*These are my views, and not anyone else's*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locke, that the Bible was written by Christians thousands of years ago, it is not absolute. Time changes, religious views change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I am not arguing about the validity of the Bible. I don't care who thinks the Bible is correct or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. If the people you are talking about are Christians, that means they believe what the Bible says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Please logically explain to me, using your knowledge of Greek culture when that verse was written, why a verse that speaks not only until the end of this time, but also through all of eternity, would change over time. If a Christian who believes in the Bible reads a verse that says "this will never change," what culturally would make that Christian who believes in the Bible think that the verse is now irrelevant?

 

 

 

That verse was written by MAN in a different age then ours, not God, it is not eternal. Technically, the Catholic Church may say that's true for all of eternity, but most Christians don't give a hoot for most of the Catholic Church's opinions (take the homosexuality argument, for example...). Practical Christians don't take every single word of the Bible as law and the Word of God. I'll admit some crazy Christians might though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Much of the Bible is written specifically to the people of the time, such as many of the rules it tells us of how to treat women, many of which are outdated. Another good example is Paul's belief that celibacy is the best thing to do. Wana know why he said that? It's because he believed Jesus was going to come back within his lifetime, so we don't need to reproduce. Well, obviously he was wrong. Too bad the idea of celibacy survived his error.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, my point is that the Bible is not absolute, and not true in every case. Most Christians realize that not everything in the Bible is true, or the Word of God.

 

 

 

What are you talking most? Most Christians I know do believe it to be the Word of God. Also you yourself have brought up the verse talking about how to treat women. That was said because women were talking out of line, rather than submitting to their husbands, etc. Oh and about the Celibacy part, I believe that your statement is false. No where was it about reproducing at all. He was not going to get married because that would divert his attention from spreading the Word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and to warri0r45 and Locke, the thing about the blashphemy against the Holy Spirit is said in the Bible, BUT you have to remember that God knows your true heart intents. That is a fine line right there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now I probably wont post again on this or even look at it but remember there are gray areas to the Bible and Religions of all kinds. Please just let everyone believe what they want and just a thing to all those "Christians" out there:"Post what you know is to be known as the truth and if you are a true believer and a mature one at that, you know darn well to not be sparking anything that would upset anyone. So please debate in peace and behave well."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*These are my views, and not anyone else's*

Locke, I believe we are arguing two different points. You are defending the base opinion of Christianity, while I am defending the majority opinion of current day Christians. I agree with what you have said (mostly), so I don't really see a point in debating o_O.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are you talking most? Most Christians I know do believe it to be the Word of God. Also you yourself have brought up the verse talking about how to treat women. That was said because women were talking out of line, rather than submitting to their husbands, etc. Oh and about the Celibacy part, I believe that your statement is false. No where was it about reproducing at all. He was not going to get married because that would divert his attention from spreading the Word.

 

 

 

No, that was a later opinion/cover up. His initial intention was to not care about life after this generation, because it didn't matter- Jesus was coming back that generation. Do you go to a Catholic school? I do, and that is what I have been taught.

I've got a curly one for anyone who cares to give thier thoughts -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe, irrespective of what the bible sais, god would condemn a good person to hell? By a good person I mean someone who never breaks the law, earns a decent living and does not persecute those who think differently to him i.e. is a tolerant, accepting person. Or is going to heavan strictly for christians and not atheists or those of other faiths?

I've got a curly one for anyone who cares to give thier thoughts -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe, irrespective of what the bible sais, god would condemn a good person to hell? By a good person I mean someone who never breaks the law, earns a decent living and does not persecute those who think differently to him i.e. is a tolerant, accepting person.

 

 

 

For those kind of people, isn't that what The Judgement is for? Granted my knowledge from the apocalypse comes almost exclusively from the Left Behind series (great books!) and sporadic attendance to wednesday night church, , but isn't there supposed to be a second chance for everyone (the dead I mean), where they're judged before God based on their life. You know, give ignorant people a chance.

Good and evil isn't clearly defined, thus even though someone is being good by todays moral standards, God, if there is a god, could have a different view on morality and could send those that are by our standards, good, to hell, and take those morally bad to heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know its against your point, but I like getting technical. \

I've got a curly one for anyone who cares to give thier thoughts -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe, irrespective of what the bible sais, god would condemn a good person to hell? By a good person I mean someone who never breaks the law, earns a decent living and does not persecute those who think differently to him i.e. is a tolerant, accepting person. Or is going to heavan strictly for christians and not atheists or those of other faiths?

