why jesus jew and not christian?

[Jenyar]

I paid attention to your argument, I just didn't agree with it. Sure, you're forever guilty of something, but that doesn't mean you punish someone the same way at the time of their crime as compare with hundreds/thousands/eons in the future. I'd hate to think the justice system of humans would be based on your idea, for then we'd have judges saying "You're always guilty", "You can never pay for your crimes", "You must be in jail until you die".

And so we're forever stuck with crime and criminal minds with no power to do anything about it but punish them and try to compensate for the effects. We can't eradicate it. God takes care of the requirements of justice we are unable to meet. What part of a man is it that sins? It is only his hand that steals, but his whole body is punished. It is his mind that transgresses, yet we leave it free. In fact, those sins go unpunished in all of us. If we don't correct them, who will? But we must remain content with damage control.

Does justice ever stop? Is it ever satisfied enough to retire for good? Isn't that just as much a prison in we live in?

"You're always guilty"
until someone with the authority declares your innocense. Who has the moral authority to pronounce you innocent?
"You can never pay for your crimes"
because they are against God, and what can you possibly give that will restore your life with God? God pays for them.
"You must be in jail until you die"
Death is our prison, justice is our jailor. I challenge you to deny that. If you're content with that, then hell is contentment with death.

And yes, hell is God's wrath. Check out these verses and then tell me that hell is not God's wrath...
What do you think these verses are saying? There are other verses which refer to God's wrath, but I figure, why quote them, because you may say that they only refer to the Tribulation.

I stand corrected, but I have a better quote:

Deut.32:22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,
one that burns to the realm of death [Sheol] below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.​

Note that this is a judgment against God's own people, Israel, who "deserted the Rock, who fathered them, and forgot the God who gave them birth".

John 3:36 says God's wrath abides on the unbeliever. So God is always mad at the unbeliever, which includes his sentence in hell, wouldn't it? If you don't believe hell is God's wrath, please show me from the Bible that it's not.

I believe hell is not "reserved" for some, but is the fire in which sin and death itself burns (Revelations). Can you stand in the fire without getting burnt? Can you endure death? And it's not God who placed us in the fire - it is the result of the first desertion of man, and of every man.

Sure, he's still guilty. But the punishment scenario you envision is unrealistic, because you don't believe anyone can ever pay for their crimes, or even ask God for forgiveness in the afterlife, not even for an eternity.

When you die, you're life is complete and your decisions are final. Live life as you please, because you can always ask for forgiveness later? I don't think so. And you believe death is eternal anyway, unless you're into reincarnation. It's just that you believe consciousness is terminated. That would be true if our lives were only natural, and if God didn't give you life.

Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.​

And the fact remains that the slightest wrong thing would be guilty of hell according to Christianity, am I right or am I not? In reply to your example of high treason, let's say there's a boy, who reaches the "age of accountability", and he steals $1, and he was raised in an atheist household, and he doesn't believe in God. Then he gets ran over by a car and dies. Now, don't deny this Jenyar, please, don't. In Christian thought, does this boy go to heaven or hell? So stealing $1 would be enough to get hell, right? You can say it's not, but you know it's true. Tell me that it's not Christian theology which says the slighest sin warrants eternal hell. You're envisioning in your mind the worse kinds of criminals, and then saying God needs to punish that. But that's not Christianity, Jenyar. Christianity says the slighest crime is infinite, so the thief of $1 is just as offensive in God's eyes as Hitler. I find that view incredible and offensive.

In the first place, what is the "age of accountability"? In Christianity, it's not an age, but a mindset. Your very existence is accountable for itself, responisble for itself. In the second place, all sin is forgiveable, except rejecting the power of forgiveness itself. In the third place, we don't get to decide who *deserves* what. Muslim wisdom says a child's parents are his heaven or his hell, and I have no doubt about that. God doesn't prevent any child from coming to Him, and doesn't tolerate anyone or anything preventing children coming to Him.

And some might reject Christianity altogether because they think it's wrong, IF you preach it to them. And what would that warrant in Christian thought? IF the Muslim/Jew/Baha'i/Zoroastrian/Deist/whoever could get into heaven without explictly believing in Jesus, and just needed to maintain the path that they're on, I'd think nothing would justify preaching Jesus to them, if by preaching Jesus they would reject that message and get eternal damnation.

So your logic is to leave people in ignorance, because that *might* save them, and informing them might be enough to make them stop being who they are for the worst. The 'path we're on' has no power to save - it is only God who saves.

Acts 10:28
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.​

I'm not at all certain I would be found "innocent" in any deity's eyes. I do not even remotely claim I'm innocent. But I do claim I don't deserve eternal torture, and that the standard of "perfection or hell" is absurd. If God wanted to kick my butt from here and back for the things I've done wrong in my life, then I guess I'd have to lump it, even if I didn't like it. But I still find a *realistic* punishment scenario perhaps infinitely better than what Christianity teaches (most in hell).

I agree: no life deserves death. But do we automatically live forever? Do we automatically have spiritual life available to us? Who decides what we deserve? If it weren't for our concept of justice, we wouldn't even have the ability to conceive of anyone "deserving" anything. It's a moral judgment, based on certain assumptions. Different considerations apply for each situation, and everything is judged within its context and by its own merit. Blanket statements are impossible where justice is concerned, except that "all will be judged".

You don't claim to deserve eternal torture. Have you any reason to make that claim? Any basis to support it? No, you have to assume first that my God is who I say He is, and does what He say He will do, and then realize that you are guilty as I am. But by those standards, you are included in His mercy. Now the circular argument is that you reject His judgment because you have not believed in Him, and will therefore be excluded from his mercy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One no-one forces you to perpetuate.

I'm not trying to convince you that those who haven't heard are without hope, Jenyar. I was just wondering why you quoted those verses, because they don't seem to be directly addressing those who haven't heard. But, you are well aware that many Christians throughout history didn't see things the way you do (those who didn't hear "the gospel", after Jesus came, can get into heaven, or those who are in other faiths after Jesus came can get into heaven). You may *want* to believe that such people can get into heaven, but has this been the consistent position of Christianity? If it truly was the position, why has there been such a press to preach "the gospel"?

Because the gospel can force its way into any circumstances to provide hope. But "preaching the gospel" has been waterered down to a point where preaching it's message is actually obscuring the message, as you indicated. It was never a "man on a pulpit", but "fishers of men" - a profession like our earthly occupation, but with a different focus. Being Christ to all people, so that those who haven't heard can see, and not be dependent on words or language, or Bibles.

Is anyone excluded from hearing or seeing and believing? Is there anyone God cannot reach, if we don't? I think the problem is that hypothetical people don't exist. If the gospel declares that you can trust God with your life, no matter how guilty of sin you were, and that salvation is available to all, then you have to prove the opposite if you want to believe it. Salvation is available to those who live by the laws written in their heart, because they can judge themselves and be judged by their judgment. People like Rahab, who act according to a different law than the one they were born into can fulfill all the commandments. They expect no less, why should you or I expect more?

This depends on the time/situation they were born in, as you know. But the fact still remains, there are lots of people who truly think that they've already FOUND God/the gods, right within the tradition they already have, and see Christianity not as the "ultimate truth". Your scenario is kind of like "Sincere people will believe the gospel, once they hear it", but I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Christianity has been in India, how long? And look how many Hindus and Muslims are there. And there are some Jains and Zoroastrians. Are these people just all insincere people who really know Jesus is the "only way" and refuse to submit? I doubt it.

Don't you think it's possible to be sincerely wrong? Hitler sincerely believed in his cause - did that exonerate him? I know of many people who are struggling for survival in India, and many who are Christians. Hearts, not intentions, determine what you do. And our judgment is dependent on what a person does. We can't see further than that, and because of that we can only judge according to society's laws. If someone wishes to live in a country, it's his responsibility to become aware of its laws, not so?

These NT people believed in Jesus though, didn't they, even though the later theological certainties (Jesus was the Messiah, 2nd person of the Trinity, he paid for our sins) were revealed later, right?

Yes, but did that make them feel they were the exclusive and special owners of salvation? No, on the contrary. Those who were gentiles were perhaps more aware of being saved by faith in God rather than personal knowledge of the law or acquanitance with Jesus himself.

I have a conscience like (most) others, but I don't claim I live a "moral" life, as if I'm some bastion of morality. Some things just make sense from a societal point of view, why would I go around killing people? Now, if society didn't exist, and it was truly dog eat dog, then I guess that's the type of person I'd be, wouldn't I? I find it a bad proposition, to say that the only reason we should be moral, is that we fear hell and hope for heaven. We should be moral because we have respect for other people, not because of alleged eternal consequences, in my opinion. I almost find it scary that this argument exists, that perhaps the only thing restraining people from being horrible people is hell/heaven. IF that's the basis of one's morality, what happens if it's drug out from under them, and they lose faith? Scary thought.

That's a very superficial view of morality. Respect for other people has eternal consequences. That only emphasizes a responsibility you already feel - it doesn't undo it. But at the extremes of life, a vague feeling that we ought to be moral to each other loses out to "greater" needs. What Jesus taught is that there can be no greater need. And not just for vague lovey-dovey moral life, but a consistent and conscious responsibility for one's actions, whether they are seen or not.

If faith is the only reason that someone is moral, he will have a lot to answer for when he stands accused of being a hypocrite. They are white-plastered sepulchres for trying to acquire status with God as much as one who is only moral to acquire status with people.

Now, it's fairly obvious that the literal sun is not within close proximity, you're speaking of the sun when you're really speaking of the sun's warmth. The sun is not with me because it never was with me. Surely you agree.

