A loving God torments majority of children forever

[bluesman]

Okay lets assume God exists
So there God is all alone .
What sould he do ? Live eternity all alone?
Create beings with no free will ? Would you be happy with a bunch of robots?
Maybe you want someone to love you of their own free will?

Do you deny life to some that will end up in heaven because of some who chose against you?

You and your wife know that baby will grow up and eventually die, but
you still make the choice to create life. If your an atheists then that death is forever, but still you create life.

God created life knowing it can last forever.

God has a plan and we can have a good idea of that plan.

Who says we will live forever in hell?
God can kill both the body and the soul/spirit.
Hell is not a place of endless whips and chains and burning fire.
This was done to try and scare little children in to submitting.
Its wrong , that not what hell is!

God is a God of love. Hell is not some torture chamber with a devil dressed up in red with a forked tail.

God is allowing what is happening now so man can see for himself that life separate from him doesn't work. Its much like letting your teenager learn from their own mistakes, because they sure won't take fathers word for it.

Mike
Bluesman

[Canuckster1127]

I'm not intimidated or concerned about debating emuse in this forum.

As long as he is respectful, and he has been to my observation, then there is no reason not to discuss these issues and every reason for us as Christians to give an answer for the hope that is within us.

Clearly, at some point the conversation could become circular and indeed probably will due to the inherent conflicts between our individual world views.

At that point, all that is necessary is to identify where the conflicting presuppositions lie and leave it at that. Each of us has choices to make as to what we beleive and what we accept.

Atheism rests upon its own epistimological constructs that are as open to question and inquiry as does Theism and Christianity.

In the end, it is not argument and reason that completely draw a person to Christ. That is the work of God's Holy Spirit. Our role is to provide answers and explanations where we can and leave that further work to Him.

I'm not a moderator, and I can only speak for myself, but in my opinion, there is no reason to fear such interaction and in fact I think that such a conversation is of value for the participants but then as it is bulletin board form, it allows observers to see and maybe helpful to them in some form as well.

It always helps to define terms and clarify underlying world views. That is usually doable in the course of the conversation and frankly, most of those are understood in as clear a discussion as classical Christianiy and Atheism respresents.

My 2 cents for what they are worth.

[puritan lad]

Nice thoughts Bluesman. I couldn't help notice that no scriptures appear in your post.

First of all, God does not mind being alone. He did not create us because He is lonely. That's a myth propogated by the modern "feel-good gospel of self-esteem". Lest you think otherwise, consider that God existed for eternity past without us, and He got along just fine. I know that it is a shock to most modern Christians, but in the grand scheme of things, we really aren't that important. We add nothing to God's Glory. He has enough glory in Himself.

Isaiah 40:15-18
"Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, He taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to Him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"

God Created us for His pleasure, not to fulfill some need of His.

Secondly, God does a plan and we can have a good idea of that plan. However, that plan must be defined by Scripture alone. God created mankind for one purpose, and that is for Himself to be glorified. God's plan isn't to bless us, give us things, health, wealth, etc. God's plan is to be glorified. He get glory in the salvation of His people (Psalm 79:9), and He gets glory in the destruction of the wicked (Romans 9:17). In either case, He is glorified.

Third, God's plan is Immutible. Unchanging. He "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11). He has the "free will" that many today wish to bestow upon His creatures. "The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations." (Psalm 33:10-11)

Daniel 4:35
"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”"

Isaiah 46:9-11
"Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it."

This is the God of the Bible. He's the Almighty, who sits on His throne. He's also not very well liked today, even among professed Christians, who prefer to serve the weak god of their own vain imaginations.

Finally, Hell is not "separation from God". That is a myth, mere wishful thinking. Those in Hell are separated from the presence of God only in glory and majesty. They are not separated from His presence physically, but they sure wish they could be.

Revelation 14:10
"he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."

