Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I always thought about this.....


Christian, Judeo, and Islamic mythology has such a dichotomy of good and evil, while we , the human race, represent the molding that would shape into either of the two....


Can a Demon in Hell redeem his or herself ?


Can a Demon leave Hell, or are they stuck there ? If a Demon is stuck in Hell, then that means he or she is subject to such torment, how do you expect them to become better ?


Does God turn a blind eye to a demon, just because they are demon ? That's quasi-racist, don't you thinkn ?






In Hinduism, Kali the Goddess of Death and Destruction devoured an entire army of demons, while her counterpart Shiva lay dormant, she took over in a state of unstoppable madness, and ate the heads off thousands of demons, slaughtering them mercilessly...





Can a Demon find Redemption and beg forgiveness from Yahweh ? Will Yahweh accept, or damn them back to Hell ?

Can a Demon find Redemption and beg mercy from Kali ? Will she accept, or will she eat thier heads off ?

God Is Love

by sending demons to Hell he demonstrates that love (will you never learn?)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God Is Love

by sending demons to Hell he demonstrates that love (will you never learn?)

Sounds like something Feceman would say.....

In Buddhist mythology, even those in the depths of hell can gain enlightenment and live in Nirvana.

I don't know.

The Bible is fairly vague on the subject of demons (and, to a lesser extent, angels), as we, as humans, are not supposed to screw with them. I believe that, yes, they could, but Satan has deceived them into thinking that God will not forgive them and/or that they will one day be able to usurp God.

However, the slightly confusing part about fallen angels is that they know what's coming for them, and yet they don't seem to do anything. Maybe their wills are so twisted and evil from their fall that they delight only in wickedness now and spurn God willingly.

...... God is love?!!!! #wtf#
so in love he keeps demons in hell even if the error of their ways is learned a hundred times over. Even prison offers payroll for good behavior...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In Buddhist mythology, even those in the depths of hell can gain enlightenment and live in Nirvana.


yes, but just because a person is in Hell does not make them a demon.





Originally posted by Feceman
However, the slightly confusing part about fallen angels is that they know what's coming for them, and yet they don't seem to do anything. Maybe their wills are so twisted and evil from their fall that they delight only in wickedness now and spurn God willingly.


What do you consider to be "evil, twisted, and wicked" ? What do demons do that make them deserve these adjectives ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
yes, but just because a person is in Hell does not make them a demon.

I don't believe in demons, but there are demons in Buddhist mythology, but I think they are just evil twisted people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in demons, but there are demons in Buddhist mythology, but I think they are just evil twisted people.


Evil Twisted people don't necessarily suffer in thier Evil....some of them infact enjoy thier own evil. That isn't Hell for them sicne they don't suffer

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
yes, but just because a person is in Hell does not make them a demon.








What do you consider to be "evil, twisted, and wicked" ? What do demons do that make them deserve these adjectives ?
probaly an ultimate sin in gods eyes. just a guess, is anyone ever sure who goes to hell though? Dante put ((the guy whos name starts with B and led the conspiracy to kill Ceaser)) in hell in the cluthches of the devil like things teth why not a common murderer

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Evil Twisted people don't necessarily suffer in thier Evil....some of them infact enjoy thier own evil. That isn't Hell for them sicne they don't suffer

I have a difficult time talking about mythology is real terms. Mythology is symbolic by nature, and not real.

KALI is not a demon, she is the uncontrollable part of Shiva.

And in hindu mythology, once God or God incarnate has killed someone, they will reach "heaven", whether it be man, beast or Demon. Why? Because everything is here for a reason, for a balance, you can't only have good. There has to be good and evil on earth in other for God to come to earth and set things right. There is another reason here, but unless you want to here it, I wont put it in.

For example, in the Ramayana, Ram kills the Demon king, Ravana. ANd hence he goes to heaven. Why? this is a two fold answer,
1. Because God killed him
2. He was a holy man. Ravana was once very religious and endured many fasts to appease the gods. One god was pleased with his sacrifice and gave him a boon( gift). This gift made Ravana think he was invincible and thus lust for power over took him.