I'm not impressed. That's a technical explanation that depends on a literal understanding, which is not how language works. The radiation that we receive on our skins is the same radiation that leaves the surface of the sun. The sun's proximity isn't measured by density. Does its identity end at its core, or the outer reaches of the gases surrounding that, or to the edges of its solar flares? By its presence, we mean that we have seen it, and its absence doesn't negate that observation. The sun is neither "here" nor "there" technically speaking, because we don't have Cartesian co-ordinates in our minds when we say that. But it can intelligibly be "present" in many ways, and even absent in other ways. It can be seen in many ways, and invisible in other ways.

God's presence to the Israelites, was different from Satan's presence with God. We apply the same spatial language because we can't help but anthropomorphize things. But looking for contradictions using such forced "proximities" is mere ignorance. How far from the bush was holy ground? What principles or laws were at work when Moses took off his shoes to approach God, or when the High Priest entered the Temple?

But he was the author of sin when he met up with God in Job, wasn't he? Before the creation of the world, you could argue that he wasn't the author of sin. But that's not the scenario in Job, is it? He rebelled long before Job, Jenyar. Or do you believe the serpent deceived Eve because God ordered him?

The author of lies. Lies, not sin. Sin is believing those lies, and sin is lying. Whether Satan was the author of sin or not, he could not make Job sin. He tempted Job and he tempted Adam. Job wasn't to be tempted, like Adam, but that gave him no more justification against God than Adam. Job is written as a stage play, a poem. It's characterization doesn't lie on the same level as Genesis.

Jenyar, you're speaking of a soul as if it's some matter which God (even though he's supposedly omnipotent) can't destroy. You think God could violate the conservation of energy when he created energy, but couldn't violate it by destroying it. Isn't this a convenient hypothesis? Why should I believe that? I submit that God could destroy matter. You're acting like an omnipotent God is bound by some physical laws. That's somewhat humorous to me. The bottom line is that you're trying to rationalize the issue. There is no logical reason why God couldn't destroy a soul, as in, poof, it's gone.

The soul belongs to God, just like breath belongs to those who breathe. God breathed life, whether matter existed or not, and what is from God is eternal. It isn't matter as we know it that will be destroyed in hell, it is what matter gave birth to. The spirit that gave birth goes back to its father. Spirit goes back to God, dust goes to dust. Matter doesn't matter, but it's all we have to relate to. If it had nothing to do with God, we wouldn't be warranted to make analogies, but it does. Analogies aren't perfect, though, but they prevent us from making baseless "logical" assertions like "poof it's gone". A philosophical God might have done that, but we don't have the luxury of dealing with a purely philosophical God. If rationalization is funny to you, then I can see why you have a problems thinking about these issues - they're so foreign to you that you can't apply any mode of thought consistently.

But also read the verse (Rev 14:11)

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Doesn't sound like a cup of tea to me.

Rev.14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."​

Then a second angel proclaims the fall of Babylon, the "origin" of sin, a third angel comes with a warning to those who think and do (forehead and hand) like the beast (who parodies the Trinity). After all of this, anyone who still rejects God and his salvation will inherit the punishment of the beast, because they belong to him. They have chosen him, in spite of everything.

No, it's certainly no cup of tea. Do you wish it were?

 

[anonymous2]

And so we're forever stuck with crime and criminal minds with no power to do anything about it but punish them and try to compensate for the effects. We can't eradicate it. God takes care of the requirements of justice we are unable to meet. What part of a man is it that sins? It is only his hand that steals, but his whole body is punished. It is his mind that transgresses, yet we leave it free. In fact, those sins go unpunished in all of us. If we don't correct them, who will? But we must remain content with damage control.

Minds "transgressing" aren't real sins, in my opinion, unless they lead to actual things done wrong. People can fantasize, even sometimes of antisocial thoughts. This still boils down to God infinitely punishing mankind for who we are, the good and the bad. Sounds very much like overkill to me.

Does justice ever stop? Is it ever satisfied enough to retire for good? Isn't that just as much a prison in we live in?

Justice doesn't stop, but you're equating "justice" with eternal torture. Justice makes a ruling, but it doesn't prevent rehabilitation unless you're referring to rather large crimes, and even in those cases, the punishment is death, the cessation of one's life, not life forever in torture. I do not at all buy into the idea that just because God's "infinite" that sin against him must be "infinite". It's just a pretty correlation using the word "infinite" with no logical necessity. I could just as easily say every prayer to God is infinite, every prayer Jesus made to God was infinite (so he'd never need to pray again), every good deed done is infinite, every good deed a Christian does is infinite, deserving of infinite rewards of infinite quality in an infinite heaven with infinite mansions. You act like God is some machine of purity "up there", kind of like that Star Trek episode about a space probe having its programming altered, which made it set out to destroy all imperfect biological units. That an intelligent, loving God would react this way is incredible.

Jenyar, please think about this. You maintain that God is so holy, so perfect, so infinitely disgusted at the slightest wrong mankind does, even though he created us and knew we'd have those faults (we're imperfect), so he can't tolerate the slightest wrong getting in heaven, he must torment it forever in the lake of fire, then you say that he did something incredibly unjust, the most unjust thing he has ever done, he arranged to have Jesus, a perfect man, killed so he could get his wrath appeased. If he was truly so holy, so perfect, so just, so infinitely disgusted at the slightest wrong mankind does, then how could he have done such a wrong thing himself? Wouldn't he have to punish himself for eternity for his own injustice? Even if you argue that God is somehow punishing himself by the atonement, it'd still be unjust, wouldn't it, since wasn't God perfect, holy, upright? How is it fair to punish ones "perfect self"? A murderer can not have his debt to society paid for by placing someone innocent of murder in his place. You maintain strict justice but in fact your God is not strictly just.

Christianity is like this-it tries to make you feel guilty for breathing. Everything you do is disgusting in God's sight.

"You're always guilty"
until someone with the authority declares your innocense. Who has the moral authority to pronounce you innocent?
"You can never pay for your crimes"
because they are against God, and what can you possibly give that will restore your life with God? God pays for them.
"You must be in jail until you die"
Death is our prison, justice is our jailor. I challenge you to deny that. If you're content with that, then hell is contentment with death

See, this is why Christianity disgusts me. Now, of course, you can't actually give something to an omnipotent God, as if he couldn't get it himself, but tell me how you can take from an omnipotent God, or actually hurt an omnipotent God? You'd think God would at least find our gestures of trying to "repay" something of worth, instead of filthy rags. Picture a baby giving something to one of his parents, thinking it to be of value. But you as a parent know that it's a worthless trinket. What's your response? To chastise the baby or to at least act like the baby has done something selfless? This perfect, judgemental being who sees anything remotely wrong as deserving of infinite punishment does not sound like the type of person I'd want to be around for eternity. How in the world could I actually hurt an omnipotent God? And just because it's a sin against an holy, omnipotent, eternal, everlasting (or however many words one wants to use) deity, why in the world would that mean it deserves eternal punishment? If anything, since God is omnipotent, any pathetic thing you could try to do to him would be laughed off. I have a very hard time picturing such a God actually being hurt by what we do. Could he be mad? Sure. You can argue that if such a God exists, then he can do whatever he wants, which I won't argue with, but to say that it's JUST to eternally torture someone for even the smallest of sins, all that's saying to me is might makes right, and it's "just" because God says it is. That's not much of an argument in my opinion.

So your logic is to leave people in ignorance, because that *might* save them, and informing them might be enough to make them stop being who they are for the worst. The 'path we're on' has no power to save - it is only God who saves.

Acts 10:28
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.​

The bottom line is that if people can get into heaven without believing in Jesus as their savior, following the Bible, etc, and the Bible has dire warnings about those who reject Jesus as their savior, why would anyone preach Jesus as savior to anyone? Yes, I'd consider ignorance infinitely better than eternal hell, wouldn't you? If general "God followers" can get into heaven, then why not merely preach one should follow God, without the specifics of the Christian religion? Yes, I know, it's written that you're supposed to evangelize.

You don't claim to deserve eternal torture. Have you any reason to make that claim? Any basis to support it? No, you have to assume first that my God is who I say He is, and does what He say He will do, and then realize that you are guilty as I am. But by those standards, you are included in His mercy. Now the circular argument is that you reject His judgment because you have not believed in Him, and will therefore be excluded from his mercy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One no-one forces you to perpetuate..

This is like me saying "Jenyar, you deserve to get yourself shredden by razor blades for eternity for breathing the air our loving God made, bow down before the great almighty for being so merciful as to provide you with air." Then you say "No, I don't." Then I say "Have you any reason to make that claim? Any basis to support it?" If this "eternal torture" claim was in any other book or religion, would you take it seriously? Do you fear Allah because the Qur'an is even more graphic about hell than the Bible? Are you afraid you're going there because you continually commit the unforgivable sin of shirk? Yes, Jenyar, if we assume that God's an eternal torturer who can't tolerate us (even though he created us and knew we'd be imperfect), then I guess it all makes sense. I have a very hard time thinking that I could ever love such a God, since he sounds much more like a cruel monster to me.

Don't you think it's possible to be sincerely wrong? Hitler sincerely believed in his cause - did that exonerate him? I know of many people who are struggling for survival in India, and many who are Christians. Hearts, not intentions, determine what you do. And our judgment is dependent on what a person does. We can't see further than that, and because of that we can only judge according to society's laws. If someone wishes to live in a country, it's his responsibility to become aware of its laws, not so?

Of course it is. Do you think it's possible that *you're* sincerely wrong? But I didn't see Gandhi killing millions of people like Hitler and Stalin (or at least they were responsible for it). I wouldn't compare sincere religionists like Jains or Buddhists or Hindus to Hitler. Jains try not to even hurt a fly. Sure, it's possible they're very wrong and have an undo protection for "insignificant" life.

God's presence to the Israelites, was different from Satan's presence with God. We apply the same spatial language because we can't help but anthropomorphize things. But looking for contradictions using such forced "proximities" is mere ignorance. How far from the bush was holy ground? What principles or laws were at work when Moses took off his shoes to approach God, or when the High Priest entered the Temple??