It is not the absence of God that is the true horror of Hell, but rather His presence. In Hell, God will be there to personally pour out the fire of His Divine wrath upon the damned. It is there that He will hate and abhor you (Psalm 5:5-6). He will laugh at you calamity and mock at your terror. Hebrews 10:31, a scripture that you won't find on many bumper stickers and T-shirts, states this quite accurately. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Hell…
a. … is to be feared (Luke 12:4-5)
b. …is to be avoided at all costs (Matthew 5:29-30)
c. …is a fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42)
d. …is a lake of burning sulfur (Revelation 20:10)
e. …is everlasting (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
f. …is unquenchable (Matthew 3:12)
g. …is eternal (Jude 1:7)
h. …is a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:12)
i. …is a place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:44-48)

Hell is eternal. It is an “everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46). If it were just for a million years, then one could have hope in Hell. But there is no such fortune for the wicked. There is no parole from Hell. There will never be a moment when the lost man can say, “Release me, I've served my time”. After he has spent 1 Billion years suffering Hell's eternal torments, he will be no closer to the end of his punishment then he was at the beginning. Sinners will have their torment in Hell ended on the very day that God stops hating sin: Never.

A.W. Pink writes, "It is sad to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or at least they wish there were no such thing. While some would not go so far as to openly admit that they consider it a blemish on the Divine character, yet they are far from regarding it with delight, they like not to think about it, and they rarely hear it mentioned without a secret resentment rising up in their hearts against it. Even with those who are more sober in their judgment, not a few seem to imagine that there is a severity about the Divine wrath which is too terrifying to form a theme for profitable contemplation. Others harbor the delusion that God's wrath is not consistent with His goodness, and so seek to banish it from their thoughts.

Yes, many there are who turn away from a vision of God's wrath as though they were called to look upon some blotch in the Divine character, or some blot upon the Divine government. But what saith the Scriptures? As we turn to them we find that God has made no attempt to conceal the fact of His wrath. He is not ashamed to make it known that vengeance and fury belong unto Him. His own challenge is, "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand. For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, I live forever, If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me" (Deut. 32:39-41). A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; And because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner: Psalm 7:11.

This is the God of the Bible. May you fall in love with Him.

[aa118816]

Why would God create people when many or most would end up going to Hell? This is a great question, but not unanswerable.

1. I would ask exactly how many people should he have created that would go to Hell? When the atheist says, all of them, then you can say, well-then freewill would be impossible.
2. Alvin Plantiga has shown that it is reasonble to believe that God created free will and has given people just enough information about him to retain that free choice, while not making them robots. At th high levels of philosphy, this works. Folks at the websites you mentioned are typically unaware of this.
3. What gives them the right to determine who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?
4. Where does the Bible say that all babies go to Hell that die before they make a choice for Christ. In the debates I have read and listened too, there is substantial support for thinking that they are accepted in the kingdom if they are part of God's plan.
5. Aren't certain humans, lets assume that few people will get into heaven, fortunate to have the chance to earn going to heaven?
6. We really do not know what happens to people that have never heard the gospel. We do know that if you reject the gospel, then you go to hell. I am not an open theist, but there are plenty of examples of God reaching out to non-jews in the OT and saving them. We can be arrogant and give a definitive in or out answer to heaven, but we do not know. William Lane Craig uses this very effectively in debates as does Ravi Zacharias.

Dan

[puritan lad]

Why would God create people when many or most would end up going to Hell? This is a great question, but not unanswerable.

The answer is, "that I may show My power .., and that My name may be declared in all the earth". (Romans 9:17).

What gives them the right to determine who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?

Right on. I like what Spurgeon says regarding this.

"Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust. It is God upon his throne of whom we have been singing this morning; and it is God upon his throne of whom we shall speak in this discourse."

Where does the Bible say that all babies go to Hell that die before they make a choice for Christ. In the debates I have read and listened too, there is substantial support for thinking that they are accepted in the kingdom if they are part of God's plan.

This question is faulty from the start. No one goes to Hell because they "die before they make a choice for Christ". They go to Hell because God did not choose to save them. They same is true with babies. The Bible is very clear, that unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. We are by nature, children of wrath. He that believes not is condemned already. Only the elect infants are considered holy. All others are unclean (1 Cor. 7:14). The "age of accountability" theory is a product of maudlin sentimentalism, not Scripture.

Aren't certain humans, lets assume that few people will get into heaven, fortunate to have the chance to earn going to heaven?

Earn going to heaven??? Good luck...

We really do not know what happens to people that have never heard the gospel.

Yes we do. They are "condemned already" (John 3:18), by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and without excuse (Romans 1:20).

