What is the difference between the view of most Christians regarding ET and...

[martincisneros]

What is the difference between the view of most Christians regarding Eternal Torment and the Crusades that started the last millenium?  Instead of seeking and saving the lost, He's allegedly seeking and burning the lost.

What is the difference between the view of most Christians regarding those burning in Eternal Torment "having done it to themselves," and the attitude of the Christian Knights in the Crusades that those that they were raping and killing "did it to themselves?"

What is the difference between the view of most Christians regarding those burning in Eternal Torment "getting what they deserve" and Adolf Hitler saying the Jews were "getting what they deserve" in his ovens?

[Paul Hazelwood]

From what I can tell,  the average Christian these days maintains that God does not send anyone to a firey torment, we choose of our own free will to reject God therefore we reap the only alternative available.  So it isn't so much that God is seeking unbelievers out, it is a consequence of not accepting Christ as Savior during our earthly lifetime.   

The argument for hitler could be made, however, I have heard the reasoning from Christians for that exact questioning and it is basically since God is sovereign, he can do whatever he wants because he defines truth.  Hitler could not have been doing the same thing as God because hitler being human does not have the authority to make that judgement for those specific people.  God may destroy certain people, but God is the one that gets to decide that.   Even Fred Phelps does not believe he should be the vessle to destroy homosexuals but he does believe he is called to warn the world of Gods wrath against the things he says God hates. 

Now, where I do see the similarity is that Christians whether they believe God sends people to Hell forever or whether we choose of our own freewill to reject God and end up there,  they believe that if God created that consequense for the crime, then we cannot question Gods judgement in a manner that changes anything.


In respect to logic, the latter there is a logical position.  If indeed God has set up an eternal place of punishment, then what are we to do about it?

[martincisneros]

The argument for hitler could be made, however, I have heard the reasoning from Christians for that exact questioning and it is basically since God is sovereign, he can do whatever he wants because he defines truth.  Hitler could not have been doing the same thing as God because hitler being human does not have the authority to make that judgement for those specific people.  God may destroy certain people, but God is the one that gets to decide that.

So, wrong isn't wrong as long as God does it.  But if we're created in His image and likeness, and He's the standard for our being and for everything else in our lives to come up to, then for Him to do it would justify our coming as close to those ideals; like Father, like Son.

[ChuckK3]

The idea that it's OK for God to torture, but not man, sounds like a double standard.  And as we all know, the double standard is evil.

As far as free will is concernced, people who believe they have it, often "submit to God" because they are afraid.    It's like a rape victim surrendering to her attacker because he has threatened her life.  If I thought that God was a brutal tyrant, I could very well tell him "Kiss my 'donkey'".  It would have to be for a good cause however.  A frivolous cause wouldn't work well.  (For instance, it would be a noble cause to "go to hell" to save an unborn child from an angry God through abortion.  On the other hand, telling God "in your face" just because you don't like laws that say treat your fellow man right would be be vain.) People who would rebel against God however, don't profess to have free-will, though they act like they do.  Kinda ironic.

Chuck

[martincisneros]

I pulled some stuff out of storage trying to find some important books, but still haven't come across one of my copies of Thomas Talbott's "The Inescapable Love of God."  He starts one of the chapters with a quote from someone and perhaps it's been my really odd sleep patterns recently, or my sleep deficit that I've had for a couple of weeks now, or I'm dehydrating.  Who knows?  But for some reason, I can't remember the name of the person he quotes this quote from.  But there's a quote to the effect of: to say that God's goodness differs in kind from man's goodness, what is it but a slight change in phraseology in saying that perhaps God might not be good.

[ChuckK3]

                              #### snipped for brevity #####

 But there's a quote to the effect of: to say that God's goodness differs in kind from man's goodness, what is it but a slight change in phraseology in saying that perhaps God might not be good.

That's exactly like saying "God's love is different from man's love.  We don't understand God's love".  Well, if you ask me, that sounds rather masochistic.  A guy would have that mindset if he took as a an expression of love his girlfriend whipping him with a cat-o'-nine.  I consider anything that causes unnecessary pain a lack of love.  Can anyone say "anesthetic"?

Come to think of it, without pain, there would be no pleasure either.  But then again, what's the purpose of pleasure?  Why, to appease and relieve pain, what else!  Therefore, if we had no pain, we would need no pleasure. 

Sometimes I wonder if God has a twisted sense of humor.  He gives us a central nervous system (which without, we would feel no pain), apparently so we can enjoy pleasure.

Chuck

[joyful1]

It's like: there is a time and a season for every purpose under heaven.

for a season, some of these guys truly believe in ET, because "that is where they are at" they are in the season of "understanding that what you sow you reap" and that's ALL THEY PREACH

but after being there for a time...its time to move on....
YES you sow what you reap...but that's not the END of GRACE or LOVE.

seems simple to me.

a father has to establish his position of authority and ability to "make good" on his threats to punish the child if he "does evil"--

after some punishment....the father has the child's attention.
attention is necessary for the child to LEARN and grow.(Paul was struck down in a blinding light: God had his attention! Jonah was in the belly of the sea creature: God had his attention! But God didn't LEAVE them there....Paul had his sight returned to him and learned a great deal after that...Jonah was let go from the sea creature and went on to preach God's Word and to learn from a vision after Ninevah was SAVED!)

finally a discussion : "come let us reason together"

then progress: I COULD do evil, but I learn to control my impulses

then more progress: I can see that my father loves me, says the child, I will seek to please him.

its all a process....eventually everyone gets it...otherwise the Father would loose some....He sent His Son to SAVE the LOST. Jesus is excellent in being a Savior, He will accomplish what He was sent to do.

end of my opinion.

