Along with the doctrine of Hell, there are a number of other difficult issues that arise regaurding the existence of God and the Scriptures. Dealing with punishing Adam and Eve for eating of the tree, the Flood of Noahs day, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Slaughtering the Firstborn of Egypt, Slaughtering of different nations, and the strict Old Testament laws requiring harsh penalties. Then there are other such issues regaurding why there is so much suffering in the world, why some people get heckled with misfortune and others success, along with natural disasters, disease, and death. Plus there are other biblical matters which seem beyond us like the idea of a God with no beginning or an end, the necessity of Jesus blood shed, or how Jesus can be both divine and man.
These are the reasons, along with the idea of Eternal Torment that the Atheists ridicule the existence of God. Then we have the ET believers who cite these examples of these difficult questions to justify the doctrine of Hell.
The way I see it, since everyone will eventually "get to Heaven" through Jesus - all of the stuff like the flood, egypt, etc...Temporary, and easily forgettable fuzzy memories when compared to the trillions, of trillions, of trillions, of trillions, of trillions of years that will constitute deathless glory.
A few eggs broken for a glorious omelet shared by everyone.
Agreed, it all comes out alright in the end. And perhaps receiving some of God's judgement on earth lessens the judgements in the afterlife.
I thought about these tough matters, and I think its reasonable to say that our comprehension is a lot smaller than Gods. ex. The Earth seems flat to us, because gravity is holding us on earth, and we are only specs on the planet. However today science knows that the earth is in fact round.
So, since we are only finite, and only in the early stages of knowledge, we can only understand things of a very limited time. Like to us, death seems final, but in reality, Jesus says its not final in any way at all. So, to us what seems like cruelty and neglect has a more important purpose than we can see at that time. Like the Mosaic Law, it seemed very strange to have all these regulations for sacrifices, legalistic with all those health and hygenic codes, and barbaric with the punishment for disobedience. (I still dont fully understand the Mosaic Laws). However it had a grander purpose that was difficult to understand.
However since we have limited understanding, we can only act in accordance to our understanding. So if one of us got mad at a political leader, and slaughtered innocent firstborns, that would make them a very mentally deranged criminal. To us, there is no reasonable purpose for doing so. Or like the Calvinist Dominion sect, who want to enforce the Mosaic Law on the USA citizens, that would be nothing but barbaric, due to limited understanding, and the fact that the law had been fulfilled.
IT seems to be that pain has lasted for eternity. but once we are resurected wth Christ, pain is no longer part of our existence, we''ll be like , "hey where's all the pain gone, was that it" and eternity of peace begins. Imagine that, an eternity of peace :cloud9: whatever floats your boat, sailing, gardening, lying on a hammok, imagine that peace for eternity, and the Word promises that we won't have to go through this death experience again.
Quote from: Universalist Catholic on October 26, 2010, 11:52:45 PM
Along with the doctrine of Hell, there are a number of other difficult issues that arise regaurding the existence of God and the Scriptures. Dealing with punishing Adam and Eve for eating of the tree, the Flood of Noahs day, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Slaughtering the Firstborn of Egypt, Slaughtering of different nations, and the strict Old Testament laws requiring harsh penalties. Then there are other such issues regaurding why there is so much suffering in the world, why some people get heckled with misfortune and others success, along with natural disasters, disease, and death. Plus there are other biblical matters which seem beyond us like the idea of a God with no beginning or an end, the necessity of Jesus blood shed, or how Jesus can be both divine and man.
These are the reasons, along with the idea of Eternal Torment that the Atheists ridicule the existence of God. Then we have the ET believers who cite these examples of these difficult questions to justify the doctrine of Hell.
Personally I think these difficulties come from relying on main stream religious views to tell us what things mean. Even from the side of Christian Universalism I hear "don't throw the baby out wioth the bathwater" yet, what logic dictates that if mainstream religion got it so wrong in one area that they got it right in another?
The most common rationalization is that since God is righteous, doing those things was righteous. While we can see that as true, it is merely an illusion because then againwe will find God doing things that he commands us not to do because they are sin.
Another problem we encounter is that if we start to defy traditional interpretations along these lines we can be accused of not believing the word of God. Well, so, when it comes to "all men saved" that has never stopped anyone from continuing to pursue that level of study, so why should it prevent us from seeing the entire old testament in a different light that what tradition has told us?
When we start down this road, we can also be accused of saying that the bible is flawed because we dare to interject that mans ideologies has infuenced some of the text.
A point on that is that a human army may have slughtered an entire civilization, but they simply used God as an excuse to justify it and that may have been written down. People are often afraid that if we find a problem in one area of the bible then we cannot trust any oif it. While I understand it, it is not actually true and furthermore, the bible is not a requirement for salvation or spiritual enlightenment in the first place.
With that said I will point out how I see things at this point and the road I am going down to explore.
I believe we can trust the whole bible when placed in a spiritual light. I do not need to rationalize that God actually flooded the entire planet, part of it or any such thing. What I do know is that more than likely, it is a story that depicts a physical event, whether real or hypothetical that tells the story of what God does to us spiritually not necessarily what God commanded one group of humans to do to another or necessarily what God decreed to do to them on the physical earth.
QuotePersonally I think these difficulties come from relying on main stream religious views to tell us what things mean. Even from the side of Christian Universalism I hear "don't throw the baby out wioth the bathwater" yet, what logic dictates that if mainstream religion got it so wrong in one area that they got it right in another?
The issue with mainstream religion, and their theology is not that they are "always wrong" just because they got Hell wrong. It is not by human logic, and reasoning that we are taught from the Bible - that is the Holy Spirit's job.
Hence; lets not throw out what lines up with scripture (that which hasn't been mistranslated), because of human error due to circumstances.
I'll set forth a possibility - most people don't really believe in Hell at all, even amongst Christian circles, and especially so. Hell to them is just as incorporeal, and trivial as the genealogies, and most of them gloss over it when ever they do pick up a Bible to read, which is usually in an emergency and at that point they're looking at Proverbs or Psalms. Hell has become defined by mainstream Christendom as "separation from God", not a literal place of fire and brimstone.
In summary; Most Christians don't even study beyond the needs of their emergency, or their daily lives. Those who do study tend to do a "read the Bible in a year" type of deal, or else they skim in the shallow waters, going through a few verses in the Bible in a study group and pulling out of it workbook interpretations, very little Holy Spirit power is involved, and so they get "trivia truths" instead of deep revelations like "Hell isn't real". And when they do hear a voice that seems to confirm Hell, it is usually a voice they're used to - the Devil's, the flesh, and their own minds. Most Christians that I know of don't really know the voice of God, they have a hint of it, but they don't really "fluently know the language of Heaven", I know from my own experience that I have a lot of trouble hearing him as well as I'd like.