I was just trying to show one point, that God was willing to have a conversation with the being Christians think is the worse individual in the universe, and in God's very heaven. How is that consistent with the idea of God being so averse to sin that he can't tolerate it in heaven?

The author of lies. Lies, not sin. Sin is believing those lies, and sin is lying. Whether Satan was the author of sin or not, he could not make Job sin. He tempted Job and he tempted Adam. Job wasn't to be tempted, like Adam, but that gave him no more justification against God than Adam. Job is written as a stage play, a poem. It's characterization doesn't lie on the same level as Genesis.

First you make a distinction between lies and sin, but then you admit that sin is lying. Incidentally, does the book of Job ever say Job sinned? It starts off saying he was blameless, and it never admits he did anything wrong, does it? As for the last part, are you saying Job is an allegory?

The soul belongs to God, just like breath belongs to those who breathe. God breathed life, whether matter existed or not, and what is from God is eternal. It isn't matter as we know it that will be destroyed in hell, it is what matter gave birth to. The spirit that gave birth goes back to its father. Spirit goes back to God, dust goes to dust. Matter doesn't matter, but it's all we have to relate to. If it had nothing to do with God, we wouldn't be warranted to make analogies, but it does. Analogies aren't perfect, though, but they prevent us from making baseless "logical" assertions like "poof it's gone". A philosophical God might have done that, but we don't have the luxury of dealing with a purely philosophical God. If rationalization is funny to you, then I can see why you have a problems thinking about these issues - they're so foreign to you that you can't apply any mode of thought consistently

You believe God basically said "poof it's here" with the creation of the universe, right? What I meant by "rationalization", is probably not the same as what you're thinking. If you want, look at definitions 2b and the intransitive sense here http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rationalization&x=14&y=11. When I said "rationalization", I meant more along the lines of this: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>.

In that sense, your "rationalization" is somewhat humorous to me. An omnipotent God could create a universe he couldn't destroy, or souls he couldn't destroy? Is this a reasonable hypothesis, or are you positing such a thing because of an unconscious motive (that being you want to absolve God for hell by implying that he just can't avoid putting people in hell because souls are eternal?)

No, it's certainly no cup of tea. Do you wish it were?

When you picture anyone you like who'll be going to hell according to Christianity, ask me the same thing again. If that doesn't tear your heart apart, I'm not sure what will.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: As long as there are those who have slave mentalities, there are those who long to worship an all-powerful, all-punishing creator. That's what I call 'spiritual masochism.'

 

[Jenyar]

Minds "transgressing" aren't real sins, in my opinion, unless they lead to actual things done wrong. People can fantasize, even sometimes of antisocial thoughts. This still boils down to God infinitely punishing mankind for who we are, the good and the bad. Sounds very much like overkill to me.

Once again, you're denying that transgression starts in the mind. Sin doesn't come out of nowhere. Rape, adultery, murder, all start in the imagination. But that's not even the problem. What is left of *you* after those thoughts have been "lobotimized" - how much of your character and personality depends on you being automonous, and how much autonomy do you have over your own will?

Justice doesn't stop, but you're equating "justice" with eternal torture. Justice makes a ruling, but it doesn't prevent rehabilitation unless you're referring to rather large crimes, and even in those cases, the punishment is death, the cessation of one's life, not life forever in torture.

The cessation of life!? After all your argumentation, you make that sound like a good thing! As if we know what we're doing when we sentence someone to death! If you have to take a person's *life*, as a unit, and judge that - what is left of "large and small"? Doesn't the whole of it get punished or freed? Like I said, it's not just the eye that gets punished for letting sin in, the hand for carrying it out, or the mind for imagining it. Rehabilitation doesn't create new people, it recycles an old one - how is that different from confession, repentance and rebirth? You don't deny that these are our options, do you?

I do not at all buy into the idea that just because God's "infinite" that sin against him must be "infinite". It's just a pretty correlation using the word "infinite" with no logical necessity. I could just as easily say every prayer to God is infinite, every prayer Jesus made to God was infinite (so he'd never need to pray again), every good deed done is infinite, every good deed a Christian does is infinite, deserving of infinite rewards of infinite quality in an infinite heaven with infinite mansions. You act like God is some machine of purity "up there", kind of like that Star Trek episode about a space probe having its programming altered, which made it set out to destroy all imperfect biological units. That an intelligent, loving God would react this way is incredible.

Look, it's incredible because you're looking for a loophole that isn't there. God won't tolerate sin indefinitely. Somewhere, the suffering and pain has to stop. Maybe you haven't noticed, but 90% of the world lives in perpetual hell. And as America likes to prove every now and then, trying to make it better for some only makes it worse for others. There is no balance of justice - it's a vicious circle of 'one death deserves another'. For peace to be possible, everybody would have to forgive one another unconditionally. But where there is denial of guilt, there can be no forgiveness. It means saying 'I don't deserve it because I am guilty and expect punishment, but please forgive me'. And if there is no repentance, forgiveness is futile. People will just abuse forgiveness as a license to sin.

Yes, infinity is a just convenient word. I don't deny that. But no more convenient than finality. Like we judge a person "finally" when we sentence him to death. Time is irrelevant. The body is finite, but what it effects in life is not. Our sins affect generations of people. How many lives have we to pay for it? One. Whether it is one finite and final life, or one infinite life, we have only one. Whether a someone kills one or a thousand, the most he has to pay is one life. So kill a thousand and achieve something, or kill one and end up in jail. Whether you steal 1$ or a thousand, it affect you whole life - it isn't just a negative transaction of take first, repay later.

Who pays for the smallest sin? The same one who pays for the greatest sin. You might be able to pay for your mortal sins by dying a mortal life, but if death is any indication of your guilt, who will pay for that? You die the same death as the worst sinner and the greatest saints, but if you die with your sins unforgiven, they will testify against you, and what will you have to repay with? There is no payment left - you have nothing more to give than one life, not now, not ever. The payment for sin isn't time, but sacrifice.

Hebrews 11:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.​

Jenyar, please think about this. You maintain that God is so holy, so perfect, so infinitely disgusted at the slightest wrong mankind does, even though he created us and knew we'd have those faults (we're imperfect), so he can't tolerate the slightest wrong getting in heaven, he must torment it forever in the lake of fire, then you say that he did something incredibly unjust, the most unjust thing he has ever done, he arranged to have Jesus, a perfect man, killed so he could get his wrath appeased. If he was truly so holy, so perfect, so just, so infinitely disgusted at the slightest wrong mankind does, then how could he have done such a wrong thing himself? Wouldn't he have to punish himself for eternity for his own injustice? Even if you argue that God is somehow punishing himself by the atonement, it'd still be unjust, wouldn't it, since wasn't God perfect, holy, upright? How is it fair to punish ones "perfect self"? A murderer can not have his debt to society paid for by placing someone innocent of murder in his place. You maintain strict justice but in fact your God is not strictly just.

The least rejection of God amounts to rebellion against all law, since we would not even have an idea of what is good, perfect or right without him. That's evident by philosophical ideals - which becomes for most people a kind of ignorant definition of "God". But perfection is God's territory, not ours - we step into it at our own peril. God creates us "good" (read Genesis), not perfect. Therefore He expects us to be good, not perfect, and He will attribute perfection (righteousness/holiness) to us. Jesus did not see perfection as something to hold on to, but gave it up for a human life to remind us of the intent of the law, and hold a mirror up to show us what is really disgusting to God. Some people watched The Passion of the Christ and came to the conclusion that God actually approved of what happened there! (!!). There simply isn't a more ignorant interpretation of God's message than that. Jesus was not disgusted at sinners or lepers, he was disgusted at those who sought perfection and holiness as if it was something separate than loving your neighbour.

James 1:26- If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.​

Jesus' sacrifice was one of atonement, "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Heb. 10). Jesus didn't replace judgment, but payed the price for our sins with a life that death had no claim on, so that one would live who could testify for all who died to sin. For human sin, the sacrifice is a mortal death, but eternal life requires overcoming death. We can't overcome death ourselves, yet we can't be anything but mortal. Who can clothe us with immortality but God himself, who gives life, and life overflowing?

Christianity is like this-it tries to make you feel guilty for breathing. Everything you do is disgusting in God's sight.

No, only sin is disgusting in God's sight. It is akin to the murder and rape of his creation. Your body was prepared to be holy - a temple containing his law and reflecting his presence. God's own presence. One should not feel guilty for using what God gave you, but that makes its abuse that much more significant. There is a need to take responsibility for it, and realize who you already are.

See, this is why Christianity disgusts me. Now, of course, you can't actually give something to an omnipotent God, as if he couldn't get it himself, but tell me how you can take from an omnipotent God, or actually hurt an omnipotent God? You'd think God would at least find our gestures of trying to "repay" something of worth, instead of filthy rags. Picture a baby giving something to one of his parents, thinking it to be of value. But you as a parent know that it's a worthless trinket. What's your response? To chastise the baby or to at least act like the baby has done something selfless? This perfect, judgemental being who sees anything remotely wrong as deserving of infinite punishment does not sound like the type of person I'd want to be around for eternity. How in the world could I actually hurt an omnipotent God? And just because it's a sin against an holy, omnipotent, eternal, everlasting (or however many words one wants to use) deity, why in the world would that mean it deserves eternal punishment? If anything, since God is omnipotent, any pathetic thing you could try to do to him would be laughed off. I have a very hard time picturing such a God actually being hurt by what we do. Could he be mad? Sure. You can argue that if such a God exists, then he can do whatever he wants, which I won't argue with, but to say that it's JUST to eternally torture someone for even the smallest of sins, all that's saying to me is might makes right, and it's "just" because God says it is. That's not much of an argument in my opinion.

It says a lot about God that He would choose to be offended or hurt by us. You can't be hurt by someone if you don't let yourself near them, or don't love them.