 

 

 

Hell no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that were true everything in the universe except for a section of the human race would go to "heaven". Now that's just being arrogant. For example, I hate how people who believe in Heaven actually argue whether or not Ghandi made it there. What bullcrap, honestly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good and evil isn't clearly defined, thus even though someone is being good by todays moral standards, God, if there is a god, could have a different view on morality and could send those that are by our standards, good, to hell, and take those morally bad to heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know its against your point, but I like getting technical. \

 

 

 

I may not know the fine line between good and evil, but I knows it when I sees it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, from what I have read on the changing shape of water crystals based on human thought, there appears to be a natural order in the universe of what is morally good and what is not. So, you could be wrong :-$ .

Ok heres another one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe anyone deserves an eternity in hell for a finite amount of time (i.e. a life) of wrongdoing/sin?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's almost nonsensical to me to condemn someone to hell for eternity if they only comitted sin in a finite amount of time. You could liken it to spending life in prison for stealing a balloon. Or spending life in jail for anything that is rediculously miniscule in comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway what do you think.

Do you believe, irrespective of what the bible sais, god would condemn a good person to hell? By a good person I mean someone who never breaks the law, earns a decent living and does not persecute those who think differently to him i.e. is a tolerant, accepting person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will field this one from a Christian/Biblical perspective for ya. Please don't say stuff like "what if there isn't a God" etc. This whole point is made from the Christian perspective which assumes there is a God and Jesus was who he said, etc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It comes down to a few main points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is man separated from God today?

 

 

 

Originally God and man (Adam and Eve) conversed and had an active relationship. When Adam and Eve sinned they separated themselves from God because it basically dirtied them in his eyes since he is a holy God. Their sin also dirtied their descendants and thus a gulf was created between man and God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what is sin? Sin is breaking God's commands for how we are to live. It is what separates us from God and in effect keeps us out of heaven. All it takes is one sin and a person is not worthy of being in God's presence because of how holy he is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically we are screwed... Except God knew this and he loves us so he realized that left on our own we are toast. He didn't want this for us so instead of us having to pay for our sins(going to hell) he sent Jesus down to be sacrificed in our place. Jesus took the penalty for our sins. All ya have to do is accept him as Lord and acknowledge he saved you from your sin and thats it. That is all you have to do to go to heaven. The key is Jesus took the sin from us when you accept him as your savior and payed for it himself so in God's eyes we are once again pure in terms of sin.. It's basically a pretty sweet deal. God didn't have to send Jesus to pay for our sins but he did because he loves us. It isn't some diabolical plot on his part. It is a complete act of love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a few questions in return for ya...

 

 

 

If a man can be good enough to go to heaven then why would Jesus have to come in the first place to die for us?

 

 

 

Do you think a person is capable of earning his way into the presence of the most holy and perfect being in the entire universe that has no tolerance for sin? One sin is enough to disqualify a person. I know I sure as heck am not capable of that and I'm probably what most people would consider a "good" person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To my knowledge Christianity is the only religion on Earth that doesn't require a person to work their way to heaven with good deeds. That's because for a Christian it's like hey, we are all sinners, we have all messed up, we are all human. It's impossible to earn our way into God' presence. God sent Jesus down as a free gift to us if we accept him and his forgiveness. Why not? Why would I want to reject his love? Why wouldn't I love the fact he loved me first? Why wouldn't I want to worship him for how good and loving a God he is? Being saved is a free gift. Why not take it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a person relies on them self to pay for their sin instead of allowing Jesus to pay for it then they are going to have to bear the consequences according to the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess this is also why Christians can come across as pushy sometimes. It's like they know how awesome a gift they got from Jesus and they just want other people to be able to have it also. Sometimes people can get carried away with it but it's only because they care about that person and want them to have what they got themself. It is all meant in good will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope this clears things up some on the Christian perspective of things. Let me know if I need to go into more detail on anything.

 

 

 

If by writing about what God did in the past, before he existed, because it happened before we imagined him, you are assuming God both existed and did not exist at the exact same time. This is impossible. Either what was written is false, or God existed before he was thought up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand what you're saying; writing about God BEFORE we imagined him? :? Something can exist and not exist at once since reality is subjective.