And when God does tell them that Hell isn't real? "BE GONE SATAN! IN JESUS' NAME! HELL MUST BE REAL! I WON'T QUESTION THE LORD'S CHURCH!!!!"
Very few groups actually study extensively on Hell from the actual scriptures (the Greek in context) - we being amongst those few.
And from this you tend to have three groups;
a. Those who by tradition say "Be gone! Hell is real!", or by their own imaginations accept the notion.
b. Those who by conspiracy, conjecture, and theosophy or new-age weirdness accept it out of morbid curiousity, like those who make lists of demons, and angels, and study Satan so much that they lose sight of God anyway, and by that token inevitably don't hear God clearly...how can you hear God say Hell isn't real if you're so busy dissecting Satan?
c. Those who abandon Hell and accept either Annihilationism, or Reconciliation, or those who abandon the faith altogether.
However, theologians who are not so interested in Hell, and not all of them are - not all of them are called to study such a thing, are not completely wrong, and should not be automatically written off. A theologian (and I use this term for anyone who studies the word of God extensively) who studies say...the history of the Jewish Feasts, should not be written off as wrong, just because he has a nominal belief in Hell - caused by the same circumstances presented by the nominal Christian.
Hell came about as a mighty mistranslation, and Augustine, but the histories of the Hebrews, and the Flood are extensively noted even by the Rabbis who adore the Torah.
Quote from: Lefein on October 29, 2010, 07:36:36 PM
The issue with mainstream religion, and their theology is not that they are "always wrong" just because they got Hell wrong. It is not by human logic, and reasoning that we are taught from the Bible - that is the Holy Spirit's job.
Hence; lets not throw out what lines up with scripture (that which hasn't been mistranslated), because of human error due to circumstances.
If mistranslation was the only issue I would agree with you more, but interpretation and understanding as a whole is a bigger issue. When it comes to "everlasting" hell it is actually misuse of properly translated words than true mistranslation. Everlasting is a proper use of some words of the bible if seen in the light of how we perceive things.
For instance, since english is the only language that I speak and understand fluently based not only on knowing what words mean but understanding how they are used in our culture I have never had one conversation with someone else speaking english that really uses the words eternity or forever to imply a true state of something not ending. "That stop light took forever to change" "I was waiting in line at walmart for what seemed an eternity".
None of these indicate a true state of endlessness, but only a indication of how we perceived a temporary period of time.
So just because something is translated correctly does not mean the intepretations we are told are correct are.
If it is holy spirit that guides us then we need to each carry that path for the understanding God wants us to have and not assume anything that comes from others is inherantly true.
I simply cannot see the character of God in the bible truly getting so fed up with his creation as if there was a botched plan and he had to start over by killing off human beings as we are told we must rationalize through traditional thought.
I also do not see the scriptural path of a limitless God who could have taught us without pain and suffering but chose to do so simply because He is God so whatever he does is good. To take such a stance means that we cannot truly define evil in the first place, because if anything God does can never be evil, then the standard for what evil really is has disappeared entirely.
Perhaps I am wrong, but at this point and time there is no reason for me to believe that I must believe God was like that just because I am told God did it so that means it is ok.
I also realize that I have addressed things that you didn't talk about. Thiis is mainly because I wanted to keep my train of thought based on the original post of this thread, whether hell is eternal or not is addressed in many other threads and this thread seems to be about the difficult things to believe such as a loving God who slaughters new born children because he us mad at someone.
QuoteIt is not by human logic, and reasoning that we are taught from the Bible - that is the Holy Spirit's job.
I also wanted to address this statement specifically. While we want this to be the case, more often than not, we have to be extremely careful in asserting that the holy spirit is what gave us the words we put forth to other people.
The fact remains that most of religious belief from any paradigm, has become confusing and convoluted simply because just about everyone is claiming that the holy spirit gave them the "truth".
When two people with opposing viewpoints claim this, can they both be right? But at the same time, even through this claim both could be wrong.
God gave us brains to study and search for whats right, I have my beliefs and I do not claim to have been guided by the holy spieit past what revelations that I gather for my personal walk. When someone makes an assertion that they want me to believe and state that it was from the holy spirit, that is not something that is iron clad fact. it is an empty assertion that anyone can say for anything they want.
If someone wants to present themselves as having been more enlightened than me because they believe or claim that they are in the spirit and I am not because I do not believe them, then I walk very carefully with that person because I have seen too many lies come in the name of "the holy spirit told me".
QuoteIf mistranslation was the only issue I would agree with you more, but interpretation and understanding as a whole is a bigger issue. When it comes to "everlasting" hell it is actually misuse of properly translated words than true mistranslation. Everlasting is a proper use of some words of the bible if seen in the light of how we perceive things.
People tend to interpret the Bible before asking for revelation - first mistake. And then their interpretations tend to be relative to their understanding of language, which is usually not as keen as they assume.
However, I agree with you on the point of everlasting meaning what it means.
QuoteFor instance, since english is the only language that I speak and understand fluently based not only on knowing what words mean but understanding how they are used in our culture I have never had one conversation with someone else speaking english that really uses the words eternity or forever to imply a true state of something not ending. "That stop light took forever to change" "I was waiting in line at walmart for what seemed an eternity".
None of these indicate a true state of endlessness, but only a indication of how we perceived a temporary period of time.
I agree.
QuoteSo just because something is translated correctly does not mean the intepretations we are told are correct are.
Of course not, hence test all things and hold on to the good, and God given common sense, and the use of a witness of two or three -
Scriptural consistency, witness of the Holy Spirit to conscience, and plain common sense after good study.
QuoteIf it is holy spirit that guides us then we need to each carry that path for the understanding God wants us to have and not assume anything that comes from others is inherantly true.
A good Berean searches the scriptures to see what is true or not; to see if it resonates with Conscience, Spirit, and Script. It is my belief that anything that comes from others is a neutral position to be considered, and from study find positive acceptance of that neutral position, or else dismiss it in some way or another if it is false.
My position here isn't to defend Tradition, only that Tradition has positions that we should take a neutral stance on - and then proceed to accept, or dismiss it after study.
QuoteI simply cannot see the character of God in the bible truly getting so fed up with his creation as if there was a botched plan and he had to start over by killing off human beings as we are told we must rationalize through traditional thought.
Most Traditional Theologians assume that judgement is inflictive, or vindictive, and then proceed to feed this to their sheep. They do not usually look at it in the scope of scripture, and God's character of Love.
The Flood, as well as Sodom and God's other mass judgements, like the first born of Egypt have been difficult for me in light of Traditionalist thinking that God is vengeful without remedial purposes.
But in light of Universal Reconciliation my perspective has broadened to God's point of view (as best as I can). A bird's eye view of history if that makes sense.
Here we have in the Flood account wickedness abounding so much that it grieves God (God can be grieved) because God is saddened by sin, and angry at their behaviour. God loves them of course, and knows best.
