zimmah wrote:however god did a lot of good for us by creating the earth and allowing us to live on it, and creating the perfect environment for us, creating a wild variation in color, scents, lifeforms, taste, etc. life would be much less fun if everything sounded the same, everything looked the same, everything tasted the same, etc. life would be possible like that, but it'd be hella boring. so if you are talking about THAT KIND of good, then obviously we're talking about god.
Would you call this the perfect environment? I wouldn't.
what is wrong with earth?
Natural disasters, predators and interaction with soulless creates that you may end up loving (gingers, dogs, cats etc. and no I don't mean that kind of "loving"), restrictions on my free will and the general unfair nature of it.
how natural are natural disasters, one may ask? and how bad would an earthquake really be, if we either did not build houses in earthquake-rich areas or if we made them, we made them earthquake-proof? we're able to create buildings strong enough to survive at least 8 or maybe even 9+ scale earthquakes, and how many times do those happen anyway?
how many humans get killed by predators, and how many of those times is it their own fault for getting dangerously close in the first place? i'll ignore the soulless part because that makes absolutely no sense.
restriction on free will? god does not restrict you to do anything. if anything, humans restrict you.
First off, I noticed you ignored my request about what evolutionary texts you have read.
So your answer to natural disasters is that we are negligent? *facepalm* I feel like you are trolling me.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
if you seek profit, do you think you love your neighbors as yourself? or do you seek profit to be richer then your neighbors, if the latter is the case, it's morally wrong, as it goes directly against the second most important commandment in the bible.
Why is it wrong to earn a profit in order to be richer than your neighbors?
You're implying that it is wrong for any poor person to seek a profit if he wants to be richer than his neighbors. Why are you arguing that poor people should remain poor--unless the profit-seeker loves his neighbors as himself?
What if he can't stand some of his neighbors and wants to make a profit in order to move? That's morally wrong?
seeking profit just for the sake of profit (= wanting to be richer than anyone else, just because you can) is directly opposite of loving your neighbours as yourself, therefore, it's unethical. it's much better to share what you have. If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone.
How is obtaining a profit for the sake of "being richer than others" mutually exclusive from loving others as you love yourself?
Besides, there's more motives for earning a profit than "because you can." So, since there are more motives involved, then how is your interpretation relevant?
Why don't you share with the CC community 95% of your income and savings?
because your objective is to be above the rest, which automaticaly means you love yourself more then others.
Okay, there's more motives than that going on, so in this regard, you're wrong--no matter how hard you try to ignore that.
It's possible that you can love others and love making a profit. It's not mutually exclusive, so you're wrong with that condition.
And, why don't you put your money where your alleged ethics are, and give the CC community 95% of your income and savings? We'll take 1000 paid premiums please.
zimmah wrote:also, TRUE christians are not involved in wars. use your head dude, why would true christians, who believe in a heavenly government, even get involved in earthern politics? TRUE CHRISTIAN ARE STRICLY NEUTRAL! which means we do NOT vote, do NOT greet flags, do NOT support our country in wars, etc. (we DO pay taxes and DO obey the law though, however, the law of the bible is above any human law, so whenever the law tell us to do something that goes against the biblical laws, we will refuse EVEN if the result is prison or death penalty.) Earthen governments are only temporarily, but the kingdom of Jesus is everlasting.
Ummmm.......WHAT?! Why wouldn't Christians vote or participate in government?
@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
I see. You're not rich enough to share. But "If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone." So, why not start sharing? According to you, there will be plenty for everyone!
It doesn't have to be CC-related, and I'm not asking you to "give everyone everything you have." Only 95%! We'll make it 80%, okay? You should send 80% of your wealth to starving kids in Somalia. Their needs are certainly greater than yours. You even have a computer, yet those starving kids in Somalia lack proper nutrition! Hey, at least donate a kidney because someone's needs are greater than yours! If you refuse, aren't you being "greedy"? (or rational? maybe practical?)
zimmah wrote:also, TRUE christians are not involved in wars. use your head dude, why would true christians, who believe in a heavenly government, even get involved in earthern politics? TRUE CHRISTIAN ARE STRICLY NEUTRAL! which means we do NOT vote, do NOT greet flags, do NOT support our country in wars, etc. (we DO pay taxes and DO obey the law though, however, the law of the bible is above any human law, so whenever the law tell us to do something that goes against the biblical laws, we will refuse EVEN if the result is prison or death penalty.) Earthen governments are only temporarily, but the kingdom of Jesus is everlasting.
Ummmm.......WHAT?! Why wouldn't Christians vote or participate in government?
and you claim to be a christian?
Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
Mathew 19:21. If you want to be the perfect christian.....
You remember that one don't you? The young man, probably much like yourself. Asks Jesus what he still lacks and Jesus told him to sell everything he owns. Every bit of it and just give it all away.
