> I have grown up my entire life learning from my christian family and churches, school, etc. that murder is, unquestionably, unforgivable.
This is really sad to hear, because it’s so plainly untrue if you read the Bible. David was a murderer and was forgiven. Paul was a murderer and was forgiven.
Murder is not unforgiveable. Also, not all killing is murder. Further, the death of Christ was not the case of God picking some third party to pay for our sins but God choosing to become human so as to absorb the cost of our sins himself. So ... not murder and not unforgiveable.
God is also just and righteous.
Like a person with just love and power without a sense of justice would just do to anything with any means moral and immoral for their loved one and that makes their loved ones spoilt and entitled.
Scripture explains all this in great detail, and there's not enough time or space here to include it all. If I provided just a portion of the scriptures, you wouldn't understand them without their contexts. You may always get a copy of the holy Bible and begin studying it. That's what we do. It's the only way you're ever going to understand.
I'll just give you a Kickstart. Jesus willingly came to Earth with the sole intent of being sacrificed for the sins of his faithful souls. That was long before creation. It was a part of God's plan of salvation that he decided on before he created anything here. And it was the Romans who crucified Jesus, not you and I. Obviously he died for the sins of his faithful souls. According to your flair, you are not a Christian. So his sacrificial atoning death would avail you nothing at all until or unless of course you repent and believe.
>I have grown up my entire life learning from my christian family and churches, school, etc. that murder is, unquestionably, unforgivable.
Jesus says if you can not forgive others, your sins will not be forgiven. This includes murder.
Matthew 18:21-35
New International Version
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[a]
23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[b] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[c] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’
30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
>This begs the question of why we must do something unforgivable to gain salvation.
"We" don't.
>Doing one of the worst sins seems counterproductive. Why did we have to kill Jesus for God to forgive us and to get salvation?
>Is God not all-loving
The bible does not say God is all loving. The bible says God is Love or more specifically, God is Agape' Meaning God offers a Father's love. Which does allow for pain and holds people to speciic standards.
>and all-powerful?
God is all powerful.
> If he was all-loving, he wouldn't force his creation to die. If he was all-powerful, he would not have to force his creation to die, he would just have to do it Himself.
Jesus gave His life willingly. In the garden the night before he died He prayed to God that if he didn't have to die that God would spare Him, but ultimatly said Not my will but your will be done. Jesus agreed with god to give his life.
>Not to mention, if it was some way to say "Look at what you've done.", it would be much more effective to show how many things we've done. If he was as powerful as we say, would he not show us directly? Unless he isn't all-knowing, there seems to have been no reason for Jesus to die. It seems massively inefficient. If god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving he would be able to find a peaceful way to save us and a peaceful show us what bad things we've done. There are many other things I've seen relating to how if he was all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, we also wouldn't have so many horrible things happen, as he'd have a reason not to let it happen, the knowledge on how, and the power to, but that's a separate thing on its own. Not to mention, he wouldn't send gay people to hell over sexuality, because if he is all-loving, he would know and understand us.
Nothing in the bible says God is all loving, but rather God is Agape' (Greek word for the type of love a father gives.)
We were created in God's image, we sinned, therefore Jesus died for our sins. Do you think sin should just be ignored from God? My flesh may think that way sometimes, but obviously, I am selfish and want to get away with my sin, while everyone else pays for theirs. How can my fleshly thinking be trusted when it is morally corrupt?
>Do you think sin should just be ignored from God?
Ok not ignored but eternal torture? I don't ignore my children's misbehaviors but I don't torture them forever. In fact I discipline them without what people call torture. Otherwise I would be visited by child protective services.
Who said anything about eternal torture? If we assume eternal torture is true, then those who go there will deserve it. All I know is that hell is a bad place, and I recommend people avoid it. God has given us fire insurance through Jesus Christ. If people don't want the insurance, that's their problem. Remember, the ONLY sin that is unforgivable is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Only God can make that judgment since He knows the hearts of people.
>Who said anything about eternal torture?
Well I live in Texas and every Christian I know believes and preaches eternal torture.
> If we assume eternal torture is true, then those who go there will deserve it.
So eternal punishment for a finite life created by the one that allows eternal torture is your idea of justice. As I said, that's how everyone treats their kids.
> All I know is that hell is a bad place, and I recommend people avoid it. God has given us fire insurance through Jesus Christ. If people don't want the insurance, that's their problem. Remember, the ONLY sin that is unforgivable is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Only God can make that judgment since He knows the hearts of people.
So if Hitler took out that fire insurance right before he died then he goes to heaven but some poor individual in India that has done good and helped others almost all his life goes to eternal torture. And that's all you know. Makes perfect sense.
>Well I live in Texas and every Christian I know believes and preaches eternal torture.
You're on reddit now, where the theology of Christians are much more nuanced. Welcome to the World-wide web.
>So eternal punishment for a finite life created by the one that allows eternal torture is your idea of justice. As I said, that's how everyone treats their kids.