The problem with sin, and God knows it, is that sin is not just an offense to God, but it is self-harm, it is masochism. When someone lies, cheats, steals, murders, commits adultery, etc...He isn't just sinning against God, or the persons affected - he is killing himself, hardening his own heart, and racking up more, and more dross that will need purification, and in general it is just ludicrously hurtful against the sinner's own self to sin.
The Flood was an act of mercy in light of this, mankind becoming so wicked, or else so volatile in their sins that in order that their spirit might be saved in the end, they had to be removed from the playing field. A modern day metaphor might work like this:
"In order to rescue the drug addict, he had to be taken out of the urban sector in which he lived, and moved into a safe house three states away."
Those who died in the Flood will also be raised on the last day, and they too will enter into deathless beauty through Jesus Christ.
The first born of Egypt also, and those who died.
This thought came to me recently when it comes to God, and people. "Everyone will repent, and everyone will be recompensed."
QuoteI also do not see the scriptural path of a limitless God who could have taught us without pain and suffering but chose to do so simply because He is God so whatever he does is good. To take such a stance means that we cannot truly define evil in the first place, because if anything God does can never be evil, then the standard for what evil really is has disappeared entirely.
Evil is the absence of Good, from my understanding. The absence of God is the absence of Good, just as the absence of God who is Life, is the absence of Life which is hence; Death. It is of my understanding that pain and suffering are natural consequences of distance from God, or else tools by which God draws you closer.
Imagine this;
There is a man named Bob, and then there is God. Bob is distant from God, and so there is pain and suffering where Bob is. God is where there is no pain, or suffering, since he already took all of that on the Cross and put away with it. But distance from God is still pain and suffering, and so Bob gets tired of being hurt all the time, and decides to get closer to God who is drawing him.
Now, there is still pain and suffering in the gap that is between God and Bob, so Bob while he is walking towards God goes through pain and suffering still, because he is closing the distance by having to go through it. But graceful is God, who is walking towards Bob also, and making the distance that is full of pain and suffering that Bob has to walk through - shorter, and God even in his cleverness might prod Bob along with a little bit of pain to make him close the distance faster. In the bird's eye view of this parable; Bob gets out of pain and suffering alot faster than he would have just standing still.
God could close the gap himself, and he does so more often than we think I believe, these are special miracles in people's lives, especially when people are always moving to and from God with their natural sins - distance, and closing that distance by repenting. But more often, God desires the intimacy, and the profit that people will learn to stray less, when they know the alternative to being with God is being with Hurt.
The Flood, and God's other judgements are in my understanding - just "enlarged, zoomed out" versions of this concept.
QuotePerhaps I am wrong, but at this point and time there is no reason for me to believe that I must believe God was like that just because I am told God did it so that means it is ok.
Remember this; the executioner is not a murderer, and the doctor cutting out a cancer is not a sadist. Even if the lethal injection can be used to murder, and the scalpel used to torture.
Go with peace friend. :boyheart:
QuoteI also wanted to address this statement specifically. While we want this to be the case, more often than not, we have to be extremely careful in asserting that the holy spirit is what gave us the words we put forth to other people.
Well of course, we should all use common sense as best as we have it. But we should remember that if we do something thinking it is God, and we actually miss him, God will find us.
QuoteThe fact remains that most of religious belief from any paradigm, has become confusing and convoluted simply because just about everyone is claiming that the holy spirit gave them the "truth".
That's why we have scriptures, and witness to conscience, and one Spirit whom we pray to for confirmation, and application, and Truth. ^^
QuoteWhen two people with opposing viewpoints claim this, can they both be right? But at the same time, even through this claim both could be wrong.
It depends on what the witnesses say, they could both be right in a certain way; "A: this is blue" "B: No...its Teal"
And one could be right, and the other wrong. Likewise they could both be way off. That I believe is why we are told to test all things and hold on to the good, as well as set our mind on things that are praise worthy, lovely, good, pure, and in general positive.
God is more interested in Peace, and Happiness, and Love, and visiting orphans and widows rather than religious quiz knowledge. He gives us knowledge to apply, rather than to "simply know", and this application is always geared towards our betterment, and our fruitfulness in life, and our prosperity (not just financially, but in our enjoyment of God, and God's goodness, and righteousness in our behaviour).
So, two opposing views may be correct in that sort of sense, if they can be applied to betterment. But here is where we need to be sure that we are actually asking God for his opinion, rather than leaning to our own understanding.
If we feel wholeheartedly that what we received is true, and that it lines up with script, and conscience, and God given sense - then we can be confident in applying it to positive ends. And if it leads to peace, and prosperity - Praise the Lord. If it does not, God will find us, and correct our mistake.
That is the beauty of Grace, we are no longer under the penalty of Death if we don't get it right the first time.
QuoteGod gave us brains to study and search for whats right, I have my beliefs and I do not claim to have been guided by the holy spieit past what revelations that I gather for my personal walk. When someone makes an assertion that they want me to believe and state that it was from the holy spirit, that is not something that is iron clad fact. it is an empty assertion that anyone can say for anything they want.
This I agree with. The Holy Spirit is an intimate, personal manifestation of God; God in us. And so he is for our comfort, and counsel. If he gives us something to say to others, he'll confirm it, and give us a sensible means to pass it on. However like Jesus himself said: What does it matter to you if he lives until I come back? If it is not our business to pass something on, God will simply enough fix our mistake, probably chastise us, and we'll learn better next time.
If there is a strong word, or prophecy, or warning given - it will occur, if it does not occur, then we'll learn from it. Of course, God wants us to be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves, and this to me means that we don't fly off into a crowd of people and start trying to be a psychic medium predicting their future all the time.
But sometimes indeed, there is a word, and a warning to be given - and given in prayer.
Just my understanding anyway.
QuoteIf someone wants to present themselves as having been more enlightened than me because they believe or claim that they are in the spirit and I am not because I do not believe them, then I walk very carefully with that person because I have seen too many lies come in the name of "the holy spirit told me".
Those sort are usually Pharisees, or Sadducees anyway, and they have their reward. I personally am more willing to take a word from the mouth of babes, than a person whose fruit shows wickedness, or hard heartedness. A soft heart hears God, a hard heart is deaf...
But as for theologians, being a good Berean, and ensuring that it is applicable to peace, and prosperity - these are my litmus tests.
:cloud9: There's also another reason why some people say, "God told them such and such"...........He actually did and they don't want to take the credit for something that is not theirs, as in stealing glory that belongs only to Him.
It's also up to Him whether anyone else "hears" it or not, so if they didn't "hear" it, that still doesn't mean He didn't say it, just that He gives the hearing ear and for whatever reason, elected not to open the hearing ear for that particular thing to be received, at least not at that point in time.