[Emuse]

I think I answered that It has a lot to do with interaction, relationship and growth.

This is in answer to the question, "Why would an atheist bother debating with Christians ... ?"

[Emuse]

Hi Bart ...

And thanks for your reply

I'm glad you've joined in and let me say that I appreciate the manner in which you are interacting with this thread. You are indeed welcome.

Many thanks. I appreciate debate and wrestling with ideas. I gain nothing from offending people. If anything I say does cause offense, then it is unintentional.

Likewise, I appreciated your well thought out response. I have been on boards where I have been told that I am going to hell - and there is little room for debate at all. Your reponse is most refreshing.

This is a legitimate question coming from the point of view of someone who has not accepted specific revelation and in particular, specific revelation in the form of the Bible.

I think you highlight one of the central problems straight away The atheist it seems, MUST explain certain phenomenon before his atheism should be considered legitimate or worthy of consideration. However, God requires no explanation at all and should be accepted as a brute fact.

Certain material attributes are pointed out as being finite expressions of God's infinite person. However, it only seems to me that the problem has been pushed back. By postulating God, the theist hasn't explained the existence of intelligence or morality but rather made those things attributes of a being that apparently requires no explanation.

Agreed. If one accepts the Gospel quotes of Jesus as accurate historically, and I believe there is good reason to do so beyond the obvious answer for the Christian of inspiration and inerrancy, then there are some very clear indications that Jesus believed and taught the existence not only of heaven, but also of hell.

I don't think we have much debate on this issue.

In fact, in terms of volume of material, Jesus referenced Hell more than any other subject in his public ministry. There is opportunity for endless debate (and that opportunity has been exercised here as well as throughout history) as to what Jesus meant by hell, whether that hell is eternal, etc. Those are other discussions. Regardless of how you choose to interact with the material, there certainly is an onus upon anyone addressing Christ and His teaching to address this as primary and incorporate it firmly into any framework of understanding of His person and His teaching.

Agreed However, it seems strange that such a crucial issue has been left open to so much question and so many diverse interpretations.

Agreed. This is a reasonable conclusion within this construct. I would simply point out however, that it is not necessarily inclusive of every factor to be considered in coming to a final conclusion. It is an inherent weakness of logical constructs that they are limited to internal consistency involving the premises provided but it is not a given that those premises are necessarily inclusive of all relevant considerations.

I think this is one of best definitions of logic I have seen. I am glad that you do not see logic as some absoulte indicator of truth.

For example - on the basis of observation and logic, people once believed that the world was flat. We now believe something quite different because increased observation has caused us to change our stance.

Here we come to the crux of the matter. The next point follows and would seem to be be the major difficulty. I think however, that more time needs to be spent here.

I think so too.

"If I was God ...." Obviously, we're not God, nor, if we accept the premise that some of God's characteristics ie Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc are immutable and cannot be fully grasped, let alone shared, then we have constructed something of a paradox here.

We have. The problem is, if God does things that can appear evil to me (even though they are not in any absolute sense), then this only shows that our sense of evil is relative (God would not find something evil that we find evil because he has a wider perception). How could we therefore look at what we might believe God permits and gain any sense of right and wrong from it?

Obviously, for the Christian, which I profess to be, the immediate answer is that God as infinite cannot be grasped completely by we who are finite. Therefore, we lack the understanding and the perspective to adequately pass judgement upon the matter.

Exactly! We lack the perspective. This only seems to highlight that our sense of good and evil is relative in that it is based on a limited, finite perception. If God allows everything and can justify what he is doing in some way, then nothing can be evil in any absolute sense.

I understand that that is a very unsatisfactory answer to someone who does not share that world view and that it can be viewed as circular. Further I understand that such an argument can be seen as a "copout."

I wholly respect your answer - but do see problems with it, yes.

I do believe that God has through His revelation given us some insight into the matter and that it is a legitimate question to ask and that more should be said than simply throwing this up as a defense and walking away.

It is VERY frustrating to read comments such as, "You're wasting my time and yours. Believe or go to hell! Your choice!" - or something like that and to have people walk away from you. I don't find this frustrating at all.