Sell your clothes, your computer, give away your premium membership. Sell your house. Get rid of everything by giving it all to the poor. You have the same reaction that young man had.
Why must it be the Rothschild's that must give charity? Why do you seem to think that being rich automatically makes one greedy and evil? I think, it's more christian of a person to do what they can and not point fingers at others saying "He's not giving enough! That guy over there has too much! You! You there! Give to the poor!"
It's easy to look at others with covetous eyes, which is what one is doing when they tell others what they must do with their money. You do what you can with what you have and worry not what others do with what they have. Otherwise, you back yourself into a corner with a logic loop that will explode your brain leaving quite a mess for some poor sap to clean up......
pmchugh wrote:Most Christians believe that the absolute morally correct punishment for lack of belief is an eternity of unbearable torture.
If you believe in traditional Christianity, then I think you are brainwashed. I don't think anyone could be so horrible as to really believe that hell would be a just and right system of punishment.
inb4 "choice"- people don't choose how they are punished.
Perhaps against my better judgment, I am going to post an answer here.
For a look at how a lot of Christians look at the subject, I highly recommend to you Love Wins: a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived by Rob Bell. Bell is a young evangelical preacher with a big following, and he agrees with you, that a God who would punish millions of people with eternal torment for sins committed during a finite lifetime would be neither just nor loving. The book is easily available as it has been a best-seller for some time, and it’s an easy read.
As short and oversimplified as I can make it, by re-examining, among other things, the Semitic word that Jesus used which is translated “hell”, and the Greek word translated “eternal”, Bell paints a very different picture of what God is up to, a picture where eventually everybody is won over to God’s Kingdom. Hell is what we make of our lives and the earth by living contrary to Him and His ways, and the purpose of His allowing us to experience it is kind of like “tough love” to get us to say “This sucks. God’s way is better. I’m in.”
Obviously the book is controversial, and predictably, there are those who declare Bell a heretic, but he’s also got a big following. As for me, though I don’t buy all of his conclusions, 1. I agree with 75-90% of what he says, 2. If he’s right and I’m wrong, I’ve got no problem with that, and 3. If one person who has the same objection says, “That I can believe in.” and so accepts Jesus as his king to be part of His kingdom, I will be deliriously happy.
To transition into a defense of a more traditional position, I’ll mention something in which I agree with Bell, and something in which I disagree.
I’ll expand on something Bell says about “belief”. Jesus asked his disciples who people thought he was. They answered, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14) These answers came from the multitudes that followed him. His own mother and brothers wanted to take him aside and talk to him while he was trying to teach because they thought he was crazy.(Mark 3:21,31-32) The twelve people closest to him, when they saw him get taken captive, gave up and ran away.(Matthew 26:56) Even after he rose from the dead, they asked him something that I can only interpret as thinking that now he was going to pick up a sword and start the war against the Romans; (Acts 1:6) they still didn’t get who he was.
Here I’ll quote Bell:
What we see in these passages and many others is that almost everybody, at least at first, has a difficult time grasping just who Jesus is.
Except for one particular group.
In Luke 4 a man possessed by an “evil spirit” yells at Jesus, “I know who you are – the Holy One of God!”
And in Matthew 8, when Jesus arrives on the shore in the region of the Gadarenes, the demon-possessed men shout at him, “What do you want with us, Son of God?”
And in Mark 1, Jesus wouldn’t let demons speak, “because they knew who he was.”
In the stories about Jesus a lot of people, including his own family, are uncertain about exactly who Jesus is and what he’s up to – except demons, who know exactly who he is and what he’s doing.
As James wrote: “you believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.” (chap 2)
So no; it’s not about who believes and who doesn’t.
Now the thing in which I disagree with Bell. In that “trailer” video, and at least one place in the book, he talks about the idea that millions of people are going to suffer forever in hell and asks, “Is that ‘Good News’?” My response would be, “No, that isn’t Good News, that’s the bad news. The Good news is that because of what Jesus did, Nobody has to be one of them.” Nobody, not you, not anybody else, has to be one of them, because of what Jesus did. That’s the “Good News”.
The next part I'm just transplanting from another thread.
OK, here is what God says in his Word about those who have not heard. Romans 2: 11-16:
11 For God does not show favoritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Now this passage talks about the Law, not the Gospel, but God’s principles are the same. With those who have not heard, He judges the heart, as only He can do. The cross is still necessary though. It is only by the blood of Jesus that righteousness is satisfied, so that God could forgive unconditionally and still be a righteous judge. Everyone who is saved, is saved because of the Cross of Jesus Christ, whether they know it or not.
