Senate Understanding Christianity

Nope. God did defeat evil.

 

And what about all those poor people in North Korea, many of whom have never heard of Jesus (much less held a Bible) because the state imposes the death penalty on those who would spread Christianity? Does god condemn them to Hell? For simply being born in the wrong place at the wrong time -- a place he knew would exist here on Earth?

I don't understand how anyone can think they will be happy in paradise while billions of others are suffering eternal torment. By your reasoning, then, since most of the world is not Christian, most of the world will burn in Hell. What a terrible and horrific waste of life.

 

Tell that to people who are beaten, tortured, starved, kidnapped, raped, and abused. Tell them that evil doesn't exist.

 

I admit that the issue of people who have never heard of God's Word is a difficult one for me to understand, and I don't have an answer for it.

This is why Christians are supposed to spread the Gospel - to reach people like them.

 

Christ's resurrection defeated Satan, but God allows him to have power over this world until the time comes for Christ to return. The power Satan is allowed, though, is only what he is permitted by God. In effect, God has him on a leash. As for these things happening to people, for Christians it would serve to strengthen their faith even in trial and hardship, while for non Christians it could be God's way of getting their attention - if they see it.

 

Yet you are perfectly content to get on your knees and worship a god who will send these poor souls into eternal torment after what they have endured on Earth. Because it's fact that not all of them will be "reached" before they die or are killed by the state.

There's no love in an action like that. No love, no pity, no mercy. Just pure narcissism from god.

 

But he created everything.

He created Lucifer as well.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entrapment
Definition 2 applies to law enforcement, but I think that it applies here, too, since God is an authority figure, and a supposedly just one at that:
(law) Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime.

With foreknowledge of the results, he created the entire scenario, leading two otherwise innocent people to commit sin. Beforehand, Adam and Eve were without sin and therefore innocent. Not very ethical if you ask me.

 

I refer you back to Epicurus, then:

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

 

Read the first post in this thread.

It seems that you are not Christian because you love God, you're Christian because you're afraid of hell.


As for the broader topic we're covering now:

 

I like the new Pope's take on all of this, (courtesy of the JCC thread)

http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/25976

The Third Vatican Council concluded today with Pope Francis announcing that Catholicism is now a “modern and reasonable religion, which has undergone evolutionary changes. The time has come to abandon all intolerance. We must recognize that religious truth evolves and changes. Truth is not absolute or set in stone. Even atheists acknowledge the divine. Through acts of love and charity the atheist acknowledges God as well, and redeems his own soul, becoming an active participant in the redemption of humanity.”

“Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God. God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity. God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device. Hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God” Pope Francis declared."

 

God created evil. I take it you've never read Isaiah 45:7? "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

If God wanted us to believe in him, then why doesn't he reveal himself to everyone and erase all doubt? Why does he depend on humans to spread the word? Surely an omnipotent and omnipresent being would be capable of doing these things himself.

Why should I, as a person who demands evidence in order to believe in a thing, be condemned to hell because sufficient evidence hasn't appeared yet? Your god knows exactly what type of evidence I require, and has gone to incredible lengths to hide that evidence from me. That doesn't sound like a god who wants to be worshiped.

 

You realize that's from the Onion, right?

Not that I disagree much with it, but the language of it clearly shows it's a fake.

 

That's really beautiful. I like the idea of thinking of God as the love between human beings rather than a creator or a judge. Although, I don't know that I agree that humanity needs redemption because I think that assumes that we are flawed from the outset whereas I would say every individual commits both acts of kindness and evil and we can then choose to seek redemption for the evil we have committed.

I like his description of Hell as well, not as a place of punishment, but as a state in which we are separated from love. I know that if I were to describe my own Hell, it would be being separated from the people I love.

I find that I can appreciate the concept of God more the less it is anthropomorphized.

Edit: Ghost

Well, Christ, that's depressing...

And here I felt all uplifted and ****

 

Yes but it's good stuff.

 

I must confess it had me for at first, but the 2nd paragraph resulted in much eyebrow-raising, and then the 'hell is merely a metaphor' comment resulted in a hearty LOL.

 

God does not condemn people who, through no fault of their own, never have an opportunity to learn what Jesus did for them. There will be people in heaven who never once heard the name of Christ; Jesus said so Himself by referencing how Abraham's faith in God redeemed him, centuries before the Messiah walked this Earth.