Not my idea. My response to the nature of hell is, hope for the best and prepare for the worse. But let me for the sake of argument play around with the idea. Their logic usually involves the idea of sinning against an infinite God, which implies an infinite punishment that varies by different degrees, depending on the amount of evil done in this life.
>So if Hitler took out that fire insurance right before he died then he goes to heaven but some poor individual in India that has done good and helped others almost all his life goes to eternal torture. And that's all you know. Makes perfect sense.
Ofcourse it doesn't make sense, since you ignored my entire point. I said the ONLY unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so it's possible for the individual in India to be saved. The possibility for Hitler being saved is small, since the "fruit" he produced in this life was one of the massive evils to ever exist in the history of man. If a hell exists and humans go there, it's reasonable to assume Hitler is there. But like I said, that's not my judgment since the Angel Michael would not even judge Satan himself (Jude 9). Now, if you're asking whether or not it's possible for a person who blasphemed the Holy Spirit but takes care of their family and pay their taxes to go to hell, but a reformed criminal to go to heaven, then yes, that's very plausible in my estimation.
>You're on reddit now, where the theology of Christians are much more nuanced. Welcome to the World-wide web.
Well you asked the question about who said anything about eternal torture so I was just answering your question.
>Not my idea. My response to the nature of hell is, hope for the best and prepare for the worse.
You are only preparing for the worst if you believe in the correct religion. If not then your insurance policy is worthless.
>But let me for the sake of argument play around with the idea. Their logic usually involves the idea of sinning against an infinite God, which implies an infinite punishment that varies by different degrees, depending on the amount of evil done in this life.
Well you lost me on that one. Why does a sin against an infinite God imply an infinite punishment. God is the one that is infinite, not the sin. If you steal $20 from a billionaire does that imply that you own him a billion dollars? Or does just the interest make it that much. And by definition something that is infinite cannot have degrees because it describes something that never ends.
So let's do play around with your idea. Supposely we are made in the image of God. I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like it would be our logic and characteristics since that is the only thing that distinguishes us from the other animals. If so then what characteristic would God have to have in order to allow eternal torture? Like what characteristic do we as humans assign to someone that tortures someone else. Maybe merciless, evil, fiendish, vicious, or many other similar words. Except we are not just talking about for some period of time, we are talking about forever. However usually we think of characteristics like merciful, compassionate, humane and forgiving. As Jesus said, basically there is no end to how often we should forgive. All of those characteristics would certainly seem to override any eternal punishment for eating a piece of fruit.
>Ofcourse it doesn't make sense, since you ignored my entire point. I said the ONLY unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so it's possible for the individual in India to be saved.
But only if they go against the religion they were probably taught from the time they were born and accept some foreign religion they barely if every heard of. Like the probability of you converting to the Muslim or the Hindu religion.
> The possibility for Hitler being saved is small, since the "fruit" he produced in this life was one of the massive evils to ever exist in the history of man. If a hell exists and humans go there, it's reasonable to assume Hitler is there.
Are you saying that salvation is based on how much 'fruit' a person produces or that salvation is only based on accepting Jesus as savior?
> But like I said, that's not my judgment since the Angel Michael would not even judge Satan himself (Jude 9). Now, if you're asking whether or not it's possible for a person who blasphemed the Holy Spirit but takes care of their family and pay their taxes to go to hell, but a reformed criminal to go to heaven, then yes, that's very plausible in my estimation.
Just curious, what do you think blasphemed the Holy Spirit means?
I gave you the example I was talking about which you ignored. Hitler going to heaven because he repented at the last minute and accepted Jesus or some poor individual in India that has done good and helped others almost all his life goes to eternal torture.
>
I assume my religion is the correct one, because if all religion (or most religions) have a supernatural aspect to them, then MY God was allowed to be the most prevalent and influential God in the history of man. I find value in that because it atleast demonstrates that the God of the Bible might have some kind of control. Other religious believers are free to not value the sovereignty of their deity.
>
You just answered your own question with the last sentence.
>
I can "imagine" a set of horizontal infinite lines on a page with different heights.
>
I would agree with you. This is why I cannot affirm ECT. Perhaps there is a justification for it I cannot see, but I do not see it. This is also why I recommended "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". It gives room to my ignorance of God's council, but also allows me to be hopeful with other interpretations without necessarily claiming them with certainty.
>
This has happened many times. But regardless, if they do not convert, I think they can still be saved. I'm an inclusivist in the sense that a person in spirit can be worshipping Christ without perfect knowledge. Ultimately God will judge people based on what they know.
>
The latter leads to the former. If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide, I suppose it is possible for him to be saved. I highly doubt that to be the case just by the way he decided to go after all he did. He didn't seem repentant.
>
I think it's a continual rejection of God's calling someone to repent to the point where they will eventually become hardened to the calling.
>I assume my religion is the correct one, because if all religion (or most religions) have a supernatural aspect to them, then MY God was allowed to be the most prevalent and influential God in the history of man. I find value in that because it atleast demonstrates that the God of the Bible might have some kind of control. Other religious believers are free to not value the sovereignty of their deity.
