Thanks,
Will
-Will
How do you use it with BSF?
quote:
Originally posted by Will2002:
That's really cool guys. I have PRed the Bible 2 or 3 times. And I can do my BSF Bible study almost without looking. It is really cool.-Will
-Will
quote:
Originally posted by Will2002:
I PR like Direct Learning I don't really activate anything. And the BSF questions just kinda act as mind-probing questions and I can find answers really fast. Do you take BSF too?-Will
. Yeah BSF is great I would highly recommend it.-Will
God Bless all .
-Will
It's just that I figured since there's a lot of bible readers on here, I'd post a question from passage that's been bothering me, and was hoping I could get some feedback on some bible studiers.
Let me get my cousin's bible real quick...
Okay, I found it. It's been a long time since I quoted Chapter and verse, but if I got this right, it's Genesis 19:30, where Lot's daughters sleep with their father to become impregnated.
Genesis was one of the first things I photoread and activated (most of it). I remembered this passage was very odd to me, but I felt even weirder if I had brought it up with the priest.
So, any ideas? It's bizarre, I know.
Ramon http://razor.ramon.com
What is your issue? That it happened or that it was recorded?
If the former, it's reflection of how people really are. Why did Jeffrey Dahmer munch on his dates? Why is there Jar Jar Binks? Who in their right mind would EVER marry Roseanne Barr?
If the latter, it's still an accurate reflection of people. The daughters were afraid that their line was about to cease and they acted rashly. Lot had a tendency to go with the flow, even if it was a bad idea and the booze didn't help things. The resulting sons produced lines that could be counted among Israel's greatest enemies, so the payback came later...
My issue was that it was recorded with such little subjection - it didn't go, "the daughters tricked Lot" (though they did liquor him up) "and Lot befall what was a horrid state of affairs" or anything like that. It seemed so unimportant in context that I was like, "what's God's take on this?"
Like I said, I never got to finish Genesis or activate any of the other books, so when you said that "The resulting sons produced lines that could be counted among Israel's greatest enemies, so the payback came later..." it makes complete sense to me, and the deed was in fact of importance and "bad".
Thanks, Mgrego. =)
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com ("I was raised Catholic for God's sake!" - Silent Bob)
SP
God’s Word straightway charges the repentant, born-again saint to not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world. When a person repents, the pattern of their life should change. Their thinking should change. Their total life should be switched from self to pleasing God. Their total outlook should be changed from the world’s way of thinking to God’s way of thinking.
It is written, Ro 12:2-AND BE NOT CONFORMED TO THIS WORLD. (Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world-NIV) BUT BE YE TRANSFORMED BY THE RENEWING OF YOUR MIND, THAT YE MAY PROVE (or be able to test) WHAT IS THAT GOOD, AND ACCEPTABLE (or pleasing), AND PERFECT, WILL OF GOD.
Have a wonderful and blessed day.
-Logan C. Edens
Next, What is more likely?
A. There is a great all powerful god and an evil devil that tries to persuade us to the dark side.
Or
B. We evolved from other lifeforms and the only thing persuading us is other people and out thoughts.
Really people what kind of weak minded individual would believe such ficticious material.
The funniest part of all of this is when you ask a religious person why they believe in God and you always get the same answer, "I just know I believe it in my heart." Yeah well I believed in Santa and the Easter bunny when I was 4 with all my heart and I would have kept on believing had I not stayed up all night hiding so I could analyze the facts for myself. The problem with god is no matter how many facts we have to refute the existence of god we will never be able to convince the weak minded, who cant handle the thought that we control our own lives and there is no great power out there to help you no matter how hard you pray. You would think all of the tradgedies in the world would let people see these things, but they dont they continue walking blindly through life.
I am sorry if this post came off as an insult as I did not intend it to be one, but I feel as strongly about sharing my convictions and beliefs about the non-existnece of god as those who insist on pushing there beliefs onto others about there beliefs in GOD.
Also glad to see that PhReading is not something incompatible with the Christian faith.
And I also really liked what Logan C. Edens had to say re. the Holy Spirit being the one to depend on as the Remembrancer.
Talk later,
Prynceska
I've been studying and reading the Bible for a long time. I've studied very carefully the things in the Bible. I possess starling archeological discoveries, historical evidence about Jesus Christ, AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE. If you'd like to get a hold of those things, please let me know. My email address is loganedens@hotmail.com.Let me get to the main point.During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.
Nevertheless, unless you see signs and wonders you probably will not believe. Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father(God) draws him." In other words, "no one can come to Jesus unless it has been granted to him by God."
Know this: While Christianity is often termed a religion by unbelievers or carnal people, it is better defined as a relationship. A true Christian is not one simply because he says he is, or because he attends a Christian church, or is part of a Christian denomination, or because he sings in a choir, or gives money to the church, or because he is an ordained elder, minister, or denominational leader.
A true Christian or true Christianity may be defined as an intimate, personal, obedient, love relationship with the Jesus Christ of the Bible, which is a result of understanding God’s Word through the work of the Holy Spirit. This results from an acknowledgement of sin, then true repentance toward God, humbling and denying oneself, becoming childlike toward God, His Word and correction, and through childlike-faith placing one’s trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and their only hope of salvation. The result of this is the new birth.
In closing, Jesus Christ died a horrible death so that you/all can have forgiveness of all your sins, no matter how bad they are. A person never needs to go to hell, if they receive, by faith, the forgiveness and love that God offers through Jesus Christ, His Son. This is an offer God gives you. So, if you are willing to repent (turn away) from all willful sin, then be willing to ask God for His help, to help you make that change. "After" we believe on Jesus Christ, "after" we have repented of our sins, we are commanded to be baptized by full immersion in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is written, HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE DAMNED-Mk 16:16. Note, believing on Jesus comes "before" water baptism. Baptism prior to repenting and believing on Jesus has no meaning. You cannot be baptized into One whom you do not believe on. It is written, FOR AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST-Gal 3:27. Water baptism is by full immersion. As it is written, BURIED WITH HIM (with Jesus) IN BAPTISM (or buried in the water)-Col 2:12. WE ARE BURIED WITH HIM (with Jesus) BY BAPTISM (or buried by water)-Ro 6:4. Once we are "in Christ" the past is gone and be become a new person.
Love in Christ, (Have a wonderful day!)