God accepted sacrifices, didn't He? It was something of worth - it was their livelihood being offered to Him. Their cattle, their food, and their wealth. And God prevented them from sacrificing their children, didn't He? What could be of more "worth" than a human life, and Abraham was prepared to give it t God. But it wasn't value that God sought, it was faith. With faith, filthy rags become worth more than gold. Because ultimately, it isn't the sacrifice that atones for sin, or pleases God, but the heart that gives it.

God could have left us in ignorance and sin. To die and face hell with our own resources and as a natural consequence we weren't aware of. Blissfully abusing the life He gave us and intended for so much more than what we were willing to be content with. But He didn't. That we even know of hell is a mercy, that we can escape it is pure grace. Why didn't God just pour water on the fire, or fill up the cliff? He did.

The bottom line is that if people can get into heaven without believing in Jesus as their savior, following the Bible, etc, and the Bible has dire warnings about those who reject Jesus as their savior, why would anyone preach Jesus as savior to anyone? Yes, I'd consider ignorance infinitely better than eternal hell, wouldn't you? If general "God followers" can get into heaven, then why not merely preach one should follow God, without the specifics of the Christian religion? Yes, I know, it's written that you're supposed to evangelize.

Read Hebrews, read Romans. The dire warnings are for a reason! Why do you look for a alternative to God. There is none! Or are you going to suggest God create another god now? After all, why not? He's omnipotent, isn't He? Who is serving whom?

It takes a lot more to be "ignorant" than you seem to realize. Having an internal morality already gives your game away. Submitting to justice is bound to make you realize that guilt isn't an illusion. As Paul puts it: "
If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker." Anyone who lives without feeling any guilt is either worthy of hell or leading a perfect life. The desire to lead a perfect life is a search for God. The realization that you can't is an admission of dependance. Ignorance is as elusive as growing up. It doesn't outweigh knowledge, or the prohibit seeking it.

If I didn't "evangelize" you might have thought your opinions were sovereign. Like the king of a mountain fighting to keep it. You didn't invent the way you feel now, it is the conclusion of a process that is supposed to be far from finished. I wish people would have remained ignorant of sin, but they don't. Tolerating anything that leaves people ignorant of God is like tolerating sin.

This is like me saying "Jenyar, you deserve to get yourself shredden by razor blades for eternity for breathing the air our loving God made, bow down before the great almighty for being so merciful as to provide you with air." Then you say "No, I don't." Then I say "Have you any reason to make that claim? Any basis to support it?" If this "eternal torture" claim was in any other book or religion, would you take it seriously? Do you fear Allah because the Qur'an is even more graphic about hell than the Bible? Are you afraid you're going there because you continually commit the unforgivable sin of shirk? Yes, Jenyar, if we assume that God's an eternal torturer who can't tolerate us (even though he created us and knew we'd be imperfect), then I guess it all makes sense. I have a very hard time thinking that I could ever love such a God, since he sounds much more like a cruel monster to me.

You are looking at some cruel version of Him that I don't recognize. It's a version evangelized by atheists, and smacks of hatred, not fear or even objectivity. I have every reason to believe God isn't the opposite of who He says He is; in other words that He isn't the liar or the illusion that you make Him out to be. For if He were a liar or an illusion, hell would have been something desireable. I'm not telling you you are going to hell. As I said before, nobody is in any position to make that judgment. The judgment I can make is that you are surely guilty by any moral standard, at least as guilty as I myself. By even admitting that there is such a thing as 'being good' and that perfection is unattainable, you are already confirming half the Bible. The half you reject is God, and that by the self-fulfilling argument you describe above. If you don't want to believe in God, just say so. Don't invoke hell to justify it. I certainly don't believe in God because He "made heaven".

Of course it is. Do you think it's possible that *you're* sincerely wrong? But I didn't see Gandhi killing millions of people like Hitler and Stalin (or at least they were responsible for it). I wouldn't compare sincere religionists like Jains or Buddhists or Hindus to Hitler. Jains try not to even hurt a fly. Sure, it's possible they're very wrong and have an undo protection for "insignificant" life.

Sure it is possible, by I don't count on my being right - I trust God with the judgment. It just helps to know *which* God I am trusting with *what*, and with everything else remain true to His laws: to love God as I love myself; and love you. I'm telling you God is right, not me. It's up to you to seek Him or not. I trust Him with that as well.

I was just trying to show one point, that God was willing to have a conversation with the being Christians think is the worse individual in the universe, and in God's very heaven. How is that consistent with the idea of God being so averse to sin that he can't tolerate it in heaven?

And I think you are creating a mountain out of a moleheap on this one. God can have a conversation with whom He will and wherever He will. The time of judgment had not yet come. That's no reason to make the case that there should be no judgment.

First you make a distinction between lies and sin, but then you admit that sin is lying. Incidentally, does the book of Job ever say Job sinned? It starts off saying he was blameless, and it never admits he did anything wrong, does it? As for the last part, are you saying Job is an allegory?

Satan is the father of lies, not of sin. To lie is to sin, but all sin isn't necessarily lies.

There is every indication that Job is allegorical. It's wisdom literature. And even if it were based on a real person, the intention of the poem is not to introduce us to him, but to his faith. Job refutes the idea that a righteous/faithful/sinless man necessarily prospers. Job accepted the bad that came from God as he accepted the good that came from Him. In the end Job is forced to admit that his innocense wasn't his strength, that it is God's grace that it amounts to anything at all.

Somehow I think that if you read and understood Job, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if you reject it, whatever I say is futile.

Job 40
The LORD said to Job:
"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

"Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?​

You believe God basically said "poof it's here" with the creation of the universe, right? What I meant by "rationalization", is probably not the same as what you're thinking. If you want, look at definitions 2b and the intransitive sense here http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rationalization&x=14&y=11. When I said "rationalization", I meant more along the lines of this: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>.

In that sense, your "rationalization" is somewhat humorous to me. An omnipotent God could create a universe he couldn't destroy, or souls he couldn't destroy? Is this a reasonable hypothesis, or are you positing such a thing because of an unconscious motive (that being you want to absolve God for hell by implying that he just can't avoid putting people in hell because souls are eternal?)

I only thought of that sense after I posted. Nevertheless, God did not create something only to destroy it again. His words don't return to him emptyhanded or unaccomplished.

Isaiah 55:10
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.​

When he created life, it was to have life, not for some other purpose. God remains God, and his justice is hell to those who can't escape it. Torment refers to any physical distress, not only inflicted but also experienced. The question is why? Why torment and not only separation - why is separation from life and death not blisful unawareness? Because there can be no unawareness of God. There is no nowhere, no nothing that can separate anything from God. All existence proceeds from Him, and nonexistence is still something. If it were absolute nothing, it would have no way out of it or into it.

Psalm 9
16 The LORD is known by his justice;
the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands.
...
17 The wicked return to the grave [Sheol],
all the nations that forget God.​

When you picture anyone you like who'll be going to hell according to Christianity, ask me the same thing again. If that doesn't tear your heart apart, I'm not sure what will.

I can only picture someone dying, and after that I picture everyone standing before God. My God, a just God. I have no fear for myself or anyone I love - anyone who loves. But I can give them no certainty other than I have myself, and that lies in faith. I don't picture, wish or judge anyone to go to hell. I cling to God, not to Christianity. "It" has nothing to say about my friends, or anyone, except that Jesus has died for their sins, too. I have no hypothetical friends, but a few who are faithfully agnostic. I will vouch for them when the evidence is presented, but it's up to Him. There's nothing I can do about it now, except love them as He loves them - not doing that might be worse than anything I can imagine for them after death.

 

[anonymous2]

Once again, you're denying that transgression starts in the mind. Sin doesn't come out of nowhere. Rape, adultery, murder, all start in the imagination. But that's not even the problem. What is left of *you* after those thoughts have been "lobotimized" - how much of your character and personality depends on you being automonous, and how much autonomy do you have over your own will?

I don't believe mere thoughts are evil, although I agree that acting upon them by hurting someone is. I think some "evil thoughts" are actually healthy for us and normal.

The cessation of life!? After all your argumentation, you make that sound like a good thing! As if we know what we're doing when we sentence someone to death! If you have to take a person's *life*, as a unit, and judge that - what is left of "large and small"? Doesn't the whole of it get punished or freed? Like I said, it's not just the eye that gets punished for letting sin in, the hand for carrying it out, or the mind for imagining it. Rehabilitation doesn't create new people, it recycles an old one - how is that different from confession, repentance and rebirth? You don't deny that these are our options, do you??

Personally, I don't think life is all that peachy keen. Compared to eternal hell, cessation of life is perhaps an infinitely good thing, yes.

[

Hebrews 11:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.​

Which is a verse someone who doesn't believe in eternal security might quote.

Read Hebrews, read Romans. The dire warnings are for a reason! Why do you look for a alternative to God. There is none! Or are you going to suggest God create another god now? After all, why not? He's omnipotent, isn't He? Who is serving whom?

Since we've had a fairly lengthy conversation, I'll "fess up." I used to believe, but you may have already known that, or may not have. This is part of the reason I no longer believe. Dire warnings? God's really like that? Now, if God really is like that, what I believe is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, because I can do nothing about it. I used to read the Bible. I used to read Jesus' words and think they were great. That childlike faith is long gone though and can never come back. I saw "alleged" contradictions, what I thought was God being immoral, etc, and I figured, why still believe in this?

If I didn't "evangelize" you might have thought your opinions were sovereign. Like the king of a mountain fighting to keep it. You didn't invent the way you feel now, it is the conclusion of a process that is supposed to be far from finished. I wish people would have remained ignorant of sin, but they don't. Tolerating anything that leaves people ignorant of God is like tolerating sin.

I don't think my opinions are sovereign. Maybe I started posting on this board because I saw it as something that might be more intelligent than "You're going to hell!" and "There is no God!"