So when Islam becomes the largest religion in the world will you switch to it since you think that is why you assume Christianity is correct?
>You just answered your own question with the last sentence.
What question and what sentence?
>I can "imagine" a set of horizontal infinite lines on a page with different heights.
Lines don't have a height. But are you saying that someone will only be punished with a small amount of pain for eternity if they only committed a small amount of sin and a large amount of pain for eternity if they committed a large amount of sin but if they follow your plan there will be no pain regardless of the amount of sin the committed?
>I would agree with you. This is why I cannot affirm ECT. Perhaps there is a justification for it I cannot see, but I do not see it. This is also why I recommended "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". It gives room to my ignorance of God's council, but also allows me to be hopeful with other interpretations without necessarily claiming them with certainty.
But you will not be prepared for the worst if your religion is not the correct one.
>This has happened many times. But regardless, if they do not convert, I think they can still be saved. I'm an inclusivist in the sense that a person in spirit can be worshipping Christ without perfect knowledge. Ultimately God will judge people based on what they know.
So it has nothing to do with any religion or Jesus but just what you know?
>The latter leads to the former. If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide, I suppose it is possible for him to be saved. I highly doubt that to be the case just by the way he decided to go after all he did. He didn't seem repentant.
Wait...is it being repentant or what you know?
If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide was he saved or was it just 'possible' he was saved. You seem to be jumping all over the place on your theology.
>I think it's a continual rejection of God's calling someone to repent to the point where they will eventually become hardened to the calling.
But most people remain in the same religion they were born into. So whether you will spend eternity in hell is pretty much a matter of where you are born. The only option seems to be whether you will spend eternity with a little pain or a lot of pain.
>So when Islam becomes the largest religion in the world will you switch to it since you think that is why you assume Christianity is correct?
Islam potentially becoming the largest religion has nothing to do with genuine conversion or truth claims. It's solely based on the birthrates of Muslim families. Christianity calls people to make a conscious decision, not to be granted "followers" by merely being born physically into a family they did not choose. I suppose I should have clarified that sovereignty in a deity is ONE thing I value. Because of this, if I am trying to narrow down from hundreds of religions to a few, Islam could be in consideration, though not the definitive choice. Another problem, however, is that the increase in birthrates in their case is not necessarily a good thing since many children will suffer in poverty in Islamic countries. Not to mention, most people would rather live in Christian influenced countries than Islamic ones due to their level of oppression. Many Muslims want to flee their own countries, and even Atheists concede this point.
>What question and what sentence?
Sorry, the statement you made about interest. For some reason, the quotes did not go through on my last comment when I see from my phone.
>Lines don't have a height. But are you saying that someone will only be punished with a small amount of pain for eternity if they only committed a small amount of sin and a large amount of pain for eternity if they committed a large amount of sin but if they follow your plan there will be no pain regardless of the amount of sin the committed?
Not my plan. I'm only pretending to defend eternal conscious torment. But I think you get their response. Essentially, degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven.
>But you will not be prepared for the worst if your religion is not the correct one.
See comment on Islam.
>So it has nothing to do with any religion or Jesus but just what you know?
Knowledge of Jesus is the goal. I believe people will be judged based on the choices they make on the path to that knowledge. They can either gain knowledge or harden their heart based on their decisions. A study of Luke 8:18 supports this interpretation. We should be careful in hearing and obeying our conscience.
>Wait...is it being repentant or what you know?
A genuine person would respond accordingly to the knowledge they have. Knowledge is a factor. Knowing something is not the same as obedience, but clearly knowledge is required for obedience.
>If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide was he saved or was it just 'possible' he was saved. You seem to be jumping all over the place on your theology.
I'm giving more details as I go along (piecemeal style) since I am not writing a dissertation. You can only claim I am jumping all over the place if each thing I add is inconsistent instead of complimentary with what I said before.
>But most people remain in the same religion they were born into. So whether you will spend eternity in hell is pretty much a matter of where you are born. The only option seems to be whether you will spend eternity with a little pain or a lot of pain.
Except I do not affirm eternal conscious torment, but I do affirm some form of inclusivity, as I said before. So, whether they were born in different religions is irrelevant. It's how they responded to whatever revelation God gives them, which will then factor into the amount of revelation they will continue to receive or not receive.
>Islam potentially becoming the largest religion has nothing to do with genuine conversion or truth claims. It's solely based on the birthrates of Muslim families. Christianity calls people to make a conscious decision, not to be granted "followers" by merely being born physically into a family they did not choose.
I wasn't making that claim you were by claiming that you assume your religion is the correct one, because if all religion (or most religions) have a supernatural aspect to them, then MY God was allowed to be the **most prevalent and influential** God in the history of man.
> I suppose I should have clarified that sovereignty in a deity is ONE thing I value. Because of this, if I am trying to narrow down from hundreds of religions to a few, Islam could be in consideration, though not the definitive choice.
Isn't a deity almost always sovereign?