Basically true, yet not necessarily complete. First, I'm not sure I agree with the incapability of sin in terms of its being a possibility, so much as I believe Christians see a completion or maturity occurring upon final bodily redemption in which the element of our humanity that is marred by original sin is "healed" or "removed" as you will. Perfection is a concept that is often misunderstood by even many Christians. The Biblical concept of perfection is more along the lines of maturity or completeness. It has been taken by others theologically to mean the absence of anything we call "bad" or "evil" by our definition.

OK - I appreciate your answer. However ...

God presumably has free will. He is also incapable of sin. Therefore it is possible to possess free will and never seen and to be incapable of sin. God created us in his image (according to Genesis) - but not enough in his image to make us incapable of sin as he is.

The best example I can offer up quickly is the idea that physical death is evil or bad and as such the direct consequence of sin. There are some Biblical passages when taken together that seem to indicate this, primarily in the Genesis account of Genesis 2 & 3 and then Romans 5:12.

Paul certainly speaks of death being an enemy to be defeated. This is certainly in a context where he is talking about physical resurrection.

However, many Christians, myself included, understand the death being spoken of there as representative of the Hebrew concept of death in this context being a separation from God. Physical death as an element of creation in terms of life-cycle and food-chain is not necessarily inherently evil, especially as it relates to non-human elements. Man is seen as a special case due to the spiritual element which does not exist in other forms of plants and animals.

I see. However, as pointed out above, the idea of spiritual death and physical death seem to be closely linked, Biblically.

I'm think that the correct view is to say, not that we will be incapable, but rather in view of the maturing, perfecting work of Christ in our lives, we will no longer have that element of original sin and rebellion grafted to us and as such our desire to know and serve God will be able to express itself without restriction. The desire will be gone and we will exercise volitionally what our greatest hearts desire in fact is without distraction or conflict.

A lovely hope However, I am still left wondering as to why God would not have created man in this state to being with and removed the possibility of sin and consequently, suffering.

Implicit within your proposed definition of "evil" is a human perspective that in turn is applied back to God. In a sense, it can't help but be so. We obviously are human and can only grasp and interpret what we see and interpret in that manner.

Exactly.

Let me suggest this as a definition of evil.

Evil and sin, are not ultimately things in and of themselves. Rather they are anything that falls short or, or misses the mark of perfection and good as defined and embodied in God himself.

But if God is so beyond our scope that his actions can even appear evil to us (based on limited perception), I cannot see how he can be a moral guide or act as a basis for objective morality.

Once again, many thanks Bart. I feel I probably have not done justice to all your points but wanted to answer as best I could in the time available.

[Emuse]

Hi August

Hi James,

Just to confirm your prediction of being outnumbered , I have some more questions for you:
1. What is the nature of things that are real?
2. How does the world operate?
3. Where did it come from?
4. What is man's place in the world?
5. What is man's nature?
6. Are there moral or epistemological norms which are not chosen by the individual?
7. What are the criteria of truth?
8. What are the proper methods of knowing?
9. Is certainty possible?

That is an awful lot of questions!! I certainly don't think that they could all be addressed in one thread. Let's take 9 as an example ...

9. Is certainty possible?

Answer - yes. It all depends on what you are asking me to feel certain about But this would require a separate thread in itself!

[Emuse]

Hi puritan lad

Just some comments and questions ...

The answer is, "that I may show My power .., and that My name may be declared in all the earth". (Romans 9:17).

That makes God sound very self indulgent if I may say so. It sounds rather like, "might makes right" mentality. I certainly don't feel comfortable with it.

"Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars.

Here you are describing what is beyond man's scope of capability. Very few theists would disagree with the sense of awe that is felt when witnessing the heavens. Even a deist would agree with this sentiment

They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust. It is God upon his throne of whom we have been singing this morning; and it is God upon his throne of whom we shall speak in this discourse."

I can only point to my comment above.

I don't actually question God. I am not certain whether or not he exists and I find myself unable to ask him anything. I only see people who claim to be speaking and writing on his behalf. I only question them and their claim to be doing this - nothing else. My questions do no reflect any disrespect of any God that may or may not exist.

This question is faulty from the start. No one goes to Hell because they "die before they make a choice for Christ". They go to Hell because God did not choose to save them.

I thought God desires everyone to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth? If this is what he wants and he is able to do it, how come some are lost?