Here’s my “judge” analogy illustrating that point. For those who have heard it or don’t have a problem with that point, skip it
So people can be saved who have not heard. Well how about people who have heard, but for whatever reason don’t have an equal chance of accepting it? I think of the old Jewish guy whose whole family was slaughtered in the death camps, and resolving "I was born a Jew and I’ll die a Jew" is the only thing that kept his spirit alive. It is very hard for such a one to accept Jesus Christ. Does that mean that some (or all) Jews will be saved because of that? It's not my place to say, but I like to think that God's mercy extends so far. Once again, though, anybody who is saved, is saved because of the Cross of Jesus Christ, whether he knows it or not. The Jew is not saved by being a good Jew as the native is not saved by how well he serves his idols. Neither is the Christian saved by how well he does "being a good Christian". It’s always by the grace (getting something good that you didn’t earn or deserve) of God.
What about the girl who was abused as a child and her self-esteem is so low that she doesn’t believe anybody, even God, could love her? What about the one who can’t accept God as “father” because the only “father” they ever knew is the one who raped them and beat their mother? Maybe while reciting Bible verses about obedience? If you think God doesn’t weep and have a special place in his heart for them, well, you don’t know him like I do.
So does that include everybody who “just can’t accept it” for whatever reason? Let’s look at this guy who the passage says “will be declared righteous”. For one thing, he acknowledges that there is a standard higher and better than himself to which he has to give account. Next, he recognizes that, although he tries, he doesn’t really live up to it, as it says: “…their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”. In other words, sometimes he may think he’s doing a pretty good job of it, other times, he is afraid he’s not. He has no problem with being called a “sinner”. The natural reaction of this soul, all other things being equal, to hearing the message of our creator’s love for us and his free gift of forgiveness is joyful acceptance.
So if people can get forgiven of their sins and saved without ever hearing, why do we send missionaries to tell them? Excellent question. Had to stop and think about that one myself. Here’s my answer, adapted from something I posted on the Jesus Freaks forum.
Look at Hebrews 2:14-15:
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Remember in the Romans passage (v. 15) it talked about their thoughts “accusing and defending them”. Every society has its rules about how you are supposed to behave, and its version of the reward or punishment for how well you do. A person of goodwill will try to do right but will constantly be worried if they are doing well enough or are going to their version of hell, sometimes thinking they’re doing OK and other times sure they’re gonna fry. They are in bondage to the fear of death. Sadly, this describes the religious experience of a lot of Christians as well. That’s religion without relationship.
The Cross is what frees us from that. Properly understood, what we preach is that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, our status with God does not depend on how well we do the do’s and don’ts. It depends on His love and forgiveness. We are freed from worrying about how well or badly we are doing and being punished if we don’t do well enough.
That is not to say that the only reason to bring the Gospel to those who haven’t heard is to make people feel better, and that it doesn’t really make a difference in people getting saved.
The Gospel changes hearts. It speaks to the spirit and makes God’s call. People come to Him because of hearing the Gospel. So I believe that there are people who wouldn’t be saved by the standard I talked about in the other post, but if someone comes and preaches the Gospel, their hearts will be changed and they will come to the Lord and be saved. For that reason, as well as freeing people from slavery to works, religion and the fear of death, we seek to bring the gospel to the lost.
So that brings back the question: is it fair to them, this “marginal group”, who would get saved if they hear, and would not if they don’t?
First of all, we are not just talking about people who “lack belief”. As I said, the life of slavery to works, religion, and the fear of death and punishment are the experience of the majority of “Christians” too. In “Christian” countries, whether one is a “believer” or not, hearing about it all their lives has inoculated people to the astonishing, radical, subversive, freeing, life-changing message that the Gospel really is.
Second, you’re asking about how Christians see things, so you’ve just got to accept that for most of us, there is no conflict between the fact that God is “pantokrator”: ruler over everything, that he “knows the end from the beginning” (“omnipotent” and “omniscient” are not in the Bible) and yet we do make meaningful choices. My guess is that you would get about as many explanations of how that works as there are theists who have bothered to stop and think about it, but one way or another, each one believes that God makes it work, and that the one who gave us our sense of justice and kindness can come up with something that is both just and kind. I realize that you could dispute that that is possible, but since your question is about how Christians see it, you just have to give it some “willing suspension of disbelief”.
(Don’t throw out the concepts of anger and punishment altogether. I don’t have time to check through all the posts, but I know that I have read some pretty creatively excruciating punishments imagined up by the same people who object to those attributes in God, but directed at the things that they find worthy of it, like pedophile priests or homophobe murderers.)
Also, take a look at the parable of the workers in the vineyard.
1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
If I get a deal that is fair, and someone else then gets one that is beyond fair, that is insanely generous, does that magically change my fair deal to an unfair one? We impose a standard of “fairness” that is not the only way to look at it: that everybody has to get the same thing. God deals with each individual as an individual. He has that right. Once again, “the right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question”(that sounds familiar).