[Paul Hazelwood]

The idea that it's OK for God to torture, but not man, sounds like a double standard.  And as we all know, the double standard is evil.

Perhaps, but the Lord does say that "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord".

[Tony N]

The idea that it's OK for God to torture, but not man, sounds like a double standard.  And as we all know, the double standard is evil.

Perhaps, but the Lord does say that "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord".

Hi Paul,
Would you equate "vengeance" from the Lord with torture?

[Paul Hazelwood]

The idea that it's OK for God to torture, but not man, sounds like a double standard.  And as we all know, the double standard is evil.

Perhaps, but the Lord does say that "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord".

Hi Paul,
Would you equate "vengeance" from the Lord with torture?

Hi Tony,

My personal belief is no.  That is not the point I am trying to make.  It was said that a double standard was evil.   Whether it is torture or something else, God is reserving the right to do something that we do not have the right to do no matter if we are his children, devoted or otherwise.   That is a plain double standard in scripture, so therefore brings question to the nature of a double standard as was spoke of earlier in the thread.

Whatever vengeance is equated to, are we to believe that God is giving us equal status to exact it?

[WhiteWings]

Would you equate "vengeance" from the Lord with torture?

Assuming torture is the fire of 'hell' my answer is no.

Jeremiah 32:35  And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

[WhiteWings]

My personal belief is no.  That is not the point I am trying to make.  It was said that a double standard was evil.   Whether it is torture or something else, God is reserving the right to do something that we do not have the right to do no matter if we are his children, devoted or otherwise.   That is a plain double standard in scripture, so therefore brings question to the nature of a double standard as was spoke of earlier in the thread.

Whatever vengeance is equated to, are we to believe that God is giving us equal status to exact it?

I understand your point Paul; but sometimes double standards are good.
We are talking a child-father relationship here. Such realtionships are never equal (until the child has grown up)
Same with a teacher-child relation. Also not equal; but still good.

An evil double standard of a parent/God would be giving different punishment for the same sin.
And that's what God doesn't do.

[Paul Hazelwood]

My personal belief is no.  That is not the point I am trying to make.  It was said that a double standard was evil.   Whether it is torture or something else, God is reserving the right to do something that we do not have the right to do no matter if we are his children, devoted or otherwise.   That is a plain double standard in scripture, so therefore brings question to the nature of a double standard as was spoke of earlier in the thread.

Whatever vengeance is equated to, are we to believe that God is giving us equal status to exact it?

I understand your point Paul; but sometimes double standards are good.
We are talking a child-father relationship here. Such realtionships are never equal (until the child has grown up)
Same with a teacher-child relation. Also not equal; but still good.

An evil double standard of a parent/God would be giving different punishment for the same sin.
And that's what God doesn't do.

I agree and I was trying to point that out.   The point of the thread I believe is to correlate the crusades to ET as people excersizing their right as believers because thats what God would do.

My point is that even if ET is true, it does not mean that as followers we have the biblical right to determine who is worthy of a similar act.

[WhiteWings]

I pulled some stuff out of storage trying to find some important books, but still haven't come across one of my copies of Thomas Talbott's "The Inescapable Love of God."  He starts one of the chapters with a quote from someone and perhaps it's been my really odd sleep patterns recently, or my sleep deficit that I've had for a couple of weeks now, or I'm dehydrating.  Who knows?  But for some reason, I can't remember the name of the person he quotes this quote from.

The book can be partly read online.

To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is but saying, with a slight chage of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?

John Stuart Mill

[WhiteWings]

I agree and I was trying to point that out.   The point of the thread I believe is to correlate the crusades to ET as people excersizing their right as believers because thats what God would do.

My point is that even if ET is true, it does not mean that as followers we have the biblical right to determine who is worthy of a similar act.

"thou shalt not kill"
"You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Those commandment are very clear IMO.
But shurely those who started the crusades think they found passages that overrule the above...

[judy]

Hello everyone, I have been reading on Tentmaker a long time; I think about 1997 or 98. I don't have much time to post, so here is my short version on the Lord's vengeance. I think it is a paradox. His vengeance is to salvation.


I also feel that in relationships (parent/child or employer/employee or king/subjects ): they should always be equal in relationship, even though not equal in authority. Of course that is not usually true in the world, but should be true in the Father's family.

Just my  . May you all prosper and be in health.

judy

[ChuckK3]

The idea that it's OK for God to torture, but not man, sounds like a double standard.  And as we all know, the double standard is evil.

Perhaps, but the Lord does say that "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord".

I think that is better expressed as "I the Lord will decide if there's going to be such a thing as vengenance".   For God to show "revenge" would make him no better than Hitler.

BTW, What should make anyone think that God said vengenance was his?  Is it possible that someone put words in God's mouth?

[Taffy]

Hello everyone, I have been reading on Tentmaker a long time; I think about 1997 or 98. I don't have much time to post, so here is my short version on the Lord's vengeance. I think it is a paradox. His vengeance is to salvation.

You think Life Judy AMEN.

Isa 35:4 Say to them [that are] of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come [with] vengeance, [even] God [with] a recompence; he will come and save you.

 Isa 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.


 Isa 35:6 Then shall the lame [man] leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

 Isa 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, [shall be] grass with reeds and rushes

MAN IS RECOMPENCED IN THE HEART.

Isa 65:6 Behold, [it is] written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,


2Th 1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

WHERE sin ABOUNDS,..GRACE abounds EVEN MORE..

1Pe 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 



Pro 11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner. 

 

Pro 11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.