing the same crime, certainly not a just one.
Hell is simply a holding sell for criminal spirits until judgment, at which time all that refuse life will be taken out of existence, as if they never were. No burning through all time, and torture without end. What better way to run a universe?
When eternal existence is at stake, refusing debate is the height of immorality.
The one who refuses debate is the one who cannot debate.
Laugh all you want now. Because when you find yourself in there you won't find it funny anymore.
this is a borderline threat.
I don't know if you've gotten the memo - but your opinion of who is and is not being sent to hell is not up to you. It's up to your god. Your opinions on the matter are irrelevant - unless you somehow think that your god needs help passing judgment.
Conservative christians threaten unbelievers like me with hell all the time. It's nothing new. It just shows the weakness of their position.
In my experience, if you are left with nothing but threats, its an indication that you are losing, and your last option is an appeal to emotion and fear
Simple because at the time of Jesus and the apostles there s no NT, and therefore Roy's spiel about demons, fallen angels, and prisons would have been considered totally unbiblical. Roy's theories weren't invented till much later. Now either these things don't exist or God forgot o mention them for 4000 years.
As a side note, only the OT was ever considered scripture. The NT never says of itself that it is. Paul as a Pharisee, I'm doubtful he would consider his letters as scripture, that would be blasphemy or self delusional, anymore than a pastor today would call his sermons scripture. The gospels are a collection or personal memories and we cannot say that they are the sum verbatim words of Jesus without cultural influences and beliefs of the writers influencing them. It was the church much later on who voted by committee what was accepted into the canon, and then the church over the centuries assumed it was scripture.
What I’m hearing here is that the Christian view of things does not matter, but everyone else’s view matters, is that any way to start a discussion? Again, you are trying to have a debate on a subject that you have no knowledge of, you prove this by stating that hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Now I’m going to give you time to do something you should have done in the beginning, go back and read the Old Testament again and tell me that hell is now mentioned.
King David said, if i make my bed in hell, even there i could not hide from thy Holy Spirit. these words are spoken by David, her was not a New Testement King, he's an Old Testement King!
Men seem to think its alright for physical beings to be punished fort the wrongs done agaist mankind, send them to jail, bu when it comes to spirit being, just let them committ whatever crimes they will and just go free. You are a spirit being having an physical experience, you are a spirit and if you continue to kick against the prick, you are going to go the prison for breaking God's law. Or do you think that man is more just than his creator?
Hell is just another name for prison, law breakers go to prison both phycical and spirits!
Now you prove your point from your book of prophecy.
Who said we were spirits having a physical experience? Your pastor perhaps, but not the bible. In fact it says God breathed his breathe of life into Adam to make him a living soul. No mention of any spirit here.
The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament. All 31 of those times, the word translated "hell" is the Hebrew word "sheol." While the English word "hell" has connotations as a place of punishment for the condemned, sheol does not have such connotations. Sheol simply refers to the abode of the dead in general, not particularly the place of the punishment for the wicked. In fact, sheol was divided into two compartments, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. And, more specifically, the Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world.
Please read a literal bible not the flawed King James.
To Disappearinghead, first of all, I have no pastor but Jesus Christ! Again, you are proven wrong by your very own words. Your words:
“In fact it says God breathed his breathe of life into Adam to make him a living soul. No mention of any spirit here.”
If you ask God to illuminate His word as you read it, and not go looking for information to destroy that word you would not make statements that destroy your own argument! You said there is no mention of spirit here. You implied that God actually bread the breath from his being into the man, and the man became a living soul. The bible clearly states that God is a Spirit, and that Spirit is the most Holiest Spirit there is, meaning the Holy Spirit is God.
Now, if God is Spirit, and He breaded His breath of life into Adam and Adam became a living soul, then the life of Adam was the spirit of God, by your account!!!
By your account, Adam became a living soul, now that living soul you said God bread His spirit into “Breath] ,in the bible is often and for sure in this account, is referring to spirit. Now, that is the spiritual part of man. Now that spirit must take on flesh to function in a physical world of matter, if he was only spirit how he would be able open a physical door without physical hands, this is elementary!
You are a spirit being in your own words having a physical experience!!!
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In fact, does it not show the weakness of your position to call hell a mere threat?
no. Because you're attempting to control people through fear of an afterlife that you have no proof exists. You simply HOPE that there is a hell to punish all of the people that disagree with you eternally, just like you HOPE there is a heaven where you can reap in the rewards for your judgments.
Keep in mind, however, that jesus was incredibly clear - by the same measure you judge others, you will be judged yourself. Are you prepared for all of that judgment to come crashing down on you? You may not get the result that you're counting on.
Actually, It more shows the weakness of the stand of evangelical Christians because the bible even states that ultimately if you cannot get someone to come into belief that you should shake the dust from your feet and simply move on (I'm paraphrasing scripture here). Jumping over into the "You're going to Hell" attack is basically the Christian equivalent of saying "up yours" for anyone else that has lost ground in any debate. It's a measure of trying to save face and still have the last word. Unfortunately, using "you're going to hell" as the last word achieves nothing more than to further push people away from God and strengthens their stance. It's past time for things to change in the church. We need to move away from telling people to do good to avoid hell and to start telling people to do good because it IS good. If people lived their lives doing good because it IS good, then they would have nothing to fear from Hell because God judges the heart and works of the person. The final word is God's and for you (or any christian for that matter) to fall back to the hell threat would be for you to place yourself in a position of passing judgment at which point you are elevating yourself to God's level, which ultimately when it's your turn to face him will be taken into account as well.
Beautifully said! Three cheers, my friend.
I've been a Christian for over 40 years, and I don't know of any Bible-believing Christian who "threatens" anyone with hell. I know a lot of them who warn people about hell, yes; but threaten, no. Maybe there are some who perhaps take some joy in the thought of certain people going to hell, but that's definitely not the norm at all in the Christian circles that I've ever been in, nor in most of the media preaching that I've watched.
So I really don't know where you and sinners get the idea that Christians are "threatening" people with hell. And it's really an attack on US when you broadly proclaim that evangelicals are doing so.
What some people consider warning, others view as a threat. Sorry, you may disagree because you view it as a warning, but I've seen so-called evangelicals outright tell people "You're going to hell" I'm not making this up.. But then again, what about the rest of my statement? the mere fact that you have to resort to warning someone about Hell basically shows that nothing else you are presenting is working and thus you now have to resort to getting people to believe by using fear. If we can instill moral and ethical behavior in people because it is ethical and it is good to do then nobody should have to fear Hell. It is the dogmatic, fire and brimstone teaching of Hell that is pushing people away because ultimately, it contradicts a lot of different principles contained in the Bible. We as Christians should continue to show God's love to all people without having to lean on telling them of his wrath. If we can continue to do this then we can draw more people in. But even if we can't draw them in initially, we can at least remove the dogmatic stigma that surrounds Christians and Christianity.
So it is not an attack on evangelicals.. It is an experiential observation that is based on the fact that I also used to "warn" people about Hell. Once I got deeper into the grace of God and the principles of love teaching, I was able to draw more people in.. But hey, you do what you think is best in how you reach "sinners" But please remember that when you use the term sinner, this is inclusive of everyone
There is no stigma to preaching hellfire and brimstone, and no, it doesn't contradict the Bible at all.
And you're leaving out one basic concept. No matter how "good" someone is, they'll go to hell if they don't receive Christ as Savior. It's not about how good we can be, because mankind is a group of fallen creatures since the Garden. Really we can't be good enough to deserve Heaven; only God is good. You could find the most awesomely caring, sweet, gentle, person on earth and assume they're good enough to go to Heaven, but the Bible says that doesn't seal their salvation. They must be born again by accepting Jesus as their Savior.
I'm sorry that you no longer feel the need to warn people about hell. Because you've veered from the message. Apparently you've chosen to start tickling ears instead of exhorting people to salvation. The earliest preacher (John the Baptist) preached REPENT. So did Jesus. So you might want to reconsider your message if you really want people to go to Heaven.
Edit----maybe there IS a "stigma" to preaching hellfire and brimstone, but if there is, it's one that's been placed upon us by unbelievers and luke-warm Christians who do err; it's one that every witness for the Lord's salvation will be faced with, a burden we each must carry if placed upon us, in order to be faithful to Jesus and His word the Bible.
Throwing away that burden may get you a big crowd of followers like Joel Osteen has, or give you a false sense of peace at night, but are those things worth anyone's eternal soul? Even your own soul?
You have made quite a few presumptions and assumptions about me. And I love the tone of superiority that you have now taken with me without knowing the full story.. Because of this, I am choosing to agree to disagree with you and bow out of further conversation with you because it appears that you are convinced (by your words that I am "tickling ears") that I am not out here getting people saved. So you continue to be blessed in your foundation that you must "warn" people of hell and thus stick to dogma.. Be blessed and have a good day
And based on Matthew 7:1-8 Is failing to follow this scripture worth your soul?
As you wish.
Edit---uh I thought you were done debating, but you just had to throw in another accusation. Once again, one that is wrongly applied.
Whatever. We're at a standstill it seems.
So bye bye.
The turn or burn false teachings do not create believers, the do the exact opposite.
Actually, I gotta disagree a little bit.. Turn or burn does create believers when indoctrinated from birth, which turns them into some of the adults that are well represented (so to speak) in society as well as HP.. It does not work on those who are adult and do not believe..
Then again, Belief and relationship born out of fear isn't a real relationship, is it?
1John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased with tales, so is it for men.
Grown up adults aren't afraid of those tales.
I'm not so sure of that.. Remember that a lot of grownups that fear those stories fear them because they were programmed to fear them as children.
And you dont see the real problem here Deeps?
Using the tool of false fear on our children to get them to worship God.
Brenda did you know that brimstone is symbolic of healing and cleansing, not wrath and punishment. Brimstone aka sulphur was used by ancient civilisations to preserve wine, fumigate houses, cleanse from disease, and was used in religious rituals to denote cleansing of the soul. There's a reason why brimstone was added.....think about it.
It may have been used for other purposes, but that doesn't make it a good thing in hell.
Matter of fact, fire itself can be used to cleanse or purify something, but that doesn't mean it's a cleanser as in the fires of hell. Unless ya take it as the Bible means it.......basically it will cleanse the world of the evildoers.........not cleanse the evildoers..........sorry. God is a God of Love but also of wrath and Judgement. Your comparison is like turning a blind eye to what God has said........
"The Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord's throne is in Heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids try the children of men.
The Lord trieth the righteous; but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hateth.
Upon the wicked He shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup".
For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness; His countenance doth behold the upright".
(Psalm 11: 4, 5, 6, & 7)
Ah yes hell
Christianity like most ideologies who seek to convert employs the carrot and the stick, Christianity like most faiths perfectly uses hell and heaven, it's a very old brainwashing trick, but it's becoming rather worn and useless.
The threats of it become ever more desperate and shrill as Christianity fades.
I was gonna say I beg to differ, but (LOL) I don't beg; I just differ, very fervently too!
While many "Christian" churches and groups may be fading or veering away from the path, Christianity isn't fading the way you wish it to be. It (the remnant that comprises true Christianity) is being tried like gold in the fire of God's eye, and will persevere with His help. To the end of time as we know it. It isn't just numbers that makes something powerful; it's who acknowledges the One who does have all the power.
I am sure the followers of Zeus, Odin, Isis, Bhaal, Woden, Andraste, Ra, Ranginui, An, Enlil, Sol Invictus and Quetzalcoatl amongst many others said very similar things as their faiths disappeared into oblivion.
I have no idea what "they" said!
But doesn't matter; they didn't have the Savior.
So they were beaten from the start.
Their beliefs were wrong from the start, is what I was trying to say.
Uhh OHHH.. You must have missed this post where I mentioned showing the love of God..
don't you love being right? I know I do :-)
Once again, you misunderstand your own words.
You mentioned showing God's love to others, yes.
But you didn't mention loving God.