So to answer your question of how Christians see unbelievers, there isn’t just one answer, but I can say for certain that with the exception of Westboro Baptist Church and a few other fringe-loonies, it’s nothing like the contemptible caricature that has you so pissed off in your original post.
Hope this helps.
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
NS wrote:Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
He sounds like a Seventh Day Adventist. There's a pretty large population of them close to my area, and they say a lot of the same stuff he's been saying (no soul, conditional immortality etc.). There's one who takes care of my friend's grandmother and she's always giving him flyers about such stuff.
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
I see. You're not rich enough to share. But "If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone." So, why not start sharing? According to you, there will be plenty for everyone!
It doesn't have to be CC-related, and I'm not asking you to "give everyone everything you have." Only 95%! We'll make it 80%, okay? You should send 80% of your wealth to starving kids in Somalia. Their needs are certainly greater than yours. You even have a computer, yet those starving kids in Somalia lack proper nutrition! Hey, at least donate a kidney because someone's needs are greater than yours! If you refuse, aren't you being "greedy"? (or rational? maybe practical?)
this is only assuming everyone does it. it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you, that's counterproductive and you know it.
zimmah wrote:also, TRUE christians are not involved in wars. use your head dude, why would true christians, who believe in a heavenly government, even get involved in earthern politics? TRUE CHRISTIAN ARE STRICLY NEUTRAL! which means we do NOT vote, do NOT greet flags, do NOT support our country in wars, etc. (we DO pay taxes and DO obey the law though, however, the law of the bible is above any human law, so whenever the law tell us to do something that goes against the biblical laws, we will refuse EVEN if the result is prison or death penalty.) Earthen governments are only temporarily, but the kingdom of Jesus is everlasting.
Ummmm.......WHAT?! Why wouldn't Christians vote or participate in government?
and you claim to be a christian?
Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?
so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
Mathew 19:21. If you want to be the perfect christian.....
You remember that one don't you? The young man, probably much like yourself. Asks Jesus what he still lacks and Jesus told him to sell everything he owns. Every bit of it and just give it all away.
Sell your clothes, your computer, give away your premium membership. Sell your house. Get rid of everything by giving it all to the poor. You have the same reaction that young man had.
Why must it be the Rothschild's that must give charity? Why do you seem to think that being rich automatically makes one greedy and evil? I think, it's more christian of a person to do what they can and not point fingers at others saying "He's not giving enough! That guy over there has too much! You! You there! Give to the poor!"
It's easy to look at others with covetous eyes, which is what one is doing when they tell others what they must do with their money. You do what you can with what you have and worry not what others do with what they have. Otherwise, you back yourself into a corner with a logic loop that will explode your brain leaving quite a mess for some poor sap to clean up......
you're the ones who're saying i'm not giving enough, i never said such things about you.
typical for non-believers to judge about others.
like i said allready, i'm doing what i can to support society, but two things: 1) this world will not last anyway, and no matter what i do, this world is doomed to fail. 2) my resources are limited.
pmchugh wrote:Most Christians believe that the absolute morally correct punishment for lack of belief is an eternity of unbearable torture.
If you believe in traditional Christianity, then I think you are brainwashed. I don't think anyone could be so horrible as to really believe that hell would be a just and right system of punishment.
inb4 "choice"- people don't choose how they are punished.
Perhaps against my better judgment, I am going to post an answer here.
For a look at how a lot of Christians look at the subject, I highly recommend to you Love Wins: a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived by Rob Bell. Bell is a young evangelical preacher with a big following, and he agrees with you, that a God who would punish millions of people with eternal torment for sins committed during a finite lifetime would be neither just nor loving. The book is easily available as it has been a best-seller for some time, and it’s an easy read.
As short and oversimplified as I can make it, by re-examining, among other things, the Semitic word that Jesus used which is translated “hell”, and the Greek word translated “eternal”, Bell paints a very different picture of what God is up to, a picture where eventually everybody is won over to God’s Kingdom. Hell is what we make of our lives and the earth by living contrary to Him and His ways, and the purpose of His allowing us to experience it is kind of like “tough love” to get us to say “This sucks. God’s way is better. I’m in.”
Obviously the book is controversial, and predictably, there are those who declare Bell a heretic, but he’s also got a big following. As for me, though I don’t buy all of his conclusions, 1. I agree with 75-90% of what he says, 2. If he’s right and I’m wrong, I’ve got no problem with that, and 3. If one person who has the same objection says, “That I can believe in.” and so accepts Jesus as his king to be part of His kingdom, I will be deliriously happy.
To transition into a defense of a more traditional position, I’ll mention something in which I agree with Bell, and something in which I disagree.