Logan C. Edens
P.S. Please feel free to ask me questions and to go in greater detail.
quote:
Originally posted by abc123:
Hahaha, in ever religious topic there are always people who disargee. doh. But whats most important is to know which religion is true and how true the fact god exists. I may be possible to prove his existence. Ok, let me give an example, if your religion is true, ask your god to show something that would make us believe that the religion is true. Like if my aunt was dying of cancer, invite real christians or religionist over and make her well again. I read the bible before, and Jesus himself cured and healed a great many that (to qoute the bible) it would not be able to fill all the books in the world. Everyone has reasons to believe in something, be it god , religion, or atheism. The point see if your beliefs are logically coherent. After all, why would a god create an illogical world when he made us with logical minds. Also, i feel that people create religion when the "religion" was supposed to be something as naturally as walking(This note goes out to catholics and fundelmentalist). I am not a christian nor do i have a religion, and i am not an atheist either, good luck in the quest of truth!
I'm so delighted you replied. What do you think an ALMIGHTY AND ALL-WISE GOD WOULD DO? Do you think not that he knew his enemy would bring about false religions? Therefore, God almighty has made his Word (The Bible) unique. How? He put his signature in his Word (The Bible)to make it distinct from all others. I possess the mysterious Hebrew codes, the name of Jesus encoded in the Old Testament, the mathematical signature of God in the Word of Scripture, and the phenomenon of "undesigned coincidences". If you'd like to get a hold of that life changing information, please let me know.
You don't want to live a life without God. I have tried to live my life without God. You know what happened? I failed always. I was miserable and a wretched man. But since I chose to follow Christ, he has given me peace and joy that surpasses all understanding.
Know this: No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived/fathomed what God has prepared for those who love him.
Love in Christ, (Have a wonderful day!)
Logan C. Edens
Gentry, the scientist who did the research on it, made a lot of bad assumptions and a couple contradictory statements. For more info, go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/
I don't want to go on an off-topic thread here, but since it's already gone pretty off-topic, I figure I might as well say this:
"What's wrong with the idea that God created the Big Bang? What if God created the universe in a way that doesn't go against science? What's wrong with the idea that certain scientific assumptions in the Bible are wrong simply because the human writers erred, but that the moral guidance in it can still stand true?" I mean, when I look at a Bible, I look for guidance. When I want to know what a star's made of, I'll ask the kind folks at Nasa.
Of course, my 2 cents are overpriced.
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com
If Evolution by natural processes from "amoeba" to man is possible, as Evolutionists maintain, it would undoubtedly require billions of years to accomplish. A younger universe would make Evolution impossible.
Some age estimation methods seem to indicate Earth is extremely old. Many other processes appear to indicate it is much younger.
There is no scientific method that can positively prove Earth is very old -- or relatively young. Absolute proof of an old Earth would require billions of years of on-site measurements and observations.
Okay. Now, let's get right down to it. Was there a "Big Bang"?
The big bang is usually defined as a random, chance event. Some instability supposedly developed in an original "kernel" of mass energy, and the universe then ballooned outward. However, Scripture clearly rules out such an accidental origin. A modified view of the big bang theory says that when the explosive event happened, it was directed by God. This is called theistic evolution and is an attempt to compromise the Bible with long-age evolutionary theories. It is rejected by many creationists because of its conflict with the order of events in Genesis.
Creationists maintain that in the beginning God spoke and the earth appeared--he commanded and the heavens stood firm (Ps. 33:9)! All the many stars appeared suddenly and supernaturally in space. Scripture does not imply an explosion, although the universe must have experienced a sudden, "explosive" input of ordered energy. Perhaps some astronomical data that seems supportive of the big bang theory, such as redshift and background radiation, needs to be looked at instead as evidence of a rapid creation. Once secular variation of the big bang theory refers to an "inflationary" big bang, the suggestion being that the universe developed and matured very quickly in its first moments. In this particular theory, secular science seems to have taken one step in the creationist direction. Further developments should be of interest in this area of theory and research.
The big bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory. There are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in popular literature. Some of the "missing links" in the theory are:
Missing Origin: The big bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of an origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, in the big bang theory, no vacuum existed before the explosion. Actually there is no consistent secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
Missing Fuse: What ignited the big bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever bound as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from ever expanding outward.
Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
Missing Antimatter: Some versions of the big bang theory require the equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter-positrons and antiprotons, for example-are found in space.
Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.
Missing Mass: Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, however, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are 100 times smaller than expected. In fact there are indications that the universe is accelerating outward instead of slowing down. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass or "dark matter" is "missing."
Missing Life: In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?
Missing Neutrinos: These small particles should flood the earth from the sun's fusion process. The small number detected raises questions about the sun's energy source and man's overall understanding of the universe. How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority?
Love in Christ, (have a great day)
Logan C. Edens
Thanks for the info.
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com
Bringing this back to PR, may I suggest the book "Creation and Time" by Dr. Hugh Ross. Ross is a Ph.D. in Astronomy and also a Christian.
Anyway, the book is only 165pgs and layed out with chapters, bold lettered sub-section, fully indexed....perfect for practicing/perfecting your PR methods.
Cheers - CS
(Overhead # 1)
1. I shall demonstrate how belief in any God defined by organized religion is epistemically irresponsible. That is to say, people ought not to believe in such a being because in doing so, they commit many errors in reasoning and ignore compelling counter evidence to their rigid dogmatic views.
2. I shall discuss what is involved in making knowledge claims in order to show how those who believe in such a God fall far short of possessing actual knowledge.
3. I shall demonstrate what can be known regarding any type of God.
4. By discussing how the concept of God and organized religions are novel inventions of our ancestors which were created in order to explain what was long ago an unexplained environment, I shall discuss various religious 'tensions' which will clearly demonstrate how such gods are about as real as such current inventions as Pokemon, Sailor Moon, or the Powder Puff Girls.