Just like how Jesus "saved" the unrighteous while he was here, same thing in hinduism, only god can send anything to heaven

Personally I feel people make their own demons.....A demon in the sack is pretty cool....

Now.......why would Jesus want to throw that in hell......why?? why, why why........

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What do you consider to be "evil, twisted, and wicked" ? What do demons do that make them deserve these adjectives ?
Demons make us believe lies and deceive people. The Bible says that God hates lying lips and, if I remember correctly, there is a strong punishment for anyone causes his children to sin because there seems to be few things God hates more.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Demons make us believe lies and deceive people. The Bible says that God hates lying lips and, if I remember correctly, there is a strong punishment for anyone causes his children to sin because there seems to be few things God hates more.

There is no one making you do anything. The results of your kind of thinking can lead to great evil.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Demons make us believe lies and deceive people.

By that argument it could be said that God is a demon.

Why would a demon want Redemption?

They enjoy committing evil acts. If they wanted Redemption they wouldn't be demons at all. Instead they would be "lost souls" and not demons.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why would a demon want Redemption?

They enjoy committing evil acts. If they wanted Redemption they wouldn't be demons at all. Instead they would be "lost souls" and not demons.

Could they be forced into Redemtion?

Certainly, would they accepted it? I would think not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no one making you do anything. The results of your kind of thinking can lead to great evil. Not really. The Bible makes it quite clear that it doesn't matter where the suggestion comes from because we always have the option of refusing and resisting. Added to that is that it is made clear that God always provides a way out, so we are 100% responsible meaning no evil from that way of thinking. In fact it is far stricter than amoral system.

Aren't demons part of hell itself and/or an extension of hell? If so, how could they find redemption and if Satan himself is beyond redemption, how could one of his lackeys do it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Aren't demons part of hell itself and/or an extension of hell? If so, how could they find redemption and if Satan himself is beyond redemption, how could one of his lackeys do it?

God can do whatever he wants logic be damned (and then saved).

Originally posted by fini
KALI is not a demon, she is the uncontrollable part of Shiva.


I never said Kali was a demon, I clearly stated she was a Goddess who slayed demons.....





Originally posted by fini
And in hindu mythology, once God or God incarnate has killed someone, they will reach "heaven", whether it be man, beast or Demon. Why? Because everything is here for a reason, for a balance, you can't only have good. There has to be good and evil on earth in other for God to come to earth and set things right. There is another reason here, but unless you want to here it, I wont put it in.



Kali kills so that evil (and good) may have a chance to be reborn. It's all part of the mythology of reincarnation, I am aware.





Originally posted by fini
For example, in the Ramayana, Ram kills the Demon king, Ravana. ANd hence he goes to heaven. Why? this is a two fold answer,
1. Because God killed him
2. He was a holy man. Ravana was once very religious and endured many fasts to appease the gods. One god was pleased with his sacrifice and gave him a boon( gift). This gift made Ravana think he was invincible and thus lust for power over took him.




Interesting



Originally posted by fini
Just like how Jesus "saved" the unrighteous while he was here, same thing in hinduism, only god can send anything to heaven



So techincally, according to Hinduism, a demon CAN reach Heaven....as long as a God allows it....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So techincally, according to Hinduism, a demon CAN reach Heaven....as long as a God allows it....

As far as I know in any religion who gets into heaven is up to the primary God whether the "rules" allow for it or not.

Well Jesus never said a demon couldn't get to heaven.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't know.

The Bible is fairly vague on the subject of demons (and, to a lesser extent, angels), as we, as humans, are not supposed to screw with them. I believe that, yes, they could, but Satan has deceived them into thinking that God will not forgive them and/or that they will one day be able to usurp God.

However, the slightly confusing part about fallen angels is that they know what's coming for them, and yet they don't seem to do anything. Maybe their wills are so twisted and evil from their fall that they delight only in wickedness now and spurn God willingly.

I think this is probably the best way of putting it. They hate God, and will never ask for forgiveness. And with their hate for God, they will do anything they can to oppose him.

Or more simply put...