I’ll expand on something Bell says about “belief”. Jesus asked his disciples who people thought he was. They answered, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14) These answers came from the multitudes that followed him. His own mother and brothers wanted to take him aside and talk to him while he was trying to teach because they thought he was crazy.(Mark 3:21,31-32) The twelve people closest to him, when they saw him get taken captive, gave up and ran away.(Matthew 26:56) Even after he rose from the dead, they asked him something that I can only interpret as thinking that now he was going to pick up a sword and start the war against the Romans; (Acts 1:6) they still didn’t get who he was.
Here I’ll quote Bell:
What we see in these passages and many others is that almost everybody, at least at first, has a difficult time grasping just who Jesus is.
Except for one particular group.
In Luke 4 a man possessed by an “evil spirit” yells at Jesus, “I know who you are – the Holy One of God!”
And in Matthew 8, when Jesus arrives on the shore in the region of the Gadarenes, the demon-possessed men shout at him, “What do you want with us, Son of God?”
And in Mark 1, Jesus wouldn’t let demons speak, “because they knew who he was.”
In the stories about Jesus a lot of people, including his own family, are uncertain about exactly who Jesus is and what he’s up to – except demons, who know exactly who he is and what he’s doing.
As James wrote: “you believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.” (chap 2)
So no; it’s not about who believes and who doesn’t.
Now the thing in which I disagree with Bell. In that “trailer” video, and at least one place in the book, he talks about the idea that millions of people are going to suffer forever in hell and asks, “Is that ‘Good News’?” My response would be, “No, that isn’t Good News, that’s the bad news. The Good news is that because of what Jesus did, Nobody has to be one of them.” Nobody, not you, not anybody else, has to be one of them, because of what Jesus did. That’s the “Good News”.
The next part I'm just transplanting from another thread.
OK, here is what God says in his Word about those who have not heard. Romans 2: 11-16:
11 For God does not show favoritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Now this passage talks about the Law, not the Gospel, but God’s principles are the same. With those who have not heard, He judges the heart, as only He can do. The cross is still necessary though. It is only by the blood of Jesus that righteousness is satisfied, so that God could forgive unconditionally and still be a righteous judge. Everyone who is saved, is saved because of the Cross of Jesus Christ, whether they know it or not.
Here’s my “judge” analogy illustrating that point. For those who have heard it or don’t have a problem with that point, skip it
So people can be saved who have not heard. Well how about people who have heard, but for whatever reason don’t have an equal chance of accepting it? I think of the old Jewish guy whose whole family was slaughtered in the death camps, and resolving "I was born a Jew and I’ll die a Jew" is the only thing that kept his spirit alive. It is very hard for such a one to accept Jesus Christ. Does that mean that some (or all) Jews will be saved because of that? It's not my place to say, but I like to think that God's mercy extends so far. Once again, though, anybody who is saved, is saved because of the Cross of Jesus Christ, whether he knows it or not. The Jew is not saved by being a good Jew as the native is not saved by how well he serves his idols. Neither is the Christian saved by how well he does "being a good Christian". It’s always by the grace (getting something good that you didn’t earn or deserve) of God.
What about the girl who was abused as a child and her self-esteem is so low that she doesn’t believe anybody, even God, could love her? What about the one who can’t accept God as “father” because the only “father” they ever knew is the one who raped them and beat their mother? Maybe while reciting Bible verses about obedience? If you think God doesn’t weep and have a special place in his heart for them, well, you don’t know him like I do.
So does that include everybody who “just can’t accept it” for whatever reason? Let’s look at this guy who the passage says “will be declared righteous”. For one thing, he acknowledges that there is a standard higher and better than himself to which he has to give account. Next, he recognizes that, although he tries, he doesn’t really live up to it, as it says: “…their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”. In other words, sometimes he may think he’s doing a pretty good job of it, other times, he is afraid he’s not. He has no problem with being called a “sinner”. The natural reaction of this soul, all other things being equal, to hearing the message of our creator’s love for us and his free gift of forgiveness is joyful acceptance.
So if people can get forgiven of their sins and saved without ever hearing, why do we send missionaries to tell them? Excellent question. Had to stop and think about that one myself. Here’s my answer, adapted from something I posted on the Jesus Freaks forum.
Look at Hebrews 2:14-15:
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Remember in the Romans passage (v. 15) it talked about their thoughts “accusing and defending them”. Every society has its rules about how you are supposed to behave, and its version of the reward or punishment for how well you do. A person of goodwill will try to do right but will constantly be worried if they are doing well enough or are going to their version of hell, sometimes thinking they’re doing OK and other times sure they’re gonna fry. They are in bondage to the fear of death. Sadly, this describes the religious experience of a lot of Christians as well. That’s religion without relationship.