1. Epistemic Responsibility
What can or cannot be known makes up a field of study in philosophy known as epistemology. 'Epistemology' is just a big word which means 'the theory or study of knowledge'. In this field, we try to determine what criteria a specific claim must satisfy in order for us to call it a knowledge claim. Some examples include: consistency, coherence, simplicity, reliability, power of explanation, etc. For example, if Susan believes that there are currently twelve invisible elephants walking up and down the aisles of this great theatre, your knowledge claim will quickly be put to the test. When others claim not to see these elephants, you may simply respond by saying: "Of course you can't see them! They're invisible!" But then, why should we believe you? "Because", you might add, "I have a unique ability to 'know' that they are here. And not only that, but I know they will look after and guard us from the deadly invisible tigers out in the lobby". Now this may be an exaggerated example but it raises a very good point-namely, we demand more from this person than simply her word and a supposed 'capacity' to know such things. In short-we demand proof. In demanding proof, we are simply being epistemically responsible. That is, in order to hold a belief, or make a claim, there are criteria which we use to determine our acceptance or rejection, or, in some cases, suspension of belief. The invisible elephant and tiger scenario is not consistent or coherent with our current experiences and so is quite lacking in its power of explanation. And so, we reject this claim. And this is a responsible thing to do simply because we have little choice in the matter but to refuse to believe. Now, should future evidence give us some indication that there really are such invisible beings in this hall, we may need to reconsider.
Now the reason I would maintain that we are more justified that there are no such invisible animals is due to our observations of the natural world and the development of specific methods which better enable us to understand and interact in the natural world. Now, I wish to make clear that I am not suggesting that because the methods I accept produce what I believe to be more reliable information about the world, that I can never be wrong. On the contrary, the accumulation of knowledge is an on-going enterprise. It is dynamic in its evolution of finding new and novel ways to describe and understand the universe. And so old concepts, models, etc., can be expanded, developed, even abandoned if new and better ones come along. And any responsible knowledge agent must, in some ways, be a good skeptic (Overhead # 2).That is, she must recognize that her current claims may change should new evidence come along. Anyone not willing to consider new evidence in light of current explanations, claims, etc., can rightly be called a dogmatist (Overhead # 2) i.e., someone unwilling to entertain the possibility of being in error. If Susan does not consider the overwhelming amount of evidence in light of her claim that she is not only a dogmatist, but, as I mentioned earlier, he is being epistemically irresponsible. That is she SHOULD consider the new evidence. She has an OBLIGATION to at least consider it in comparison with his current claim.
But notice how, in the scenario I have just described about poor Susan, I have not mentioned what many of you are already thinking? Let me put it another way: What would you say about a person who would make such a claim? Are they thinking properly? Are they...crazy? And yet there is a striking similarity between what poor Susan believes and what an apparent 90% of the world's population believes in-namely, God.
2. The Division of Knowledge
What I often tell my students, is that when it comes to knowledge, we can make a distinction between knowing things at the common sense/scientific level (Overhead # 3)-where we can confirm or falsify various claims e.g., the door is now closed, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees (F), etc.; and knowing things at what's called the metaphysical level (Overhead # 3)-or that level at which we must speculate because the nature of the material is beyond the scope and ken of our current observational, conceptual and reasoning powers.
Such examples of metaphysical topics include the existence of God (however defined), the possibility of an afterlife, the universality of morality, etc. Although we can talk about these issues, we cannot have knowledge about them in the same way we can at the common sense/scientific level. And so I make the distinction between small t truths and Big T Truths (Overhead # 3).
Now, as an evolutionary epistemologist, I am constantly aware of this division between common sense/science and metaphysics. I am ignorant at both levels; however, at the small t truth level, it is easier to find corroboration and agreement. There are times when, confronted with evidence regarding a particular issue, one can argue either for, against, or suspend judgement altogether. Choosing either of these three alternative depends on what evidence we choose and how justified we are in those claims. The manner in which we accept/reject evidence in light of a particular claim establishes what I have referred to as epistemic responsibility. That is, was a knowledge claim accepted on grounds that warrant justification? In other words, in asking whether or not one is being epistemically responsible, we simply need to consider the grounds and evidence on which we either accept, reject, or suspend judgement on a particular claim.
It is easier to establish justification for claims made at the small t level of truth because we possess the means by which to test given claims i.e., through observation and reason, we can confirm, falsify, or be neutral.
Epistemic responsibility, however, applies equally at both levels of understanding-the common sense/scientific and the metaphysical.
3. The Limits of Our Knowledge of God
Although my focus of attack tonight is against any organized religious account of God, we need to notice something very important at this stage. If we were to talk in very general terms about God as, say, some vague creative force without which the universe would not be as it now is, then the epistemically responsible thing to do is to suspend judgement. For it seems equally as plausible than not that some creative force caused the universe to come into existence. And why is this epistemically responsible but belief in say, a Judaeo-Christian God is not? I'm glad you asked. It is because our current understanding of the universe gives us a model which defines its origins in a tumultuous explosion-The Big Bang. Now astronomers and physicists can tell us very well what the universe was like shortly after this event. But they cannot tell us what happened prior to it. It is, of course possible that we live in just one of a series of oscillating universes i.e., Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc. But the question would still remain as to whether this system was self-governing and accidental or purposely created by some force we could vaguely define as "God". But I can consider that it is just as likely that we live in a universe created spontaneously which, by sheer accident, created us novel beings capable of pondering the deepest questions of our own existence as to one which has a purposeful Creator. But either way, I cannot say. And this is because the answer lies in the realm of the Big T Truth-a realm to which my current concepts cannot apply. By acknowledging my own ignorance, (Overhead # 3) I can attempt to better understand the universe and my place in it with humility (Overhead # 3) and in an epistemically responsible manner. What does this tell us about the existence of God, then? Well, at best, if we simply defined "God" in an extremely vague and general way as something which intended the universe to be, then we see what is called a disjunct of equal plausibility: (Overhead # 4)
G v ~G
(God or Not-God)
If there is no God as a creative force of the universe, then the universe is simply accidental and we, as humans, are a product of that accidental occurrence.
If there is a God, however, many questions would emerge.
In the case of what we can know, the epistemically responsible thing to do, is to suspend judgement. For there is no overwhelmingly convincing evidence pulling us in either direction. Neither scientist nor theologian can side on this matter and maintain epistemic responsibility. To choose either side, would involve the incorporation of something far weaker than knowledge-it would incorporate faith.
Now, faith, as they say, can move mountains. But faith is often misguided. For example, if two armies are engaged in battle-a holy war, let's say-and both sides have faith in their differing conceptions of God, it appears obvious that faith will not be enough for the losing side. And so should any members of the losing side survive, they are going to have to come up with some type of explanation for why God was not on their side that day (perhaps they should have tossed a virgin into an angry volcano). Whatever reason for the army's loss will be justified somehow if faith in His goodness and plan is to be maintained. And this is only a case of two opposing faiths. There are hundreds of religions throughout the world with hundreds of divisions, sects, cults, etc. each claiming in their own special way to best understand God's plan.