If people don't make the choice to love Him, they cannot receive salvation.
You seem to be afraid to mention hell because you think they'll be turned off by a God who prepared the place for the Devil and his angels, but who says unbelieving and sinful people will have their part in that fire too. Well, if you're only gonna give people half the message, half the info about who God is, then you're drawing them in falsely. Not to say that perhaps some of them won't come to a realization by themselves, in study, etc., about who He is, and therefore actually become true followers. But you will have erred by not giving them the full picture to start with.
Let me ask you something-------
What is the "job" or purpose of the Holy Spirit? What does the Bible say is His purpose?
Let me put this a lot more simply.
I don't know if you're a parent or not, but we're going to go with this analogy.
You can demand your child's obedience, but you cannot demand their love. If you tell your child that they must love you or you will torture them and then your child obediently says "i love you mom" is that real love? Or is that love based on fear of the consequences. Genuine love cannot be achieved out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. Real love can only be achieved genuinely through affection, not by force. to think otherwise denies basic human understanding.
Secondly, how can someone misunderstand THEIR OWN words. they said them. Maybe you misinterpreted them, but that's your problem - not his. I'm pretty sure that Deepes knows exactly what he said - and exactly what he meant by what he said.
Genuine love is elicited by giving love.
Jesus Loved us while we were yet sinners, when we didn't love Him at all.
He gave up His life for us!
We are drawn by that; He's easy to Love! At least, He's easy to Love for those people who recognize that He is Love and recognize what they're being saved from.
But you're still dismissing the REASON that Jesus gave up His life. There is sin in the world; sin in the human heart. There is punishment for sin. That punishment is hell.
Santa's easy to love to. He brings presents, grants wishes and fills the mind of children world-wide. What's your point?
and you can't prove that jesus did either.
You never answered me. In general terms, what does a sacrifice entail?
Giving up something or offering something.
Sorry, but I'm really focused on seeing if Deepes Mind will answer honestly the question about the Holy Ghost.
If you were to sacrifice your paycheck or your car to benefit someone else, would you expect to get them back?
If it was a loan, yes.
But since I assume you're talking in more serious and lasting terms, then no.
I'm asking because you keep insisting that Jesus was a "sacrifice" but he doesn't fit the criteria. He died a horrible death (if he existed) but he went right back to heaven where he came from. He's with god the father as we speak (if they exist). God himself (it is claimed) speaks of time in the bible where a year is like the blink of an eye to him, so Jesus' time on earth was incredibly trivial to a timeless, immaterial god - so what was the sacrifice, really?
You claim that god sent himself to earth in human form in order to sacrifice himself back to himself to appease himself and forgive human beings that he claims to love for being who created and mandated the laws that define sins in the first place. It doesn't make ANY SENSE whatsoever. You're telling me that an all-knowing god couldn't come up with a better plan than that? I'm sorry, but that god sounds stupid.
The overall idea in the whole plan was to send down a perfect sacrifice (so to speak) in order to (for lack of a better term presently) take the bullet that is meant for us. I know it sounds stupid to you (especially given your theological degrees and background), But Christ's sacrifice was an act of Love because it was an act of sparing the children (flock, whatever term you choose to use) the fate that awaited them in their present situation of sin (basically the equivalent of you pushing your child out of the way of an oncoming car to save their life).
I understand what's implied, but I don't see the actual SACRIFICE part of his sacrifice. What did he give up? A few hours of extreme physical discomfort? thirty something years in an earthy shell? god didn't give up anything, but a few years - and years are nothing to god. He got his son back. Jesus is back in heaven (if they exist) and everything is back to normal now. So again - where's the sacrifice here? How many sacrificial lambs do you know that go back to being alive once they're butchered? Did Jephthah's daughter come back to life once she was offered as a burnt offering to god? If you sacrifice something, do you get it back a few days later with only a few minor bruises - or is it gone for good?
The sacrifice part in it is that Christ chose to take these things upon himself while on earth so that basically it wipes the slate clean between man and God. Basically, He endured those few hours of extreme physical discomfort with his crucifixion so that we will not have to endure an eternity of Spiritual discomfort once our souls are released from their earthly shells. I'm trying to find a suitable real world example to compare it to, but I find that difficult when dealing with you... LOL.. No, wait I got one.. It's like you reaching into your pocket to pay for something that your child stole so that they won't go to jail. It's uncomfortable for you at the moment because you have to go through the embarrassment (and loss of money when the child could have simply asked you for it ow gotten a job to earn the money for it) but ultimately, your child's criminal record stays unblemished. This still might not be a good analogy, but I tried..LOL
but is it moral to take responsibility for something that someone else did - especially when they haven't done it yet? For example (using your analogy) would you pre-pay five bucks at every store that you frequent for when your child inevitably steals something? Or would you let them get caught in order to teach them the difference? While I understand the theological reasoning behind Substitutiounary Atonement, it's something that I always found to be part of ancient beliefs - not modern ones. The death of something pure and innocent in exchange for the forgiveness of something else is an extremely old gesture. A sacrifice is something that you are willing to give up permanently, but Jesus (being god) knew that after his death, he would go right back home like nothing ever happened, and what's a few hours of brutal torture when you have an eternity of bliss waiting for you right around the corner? If you were to sacrifice something, Deepes, would you expect to get it back in a manner of days? Would it find its way back to you like it was never given up at all? If you sacrificed your wife, would she be gone forever, or would she walk back through your front door like nothing ever happened? Do you get what I'm going for here?
Let me break this down in sections and address each one (You know how I do it..LOL)
Think about it in terms like this.. Say you aren't with your child at the time, but you get a call that he/she got caught and is going to jail. Of course you wouldn't pre-pay at every store you frequent. You are not taking responsibility (per se) for the actions of your child, but by paying for it you are basically making things right with the owner of that store. the difference is that if the stolen item isn't recovered for some reason, then it's a lose lose lose situation. Your child loses his/her freedom, the store owner loses merchandise that turns a profit, and you lose your child in the sense that they are imprisoned for their crimes. By paying for the items, the only one losing is you due to you having to give up the money. the owner makes profit and your child keeps an unblemished criminal record.
This one is difficult to answer in a satisfactory way because I understand where you are going. So Let me try to explain it like this (**Disclaimer** I am not trying to compare myself to Christ in any way, shape, or form. I am merely using myself as an example).. Christ had to come to earth in human form and live life as a human with human experiences and flesh. I would assume that if Christ had to be come human, he would have had to experience human emotions (fear, anger, sorrow, joy, etc). Now thinking about myself as a human and with seeing how we act at times, personally, if God told me I had to die to save people and endure the pain that Christ had to endure, even with the promise of a great reward, I'd still be asking the whole way if there was a different way to do it. Even at the end, Jesus cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me". He did it, but in thinking outside the box, I'd find it difficult to believe that he enjoyed it.
There are different types of sacrifice, JM. Now in dealing with human life, if I were able to go through with sacrificing my wife to appease God (which is no longer required, thanks to the fulfillment of the law unless my memory is bad and there was a sacrifice done in the NT), then I wouldn't expect to walk back into my front door here on earth, but I would know that we would be reunited in heaven (so to speak).
I got what you were going for 100%, but (and let me throw in a little apologist here) ultimately, our earthly minds are not meant to be able to conceive how things work up in heaven.
It was a lie, a charade and a facade. JM already pointed out God lost nothing and Jesus is just fine, according to Christians. There was no extreme physical discomfort because Jesus was the son of God and gods can't feel physical pain, nor can they die.
I've seen much better con men contrive far more convincing frauds.
Hey ,ATM, welcome to the conversation!! Always glad to see your input. But you are correct that JM pointed that out and I understand that. I was basically explaining the idea of the situation, not that she didn't already already know it.
Good morning, ATM!
I'm going to jump in - and reply to you and JMcFarland. Not that my thinking on the situation will make anyone think differently about it, but maybe I can give a better understanding of why many Christians believe the way we do about what Jesus did.
Understand that we begin from some precedents that are not necessarily accepted by those who do not believe in God.
1. Jesus was the Son of God.
2. There is a triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus was, therefore, God in human flesh.
4. As God in human flesh, Jesus wasn't half-god, half-man, but rather fully God and fully man.
5. He felt the full range of human emotion and the full range of human physical experience - pain, fatigue, etc.
All that being said, it is well known that parents experience terrible emotional pain when they see their children suffer. In cases where a child is terminally ill, almost every parent I know will tell you that they would gladly trade places with their child to spare them suffering. I'd do that for my ward, and she doesn't share my blood. As human parents, though, we are not given that prerogative.
God, however, is capable of doing that. The question of sin aside, the human condition is a painful one through which many of suffer by our own wrongdoing and that of others. We experience horrible emotional pain, horrible physical pain - sometimes at the hands of our human brothers and sisters, sometimes as a consequence of poor decisions/choices we, ourselves, have made. Depending on the severity of these actions/consequences, we may simply grow wiser or stronger through them, or they may destroy us completely.
As a parent, God allowed Himself to take on our human flesh in the person of Christ. While He was indeed fully God, keep in mind that He was also fully human - and what do we know about humanity and God? That there is a veil that separates humanity from complete knowledge of the universe - and how can a God who is ultimately pure spirit understand physical pain? So, in an effort to (excuse this horrible wording) to crawl inside another's skin and walk around in it, God became man. And accepted, in our place, the horrible suffering and pain that our bad behavior had rightfully brought down upon us.
It wasn't simply that Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified because He was God and it wouldn't hurt and He knew for a fact that He would live again in Heaven when it was over. It was that God, as our Father, substituted Himself to our punishment because He was a loving Father who could not bear to see us suffer and die, just like any human parent would do if given the opportunity. Remember - God the Father knew what the outcome would be for certain. Jesus, as a man, saw through the same human veil that you or I might. He simply had a faith that what He knew of God was true.
That's my take on it, anyway.
You explained that SO much better than I did...LOL
I don't think better, Deepes, just differently. That's how I understand Jesus's actions in a modern world, as opposed to thinking of it as a purely ancient practice that's been outdated as JMcFarland was saying.
Hi Mo, good to hear from you again. I would like to understand and I can't think of a more impartial Christian than yourself, other than a couple others here, to help me.
Those beliefs should be justified in some way, I assume. Though, I did try to find some verses that would say the same thing you're saying but, I couldn't find any.
I did find some stuff regarding the "hypostatic" union, which apparently is supposed to explain the God/Man thing but only manages to make empty claims of absolute existence without any logical train of thought.
Matthew 14 however talks about the 12 baskets of fish and bread, which apparently fed 5000 people after Jesus looked up to heaven, said a blessing then broke out the food to his disciples.
That is certainly not the act of a human, nor are the other various miracles Jesus allegedly performed. It really brings into question those particular beliefs regarding Jesus actually being "fully" man with full range of emotions, physical experiences, etc. due to the fact that he openly performed those miracles in front of people.
You and I both know that if anyone who looked like a human began performing the same miracles in front of us, we would both agree it was not a human, and instead, an alien disguised as a human.
If Jesus is perfectly able to perform those feats in front of a crowd, he is quite able to whisk away any pain or discomfort inflicted upon him and feel nothing.
But, if Jesus remained a simple man his entire life never doing anything miraculous but still carried the same philosophies loved by Christians, it would be far more believable.
So, I really do think Christians would have a very hard time trying to support the whole "fully man" claim, even though the pain and eventual death Christians imagine happened to Jesus is a very important part of their religion, but does appear as if Jesus was simply God in a man suit.
Here's the analogy. Tony Stark puts on the Ironman suit, goes into battle beating the bad guy, but in the process his suit gets destroyed. So, he merely gets out of it and into another one.
That's God. He puts on a human suit and mills around with everyone with the eventual goal of doing one last ultimate miracle, to rise and come back from the dead after a prolonged period of time. The human suit took all the punishment, but God felt no pain. Once the suit was damaged well beyond functionality, he took it off and went back to heaven. After a couple days off in heaven, he came back for his suit.
