'You will burn in hell!'

Frrostedman said:
The old "war and torture" red herring, I see. I don't remember war and torture being part of the argument. Let's stay on topic.

I wasn't being selective. I cited the only examples off the top of my head, where I am being forced, as a taxpayer, to fund abortion and encourage promiscuous sex.
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought up the subject of Federal funding of non-scriptural activities, so I am keeping on topic. :)

You want to make a stand on the issue, but refuse to consider anything other than a couple of sexual issues? Is this because you never considered that making war might be against the teachings of Jesus?
 
Thomas said:
By the way, in Traditional Christianity, hell is there only for those who want it ...
Click to expand...

Namaste Jesus said:
Fires tend to go out when they run out of fuel. Unless, something keeps feeding them.
Click to expand...

noise said:
By the scripture, Jesus shared some radical views on representation and hell. "In as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."
Click to expand...

Willys said:
No victim, no crime. Sounds kinda libertarian to me. And there is no hell in after life unless you venture to near a star. The only hell is suffering the consequence of a guilty conscience... and that's a human thing.
Click to expand...

Irene said:
As a Christian, I feel disheartened at any Christian salivating over the idea of non-believers going to Hell. I dare say they’re not true Christians. Our Lord cries when anyone falls out of His Hand. How can a Christian be pleased when our Lord is heartbroken? But please understand ... hateful people are everywhere ... it's just sadly religious circles are not an exception. I’ve met atheists who couldn’t be nicer, but there were some who were mean-spirited, too. I see that as the individual’s problem. It's not about his or her belief. It's about having good character or bad.
Click to expand...

Quirkybird said:
The idea of heaven and hell is not very credible especially in the form that some Christians believe it to be, imo.
Click to expand...

Thomas said:
Yes, there is, and thanks for bringing that question to the fore.

I was about to go into a long discussion (typically me) but a phone call interrupted, so I'll keep it short.

For a start, I think we both have an experience of Christ which should be something we mutually celebrate — good grief, there's enough malice on display around here!

Probably the better conversation is about (if I read you correctly Jane-Q) the 'psychological moment' of the meeting with Christ, as Jane seems to refer to it, whereas I might say 'the spiritual event'. We might well be talking about the same thing, with contextual differences. Nor is it necessarily right to say it is one or t'other. I would insist, for example, that something happened to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, and it seems to tick both boxes.

So I'll sing off with an apologia to Jane-Q.

You are of course right that the sacred scribe added his own gloss to the testimony. How we interpret that is a more nuanced thing. Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics. Perhaps, if the Man turned up, He'd say, "OK, you two, cut it. Just be nice to each other, capisce? Be cool."
Click to expand...

Heaven, Hell, man made constructs for me... The ever popular what were the people like in the town you left story... Create, believe what you will about the next life in this life if it suits you in this life. Tis a shame to force same on others though... You made your bed.... we don't have to lie in it.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Frrost I was not giving my personal opinions in that post. I was attempting to distill the overall theme of the entire thread into a brief overview. Now you may think I did a poor job of it, and that is okay.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the misunderstanding! I do recall thinking it strange that you would say all that because I normally don't have much of a problem with the things you say.

Now I don't know what to do. I guess I'll just let that post float down to the bottom. :(
 
I said:
You were the one who brought up the subject of Federal funding of non-scriptural activities, so I am keeping on topic. :)

You want to make a stand on the issue, but refuse to consider anything other than a couple of sexual issues? Is this because you never considered that making war might be against the teachings of Jesus?
Click to expand...
The war and torture subject is still a diversion and a red herring. You should stick with the statement I made because you challenged that very statement, did you not? There is no reason to bring in additional variables and have me declare my stance on those too.

I simply stated that I don't like the government taking my tax dollars to fund unscriptural practices. 2 practices I specifically cited were abortion and promiscuous sex. Now, unless you want to argue that the bible does not necessarily forbid these practices, my claim stands. We can talk about my position on war and torture once we are done with this part. But if you want a little hint on them (though I will not go any further down that road yet) it goes like this: the bible clearly doesn't forbid governments from declaring war, and "torture" is a matter of opinion. The government denies using my tax dollars to fund the torturing of anyone. But even with that said, I haven't revealed my position on the subject of war and torture. Just because I haven't mentioned them, it doesn't necessarily mean that I support them.

Essentially, your red herring argument says that my claim to be against the use of my tax dollars to fund actions that the bible forbids, is false because I didn't include all the other actions my tax dollars support and whether or not the bible supports those actions. What you are not understanding is, just because I mentioned only 2 things out of what could be an infinite list, that does not render my claim false. To go outside the 2 items I mentioned is an unnecessary diversion.
 