Now the problem with theism in general is that not only is faith in the existence of God proclaimed (i.e. choosing one of the disjunctive sides), but He is given numerous qualities, character traits, attributes, etc. and He (patriarchal) tells us humans (through revelation) not only how the universe came to be, but how we should act as well.
In all organized religions, there are specific traits, qualities, etc., attributed to God which results in several 'tensions'. The more one tries to define such a being, the greater the likelihood in contradiction and error. For it moves one further and further away from the knowable plausible disjunct.
Instead of maintaining an epistemically responsible position, the theist multiplies entities far past necessity (a violation of Ockham's razor). Instead of suspending judgement on G v ~G, the theist not only chooses G, but adds a great string of conjuncts in the form of qualities, commands, descriptions, etc., e.g. the Christian claims to know that there is a Creator and it is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-present and all-good and it created humankind, and it told humankind what constitutes the world and it told mankind how to act/behave, and it gave to mankind its only son, and etc.
(Overhead # 4)
G = x1 & x2 & x3....xn.
(Where x = qualities, attributes, commands, descriptions, etc.)
The more conjuncts one adds to G, the more likely it is to find unsolvable tensions, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc., and the more likely such a position is likely to die the death of a thousand justifications.
4. Tensions with Current Definitions of God
There are several tensions or problems which I shall consider tonight. They include:
1. The tension between defining God as all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient) and reconciling this with free will.
2. The problem of defining God in one particular way among an indefinite number of choices.
3. The tension between human biology and religious morality.
4. And the tension between defining God as All-Good (Omnibenevolent) and reconciling this with the existence of evil in the world.
1. The Problem of Free Will
If theists maintain that God is all-powerful and all-knowing (as one can find throughout Genesis, Jeremiah 16 and 32, Revelations 1:8. Psalm 147, John's Gospel, and clearly discussed in Aquinas' Summa Theologica), then we humans do not possess free will.
A common belief by Christians is that the all-powerful, loving, knowing, and present God granted man free will so that he may choose between good and evil. If he chooses according to the word and commandments of God and his son Jesus Christ--that is to say, correctly, he is rewarded i.e., Heaven. If he chooses incorrectly, he will suffer rather severe consequences i.e., Hell. The purpose of choosing is to test one's moral righteousness. God does not allow just anyone to enter through the pearly gates.. This is a fairly exclusive club and you need the right credentials to get in. Let's consider these defining characteristics of God for a moment.
If God is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, we need to consider what this means. The concept of omniscience is a difficult one for us ridiculously puny humans to wrap our tiny little minds around. To know everything would entail, one would think, the inclusion of all information concerning all aspects of the universe. And this does not mean that this information is known for a single moment in time. God's knowledge would transcend time. That is, He would know all information about all things in the entire universe that ever occurred, is occurring, and will occur. Think about this for a moment folks. The concept of omniscience should not be taken lightly. It is staggering to think of any being which could possess such knowledge. And this is BIG T Truth knowledge--the biggest of the big; and time transcendent to boot. God would know how many hairs are on each one of our heads right now. He would know how many atoms of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc., occupy this great hall, He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for...but wait a minute. If God knows all of this, does it not follow that He knows, say, what I will have for lunch tomorrow (should I survive that long)? And if He does not, can we still define Him as omniscient and omnipotent? I don't think so. All right then, so let's assume He does know everything. What does that mean? It means that neither you nor I nor anyone on this planet at any time would have had the free will to choose or decide how we wished to act at any given time in our lives. If God's omniscience means that He possesses this type of knowledge, then He would have known ten billion years ago what type of person each one of us was going to turn out to be. And if that is the case, we can hardly choose freely, can we? If He knows what I am going to turn out to be at the end of my life, then He knows and has known for a long time whether or not I will be eternally rewarded or punished. If this is the case, then I DO NOT have free will because no matter what I choose--whether I help the poor, aid the sick, drown kittens, or shag my neighbour's spouse (male or female) it just doesn't matter. For my fate is known by God--it is locked in.
Now I ask you: What type of a sick metaphysical being would create a bunch of humans, just so they can act out this charade of free will only to have their fate determined since the beginning of time?
To reconcile this problem, one may wish to limit God's knowledge i.e. He can be defined as knowing everything BUT how we choose. But this would no longer make Him Omniscient.
2. The Problem of Specifying One Particular God Among an Indefinite Choice
We must now ask ourselves why should God possess such characteristics in the first place? If in our disjunct it turns out that G is true--that there is a creative force which caused this universe, then there seems to thousands, if not millions, of different ways in which such a Being could exist. For example, as the great Scottish philosopher David Hume said, the universe could have been created by some child god with a great deal of power but quite shy of omniscience, who has made a rather immature effort in constructing our world. This may strike us at first to seem a little odd, but if you think about it, it would certainly go a long way in explaining why humans are such physically and morally imperfect creatures. You would think a perfect God would have made His greatest creation a little sturdier.
There are, of course, many other examples of possible Gods: If, for some reason, we do not suspend judgement on our equally plausible disjunct but wish to exercise our faith, we could believe in almost any type of God, couldn't we? We can imagine God to be incomplete--having just enough power to start the universe and now He is evolving as it expands and humans are the intellectual components which are evolving along with Him. Or we can consider that God is a giant Elf and his angels are really invisible gnomes with wicked senses of humour that like to hide your car keys and steal single socks out of the clothes dryer (this would certainly explain a lot wouldn't it?) Or there could be a counsel of Gods who sit around and discuss metaphysical issues and then take notes. You or I could be God and we have the power to delude ourselves that we are God until such a time as there is world peace--upon which you (or I) will re-awaken and take our place as the rightful King or Queen of the Universe. God could be gay or favour gay sexual activity (which, if male, would really make Him Queen of the Universe I suppose).
The point here, of course, is that whenever one tries to discuss specific characteristics of such a possible being, it simply lies beyond the scope and ken of our current concepts and the likelihood of truth (and we are talking about Big T Truth here) diminishes with every new defining characteristic, commandment, description, etc.