But Mo, you are giving me more evidence that God is perfectly capable of doing whatever He wants, which would include putting on a human suit.
When I hear those kind of words regarding the human condition, I can only think that this is the world and the life God left for us to deal with. It shows he was not successful with his creation, regardless of who is to blame. The bottom line is that God is not perfect if what you say is true.
You have to excuse me, Mo, but I just can't accept those claims without some sort of explanation. Simple logic will show that God, in the form of a human cannot be human, even by definition.
And, the problem with that is the fact it is an important premise to the acceptance of the resurrection.
Do humans come back to life after being beaten mercilessly and then crucified, three days later? If not, then Jesus was no human.
Again, if God was merely in another human suit, He would have felt nothing.
Thanks Mo, but the whole God being man thing just doesn't wash with me. It's not that I don't chose to believe it or not, it's just too much of a contradiction as a premise to the explanation. If we could get over that one hurdle some way, I would certainly have a much better understanding and would then have a more indepth look at the details surrounding the resurrection.
It's the most difficult part of Christianity for nonbelievers to accept, I think. We take it on faith - that irrational faith that you and I have talked about before. You make good points, from an earthly, purely human perspective. Points I've argued with myself over the years, believe it or not. Even more than the action itself, I can say that what led me to acceptance of the Resurrection is Christ's willingness to undergo the crucifixion in the first place.
I completely get what you're saying, and no one can convince of its truth except God Himself.
But we can sure try to explain to each other why we behave and think the way we do, right?
That's probably why the acceptance of the crucifixion is so important, it clinches the deal.
The thing is that there really isn't anything there to accept other than a blatant contradiction. No human could do the things Jesus was professed to have done, so we can't view Him as a human under any other circumstances. We must accept the simple fact that although Jesus appeared in every way, shape and form as a human, He wasn't human. He was God. Since he was God, He could easily construct such a convincing facade and no one would be the wiser.
And, there is nothing in the Bible that supports the position that he was fully human.
I don't know....I'd think there was a lot in Scripture that proved He was fully human. He was born of a woman. He ate. He drank. He slept. He wept at the death of a friend. He got angry. These are human things.
He expressed frustration with friends who slept while He experienced terror at His impending death. That's pretty human behavior.
Which would you more readily accept? That He was human or that He was God?
Ultimately, the contradiction is that anyone could do good consistently in the face of evil. Jesus did. That alone makes Him at least SUPERhuman if not God.
As a Christian, I would NEVER agree with a brother or sister who declared that there is simply no contradiction in Scripture. I can read...lol I think that's all it takes to recognize the contradictions. It is my opinion though, that these things are only contradictory and paradoxical to our human minds. As human beings, we can not wrap our heads around these things and so they occupy our thoughts constantly. I think that there was a part of Jesus that set these things aside rather than dwell on them because a deeper sense of faith allowed Him to believe that there would be resolution at a time in the future.
You know, you're good peeps. I don't care what anyone says about you. Of course, I don't care what anyone says about me, either...lol
No, he was born of a virgin birth, an immaculate conception, that is not the birth of a human. Just because he ate, drank, slept, etc,. is merely part and parcel to the charade.
I would only accept that He was human because that is the only thing that makes sense. All the other stuff, miracles, virgin birth, etc., only serve to show the entire story is a fable.
And, he did those things using his SUPERhuman powers, which means he wasn't human.
But Mo, when people recognize contradictions and paradox, they certainly don't go rushing in to accept them. I seriously doubt you would do that with anything in your life other than your religion.
Ah....the assumption is that I rushed to acceptance. I did not. I spent years questioning and fighting to understand. In the end, I simply concluded that I may never completely understand and willingly accepted that. Now, you're completely corrected in that I would not, and rarely, do the same with anything other than religion. For example, I cannot wrap my head around physics or advanced mathematics. I have a rudimentary understanding of both, but my brain's behavior slants to a much easier understanding of other things that a physicist or a mathematician may find much more abstract. I may understand more about a person's psychological makeup than those folks do.
And I would NEVER take the psychological component out of a person's faith. It cannot be done. As human beings, we inherently wonder, question, need, want, and desire...mostly when it comes to issues of love and security. I explained once to a dear friend of the atheist persuasion exactly why I believed in God. When I asked if he had ever experienced the same things I had, he said.....get ready....YES! But, he came to a different conclusion about what precipitated those feelings. What I realized is that we were different in terms of religion because we were two very different personalities. He did not believe because he felt that he had never been presented with concrete, unquestionable, viable evidence - I do believe in spite of that fact because my experiential evidence is enough for me.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to what we are willing to accept in our human brothers and sisters. I recognize the irrationality of my belief, but my acceptance of irrationality as a true and viable human experience is what makes the difference. To the material minded individual, acceptance of the irrational is the ultimate human sin, as it were. To others, it's not so unforgivable.
I will not preach, nor will I attempt in any way to convince someone that I am 'right' and they are 'wrong' because, really, what's the use? The God I believe in has very clearly communicated that judgment of another human being is not my job. Condemnation is NOT my job. Most importantly, He has not given me the tools to provide incontrovertible evidence that He is who I say He is. I can't prove Him as a fact. For Christians, though, someone did that - Jesus. I'll be honest, I get annoyed as all hell by the fact that believers seem to think that Jesus's word is enough for THEM but that their words are necessary to convince others.
Oh, one little thing I was going to explain also...the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are two distinctly different concepts and the Immaculate Conception is one that all Christians DO NOT agree on (surprise, surprise)! We all believe Jesus was born to a virgin, but the Immaculate Conception is a solely Catholic dogma to my understanding. If anything, it may be held by Orthodox Christians, but certainly NOT by the average Protestant Evangelical.
Mary is considered the "Immaculate Conception." The only person who's ever been completely without sin by nature is Jesus, of course. The rest of us are 'conceived in sin.' Original sin and all that. It is believed by the Roman Catholic Church that in order to bear the Son of God in her womb, Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin by God's hand. In short, what Christ IS by nature (sinless), Mary was MADE by grace.
And, lemme tell ya something, my friend....those evangelicals are just as convinced that we Catholics are going to hell as they are that the unbelievers are headed there. There are indeed a couple of Evangelicals on these very forums who have told me as much in not so many words. So, if the Evangelicals are right, you and I will share an afterlife.
And, I would much rather sit around the campfire, so to speak with you and JM sipping Margaritas then have to spend an eternity with those Evangelicals.
If you're joking, it ain't funny.
And if you're telling the truth, then it's a very unChristian thing to say.
Most Christians I know can't stand the self righteous Evangelicals.
My idea of hell is definitely an eternity with them.
I don't have a problem with that (except it's just really sad). I have a problem with anyone who says they're a Christian, but who wouldn't want to go to heaven because Evangelical Christians are there.
I apologize if that particular joke hurts or offends you or if you feel it is an un-Christian remark. I respect you, but I rarely agree with you regarding proper Christian behavior. I do not believe or behave like an Evangelical Christian. Not because I don't love you (my husband is an Evangelical), but because I just don't agree with your interpretation of Scripture and Christian Tradition.
Fact is, I'll be happy to share my afterlife with whoever shows up. I'm just of the opinion that God will welcome far more folks into heaven than most Christians think He will, and most of will be shocked as all get out when we see who showed up before, or who shows up after we get there.
What do you mean "IF"?
Seriously. You know you'd be terribly offended if I, or any Evangelical (including your husband!) or any other Christian said they would rather go to hell than to share heaven with you.
And while I see you've tried to reiterate that it was a joke, I really hope you'll think about the seriousness of such a thing before you say such things expecting others to assume you really do still "love" them.
I apologize THAT my glib remark offended you.
Brenda, I really do love just about everyone, and that means you because I believe, whether you do or not, that you are indeed my sister in Christ. That's just how I am.
As far as the remark I made - yes, I'd rather spend eternity with folks like JMcFarland and ATM than to spend it with those who spent a lifetime telling me that because I stayed a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was headed straight to hell. I don't believe in hell the way you and many Evangelicals do, so for you and I to have this conversation might be rather pointless.
But I do believe in love and I do NOT believing in hurting others' feelings. So please accept my apology and offer your forgiveness for what you obviously consider to be a very carelessly worded joke.
Mo, you certainly don't need to apologize for that to anyone. It's really too bad that some might be offended, but they themselves are far more offensive when they make threats of hell.
According to some, it's not a threat... It's a warning
Yes, Evangelists are "warning" us of the "threats" of eternal damnation we will suffer if we don't do exactly what their God commands us to do.
It's like the follower of despot warning us his boss will provide us with a set of cement shoes and a short pier if we don't become a follower.
No, No, No.. There was someone that stated that they have been a believer for over 40 years and never have they seen Hell used as a threat.. only a "warning" . Hell is never a threat
(Note- sarcasm used here)
Kinda like the "warnings" they put on cigarette packages. Those with a brain in their head never worry about or need provided for them such warnings.
I agree. I also agree that it is pointless to warn about things that aren't feared due to lack of belief.
The lack of belief is actually pretty irrelevant to the threats... sorry, "warnings" from believers, considering the threats are not specific to just non-believers, but believers of other faiths, as well.
AHH, but believers of different faiths are still non believers in the sense that they do not believe in the biblical Christian God.
That doesn't make them non-believers, they still use the very same indoctrinated system of belief rather than thinking and understanding for their decision making processes and they do believe in the 'biblical Christian God' but they just call it something else and apply their own characteristics.
It is a good question, though, and I think you'll be quite surprised to hear what believers have to say about being called non-believers.
So, do unto them as you have decided they have done to you is your mantra?
You said mo shouldn't apologize for comments clearly meant to show contempt of others. You said, because the others were more offensive. You felt offended, so argued that it was then acceptable to offend in return.
You're confused, again.
No, Mo comments were not meant to show contempt of others.
I'm neither confused or willfully blind. I think, since an apology was offered, neither is mo.
Indeed they were not, ATM. They were meant to show contempt of a behavior that I find contemptible. I most certainly meant to make a point, but that point was not to offend anyone or hurt their feelings, as I think you understand, and now Brenda does as well.
Emile, I'm sorry if that's how you saw it also. That is not how I meant it to come across.
...."extreme physical discomfort..........".....................
Oh my God!
Are you just naive about the facts of the Crucifixion, or are you just deliberately trying to water down the Gospel?
I can tell you about discomfort. I can also tell you about pain.
And there's a big difference between the two.
And you, as a preacher (right? you're a preacher?), surely know the Bible well enough to know that Jesus wasn't just in "discomfort"!
Arrgh. More on this later. Right now I'm rolling my eyes but also pretty angry. And I wanna go by the verse of being angry but not sinning.
Deepes was just using the terminology that I used previously. take your anger out on the atheists all you want, but try to avoid judging, condemning or pointing fingers at other believers, please. He's every bit as much of a christian as you are (despite your protests to the contrary) and he doesn't deserve this kind of vitriol from people who share his faith.
Don't tell me who to direct my anger at.
I have a right to be angry.
And I can freely admit that without it being "vitriol" as you want to label it.
I haven't called him names or threatened him.
I simply admitted to another professed Christian that I'm angry that he would call the horrible pain and suffering that Jesus went through for his and your and my sins....DISCOMFORT.
So you can stop judging me!
I don't need to "take my anger out" on you or other atheists. Because you at least have an excuse for not understanding. He does not. He was intentionally playing on your assumption that Jesus's sacrifice was just a bit of "discomfort" because He was deity and then went back to Heaven. I suppose you don't want to hear that he's playing you? Well, he is.
I'm judging you by asking you to be respectful of another believer? Is that how your christ taught you to treat people that disagree with you? Are you what I'm supposed to look to as my example of what a "good christian" means?
If I were ever to believe in god again, it would be because of believers like Deepes and Mo and others that have truly demonstrated the love of Christ. Again, he was talking to me on the level that I approached him on. He was repeating my words and my terminology. If that makes you angry, then you have more problems than just your anger, bitterness and quick-to-judge mentality - and you're really not worth talking to anymore.