I have a few questions in return for ya...

 

 

 

If a man can be good enough to go to heaven then why would Jesus have to come in the first place to die for us?

 

 

 

Do you think a person is capable of earning his way into the presence of the most holy and perfect being in the entire universe that has no tolerance for sin? One sin is enough to disqualify a person. I know I sure as heck am not capable of that and I'm probably what most people would consider a "good" person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was my understanding that we were created in the image of god. So one could conclude that we are god like, yes? And similarly, one could conclude that god is imprefect and flawed like us, yes? Maybe I'm getting this all wrong but I can't help but feel that noone can possibly deserve to go to an eternal damnation when life is extremely, no, rediculously far from eternity. In the end there are only two outcomes, heavan, which seems more and more like an exclusive club in which to get in you must kiss god's feet, and then hell which is basically where the majority of human kind inevitably goes because the majority of human kind are not christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal is welcomed.

 

 

It was my understanding that you could be forgiven for your sins and thus avoid an eternity in hell. Guess I was wrong huh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not God, but Christian scripture seems to suggest all sins except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are forgivable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did a little research and it seems you are right. Interesting. I'd be interested to hear a Christians perspective on what they think about this unforgivable sin. So basically one sin and your out? No second chances? :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is the only true unforgivable Sin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those don't make it to Heaven get to spend the span of time in the void, or Limbo, until Christ's Second Coming. Then, all humanity from Adam to Steve will be judged again. Judgement Day. All mankind will have the chance to stare God in the face and make the choice. Except..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those who

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: Took the mark of the beast during the Tribulation (aka alligned themselves with the AntiChrist who WILL be a human, not a beast. The Revelation of John is metaphorical prophecy).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B: Those who forsook God in return for their life. If you don't believe in God, it's different. Those who don't know him can be forgiven. But for a Jew or Christian to deny God at the cost of death?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll write more later if there are further questions.

Now I realize why you can't talk about this on RS lol

The point is not about the killer, its about the reason, this is about people that would rather die than commit blasphemy. It would be just plain stupid to let your overactive faith throw your only chance of living away rather than make a tiny lie about your belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:Misread lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it would be even stupider to kill someone because of their metaphysical beliefs. You can't ignore the fact that the person doing the killing is the one responsible here. Maybe you could think up a better scenario that better illustrates your point because this current one just doesn't do it for me.

 

 

 

 

If by writing about what God did in the past, before he existed, because it happened before we imagined him, you are assuming God both existed and did not exist at the exact same time. This is impossible. Either what was written is false, or God existed before he was thought up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand what you're saying; writing about God BEFORE we imagined him? :? Something can exist and not exist at once since reality is subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By writing about things he did in the past, we are writing about him existing before we imagined him. If he only exists because we thought about him, then before we thought about him to write the stories, either he exists and does not exist at the same time, OR our stories are false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If reality is subjective, and every person has their own reality, God still cannot exist and not exist at the same time in reality. Maybe in my reality he "exists," and in yours he does not "exist" but that's irrelevant. 1)because we're not even talking about absolute existence anymore and 2) We're talking about two different realities. Sure, God can exist in one place and not exist in another (that is logically feasible), but if we were to look at both realities at once, where God exists in one and does not in the other, we cannot say he "does not exist" and he "exists" because he does exist in one, therefore he exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be like saying that my house does not exist on Mars, but it does exist on Earth. That is logically possible, but my house itself "exists." It does not, "not exist" just because there happens to be places where it is not.

 

 

 

By writing about things he did in the past, we are writing about him existing before we imagined him. If he only exists because we thought about him, then before we thought about him to write the stories, either he exists and does not exist at the same time, OR our stories are false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's try that again.