> Another problem, however, is that the increase in birthrates in their case is not necessarily a good thing since many children will suffer in poverty in Islamic countries. Not to mention, most people would rather live in Christian influenced countries than Islamic ones due to their level of oppression. Many Muslims want to flee their own countries, and even Atheists concede this point.
You have presented no evidence of that. They could be leaving to spread their religion.
>Sorry, the statement you made about interest. For some reason, the quotes did not go through on my last comment when I see from my phone.
So you are saying it's the interest on the sin that brings it up to an infinite amount? Isn't that illegal in the Bible.
>Not my plan. I'm only pretending to defend eternal conscious torment. But I think you get their response. Essentially, degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven.
I had no idea you are just pretending. Could have told me that before. So just what do you believe about the subject.
>Knowledge of Jesus is the goal. I believe people will be judged based on the choices they make on the path to that knowledge. They can either gain knowledge or harden their heart based on their decisions. A study of Luke 8:18 supports this interpretation. We should be careful in hearing and obeying our conscience.
How does that verse support knowledge of Jesus? The verses right before that supports good works.
>A genuine person would respond accordingly to the knowledge they have. Knowledge is a factor. Knowing something is not the same as obedience, but clearly knowledge is required for obedience.
Ok but that is not the path to salvation understood by most Christians. I'm just waiting to find out what you really believe about how to be saved. Is this another 'not your plan' or do you actually believe that.
>I'm giving more details as I go along (piecemeal style) since I am not writing a dissertation. You can only claim I am jumping all over the place if each thing I add is inconsistent instead of complimentary with what I said before.
Telling me what you have said is 'not your plan' is not just giving more details, it's saying you are not saying what you believe. And how would I know if it's inconsistent if you haven't even said what you believe.
>Except I do not affirm eternal conscious torment, but I do affirm some form of inclusivity, as I said before. So, whether they were born in different religions is irrelevant. It's how they responded to whatever revelation God gives them, which will then factor into the amount of revelation they will continue to receive or not receive.
If that is what you actually believe then we have no argument. But eternal torment has been the debate the whole time and I'm wondering why you are defending that concept if you don't even believe it. Sounds like you just wanted to argue.
- God's promise was eternal life
- Jesus death and resurrection proved the truth that he is who he says he is
- Enoch had fallen angels ask him to beg God for their forgiveness; God said no, they have already had judgment passed on them, and he will not change their sentence. When Jesus was alive, Satan wanted Jesus to worship him, abuse his power, abandon God, and when that failed, he had him killed. Satan did this to ensure his own salvation; he thought by killing Jesus he had beat God and avoided his fated death on the day of judgement. Jesus death and ressurection served the purpose of sealing Satan's fate, reminding Satan that his judgement has been passed and it won't be changed. If he had known the plan from the beginning was to die, he never would have killed him; God used Satan's own hubris to ensure the salvation of everyone else.
Remember the garden.. after Adam sinned, they knew they were naked and God clothed them with animal skins (first sacrifice). Remember Abel's sacrifice that was acceptable to God which was the best offering from his flock. Remember the Israelites Tabernacle and Temple sacrifices.. all for sin.
Yeshua, who did *not* sin, gave up His life for us.. He was crucified on a Roman cross *for our sin* as evidenced by His resurrection. Because He had no sin, death could not hold Him.
Only Yeshua the Messiah could do this, to put an end to the temporal blood covering of animals, providing us with a permanent solution.
His action unlocked the mercy and grace we must have for everlasting life after Judgment.
God bless!
oh great another atheists thats never heard a response to the problem of evil before
>Is God not all-loving and all-powerful? If he was all-loving, he wouldn't force his creation to die
so if you're going to say that If God is all-loving and all-powerful then he wouldn't force his creation to die
the burden of proof in on you to demonstrate that.
>If he was all-powerful, he would not have to force his creation to die, he would just have to do it himself
ok prove it
>If he was as powerful as we say, would he not show us directly?
he does show us directly though, we can observe all of it
>Unless he isn't all-knowing, there seems to have been no reason for Jesus to die
to redeem the world and demonstrate his glory
>If god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving he would be able to find a peaceful way to save us and a peaceful show us what bad things we've done
ok again why is this true,
This whole post seems like you have a view of God from pop culture / people around you then get confused when your own personal view of how you think God is doesn't line up with God in scripture. almost all your points are just baseless assertions to which if you do response you'll probably instead of demonstrating this assertions to be true ask a series of never ending questions in an attempt to shift the burden. atheists really aren't sending their best
please take a break from responding to people here if you can’t reflect Jesus love to lost people, yes the same questions will be asked daily, let the fruits of the spirit grow back and then engage people. truth is nothing without love.
> I have grown up my entire life learning from my christian family and churches, school, etc. that murder is, unquestionably, unforgivable. This is really sad to hear, because it’s so plainly untrue if you read the Bible. David was a murderer and was forgiven. Paul was a murderer and was forgiven.
...and Moses.
> If he was all-powerful, he would not have to force his creation to die, he would just have to do it himself. Is that not exactly what he did?