If you become swayed to become a believer in a "god" that's got no power of judgement, nor the power to punish, nor the power to save, and whose sacrifice was simply a period of "discomfort" after which he flew back to heaven having accomplished nothing, then you're not gonna be a believer in the real God anyway. So, if you prefer to believe what Deepes Mind is telling you, that's your choice. But I will always continue to pray and hope that you'll actually seek the Truth.
Below is a link to an article that's based on facts of what Jesus's crucifixion would've been like, based on the Bible's words and what historians know of Roman crucifixions.
If, after reading it, (or reading about His crucifixion in the Bible; that will tell you!)...but if, after that, you still want to downplay the pain and suffering Christ went through to save mankind from..not just the "discomfort" of hell, but the eternal horror, the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the literal and spiritual pain, then choose ye.
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com … us-endure/
...and actually, that article may not even be illustrative enough of the actual pain and mockery and suffering.
I'm familiar with roman crucifixions, thanks. But if you claim that jesus was god, and that after a period of only a few hours (3-6 because the gospels cannot agree, and in fact most crucifixions took MUCH much longer, and could even last for DAYS on end - not to mention the fact that crucifixion victims were left on the crosses to rot or were thrown into pits for wild dogs to devour, and were not buried at all - it was part of the statement made by the romans to all those that would challenge their authority) and then he flew away to heaven to be right back where he started again, and a day is like a million years in the eyes of god, what do those 3-6 hours mean in the grand scheme of things, and how was any sacrifice made at all? Jesus (according to the bible) is doing just fine, sitting at the right hand of god enjoying eternal paradise.
Again, you've got a god who sends himself to earth in order to "sacrifice" himself to himself to appease himself and "save" people from a punishment that he himself intends to dole out to everyone who refused to believe in him.
Can you honestly not see the ridiculousness of that statement? Could an all-knowing god not come up with a better plan than that? Dozens and dozens of religions have practiced blood sacrifices, it's hardly an original idea.
This is the last message of yours that I will respond to. When did I actually say that God has no power to judge? I didn't. I have stated that I choose a different method of trying to reach others instead of injecting Hell into every aspect of the conversation. That doesn't mean that I have never mentioned it. I have mentioned in several other forums that ultimately I have no control over heaven nor hell and as such I leave that to God.
Now you have judge that I am not telling the truth to people even though I also refer to and use the bible to spread God's message?
You ( A professed believer) Have unfairly and inaccurately judged my belief time and time again and have actually attacked me harder than atheists have. You have judged me unfairly by taking your own interpretation of what I have stated and run with it without even remotely trying to seek any type of clarification from me to ensure you really understand what I have been stating. You have arrogantly bashed what you THOUGHT my whole belief system is when the truth is that you know NOTHING about me or what I truly believe.. The most amusing thing about this whole statement is that you told JM that she would not be believing in the real God if she listens to me, which means that you are saying that I do not believe in the real God. Well let me end with this, If I believe in the Bible, and I believe in God, and I believe in Christ and that God sent his son to die for my sins, if that isn't the "real" God then You don't believe in the "real" God either because there is only one God that the holy bible was written about..
You have taken so many shots at me it isn't funny, especially considering that you do not know me at all. I hope you feel better about trying to elevate yourself at my expense...
Matthew 7:1-5 continues to pop in my head everytime I read one of your comments.. Hopefully if you plan to pray for any of us here that you make sure you aren't praying with the spirit of Judgment because... nevermind.. I'm done speaking with you. It was fun and engaging up until you started attacking my faith (which is the same as yours).. You continue to be blessed and I pray that all of your most fervent prayers continue to be granted and God's blessings continue to fall upon you
I appreciate the defense, JM, but her reaction is valid on some levels. As a believer, it bothers me a lot at times when God is attacked or mocked or some things are derided, though I personally choose not to respond in an angry manner. I understand her anger, especially at the words coming out of the mouth of another believer. Nevermind the fact that I was relating to you on your level and using your own terminology. I should have at the very least expressed my disagreement with your downplaying of the crucifixion while still trying to explain everything else.
Hey Brenda. I didn't see anything vitriolic in your post. But, I think you might reread the post that made you angry. And think about it. You are looking at it from a human perspective. If Jesus is who you think he is Deepes analogy was sound.
I'm looking at it from a human perspective plus a Spiritual one.
And his analogy is weak, soft, and misleading on both counts.
I will not try to make the sacrifice of Jesus of no effect. Let him, if he wants to, but I will call him on it.
I didn't get the impression he was making it to no effect. But, if he was the son of God, if he is who you believe him to be, then he would have known, before he came, that it would be a fleeting moment of pain...from an eternal perspective. I'm sure, as a man, he endured all the pain you would have, but once he had risen that was put into perspective.
Think of the pain of childbirth. At the moment you endure it, it is the most horrible pain you could go through. You knew it would be, but you chose to set a course to arrive at that point. Once it is over, you can't really fathom the pain anymore. You remember it was painful, but the reward overshadows the pain. Right?
Please do not misunderstand anything about my conversation with another hubber. JM used the term first and I was responding to her as according to how she saw it. Trying to relate to her based on her terms. I certainly do not view the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary as anything less than it truly is, an act of the greatest love and atonement for myself and all of mankind. Our discussion was one that I was using her own terminology in my explanation. This does not mean that those were my specific beliefs. Once again, you are judging me based on words that you are taking out of context without getting the full understanding of what was going on.. This again is why i fail to see any point in further engaging you
And no, I am not a preacher nor would I want to be.
His few hours of discomfort saves you and I and others from eternal discomfort in the future
On the contrary, Showing God's love leads people to return that love back to God, which in turn leads them into receiving salvation. You return the love that you receive and feel. If what you are feeling is fear, then there comes that disconnect. Once again, I am speaking from experience. I grew up where Hell was preached as part of God's love. As a result, I grew up believing God and doing things out of fear of Hell instead out of love of God as well as moral and ethical behavior because it IS ethical and shows a love and reverence of God. Sorry, That wasn't an ideal relationship born out of love. it was forced obedience out of fear.
How is that different from telling people they must believe and become saved or Go to Hell? That does not teach anything about building relationship with God nor being secure in his word. That is still half of the message from the other side of the spectrum. But basically, Christ's sacrifice on the cross was for the sins of all mankind. So if someone is going to Hell for their sins, then what was the point of Christ going on the cross? That seems contradictory to say "Jesus died for your sins, but if you sin you're still going to the hell that Christ died to saved you from"
But I digress. We each have our own beliefs and there is no point in debating with each other when we both believe in God and have built our own relationship that works for us. Your relationship with Him is your relationship and my relationship is my relationship. I am secure in my belief and relationship and sure of where I will end up at the end.
There ya go.
No, you didn't say you try to get people to focus on the love of God. You talked about teaching people to "do good", and insulted Evangelicals, and basically said that people can get to Heaven by being loving toward each other, etc.
They can't. According to the word of God, they cannot.
They must recognize God as the sovreign God that He is; they must recognize Jesus as the God and Savior that He is; they must recognize that they're sinners in need of a Savior; they must realize that Jesus's message and His sacrifice were done so that people could be saved from....what?........hell.
You left out the seriousness of the choice that people must make in your effort to make people feel safe and secure just by doing good deeds. You seemingly want to soften or downplay God's power and perfection by assuming there's no hell. And tell people they can get to heaven by just "being good". If that's not ear-ticklin', I dunno what is.
You're assuming that's what I'm doing (incorrectly I might add) based on a few words. You have already judged me to be a certain way. Once again you have deemed your methods of trying to bring people to God to be better than mine, which is funny because once people get to God and find the information out for themselves the same goal is achieved, so what's the problem? souls are still being reached and saved... But again, by all means continue to hold judgment over my poor methods of winning souls to God (which are working, by the way)
can a person accept Jesus as their saviour when they have no faith that God exists?
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."
(Hebrews 11: 6)
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5
This is my deligma.. I forget where though it is written that God gives faith to those that he chooses. And doesn't give faith to those which he chooses. It would seen that he is then condeming them to hell by not giving them faith? For without faith, how can they accept Jesus?
Romans 9 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
These verses are saying much the same thing. The one I was thinking of was way back in the OT.
Point being, would God withold faith from an individual and then condem them to hell for it"
That just don't fit into the Christian concept that we have power to save ourselves through our choice to accept Jesus when we can't, not having faith in God, cause he didn't give it to us.
I'm not sure right now what Old Testament verses you mean either.....sorry; but if I find them I'll post 'em.
The ones JMcFarland posted are often debated; no one seems to fully understand them. I can give you my interpretation.
They're about free will.
Remember that God "chose" the Israelites as His people. They would be the "vessels of mercy" prepared beforehand. Everyone else would be the "vessels of wrath" prepared beforehand; namely, Gentiles, anyone who wasn't a Jew and therefore "chosen".
The Jews collectively withdrew from God many times. He condemned their actions. But He kept offering them forgiveness time after time if they would return to Him. Finally, what did He do? He provoked them to jealousy by offering salvation to the Gentiles! Should we believe that God wasn't gonna love everyone, only the Jews? Well, no, because the whole thing fit into His plan all along; He simply knew human behavior and the capacity of people to choose right or wrong; after all, He created Mankind, so He knows everything about us! So it became that anyone who chose to believe in Him and accept Christ as Savior, could be saved.
Remember the Canaanite woman who was "vexed with a devil"? Jesus at first told her He wasn't sent to her, that He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel!! But she WANTED His touch; she had Faith that He was capable of curing her; she persevered.
So you see it's about whether or not we Love the Lord and believe in Him; it's about whether we WANT salvation or not. He CAN of course choose to send us to hell and yet save others, but notice that the verses say "What if.........."
What if God did do that? Well, even if He did, it would be His right to do so, since He is the potter and we are simply the clay if He so chooses to look at it that way. But obviously He does NOT, because the Bible says anybody ("whosoever believeth") can be saved.
thankyou Brenda but I do understand all of that. but the point remains that God said, according to scripture, that he gives faith to those that he chooses to give faith to. It would seem that anyone that doesn't accept Christ as their saviour, is because God chose to NOT give them the faith required to believe in him and accept Christ as their saviour. So it seems that it is not their fault that they do not or can not accept Christ as their saviour. ???
Just the way it seems to me.
what I think Jerami is getting at, however, is that if god hardens the hearts of people (like, but not exclusively) atheists like he hardened the heart of pharaoh, then how can it be morally justified that we're tortured forever because of something HE did? That's not a moral belief system. You run into the euthyphro dilemma. Is something moral because it is commanded by god - or is it commanded by god because it is moral? Just because you claim that god can do whatever he wants and that necessarily makes it right does not fly. A bully can do whatever he wants, because he's more powerful than the people he is bullying, but it doesn't make the bully right. Might does not make right.
Sorry you feel that way.
What I know is that God is God.
Whatever He did or does or decides to do is His right. And since He knew and knows the heart of everyone, past, present, and future, I believe He hardened the hearts of those who He know would end up rejecting Him anyway.
But if you'd focus on all the Scripture that says how much He Loves you and everyone else (and there is a preponderance of those, not the least of which is the story of Jesus's sacrifice, maybe you'd find it in your heart to Love Him. That is where your free will comes into play; that is where you have the choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I mentioned drawing people in by choosing to focus on the love that's mentioned in the bible and you accused me of tickling peoples' ears. I reach people by telling them how to focus on God's love and you told me to rethink my teaching because I don't warn of hell..
The story of God's love is incomplete without the story of Jesus's sacrifice and message of repentance leading to forgiveness being attainable. And what do we have to repent for? Sin. And what are the wages of sin? Death. Spiritual death and being placed in the lake of fire (hell). So........hell is still a necessary part of the message of Christ.
I'm pretty sure you had said you wanted to teach people that it's all about being "good", not about the Love of God. Those are two different things.............hence my saying that you're trying to just tickle ears.