You are looking at some cruel version of Him that I don't recognize. It's a version evangelized by atheists, and smacks of hatred, not fear or even objectivity. I have every reason to believe God isn't the opposite of who He says He is; in other words that He isn't the liar or the illusion that you make Him out to be. For if He were a liar or an illusion, hell would have been something desireable. I'm not telling you you are going to hell. As I said before, nobody is in any position to make that judgment. The judgment I can make is that you are surely guilty by any moral standard, at least as guilty as I myself. By even admitting that there is such a thing as 'being good' and that perfection is unattainable, you are already confirming half the Bible. The half you reject is God, and that by the self-fulfilling argument you describe above. If you don't want to believe in God, just say so. Don't invoke hell to justify it. I certainly don't believe in God because He "made heaven"

I'm not a dogmatic atheist. There could be a God. I used to think God was good. Like I said, that childlike faith is long gone and can never come back. If there's a God, am I a "sinner" if you mean by that that I have done and will do wrong things? Then I agree. But hell is exactly part of the reason I no longer believe. To believe that most of mankind is going there? How is that comforting? I gave up my hope of heaven for my hope of no hell. It's depressing but in a way it's not. I don't think even Hitler deserves to go there, nor anyone else. Paul and Peter/Jude may have been into this "separation" or "black darkness" idea for hell, but Jesus was basically a fire and brimstone type of guy from what I can tell. Your view of hell is somewhat watered down in my opinion, or I guess you could say that I only focused on the gruesome descriptions of it (but how could one not avoid such descriptions?) Hard to see hell as "separation" as a somewhat neutral word when the majority of descriptions in the Bible seem much worse. If I thought that God was really loving, and hell was this place he really would do anything in his power to keep us from, and it was just a place where God chose not to maintain, as if it were some gloomy darkness, then I suppose I could have found the doctrine of hell somewhat more palatable. But to be honest, yes, hell is a big reason why I don't believe.

 

[Jenyar]

I don't believe mere thoughts are evil, although I agree that acting upon them by hurting someone is. I think some "evil thoughts" are actually healthy for us and normal.

They're only "mere thoughts" if you can separate yourself from them. Depression leading to suicide is also just "mere thoughts". The word 'evil' doesn't apply. Sin is not evil per se. It's more often the abuse of something good. Remember, we're talking not just about the fruits of sin, but the seed of it, the attitude behind it.

Personally, I don't think life is all that peachy keen. Compared to eternal hell, cessation of life is perhaps an infinitely good thing, yes.

Life is both heaven and hell. But death doesn't present an escape from either. Death and dying belongs to that part of life that makes people have visions of hell. The Old Testament doesn't have a word for hell, it uses simply Sheol, "the grave".

Romans 1:32
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.​

Which is a verse someone who doesn't believe in eternal security might quote.

Only if he was looking for an excuse to deliberately keep on sinning.

Since we've had a fairly lengthy conversation, I'll "fess up." I used to believe, but you may have already known that, or may not have. This is part of the reason I no longer believe. Dire warnings? God's really like that? Now, if God really is like that, what I believe is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, because I can do nothing about it. I used to read the Bible. I used to read Jesus' words and think they were great. That childlike faith is long gone though and can never come back. I saw "alleged" contradictions, what I thought was God being immoral, etc, and I figured, why still believe in this?

If you love someone, and care where they're going, you warn them. The greater the danger, the more stern the warning. What you believe is completely relevant, because it affects the way you think, the way you do things, what you approve of, what you allow - it affects who you are.

I don't think my opinions are sovereign. Maybe I started posting on this board because I saw it as something that might be more intelligent than "You're going to hell!" and "There is no God!"

Good, then.

I'm not a dogmatic atheist. There could be a God. I used to think God was good. Like I said, that childlike faith is long gone and can never come back. If there's a God, am I a "sinner" if you mean by that that I have done and will do wrong things? Then I agree. But hell is exactly part of the reason I no longer believe. To believe that most of mankind is going there? How is that comforting?

Look at most of mankind. Do you find that comforting? And I don't mean "humanity in general". Look at what people do to each other. But even though: you have ignored the words "every knee shall bow, every tongue confess". Does that sound like a minority? Whatever is left after sin has been punished or forgiven, is everyone. A lot of people will be saved, but a lot won't. Feeling overwhelmed is part of life, no matter on which side you stand on. We're good at feeling overwhelmed by our reactions. But it presents no good reason to side with the majority. All majorities pass on eventually, and you're left with a narrow path once again - narrower than any religion or ideology or ideal could make it. So narrow in fact, that only you can walk on it. The narrow path is the one you walk. Don't let the mention of masses intimidate you either way.

I gave up my hope of heaven for my hope of no hell. It's depressing but in a way it's not. I don't think even Hitler deserves to go there, nor anyone else. Paul and Peter/Jude may have been into this "separation" or "black darkness" idea for hell, but Jesus was basically a fire and brimstone type of guy from what I can tell.

It was an example from real life - a vivid analogy. People could look at the Valley of Gehinnom and picture people offering their children to gods, hear the screams. They could see people dumping their garbage on a perpetual fire outside the walls of Jerusalem, and think about what they're doing with their lives, with holiness: throwing it away. Jesus was good at making people think.

Your view of hell is somewhat watered down in my opinion, or I guess you could say that I only focused on the gruesome descriptions of it (but how could one not avoid such descriptions?) Hard to see hell as "separation" as a somewhat neutral word when the majority of descriptions in the Bible seem much worse. If I thought that God was really loving, and hell was this place he really would do anything in his power to keep us from, and it was just a place where God chose not to maintain, as if it were some gloomy darkness, then I suppose I could have found the doctrine of hell somewhat more palatable. But to be honest, yes, hell is a big reason why I don't believe.

He did do everything in His power to keep us from it. He shed all claims to glory and divinity and became one of us, a loser. Garbage. So that we could see that what we do with people is not so much different than what we do with God himself. Jesus showed us hell in front of our very eyes, but people justified it and watered it down like they clung to a watered-down version of justice. We were like sheep to the slaughter, without a shepherd. Don't you get it? We're sheep anyway, being led around by our noses and emotions - rejecting this and that, accepting this and that, always looking for the next tuft of greenery and proceeding with our existence heedless of the sheer cliff at the end. We just see people drop off and die, we watch it detachedly, rationalize it, and move on.

Everything you needed to know about hell, you already knew. Jesus just made it unacceptable. He presented it emphatically, undeniably to them, so that people would have to deal with it as a reality. Not something to be left off until you die. He didn't dwell on it, but urged them to action; to focus on life, not on death. Why do you prefer its unacceptibility to his love? Has John 3:16 been just another patch of greenery?

 

[anonymous2]

They're only "mere thoughts" if you can separate yourself from them. Depression leading to suicide is also just "mere thoughts". The word 'evil' doesn't apply. Sin is not evil per se. It's more often the abuse of something good. Remember, we're talking not just about the fruits of sin, but the seed of it, the attitude behind it.

Yes, "bad" thoughts CAN lead to evil, but I don't think they're necessarily "sinful" in themselves. You wouldn't say to a depressed person, "Stop being depressed, it's a sin, you have nothing to be depressed about, there's nothing to depress anyone in this world", would you? If you would, then I think you're looking at things through rose colored glasses.

Only if he was looking for an excuse to deliberately keep on sinning.

If anything, the verse supports the view against eternal security, so people with that view probably wouldn't be quoting this as a license to sin, but rather would quote it as evidence of their view. And those who do believe in eternal security, wouldn't quote the verse in support of their position, because it does not at all support their view.

Look at most of mankind. Do you find that comforting? And I don't mean "humanity in general". Look at what people do to each other. But even though: you have ignored the words "every knee shall bow, every tongue confess". Does that sound like a minority? Whatever is left after sin has been punished or forgiven, is everyone. A lot of people will be saved, but a lot won't. Feeling overwhelmed is part of life, no matter on which side you stand on. We're good at feeling overwhelmed by our reactions. But it presents no good reason to side with the majority. All majorities pass on eventually, and you're left with a narrow path once again - narrower than any religion or ideology or ideal could make it. So narrow in fact, that only you can walk on it. The narrow path is the one you walk. Don't let the mention of masses intimidate you either way..

I know the idea in that Phillipians passage is every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord.. but is the confession done willfully or not? So I'm not quite sure why you referred to this verse. ?

Sure, there are a lot of people who "aren't very nice", and sure that would be depressing, but there are also a lot of people who are decent people, in my opinion, probably the majority. But I think to compare the two, "hell on earth" and the afterlife seems a bit duplicitous to me. Then again, you don't quite seem easy to "pigeonhole" as to what your exact beliefs are on hell. You may think hell's quite bad, but there are people who think it's a whole lot worse than I'm guessing you do.

Why do you prefer its unacceptibility to his love? Has John 3:16 been just another patch of greenery?

Probably because, to me, heaven is not worth hell. If I had the power, and if hell really exists, I'd do basically whatever I could do get rid of it, even if it meant destroying heaven. Heaven, to me, does not justify hell. You may be able to live life thinking that an eternal hell exists and many people are going there, but that's not something I can easily accept. I have a difficult time even accepting a heaven with all souls except one which is in hell. It may be easy to think, "God, in heaven, will make you forget about those in hell", but we're not in heaven.

That's the thing though about the Bible. The flip side of God's love is perhaps only a couple verses away. I could think, "Wow, that's amazing, what a nice God!", and then I read:

John 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.

God makes you happy with one verse, and sad soon after.

 

[Jenyar]

Yes, "bad" thoughts CAN lead to evil, but I don't think they're necessarily "sinful" in themselves. You wouldn't say to a depressed person, "Stop being depressed, it's a sin, you have nothing to be depressed about, there's nothing to depress anyone in this world", would you? If you would, then I think you're looking at things through rose colored glasses.

I could agree with you. Our thoughts are seeds that may come to fruition or not. They might or might not become punishable. But the root of those thoughts - the origin of sin - doesn't come out of nowhere. It can't be left dormant to "sneak into heaven". It's what Paul called our sinful nature, which must die.