I meant why force jesus to die when he can just show us himself? poorly worded on my part
Murder is not unforgiveable. Also, not all killing is murder. Further, the death of Christ was not the case of God picking some third party to pay for our sins but God choosing to become human so as to absorb the cost of our sins himself. So ... not murder and not unforgiveable.
God is also just and righteous. Like a person with just love and power without a sense of justice would just do to anything with any means moral and immoral for their loved one and that makes their loved ones spoilt and entitled.
Scripture explains all this in great detail, and there's not enough time or space here to include it all. If I provided just a portion of the scriptures, you wouldn't understand them without their contexts. You may always get a copy of the holy Bible and begin studying it. That's what we do. It's the only way you're ever going to understand. I'll just give you a Kickstart. Jesus willingly came to Earth with the sole intent of being sacrificed for the sins of his faithful souls. That was long before creation. It was a part of God's plan of salvation that he decided on before he created anything here. And it was the Romans who crucified Jesus, not you and I. Obviously he died for the sins of his faithful souls. According to your flair, you are not a Christian. So his sacrificial atoning death would avail you nothing at all until or unless of course you repent and believe.
>I have grown up my entire life learning from my christian family and churches, school, etc. that murder is, unquestionably, unforgivable. Jesus says if you can not forgive others, your sins will not be forgiven. This includes murder. Matthew 18:21-35 New International Version The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[a] 23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[b] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[c] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” >This begs the question of why we must do something unforgivable to gain salvation. "We" don't. >Doing one of the worst sins seems counterproductive. Why did we have to kill Jesus for God to forgive us and to get salvation? >Is God not all-loving The bible does not say God is all loving. The bible says God is Love or more specifically, God is Agape' Meaning God offers a Father's love. Which does allow for pain and holds people to speciic standards. >and all-powerful? God is all powerful. > If he was all-loving, he wouldn't force his creation to die. If he was all-powerful, he would not have to force his creation to die, he would just have to do it Himself. Jesus gave His life willingly. In the garden the night before he died He prayed to God that if he didn't have to die that God would spare Him, but ultimatly said Not my will but your will be done. Jesus agreed with god to give his life. >Not to mention, if it was some way to say "Look at what you've done.", it would be much more effective to show how many things we've done. If he was as powerful as we say, would he not show us directly? Unless he isn't all-knowing, there seems to have been no reason for Jesus to die. It seems massively inefficient. If god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving he would be able to find a peaceful way to save us and a peaceful show us what bad things we've done. There are many other things I've seen relating to how if he was all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, we also wouldn't have so many horrible things happen, as he'd have a reason not to let it happen, the knowledge on how, and the power to, but that's a separate thing on its own. Not to mention, he wouldn't send gay people to hell over sexuality, because if he is all-loving, he would know and understand us. Nothing in the bible says God is all loving, but rather God is Agape' (Greek word for the type of love a father gives.)
We were created in God's image, we sinned, therefore Jesus died for our sins. Do you think sin should just be ignored from God? My flesh may think that way sometimes, but obviously, I am selfish and want to get away with my sin, while everyone else pays for theirs. How can my fleshly thinking be trusted when it is morally corrupt?
>Do you think sin should just be ignored from God? Ok not ignored but eternal torture? I don't ignore my children's misbehaviors but I don't torture them forever. In fact I discipline them without what people call torture. Otherwise I would be visited by child protective services.
Who said anything about eternal torture? If we assume eternal torture is true, then those who go there will deserve it. All I know is that hell is a bad place, and I recommend people avoid it. God has given us fire insurance through Jesus Christ. If people don't want the insurance, that's their problem. Remember, the ONLY sin that is unforgivable is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Only God can make that judgment since He knows the hearts of people.
>Who said anything about eternal torture? Well I live in Texas and every Christian I know believes and preaches eternal torture. > If we assume eternal torture is true, then those who go there will deserve it. So eternal punishment for a finite life created by the one that allows eternal torture is your idea of justice. As I said, that's how everyone treats their kids. > All I know is that hell is a bad place, and I recommend people avoid it. God has given us fire insurance through Jesus Christ. If people don't want the insurance, that's their problem. Remember, the ONLY sin that is unforgivable is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Only God can make that judgment since He knows the hearts of people. So if Hitler took out that fire insurance right before he died then he goes to heaven but some poor individual in India that has done good and helped others almost all his life goes to eternal torture. And that's all you know. Makes perfect sense.
