Here you have stated your position of exclusiveness. “I am right, you are wrong, therefore you are lost and going to hell.”
You claim you believe the Bible is God’s word, and Jesus was God, yet Jesus clearly states “I judge no man.”
He also says to judge not, to love your enemies, and to turn the other cheek.
I think you only read what you want to believe out of the Bible and ignore the rest. Preaching that God hates sinners and burns them in an eternal hell.
This teaching has/is destroying the Christian church. People can read today, most all of them, and they read your are wrong.
God is unconditional love, He loves all His children and would never harm any of them. Sure, we make mistakes, everybody does. We learn from those mistakes and grow in our understanding of our loving Father. I hope someday you will grow in loving others instead of condemning them. Then you will understand the Father like we do.
You know that first statement in the part of your post that I quote above can apply to you also. You read the parts you want to believe and ignore the ones that don’t support what you’re saying. You mistakenly assume I condemn people. I just repeat what the Bible says. Jesus Himself says that those who believe not will be damned. How can I say anything different than what He says? However much we may dislike the fact, the Bible says that not everyone is going to heaven. To say anything else would make me a liar.
lynn lekatt said it pretty well, but since it’s been said so many times before, I doubt you can hear it. I always hope you do, though. Did you notice Diogene’s posts about the life of Jesus? It’s impossible for me not to again feel humbled at the amount of study and thought he put into the life of someone I spent so many years blindly claiming as my saviour. It makes me wonder why I didn’t, since I professed to love him so much. I don’t see DtC as constantly saying you are wrong. He is just saying show me that you’re right. There’s so much you will learn when you’re trying to show someone else what you believe. I found out that learning to be wrong, admitting I was wrong; made me better, more. It’s hard to humble yourself enough and take the risk to really, honestly look at your beliefs. But it’s worth it. I don’t refuse to accept the Bible’s authority as G-d’s word. I think much of the Bible was. The only part I have a problem with is the message of the cross. It’s not a message of love, which all of the rest of the Bible contains. It’s like someone changed G-d’s along the way. Since I know that’s not true, I know the “salvation theology” is not true. Btw, did you know that in translating the word “damned”, it has several different meanings. Not all of them relating to eternal hell? Check it out. I don’t expect you to believe me.
Someday when I am in G-d’s presence, he’s going to ask me one thing. * “Did you unconditionally love who I love?”* I hope to be able to say, “Just as you asked, Father. Without a doubt.” I’m not perfect. I have a long way to go and I know I’ll never quite get there. I don’t fear some divine punishment, only that I’ll disappoint my Father. What will your answer be? “I tried to convince them that they were going to perish, but I failed.” Yep, I see the love there. Maybe you can prove to him you were doing the right thing if you quote scriptures to him? Tell him that you’re sure he meant it all literally and see what he says. Do you ever wonder why we’re reading the same book and the story is so much different? Again I would urge you to pray, ask G-d. He always answers, if the prayer is sincere. You don’t have to depend on your interpretation of a book. Go to the source. I didn’t reject Christianity’s message lightly or without pain. I did ask G-d first. Peace.
Thanks for sharing, ILWN. Believe it or not, I like you. I’m glad we can disagree in a sociable manner. I haven’t always had that kind of experience here.
I differ with you on the cross in that I see it as the fullest expression of God’s love to us. The message of the cross is, indeed, a stumbling block to a lot of people. But that doesn’t make it any less true. I have prayed to God and I know His word is true, even the parts we may not like. I just can’t see it as you do. I know differently. But I enjoy talking to you and think you’re a nice person. Peace.
The idea that thoughts are wrong, for one, or that beliefs deserve punishment. The idea of eternal punishment, for another. That questioning is arrogant.
My point is not that there weren’t good ideas, but that like all teachings, they involved good ideas and bad ideas and lots of things that societies outgrew or rejected later. What I don’t get is why Jesus is given singular place when history is littered with such people. Jesus was not the first utopian. He was not the first to state the golden rule. And he was not even necessarily the best example of these things, because his teachings come muddied with belief-insular theologies that diluted or strained things.
Again, to accomodate Jesus, I think the real picture has become simplified and obscured.
The Pharisees, for instance may have seen themselves as quasi-fundamentalist, but they were also in some sense the rebels. Many of the words that are put in Jesus’ mouth condemning simple-minded application of scripture or hypocrisy were ideas that Pharisees themselves had advanced. And indeed, Jesus didn’t even often say that he was teaching something new: many of his famous sayings he cites from Scripture.
The Gospels, of course, were written during a time when the Pharisees had fallen out of favor, being blamed for the fall of the Temple, and the Romans needed to be toadied up to. So it’s no wonder that they are given such a decidedly unsympathetic portrayal. But why should that picture be taken as accurate anymore than a FoxNews spot on Howard Dean?
And Jesus certainly wasn’t by any means alone or original in being a itterant guy with radical ideas that would revamp society. There was a whole collection of people, in fact, that happened to share with you the name of cynic.
These may be radical social ideas, but are they necessarily helpful ethical precepts?