Knowing that those that are meant to hear (at any particular time), will hear, and those that are not meant to, won't, further removes the fleshly tendency to want to get a hand in there and "make" someone hear, and leads to resting in Him in ALL situations. My :2c: Blessings.....
I know some atheists who enjoy debating along this line. I personally view these stories as mans way of recording their encounters with God. I don't know if God sent a flood to wipe out mankind but I do think he rescued Noah. When I argue with atheists I usually tell them that they don't have to believe in the literal events because the Christian principles are more important. Noah i associate with Gods love and really see it as a foretelling of Christ. Sodom and Gomorrah represent a persons life in unrepentant sin. Sinful actions can destroy your life - just like those cities were destroyed. I don't dwell on whether these events literally happened with atheists because I don't think that's the point. Just my :2c:.
Angela
There is a literal element - Gold. And then there is the beautiful essence of Gold that is deeper than the literal element.
However, the deeper beauty of gold is no less real, or physical, or affecting, or corporeal than the literal material of gold.
It is the beauty of gold that makes gold worth what it is worth - not the element of gold itself. The element is merely a garment through which the Reality of Beauty is able to manifest.
The Bible is the same - it is literal, corporeal word, but without The Spirit of Truth that by its sentience manifests through it like the beauty in gold; it is just a book with letters.
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 02:19:09 AM
There is a literal element - Gold. And then there is the beautiful essence of Gold that is deeper than the literal element.
However, the deeper beauty of gold is no less real, or physical, or affecting, or corporeal than the literal material of gold.
It is the beauty of gold that makes gold worth what it is worth - not the element of gold itself. The element is merely a garment through which the Reality of Beauty is able to manifest.
The Bible is the same - it is literal, corporeal word, but without The Spirit of Truth that by its sentience manifests through it like the beauty in gold; it is just a book with letters.
I love this analogy. :girlheart:
You're welcome. :) Glad to have been a vessel by which you bless you. :boyheart:
Quote from: Lefein on October 29, 2010, 09:02:02 PM
People tend to interpret the Bible before asking for revelation - first mistake. And then their interpretations tend to be relative to their understanding of language, which is usually not as keen as they assume.
In general I agree, from my experience, people on average (not everyone of course) tend to search the scriptures to validate what they already tend to accept or what feels comfortable.
Quote
My position here isn't to defend Tradition, only that Tradition has positions that we should take a neutral stance on - and then proceed to accept, or dismiss it after study.
I disagree, but not because I think you shouldn't do that, but from my personal walk my personality doesn't really cater to being lukewarm on much of anything. When I left religion, I started from scratch basically concluding that it was all hogwash and the only truth I had left was to begin a journey for truth at whatever cost. If that cost was to concede that tradition was right all along, then fine, but in general, It is a waste of my spiritual time (if there is such a thing, lol) to look towards traditional interpretations for anything. If that works for you, then I am not going to try to talk you out of doing so.
Quote
But in light of Universal Reconciliation my perspective has broadened to God's point of view (as best as I can). A bird's eye view of history if that makes sense.
Well, to me that simply has no real difference from the perspective of someone who doesn;t believe that all mankind will be saved. If one can argue that God is righteous in all he does when placed in a certain light, then in reality there is no standard of good and evil, only a rationalization that it is ok if you are considered righteous. With that in mind, if God actually has ordained most of humanity to burn in Hell and along the way he slaughters millions and billions of people on earth, then God being inherantly righteous then God has not done an evil act. If God is inherantly the arbitrator of what is good and evil in the first place then if God does it, it is good.
That is the argument calvinist use to justify the idea that God has indeed created human beings for the sole purpose of damnnation. It is an argument that can be used from any point of view so it is an empty assertion for what is actually good vs evil.
So my point is that I actually can say that God did not command a human army to go exterminate an entire kingdom of humans because that IS evil for any purpose and God wouldn't do that. No more than God desired a child to get raped because it was in his good plan. We are told to abhor evil, well, we have to be able to decide what is evil in order to abhore it.
A child getting slaughtered is evil and placing Gods name in the middle of the situation doesn't change it.
QuoteRemember this; the executioner is not a murderer, and the doctor cutting out a cancer is not a sadist. Even if the lethal injection can be used to murder, and the scalpel used to torture.
This could depend on perspective. The executioner could refuse to flip the switch, push the button or inject the poison. The doctor analogy is a good point, but all I am saying is this.
When we use human analogies to depict Gods dealings, we often over apply humanity onto God. For instance, we do not like pain and we often come to believe that pain can teach us to be stronger. ok, but, what does it suggest if God (if he is truly limitless as we have been taught) could teach us the very same things without pain. Which in reality would be more righteous?
Can we actually say that God is righteous if he hit you over the head with a baseball bat to teach you a lesson if indeed God could have taught you that lesson without having to do that? In my opinion, no, he would not be righteous and just because a God would do that, doesn't mean that he is.
Some think that I might be saying that God is not righteous when they wish to cling onto traditional intepretations, but thaty is not correct. I am saying that it is possible to conclude the righteousness of God would never do certain things.
Just because slaughtering a race of people isn't permanant, doesn't mean it is righteous.
Good talking to you and you make good points that even though I disagree some now, I will consider those things.
Quote
I disagree, but not because I think you shouldn't do that, but from my personal walk my personality doesn't really cater to being lukewarm on much of anything. When I left religion, I started from scratch basically concluding that it was all hogwash and the only truth I had left was to begin a journey for truth at whatever cost. If that cost was to concede that tradition was right all along, then fine, but in general, It is a waste of my spiritual time (if there is such a thing, lol) to look towards traditional interpretations for anything. If that works for you, then I am not going to try to talk you out of doing so.
Well, try not to misunderstand my use of the term "neutral", if that is what lead to "lukewarm" - Neutral to me means that you do are still going through the process of study and prayer about a theological position and so are not yet attacking it, or defending it, or accepting it.
When I say "Tradition" I mean the general ideas of normal members of the Church. They may believe in Hell, and they may "go to church", but they are still Christians who have the same Holy Spirit that I do. So if they claim to have a revelation concerning a scripture, it is worth considering.
QuoteWell, to me that simply has no real difference from the perspective of someone who doesn;t believe that all mankind will be saved. If one can argue that God is righteous in all he does when placed in a certain light, then in reality there is no standard of good and evil, only a rationalization that it is ok if you are considered righteous. With that in mind, if God actually has ordained most of humanity to burn in Hell and along the way he slaughters millions and billions of people on earth, then God being inherantly righteous then God has not done an evil act. If God is inherantly the arbitrator of what is good and evil in the first place then if God does it, it is good.
We should look at some facts;
Eternal Damnation doesn't exist - the witness of scripture, conscience, and sense shows it. So that cannot be attributed to God, despite what Tradition may say - and usually says stumbling.
But there are facts indeed;
God is righteous/just.
His judgements are remedial.
All men will be saved.