 

 

 

When you ask a nonsensical question, do you expect a sensible answer in return? It doesn't make sense to be able to answer if a God exists or not since it is impossible to evaluate God's existence. There is no way that you can disprove that we did in fact imagine god and it's history into existence since the position is just as nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If reality is subjective, and every person has their own reality, God still cannot exist and not exist at the same time in reality. Maybe in my reality he "exists," and in yours he does not "exist" but that's irrelevant. 1)because we're not even talking about absolute existence anymore and 2) We're talking about two different realities. Sure, God can exist in one place and not exist in another (that is logically feasible), but if we were to look at both realities at once, where God exists in one and does not in the other, we cannot say he "does not exist" and he "exists" because he does exist in one, therefore he exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it just means that our realities are inconsistent. I guess my invisible friend must exist as well, we play hopscotch and marbles together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be like saying that my house does not exist on Mars, but it does exist on Earth. That is logically possible, but my house itself "exists." It does not, "not exist" just because there happens to be places where it is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know that your house exists, I don't know that you exist beyond the posts that you make here. You could just be an AI responding to [developmentally delayed]ed posts. My reality is inconsistent to yours, it doesn't invalidate it. It's like saying that I'm standing still yet someone sees me travelling at 100 kilometres an hour. You would claim someone has to be right, yet in reality we are both right (I'll give you a hint, I'm standing in a train). See where I'm getting at?

Let's try that again.

 

 

 

When you ask a nonsensical question, do you expect a sensible answer in return? It doesn't make sense to be able to answer if a God exists or not since it is impossible to evaluate God's existence. There is no way that you can disprove that we did in fact imagine god and it's history into existence since the position is just as nonsensical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a question about the existence of God, this is a question about existence in general. You still failed to respond to the actual reasoning, dismissing it as "nonsensical" which it is not. If you read my posts, you will see that I am not arguing for the existence of God, that point is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question is whether or not something can exist AND not exist at the same time. By the nature of "existence" this is impossible. I'm not trying to prove whether or not God was imagined into existence, I'm saying that if he was in fact imagined into existence, the words that were written about him before he was imagined into existence are false, because they refer to him doing things at a time before he was imagined into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it just means that our realities are inconsistent. I guess my invisible friend must exist as well, we play hopscotch and marbles together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then in your "reality" he exists. If he doesn't "exist" in my reality that is a different reality. But in both realities combined, he exists because he exists in at least one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know that your house exists, I don't know that you exist beyond the posts that you make here. You could just be an AI responding to [developmentally delayed] posts. My reality is inconsistent to yours, it doesn't invalidate it. It's like saying that I'm standing still yet someone sees me travelling at 100 kilometres an hour. You would claim someone has to be right, yet in reality we are both right (I'll give you a hint, I'm standing in a train). See where I'm getting at?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you are claiming then is you don't know if my house exists - you are not claiming that in the same reality, my house both exists and does not exist. That is my point you seem to be missing consistently.

Please tell me the importance of something existing and not existing at the same time. I really want to know why you wasted so much time explaining that there are different realities. Does the term 'a false reality' mean anything to you? Come back to the real world, one reality, one answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him" This doesn't mean his reality changed, it just means he finally realized what reality was.

Please tell me the importance of something existing and not existing at the same time. I really want to know why you wasted so much time explaining that there are different realities. Does the term 'a false reality' mean anything to you? Come back to the real world, one reality, one answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him" This doesn't mean his reality changed, it just means he finally realized what reality was.

 

 

 

Allow me to rephrase this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did you even bother posting? It's obvious that your opinion is false, and mine is right. I don't feel like backing it up, but I'm right. End of story, seeya.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, as a side note I'll try and use a second definition of the word reality, rather than the one we're talking about. Completely random, yet a genius point, no?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't know that there aren't multiple realities. If you do, then tell us why you think that, for Christ's sake.

You don't know that there aren't multiple realities. If you do, then tell us why you think that, for Christ's sake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If existence and reality is subjective, and I believe there is only one reality, then there is only one reality, right? The argument breaks down fundamentally as soon I suggest that there is only one reality. To use death_by_pod's words, it is nonsensical to suggest that reality is subjective.

It was my understanding that we were created in the image of god. So one could conclude that we are god like, yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insofar as that we were created in the image of God yes. Notice how the comparison only goes so far as saying the "image" of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And similarly, one could conclude that god is imperfect and flawed like us, yes?

 

 

 

How do you reach that conclusion? Originally man was sinless just like God is sinless. Man made the choice to sin and thus separated themselves from God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm getting this all wrong but I can't help but feel that noone can possibly deserve to go to an eternal damnation when life is extremely, no, rediculously far from eternity.