The Cross is what frees us from that. Properly understood, what we preach is that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, our status with God does not depend on how well we do the do’s and don’ts. It depends on His love and forgiveness. We are freed from worrying about how well or badly we are doing and being punished if we don’t do well enough.
That is not to say that the only reason to bring the Gospel to those who haven’t heard is to make people feel better, and that it doesn’t really make a difference in people getting saved.
The Gospel changes hearts. It speaks to the spirit and makes God’s call. People come to Him because of hearing the Gospel. So I believe that there are people who wouldn’t be saved by the standard I talked about in the other post, but if someone comes and preaches the Gospel, their hearts will be changed and they will come to the Lord and be saved. For that reason, as well as freeing people from slavery to works, religion and the fear of death, we seek to bring the gospel to the lost.
So that brings back the question: is it fair to them, this “marginal group”, who would get saved if they hear, and would not if they don’t?
First of all, we are not just talking about people who “lack belief”. As I said, the life of slavery to works, religion, and the fear of death and punishment are the experience of the majority of “Christians” too. In “Christian” countries, whether one is a “believer” or not, hearing about it all their lives has inoculated people to the astonishing, radical, subversive, freeing, life-changing message that the Gospel really is.
Second, you’re asking about how Christians see things, so you’ve just got to accept that for most of us, there is no conflict between the fact that God is “pantokrator”: ruler over everything, that he “knows the end from the beginning” (“omnipotent” and “omniscient” are not in the Bible) and yet we do make meaningful choices. My guess is that you would get about as many explanations of how that works as there are theists who have bothered to stop and think about it, but one way or another, each one believes that God makes it work, and that the one who gave us our sense of justice and kindness can come up with something that is both just and kind. I realize that you could dispute that that is possible, but since your question is about how Christians see it, you just have to give it some “willing suspension of disbelief”.
(Don’t throw out the concepts of anger and punishment altogether. I don’t have time to check through all the posts, but I know that I have read some pretty creatively excruciating punishments imagined up by the same people who object to those attributes in God, but directed at the things that they find worthy of it, like pedophile priests or homophobe murderers.)
Also, take a look at the parable of the workers in the vineyard.
1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
If I get a deal that is fair, and someone else then gets one that is beyond fair, that is insanely generous, does that magically change my fair deal to an unfair one? We impose a standard of “fairness” that is not the only way to look at it: that everybody has to get the same thing. God deals with each individual as an individual. He has that right. Once again, “the right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question”(that sounds familiar).
So to answer your question of how Christians see unbelievers, there isn’t just one answer, but I can say for certain that with the exception of Westboro Baptist Church and a few other fringe-loonies, it’s nothing like the contemptible caricature that has you so pissed off in your original post.
Hope this helps.
nteresting find, that book seems to reflect the true spirit of the bible much better then the mainstream 'christians'
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
I see. You're not rich enough to share. But "If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone." So, why not start sharing? According to you, there will be plenty for everyone!
It doesn't have to be CC-related, and I'm not asking you to "give everyone everything you have." Only 95%! We'll make it 80%, okay? You should send 80% of your wealth to starving kids in Somalia. Their needs are certainly greater than yours. You even have a computer, yet those starving kids in Somalia lack proper nutrition! Hey, at least donate a kidney because someone's needs are greater than yours! If you refuse, aren't you being "greedy"? (or rational? maybe practical?)
this is only assuming everyone does it. it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you, that's counterproductive and you know it.
Yeah, you're being greedy.
If two people "share" with each other, i.e. swap stuff, they're exchanging. That's called trade--especially if you add that condition where "it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you." That's self-interest.
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
I see. You're not rich enough to share. But "If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone." So, why not start sharing? According to you, there will be plenty for everyone!
It doesn't have to be CC-related, and I'm not asking you to "give everyone everything you have." Only 95%! We'll make it 80%, okay? You should send 80% of your wealth to starving kids in Somalia. Their needs are certainly greater than yours. You even have a computer, yet those starving kids in Somalia lack proper nutrition! Hey, at least donate a kidney because someone's needs are greater than yours! If you refuse, aren't you being "greedy"? (or rational? maybe practical?)
this is only assuming everyone does it. it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you, that's counterproductive and you know it.
Yeah, you're being greedy.
If two people "share" with each other, i.e. swap stuff, they're exchanging. That's called trade--especially if you add that condition where "it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you." That's self-interest.
definitly not, currently i don't even have the income to be self-supporting. so even if i gave away stuff, i wouldn't be giving away my own money, but that of others. what difference would that make?
zimmah wrote:@BBS because i am not rich enough to do that and because i see premium membership to CC as a luxury and not as something that anyone would really need. If i see anyone who has lack of basic needs which i can provide, i will. Because even though i am not rich, i am lucky enough to have food, clothes and shelter and even some luxury products like a computer and premium membership on CC and such. It's just plain impossible though to give everyone everything i have, i'm not rothshield.