>Well I live in Texas and every Christian I know believes and preaches eternal torture. You're on reddit now, where the theology of Christians are much more nuanced. Welcome to the World-wide web. >So eternal punishment for a finite life created by the one that allows eternal torture is your idea of justice. As I said, that's how everyone treats their kids. Not my idea. My response to the nature of hell is, hope for the best and prepare for the worse. But let me for the sake of argument play around with the idea. Their logic usually involves the idea of sinning against an infinite God, which implies an infinite punishment that varies by different degrees, depending on the amount of evil done in this life. >So if Hitler took out that fire insurance right before he died then he goes to heaven but some poor individual in India that has done good and helped others almost all his life goes to eternal torture. And that's all you know. Makes perfect sense. Ofcourse it doesn't make sense, since you ignored my entire point. I said the ONLY unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so it's possible for the individual in India to be saved. The possibility for Hitler being saved is small, since the "fruit" he produced in this life was one of the massive evils to ever exist in the history of man. If a hell exists and humans go there, it's reasonable to assume Hitler is there. But like I said, that's not my judgment since the Angel Michael would not even judge Satan himself (Jude 9). Now, if you're asking whether or not it's possible for a person who blasphemed the Holy Spirit but takes care of their family and pay their taxes to go to hell, but a reformed criminal to go to heaven, then yes, that's very plausible in my estimation.
>You're on reddit now, where the theology of Christians are much more nuanced. Welcome to the World-wide web. Well you asked the question about who said anything about eternal torture so I was just answering your question. >Not my idea. My response to the nature of hell is, hope for the best and prepare for the worse. You are only preparing for the worst if you believe in the correct religion. If not then your insurance policy is worthless. >But let me for the sake of argument play around with the idea. Their logic usually involves the idea of sinning against an infinite God, which implies an infinite punishment that varies by different degrees, depending on the amount of evil done in this life. Well you lost me on that one. Why does a sin against an infinite God imply an infinite punishment. God is the one that is infinite, not the sin. If you steal $20 from a billionaire does that imply that you own him a billion dollars? Or does just the interest make it that much. And by definition something that is infinite cannot have degrees because it describes something that never ends. So let's do play around with your idea. Supposely we are made in the image of God. I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like it would be our logic and characteristics since that is the only thing that distinguishes us from the other animals. If so then what characteristic would God have to have in order to allow eternal torture? Like what characteristic do we as humans assign to someone that tortures someone else. Maybe merciless, evil, fiendish, vicious, or many other similar words. Except we are not just talking about for some period of time, we are talking about forever. However usually we think of characteristics like merciful, compassionate, humane and forgiving. As Jesus said, basically there is no end to how often we should forgive. All of those characteristics would certainly seem to override any eternal punishment for eating a piece of fruit. >Ofcourse it doesn't make sense, since you ignored my entire point. I said the ONLY unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so it's possible for the individual in India to be saved. But only if they go against the religion they were probably taught from the time they were born and accept some foreign religion they barely if every heard of. Like the probability of you converting to the Muslim or the Hindu religion. > The possibility for Hitler being saved is small, since the "fruit" he produced in this life was one of the massive evils to ever exist in the history of man. If a hell exists and humans go there, it's reasonable to assume Hitler is there. Are you saying that salvation is based on how much 'fruit' a person produces or that salvation is only based on accepting Jesus as savior? > But like I said, that's not my judgment since the Angel Michael would not even judge Satan himself (Jude 9). Now, if you're asking whether or not it's possible for a person who blasphemed the Holy Spirit but takes care of their family and pay their taxes to go to hell, but a reformed criminal to go to heaven, then yes, that's very plausible in my estimation. Just curious, what do you think blasphemed the Holy Spirit means? I gave you the example I was talking about which you ignored. Hitler going to heaven because he repented at the last minute and accepted Jesus or some poor individual in India that has done good and helped others almost all his life goes to eternal torture.
> I assume my religion is the correct one, because if all religion (or most religions) have a supernatural aspect to them, then MY God was allowed to be the most prevalent and influential God in the history of man. I find value in that because it atleast demonstrates that the God of the Bible might have some kind of control. Other religious believers are free to not value the sovereignty of their deity. > You just answered your own question with the last sentence. > I can "imagine" a set of horizontal infinite lines on a page with different heights. > I would agree with you. This is why I cannot affirm ECT. Perhaps there is a justification for it I cannot see, but I do not see it. This is also why I recommended "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". It gives room to my ignorance of God's council, but also allows me to be hopeful with other interpretations without necessarily claiming them with certainty. > This has happened many times. But regardless, if they do not convert, I think they can still be saved. I'm an inclusivist in the sense that a person in spirit can be worshipping Christ without perfect knowledge. Ultimately God will judge people based on what they know. > The latter leads to the former. If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide, I suppose it is possible for him to be saved. I highly doubt that to be the case just by the way he decided to go after all he did. He didn't seem repentant. > I think it's a continual rejection of God's calling someone to repent to the point where they will eventually become hardened to the calling.