 

 

 

80 years isn't very far from eternity. Eternal seperation from God is our choice. Jesus is sitting there with a free gift of eternal life for us... all we have to do is take it. How would that not be fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the end there are only two outcomes, heavan, which seems more and more like an exclusive club in which to get in you must kiss god's feet,

 

 

 

I think if we actually saw God in all his glory we would be so blown away we would be kissing his feet assuming we weren't so terrified and awed by his power that we were just struck senseless. Imagine the thought of a God that created the Universe and is completely perfect and all powerful. It is mind boggling. Then think about how even though we are merely a speck when compared to him he still loves us and cares for us. I deeply appreciate that and would want to worship him for it. I don't think the human mind is capable of fully grasping who and what he fully is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and then hell which is basically where the majority of human kind inevitably goes because the majority of human kind are not christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what is hell? Hell is eternal separation from God. This question of what is hell got me thinking. I've read most of the Bible and I couldn't really think of any reference to the whole you go there and roast. I asked a few people and they said they don't know of anything in the Bible that says it is a place of torture or anything like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually found out(I need to find another source to confirm it though) that the word Helling was the term in old English that meant to cover something. To apply that to humanity at death it would be like getting covered in the grave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All I can say for sure right now is when you die and haven't accepted the bridge Jesus extends to us to God then that is the finality and utter separation from God for eternity. That is what causes the great anguish and misery associated with hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is actually a pretty interesting thing to look into and I didn't realize how little I knew about it. I am going to have to look more into it because I wouldn't say I am the authoritative answer on it at this point. So far though it doesn't seem like hell is some place of torture and fire. I may be wrong but that is my impression from looking at what the Bible says right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal is welcomed.

 

 

 

Thanks. I would like to say that rebuttal from anyone on this post I just made is welcome as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal is welcomed.

To add on to Ambassador:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no burning Hell mentioned in the Bible. The only "lake of fire" is reserved for the AntiChrist, his Prophet, and those who took the Mark by deliberately betraying God. All that happens at the end of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No matter who you are or what you believe, you have the chance to stare God in the face at the Final Judgement and choose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until then, the Faithful go to Heaven and the rest simply wait for the End of Days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This belief is held both by Christians and Hebrews (note that I use the actual name of the religion, not "Jew" which really is an odd term. The Bible always refers to the Hebrew Faith).

 

It was my understanding that we were created in the image of god. So one could conclude that we are god like, yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insofar as that we were created in the image of God yes. Notice how the comparison only goes so far as saying the "image" of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And similarly, one could conclude that god is imperfect and flawed like us, yes?

 

 

 

How do you reach that conclusion? Originally man was sinless just like God is sinless. Man made the choice to sin and thus separated themselves from God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I'm getting this all wrong but I can't help but feel that noone can possibly deserve to go to an eternal damnation when life is extremely, no, rediculously far from eternity.

 

 

 

80 years isn't very far from eternity. Eternal seperation from God is our choice. Jesus is sitting there with a free gift of eternal life for us... all we have to do is take it. How would that not be fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the end there are only two outcomes, heavan, which seems more and more like an exclusive club in which to get in you must kiss god's feet,

 

 

 

I think if we actually saw God in all his glory we would be so blown away we would be kissing his feet assuming we weren't so terrified and awed by his power that we were just struck senseless. Imagine the thought of a God that created the Universe and is completely perfect and all powerful. It is mind boggling. Then think about how even though we are merely a speck when compared to him he still loves us and cares for us. I deeply appreciate that and would want to worship him for it. I don't think the human mind is capable of fully grasping who and what he fully is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and then hell which is basically where the majority of human kind inevitably goes because the majority of human kind are not christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what is hell? Hell is eternal separation from God. This question of what is hell got me thinking. I've read most of the Bible and I couldn't really think of any reference to the whole you go there and roast. I asked a few people and they said they don't know of anything in the Bible that says it is a place of torture or anything like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually found out(I need to find another source to confirm it though) that the word Helling was the term in old English that meant to cover something. To apply that to humanity at death it would be like getting covered in the grave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All I can say for sure right now is when you die and haven't accepted the bridge Jesus extends to us to God then that is the finality and utter separation from God for eternity. That is what causes the great anguish and misery associated with hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is actually a pretty interesting thing to look into and I didn't realize how little I knew about it. I am going to have to look more into it because I wouldn't say I am the authoritative answer on it at this point. So far though it doesn't seem like hell is some place of torture and fire. I may be wrong but that is my impression from looking at what the Bible says right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal is welcomed.