And one assumption;
Deathless infinity in glory is better, and a long time.
People can use the argument that God is righteous to justify a non-existent Hell, but if we are to be able to take anything seriously we should not immediately dismiss the less pretty acts of God (ending wicked physical lives) as waste, when his purposes are far better than the wicked physical life could have promised.
God does on occasion, kill a man - having given that life he can take it, he owns it, the man is but a steward of it. However that life will be raised, purified, and live in what is better than a second chance.
QuoteThat is the argument calvinist use to justify the idea that God has indeed created human beings for the sole purpose of damnnation. It is an argument that can be used from any point of view so it is an empty assertion for what is actually good vs evil.
Yet, God created mankind for the sole purpose of being glorified and saved.
QuoteSo my point is that I actually can say that God did not command a human army to go exterminate an entire kingdom of humans because that IS evil for any purpose and God wouldn't do that. No more than God desired a child to get raped because it was in his good plan. We are told to abhor evil, well, we have to be able to decide what is evil in order to abhore it.
A child getting slaughtered is evil and placing Gods name in the middle of the situation doesn't change it.
Yet, if God did indeed send the Israelites to take the land - God did so. But God never sent man to rape.
Remember who the Israelites took the land from, they were not peaceful natives, living in harmony with the land, the trees, and animals, holding hands, and singing praises to the spirit of Love...
A great deal of them were servants of Molech, for example. God does judge with violence when it suits his purpose.
Quote from: PaulSo my point is that I actually can say that God did not command a human army to go exterminate an entire kingdom of humans because that IS evil for any purpose and God wouldn't do that.
You can say that, but will you be right? If the Bible contradicts you, will you still be right? If the Bible is not a book that you can pick and choose from, will you be right then?
I think the temptation is to dismiss things we do not understand as being incorrect.
Maybe because I have spent so much of my life reading things I did not understand, I am used to setting something aside until I can understand it. I don't dismiss it--I set it aside until a later time when I am more educated. I believe this is how we should treat the Bible.
Either you trust God or you don't. Either you consider the book the word of God, or not. But, just because something doesn't make sense to you does not justify dismissing it. That is what the atheist does. It is all foolishness to the atheist, so not worth his time. He will use parts of it which he doesn't understand to prove that it is not worth his time to understand. All he succeeds in doing is proving himself shallow, without humility, and biased.
If God is doing something that on the surface offends us, you can bet he has a good reason, whether or not we know what it is.
Luke 7:23
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
:cloud9: That's the way I look at it, too.....if the carnal mind could comprehend all the ways and the character of God, we wouldn't need the Spirit. Blessings.....
It seems that even tho we all try not let it happen pride will squeeze in like a mouse through a hole that looks impossible to get through. This verse more than any other since I came to this forum has been posted and it has been an anchor and most trusted. There is much depth in our reasoning and there is also a stubborness, this of course is my thought alone and it is not my aim to be hurtfull or think I am something (i) am not. But here is the verse:
1Co 13:12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
And let me add the last verse of that chapter as well 1Co 13:13 and now there doth remain faith, hope, love--these three; and the greatest of these is love.
Peace and Love Through Jesus
Quote from: Molly on October 30, 2010, 06:48:42 PM
I think the temptation is to dismiss things we do not understand as being incorrect.
Maybe because I have spent so much of my life reading things I did not understand, I am used to setting something aside until I can understand it. I don't dismiss it--I set it aside until a later time when I am more educated. I believe this is how we should treat the Bible.
Either you trust God or you don't. Either you consider the book the word of God, or not. But, just because something doesn't make sense to you does not justify dismissing it. That is what the atheist does. It is all foolishness to the atheist, so not worth his time. He will use parts of it which he doesn't understand to prove that it is not worth his time to understand. All he succeeds in doing is proving himself shallow, without humility, and biased.
If God is doing something that on the surface offends us, you can bet he has a good reason, whether or not we know what it is.
Luke 7:23
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Amen, amen.
I dont understand just what an atheist has to do with anything.
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 30, 2010, 08:24:53 PMI dont understand just what an atheist has to do with anything.
Some things are not true and will never become true.
Some things are true but are so complex that:
a] We can labels them instantly as not true.
b] Stay neutral about the fact until after a study one knows enough to really claim something is true or false
Some say atheists always chose option a.
I think that's a wrong understanding. I think both atheists and believer judge to fast.
(when I read articles of some Christian professials I sometimes truely wonder they even own a Bible)
AND there are also believers and atheists who truely seek.
The problem with atheists is that they either don't seek, or seek but never find.
If you don't seek you can not judge.
But I truely wonder if the seeking atheist, that finds nothing, has found less that the seeking Christian that found ET. :dontknow:
Quote from: Molly on October 30, 2010, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: PaulSo my point is that I actually can say that God did not command a human army to go exterminate an entire kingdom of humans because that IS evil for any purpose and God wouldn't do that.
You can say that, but will you be right? If the Bible contradicts you, will you still be right? If the Bible is not a book that you can pick and choose from, will you be right then?
You are assuming that tradional understanding is correct and are implying that I am wrong. I could be, but just as easily traditional understanding can be too. We could all be wrong for all we know, but I really couldn't care less, it is what I believe right now, so I will share it.
Quote
I think the temptation is to dismiss things we do not understand as being incorrect.
I understand just fine, I do not believe God did those things, I believe man did them and used Gods name to excuse them. Why would human nature be any different then as it is now?
Quote
Maybe because I have spent so much of my life reading things I did not understand, I am used to setting something aside until I can understand it. I don't dismiss it--I set it aside until a later time when I am more educated. I believe this is how we should treat the Bible.
You have no obligation to accept how I view things, I have placed what I believe out there, I do not need to treat the bible as some mysterious creature, God says I can have understanding oif it, so I venture in faith on a journey of exploration. If I am wrong, so what?
QuoteEither you trust God or you don't. Either you consider the book the word of God, or not. But, just because something doesn't make sense to you does not justify dismissing it. That is what the atheist does. It is all foolishness to the atheist, so not worth his time. He will use parts of it which he doesn't understand to prove that it is not worth his time to understand. All he succeeds in doing is proving himself shallow, without humility, and biased.
The thing your missing is that I have never said something doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense if God is evil that he would do evil things and then as God call it good. Fact is God is not evil, the bible is Gods word and I trust that he did not do those things as tradition has taught us.
Quote
Luke 7:23
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
I am not offended in God, however interpretations can be wrong and that has nothing to do with dismissing God, it has to do with dismissing mens traditions and interprtations.
Well the same logic actually holds, if I shouldn't dismiss tradtion, then I shouldn't dismiss tradition and that includes eternal hell too.
Just because you cannot understand the righteousness of eternal hell doesn't mean it is incorrect.
"Just because you cannot understand the righteousness of eternal hell doesn't mean it is incorrect."