Romans 7:5
For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
...
I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.​

If anything, the verse supports the view against eternal security, so people with that view probably wouldn't be quoting this as a license to sin, but rather would quote it as evidence of their view. And those who do believe in eternal security, wouldn't quote the verse in support of their position, because it does not at all support their view.

Maybe an analogy will help. You're a foreigner on a train to Oslo. Your passport is stamped and your visum is in order. Your ticket says "Admit One at Oslo station." Is your ticket valid for somewhere else? Do the tracks lead somewhere else? No, your passage and destination is secure.

But does the ticket prevent you from jumping out and going in the other direction? Is there a map to Oslo on the back that will get you there faster or more intact?

Sure, you aren't secure, but you're not able to provide your own security. Because you're not "eternal" (incorruptible) yourself, you can lose even the most certain and eternal security if you reject it or miss it. Salvation doesn't depend on you - you depend on you. If you keep on walking (sinning) after you got your ticket, you will miss the train that would have taken you through foreign and uncertain territory.

Sure, there are a lot of people who "aren't very nice", and sure that would be depressing, but there are also a lot of people who are decent people, in my opinion, probably the majority. But I think to compare the two, "hell on earth" and the afterlife seems a bit duplicitous to me. Then again, you don't quite seem easy to "pigeonhole" as to what your exact beliefs are on hell. You may think hell's quite bad, but there are people who think it's a whole lot worse than I'm guessing you do.

Decent and indecent people all die. And according to the theory of evolution, they're all just fodder for survival. There's no inherent diginity to life, and no inherent holiness. For some reason people accept that because they're undeniably faced with it, but they have a problem with a hell that lies on the other side of life. For once, they have a choice where they're going to be born, and they just leave it to fate.

I agree there are many decent people around, and many of them suffer under an indecent minority. But we judge most people only on a few interactions with them, and on a moral scale that you don't even believe is absolute. We have no idea what they hide or whether they treat everybody the same, and it's easy to judge someone 'decent' if you don't have to judge their hearts and lives. In the end only God can save anyone, and only God gets to decide whom. We simply don't have the authority to judge someone finally and conclusively. But we have been given this principle: "with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matt.7:3).

What we're discussing is what He has decided for those who have a choice. What Jesus used as examples, and everything we know according to any depiction of hell, is how hell relates to things experienced in this life. We know it's a judgment in the next life, but we won't know how it will be experienced until we are in the next life. In the meantime, we have to make due with what we have, and all indications are that it's the worst place imaginable.

The difference is that you compare a final judgment of the next life with the meager amenities and relative comforts of this one, and it doesn't weigh up. If you want to compare hell and eternal life biblically, the best you can do is compare life vs. death, because that's where all our experience and insights end. That should give you an indication of the relative weight of each.

Probably because, to me, heaven is not worth hell. If I had the power, and if hell really exists, I'd do basically whatever I could do get rid of it, even if it meant destroying heaven. Heaven, to me, does not justify hell. You may be able to live life thinking that an eternal hell exists and many people are going there, but that's not something I can easily accept. I have a difficult time even accepting a heaven with all souls except one which is in hell. It may be easy to think, "God, in heaven, will make you forget about those in hell", but we're not in heaven.

Would you have God condemn everybody in hell so that nobody would have to experience a priviledge? What about his love for those who depend on Him for justice and life? "Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13). God has the power, and will destroy hell (Roman 'hades' or underworld) as well. It is called the "second death", and not without reason: we have to think about it the same way we think about death at the moment.

If the emotional reaction to any form of exclusion is that strong for you, how do you judge between good and bad? Do you have to include some immoral deeds to justify the more moral ones? Once again, I want to remind you that we are talking about something that's final. The time for sacrifice has already passed, and the time for rehabilitation is now. We all wish the whole world would be saved, but the fact is that most of the world rejects any form of salvation because they feel disempowered by it. That, to me, is more strange considering that there is nothing more "disempowering" than death. At the moment, you have more reason to react emotionally to death, than to hell. But you don't. You would rather face death than admit it has been overcome, and for the world as much as for your sake.

That's the thing though about the Bible. The flip side of God's love is perhaps only a couple verses away. I could think, "Wow, that's amazing, what a nice God!", and then I read:

John 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.

God makes you happy with one verse, and sad soon after.

Maybe it's because you want to accept the good from God, but not the bad. You want mercy but not judgment. Fairness but not justice. Salvation, but not the means. The core reason is this: that you don't wish to believe in God. You're looking for loopholes, but there aren't any. There's no other way of having eternal life than getting it from God, and there's no other way of getting it from God than acknowledging Him.

If you have nothing to hide from God, then you have nothing to worry about. There is no other reason to fear judgment or hell. But don't try to kid yourself, if you know you're guilty by the measure you use, then death has a very real hold on you. Without God, there's just nobody to struggle with about it.

 

[anonymous2]

Decent and indecent people all die. And according to the theory of evolution, they're all just fodder for survival. There's no inherent diginity to life, and no inherent holiness. For some reason people accept that because they're undeniably faced with it, but they have a problem with a hell that lies on the other side of life. For once, they have a choice where they're going to be born, and they just leave it to fate.

That's the thing though, as I mentioned before, Christianity is not just some simple saying "I believe in Jesus" and off you are on your way to heaven. It's various Bibles, interpretations, etc, which form a basis of many of the differing Christian sects, some of them considering others as heretical. If all Christianity said was "Believe in Jesus, and you'll go to heaven", then that seems easy enough, but we both know it says much more than that. Christianity doesn't just teach "On your deathbed, make a step of faith and believe in Jesus." If that's all it taught, then I think a non-religious person might go ahead and do that, because, what the hey, it's worth a shot, isn't it? I don't think people, in general, have a problem with the "believe in Jesus" part, it's the other things the Bible says, such as the flip side being "If you don't, you're gonna burn." See how well that flies with people who already have a religious belief such as Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Picture someone coming to you and saying, "Here's the truth, believe in it, and oh yea, by the way, that means you have to deny what you've been taught in your own religion as truth. It means you must think of your religious tradition as demonic, evil, or at best misguided." Put it this way. If you weren't a Christian, if you didn't already believe the Bible, would you at all think that you deserve eternal torment? Think rationally about it now. Do you think you could ever do something worth eternal torment? Think of what eternal means and you might see what I'm saying. Say, in 100000000000000000000 years, do you think you've been punished enough? I'd guess you'd think yea, sure, that's way more than enough. But no, Christianity says 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years isn't enough punishment for God. That's why I think a lot of people have a problem with the doctrine of an eternal hell. What in the world did anyone do to deserve THAT much punishment?

What we're discussing is what He has decided for those who have a choice. What Jesus used as examples, and everything we know according to any depiction of hell, is how hell relates to things experienced in this life. We know it's a judgment in the next life, but we won't know how it will be experienced until we are in the next life. In the meantime, we have to make due with what we have, and all indications are that it's the worst place imaginable.

Picture your worst enemy (if you have one). Then picture this person in the "worst place imaginable" for eternity. Once again, let me expand on eternity. It's not 10000000000000000000000000000000000 years. It's not even 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years.

You think that your worst enemy deserves this? Do you think that even God's worst enemy deserves this?

If the emotional reaction to any form of exclusion is that strong for you, how do you judge between good and bad? Do you have to include some immoral deeds to justify the more moral ones? Once again, I want to remind you that we are talking about something that's final. The time for sacrifice has already passed, and the time for rehabilitation is now. We all wish the whole world would be saved, but the fact is that most of the world rejects any form of salvation because they feel disempowered by it. That, to me, is more strange considering that there is nothing more "disempowering" than death. At the moment, you have more reason to react emotionally to death, than to hell. But you don't. You would rather face death than admit it has been overcome, and for the world as much as for your sake.

It's not so much exclusion that I have a problem with, Jenyar. It's an eternal hell. It's "final" because that's what the Biblical God wants, not because he has no choice. "Death" happens to us all, including you Jenyar. They see Christianity as disempowering because for them, IT IS, in this life. This is like me saying "Give everything you have to me, and become my personal slave and you'll get heaven." I would assume your human dignity would revolt at such a concept. Would you consider it disempowering? VERY, unless there really IS such a heaven.

Maybe it's because you want to accept the good from God, but not the bad. You want mercy but not judgment. Fairness but not justice. Salvation, but not the means. The core reason is this: that you don't wish to believe in God. You're looking for loopholes, but there aren't any. There's no other way of having eternal life than getting it from God, and there's no other way of getting it from God than acknowledging Him

I dont have a grand desire for eternal life. I just don't want eternal torment. Once again, you equate "justice" with eternal torture. It's not so much that I have a problem with a God who doles out justice. It's that I have a problem with a God who has an eternal Auschwitz.

If you have nothing to hide from God, then you have nothing to worry about. There is no other reason to fear judgment or hell. But don't try to kid yourself, if you know you're guilty by the measure you use, then death has a very real hold on you. Without God, there's just nobody to struggle with about it.

Everyone's guilty, and innocent, depending on what you're accusing them of. Death has a real hold on everyone because everyone dies, although some believe they can overcome it by resurrection or reincarnation which will eventually lead to eternal life/"oneness" with the universe or whatever. I don't have a problem with Christian hope. Christian hope is great. It's, once again, the flip side that is horrendous.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: Dances with lions, my big fat ass! You dance with real vinyl tap shoes!

Compensate for the effects! You are a miserable phony! There is no god, and there is no justice. Only phony tap shoes! There is no such thing as sin. Sin is what YOU do. Make-believe is a sin. You are so totally succumbed to phoniness! Can you dance fast enough to eradicate sin from your compadres? No. I didn't think so. You are a sinner who cannot and was not saved from your sin of plasticity! Jesus didn't die for plasticity! You will die from plasticity!