They same is true with babies. The Bible is very clear, that unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. We are by nature, children of wrath. He that believes not is condemned already. Only the elect infants are considered holy. All others are unclean (1 Cor. 7:14). The "age of accountability" theory is a product of maudlin sentimentalism, not Scripture.

You see, everything in the Bible was written by people. So the writings in the Bible reflect their firmly held convictions and beliefs. That is fair enough and I respect them for that. But who is to say that they were right? It is claimed that they are writing with God's authority ... but where is the evidence for this?

Yes we do. They are "condemned already" (John 3:18), by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and without excuse (Romans 1:20).

And hear we read the opinion of the author John's Gospel and the opinion of Paul. What confidence should I have that they were right? I appreciate if such questions demand another thread

Thank you for your time.

[puritan lad]

Hi puritan lad

Hello Emuse,

The answer is, "that I may show My power .., and that My name may be declared in all the earth". (Romans 9:17).

That makes God sound very self indulgent if I may say so. It sounds rather like, "might makes right" mentality. I certainly don't feel comfortable with it.

Many are not. People like to be in control, especially in today's age of Self. Self-esteem, Self-help, self-expression, etc. In the end, however, God is God. "But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3). That is His job description.

This is also why envy, jealousy, and vengeance are sinful amongst mankind. These things put man on par with God.

Here you are describing what is beyond man's scope of capability. Very few theists would disagree with the sense of awe that is felt when witnessing the heavens. Even a deist would agree with this sentiment :)

Not sure I follow you. A deist does not like God on His throne. A deist is OK with a God who sets things in motion, but does not like a God who rules over every aspect of His creation.

I don't actually question God. I am not certain whether or not he exists and I find myself unable to ask him anything. I only see people who claim to be speaking and writing on his behalf. I only question them and their claim to be doing this - nothing else. My questions do no reflect any disrespect of any God that may or may not exist.

There are many resources on this site to help aid in your search. The important point that I want to drive home in this thread is that God (I assume His existence here) is not obliged to bow down to human standards of fairness. He is the potter and we are the clay. God does not have to save anyone, and if He does choose to do so, that is solely His right.

I thought God desires everyone to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth? If this is what he wants and he is able to do it, how come some are lost?

Good Question. I'll let my Arminian friends try to tackle this one. My answer is that God does not desire for everyone to be saved. In fact, He made the wicked for the Day of Destruction (Proverbs 16:4) Arminians really hate this scripture :).

The two verses that you probably have in mind are limited in their scope. In 2 Peter 3:9, the promise given is "toward us", "to those who have obtained like precious faith" (2 Peter 1:1). In 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul is defending His ministry to the gentiles (1 Timothy 2:7). Therefore, "all men" refers to men of all nations, not just Jews. We still use the same types of universal languages today, ie. "The whole world mourned the loss of princess Diana". Not true.

You see, everything in the Bible was written by people. So the writings in the Bible reflect their firmly held convictions and beliefs. That is fair enough and I respect them for that. But who is to say that they were right? It is claimed that they are writing with God's authority ... but where is the evidence for this?

And hear we read the opinion of the author John's Gospel and the opinion of Paul. What confidence should I have that they were right? I appreciate if such questions demand another thread :)

Wow. Where do I begin? Hopefully, August can thrown in a few lines here. He is a much better apologist than I am.

I hold that the Bible is both historically and scientifically accurate, and there are plenty of resources here to help with that.

It also has a low view of mankind, which is different than that of other Holy Books, which center on how man can better himself.

It is prophetically accurate? For example, in the gospels (written before Paul, see 1 Cor. 15:3-4), Jesus accurately predicts the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matthew 23 and 24). This is just one of many examples. Since Paul was killed in 68 AD by Nero, and since he was familiar with the gospels, Jesus' prediction had to have been made and recorded prior to the event.

Daniel predicted the same event (Daniel 9:24-27). Some if his writings are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been dated to about 170 BC.

Also, I want to add that both John and Paul risked death (Paul actually suffered martyrdom) for what they taught. The conversion of Paul from one who hated and killed Christians to one who was willing to die for Christianity is itself a miracle.

Ultimately, one can only know God and His Word when the Holy Spirit seals it in his heart. This is my prayer for you.