3. The Tension Between Human Biology and Theistic Views
If we maintain that evolutionary theory (the new synthetic theory) is the best current explanation describing how humans originated, as I believe that we have an epistemic responsibility to maintain, then it follows that Christianity not only paints an extremely misguided picture of the natural world but that its morality artificially imposes and suppresses many human drives, desires, instincts, etc., which, when suppressed, can lead to deleterious or harmful effects to individuals. For example, the tensions which exist in the average adolescent boy between desiring sexual activity and listening to what a particular religion dictates can often lead to rather severe emotional problems. The boy who thinks that even masturbation will lead to some form of metaphysical punishment because he is weak, is tormented because his biological urges (in the form of raging hormones) and his religious beliefs, are at odds. Giving in to biology can be taken to be a moral failure. And so the boy, himself, can start to see himself as a failure as well. The complexities which develop due to the intent to maintain specific rules of religious doctrine in light of biological urges have given rise to many deep-rooted social problems. In the Bible, there is very little reference to sexual maturation in terms of hormonal activity and pubescent development and rightly so. Much of the information in the Bible was written at a time when there was very little comprehensive information concerning the workings of human reproductive development. So it is not unreasonable to consider that such an antiquated view of biology would, eventually, lead to emotional and psychological conflicts within maturing individuals.
When we look at humans as just another type of animal, we can see how we share the same instincts, desires, urges, etc., as other animals. It is far more reasonable to assume, based on the overwhelming amount of natural evidence, that humans are an evolved species with specific biological characteristics, and that religions are misguided artificial inventions of humans used to explain natural phenomena and dictate moral activity.
4. The Problem of Evil
The final problem concerning God that I wish to consider involves the tension between defining it as omnibenevolent (or All-Good) and the presence of evil in the world. Simply stated, the problem of evil is this: How could an all-good and all-powerful God allow so much evil to occur in the world? If He is powerful enough to intervene and lessen the amount of evil in the world but does not, He is not all-good; if He truly is all-good but cannot effect change, then He cannot be all-powerful. At this point, we need to distinguish two types of evil.
Natural Evil
Natural evil is the type of evil that occurs beyond man's power. Examples include floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, disease, pestilence, natural disasters of all types, etc.
Moral Evil
Moral evil is the type of evil humans inflict on one another. This involves things like cruelty, pettiness, crime, unjust punishment, etc.
Now I can understand why some theists maintain that there is evil in the world. It is to test our faith in God and to build our character (so called 'soul-building evils').
The problems here are numerous. Why wouldn't God simply make His greatest creation (us) better in the first place? That is to say, why wouldn't He have made us sturdier moral creatures less prone to choose evil?
Secondly, even if we accept that evil is necessary to build our moral character, does there have to be SO MUCH evil? Again, David Hume mentions that far less evil in the world would still suffice in building our character. Why does God allow over 10,000 people in Turkey to be killed by devastating earthquakes when clearly, less would have had the same impact?
And finally, to borrow a far-reaching point from the great Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any all-Good God would allow the suffering of little children to make us stronger. If I had a three-year-old child and she died a horribly painful death of bone cancer, how can this possibly be justified? The usual retort is that God works in mysterious ways. But my response is that no Divine plan could ever justify the torment such a child (and millions of others) have gone through, are currently going through, and will continue to go through until our species becomes extinct. If there is moral evil in this world because Eve convinced Adam to bite into an apple which came from, ironically enough, The Tree of Knowledge, then let's start again. You give me a shot at the Garden of Eden. Because I have a few questions. Like why would such a God want his creation to remain ignorant? Is it not the natural inclination of humans to wonder? Does it not seem an absurd demand to repress knowledge? In most countries which have similar rules, we call this a dictatorship. I call it bizarre and yet one more conjunct which is strung along the chain of characteristics of a God which has as much reality as the invisible elephants. It is far more reasonable to maintain that the concept of God and various religions are novel inventions some created by our ancestors to explain what was then a largely unexplained environment. Such religious beliefs suffer from deep anthropocentric problems in which God takes on human characteristics magnified to infinity. God was far more likely made in our image than the other way around. To put us rightly on the same level as other animals, if all other species-from Dung Beetle to Blue Whale had gods, wouldn't they resemble Dung Beetles and Blue Whales?
Interesting post above. I am delighted to make a response. And when you reply back, I may not be on for a while. So, if you'd like please send me an email at my personal address, loganedens@hotmail.com. Thank you.
Sir, you and many others have asked those same questions about God and evil. I am thrilled to answer them.
First, if God knows everything, and his knowledge can't change, then everything is predetermined and there is no free will, right? Please listen very closely.
Knowing what men will do with their freedom is not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free choice. God's knowledge is not necessarily incompatible with free will. There is no problem in saying that God created men with free will so that they could return His love, even though he knows that some will not make that decision. God is responsible for the fact of freedom, but men are responsible for the acts of freedom. In His knowledge, God might even persuade men to make certain decisions, but there is no reason to suppose that HE coerces (force) any decision so as to destroy freedom. He works persuasively, but not coercively.
Secondly, Where did evil come from? (please read this completely)
In the beginning, there was God and He was perfect. Then the perfect God made a perfect world. So how did evil come into the picture? Let's summarize the problem this way:
1. Every creature God made is perfect.
2. But perfect creatures cannot do what is imperfect.
3. So, every creature God made cannot do what is imperfect.
But if Adam and Eve were perfect, how did they fall you might ask? Don't blame it on the snake because that just backs the question up one step; didn't God make the snake perfect too? Some have concluded that there must be some force that is equal with God or beyond His control. Or maybe God just isn't good after all. But maybe the answer lies in the idea of perfection itself.
1. God made everything perfect.
2. One of the perfect things God made was free creatures.
3. FREE WILL IS THE CAUSE OF EVIL.
4. So, imperfection (evil) can arise from perfection (not directly, but indirectly through freedom).
One of the things that makes men (and angels) morally perfect is freedom. We have a real choice about what we do. God made us that way so that we could be like Him and could love freely (forced love is not love at all, is it?). But in making us that way, He also allowed for the possibility of evil. To be free we had to have not only the opportunity to choose good, but also the ability to choose evil. That was the risk God knowingly took. That doesn't make him responsible for evil. He created the fact of freedom; we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men made evil actual. Imperfection came through the abuse of our moral perfection as free creatures.