Dancing with vinyl tap shoes is a false realization of something that doesn't even exist. Tap on, my friend. You're lost. You're dancing around the Devil, but even that's not enough. You're dancing to prove you're saved, and that's not possible. Keep dancing, my friend, and you'll dance all the way to hell and back.

You're dancing against God's grain. There is no god. There is no dying demigod savior. You're dancing and dancing, like Salome. Jesus mocks YOU!

You cannot save anyone. What you profess is death. There is no salvation for the likes of you. You deserve eternal torture.

Christianity is your downfall. There is no gospel that can save you! You think you know what you read, but what you read is a lie! You're a lie. Nothing but a lie!

The Jesus that lived knows you are a liar. He didn't save you and you didn't help to fulfill his prophecy. You're a lost cause.

You're weak and you're immoral. Your faith is worthless. It's about as good as the dust under my feet. You are worthless in the sight of God.

I have more truth coming out of my ass than you have coming from your false god!

God wasn't present to the Israelites and God isn't present for you! You're Satan's child, full-bred and ready to change the world. You are Satan's presence looking like God! Afrika is a doomed land, and you're part of it. Afrika will always remain the 'dark continent.' You will never see God where you are now. If you think you know God, then leave your continent and preach to the world. Anything that comes out of the 'dark continent' will be destroyed, including you!

Babylon, schmabylon. You are the enemy. Begone! Jenyar! Begone! The only thing you were chosen for is hell. Arriverderci, mein freund.

 

[what768]

Yeah, this Hell is a "pretty scary" thing! Like my brother said: If only one man goes to hell, then heaven would be worthless! One thing is sure... if there is an ETERNAL hell, then there is no God... no mercy! ...after death...

But I will never believe that! I've seen mercy, and people who are mercyful. I believe hell only Feels like eternal, because when you're sad, time seems to go much slower... but when you're happy it goes faster! So in Hell, you're pretty sad, so time seems to have stopped. But still... TIME goes on, and after an "eternity" you're free again!

Medicine Woman! You never learn! You are doing that again, judging people and saying that they deserve eternal punishment! No, no one deserves THAT! Really, you harm people, by saying these things! Change your heart, please!

Jesus says that people who keep his word will be hated by all, for His name. So remember this Jenyar, believe in yourself and be calm if you know in your heart that you are doing God's will. I'm sure you know the answer yourself. So don't give up, keep doing the right thing!

 

[Godless]

*God's will. I'm sure you know the answer yourself. So don't give up, keep doing the right thing!

And that is belief in farie tale.

*you harm people, by saying these things!

If one lets mere words harm them, then they truly are weak.

Godless.

 

[what768]

"And that is belief in farie tale."

but the farie tale says that we should love people and that we should not judge, and many other good things too.

"If one lets mere words harm them, then they truly are weak."

they're not "mere" words. you're underestimating the words. bible: "in the beginning was the word..." words are very good things to express god... or "satan".

 

[Godless]

Thiest always claimed to love one another; however history has shown their kind of love.
Agree with us or Burn! prosecute non-believer or those that oppose our doctrine. Where is the love in that?..

*they're not "mere" words. you're underestimating the words. bible: "in the beginning was the word..." words are very good things to express god... or "satan".

So now there are two entities that you possibly cant provide emperical evidence for.

There was no begining, there is no end to the entity that you believe, so in essence there's no identity to this entity. God is a contradiction of existence, a cousciousness can't produce any material out of thin air. This is a false premise of metaphisics.

Godless.

 

[David F.]

I don't know how short I can keep this but I will try.

paragraph by paragraph.

one
If Jesus wasn't a Christian or the first Christian like you stated, why would anyone want to become one if there sacred leader was not. Did Jesus ever anywhere in the Bible ask or tell anyone to become a Christian ever?

Jesus was a Jew and never told anyone to leave Judeaism. I'm fairly certain that Jesus would have wanted all of us to be Jews, not Christians. The name Christian was coined many years after Jesus died and rose. However, today's Jews are the Pharisees which Jesus condemed so I don't think Jesus would want us to be modern Jews. Unfortunately, I simply don't see any religion today which matches what Jesus wanted his followers to be. Pentecostal Bible Churches might be something close, but they are still full of paganism. Maybe Messianic Judeaism although I have never attended one of those synagogues.

two
Many Christians see the Bible as written by man through God and thus has no errors. You just said it had errors. What specific parts of Pauls letters had errors, or ones that could be corrupted(thus implying inperfection due to ambiguity or multiple intereptaions). (just pick two or three if too much) and say what made it right or wrong.

I don't see errors in the original Greek/Hebrew of the bible, although there are a few translation errors as anyone will tell you. However, even the Greek leaves some doubt in places. For instance, when Paul says we are no longer under the Law (Gal 5:18) he does not mean we can ignore the law (that would conflict with Jesus' teachings) but he means, the Law no longer has the power to kill us. However, anti-semetic Catholics have taken this verse and used it to corrupt Christianity by saying we can ignore the Jewish Law. Paul certainly did not intend this and even if he did, Paul would not have any authority to abrogate God's Holy Law. There is no error here (no error in the bible) just an error in how man reads and applys the bible. Remember, by the mouth of two or three witnesses. Paul is only one witness. If Paul says something contradictory to the rest of the bible and there are no other witnesses to what he says, they I think you are probably reading something into Paul's writings which Paul did not intend. Paul did not make an error and there is no biblical error - you are making the error.

three
Where did Jesus or Paul ever suggest or say that the Jews were all thrown out of the covenant. By saying this you are saying that Jesus left Judism. Can you show me where he leaves Judism in the Bible?

Read the parable of the vineyard (Luke 20). Notice that Jesus says the husbandmen will be destroyed and the vineyard will be given to others. (Matt 12, Mark 12, Isa 5) The husbandmen are the Jews. Paul says that the Jews and the Gentiles are the same and the middle wall of partition has been torn down. (Eph 2:14) yet when you put this with Jesus' sayings, does this mean the Gentiles are being let in or that the Jews have lost their special status and are no longer considered any better than the Gentiles? I think the later is true. All unrighteous Jews (all but Jesus) are now no better than Gentiles.

four
Sacrifices meaning things to Kill to prove love to God? If so talking about the convenant how about "thou shall not murder"? How do you sacrifice and not murder? Those "dietary laws" meaning kosher foods, are still practiced by Jews today. If Jesus really wanted to seperate himself from Jews that would have been the way to do it since Christians do not obey the kosher laws but many Jews do. Did he, to the best of your knowledge, in the Bible break the kosher laws? if so where?

Where does it say sacrificing has anything to do with loving God? The sacrificing is for you, not for God.

Sacrificing/killing is not murder. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of people. It is not murder to kill/execute a murderer (and there are several other capital offenses in the Torah). It is not murder to kill/slaughter an animal. It is not murder to kill/harvest a plant. Don't try to read into the bible things which are not there. This is a common mistake - to try to judge other peoples at other times by the morals of our time.

Jesus did not want to separate himself, or his followers, from the Jews. This is Catholic anti-semitism and it is wrong. Jesus followed the whole of the Torah Law, including the dietary law,and frankley, so should we. The dietary law (not kosher which is a Jewish idea) is for our health. The only bible penalty for not eating as God says is that you might get sick, or you might be unclean until evening (which might only be a few minutes if you eat just before sundown). God simply gave the dietary ordinances as health guides. The first century Apostles knew this and so didn't worry too much if the Gentiles couldn't follow them. If you want to be healthy, eat as God says. If you don't, then don't. There is no sin here.

 

[what768]

Thiest always claimed to love one another; however history has shown their kind of love.
Agree with us or Burn! prosecute non-believer or those that oppose our doctrine. Where is the love in that?..

One who does evil does not believe in God, because God said: "Love one another!" There are many who claim to be christians, but if they were christians, they would do the things jesus did. Then there are those who claim to be atheists, and yet they obey God more than those who call themselves believers.

I'm not a true believer either, i have only found the belief in god to be rational, but I haven't started to obey him yet. Then when I stop doing evil things, those that god would never do, then i am a believer. For everyone who does good, is already a follower of god, whether or not he finds god to be rational or not.

So now there are two entities that you possibly cant provide emperical evidence for.

Yeah. There will never be any evidence for God, it's about having faith. When we understand someone, we love them, we don't question them, but we believe in what they say, because we know that they speak the truth.

Remember that God and satan are just two names, until you understand them. You might see god as some guy in heaven with a beard, and satan as a red evil angel. And of course you do not believe, because you see them like that. But I know that they are not that.

They are not so simple as some "entity"! Satan is what the "evil" in this world. He is outside. When we obey his law, the law of the matter, we become his diciples and we become evil. Matter is supposed to be dead, but through us "satan" gets a life. We all know that matter (satan) is not evil itself. Actually, when it expresses itself as matter, it is divine. Know that the divine is always the opposite from the material.

There was no begining, there is no end to the entity that you believe, so in essence there's no identity to this entity. God is a contradiction of existence, a cousciousness can't produce any material out of thin air. This is a false premise of metaphisics.

"There was no beginning." So you don't believe in big bang? Has the universe always existed then? At least there's something "Eternal" then. Maybe it's impossible to create matter from thin air, but who says that god created it from thin air? But when there was nothing, then there was no metaphysics either, and then later god created the laws of the world.

Have seen that everything in this world has been separated? Everything has it's complementary half... hot, cold, up, down, male, female, and so on. When everything was separated from God, this world came visible and possible. Bible tells of this as a story about adam and eve. They ate from the tree of knowledge. By this, they we're separated from God. However, the things of this world are not really separated from God, we see the division only because we ourselves are separated from God. Actually male and female, hot and cold, up and down, are all the same thing, none of them exist by themselves, but the balance makes them alive.

Or if you want to understand this by a parable: God created two mirrors, he put them to face each other. Then he stood in the middle of them. Then the mirrors reflected him, eternally.