Thank you for your time.

Sure. Hope this helps.

God Bless,

PL

[YLTYLT]

Emuse,
Here is something interesting to consider:

When the Ten Commandments were given, there was no commandment against atheism, only against polytheism (i.e., the worship of many gods). Before the rise of Ionian science by Thales of Miletus of Greece around 600 B.C., mythology and theology controlled the way men thought. The fact is: for the first 3,400 years of human history (from c. 4,000 - 600 B.C.) there was no such thing as atheism, therefore, it was not a problem during the days of Moses.

After all, Moses knew a man (Amram, his father) who knew Levi. Levi knew a man (Jacob, his father) who knew Abraham. Abraham knew a man (Shem, Noah's son) who knew Lamech (Shem's grandfather). And Lamech knew Adam. When you are that close to the time of creation, you are not apt to deny the existence of a Creator.

[YLTYLT]

And PL, I understand what your position on the Gospel but I do not agree with it. And I especially do not agree with trying to explain predestination to someone who may not have a complete belief or understanding of the Gospel. Thats one of the reasons I reject the Calvinist doctrine. If I had heard that doctrine as an unsaved person, I would probably react as Emuse has in this post. But I heard the Gospel first and believed. Thats what saves. PL, I do not doubt your salvation. I expect you once received Christ without the knowledge of all the complexities of predestination. That's when you were saved. And thats the only thing should matter in a discussion with those that are not saved.

Emuse, If you have not already, It would be good for you to sit face to face with someone that you trust to share the plan of salvation.
But if there is not anyone whom you trust, give this story a read. It explains salvation and the Gospel as well as I have heard.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1988ii/hosler.html
And PL, I do not think you will object in any way to this story. It does not seem to contradict your position either.


May God Bless you

[puritan lad]

And PL, I understand what your position on the Gospel but I do not agree with it. And I especially do not agree with trying to explain predestination to someone who may not have a complete belief or understanding of the Gospel. Thats one of the reasons I reject the Calvinist doctrine. If I had heard that doctrine as an unsaved person, I would probably react as Emuse has in this post. But I heard the Gospel first and believed. Thats what saves. PL, I do not doubt your salvation. I expect you once received Christ without the knowledge of all the complexities of predestination. That's when you were saved. And thats the only thing should matter in a discussion with those that are not saved.

YLTYLT,

I am sure that Emuse is familiar with the plan of salvation. He did, however, ask a good question that I'm not sure Arminians can answer. I just gave him my best answer. He may read the scriptures for himself to see which one is correct, for the God of salvation can only be known if He makes Himself known, and He has done so through the Scriptures.

God Bless,

PL

[bluesman]

Nice thoughts Bluesman. I couldn't help notice that no scriptures appear in your post

Puritan Lad, just because you don't recognize the scripture doesn't mean it not there.

Maybe if I put in the Matthew 10:28
or maybe Romans 6:23.
or John 3:16.

There is no eternal life in torment!!!

What I don't like about quoting scripture is that it gets misquoted, misunderstood, taken out of context, etc.

The jehovah witness quote all kinds of scripture, but the connection to what they believe doesn't make sense to me.

No as far as the other stuff you mention what do read in Revelation 20?
or don't you believe all of your Bible?

The White Throne judgements? All in Hades or the grave will be resurrected to face judgement according to their works.
By their works, deeds, what they have done.

So understanding that all children, and many others will be given a true opportunity to inherit the kingdom of God.

So you see Hell is not what most think it is.
Hades is not hell , only Gehenna is. Tatarus, translated as hell is also something different for fallen angels.

Mike
Bluesman

[Canuckster1127]

Likewise, I appreciated your well thought out response. I have been on boards where I have been told that I am going to hell - and there is little room for debate at all. Your reponse is most refreshing.

Well. So you understand, I do believe that there is a literal and real hell and further I believe that Christ is the means that God has provided. However, I also believe that God is the judge of that for every person, not me. Further, I believe that God gave you and me both free will. In view of that, it behooves me to respect that choice in other people. Obviously, in view of that belief, it would be the height of insensitivity for me not to seek to appeal to you to exercise your choice in this direction. In fact, for me not to do that, would be the height of not caring.