Frrostedman said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding! I do recall thinking it strange that you would say all that because I normally don't have much of a problem with the things you say.

(
Click to expand...

No worrys. What's that saying, no harm no foul? Or was it no farm no fowl? Or maybe it was no foul fowl? Whatever, you get my drift, eh?
 
Quirkybird said:
I believe I was quite rational about my point of view where the Biblical deity is concerned! If you don't think so fair enough, no worries!
Click to expand...

In what way do you consider a non-sequitur answer to be rational?
 
Hey, Wil — where the heck have you been!

wil said:
Heaven, Hell, man made constructs for me...
Click to expand...
Well, we all need our myths, as a wise old man once said to me. ;)

If we're talking about the version of heaven and hell assumed of Christianity here, then we're well overdue an inquiry into the concept behind the construct, the idea behind why Our Lord chose gehenna as opposed to sheol or hades.

But that's another thread.
 
Big Hugz my brother, I've been on a sabbatical in my mind, refreshing, rejuvenating and ruminating

I look forward to that thread Thomas!
 
Oh...and just because anything is a man made construct...does not make it bad...

yes their are lessons in our myths, allegories, parables, that are sooooo worthy of contemplation...

my love is how they adapt to our life circumstances...and how numerous the lessons in any one scripture are....
 
wil said:
... how they adapt to our life circumstances...and how numerous the lessons in any one scripture are....
Click to expand...
I see in that the myths, metaphors, allegories and parables allude to first principles, the foundations of ontology ("None is good but God alone" Luke 18:19); of anthropology (the Beatitudes); of metaphysics ("I am the true vine" John 15:1); of the eschaton (gehenna); of ethics ...
 
Thomas said:
"None is good but God alone" Luke 18:19
Click to expand...
I love that verse, because depending on the context, it could mean 2 completely different things. Early on in my Christian walk, I presented that verse as possible evidence that Jesus was claiming to be completely separate from God. He said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (ESV)

I took Jesus to be saying it is incorrect to have called Jesus good, because only God (therefore not Jesus) is good.

But then a seasoned Christian turned it around and said, no, Jesus was trying to make the listener realize, that by proclaiming Jesus as good, he was also proclaiming Jesus as God... which was correct, not incorrect.

Just interesting, is all. There are other verses in the bible which, depending on the context, can have opposite meanings. The rub is, knowing the correct context, and that takes study. Many people don't realize that proper biblical Exegesis requires not just a thorough knowledge of the words of Scripture, but a thorough knowledge of the times in which they were written and the culture of the people in that place, at that time. Not to mention a thorough knowledge of the writer, his style, his tendencies, etc. Without all that, a person (such as myself in the initial example) with good intentions can still walk away with a message quite opposite of what the author intended.
 
Frrostedman said:
I love that verse, because depending on the context, it could mean 2 completely different things.
Click to expand...
And on so many levels. That's why sola scriptura as is assumed today (which was never what the actual fathers of that doctrine intended) is a non starter, really. That's why without the commentaries of the Tradition, you're really in the dark.

Frrostedman said:
But then a seasoned Christian turned it around and said, no, Jesus was trying to make the listener realize, that by proclaiming Jesus as good, he was also proclaiming Jesus as God...
Click to expand...
Good point.

There are many who argue that Jesus never declared His divinity. But then by saying that really one's ignoring the context of time and place and audience. One's reading His words through the lens of post-modern skepticism, rather that Second Temple Judaism. From that viewpoint, there is ample evidence that He did just that. It's what got Him crucified, after all.

Frrostedman said:
Many people don't realize that proper biblical Exegesis requires not just a thorough knowledge of the words of Scripture, but a thorough knowledge of the times in which they were written and the culture of the people in that place, at that time. Not to mention a thorough knowledge of the writer, his style, his tendencies, etc. Without all that, a person (such as myself in the initial example) with good intentions can still walk away with a message quite opposite of what the author intended.
Click to expand...
Sitz im leben
 
I am having a hard time with the concept that in modern times millions of Christians reading the Bible every day have no clue what the text means.
 
Gordian Knot said:
I am having a hard time with the concept that in modern times millions of Christians reading the Bible every day have no clue what the text means.
Click to expand...
All Christians--especially including the literal and figurative children--understand plenty enough of the bible on their own, to take in the milk - that which matters most. Later, when the Christian has matured enough and is ready, he/she can take in the meat. The milk-fed Christians may not understand all the nuances of every verse. But the point is they don't have to. Being forgiven and saved isn't contingent upon grasping the mystery of the Trinity, or completely understanding the Parable of the Sower.
 
As there are so many doctrines, dogmas ,sects and cults associated with Christianity, it is quite clear people interpret the Bible in the way which suits their needs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top