Please explain the "righteousness" of an eternal hell with an understanding ?
Righteousness G1343 =equity (fairness)
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 30, 2010, 09:30:55 PM
"Just because you cannot understand the righteousness of eternal hell doesn't mean it is incorrect."
Please explain the "righteousness" of an eternal hell with an understanding ?
Righteousness G1343 =equity (fairness)
Just because you cannot understand how it is fair doesn't mean it isn't.
When it is asserted that we cannot actually underastand what God does then you can posit any point of view you like with that implication.
To make it clear I am actually showing how the logic of those saying I shouldn't dismiss tradition is flawed.
Ok
We (or I atleast) never said you shouldn't dismiss Tradition. Only that those who are in the court of Tradition are still Christians and have nuggets of given wisdom to offer the whole. They are still in the body, even if they are in man made temples - Churchianity.
We should be careful not to become an exclusive club in our own turn by ostracising those who are still in mainstream theology, and defacto dismissing anything they offer to the body merely because they for the most part barely believe in Hell.
Everyone has incorrect doctrines, (as well as correct ones) no one has perfect understanding (yet). But that which is good, pure, lovely, prospers peace, and harmony, and positivity, and draws one to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth should be held, tradition source, or not.
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 09:44:56 PM
We (or I atleast) never said you shouldn't dismiss Tradition. Only that those who are in the court of Tradition are still Christians and have nuggets of given wisdom to offer the whole. They are still in the body, even if they are in man made temples - Churchianity.
We should be careful not to become an exclusive club in our own turn by ostracising those who are still in mainstream theology, and defacto dismissing anything they offer to the body merely because they for the most part barely believe in Hell.
Everyone has incorrect doctrines, (as well as correct ones) no one has perfect understanding (yet). But that which is good, pure, lovely, prospers peace, and harmony, and positivity, and draws one to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth should be held, tradition source, or not.
Yes I agree and have not said anything about the people who believe differently than me.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2010, 09:01:03 PM
AND there are also believers and atheists who truely seek.
The problem with atheists is that they either don't seek, or seek but never find.
If you don't seek you can not judge.
But I truely wonder if the seeking atheist, that finds nothing, has found less that the seeking Christian that found ET. :dontknow:
Jesus.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2010, 09:01:03 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 30, 2010, 08:24:53 PMI dont understand just what an atheist has to do with anything.
Some things are not true and will never become true.
Some things are true but are so complex that:
a] We can labels them instantly as not true.
b] Stay neutral about the fact until after a study one knows enough to really claim something is true or false
Some say atheists always chose option a.
I think that's a wrong understanding. I think both atheists and believer judge to fast.
(when I read articles of some Christian professials I sometimes truely wonder they even own a Bible)
AND there are also believers and atheists who truely seek.
The problem with atheists is that they either don't seek, or seek but never find.
If you don't seek you can not judge.
But I truely wonder if the seeking atheist, that finds nothing, has found less that the seeking Christian that found ET. :dontknow:
If an atheist understands that true love is something that is greater than themselves and that it is good to seek what that is then they have found Jesus just as surely if not more so than the Christian legalist who does all the right things according to tradition.
Not attempting to be a legalist, but I understand it is the Name of Jesus that needs the recognition, knowing or finding that love you you spoke of is good, but that soul needs to see/hear, that love is Jesus. Or is that too legal?
Perosnally I have taken the veiw that practically all of what traditional orthodox religion teaches is doctines of men to appease or control the masses.
I have found that many philosophers, religious thinkers, and scientists have come up with some good explainations of some of the seemingly "Barbaric" customs. For example, the Mosaic Laws have been proven to be very accurate in hygiene. In fact, the Jews were the only ones not harmed by the black death.
Quote from: jabcat on October 30, 2010, 09:59:58 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 30, 2010, 09:01:03 PM
AND there are also believers and atheists who truely seek.
The problem with atheists is that they either don't seek, or seek but never find.
If you don't seek you can not judge.
But I truely wonder if the seeking atheist, that finds nothing, has found less that the seeking Christian that found ET. :dontknow:
Jesus.
Really? Did they really find Jesus if they believe Jesus is gonna judge many to hell for eternity.
If I write down 100 point description of your personality and wishes and i got 80 wrong did I truely find Jabcat?
If God=Love and I find God=mostly torture; did I find God?
I think absolutely, Tony. IMO, it's straigtforward. Call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Believe in your heart, confess with your mouth He died for our sins and God raised Him from the dead.
Doesn't say believe in UR, don't believe in hell, ET. Those are further revelations and doctrinal issues. Important for sure, but not the bottom line. Believing on Jesus is.
You can't have fruit in the first place, without finding The Seed.
:cloud9: Exactly....
Quote from: jabcat on October 30, 2010, 11:24:32 PM
I think absolutely, Tony. IMO, it's straigtforward. Call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Believe in your heart, confess with your mouth He died for our sins and God raised Him from the dead.
Doesn't say believe in UR, don't believe in hell, ET. Those are further revelations and doctrinal issues. Important for sure, but not the bottom line. Believing on Jesus is.
Amen, James! :thumbsup:
...willieH :happygrin:
Quote from: jabcat on October 30, 2010, 11:24:32 PM
I think absolutely, Tony. IMO, it's straigtforward. Call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Believe in your heart, confess with your mouth He died for our sins and God raised Him from the dead.
Doesn't say believe in UR, don't believe in hell, ET. Those are further revelations and doctrinal issues. Important for sure, but not the bottom line. Believing on Jesus is
I know all that but to believe in Jesus you have to know Him.
YLTMatt 722 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?
23 and then I will acknowledge to them, that--I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness.
When He knocks YOU WILL KNOW HIM! Dont even doubt that.
If I may say, I don't think most Christians, especially "nominal" ones believe in Hell. Very few people can really grasp the concept of it, and when they do they usually become so appalled by it that they divert their doctrines, leave the faith altogether, or else...become horrendously desperate, and lose their spiritual sanity in the face of the great torturous abyss.
Hell really is the biggest lie straight out of the pit of Hell. It has done more damage to the believer, and unbeliever alike than any other doctrine. Funny thing is, that Hell serves its purpose gruesomely well.
"Hell is separation from God" And here we find the mere doctrine of it separated men from God, believer and unbeliever alike.
---
But most Christians tend to have enough to deal with in the land of the living to worry about the direction of the dead. Only preachers, pastors, and evangelists tend to be Hell worriers, and even they are more interested in the tithe...or else missions trips.
To be honest, the only time I ever got anything memorable out of any sermon was one on forgiveness. My favourite part of going to church, was literally the walk home. God would always paint the most beautiful skies... :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 11:45:00 PM
If I may say, I don't think most Christians, especially "nominal" ones believe in Hell. Very few people can really grasp the concept of it, and when they do they usually become so appalled by it that they divert their doctrines, leave the faith altogether, or else...become horrendously desperate, and lose their spiritual sanity in the face of the great torturous abyss.