I'm gonna go back and see if that's what you said.........
can you define the word "sacrifice" for me?
In this case, it was the voluntary giving up of Jesus's life to pay for the sins of mankind.
If you say so. But there are other methods of bringing people to God and Christ without speaking of Hell. But that's just my opinion based on what I've seen done before. But Again we will have to agree to disagree.
I also mentioned showing the love of God, But I guess it was missed. No biggie
What other way is there?
Now, bear in mind that warning people about hell IS a part of telling them about God's Love, His love that caused Him to give up His only-begotten Son's life so that people could be saved from that hell.
So....how else can you bring them to Christ?
Because if there is no punishment for sin, then the sacrifice of Christ was needless and useless.
If people don't get the message that they're sinners in need of a Savior, they can't even fathom the reason for heaven OR hell.
So tell me again what "other way" there is?
the concept of free will is completely incompatible with the notion of predetermination. If god is omnipotent and omnipresent and knows the past, present and future simultaneously, then there is no true choice. That's what makes intercessory prayer so useless. Why pray for something when the course is already set in place? If god knows everything, then no one truly makes a choice for him at all. He's already decided - and his solution is to send people to hell and torture them forever for following his plan for them all along. This is not a moral system. It's mob-boss mentality.
If a guy walks into your shop and says "pay me 100 bucks per week, and I'll protect you from all of the other mob bosses out there - but if you don't pay me, I'll shoot you in the head" and you decide NOT to pay him - it is NOT your fault that you got shot in the head. It's the fault of the person who did the shooting. Blaming the victim is repulsive. You did not commit suicide by mob boss. You were murdered. If that's immoral, how much more immoral is it to think that an all powerful deity predetermined that you would not be given faith, so he tortures you in fire forever for doing EXACTLY what he planned for you to do?
Thanks JMcFarland that is exactly what I was saying.
If you want to know why I find the bible morally abhorrent (at least in part) you need look no further than the story of the Exodus out of Egypt.
Moses goes to Pharaoh and tells him to let his people go. Pharaoh initially says no, so god sends a plague. After that, Pharaoh AGREES to let the Israelis go. Then GOD HARDENS PHARAOH'S HEART not once, not twice but multiple times - just so he can KEEP PUNISHING HIM for not doing the very thing that he wanted to do anyway. Ultimately, god hardens pharaoh's heart enough to create the need for the Passover. Have you ever examined the passover story in depth? It's repulsive - but Christians and Jews alike treat it like a celebration. God orders the slaughter of lambs, and their blood gets smeared on the doors of the Jew's homes so the angel of death can identify them. Wouldn't god know his own people without a bloody doorway? He is supposed to know everything, after all. Additionally, god then kills the firstborn of everyone else, from the Pharaoh's son to the prisoner in the dungeons son - apart from Pharaoh (who's heart god hardened in the first place) what did the prisoner in the dungeon do to deserve his firstborn child to be slaughtered? this is not moral or ethical behavior. It's repulsive. If it happened in this day and age, there would be an outcry and uprising of epic proportions - but because it's attributed to "god" it's suddenly good?
The only thing that could make sense to me about any of that is if we were spiritual beings existing in a spirit world who then chooses to "Fall" to earth to enjoy all of these physical pleasures. It after these physical bodies die we would then return to where we came from. In this light, the death of this physical body just isn't that dastardly of a deed. Kinda like being called back into the school room during recess with 30 minutes remaining that I otherwise would have kept playing in the school yard with that little girl with curly blond hair.
Hello everyone. It's been a while. Great discussion! Being good is not good enough. Our works does not save us nor get us into heaven. Yes telling someone they are going to hell is considered a threat. The bible teaches about hell, so people need to know it's real. I have not read any postings of Brenda threatening people. Let's see how many twist my words. I'm full of the love of Christ and I love you all.
Hey Brenda. I been busy but I have not forgot hubpages forum. I see. Guess they will be back at it again tomorrow. How have you been?
I'm not in such good shape healthwise, but I'm okay. Could be better. But I'm alive and kickin'!
@Brenda, I'm glad you are doing okay. May God give you strength to endure. Hang in there.
Brenda, I'm sorry to hear you're struggling health-wise. That's a cross my husband and I bear as well. I'll keep you in my prayers and hope that God will strengthen you along the way.
As far as I have seen, all who oppose us use a few tactics. They try to accuse us with these and completely pain us black.
"You are threatening us"
"You do that because you have nothing else to stand on"
"You have a holier than thou' attitude"
"You judge us"
They will hold on this always.
This is what all you guys do. First you insist that we are saying some nonsense and then you question. Of course the question you asked is valid, but you just don't understand that you are making a dumb mistake. You make that error and foolishly continue to operate under that error.
It is not telling the people "they must believe and become saved or Go to Hell". Rather we are all going to hell. Jesus is the escape route. Going to hell is the default position. That is what we are telling you. Why do you insist that we are saying "believe in God or be punished"?
There is a difference between the two. If one does not recognize the difference they will continue to operate in error.
Augustine72, with great respect to you for wanting "open" debate and discussion, I have only just now looked at your profile.
You joined Hubpages 4 years ago. Nothing about you except that you are in India.
You want to MAKE (your word!) People know the truth.
You wish to limit what people respond with.
You are absolutely stuck in your mold as a christian.
The god that you want to tell us about is - tiny; demanding (and loving at the same time, which is contradictary) judgmental; invisible; without form; very particular as to whom "He" will admit into "His" presence.
The representative of that god apparently was able to defy the physical laws of cause and effect. He magically died in his body; then flew into the sky and visited an old man somewhere up there; came down again to this planet; again, like the best conjurer the world has ever known, re-entered that battered and exhausted body. And came alive again !!!!!
Do you, Augustine72, feel fit to enter that "Heaven?"
What caliber of thinking person would you expect to meet up there?
and what kind of god would set up such a twisted game that all people lose by default and allow his supposed enemy to win? From the time you are born, it is a mad scramble to say the right prayers and learn about the right deity and become sufficiently saved before they die at any moment, and if they follow the wrong god or say the wrong prayers or follow that god incorrectly, they're doomed to an eternity of torment. Sure sounds like an intelligent plan to me (that's sarcasm). If it's true, then your god is a sadistic, twisted egomaniac that is not deserving of praise, worship or sacrifice at all. he's just as bloodthirsty as the god of the aztecs. How repulsive.
And THIS is why I stay away from the Hell conversations with people.At the end of the day, no matter how you choose to look at it, "Believe OR ELSE" is still a threat to some people. You can call it whatever you choose, but for some it is what it is. Whether implied or direct, a threat is still a threat, no matter how you choose to see it.. Thank you for chiming in JM
Hi augustine72. Your thread has elicited a lot of discussion; good deal.
But I think you're right that the nay-sayers are gonna keep up the same mindset and words and tactics.
I think you explained it well with your paragraph about "The Error". But they won't understand that either.
In a way, it IS about telling the people they must believe and become saved or go to hell!. We do have to believe in God or else be punished. But with (most) Christians, it's not an insulting and gleeful thing to say; we say it because it's simply a fact and we want people to avoid the fires of hell; we say it as a warning, with compassion, hoping they'll see their fate can be changed by belief in Him. Unbelievers want to say that we "threaten" in a manner that's prideful or that we're glad to see them headed for hell.
If we "shake the dust off our feet", I personally have always done so with the prayer and hope that some other Christian will cross their paths whom they will listen to; it doesn't have to be me; I just hope they allow someone to lead them to Christ!
Well, as to the debate, when the other tactics don't work, they distract or ignore.
Unless I'm mistaken, Deepes Mind is ignoring my question about the work of the Holy Ghost. Reckon it could be because answering it would bring up a couple of words/reasons he doesn't want to admit to..............!
And now he's calling the crucifixion an event of "discomfort" for Jesus!
On the contrary, Brenda, I am not ignoring your question at all.. I have chosen not to respond to your question because I can easily copy and paste the scriptures dealing with the holy spirit and I can admit to everything that is written the Bible. But based on our conversation I have drawn two conclusions about you and me:
1) We have differing views of how we see the bible in how it directly applies to our life in general
2) You have already Decided that your interpretation and application is better than mine and judged me to be "lukewarm" (No I didn't miss your earlier implication of me though I didn't address it). You have also made several assumptions about me without truly having an understanding of me, my communication style, and my beliefs.
Now, there is no problem with the first conclusion because you and I are two different people and as such will see things differently. That's the beauty in God's creation, how unique we all are.. The problem is in the second conclusion because my views and beliefs regarding the Bible and how it applies to my walk with God are strictly personal. They apply to me and me alone. I do not wish to convert anyone over into my way of thinking nor my level of belief. I only seek to provide my own testimony regarding God's impact in my life as well as to continue to show God's love in my words and actions. I believe that a relationship based out of fear cannot be a true loving relationship because once the fear is gone then you are left with nothing else. It is because of this second conclusion that I have decided and am deciding to not engage you any further in debate after I reply to your other messages to me. You have your views and I have mine and I am agreeing to disagree with the understanding that your beliefs are the ones that apply best for you in your life as mine apply best for me and mine. My beliefs are not any better than your nor are yours better than mine. it boils down to what works for your life.
The crucifixion was more than a discomfort for Christ, this I am more than aware of. I was merely repeating the words that JM was using and engaging her in conversation with those same words. It does not bother me that she downplayed the crucifixion because those are HER feelings. I disagree with her assessment of it and was having a reasonable discussion with her.
I applaud you for your last attempt...fortunately this debate will go on forever. It is endless, and fortunately your own faith will only be affected. I think I understood at one time, I can't save anyone. Just give the message through my actions and not words. Those who agree will take the message while others will toss it away. It is their choice, and their lessons in life. No one can save them, but themselves. Free will is their choice, and basically they will just throw it back at you. I've just found it's better to waste my time and energy on writing hubs rather then arguing with people. I believe God will change others lives when they've had enough pain, and the pain is great enough to try something different in their lives.
If we have a brush and paint we can paint a picture however we want. You have words and you chose to describe God this way. These are just your words and just because you worded the description in this manner, it does not change the fact a bit.
Why if I were to describe you (just for example, please do not take it to heart) as a foolish, absurd, irrational and illogical guy, you (and everybody else here) would immediately jump on me and say I am judging you without knowing anything about you. Right? Could I not say the same thing about you then? Could I not say that you are judging God without knowing who He is?
I could (and have) explain that God did not make it this way but man did. But you (all atheists here) WILL NOT AGREE. I could explain why the system is such but you (again all of you) WILL NOT AGREE. So I would just ask you a question.
If the system is such that our default position now is Hell (and it is), what do you intend to achieve by rejecting it?
Only "Now" is "Heaven" or "Hell," which ever you want to make of it. Your belief that these two possible states are something you have to wait for until after your death, is the reason your life is being wasted now. It is also the fountain of your fear. Those people who translated the scriptures and taught you your religion knew and know that. They have you trapped! In a mind-set!
This is not a fact, it is your opinion. Stating an opinion as fact does not make it one. I realize the post you were referring to deserved rebuttal; but rebutting an assured (yet decidedly faulty) opinion with another opinion that implies a truth is known (when it couldn't possibly be) seems counter productive.
An opinion stated in that manner is nothing more than an attempt to insult. How, on earth, could you possibly know whether or not his life is being wasted? Simply because you disagree with him on an online forum? No matter how heinous one considers the opinion of another to be on religious matters, it doesn't impede their ability to live a fruitful life. Attempting to negate his worth because you disagree is in line with his argument. Wouldn't you say?
Although this philosophy might invoke fear in you, how can you state, unequivocally, that he is in the possession of a fountain of fear? Are you not conducting yourself in the exact same manner to the comments that elicited a less than courteous response from you?
" Only "Now" is "Heaven" or "Hell," which ever you want to make of it. "
Emile: "This is not a fact, it is your opinion." --- My statement is infinitely more of a fact than anything any religious person can say of a supposed ¨"life hereafter." The latter is a belief, not a fact.