There is nothing that would please me more than to see this discussion or a preponderance of several such discussions in your life, assist in moving you to a decision for Christ. That however is your choice, which God has given you and I respect that. I can pray for you however and you should know that with each post, I am praying for you.

I think you highlight one of the central problems straight away Smile The atheist it seems, MUST explain certain phenomenon before his atheism should be considered legitimate or worthy of consideration. However, God requires no explanation at all and should be accepted as a brute fact.

Certain material attributes are pointed out as being finite expressions of God's infinite person. However, it only seems to me that the problem has been pushed back. By postulating God, the theist hasn't explained the existence of intelligence or morality but rather made those things attributes of a being that apparently requires no explanation.

Obviously as a Theist and a Christian, there is an element of faith and acceptance that does indeed provide me with a framework to provided meaning to life and that is indeed a strong utilitarian argument for that point of view.

The truth is however, that whether Theist, Agnostic or Atheist each camp has at the root of its epistomology certain leaps and platforms that cannot be known a priori. Humans are unique in the degree to which we seek to understand the world around us and then to manufacture a framework by which we impart meaning. The Theist explains this in terms of the image of God imprinted within in us in an element usually referred to as spirit. The Atheist does not place as much uniqueness on this element, perhaps seeing humans as further developed in this realm of self-awareness or need for meaning. The question to me is not whether one position is more reasonable than the other. In terms of reason alone, while I am obviously biased in the direction that I have chosen (some might argue that it has chosen me) that is not what is ultimately deciding for me.

Pascal expressed it best when he stated that within every person there exists a God-shaped vacuum.

Sermon over.

Quote:
Agreed. This is a reasonable conclusion within this construct. I would simply point out however, that it is not necessarily inclusive of every factor to be considered in coming to a final conclusion. It is an inherent weakness of logical constructs that they are limited to internal consistency involving the premises provided but it is not a given that those premises are necessarily inclusive of all relevant considerations.


I think this is one of best definitions of logic I have seen. I am glad that you do not see logic as some absoulte indicator of truth.

For example - on the basis of observation and logic, people once believed that the world was flat. We now believe something quite different because increased observation has caused us to change our stance.

I'm glad you find it clear. The concept is not unique to me. Logic in and of itself is nothing more than a tool and by that tool you can measure internal consistency. A logical construct can only embrace the degree of truth that is inherently present in the premises offered.

And yes there are ample illustrations of this throughout history across all communities of faith and atheism as well.

We have. The problem is, if God does things that can appear evil to me (even though they are not in any absolute sense), then this only shows that our sense of evil is relative (God would not find something evil that we find evil because he has a wider perception). How could we therefore look at what we might believe God permits and gain any sense of right and wrong from it?

This is true as far as it goes. If in fact, we have only our own reason and perspective then it would indeed leave at best a neutral position as to the existence of God and His nature. Unless of course, He chose to reveal Himself and His nature to us in some manner that we could grasp.

This is the crux of revealed truth and revelation. As a Christian I believe God did just that through the incarnation of Christ Jesus and further through the inspiration of Scripture.

What we've been speaking of to this point, shows the limits of natural revelation. At best it can only take someone from atheism to agnosticism.

Reason cannot in the end serve as the sole means of knowledge and meaning in a person. It's certainly something integral to the process, but it is not sufficient in and of itself.

CS Lewis illustrates the concept very well in my opinion in a quote to the effect of, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

God presumably has free will. He is also incapable of sin. Therefore it is possible to possess free will and never seen and to be incapable of sin. God created us in his image (according to Genesis) - but not enough in his image to make us incapable of sin as he is.

This is a paradox. I confess to you, that I do not have a completely satisfactory answer to this question, other than to fall back upon what we have agreed must be true in a Theistic system, frankly that there is an element of mystery to the person of God and his reasons that while He may reveal elements to us in His specific revelation, ultimately we cannot transcend to understand. Some Christian and theists of other brands get very defensive and uncomfortable with ambiguity. I've chosen to be honest about these disconnects, clear in my belief that the find reconciliation within the person of God Himself and that ther may be a greater level of understanding possible and therefore there is no reason to discourage honest questions in the realm.

I hope this helps and thanks again. I'm enjoying this interaction.