As for the snake, the same answer applies. God made Satan the most beautiful of all creatures with the perfection of free will. Satan rebelled against God, and that became the first sin and the pattern for all sin that followed. Some people ask, "What made Satan sin?" That is like asking what caused the first cause; nothing outside his own free will caused him to sin. He was the first cause of his sin and you can't go back any farther than that. When we sin, ultimately we (by our wills) are the cause of the evil we do.
Thirdly, Why can't evil be stopped? (chuckles) That question has been rattling through the halls of college campuses for hundreds of years.
1. If God is all-good, he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil.
3. But evil is not destroyed.
4. Hence, there is no such God.
Why hasn't God done something about evil? If he could and would do something, why do we still have evil? Why is it so persistent? and it doesn't even seem to be slowing down!
There are two answers for this question. Firs, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As I said before, free beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures (Matt. 22:36-37), but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom were destroyed, which is the only way to end evil, that would be evil in itself, because it would deprive free creatures of their greatest good.
The argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed right now does not mean that it never will be. The argument implies that if God hasn't done anything as of today, then it won't ever happen. But this assumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God.
1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, he can defeat evil.
3. Evil is not yet defeated.
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil.
The very argument used against the existence of God turns out to be a vindication of God in the face of the problem of evil. There is no question here that if it has not yet happened and God is as we suppose Him to be, that we simply haven't waited long enough. God isn't finished yet. The final chapter has not been written. apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills than to reign supreme over rocks and trees. Those who want a quicker resolution to the conflict will have to wait.
Finally in closing, What is the purpose of evil? The question that roars in the minds of those who suffer is, "WHY?" "WHY DID I LOSE MY LEG?" "WHY DID OUR CHURCH BURN DOWN?" "WHY DID MY LITTLE GIRL HAVE TO DIE?" "WHY"? Unfortunately, I nor anybody can't always give an answer that satisfies the souls of those who hurt and makes sense of their pain. But to those who use this as a reason to deny God's existence or goodness, I an others can give an answer. Their argument is something like this:
1. There is no good purpose for much suffering.
2. An all-good God must have a good purpose for everything.
3. So, there cannot be an all-good God.
This problem can be dealt in two ways. First, we need to make a distinction. There is a difference between our knowing the purpose of evil and God having a purpose for it. Even if we don't know God's purpose, He may still have a good reason for allowing evil in our lives. So we can't assume that there is no good purpose for something just because we don't know what it could be.
Furthermore, we do know some of God's purposes for evil. For instance, we know that God sometimes uses evil to warn us of greater evils. Anyone who has raised a child has gone through the months of fearing that the baby would touch a hot stove for the first time. We hate the thought of it, but we know that once she does it, she won't do it again. She will instantly have an existential awareness of the meaning of the word "hot" and will obey our warning readily when we use it. That first small pain is allowed to avoid the danger of bigger ones later.
Pain also keeps us from self-destruction. Do you know why lepers lose their fingers, toes, and noses? Usually, it has nothing directly to do with the leprosy itself. Rather, the disease causes them to lose feelings in their extremities, and they literally destroy themselves. They can't feel the pain when they touch a hot pan, so they are about to bump into, they hit them full force without slowing down. Without the sensation of pain, they do tremendous damage to themselves and don't even realize it.
While it may seem like a high price to pay, some evil helps to bring about greater good. The Bible gives several examples of this in men like Joseph, Job, and Samson. Each went through real sufferings. How would the nation of Israel have survived the famine and had a refuge in which to grow if Joseph had not been sold into slavery by his bro's and imprisoned unjustly? Would Job have been able to make his marked spiritual growth had he not suffered first? (Job 23:10) What kind of leader would the Apostle Paul have been if he had not been humbled after his exalted revelations of God? (2 Cor. 12) Joseph summarized the matter when he told his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). Finally, permitting some evil actually helps defeat evil. One of the first steps in some of the substance abuse rehabilitation programs is to give the patient all that he can stand of the substance until he gets sick of it. IT's easier to quit once you've had a bad experience. Projects like the "Scared Straight" program at Rahway Prison have stopped many young people from following a life of crime, but the convicts who tell them about prison life have both caused suffering and are suffering. And then there is the ultimate example: the Cross. IT seems that there an infinite injustice was wrought on an innocent Man so that good might come to all. The evil that he endured as our substitute allows us free access to God without fear, because our guilt and punishment have been taken away. I'd like to mention what C.S. Lewis said, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world." IN some sense, we need pain so that we are not overcome by the evil that we would choose were it painless. He alerts us to the fact that there are better things than misery.
Therefore, please consider my response. Nevertheless, unless you see signs and wonders you probably will not believe. I didn't believe until God revealed himself to me. He has done this in many ways – through miraculous experiences, through moral consciousness, through creation, and in many other ways.
Love in Christ, ( have a good day )
Logan C. Edens
Would you agree?What a waste! Wouldn't you agree?
Love in Christ, (have a marvelous day)
Logan C. Edens
I am a satanist. Big surprise. Here are the reasons...
A satanist doesn't inconvenience you. Religious people do. They knock on your door and hand you a magazine called "Awake" but if you look at them, they're sound asleep and running the same pattern over and over.
The devil doesn't care if you come and see him on Sunday. He doesn't want to do anything on Sunday. In fact, he doesn't even answer his door. He's either hung over or playing Grand Theft Auto 3.
His music is better, cooler.
He does not monitor your internet usage and he doesn't care what you look at.
He reads the bible alot. If you were the coach of the Buffalo Bills and you found the play book of the Miami Dolphins, wouldn't you read it? Lots of satanic people read the bible, it's actually quite common for evil people to read through it with a fine tooth comb. Because if you can throw quotes around, you can fool people. If you know the plays the other team is gonna run or know how they think, you can be one step ahead of them. Pretty sneaky huh?
He actually works for his money. The devil is a salesman, he gives you something in return for something else. In church you give them your money and get.... nothing but lousy music and a host, yuk.
The devil owns the entire media. He even runs the religious channel. He made it so boring no one would want to watch it. On all of the shows everyone treats everyone horribly. You have to be evil to watch it. It's called an idiot box because he hypnotizes you with it just so he can have some peace and quiet on earth. If your in your house staring at nonsense, you can't be bothering him, can you?
He's basically out of a job and spends most of his time just chillin. I mean, people act bad enough as it is, he really doesn't have to do anything anymore.