God can't force them to change, because if he did then he wouldn't be loving. And they don't want to change or be forgiven(well maybe not that much more simply put).

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not really. The Bible makes it quite clear that it doesn't matter where the suggestion comes from because we always have the option of refusing and resisting. Added to that is that it is made clear that God always provides a way out, so we are 100% responsible meaning no evil from that way of thinking. In fact it is far stricter than amoral system.

In Buddhism it is simple: Wrongful thinking leads to wrongful actions. What that means is you do something evil and you pay for it now in this or in the next life time. There is no forgiveness; your karma is the karma you make.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In Buddhism it is simple: Wrongful thinking leads to wrongful actions. What that means is you do something evil and you pay for it now in this or in the next life time. There is no forgiveness; your karma is the karma you make.

Don't you think that seems a bit extreme though. If there's no forgiveness, then where's the love? A religion which motivates people to care more about themselves and their "karma" is not very loving..IMO.

Originally posted by Thundar
Don't you think that seems a bit extreme though. If there's no forgiveness, then where's the love? A religion which motivates people to care more about themselves and their "karma" is not very loving..IMO.

What does love have to to do with forgiveness? Please know that I am talking about the kind of forgiveness that a Christian would talk about. Of course we always forgive each other, but that in no way gets rid of your karma.

Also, you should stop reading Christian propaganda about Buddhism. Buddhism is not selfish; it is focused on fixing ourselves and not trying to fix others.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What does love have to to do with forgiveness? Please know that I am talking about the kind of forgiveness that a Christian would talk about. Of course we always forgive each other, but that in no way gets rid of your karma.


Let me be the first to inform you that Christianity does not represent that type of forgiveness. Its forgiveness completely absolves the sinner of the guilt or condemnation they receive after commiting a sin.

Sure, they will be discplined for the sin, but only to keep them on the right track so they don't commit the same sinful act again. Holding condemnation over someone after they've earnestly attempted to change their bad behavior is not very loving, and it's a bit disheartening that you believe true love can exist without forgiveness.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, you should stop reading Christian propaganda about Buddhism. Buddhism is not selfish; it is focused on fixing ourselves and not trying to fix others.


I haven't read any Christian propaganda about Buddhism, and the final thoughts, decisions, and choices I've made about the religion are entirely my own. It is a very self oriented religion, and your argument above only further demonstrates this. The only thing I've heard you talk about during this discussion is your karma, and I have yet to see you mention or show any concern over the "karma" of others, nor have you even acknowledged that you'd receive bad karma so another wouldn't suffer.

So anyway, my opinion is my own and its based on the knowledge I've acquired thus far about Buddhism, as well as my observations of those who practice the religion.

Originally posted by Thundar
Don't you think that seems a bit extreme though. If there's no forgiveness, then where's the love? A religion which motivates people to care more about themselves and their "karma" is not very loving..IMO. Well Karma would put the blame on YOU where it belongs..YOU are responsible for your actions and YOU make your life a hell or not...simple.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well Karma would put the blame on YOU where it belongs..YOU are responsible for your actions and YOU make your life a hell or not...simple.

Which I whole heartedly agree with. People should be held accountable and responsable for any sinful actions. But I also think that people are deserving of mercy, despite being guilty of these actions. I believe this mercy should be used on those who are repentant and truly trying to change.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God Is Love

by sending demons to Hell he demonstrates that love (will you never learn?)

Ok, thats fair enough.

If God is love does he demonstrate his love by throwing people into hellfire for not following a certain pattern of worship?

God hates religion.

Originally posted by Thundar
Buddhism is a very self oriented religion, and your argument above only further demonstrates this.


Again you have NO IDEA what you are talking about do you ?



Buddha taught that there is NO SELF that EGO is the illusion that keeps us TRAPPED in Samsara, through the cycle of birth and re birth, and in continous suffering



Nirvana which is the goal of Buddhism can only be acheived by alleviation of selfish desire and attachment to Ego....



Please stop ranting things of which you know nothing about, thanks

Originally posted by Thundar
Don't you think that seems a bit extreme though.