Emile, you should know me better by now than to accuse me of attempting to insult.
When a person of christian persuasion presumes that I need to be "saved," that is a gross insult and only based upon a sense of superiority on their part. To also take it upon him or her self to ¨"pray" for me is adding insult.
To spend time in this short life that you and I have, a time when we can observe all the wonders and beauty of this planet; when we can spend time helping those who are down-trodden and oppressed; when we can stand up for those who are persecuted for their parentage or nationality, their culture or their sexual orientation; this is infinitely more useful of our finite time than worrying about what will happen after our lives end.
Everything about the christian religion is based upon this presumption that we can expect a conscious life after death. Yes, this is driven by fear of retribution in the after life. This is where your claims about Christ come in. And this is where those who desire a power over you and me do their utmost to trap us.
I am free of that. You can chose to be free of it if you wish. So can anyone else here in HubPages.
If by "courteous" you mean watering down the intent of a response for political correctness, I would try not to go down that road, although of course I (again) have no intention to insult anyone.
How about giving me a little courteous response in accepting that my choice of an atheist understanding is worthy of respect?
You've read into my comments more than was there. I do respect your right to be an atheist. But, everything is a matter of perception and you should (this is just an opinion) respect their rights too. You chose to be insulted. You bear just as much responsibility as does the Christian you choose to be insulted by. Why you let someone else's opinion get under your skin is for you to attempt to understand. Their opinions are no more a threat to you than if I were to insist aliens were going to invade your body tomorrow if you didn't send me some money. If you chose to be insulted by such a statement; whose fault is that? Mine?
No one states facts on a philosophy forum, when sticking to the subject matter. All is opinion. Something may be a fact in your perception of life but that does not make it a universal fact and calling them mired in fear, or saying they are wasting their lives is also an opinion. An unkind one.
Emile, the primary reason I stick here in these religious forums and counter the bigots is that their bigotry causes people to DIE! Often it is young men in their prime of life whose only fault has been their homosexuality.
It is ignorant, indoctrinated, hand-washing christians who contribute mostly to these tragedies. I cannot sit silently while that sick version of christianity is used to stoke the fire.
Suicide is the ultimate tragedy. Executions are horrific and so cruel. Families casting out their young men and women into the wilderness brings heart break for everyone concerned.
This IS too important to ignore, Emile.
Please don't push the "sin" back on to the man or woman who happens to be homosexual. It is bigotry that must stop, even if it means a thoroughly fresh translation of the bible.
This, again, is why I bother to discuss religion..
That's somewhat ridiculous. If you can't see how bigoted and prejudice that post is.....your loss. That is a broad stroke indictment of guilt on anyone simply because they believe in God. You might first try to understand how you are imprisoned in delusion born of fear. Then you might ponder if you aren't wasting your life chasing shadows. You are making excuses for bigotry. Just as a few of them do. How noble.
Let’s take a look at this word bigot, you use this word to describe Christians who believe differently than you, and that this religion causes people to die. It seems your primary concern is with homosexuality, and trying to force your opinion on other that this is normal behavior between two people of the same sex, and anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a bigot. Now I looked up this word bigot and this is what I found:
Extremist, diehard, dogmatist, racist, hypocrite, chauvinist.
First of all, this homosexual life style that you’ll fighting to justify, have no useful purpose but to fulfill unnatural sexual lustful desires. How can two people with the same sex organs, say two outies, how can one outie penetrate another outie? This makes no sense and serves no practical purpose, except to fulfill the unnatural lustful of one who’s going against natural sexual desire.
If you saw an elephant trying to mate with a worm, would you say this is natural and normal, of cause you wouldn’t, because its not! If you saw chicken trying to get-down with a buffalo, would you say this is normal and natural, no you would not, because it’s not! If you saw a woman trying to make it out with a dog, would you say this is natural and normal, no because it’s not! And yet one of the most unnatural acts known to man, a man having sex with another man, you call normal and natural, and anyone you cannot force your unnatural life-style on you call them bigots!
This Luciferian/satanic world that hates law and order have even changed the meaning of certain English word convince the unbelieving world that this unnatural lustful life must be excepted, or they are bigots. One of the words I’m referring to is the word, “tolerance” now all my life I understood this word to mean that I do not agree with you or what you are doing, but if what you are doing does not affect my life negatively, than I will agree to live and let live, but I’ do not agree with your life-style, and wants no part of it. That is my right and doesn’t make me a bigot! Now the word means that I must except everything you do as acceptable and normal, or I’m an out-cast from society .
So if as you say that Christians who do not agree with you and your unnatural lustful life-style are called bigots, what does that make you? At the very least, a hypocrite!!!
You aren't helping here r-o-y. A prejudicial bigot, calling another person a prejudicial bigot only makes the two prejudicial bigots dig their heels in harder.
I don’t understand what you could possibly mean that I’m not helping, why would I help you and your cause, to destroy the Church of Christ?
You are constantly calling Christians who doesn’t agree with your views bigots, and I’m not supposed to use the same language when responding to one who called me a bigot first. All I did was to show him that if by his definition, if Christians are bigots, than he must be a bit also! I think that is fair play!
heels are supose to be dug in, this is war between the powers of light and darkness, and a fight against deception!
You've been deceived r-o-y. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Your original post is an example of darkness.
Come to the light r-o-y.
I appreciate that, but I think great respect is pushing it further than I'm worthy. I don't mean to belittle the suffering anyone goes through due to the actions of another, but hate breeds hate. I'm not sure that is the world we seek. To get mad plays into their teaching that we are the darkness. If suddenly the roles we reversed and we were the majority; I would hate to think we would continue to act as they have. Even the holier than thou posts back and forth talking about preferring hell with so and so, to heaven with the evangelicals is catty and beneath us. IMO.
Please direct me to the use off the term bigot in my posts to to anyone prior to this thread. Your post screamed bigot. Didn't you notice?
You just call me a prejudicial bigot, in your last post, and now you intend to take the high ground. now show me the wheremy post screams bigot. no I didn't notice it.
As I stated, other than right here in this thread. Your post was bigoted, imo Roy. Judging others harshly because of their sexual leanings is not your place, or mine. I realize you think you are saying things to please God, but no being worthy of being called God could admire such as that.
I don’t care about other post, we’re discussing the present. How can you call another person a bigot who only responded to being called a bigot first? If your son was hanging out with dope addicts and drunkards, would you not judge those others unworthy of keeping company with your child? If not you would be an unfit parent.
You love to talk about Christians judging others, yet you constantly judge others. You don’t realize anything I’m doing when it come to the things of God, you neither know God, nor do you the things of God, are you not be putting your everlasting existence in jeopardy, and leading others to destruction.
If you were a citizen of another country and wanted to become a citizen of the United State, one of first thing you would have to do is to learn the laws of this country. Then you would need to learn the history of this country, and then you would have to swear to obey the laws. If you do not agree to these terms, you will be rejected; you can’t enter another’s country and set your own rules and laws.
By refusing to accept the laws set down by the rulers of this heavenly country [life everlasting] you tell the rulers of that country that you are not interesting in becoming a citizen. If fallen man have the sense to create laws to protect its citizens, surely, the God with the wisdom to build a universe such as our, would know what’s best for the citizen, you reject His offer, you reject citizenship in that government!
I understand the sexual relationship between a woman and man, each have the necessary sexual organs to accommodate the other. Now from this union is produced a beautiful little person, in the image of God is procreated. This union between a man and woman produced a possible future god. Here I can see the beauty and the produce of this relationship that follower and obey the laws that govern the universe. Something beautiful is produced.
Now, I ask you, please tell me what is produced is produced by the man on man sexual relationship, nothing beautiful. Its only purposes is to fulfill the unnatural sexual lust of those who seek only the fulfill of unnatural sexual lust.
You cannot become a citizen of another country and set your own rules!!!
Now, those who are deceived by you may be forgiven by God, but you as a leader in the war against the laws of God are without excurse, because you know of the letter of the laws, but not the spirit of it.
You cannot become a citizen of another country and set your own rules!!!!
I don't know what country you live in, but we don't consider sexual orientation in the same category as drug addicts in this one. Your tirade about homosexuality is why you are classified as a bigot. Not your religion. If you equate bigotry to your religious teachings, then your religious teachings are bigoted. I wouldn't bring religion into it. You only embarrass yourself by claiming a backward understanding and it embarrasses any associated with you. Unfortunately, on an online forum, by referencing your religion you tarnish the good name of any and all associated with that name.
R.O.Y. you have debased sexuality. It's fun. Try it some time without you psycho hangups.
If you discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation then you are a bigot simple as that.
That’s the problem; your only concern is with what this fallen world considers, and nothing of things of God. What you and this world considers normal, the word of God calls an abomination with no practical use, it doesn’t produce anything good. It helps spread disease, it doesn’t produce offspring, the main reason for sex is to reproduce children of God. Where are the children of God that this shameful sexual act produces?
You are ignorantly, arrogantly wrong on all accounts. Period.
Hey. Can you change your avatar? I read that, thinking janesix had written it. Boy, was I horrified. Then, I saw it was you and felt a little better.
The children raised and cared for by a loving gay couple can and usually do grow up into beautifully integrated and healthy young adults. I suppose it surprises you that they are Not more likely to be gay than those children raised by heterosexual couples.
(Sorry Emile, this post directed at R.O.Y.)
Sorry but none of that is relevant, it is your personal religious view, (it is scientifically incorrect btw as sex is incredibly important for emotional well being and mental health as well as hormone control) personally I think your view is ridiculous and provably wrong but you are more than entitled to it, none of which changes that if you discriminate on the basis of sexuality you are a bigot, definitionaly.
Millions children of God will that would have been born and may have changed the world, but because of men using their reproductive gifts from God to fulfill their own unnatural, shameful, disgraceful, degrading, no children of God bearing sinful sexual act, many possible future gods will never come into being.
O’ the seriousness of this sinful unnatural sexual act have consequence, if man would just consider the harm done to others, they would be running to God for forgiveness.
How many gods there are who will never come into existence because of man selfish unnatural use of their god producing sexual gifts?
How many gods are men guilty of preventing from coming into existence by dropping that god producing seed where it does not belong?
O’ the seriousness of this shameful crimes against God, and gods!!!
OK. You are either a Mormon gone wrong, or you are an atheist having a bit of fun at the expense of others.
Bravo, for the insane performance.
AHAHHAHAHAHA oh my.
Do you think gay people if they were not having sex with each other would just go have sex with the opposite gender? The ignorance is astounding. Brains scans show that the idea of sex with a member of the opposite sex to gay people is as distasteful as the idea of sex with a member of the same sex for straight people. So no potential children were lost at all and if anyone is to be blamed for the loss of children it would be the supposed creator for making people who are born attracted to those of the same gender only.
There are some things that unbelievers are unable to understand. It is those this things that causes them to remain unbelievers. I am going to comment on a few of those things here. I do not accept them to accept all I say. They most probably won't. But I am anyway putting it down here with the hope that someone might be benefited.
The word sacrifice is misunderstood or not understood properly here. When used as a verb the word "sacrifice" has a meaning in dictionary.
So if I have sacrificed anything, I have completely given it up. I no longer have it.
Application of this meaning of the word to Jesus would give confusion. After all you don't sacrifice something to yourself. But the problem is that is not the meaning that is applied here.
The word "sacrifice' when used as a noun has a different meaning.
Does this meaning apply here? Certainly. In the OT we see people offering sacrifices for their sins. They offer animals. The importance there is not on giving up the animal but the slaying of it. Next the priests offer these sacrifices. Again they did not give up anything that belonged to them. They just slew animals.