Hell really is the biggest lie straight out of the pit of Hell. It has done more damage to the believer, and unbeliever alike than any other doctrine. Funny thing is, that Hell serves its purpose gruesomely well.
"Hell is separation from God" And here we find the mere doctrine of it separated men from God, believer and unbeliever alike.
---
But most Christians tend to have enough to deal with in the land of the living to worry about the direction of the dead. Only preachers, pastors, and evangelists tend to be Hell worriers, and even they are more interested in the tithe...or else missions trips.
To be honest, the only time I ever got anything memorable out of any sermon was one on forgiveness. My favourite part of going to church, was literally the walk home. God would always paint the most beautiful skies... :HeartThrob:
From my own personal experience I have not witnessed that, I am not contending you are wrong, it is just that in my 40 years of being in the traditional church system I have found few that do not think that if God has created such a place then it is righteous that he did so.
4
Aint that the truth :sigh:
It may be a different demographic that is the issue.
I was not raised in the church system. My experience (in recent years, ironically/thankfully I've only regularly gone to church in any sort of means in the past two years; but that is another story) was Pentecostal - Church of Christ (YUCK!) - Baptist.
Pentecostal, was mostly "Devil is under your feet" theology, but Hell was more a location of the foe, rather than a place that you go. Not alot of "REPENT! THE END IS NEAR! You're all gonna buurrrrnaaaah!" preaching.
Church of Christ...I got a nose bleed over the whole ordeal. They seem to believe that if you don't go to their denomination you're going to Hell in a hand basket, and spitting in the face of Jesus for not going to "his church". I have mighty issues with this denomination...
Baptists, meh...what can you say, typical churchianity, but mostly a social club type deal. Hell is mentioned as a place you go to if you don't give your heart to Christ "if you died right now, and Heaven wouldn't be your home", but that was the preacher mostly. In the day to day lives of the Christian laity...most of them aren't all that concerned over Hell obviously, or else they'd be desperate.
But that is my experience mostly, as far as my demographic goes.
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 06:41:26 PM
Well, try not to misunderstand my use of the term "neutral", if that is what lead to "lukewarm" - Neutral to me means that you do are still going through the process of study and prayer about a theological position and so are not yet attacking it, or defending it, or accepting it.
I understand what your saying, I am only pointing out where I am at. I guess the best way to put this is that I spent 40 years considering most of what traditional christianity has to offer and there is very little of it that is of any use for my walk. You have to determine what path is best for you, I have chosen mine and accept wherever it will lead.
QuoteWhen I say "Tradition" I mean the general ideas of normal members of the Church. They may believe in Hell, and they may "go to church", but they are still Christians who have the same Holy Spirit that I do. So if they claim to have a revelation concerning a scripture, it is worth considering.
If I have already heard it, studied it and rejected it, 1000 people can say the holy spirit told them it's true I do not have to consider it. On the other hand if a set of standards of intepretation has gotten something so wrong as eternal hell then it is entirely reasonable to reject the same methods of translation that come up with other conclusions.
QuoteWe should look at some facts;
Eternal Damnation doesn't exist
It is a matter of faith that the interpretations that express this are correct.
Quote- God is righteous/just.
I have faith that this is true, and I believe I have faith that a just and righteous God did not create a place of endless misery and hopelessness just as I have faith that a righteous and just God did not order and command human armies to slaughter entire kingdoms nor did he put to waste the entire population of a planet save a few just because he got pissed at em and regretted doing it. I do not need to rationalize that it is for a good purpose any more than I have to rationalize that the traditional understanding of eternal hell is for a good reason.
[/quote]
Quote
People can use the argument that God is righteous to justify a non-existent Hell, but if we are to be able to take anything seriously we should not immediately dismiss the less pretty acts of God (ending wicked physical lives) as waste, when his purposes are far better than the wicked physical life could have promised.
But nevertheless the same illogical argument is still illogical no matter what it is applied to.
QuoteGod does on occasion, kill a man - having given that life he can take it, he owns it, the man is but a steward of it. However that life will be raised, purified, and live in what is better than a second chance.
From my point of view just because it is in what we know as the bible does not mean traditional interpretations are correct. If I went and killed a subway train full of people and wrote a long letter explaining what God commanded me to do and 2000 years from now someone found my letter and it was preserved for that long, there is no basis of reference to actually say someone couldn't say that paul h was a righteous man doing the work of God. If we can say that ancient text written to say that God commanded someone to go slaughter someone, then God could command any one of us to do the same and it would be good.
QuoteYet, God created mankind for the sole purpose of being glorified and saved.
That is one interpretation of scripture, yes.
Quote
Yet, if God did indeed send the Israelites to take the land - God did so. But God never sent man to rape.
Depends on what scriptures you read and how you interpret them. The case can be made for a lot of things that some reject.
Quote
Remember who the Israelites took the land from, they were not peaceful natives, living in harmony with the land, the trees, and animals, holding hands, and singing praises to the spirit of Love...
So? The ends justify the means because we are told God said it in the physically literal sense? It is believed, but if it is a metaphor for something spiritual, then the literal story is not something to believe God commanded any more than we are to look at the literal story of a parable as a truth.
Quote
A great deal of them were servants of Molech, for example. God does judge with violence when it suits his purpose.
And that is the argument for eternal hell as well. If he judges that for his purposes, who's to argue it is wrong?
The root of the matter is this;
Whose voice will you heed? Your own, God's, or "Other"? And how will you know the difference if the word can only be barely trusted?
In the same way that those 1000's of "holy spirit hearers" could be wrong and hearing only their imagination (or worse; Other), likewise we (you, and I) are amongst that number.
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 12:59:46 AM
The root of the matter is this;
Whose voice will you heed? Your own, God's, or "Other"? And how will you know the difference if the word can only be barely trusted?
In the same way that those 1000's of "holy spirit hearers" could be wrong and hearing only their imagination (or worse; Other), likewise we (you, and I) are amongst that number.
The voice anyone heeds is directly related to themselves and their perspective, their life and experiences. I know that at any point and time I could be wrong about something, however, I am content with following the inner voice of my heart and my convictions having faith that to the best I can i am trying to gain insight from something good and greater than myself. If I die only to find out that I was wrong, I have at least carved out a path on earth to the best anyone ever could and was freed from being wound up and binded by what others said I should follow or else.
I believe that is true freedom that can be found on earth in this life for me, anything else for me is spiritual prison.
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 12:59:46 AM
The root of the matter is this;
Whose voice will you heed? Your own, God's, or "Other"? And how will you know the difference if the word can only be barely trusted?
In the same way that those 1000's of "holy spirit hearers" could be wrong and hearing only their imagination (or worse; Other), likewise we (you, and I) are amongst that number.