First of all, it can certainly be argued that they are placed within the context of the armageddon being imminent. A lot of early Christian advice can be seen in this light: don’t worry about any of that stuff, the world is about to end soon anyway, and God will take care of it anyway. But, of course if we can simply add in new facts, especially huge facts, into the world, we can tidy up pronouncements and duties into a neat little pithy package. Anyone can do that.
And outside of that context, they don’t make as much sense. Even among the most sincere believers, you aren’t going to find many who take “turn the other cheek” as a universal moral precept for action, and I don’t think this is because they are somehow deficient in love. It’s because platitudes aren’t useful or informative about the real questions of ethics. In many cases they can lead to what most people would call bad outcomes and immoral conduct.
They have been worked into important strategies for social change, such as King and Ghandi. But they are not always appropriate, and interpreting them as direct outgrowths of what Jesus was saying requires a great deal of arbitrary hindsight interpretation.
What does it mean to love your enemy anyway? Millenia of thinking on this question has not produced any agreement, to the point where we still have such things as loving homosexual activists but hating every thing about them. Of course, there are plenty who’ll jump in and say that no, they know exactly what it means, and it’s this, and those people are deluded, but how convincing is such a refutation? Those people think YOU’RE deluded.
Okay, now that’s just not playing fair!!! Nice is one of the most wiley of debate tools. Quit it!! Okay, I still have questions, but I guess I’ll have to do it nicely.
I wish I could understand this better, at least how you see it. Wouldn’t the fullest expression of love be one that gave an equal opportunity and included the most people possible for salvation? Not easy, just fair?
This stumbling block was deliberate. Why? Any theories on why he wanted it to be at best hard and often impossible. Billions of people in hell don’t matter to G-d?
So IYHO, this is it, I am not going to Heaven? There is no “back up plan” or any other way, than for me to admit I was wrong? Otherwise I am separated from G-d who I have served my whole life, because I can’t see it as you do?
It’s not up to me to say what happens to you, ILWN. I can only say what God says. There’s a verse that says God isn’t wiling for anyone to perish. Then I know you’re going to say, well why does anyone have to then? I guess I’ll be like vanilla and say, you’ll have to ask Him. The only thing I can think of to say its many of us don’t understand His nature. He’s holy, pure, totally righteous and without sin. He hates sin and says the wages of sin is death. But He’s also love so He provided the sacrifice. I’m sure you’ve heard all this before and know about the plan of salvation so I’m probably not going to say anything you haven’t already heard. You want to know why it’s even necessary and what about all the people who never hear about Christ. Well, there are people trying to the reach the lost all over the world. We call them missionaries. I wish I had all the answers for you but I do know that I can’t depart from what the Scriptures say is so. I wish there was a “back up” plan for those who die without Christ and for those who deliberately reject Him now, but I don’t see anything that indicates that there is. I’m sure Lekatt will come along and say how wrong I am and that I"m way off, etc. etc. I fully expect that and accept it. I think he’s wrong, too, so I guess we’re even. Peace. Back to work.
Jesus’ teaching stills sounds like nonsense to most people.
Mostly because they don’t understand the teaching frees them from their own nonsense and allows them to see things clearly for the first time.
Forgiving and loving and non judgement is not for the benefit of others, it is for the benefit of the person doing it.
2 Cor 4:3-4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Being lost means a person rejects the gospel, they’re not saved.
And what is the gospel?
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
I didn’t think you’d answer this one. You have consistently talked of people perishing, being damned, lost, etc. But only in a vague, other people way. But it’s not vague to me and to other’s like me. You are as much as saying that I Am Going to Hell, because of rejecting Jesus. You’re entitled to think that it’s probably true, based on your Bible. I just want to remind you that it’s very personal. It’s not an abstract and when your message centers on this, you may as well jump up on a table and start screaming “You’re Going to Die, Sinner!!”. That is a little overly dramatic, but that is similar to what comes across to a non-believer. I don’t think you’re going to hell, even for your blasphemy; but that’s because I believe in G-d’s love.
I really have asked him lynn and the answer was very clear.
He can’t be defined in any of those ways. Those are human characteristics and have nothing to do with G-d. All of those things are his creation. He already was all that he is before these things were created. He’s decribed that way only because we have no other way to perceive his nature. It is a very limiting description. When you describe your loving G-d and our fate with him, it’s an odd feeling; because I and many other people are actually more loving, more compassionate and definitely more forgiving than the G-d you describe. It’s a little disconcerting to worry about being more moral than G-d and worrying about what he’s going to do, because it doesn’t quite match my standards. That sounds horrible I know and I know it’s not true, but that’s what the Christian G-d makes many of us feel like.
There are too many people the missionaries will never physically reach and too many that are by culture, completely closed off from any form of Christianity. Neither of those groups of people has a chance. Their fate is totally dependent on other imperfect people. It’s not just.
I do trust G-d with that one. I don’t think Christ is our salvation, because it’s not possible for him to be salvation for all mankind. I would still give myself up if it meant saving others. How can G-d not feel the same way, down to the very last soul. He was where I got that from.