Now the writer of Hebrews talks about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The act of sacrificing (work of a priest) was done by Jesus. The sacrificial animal was also Jesus Himself for the remission of sins. He slew Himself. The animals were not killed to please God, so that He gives them forgiveness of sins. Rather an animal dies instead of the man. His punishment is put on the animal. But obviously a small animal was not enough to bear the punishment of the large amount of sins committed by a man. He thus had to slay more and more animals. If that then is the plight of one man what about the whole population? Therefore it was necessary that something had to be killed that could take all the punishments of all men. Therefore only the death of Jesus could absorb the punishment of all men. When someone says that Jesus gave His life for you, it means He became a sacrificial animal for you. He did not sacrifice as in give up something He had forever. Rather He performed a sacrifice.
Jesus both man and God
If God came down as a man, is He God? Yes, He still is. Is He a man? Yes, as He came down as a man. John's gospel 1st chapter would make this clear.
When God became a man, He took all the nature of a man. He felt all the pains, had all the temptations and had human experiences. Now the confusion would come out of the fact that He does miracles. Yes, it is true that God does miracles. But people tend to forget that man can use God's power to do miracles. For example, even in the OT those prophets, who we know were men, worked miracles. They were not God but God worked through them. This is the same thing that happened to Jesus as well. God worked miracles through Jesus. Or in other words Jesus worked miracles through God's power. In fact Jesus even said that if we believed Him, we could also do similar and greater miracles.
Now then, the next question would be, weather He used God's whisk away pain. Many a times Jesus foretold about His death. When he did so He used the word "suffer". If He was planning to whisk away the pain, then was Jesus lying when He said that? No. He was a man and He did suffer. He did not whisk away the pain. He said He would suffer and He did.
Also why do you assume that God is immoral? Because only under that pre-assumption does the analogy work.
No, he would still be God and not human.
But, that doesn't make humans gods, which is what Jesus was because He could do miracles and humans could not.
No, they were human, they were not gods. They didn't perform the miracles on their own.
Yes, because Jesus and God were one and the same, Jesus was not human.
Fyi, humans cannot foretell their own deaths.
I no longer debate the issues of faith , or no faith ! There are too too many people on hubs that wish simpley for divisiveness ! And simply annoying those in possesion of the simplest form of spirituality ..............Faith ! Good luck !
No He is a human every bit.
Humans can do miracles with God's power. Jesus demonstrated that.
But they did perform miracles. That was how Jesus did it too.
Even though Jesus and God were the same Jesus was still a human.
But humans do prophesy the future.
If you consider these things more important and useful, that is only your opinion based on your ignorance of the life after death. You know nothing about life after death and you just reject it because it make you more feel comfortable.
First you say that ours is presumptions. Is that not an insult? Then you say that there are some that want control over us. Is that not an assumption? You can assume that you are free. but actual freedom is in knowing the truth. You can be actually free if you want or you can assume to be free ignoring the truth.
Augustine, you do not know anything about "life after death," except that it continues in other life forms which feed on the wastes (recyclables) of our bodies. This for me is the awesome nature of life which enritches my awareness.
You may "believe" there is an after-life, a consciousness, and I respect that.
This world is big enough for you and me to live side by side with all manner of diversity.
My difficulty is when you or anyone else uses poor and unsubstantiated argument to negate my understanding. Especially when some of your argument is an insult to my intelligence. But I can forgive you for that.
Back to the topic of your Hub: in my understanding, life is what I make it, Heaven or Hell.
Finally, on the matters of insult and presumption that you asked about, I would say No in each case. Is this reasonable debate for you?
Only an opinion again. You don't know anything about spirit body.
I could day the same thing.
How come you don't realize that your arguments do the same to me?
No you get Roy into that. He has read the scriptures.
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
How does it matter anyway? I never look at anyone's profile and value them at that. I give more importance to what they say. What they say says it all. Its your thoughts vs my thoughts and not you vs me.
No, Jesus was human. Humans can do miracles.
Yes, Jesus was God but He was a Human also so He could not do anything He wanted.
But you forgot that humans also did miracles.
Very much possible.
Not the prophets of the Bible.
Now that you've switched to telling blatant lies, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
Yes because you are on to saying lies its no point continuing discussion with you.
What lies? I have been pointing out that humans could not have performed the miracles Jesus was alleged to have achieved, hence Jesus was not a human and could do whatever He wanted because He was God in a fake suit.
Granted, given his omnipotent powers, the fake suit was very convincing. But, I can't imagine it would take very much to convince the folks who lived 2000 years ago of anything considering how easily they were fooled into believing all sorts of myths and superstitions. Even back then, though, there were sparks of intelligence and a wanting to know, yet the myths and superstitions ruled their worldviews...
Spartacus: I want to know.
Varinia: Know what?
Spartacus: Everything. Why a star falls and a bird doesn't. Where the sun goes at night. Why the moon changes shape. I want to know where the wind comes from.
Varinia: The wind begins in a cave. Far to the north, a young god sleeps in that cave. He dreams of a girl... and he sighs... and the night wind stirs with his breath.
So where and how can we have our discussion about contradiction in the Bible?
By simply opening up your mind to opinions of others, in a loving way and finish casting judgment.
There is room for all points of view once we stop condemning on the basis of beliefs.
I wonder if there is a generation gap revealing itself, here. "Baby boomer" generation was called the love generation due to the influence of Neptune in Libra. The people born before 1946 were of a different mind set. Many were very competitive. We rebelled against them big time. We are still trying to shine the light as far as harmony, love and peace.
Augustine, while I appreciate your willingness to discuss the Bible's apparent contradictions, it's actually a conversation that I've had many I'm perfectly at peace with my faith, and do not need anyone to act as an apologist. I'm not a Scripture scholar, but I've had excellent instruction in Scripture, and prefer to get further instruction from those I know personally and trust. Thank you for the offer.
There are 2 lies here. I have been showing you that men in the past like Isiah, Elijah, Elisha etc in the OT and Peter, Paul etc om then NT and many in the recent past have also been performing miracles and yet you stubbornly lie that men cannot do miracles.
Secondly you also lie that Jesus is God in a fake suite making God an immoral God. Your saying anything does not make it a fact. You lie.
Again you say that God had a fake suite and He fooled the people at that time making God and immoral being. That is a lie. So Who is the one who is lying?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
Obviously that implies Jesus is god.
I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
For by him [Jesus] were all things created.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
1 Timothy 3:16
God was made manifest in the flesh.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
The bible certainly seems to say Jesus was god. Mind you throwing around the term "lie" is a bit of a stretch when discussing a story several thousands of years old, the veracity of which is utterly unproven, that makes some very wild claims and that is believed to be false by about 70% of the worlds population.
No, you have not shown that at all. Men cannot do miracles.
Acts 19:11 - And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
Only God can do miracles.
Sorry, but Jesus is nothing more than God hiding in a fake suit. Jesus was not a man.
Your God is immoral, there are many examples of His immorality in the Bible. That still doesn't show He didn't fake the suit.
You make me sound as though I am the one wanting to discussion with you on the topic of contradictions in the Bible. I want to remind you that you were the one who, while claiming to be a Christian openly declared among these non-believers that our scripture has contradictions. I opposed you strongly at this and that is when you said that you would be happy to discuss the issue with me. Go back and check what you have posted.
Atheists say that the scripture has contradictions and hence cannot be considered a valid document. The fact is that there are no contradictions in the Bible and hence it is a valid document. If you claim that the scripture has contradictions and at the same breath say you are a Christian, you are contradicting your self. Is the scripture trustworthy or not? If not why do you trust it? If you cannot support you claims, please do not make ignorant claims that causes damage to Christianity.
You're right...I did offer to discuss it further. I was a bit put off, however, by the multiple emails you sent me regarding the conversation and then the multiple times you sort of ''called me out'' right here in the forums.
I am a Christian. Believe it if you will, it's no skin off my nose either way. I very sincerely admit and acknowledge that there are apparent contradictions in the Scriptures if they are read literally.
There are those with whom I would not mind discussing this topic, but at the moment, you are not one of them. I felt a bit stalked and chose as a result to end the conversation.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to ''help me understand'' but I feel that I already do.
Have a great day!
Can I ask you a question? Will you answer?
You claim to know that hell does not exist and it is a mere threat. How do you know this? What evidence do you have that Hell is not real and you won't be going there? Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There are and have been countless faiths that have dominated their areas and had fervent believers, they have all had one trend in common #1 the used similar brainwashing techniques to accrue power and wealth #2 They claimed they had THE truth.
I don't KNOW that god does not exist, just from the available evidence it's incredibly unlikely as that would imply some sort of magic or supernatural world that we never seem to see, assuming a god exists it's incredibly unlikely he cares about mankind at all, why would the god who created a trillion trillion suns across a near infinite universe be concerned with one species on a remote rock, assuming he does care about humanity it's incredibly unlikely that any faith has figured out what he wants from us, assuming somehow Christianity happens to be the one of all the numberless faiths that figured that out it's still incredibly unlikely that he would invent a very painful place to send our souls (again on the wild assumption that souls exist).
Really the whole idea is laughable no more than scared children clinging to fairy tales that make them feel better, not even original fairy tales but just ones slightly adapted from other faiths. Regardless of whether you are a believer or not that is the explanation for all of those so many faiths but one, the far more rational answer is that it's the explanation for all of them.
Yes Jesus is God and I did not deny that. But He was also a man.
First a story being thousands of years old does not make it false. You seem to have such vague beliefs. Then your claim that these stories are unproven just shows you have just not seen enough evidences. Again just because a majority of people believe in something does not make it true. All you people have is only such allegations and nothing concrete.
God and man... yeah not buying that at all. What defines a man is our limitations and abilities, a being that is all powerful, all knowing and can do magic is not a man at all.
My beliefs are not vague at all, I believe there is no god, there is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no divine purpose at all, we are simply a more evolved version of the animals we see all around us with lives no more existentially meaningful than theirs, I am quite happy to change my view should it turn out to be wrong but that is what the evidence indicates.
The claims are unproven, for the vast majority of them the only evidence is the bible itself, everything from the Gexodus (for which there is absolutely no archeological record) to the very existence of Jesus is unsupported by any other source and many of the stories we flat out know to be false like the story of the earth's creation or Noah's Ark.
UNs Code 21 Human Genome Code Redesign, HAARP, Project Blue Beam, Project Montauk, Philadelphia Experiment, and many other government programs researching the human brain, dreamhead, radio signal, "matrix" or vacuum of space and our TV dreamhead, photonics, laser beams, and many other research programs to find and develop the God particle through the mutilation of souls proves God will never exist. Many mutilations can be seen on my Google account.
They have spent my entire life imaging my body and my body in my mother's womb, to make a "baby" on the "other side of life" (other side of gamma brainwaves and gamma nuclei) on my clitoris -- literally. They created the structure in the world from government facilities to fast-food servers to help themselves to other souls brainwaves that are picked up and received in their "R" world.
The R world is a virtual reality on the "other side" of life using a fiber optic of life where they have been turning the four colors of STED microscopy laser beams (denaturing life) into a quantum image of the world and themselves into a "green lantern" or "magento". They start this denaturing process (heating up and reforming the body and brain) with hair follicles and a central nerve in the big toe on the left foot (when I was a child), which later develops into "restless leg syndrome" or a buzzing in the left foot and, at times, odd buzzing in the brain) where they turned the quantum image of the world and themselves into a "green lantern" or "magento".
They use orgasm which doesn't meet the brain to make the brain keep seeking orgasm to bring gamma brainwaves to the next hump of light and sound with this denatured image of the body while killing the soul in bits and pieces to turn the light of the soul into an xray, which acts more like matter than light. As they make the central nervous system through the clitoris 'brighter', they are not only making a baby on the end of my clitoris, stretching my central nervous system out of my body (a rack they made sure I knew of before I started to hear them -- they call this "masturbating" and made sure everything I write to explain the 'story' is not "family friendly" to the viewers or readers of the horror of what 'gangbangers' (Haarpists, Blue Beam users, etc) have been doing to my life, my soul, my dreams, my 'space', my existence.