C.S. Lewis put it this way: "We know as Christians, that it is only through Christ that any man is saved. We do not know, however, that only those who know Him can be saved by Him."

God is the only and final judge at the end. He knows those who are truly His, and once you've learned about Christ's sacrifice, you have to make a choice. Another quote from Lewis says, "there's only two types of people in this world: those who say to God, "Your will be done", and those to whom God will say, "your will be done."

God takes no pleasure whatsoever in people going to hell; He doesn't even send them there. They choose it by reject His Son, and as the ultimate Father who loves all people, I can't imagine the pain it must cause Him. When the eternal kingdom arrives, Jesus will wipe every tear from His own eyes, not just ours.

 

Again, why doesn't God just reveal himself to erase all doubt? There currently is no evidence to support the existence of any gods, let alone yours, so why would any rational person choose to believe?

 

God has the power to do anything he wants, but since lying's not in His nature, all His promises are instant and eternal. Before time itself (I know its an odd reference), God existed beyond nature. He set certain things into the fabric of all His creation, and one of them was the destination for anyone who rebelled against Him. Hell was never created with man in mind, but there's nowhere else for the unrepentant to go. God won't destroy them completely, because they were made in His image and He still loves them. God won't even fully destroy evil, but He will permanently quarantine it from everything else.

 

Meant to reply to this yesterday, but forgot.

But we know Jesus preferred to teach using parables and metaphors. You have to look at this in context.

Such as when saying that trying to get into heaven is like a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. It's used for effect.

In this case, it's that your devotion to God and justice should be above personal biases. It's not that much different than those today who say that those in public service should do what's best for society, not just for their families and themselves. He's saying that doing what is right must come before helping yourselves and your families first... that if you have to choose between following what is right and following your family, you should follow what's right. As for bringing a sword instead of peace, that's a metaphor that Jesus wasn't someone without belief who came just to compromise on everything to get people to get along... Jesus was saying that he stood for something, something right, and that he wouldn't compromise on the fundamentals of what is right, even if it meant people would turn against him and even if it would disrupt the status quo of contemporary society.

Another example that this was not meant to be taken literally is that when the Romans come with swords to arrest Jesus, he tells his disciples not to fight back. He also says that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. As well as to love your enemies, and turn the other cheek when they strike you. How to know which is parable/metaphor, and what is what Jesus wanted to actually be practiced? Look at what Jesus actually did, when the use of swords did come up. What did Jesus actually do? That's the answer.

Ok, ready to think about it.

What exactly was I about to think about, again? I told you that I don't believe in this literally, and your counterargument is to use it???

Like I said, I don't believe that literally.

I said the interpretation that it's some prophecy foretelling Jesus is baloney.

Are you actually going to try to convince me now, using things that we do agree on? Instead of just telling me that your interpretation is right?

Why does Genesis 3:15 have to be the first glimpse of the eventual coming of Christ?

How?

You want us to take the Bible literally... except for this one time, when it makes sense to take it literally?

I already don't take a lot of the Bible literally, since I doubt God meant it to be a history or science textbook, and I think many of its "moral" teachings were filtered by the people who wrote it and the times they lived in. But this is one small section in Genesis that we can take literally... and this is the one part of the Adam and Eve story we should NOT take literally?

Depends on the snake, I guess. I doubt the author was talking about pythons or anacondas.

How is taking this literally absurdly silly, but not taking the rest of the Adam and Eve story literally?

So, you are NOT going to try to convince me using an argument that's based on things we agree on? Instead, you're just going to repeat why you're right and I'm wrong? Why am I not surprised...

 

Why send people he loves to a place of torment, though?

Why not create another Earth for them to go to?

He's omnipotent, for goodnesses' sake.

 

God wants people to choose Him willingly, not through fear or compulsion. We couldn't take His full presence in our fallen state anyway, which is another reason why He sent Jesus. After the Ascension, God placed his Holy Spirit as a protector and Comforter on the Earth. God speaks to everyone every day, but listening is our choice.

 

God doesn't lie? Really? Really? So how do you account for the fact that Jesus quite literally says "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you". Have you been able to move any mountains with your faith lately? If not, I guess this proves Jesus lied.

 

Because they'd still be fallen, and they'd corrupt any world He gave them...just like humanity did before the Flood.