Don't talk about extremes when you subscribe to a religion which beleives in Eternal Torment for a non-beleiver (or a homo)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, thats fair enough.

If God is love does he demonstrate his love by throwing people into hellfire for not following a certain pattern of worship?

God hates religion. Well some feel that god is doing them a favor because they would be miserable otherwise. There are also others that believe that hell is not for eternity, but annihilation, and with that view, god is really great cause now they are put out of their misery of knowing that they will never be with god as compared to being in hell and suffering about it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Don't talk about extremes when you subscribe to a religion which beleives in Eternal Torment for a non-beleiver (or a homo)
Once again, not eternal. The sooner you get over it the better off you will be.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Once again, not eternal. The sooner you get over it the better off you will be.


Fine....temporary torture...God will only torture you for a few hundred years....


Then he will ahnialate you

Nope, you will torture yourself.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Nope, you will torture yourself.


I'm not a masochist....I would not voluntarily go to a place I do not beleive in.



If I do end up in Hell, it's because God sent me there, and if I AM tortured, it's because God was doing the torturing.

I would never go to Hell conciously and voluntarily, I have no need for such a pointless concept.

Hell would be Sheol where God sends the unsaved, where you would torment yourself and/or be very bored (this is assuming that you go there). Then the annihilation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Hell would be Sheol where God sends the unsaved,



So you ADMIT God sends us to Hell.....?



Originally posted by Nellinator
where you would torment yourself and/or be very bored (this is assuming that you go there). Then the annihilation.



1) Why would I torment myself ?


2) If Hell is a place where us f@gs go, then no I won't be bored, I'll be in HEAVEN droolio

3) Annihilation ! God LOVES ME !

Yes, I always have. However, you choose it by denying Jesus as Savior.

1) Perhaps you will have regrets. Perhaps you won't torment yourself at all and you'll just sit there.
2) droolio
3) droolio

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, I always have. However, you choose it by denying Jesus as Savior.





I never conciously made a decision denying Jesus is savior...nor have I ever conciously chose your version of Hell.

I lived in my own Hell for quite a while....


I simply stopped beleiving....I am not convinced of Jesus's divinity. If I am not convinced, then how can I truly beleive ?

For me to accept Jesus as savior would be a total lie....cuz I don't sincerely beleive it. It's not out of spite...it's jsut that the Bible contradicts many things I know to be true, it also contradicts my own morality...


why should I believe something that cannot be proven ?


Convince me that the Bible is Truth and that Jesus is really the savior, and I promise you I will beleive again.


If I cannot be convinced, then I cannot beleive....




Originally posted by Nellinator
1) Perhaps you will have regrets. Perhaps you won't torment yourself at all and you'll just sit there.



I'd rather be in Hell and suffer for not worshipping someone who I beleive to be a violent hypocrit, bully, sexist, and pretty much evil...then be rewarded for kissing this person's ass..

Would you rather be imprisoned by Hitler, or made his top servant ?



For the acts your God has committed: Genocide, Mass murder, etc. I do not see him to be any better than Hitler.

Why should I worship such a being ?

That being does NOT embody Love.....





Originally posted by Nellinator
2) droolio


I doubt your Hell is anywhere as bad as it's cracked up to be, I also doubt it's existance. You know that already.....




Originally posted by Nellinator
3) droolio



You couldn't seem to get yourself to provide a proper answer for my third statement, could you ?



How could you justify that a loving God would torment then annihilate someone he supposedly loves ? Someone he created ?


You can't...I know...I don't blame you for a lack of answer.

Yes you have. You have repeatedly said that Jesus is a man not our Savior. If you were once a Christian you probably believed otherwise at one point. Therefore at some point you changed your mind.
What would prove to you that Jesus was your Savior? And what would convince you that the Bible is truth?
1) He wiped out the Nephilim, that's a good thing, he wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah (a bunch of evil, greedy, selfish rapists) which was for our good, not sexist in the way you see it (you have a large misperception on this matter). He is willing to forgive you of your sins, something no one else can do.
2) Nothing indicates it's nice.
3) What am I supposed to say to 'Annihilation! God Loves Me!" You are given two choices. You apparently do not want heaven so why do you get angry when you get the other? If God went against your will wouldn't that be revoking your free will which you hate?