I have many images where they are using beams through my computer (biometrics), a hand reaching out of my computer and grabbing my phone, a 3-D super-blue light holograph of my computer monitor. All the while, throughout me entire life, these many, many gangbanging souls have been planning and performing numerous horrors and atrocities against my body, mind, life, and soul -- they simply call this "destiny".
God has no right to do the things these "people" -- souls -- have been doing to my existence. God will never and does not exist. Through their "voice-to-skull" transmissions, they stake claims they "created God".
oooo.....kay, Am I the only confused by this?
Deepes, surely you can understand all of that.... it's in plain English, all good scientific stuff, very serious.......
Now.... what was he/she talking about? Something the HubPages would not normally countenance, I would think. But all in good fun, obviously.
What's wrong with you guys, this stuff makes perfect sense.
Hell is a man made myth. You Christians who believe in hell, follow another gospel than the one the apostel Paul brought us.
Look who's talking, your entire religion is man made myth.
That's probably the most intelligent thing you've said thus far. Well done.
Alot more intellegent than what you have ever put on the table with your troll like comments.
No, you offer no intelligence whatsoever, only fantasy based beliefs.
Thats not true. I never cast pearls before unbelievers.
Let me ask you this, if you hold your pearls only for believers, how can you hope to change the world? One issue is that some believers only share their thoughts and belief with other believers. This is the equivalent of preaching to the choir because you are giving information with people who already agree with you. How is that winning new souls.. Sometimes, giving pearls isn't limited only to your words, but also your actions and how you handle people. If we are to call ourselves Christians, we must be Christ like and follow his example. I don't remember seeing Christ fighting anyone back when they were beating him up
The answer is simple. Bring the gospel to the unbeliever, but if they reject it. Dust your feet on the way out.
This is what the Bible says, true. The difference is in the way we dust our feet on the way out. A lot of Christians dust their feet off yet dirty their spirits when they use scriptures as an insult on the way out.
For example, You told ATM that you do not throw your pearls to unbelievers.. Atheists know the true words of the scriptures. As such, you can be seen as calling ATM a pig. This is little different than a Hell believer using the Hell threat. Basically, It does not reflect the example that Christ set out during his ministry, especially when he was rejected at Nazareth. He merely helped who he could and then moved on with love and respect. He didn't throw out insults on the way out no matter what was said to or about him. even in our separating ourselves from conversations as well as avoiding conversation with those who disagree with us and the way they do it, we still must reflect the love, respect, and tolerance of Christ. Simple. If you do not agree with ATM and feel that he is a troll, don't reply if he comments on one of your messages. Also don't stir anything up by telling others not to engage him because it shines worse on you because you are a Christian firing on him (and other atheists). simply avoid and ignore any post that has his name (or any name that you know you dislike) attached to it.
By all means, if you wish to end a conversation with anyone (even me), there are ways of doing it without trying to get the last insult in (even if you are being insulted).. Turn the other cheek..
Sticks and stones, my friend..
I'm using you and ATM as an example because I'm seeing the interactions. Not saying ATM is right in his approach, but I see his response drawing you away from what the bible says (namely Romans 12:10-20). Keep God in mind and let the rest fall as it will
Deeps, let us both get something straight. I maybe a Christian, but I am not good at it. Nor have I ever claimed to be good at it. I am not troubled if ATM is troubled. He brought that apoun himself with his troll style comments. ATM said that I offered him fantasy based beliefs. Truth is, I never did. This is what one expects from someone who sets traps and likes to twist the words of my Christian syblings. I stand behind what I say when I say I dont cast pearls before unbelievers, but I should of said determined unbeliever. I didn`t say what I should of said out of scripture knowing that would be too offensive for him. Next time I will offer him a tissue.
Of course.. Christian doesn't mean perfect. We all make mistakes (especially me).. My whole comment wasn't really about whether or not ATM's feelings are hurt. It was more basically stating that we have to answer for our own actions, not how someone else takes them..
Look at it from a different perspective. ATM is a person at a keyboard, same as you, same as me. We probably live hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other. He has no direct effect on your personal life nor you on his. at the end of the day, we all unplug from the matrix and go about our lives. Why let a stranger at a keyboard rile you up to the point where you go outside your own personal convictions and get pissed?
That,s the thing Deeps, He doesnt rile me up.
Okay, But even in not getting riled up, repaying insult for insult goes against the Bible. Also what is the point in going to other forums and telling others not to waste their time? You'll never know, someone else might be able to get through. It has happened before
The attention I'm getting is very flattering *blush* - you guys and gals are just swell.
By the way, Deepes, you do realize of course just how dangerous that verse is and how it's been abused throughout history?
It's not something that should be recommended to anyone.
I have just looked up those verses from Romans. (Namely Romans 12:10-20). First I looked at the King James Bible reference, particularly where it talks about "heaping coals of fire on the enemy's head." This would seem out of place compared with the compassion portrayed in the previous few verses.
Then I checked in the Complete Jewish Bible, where it's clear that verse 20 was a quote from the Tanakh, written 400-500 years before. I am not sure of the significance of this, but there might be a scholar who can enlighten us to its meaning.
10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
The last verse (20) talks about burning coals, but it doesn't mean what it infers. It's more along the lines of "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". By exhibiting kindness, compassion and love in the face of abuse, persecution or discord, the believer is, in essence, demonstrating the love of Christ through their actions. They refuse to strike back, and those actions - more than any of their words - will demonstrate their message and cause the persecutor to rethink their position. It's human instinct to strike back at those we perceive to be attacking us. These verses are calling on christians to ignore that instinct and exhibit christ-like behaviors instead. When faced with something unexpected like compassion and kindness, the unbeliever will face cognitive dissonance and question what makes the christian so different.
"Sticks and stones....." yet words can be the most hurtful of all and the hurt can last forever.
Beautiful! The dust is too often mixed with the spit of our epithets as we walk away. And just as you say, the Scriptures are often what we use as epithets...and I can guarantee that is not the work for which they were intended.
No, don't bring the gospel to the unbeliever, never, ever.
It has already been rejected, you need not bring it any more. Thank you.
Add insult to injury?
We're not really supposed to add insult to injury. what that scripture means is that you should not take anything with you when you leave that conversation. ton't let it affect you
But, that is the opposite of learning. One should always take away things from a conversation to ponder how and why it affects them. If you just dust your feet off, the entire conversation instantly becomes a monologue of selfishness and disdain.
Well, let me reword this.. Don't leave the conversation angry... A little better?
You know, I think this is one of the most important points you've ever made, ATM (and you know I think you make a lot of good ones).
When you have brought an idea to someone in the hope that they will agree with your presentation and they do not, you have two options. Leave them alone and move on to someone else, or continue to engage them and move on to something else. You can only continue to engage someone about something they do not wish to discuss for so long before they tell you in no uncertain terms to get lost!
IMO, that's what Jesus meant to teach us about sharing the Gospel with others. I think one of the greatest gifts that a person can possess is knowing when to leave well enough alone. For example, as Jesus was being led away from the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter got pissed - REALLY pissed - and lopped off a guard's ear. Jesus didn't encourage nor share his attitude. He rebuked Peter, healed the guard, and moved on. What was the imperative? To show the guard the love of God in action, or to keep the 'evil ones' away from Jesus? Because I can guarantee that if the point was to 'preach the Gospel,' Peter wasn't doing a great job of it. And Jesus called him out on it.
Leave well enough alone when someone's told you it's not a priority for them. Move on to the things you might agree on, or part ways.
Sorry, ATM, this is not directed at you so much as to the person you were responding to, but I wanted to include your point, and say that I agree with it.
Deepes Mind ask how does that win new souls?
I ask, if universal salvation (by any name or description) is correct, the need to win "new souls" doesn't exist.
I think the prize to be had if more people lived a Christ like life, here on earth, would be more peace and harmony in this life. I think this should be the message coming from the pulpit.
Life for me is what I focus upon. When I focus on making life just a little bit more pleasant for someone else, eventually this is supposed to spill over back into my enviroment.
When I react negatively toward negative behavior, this also spills back into my immediate enviroment.
When we preach fear of hell fire, our immediate enviroment becomes filled with this fear.
I don't think God intended our lives to be filled with fear; but instead ... Love and Peace and Harmony. In order for us to achieve this, we should know our limitations within our own enviroment discerning what and who we allow to enter. We can not enter someone elses enviroment to change it into conformity with ours, we would only be disrupting theirs.
"If" we really did live a Christ like life (?) others would WANT to have the peace and harmony they see in our lives. We wouldn't have to preach to anyone while our kind of enviroment would continue to expand.
Didn't say any of that right but maybe someone got the point I so poorly described.
Anyway gotta go out in the world ( in a few minutes) back later.
Interestingly enough, a Mormon recently visited my doorstep while I was out, the very first time that's ever happened, and left a calling card, an invitation for a free copy of the The Book of Mormon. I just might take him up on that offer.
That is interesting..My house has been deemed a "no knock" home by Mormons. Something about me being Satan or something...LOOL *shrugs**
Like I said, it's the first time Mormons have come to my door. I have yet to meet them and offer them that very same alternative.
Oh, ATM, do! I had a Mormon friend at work who gave me one, and it was a fascinating insight. I had a lot of prejudices about the Mormon church. Reading the Book of Mormon dispelled some and confirmed some, but in the end, it was very educational.
As an aside, that woman remains to this day one of the kindest, most genuine people I've ever known, and I consider myself lucky to have known her. Interestingly, she married an atheist. Go figure.
I'm with you on that one, Mo. I too have never met an arrogant Mormon, ready to "share" at me. That's what surprises me so much that there are Mormon evangelists out there. I look forward to our first meeting to see what he has to say.
The Jehovah's have sunk pretty low these days, all they come around with lately are pamphlets with the headlines, "The Top Six Lies Told By Christianity"
What a hoot.
Yup, I haven't been approached by a Jehovah's Witness in forever. I'm always pleasant, but I always say that I'm not interested. I refuse their offers of literature, and when they ask if they can talk to me about the Bible, I always say that I'd love to share the views of my church as well. That turns them tail usually. Saddens me, really.
The trick is to never let them know you're offering anything, except to listen. Then, slowly and surely start picking their arguments apart.
For example, with the "Six Lies of Christianity" meeting, I allowed the Jehovah to point out and explain those lies. All he could muster was to state those particular tenets of Christianity were false without a shred of evidence.
My argument to him was not about the lies, but about how dishonest he thought it to knock on peoples doors and slander other religions in order to gain converts.
I invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my home as often as they've come and discuss the bible with them.. now it's usually a short conversation once I really dig into and start telling them verbatim what I know they're going to tell me.. yeah, they usually leave pretty quickly after that telling me that their pastor would be coming.. I have yet to meet a pastor yet.
Mo, that's exciting news for me, the dreaded atheist. Wonder if there's a Mormon guy out there who would like to come and work for me!
by jerami5 years ago
As soon as we get a little bit of it ... It causes us to get stupid. And to all them people out there that hasn't had a little bit of it yet ?? WELL? come back and...
by Fairbear8 years ago
I'll pick up on this thread where I left off in the last, but on a new topic. The last one was about a flaw in Christian theology, namely, the impossible definition of God. This one is about protective coloring in the...
by chelseacharleston6 years ago
Are the ultimate truths outside ourselves or are we better off listening to what arises from within?Should we be guided by books and others, or are we better off fine tuning those inner whispers and feelings to lead the...
by Rafini6 years ago
What is a fundamental question? According to the dictionary, 'fundamental' means basic, or essential. I need to determine the fundamental question involved in an assignment in order to write an argumentative...
by Dave Barnett7 years ago
I've heard it, maybe you have too. You may have possibly said it yourself, I know I did. The fact is this: There is only one truth, but the truth can be spoken about an infinite number of things. I beleive that we are...
by quietnessandtrust8 years ago
If you believe a lie for a given period of time and then find out the truth about it and realize you believed a lie all along and all the while called it "your truth"...then how do you know that what you now...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.