I really like this post Lef. IMO, you covered some very important ground in a few words. :thumbsup:
Quote from: PaulYou are assuming that tradional understanding is correct and are implying that I am wrong. I could be, but just as easily traditional understanding can be too.
No I don't mean to assume that. I generally don't give a lot of weight to what others have to say about things but try to discern them for myself. Therefore, 'traditional' would not hold a lot of weight for me.
I'm thinking more along the lines of ET. You could take the position that a righteous God wouldn't do what ET says he does. But then you look in the Bible and it sure seems to read that way. So, then you could say --the Bible is wrong, men put that in there, I will just ignore it. Or even go so far as to say, I want nothing to do with that God.
Wouldn't it be better to set it aside, until someone like Gary comes along, or a better understanding of what the Bible is really saying? Clearly people here have done that with ET, but it's true for everything else in the Bible as well.
I was thinking today, and this is off topic of course, that although God did raise up physical armies in the Old Testament to suit his purposes, he does not in the New Testament. What has changed? The New Testament reveals that our battle is a spiritual one, and not against flesh and blood. Wouldn't that also be true in the Old Testament as well? Yes, I think it was. But, I think in the OT, man did not have the more discriminate tools to fight a spiritual [and especially otherworldly] foe because they were limited by the parameters of their Age.
John 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
The men of the Old Testament didn't have The Holy Spirit for one, or the armour of God...Grace...Or anything to fight a spiritual battle for that matter.
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 02:10:47 AM
The men of the Old Testament didn't have The Holy Spirit for one, or the armour of God...Grace...Or anything to fight a spiritual battle for that matter.
They had some tools, prayer, Michael the archangel, angels e.g Gabriel + the healing angel that healed the waters in jerusalem, sin offerings in the temple which if I remember correctly, allieviated sins and illneses, Gods love for them as his people, he overshadowed them as a cloud b day and night, plus Gods prophets like Isiah who sent words of prophecy of the mesiah, which plants the seed to the heavens that the earth be established.
They had these things "on loan to servants" so to speak, but not "authority as God's sons".
Quote from: Lefein on October 31, 2010, 03:26:42 AM
They had these things "on loan to servants" so to speak, but not "authority as God's sons".
Yes, we have so much more power at our disposal than even the OT saints.
Matthew 11:11
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Quote from: Molly on October 31, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
I'm thinking more along the lines of ET. You could take the position that a righteous God wouldn't do what ET says he does. But then you look in the Bible and it sure seems to read that way. So, then you could say --the Bible is wrong, men put that in there, I will just ignore it. Or even go so far as to say, I want nothing to do with that God.
Well. Molly, the points I made had to do with the traditions of men interpreting the bible wrong, not that the bible was wrong, nor have I said I did not want nothing to do with "that" God, I am saying the true God will not do such a thing and take it on faith and confidence that I can be wrong without fear of "that" God doing me harm because I seek what is truth.
With that said, I have no problem with saying that if the idea of God that Fred Phelps believes is true, then that God can stick it where the sun don't shine and He will just have to do to me what He's gonna do.
Quote from: Molly on October 31, 2010, 01:56:12 AM
I was thinking today, and this is off topic of course, that although God did raise up physical armies in the Old Testament to suit his purposes, he does not in the New Testament. What has changed? The New Testament reveals that our battle is a spiritual one, and not against flesh and blood. Wouldn't that also be true in the Old Testament as well? Yes, I think it was. But, I think in the OT, man did not have the more discriminate tools to fight a spiritual [and especially otherworldly] foe because they were limited by the parameters of their Age.
I believe that the stories are a parable that used real events on earth to demonstrate what God does inside us spiritually. I know for a fact armies were raised within me to destroy a great evil within me. There are things I have done that now seems like I was watching someone else do them. No one has to agree with me or accept it. I just watch the world today with many sides rising up in arms saying God is backing their actions, to each their own view I suppose, but when tradition tells us to be like the father and tradition tells us that going and waging war in the name of God is righteous, I see that tradition can go suck an egg because it is the carnal man justifying anything they do by tacking the name "God" at the end. Just what then cannot be justified? Not a damn thing.
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 11:45:00 PM
If I may say, I don't think most Christians, especially "nominal" ones believe in Hell. Very few people can really grasp the concept of it, and when they do they usually become so appalled by it that they divert their doctrines, leave the faith altogether, or else...become horrendously desperate, and lose their spiritual sanity in the face of the great torturous abyss.
Hell really is the biggest lie straight out of the pit of Hell. It has done more damage to the believer, and unbeliever alike than any other doctrine. Funny thing is, that Hell serves its purpose gruesomely well.
"Hell is separation from God" And here we find the mere doctrine of it separated men from God, believer and unbeliever alike.
---
But most Christians tend to have enough to deal with in the land of the living to worry about the direction of the dead. Only preachers, pastors, and evangelists tend to be Hell worriers, and even they are more interested in the tithe...or else missions trips.
To be honest, the only time I ever got anything memorable out of any sermon was one on forgiveness. My favourite part of going to church, was literally the walk home. God would always paint the most beautiful skies... :HeartThrob:
I was when I first found out the truth about that doctrine.
Quote from: Universalist Catholic on October 31, 2010, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Lefein on October 30, 2010, 11:45:00 PM
If I may say, I don't think most Christians, especially "nominal" ones believe in Hell. Very few people can really grasp the concept of it, and when they do they usually become so appalled by it that they divert their doctrines, leave the faith altogether, or else...become horrendously desperate, and lose their spiritual sanity in the face of the great torturous abyss.
Hell really is the biggest lie straight out of the pit of Hell. It has done more damage to the believer, and unbeliever alike than any other doctrine. Funny thing is, that Hell serves its purpose gruesomely well.
"Hell is separation from God" And here we find the mere doctrine of it separated men from God, believer and unbeliever alike.
---
But most Christians tend to have enough to deal with in the land of the living to worry about the direction of the dead. Only preachers, pastors, and evangelists tend to be Hell worriers, and even they are more interested in the tithe...or else missions trips.
To be honest, the only time I ever got anything memorable out of any sermon was one on forgiveness. My favourite part of going to church, was literally the walk home. God would always paint the most beautiful skies... :HeartThrob:
I was when I first found out the truth about that doctrine.
Thank God i don't believe that darkness any more, such an evil thing. It was hell to believe in hell.
Sometimes today I think there could be a sheol or place of darkness, but that is not the same league of worry as ET hell, for I know that hades or the underworld is a place where people can escape from because Jesus has the keys of death and hell.
I think that most "issues" are actually just limits on our own comprehension abilities. As a person who is a member of a group that asks members to find their own "Higher Power" ....or God as "you understand Him", I found the best answer actually in a speaker who eloquently twisted the verbiage slightly.....and believes in "God as I MISunderstand Him". I think it says it pretty well.