I see. You're not rich enough to share. But "If everyone shares, you'll see there's plenty for everyone." So, why not start sharing? According to you, there will be plenty for everyone!
It doesn't have to be CC-related, and I'm not asking you to "give everyone everything you have." Only 95%! We'll make it 80%, okay? You should send 80% of your wealth to starving kids in Somalia. Their needs are certainly greater than yours. You even have a computer, yet those starving kids in Somalia lack proper nutrition! Hey, at least donate a kidney because someone's needs are greater than yours! If you refuse, aren't you being "greedy"? (or rational? maybe practical?)
this is only assuming everyone does it. it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you, that's counterproductive and you know it.
Yeah, you're being greedy.
If two people "share" with each other, i.e. swap stuff, they're exchanging. That's called trade--especially if you add that condition where "it doesn't help to start sharing to the point where you can't even support yourself anymore, and then have to beg for others to support you." That's self-interest.
definitly not, currently i don't even have the income to be self-supporting. so even if i gave away stuff, i wouldn't be giving away my own money, but that of others. what difference would that make?
Okay. It's still trade, no matter how much you say "definitly not." You switch from "we should all like share." Then I say, "start sharing." Then you say, "Oh, wait, I can't unless everyone does it!" Why do you think other people will share with you? Because you have something to contribute to them. That's an exchange. It's called trade. Your determination of the values between what you offer and what they offer goes through you, yourself. That's self-interest.
You arguing with me and refusing to take your own advice is done through your own self-interest. Self-interest is a balance between altruism and egoism. 100% altruism makes no sense for nearly every individual, and you're proving my point with your "but's, if's, and's, maybe's, etc."
You can be self-supporting. You just have to be like Jesus and change your spending habits. If homeless people can survive on less income than you, then you can definitely do it.
If it's given to you, it's yours--unless there's some contract with it (formal or informal). If your parents (?) don't like it when you give your money away, then maybe you could convince them about the power and abundance of your "sharing is caring" policy?
Night Strike wrote:Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?
so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.
We support an inferior form of government because that is the government that God has allowed to be in power at this point in our lives. God's kingdom is eternal and we will be under that direct jurisdiction after death. Until then, God allows for mankind to rule mankind, and we as Christians are expected to respect that government and are free to participate in it. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that we would be a traitor to God for simply participating in government. In fact, I'm guessing that the exact opposite would be true because God wants for moral and upright people to stand up and assist others. God himself even set up governments among the Israelites throughout their time, so he knows that governments instituted among men is a necessary component for law and order.
Night Strike wrote:Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?
so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.
We support an inferior form of government because that is the government that God has allowed to be in power at this point in our lives. God's kingdom is eternal and we will be under that direct jurisdiction after death. Until then, God allows for mankind to rule mankind, and we as Christians are expected to respect that government and are free to participate in it. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that we would be a traitor to God for simply participating in government. In fact, I'm guessing that the exact opposite would be true because God wants for moral and upright people to stand up and assist others. God himself even set up governments among the Israelites throughout their time, so he knows that governments instituted among men is a necessary component for law and order.
yes, we're expected to respect the government, but no, we should not actively participate in it.
simply because one human government is not better then the other. why get involved in wars and fill your hands with their blood, if you don't have to.
he did because Israel was his nation, that's different. and besides, the Israelite did not get to choose their kings. in fact, they didn't even have kings until after the asked, and the king was a curse, not a gift.
you do know that satan rules this world right? what you're stating now is blasphemy.
DG, Bell seems very elusive. He talks a great deal about Hell and yet says nothing at all. As far as I can tell he is denying it exists as a physical place of pain. One quote shows he is, as you say, in complete agreement with me:
The fundamental way that millions of people were told about Jesus was that “God loves you, God has a wonderful plan for your life, God loves you so much that He sent Jesus because God wants a relationship with you… and all you have to is accept, trust and believe. If, tonight, you reject what I’m saying to you right now and are hit by a car on the way home, God would then have no choice but to punish you eternally with torment and fire in Hell.” God would, in that split second, become a totally different being. If there was an earthly father who was like that we would call the authorities.
From this and various other quotes I think he understands that Hell, in its traditional way, is completely immoral. In which case you should agree with me (if you agree with Bell) that the world view stated by mainstream Christians such as nightstrike, is completely wrong and quite horrible.
daddy1gringo wrote:To transition into a defense of a more traditional position, I’ll mention something in which I agree with Bell, and something in which I disagree.