We works through people who call themselves "good." He doesn't work through people who are outwardly bad, that wouldn't make any sense. A crook doesn't really dress up in a striped shirt and a mask, they dress just like everyone else. They always lend a helping hand and seem really nice, just like in the movies and then WHAM, your married to them and you're serving evil for the rest of your life. Your relatives are evil. Have you noticed that if you don't visit them for a while they cry like little demons? That should be a clue. You can't have your own life, you have to go to them and do whatever they want you to do, more or less you have to be their lap dog. Sounds like a church. "Come give me your money." It's no different than "come give me your shoulder to cry on. I would like to complain to you for several hours."
Satan is dependent. Anything dependent is evil. Good is self sufficiency. Therefore very little is good. I'm not self reliant right now, therefore I'm evil. I'm sure I could read books and use that as a reference as to how good I am but I know better.
Could someone please just stay on topic, and not get into this kind of debate?
It's very immature, and childish. 
Please read this. Know this beloved, your master has already been defeated [B]FOREVER. The Lord of Glory has disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
You right that your master will have more souls, but he and all who he deceived will suffer eternally. Your master thought he could overthrown God Almighty, but failed and was cast out.
Be not deceived, come to the knowledge of the truth.
Satan does all he can to keep an unsaved person deceived and in darkness. As it is written, SATAN, WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD-Rev 12:9. There is a battle between truth and error going on inside of each person. That battle is for a person’s soul. The devil persuades many in their thoughts that evolution is how we came into existence. The adversary puts in the minds of others that the Bible is not God’s Word but just a book written by men. He makes some believe that it is too difficult to understand. And if you do believe the Bible is the perfect Word of God, Satan will do everything possible to stop you from studying it, by using many distractions and other devices. If you study the Bible, Satan will try to cause you to believe certain passages do not mean exactly what they say. If you do believe God’s Word, he will try to choke the Word that is in you, by using the lusts of this world, the cares of this life, the pleasures of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and many other devices. Satan is a master at mixing the truth with deception in your mind and causing confusion.
Satan persuades many people that there is no heaven, hell, judgment, or God. He causes many to think that he does not even exist, or that, if he does exist, he is nothing more than a little red cartoon character with horns and a pitchfork, who is mischievous but not dangerous. He causes some people to be bitter toward God. He causes many others to be deceived on how to be saved. He blinds their eyes.
Take heed! The Bible warns us that many people perish and only a few will enter heaven. It is written: Mt 7:13-14-ENTER YE IN AT THE STRAIT GATE: FOR WIDE IS THE GATE, AND BROAD IS THE WAY, THAT LEADETH TO DESTRUCTION, AND MANY THERE BE WHICH GO IN THEREAT. Many people will go to destruction or perish to hell. BECAUSE STRAIT IS THE GATE, AND NARROW IS THE WAY, WHICH LEADETH UNTO LIFE, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT. Few people will find the true way to salvation. Few people will enter the kingdom of heaven.
Dude, those were jokes I got off of Jay Leno or something.
quote:
Originally posted by Neo-Matrix:
loganedens1985, hell isnt really a place. God will not make people suffer for eternity. he will eliminate all evil and be done with it. i dont think he would be comfortable having evil still exist, he will destroy it. if you look up the original words used for "eternity" when it is stated in reference to hell or an "eternal flame", the word actually means that the effects are eternal, evil would be eliminated for eternity. the word does not mean that it will burn forever. just like when we die we wont go anywhere until the ressurection. until then we are in a sleep. when satan and his army of condemned sinners rush at the gates of new jerusalem(or whichever city was told about in revelation, i may be wrong), God will send the hell fire to consume everything except his chosen people, and the earth will be cleansed.
Be not deceived. God is a holy God. God will be true to his own honor. God will be true to his own law. Why doesn't God overlook sin? Beause sin is an affront to a holy God. And if God would let sin go unpunished he would be unjust. God would topple from his throne of holiness. They say in the court of law, when a guilty man is acquitted, the judge is condemned. God is just but he is a God of mercy and grace. Through Jesus Christ we can be justified, forgiven, and receive eternal life.
Please, understand God's fuller representation of his character.
Satan took away the fear of God’s judgment with Eve. He told her she would not surely die. She chose to believe the voice of the devil and chose not to believe the voice of Almighty God. She sinned and later died, just as God said—even though she had chosen not to believe it would happen.
There are many cults and false religions in this generation that choose to believe the lies of Satan. Some say there is no such place as hell. Some say it is hell living on this earth. Some admit that there is a hell; however, they believe God sends no one there. Some admit that there is a hell, but only the vilest people go there.
There is even a certain denomination that claims there is a purgatory. They teach that most people go there instead of hell, and that, ultimately, most will be in heaven.
All these false ideas and doctrines, which contradict the Word of God, come from the devil. They often have the same intent as Satan had in the Garden of Eden. That intent is, to take away the fear of God’s judgment. This deception worked with Eve. It works with millions of people today. It is written:
Job 28:28-AND UNTO MAN HE SAID, BEHOLD, THE FEAR OF THE LORD, THAT IS WISDOM; AND TO DEPART FROM EVIL IS UNDERSTANDING.
Pv 3:7-BE NOT WISE IN THINE OWN EYES: FEAR THE LORD, AND DEPART FROM EVIL.
Pv 16:6-BY THE FEAR OF THE LORD MEN DEPART FROM EVIL. Once this fear of God and His judgment is removed, then people go forth willfully and sin.
So often when a person dies, people will say, "He has gone to a better place now." They don’t understand that most people perish to hell, not to heaven. While they are thinking that person has gone to a better place, they are actually crying out in torment words like, "I AM TORMENTED IN THIS FLAME." Indeed, Satan does deceive the whole world.
Some say it is wrong to scare people with such teaching. This statement is contrary to God’s Word. Most people are unsaved. This is confirmed in the Scriptures. Only a few inherit eternal life. When an unsaved person dies, they perish to a place called hell. In hell, they are tormented day and night in the flame. Their tongue, in some manner, is set on fire. There appear to be various levels in hell, which seems to be located down in the center or bowels of the earth. Some have described hell as being like a volcano, but a person’s spirit does not die. They will retain their memory of the past and of their loved ones. It appears they will remember every single time that they had a chance to repent and receive Jesus as their Savior, but they refused. In hell, the condemned person will also remember his loved ones and will be in further anguish at the thought of them also perishing to this place of torment. It may be said, any person who dies unsaved, it would have been better for that person if they had never been born. For a very short time, they lived on the earth in rebellion to God’s will. They refused God’s love and mercy. Now, they shall suffer; they shall be tormented.