 

 

 

Thanks. I would like to say that rebuttal from anyone on this post I just made is welcome as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal is welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 1: So you could say god has the capacity to sin? Did god know we were going to sin. If not why didn't he stop it?, because it would seem mighty hipocritical to me if god punished us for sinning when he himself has the capacity to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 2: Do you seriously believe that 80 years is close to eternity? I'm sorry but if thats the logic you use, it's just laughable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 3: Hmm. So someone in this life who has no connection with god and no qualms about would all of a sudden break down in a pile of misery? I don't like the fact that god could judge people who don't know about him or simply don't feel the need to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I'll go over the rest a bit later.

Maybe I'm getting this all wrong but I can't help but feel that noone can possibly deserve to go to an eternal damnation when life is extremely, no, rediculously far from eternity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life without God is what God so strongly dislikes, or hates, if you will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of this "It's my life, I can do what I want, worship what I want, believe what I want", I believe is coming from a selfish and flawed mindset - if God exists (which is what this topic assumes), then it's not *your* life - God is creator, and you belong to Him whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just like aerodynamics can be applied incorrectly, so can free will, so can Christianity. Just like there are bad Christians, there are bad choices, we can freely choose not God, and it's a bad choice, IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you dislike God, you do not choose Him - that is what the definition of "hell" is... seperation from God - so you're getting exactly what you want, if you choose *not* God during your life on earth - you're choosing *not* God for after - all of this physical pain and suffering is located in the book of Revelation and that is most likely the most symbolic book in the Bible - and even if there is pain and suffering, it will not compare to the non-presence of God - which will be of more pain - after all, mind over matter, n'est pas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I don't see it fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose *not* God - and then find it unfair when that's what they get afterwards - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an atheist would abhorr), seems ludicrous to me.

These are some tough questions you are asking but I will do my best to field them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 1: So you could say god has the capacity to sin?

 

 

 

God is the definition of Holy which is the complete opposite of sin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can God sin? When he came in human form to us as Jesus I believe he opened himself to our weaknesses so that he could become the perfect sacrifice for our sin in the end. Since he didn't succumb to sin he was about to fulfill being the pure sinless sacrifice that was needed to pay for our sin. Someone might differ with me on this but at this time with what I know this is how I feel about the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did god know we were going to sin. If not why didn't he stop it?

 

 

 

You would have to ask him. I don't know. I can tell you what I think might be true but it is merely speculation on my part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get the impression God didn't want a bunch of little robots to control. He gave us the ability to make choices and the ability to choose if we were going to love him or not. That makes that love that much more special since it isn't dictated at the point of a sword. If you think there shouldn't be the possibility of sinning then you would also be saying you wished you were a brainless little robot that did exactly what God wanted you to do. I don't think you would want that and I don't think he would want that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 2: Do you seriously believe that 80 years is close to eternity? I'm sorry but if thats the logic you use, it's just laughable.

 

 

 

I guess I didn't explain what I was saying well enough. Sorry about that. What I meant is when we die and this human life of about 80 years is over then it is welcome to eternity. That would have been laughable if I had meant it the way it appeared to you. heh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 3: Hmm. So someone in this life who has no connection with god and no qualms about would all of a sudden break down in a pile of misery? I don't like the fact that god could judge people who don't know about him or simply don't feel the need to.

 

 

 

I think insane answered this pretty sufficiently.

 

Bold 1: So you could say god has the capacity to sin?

 

 

 

God is the definition of Holy which is the complete opposite of sin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can God sin? When he came in human form to us as Jesus I believe he opened himself to our weaknesses so that he could become the perfect sacrifice for our sin in the end. Since he didn't succumb to sin he was about to fulfill being the pure sinless sacrifice that was needed to pay for our sin. Someone might differ with me on this but at this time with what I know this is how I feel about the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another great way to answer this question of "Can God sin?" is to compare God to light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God cannot sin because sin is merely a way of describing anything that is separated from God. Darkness, in the example, is anything that is the absence of light, just like sin is nothing more than the absence of God. Just as you wouldn't say that the light itself has attributes of "darkness," God cannot be sinful. Sinful is what happens without God, and darkness is what happens without light.