Or maybe not
If you don't mind me summarising some of your following arguments I believe you are in essence saying "Unbelievers can go to Heaven". While I think this is contradictory to some other statements in the Bible (such as psalms 14:1) I will take what you say at face value, as you correctly point out I am not refuting your God ITT only that your God is morally just. I would still argue that a God with Heaven and Hell in the traditional sense is vastly immoral regardless of the criteria used to decide who goes into which camp.
Now the thing in which I disagree with Bell. In that “trailer” video, and at least one place in the book, he talks about the idea that millions of people are going to suffer forever in hell and asks, “Is that ‘Good News’?” My response would be, “No, that isn’t Good News, that’s the bad news. The Good news is that because of what Jesus did, Nobody has to be one of them.” Nobody, not you, not anybody else, has to be one of them, because of what Jesus did. That’s the “Good News”.
The bolded part seems to suggest that you still believe in a physical place of pain in contradiction with Bell.
So to answer your question of how Christians see unbelievers, there isn’t just one answer, but I can say for certain that with the exception of Westboro Baptist Church and a few other fringe-loonies, it’s nothing like the contemptible caricature that has you so pissed off in your original post.
Hope this helps.
Well not really, as I still don't know what you believe to be true. If you don't mind answering some questions it would help me understand how you reconcile the obvious deficiencies of mainstream Christianity, feel free to answer "I don't know".
Is Hell a physical place of punishment and pain? If not, what is it? If so then is Hell forever? What are the criteria for getting into heaven instead of hell?
I have more to say on the vineyard story and the moral grey scale, but I don't think I can make points about that until you answer the above questions.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
pmchugh wrote:Zimmah.. you still haven't named a source of evolutionary material you have read.
you,. nor anyone else has provided proof i have asked for either.
All I asked was for the name of a book/paper that you have read which supports the theory of evolution.
Asking for me to prove a scientific theory in which I have no expertise is quite another matter. There are many many papers on evolution though and it is established and regarded as fact among biologists. If you want me to list sources for proof I will but I am not going to try and prove a well established fact in this thread.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
Night Strike wrote:Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?
so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.
We support an inferior form of government because that is the government that God has allowed to be in power at this point in our lives. God's kingdom is eternal and we will be under that direct jurisdiction after death. Until then, God allows for mankind to rule mankind, and we as Christians are expected to respect that government and are free to participate in it. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that we would be a traitor to God for simply participating in government. In fact, I'm guessing that the exact opposite would be true because God wants for moral and upright people to stand up and assist others. God himself even set up governments among the Israelites throughout their time, so he knows that governments instituted among men is a necessary component for law and order.
yes, we're expected to respect the government, but no, we should not actively participate in it.
simply because one human government is not better then the other. why get involved in wars and fill your hands with their blood, if you don't have to.
he did because Israel was his nation, that's different. and besides, the Israelite did not get to choose their kings. in fact, they didn't even have kings until after the asked, and the king was a curse, not a gift.
you do know that satan rules this world right? what you're stating now is blasphemy.
From someone who is very scientifically minded - I honestly fail to see how you can believe in religion...
Call me "Thomas", but without any real proof and all significant scientific research leaning towards god not existing, what is it that gives you this belief system? Sure I can understand being weak minded and hoping that there is something else out there, and another place to go to once it all ends here, but what really guides your beliefs?
Please do not take this post in any way a slander towards religious people / religion. I merely would like to know for personal reasons what guides christians, muslims etc. into devoting their lives to religion?
Night Strike wrote:Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.
well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?
so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.
We support an inferior form of government because that is the government that God has allowed to be in power at this point in our lives. God's kingdom is eternal and we will be under that direct jurisdiction after death. Until then, God allows for mankind to rule mankind, and we as Christians are expected to respect that government and are free to participate in it. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that we would be a traitor to God for simply participating in government. In fact, I'm guessing that the exact opposite would be true because God wants for moral and upright people to stand up and assist others. God himself even set up governments among the Israelites throughout their time, so he knows that governments instituted among men is a necessary component for law and order.
yes, we're expected to respect the government, but no, we should not actively participate in it.
simply because one human government is not better then the other. why get involved in wars and fill your hands with their blood, if you don't have to.
he did because Israel was his nation, that's different. and besides, the Israelite did not get to choose their kings. in fact, they didn't even have kings until after the asked, and the king was a curse, not a gift.
you do know that satan rules this world right? what you're stating now is blasphemy.
From someone who is very scientifically minded - I honestly fail to see how you can believe in religion...
Call me "Thomas", but without any real proof and all significant scientific research leaning towards god not existing, what is it that gives you this belief system? Sure I can understand being weak minded and hoping that there is something else out there, and another place to go to once it all ends here, but what really guides your beliefs?
Please do not take this post in any way a slander towards religious people / religion. I merely would like to know for personal reasons what guides christians, muslims etc. into devoting their lives to religion?
All I asked was for the name of a book/paper that you have read which supports the theory of evolution.