The unsaved person will remain in hell until after the Millennium has expired on the earth. The unjust are reserved to the day of judgment.
At the time of the great white throne judgment, the sea, death and hell deliver up all the dead that are there for the final judgment. The books are opened. There they are judged by their works. They are judged according to what they did. For this brief time, they should have some relief from the horrible torment of the flame.
At some point during this process, it appears they are beaten with few or many stripes.
Finally, they are cast into the eternal lake of fire, which was prepared for Satan and his angels. This is called "the second death." There they will be tormented day and night, for ever and ever. There will never be any hope of escape. There will never be any hope of release. This is the eternal destiny of most people.
What a horrible time it will be! Dying, then going to hell, then to the great white throne judgment, and finally being cast into the eternal lake of fire. During this process, people will see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but "you" yourself cast out-ref Lk 13:28. The people will be crying. There will be gnashing of teeth. This is the final destiny for all that reject the forgiveness of their sins which is ONLY possible through Jesus Christ. This is the end result for those that refuse to do the will of God. This is the end result for those that refuse to repent of all willful sin and serve the Lord.
Satan will ultimately be in the lake of fire. The false prophet and the Antichrist will be there. The rich man will be there. Many preachers, Sunday school teachers, church choir singers, and even missionaries will be there. Consider carefully. Again it needs to be said. Most people that have ever lived will be there. Only a few shall receive eternal life and forever be with the Lord.
We might say these words, 2 Cor 5:11-KNOWING THEREFORE THE TERROR OF THE LORD, WE PERSUADE MEN.
God's Love
The question is asked, YE SERPENTS, YE GENERATION OF VIPERS, HOW CAN YE ESCAPE THE DAMNATION OF HELL?-Mt 23:33. For THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH-Ro 6:23.
There is a way of escaping hell or eternal death. As it is written, FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE-Jn 3:16.
HE THAT BELIEVETH ON THE SON HATH EVERLASTING LIFE: AND HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE; BUT THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDETH ON HIM-Jn 3:36. (The word "believe," as used here, means a total uncompromising commitment of love and obedience.)
GOD’S LOVE PROVIDED A WAY OF ESCAPE
Jesus Christ died a horrible death so that you can have forgiveness of all your sins, no matter how bad they are. A person never needs to go to hell, if they receive, by faith, the forgiveness and love that God offers through Jesus Christ, His Son. This is an offer God gives you.
If you choose by your free will to not repent of all willful sin, get baptized by full immersion, and receive God's Spirit by faith. [B]Then you must know this in closing.[B]
Hell is a place of consciousness-ref Lk 16:23,24; a place of DARKNESS-Mt 8:12; eternal separation from your loved ones-ref Lk 13:28; not the slightest hope of release-ref Mt 25:46. There is the torment of memory in hell. You may remember every single chance you had to repent, yet you refused-ref Lk 16:27,28.
It is written, WHOSOEVER WAS NOT FOUND WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE-Rev 20:15; HELL FIRE-Mt 18:9; Mk 9:47; DEVOURING FIRE-Isa 33:14; EVERLASTING FIRE-Mt 25:41; a FIRE THAT NEVER SHALL BE QUENCHED-Mk 9:43; THE LAKE OF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE-Rev 20:10; COALS OF FIRE-Pv 25:22; UNQUENCHABLE FIRE-Mt 3:12; FURNACE OF FIRE-Mt 13:42; VENGEANCE OF ETERNAL FIRE-Jude 7; RAGING FIRE THAT WILL CONSUME THE ENEMIES OF GOD-Heb 10:27 NIV; TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE-Rev 14:10; ETERNAL JUDGMENT-Heb 6:2; EVERLASTING BURNINGS-Isa 33:14; EVERLASTING CONTEMPT-Dan 12:2; EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT-Mt 25:46; EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION-2 Thes 1:9; TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOR EVER AND EVER-Rev 20:10; THEY ARE BURNED-Jn 15:6; WHERE THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED-Mk 9:46; THE SMOKE OF THEIR TORMENT ASCENDETH UP FOR EVER AND EVER: AND THEY HAVE NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT-Rev 14:11; SHAME-Dan 12:2; PAINS OF HELL-Ps 116:3; OUTER DARKNESS-Mt 8:12; WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH-Mt 8:12; WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH-Mt 13:42; HE LIFT UP HIS EYES, BEING IN TORMENTS-Lk 16:23; AND HE CRIED...I AM TORMENTED IN THIS FLAME-Lk 16:24; HAVE MERCY ON ME-Lk 16:24.
This is the eternal destiny of most people.
Love in Christ,
Logan C. Edens
i think i wanna buy the photo reading thing, but im not sure and have some questions...
um, if u learn how to photo read, can you choose not to photo read certain things? cuz like, i dont want to read the Bible wrong. and i was reading some posts and i was thinking about the verses Ro 12:2 and Jonh 14:26, and well, i just dont want to do anything weird. is photo reading ok to do? is it weird??
i dont know, i read some post thing about "the inner mind" or something, i dont know, our computer goes so slow and it's hard for me to take the time and click all these diffent post subjects.
what do u guys think? i thought i wanted to get this photo reading thingy so i could finish my 12th grade homeschooling work real fast, and then i could read books real fast, and then i'd get really smart. i really wanna be smart, but should i just quit being lazy and read things "the old fashion way" and just study a lot and stuff?
i hope u guys all have a nice day i look forward to your replies. bye. me17
quote:
Originally posted by Neo-Matrix:
wow where did that come from? anyways, loganedens... im going to look up all of your references, they look interesting. my dad is a pastor, and he told me that hell isnt going to be an eternal fire like most think. im sure he is right, and im looking forward to his reply about your post. thanks.(im going to post a new topic so its not off topic anymore)
Look up Hell in the Greek. It is Gehenna, which means "The Lake of Fire". No matter what goes on down there, it isn't going to be good. The Bible basically describes it as a place of torment and no hope of escape forever. You know that's why Jesus said a lot about it. That's why he emphasized repentance and yielding to Him. We (humans) are so limited. We need to submit to God for everything. You know why? Because the best of our wisdom, knowledge, and understand cannot keep us from self-destruction. Consider that carefully.
) 