What if you found out Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. How would it change your life?
I can’t perceive of such a thing because I know He is the Messiah. In my humble opinion, God can be defined as holy and righteous because that’s what He reveals about Himself in His word.
It’s been nice discussing with you guys but I think I’m ready for a little break. See you later. Peace.
P.P.S. By saying you don’t think Christ is our salvation you’re stating your disagreement with the Bible because it teaches that He is. I could list Scriptures but so far that hasn’t moved anyone so I won’t waste my time at the moment. Sorry, If I have to choose whether to believe man (or woman) or God’s word, I’m going to choose God’s word. Sorry for the P.S’s but you can’t edit posts here. Okay, I’ll take that little break now.
Jesus never said anything about eternal punishment. He spoke of Gehenna, but Gehenna wasn’t Hell.
He also didn’t say that thoughts or beliefs deserve punishment. He did say that thinking about something was equivalent to doing it, but that wasn’t about condemning thoughts so much as removing an artficial sense of moral superiority by some over others.
A lot of the other stuff attributed to him is stuff he didn’t say. Jesus only said about 20-25% of what is attributed to him.
I think the insulation came from his followers, not from him. He’s given a singular place in history because he was deified, not because of his teachings, per se. I would argue that Christianity as a religion has more to do with Paul than with Jesus.
I never said anything about the Pharisees and, indeed, I don;t think he was much at odds with them. I was speaking more to Middle eastern culture as a whole, not so much just religious hierachy. I don’t know that it’s been simplified either. Is the caste system of India simplified?
Jesus told those at the top of the castes that the untouchables would get to heaven first. He not only said it, he went directly to them to minister. He was surrendering his own social and religious status as a rabbi to do that. It was a real sacrifice.
It isn’t accurate. I never said it was. Jesus wasn’t fighting with Pharisees but with the entrenched cultural attitudes of Palestine as a whole.
It wasn’t just that he was itinerant, it was that he willfully chose to go live among the most despised and marginal people in his society.
It was something like if a modern day clergyman were to give away everything he owned and go live among the homeless…but amp up the anti-homeless sentiment about thirty times and add an overlay of religious condemnation for associating with them.
Egalitarianism is. Simply stating that everybody was equal was not the obvious, cliched platitude then that it is now. true, he was not the first to say it, but he made a damn good try to enact it.
Some other of his ideas may be more useful on an individual basis but nevertheless, they have seeped into our universal consciousness. We generally agree that principles of forgiveness, compassion, helping the poor, etc. are the “right” principles, whether we practice them or not.
Even if those ideas are not original to Jesus, they are universal now largely because of Jesus, or at least because of Christianity. We may not have achieved those ideals, or even come close, but at least there is some agreement on what our ethical ideas should be, and that counts for something.
Armageddon is in Revelation. There was no such expectation in Jesus’ time.
Here’s where I have a slightly different take on Jesus’ ministry than the standard.
It’s true that people were expecting the Messiah, the Day of Judgement and the subsequent Paradise on Earth… the “Kingdom of God.”
I think that Jesus was saying that the “Messiah” was within and the Kingdom was now, “The kindom of Heaven is within you now.”
By creating a society of egalitarianism, communal property, mutual forgiveness, etc. he was hoping to bring about his own paradise. It wasn’t a lazy message, it was just the opposite.
“Turn the other cheek” was an advocation of pacifist defiance not passivity. It was the custom for individuals in certian positions of power over others, (masters over slaves, husbands over wives, Romans over Jews) to show dominance over their 'inferiors" by backhanding them across the cheek. To offer the other cheek took away the option of the backhand (or at least made it very awkward) and forced the dominant person either to back off or to use his fist. Since only social equals fought with fists, that was also not a desirable option.
It was not the only way that Jesus advocated a passive-defiance through the exaggeration of subserviance. Giving a debtor your shirt along with your cloak made you naked in two-garment society. It also brought shame on the person who took your garments.
Roman soldiers were allowed to conscript Jesw to carry their packs for exactly one mile. They were not allowed to make them go any further, so walking two miles instead of one was another act of defiance, a way to get a Roman in trouble, (or at least to embarrass him) without violence or a showing of overt contempt.
Non-violent resistance tactics have definitely been used to affect social change. Gandhi amd Martin Luther King both cited Jesus as an inspiration for their own movements.
It’s an admonition to try to feel empathy even for those who hate you, to find whatever is “Godly” in every person, etc, to transcend personal prejudice, to actually try to put yourself in the other guy’s place, etc.
This is probably the most ignored of all Jesus’ teachings but it does offer an ideal, a goal to shoot for.
It’s also an idea found in Buddhism which teaches that we have to stop making distinctions between those who we like and those who we don’t like, those distinctions are seen as arbitrary and ego-based in Buddhism.
None of the above seems to have much practical application on a macro level but at least it’s out there. It’s a saying that forces people to stop and think, especially if they believe it was said by God.
I’m glad we can disagree in a sociable manner. I haven’t always had that kind of experience here.
