Difficult Bible and God matters

[Paul Hazelwood]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Paul Hazelwood]

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.   

[micah7:9]

"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)

[Paul Hazelwood]

"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.

[micah7:9]

Ok

[Lefein]

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.

[Paul Hazelwood]

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.

[jabcat]

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.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I 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.

[micah7:9]

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.

[Universalist Catholic]

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.

[WhiteWings]

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?

[jabcat]

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. 

[Lefein]

You can't have fruit in the first place, without finding The Seed.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Exactly....

[willieH]

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:

[WhiteWings]

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 7
22 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.

[micah7:9]

When He knocks YOU WILL KNOW HIM! Dont even doubt that.

[Lefein]

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:

[Paul Hazelwood]

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

[micah7:9]

Aint that the truth :sigh:

[Lefein]

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.

[Paul Hazelwood]

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.

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.

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.

We should look at some facts;

Eternal Damnation doesn't exist

It is a matter of faith that the interpretations that express this are correct.   

- 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]

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.

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.

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.

Yet, God created mankind for the sole purpose of being glorified and saved.

That is one interpretation of scripture, yes.

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.

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.

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?

[Lefein]

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.

[Paul Hazelwood]

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.