I am glad that science has discovered what this world is made of. The string theory. Everything is made of small vibrating strings of energy. All is "motion". They're all unique, not one of them is perfectly alike. Because everything is made of them, even thoughts are made of these, feelings. But unlike "matter" we can't see these higher energies. But we know that energy and matter is the same thing. Because of the various expressions of these energies, there are so many different creatures on earth. They're all unique. These "creative" energy waves have also made us humans. The origin of these energies we call by the name "God".

God is above all that he created. Everything but god is made of these energies. He rests not himself in some complementary half in this world. He rests in himself, in the timeless, the spaceless and at an eternal balance. But he radiates himself to material forms, to make them alive and to keep them alive. God is in everything, he pierces through all energies and everything that is in the universe. This way it is possible for god to express himself through anything at any time. All that is created, carries this essence within him as his "center". From this center everything came... It is your own "self" i am talking about.

I have said that everything is separated from God. God is the only one who is not separated from anything... Only by separation, things can be understood. Just like hot and cold must be separated to be understood. It is like this with everything. But God is not separated. And that is why we will never understand God by the way we understand hot and cold. I have said it before, we can only "be" God. So believe in yourself! Because it does not matter if what i say is not true for you, i don't want anyone to follow me, if they don't believe this! Everything that we do, we do for ourselves... for God! But do not misunderstand this... egoism is a different kind of thing. That is when we have a personal self, and we do everything for this personal self... this has nothing to do with God, the "self".

Jesus said. Everyone who obeys me will be hated by everyeone for my name. Because his name is true. And it is true that many who believe in themselves, and are what they are, are also hated. But also loved, by those who are willing to accept the truth.

The people of the east have long ago discovered the meaning of everything. To the unbelieving people of west, they have only one weapon: silence.

 

[camphlps]

Remember that Right and Wrong are just words. Some Christians believe one thing is right, the other is wrong. Technicly this is contridiction, but only to us. God has the ultimate truth of what is what. (Refering to contridictions posted by Godless) No mean to offend, but just to offer the truth for you.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

what768: Yeah, this Hell is a "pretty scary" thing! Like my brother said: If only one man goes to hell, then heaven would be worthless! One thing is sure... if there is an ETERNAL hell, then there is no God... no mercy! ...after death...
*************
M*W: There is no hell. That's just another Christian lie. Life itself is not based on Christianity -- it's based on truth. Christianity is a LIE -- The WORST LIE OF ALL!

I could expect this from Jenyar because he is an idiot in everything he says and does, but from you, I think you're smarter than that. Jenyar tries too hard to proclaim Christianity, but he falls short because it's a lie. He is one hellova apologist though. He apologizes every time he posts. It's ridiculous. He's not even saved from his own belief system!

Now he says he dances with lions. My big fat ass he dances with lions. He's a post-Apartied White Guy who believes he is saved over there is the big Black Dark Continent that nobody in the world cares about! I rest my case.
But I will never believe that! I've seen mercy, and people who are mercyful. I believe hell only Feels like eternal, because when you're sad, time seems to go much slower... but when you're happy it goes faster! So in Hell, you're pretty sad, so time seems to have stopped. But still... TIME goes on, and after an "eternity" you're free again!

Medicine Woman! You never learn! You are doing that again, judging people and saying that they deserve eternal punishment! No, no one deserves THAT! Really, you harm people, by saying these things! Change your heart, please!

Jesus says that people who keep his word will be hated by all, for His name. So remember this Jenyar, believe in yourself and be calm if you know in your heart that you are doing God's will. I'm sure you know the answer yourself. So don't give up, keep doing the right thing! [/QUOTE]

 

[okinrus]

That's the thing though, as I mentioned before, Christianity is not just some simple saying "I believe in Jesus" and off you are on your way to heaven. It's various Bibles, interpretations, etc, which form a basis of many of the differing Christian sects, some of them considering others as heretical.

Well, it is that simple. If we believe and remain steadfast, then we will go to heaven. Our belief is answering 'yes' to God.

Christianity doesn't just teach "On your deathbed, make a step of faith and believe in Jesus." If that's all it taught, then I think a non-religious person might go ahead and do that, because, what the hey, it's worth a shot, isn't it?

Well, on our deathbeds is better than never. But the reasons someone say "no" will be the same, if not stronger, on our deathbed. Christianity is about our relationship with God.

I don't think people, in general, have a problem with the "believe in Jesus" part, it's the other things the Bible says, such as the flip side being "If you don't, you're gonna burn."

I think you have the wrong impression of belief. Only someone who has been convinced of the truth, may disbelieve.

It means you must think of your religious tradition as demonic, evil, or at best misguided." Put it this way. If you weren't a Christian, if you didn't already believe the Bible, would you at all think that you deserve eternal torment? Think rationally about it now. Do you think you could ever do something worth eternal torment? Think of what eternal means and you might see what I'm saying. Say, in 100000000000000000000 years, do you think you've been punished enough? I'd guess you'd think yea, sure, that's way more than enough. But no, Christianity says

I think you are misunderstanding what eternal punishment is. Someone does not really "do" something to deservie eternal punishment, he or she chooses to remain in eternal punishment. But it's not simply a choice between hell and heaven. It's choice to remain in sin or to be forgiven by God.

 

[robtex]

I don't know how short I can keep this but I will try.

response:

You tapped danced around the first question. The question was did Jesus ever tell anyone to become a Christian. The answer when you finish reseaching it is no. He never told anyone to leave Judism but if his resurrection was truely a prophecy and he is, as part of the trinity omnipotent why would he not ask them to become Christians (and thus recieve his salvation)? I contend that he did not because he never knew of the master plan and it was concocted after his death and without his knowledge which would have been impossible if it were a prophecy with an omnipotent memeber of the trinity. For Christians to change the name on their own against Jesus and God is a form of blasphamy as far as I understand the religon.

"Jesus was a Jew and never told anyone to leave Judeaism."

What you did say here is very important. Jesus believed in Judism not Christanity. If that is so and I believe it is just as you said, than all the Christians are slapping Jesus in the face (figurately speaking) because they left Judism or refused Judism as a belief...subbing for it Christainity.

Messianic Jews,

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud2.htm

are not Jews, they are Christians in that their beliefs which included orginal sin, Trinity, 2nd coming, Jesus as the savior heaven and hell. They can coin their religion how ever they want to but in the end it is another branch, based on core beliefs, of Christanity. You are correct in saying that NO Christian church is even close to Judism in beliefs-- by a wide margin--which further reinforces the idea that Christanity is not born of Judism which was Jesus chosen religion. If Christanity was not born of Judism than is a completely different belief and if that is so than it is not feasable that Jesus, being a future messiah and ominpotnent completly missed his spritrually calling so he changed to a compleetly differerent religon.

What is similar about the Christian and Jewish religion is the old testiment (which Jews just call the Bible their is no new testitment to them). The Christians borrowed it when creating their religion. They have a different theory as to why what is in it's pages (in conjunction to the context of the new testiment which the Jews reject).

para 2

I didn't list any sciptures therefore I could not have made a bible intrepretation error. What you just did is called ad hominem, or attacking the argurer. It is a logical fallicy where one attempts to prove a point by attacking the aruguer as opposed to the arugment. In your post before this one you said there were errors in the Bible. Now you have recanted and said there are not any. Are there any or not? But more importantly how can a book written by "the hand of God" have translation errors? The people who translated understand the language. Understanding Hebrew is not the issue. In an early post by you you said,

" However, as often as not, modern Christianity is to be a follower of Paul. I think this was not Paul's intention and it is as much the fault of succeeding generations corrupting Paul's writings as it is attributable to Paul (he is probably rolling over in his grave at what has been done with his writings"

And if there are not it further suggests as Jesus not even bringing up Christanity they he had no knowledge or intention of a religous revolution that would spawn Christianty. If there are how is that when Christians feel the Bible was written by God through man and God is omnipotent ---thus making fallacies impossible? Its kinda the frying pan or the fire either

1) The bible is without error and Jesus didn't bring up Christianty because it has NOTHING do do with him or,
2) The bible is with error and thus was not written with direction from an omnipotent God

Realize the two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, which means its is either 1 or 2 but cannot be both.

Paragraph 3

I read the verses you wanted me to and what I read is in Matt12 he had a disagreement with some fellas in a vineyard. He never says they are banished, cast out, left out of ect ect of his religion. Mark 12 is a group of men questioning his disciples eating on the sabbath again nothing about anyone being banished, cast out left out ect of any religion. Isaiah 5 is a poem preformed as a song and Jesus did not sing or write it.

Qouting Eph from 2/11-2/14

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EPH+2&language=english&version=NIV

shows him accepting gentiels into his faith (of Judism) not rejecting them or leaving it himself.

The general theme of all those sciptures though is interesting. They are based on rightous living. The Christian belief centers around original sin. That the only salvation comes through Jesus Christ and accepting him as your savior. Those scriptures are saying that merit and noble living are neccessary for religious .........That is a concept of Judism but not of Christanity!! (which states that rightous living is good but salvation comes through belief and acceptance of Christ).

Para 4
"Jesus did not want to separate himself, or his followers, from the Jews. This is Catholic anti-semitism and it is wrong"


That is correct Jesus did not seperate himself from the Jews or want to. Christians do in direct conflict from Jesus wishes and without his knowledge. It isn't just Catholics though it is all Christian religions and they do so by incoporating non Jewish ideas.

It is really simple

1) Jesus was a Jew
2) Christianty and Judism are very diffrent religons (as you pointed out)
3) Christanity is in conflict in spirtual guidelines with Christanity and is a rejection of Jesus religion of Judism.

As a footnote to an ealier post u made, "Paul did give us one really big secret which Jesus alluded to but did not elaborate on." suggesting that Jesus is in the secret keeping business is in direct condradiction to the paradign that he is the key to salvation as the utlimate truth.