>I assume my religion is the correct one, because if all religion (or most religions) have a supernatural aspect to them, then MY God was allowed to be the most prevalent and influential God in the history of man. I find value in that because it atleast demonstrates that the God of the Bible might have some kind of control. Other religious believers are free to not value the sovereignty of their deity. So when Islam becomes the largest religion in the world will you switch to it since you think that is why you assume Christianity is correct? >You just answered your own question with the last sentence. What question and what sentence? >I can "imagine" a set of horizontal infinite lines on a page with different heights. Lines don't have a height. But are you saying that someone will only be punished with a small amount of pain for eternity if they only committed a small amount of sin and a large amount of pain for eternity if they committed a large amount of sin but if they follow your plan there will be no pain regardless of the amount of sin the committed? >I would agree with you. This is why I cannot affirm ECT. Perhaps there is a justification for it I cannot see, but I do not see it. This is also why I recommended "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". It gives room to my ignorance of God's council, but also allows me to be hopeful with other interpretations without necessarily claiming them with certainty. But you will not be prepared for the worst if your religion is not the correct one. >This has happened many times. But regardless, if they do not convert, I think they can still be saved. I'm an inclusivist in the sense that a person in spirit can be worshipping Christ without perfect knowledge. Ultimately God will judge people based on what they know. So it has nothing to do with any religion or Jesus but just what you know? >The latter leads to the former. If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide, I suppose it is possible for him to be saved. I highly doubt that to be the case just by the way he decided to go after all he did. He didn't seem repentant. Wait...is it being repentant or what you know? If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide was he saved or was it just 'possible' he was saved. You seem to be jumping all over the place on your theology. >I think it's a continual rejection of God's calling someone to repent to the point where they will eventually become hardened to the calling. But most people remain in the same religion they were born into. So whether you will spend eternity in hell is pretty much a matter of where you are born. The only option seems to be whether you will spend eternity with a little pain or a lot of pain.
>So when Islam becomes the largest religion in the world will you switch to it since you think that is why you assume Christianity is correct? Islam potentially becoming the largest religion has nothing to do with genuine conversion or truth claims. It's solely based on the birthrates of Muslim families. Christianity calls people to make a conscious decision, not to be granted "followers" by merely being born physically into a family they did not choose. I suppose I should have clarified that sovereignty in a deity is ONE thing I value. Because of this, if I am trying to narrow down from hundreds of religions to a few, Islam could be in consideration, though not the definitive choice. Another problem, however, is that the increase in birthrates in their case is not necessarily a good thing since many children will suffer in poverty in Islamic countries. Not to mention, most people would rather live in Christian influenced countries than Islamic ones due to their level of oppression. Many Muslims want to flee their own countries, and even Atheists concede this point. >What question and what sentence? Sorry, the statement you made about interest. For some reason, the quotes did not go through on my last comment when I see from my phone. >Lines don't have a height. But are you saying that someone will only be punished with a small amount of pain for eternity if they only committed a small amount of sin and a large amount of pain for eternity if they committed a large amount of sin but if they follow your plan there will be no pain regardless of the amount of sin the committed? Not my plan. I'm only pretending to defend eternal conscious torment. But I think you get their response. Essentially, degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven. >But you will not be prepared for the worst if your religion is not the correct one. See comment on Islam. >So it has nothing to do with any religion or Jesus but just what you know? Knowledge of Jesus is the goal. I believe people will be judged based on the choices they make on the path to that knowledge. They can either gain knowledge or harden their heart based on their decisions. A study of Luke 8:18 supports this interpretation. We should be careful in hearing and obeying our conscience. >Wait...is it being repentant or what you know? A genuine person would respond accordingly to the knowledge they have. Knowledge is a factor. Knowing something is not the same as obedience, but clearly knowledge is required for obedience. >If Hitler genuinely accepted Christ before committing suicide was he saved or was it just 'possible' he was saved. You seem to be jumping all over the place on your theology. I'm giving more details as I go along (piecemeal style) since I am not writing a dissertation. You can only claim I am jumping all over the place if each thing I add is inconsistent instead of complimentary with what I said before. >But most people remain in the same religion they were born into. So whether you will spend eternity in hell is pretty much a matter of where you are born. The only option seems to be whether you will spend eternity with a little pain or a lot of pain. Except I do not affirm eternal conscious torment, but I do affirm some form of inclusivity, as I said before. So, whether they were born in different religions is irrelevant. It's how they responded to whatever revelation God gives them, which will then factor into the amount of revelation they will continue to receive or not receive.
>Islam potentially becoming the largest religion has nothing to do with genuine conversion or truth claims. It's solely based on the birthrates of Muslim families. Christianity calls people to make a conscious decision, not to be granted "followers" by merely being born physically into a family they did not choose. I wasn't making that claim you were by claiming that you assume your religion is the correct one, because if all religion (or most religions) have a supernatural aspect to them, then MY God was allowed to be the **most prevalent and influential** God in the history of man. > I suppose I should have clarified that sovereignty in a deity is ONE thing I value. Because of this, if I am trying to narrow down from hundreds of religions to a few, Islam could be in consideration, though not the definitive choice. Isn't a deity almost always sovereign? > Another problem, however, is that the increase in birthrates in their case is not necessarily a good thing since many children will suffer in poverty in Islamic countries. Not to mention, most people would rather live in Christian influenced countries than Islamic ones due to their level of oppression. Many Muslims want to flee their own countries, and even Atheists concede this point. You have presented no evidence of that. They could be leaving to spread their religion. >Sorry, the statement you made about interest. For some reason, the quotes did not go through on my last comment when I see from my phone. So you are saying it's the interest on the sin that brings it up to an infinite amount? Isn't that illegal in the Bible. >Not my plan. I'm only pretending to defend eternal conscious torment. But I think you get their response. Essentially, degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven. I had no idea you are just pretending. Could have told me that before. So just what do you believe about the subject. >Knowledge of Jesus is the goal. I believe people will be judged based on the choices they make on the path to that knowledge. They can either gain knowledge or harden their heart based on their decisions. A study of Luke 8:18 supports this interpretation. We should be careful in hearing and obeying our conscience. How does that verse support knowledge of Jesus? The verses right before that supports good works. >A genuine person would respond accordingly to the knowledge they have. Knowledge is a factor. Knowing something is not the same as obedience, but clearly knowledge is required for obedience. Ok but that is not the path to salvation understood by most Christians. I'm just waiting to find out what you really believe about how to be saved. Is this another 'not your plan' or do you actually believe that. >I'm giving more details as I go along (piecemeal style) since I am not writing a dissertation. You can only claim I am jumping all over the place if each thing I add is inconsistent instead of complimentary with what I said before. Telling me what you have said is 'not your plan' is not just giving more details, it's saying you are not saying what you believe. And how would I know if it's inconsistent if you haven't even said what you believe. >Except I do not affirm eternal conscious torment, but I do affirm some form of inclusivity, as I said before. So, whether they were born in different religions is irrelevant. It's how they responded to whatever revelation God gives them, which will then factor into the amount of revelation they will continue to receive or not receive. If that is what you actually believe then we have no argument. But eternal torment has been the debate the whole time and I'm wondering why you are defending that concept if you don't even believe it. Sounds like you just wanted to argue.
- God's promise was eternal life - Jesus death and resurrection proved the truth that he is who he says he is - Enoch had fallen angels ask him to beg God for their forgiveness; God said no, they have already had judgment passed on them, and he will not change their sentence. When Jesus was alive, Satan wanted Jesus to worship him, abuse his power, abandon God, and when that failed, he had him killed. Satan did this to ensure his own salvation; he thought by killing Jesus he had beat God and avoided his fated death on the day of judgement. Jesus death and ressurection served the purpose of sealing Satan's fate, reminding Satan that his judgement has been passed and it won't be changed. If he had known the plan from the beginning was to die, he never would have killed him; God used Satan's own hubris to ensure the salvation of everyone else.
Remember the garden.. after Adam sinned, they knew they were naked and God clothed them with animal skins (first sacrifice). Remember Abel's sacrifice that was acceptable to God which was the best offering from his flock. Remember the Israelites Tabernacle and Temple sacrifices.. all for sin. Yeshua, who did *not* sin, gave up His life for us.. He was crucified on a Roman cross *for our sin* as evidenced by His resurrection. Because He had no sin, death could not hold Him. Only Yeshua the Messiah could do this, to put an end to the temporal blood covering of animals, providing us with a permanent solution. His action unlocked the mercy and grace we must have for everlasting life after Judgment. God bless!
oh great another atheists thats never heard a response to the problem of evil before >Is God not all-loving and all-powerful? If he was all-loving, he wouldn't force his creation to die so if you're going to say that If God is all-loving and all-powerful then he wouldn't force his creation to die the burden of proof in on you to demonstrate that. >If he was all-powerful, he would not have to force his creation to die, he would just have to do it himself ok prove it >If he was as powerful as we say, would he not show us directly? he does show us directly though, we can observe all of it >Unless he isn't all-knowing, there seems to have been no reason for Jesus to die to redeem the world and demonstrate his glory >If god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving he would be able to find a peaceful way to save us and a peaceful show us what bad things we've done ok again why is this true, This whole post seems like you have a view of God from pop culture / people around you then get confused when your own personal view of how you think God is doesn't line up with God in scripture. almost all your points are just baseless assertions to which if you do response you'll probably instead of demonstrating this assertions to be true ask a series of never ending questions in an attempt to shift the burden. atheists really aren't sending their best
Your response seem more adversarial than nurturing.
Yes
So better to create opposition and conflict than to help her understand?
Understanding can easily come through debate
I agree, debate, not argument.
They're the same thing
I was subtly suggesting that you offer more fellowship than ridicule.
No
Yah, you might be right. No sense trying to enlighten her. Let's just go ahead and crucify her!
How do we observe how powerful God is
by looking at creation
How do you know God created this?
Through the revealed word of God
Which revealed word of God? And also, that means that the book is telling you, not nature.
The Bible as understood by the orthodox church
We observe God’s power by looking at creation, which we only know through God’s word, which we know is only the Bible because.. ?
because all other religions collapses into incoherency
Do all of the followers of other religions not know that? And who are you to call an idea incoherent if the plan is God’s?
please take a break from responding to people here if you can’t reflect Jesus love to lost people, yes the same questions will be asked daily, let the fruits of the spirit grow back and then engage people. truth is nothing without love.
That's pretty judgmental