Originally posted by Nellinator

1) He wiped out the Nephilim, that's a good thing...

Why was it a good thing?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why was it a good thing?

Because they were different.

People who are different are evil. (but in their case they were supposed to have been really destructive too so he might have had a good reason)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they were different.

People who are different are evil. (but in their case they were supposed to have been really destructive too so he might have had a good reason)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Damn different Niphilim, results of something they didn't choose.... I wonder if their parents loved them, or if God gave them a chance for salvation.

I wonder if any of them asked God "what did we do?"

God: "You banged up the joint, and you're a bit ugly. Off the mortal coil with ye!"

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yeah, that's what I thought. Damn different Niphilim, results of something they didn't choose.... I wonder if their parents loved them, or if God gave them a chance for salvation.

These were some of the few people who God didn't even say "here read this and call me in the morning". Nephelhiem didn't get a chance for salvation as far as I know.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I wonder if any of them asked God "what did we do?"

God: "You banged up the joint, and you're a bit ugly. Off the mortal coil with ye!"

Umm... Nephilim were part demon and extremely evil. Their purpose seems to have been to wipe out the bloodlines capable of producing the seed (ie. Jesus). Wiping them out was a good thing.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes you have. You have repeatedly said that Jesus is a man not our Savior. If you were once a Christian you probably believed otherwise at one point. Therefore at some point you changed your mind.
What would prove to you that Jesus was your Savior? And what would convince you that the Bible is truth?



I have said Jesus is not our savior, because that's what I truly beleive. I didn't choose what to beleive however.


I used to beleive in Christ simply because I was convinced of his divinity. I am no longer convinced so how am I supposed to sincerely beleive ?

If Jesus truly appeared to me, and told me he was savior, I'd beleive. If God appeared to me in a way I would understand (enough of this mysterious ways bullshit) and varify for me the Bible is truth, then I would beleive...


I guess I'll never beleive again, huh ?




Originally posted by Nellinator
1) He wiped out the Nephilim, that's a good thing, he wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah (a bunch of evil, greedy, selfish rapists) which was for our good, not sexist in the way you see it (you have a large misperception on this matter). He is willing to forgive you of your sins, something no one else can do.



Me: "God what do you want of me?"


God: "Do everything I say, beleive in me 100%, accept Christ as savior, stop being a homo, and destroy everything else you beleived, because I am truth"


Me: "What will happen If I do not ?"


God: " I will send you to a terrible place called Hell where you will burn for a limitted time, then I will delete you from existance. Because I love you..."


Me: "Well...as long as you prove your existance to me, I can beleive"


God: "Heh..yeah right....WAKE UP"


Me: (wakes up)










Originally posted by Nellinator
2) Nothing indicates it's nice.




Hell, like Heaven, like Earth, is manifest from your God, according to your religion.


So, everything that is born of God, represents him. Hell, which is a part of God, because he created it, and because he permits it into existance, shows a side of him I do not desire or respect.




Originally posted by Nellinator
3) What am I supposed to say to 'Annihilation! God Loves Me!" You are given two choices. You apparently do not want heaven so why do you get angry when you get the other? If God went against your will wouldn't that be revoking your free will which you hate?



I do want Heaven..my own Heaven. I don't want your idea of Heaven, you simplify it so absurdly...

I never said I wanted Hell...nice try


Life, and existance, is not as black and white as your religion tries to portray it.


You can't give me a sincere answer, so instead you stoop so low as to accuse me of wanting to go to Hell, and rejecting happiness....

Originally posted by Nellinator
Umm... Nephilim were part demon and extremely evil. Their purpose seems to have been to wipe out the bloodlines capable of producing the seed (ie. Jesus). Wiping them out was a good thing.

Don't you mean part angel? Which, if I am not mistaken is one of the original interpretations of the whole business, except that there was a lot of hooha when people did the whole interpretation. Certain people didn't like the idea of angels and women using their free will to be together and we got demons, angels meant to be doing something and doing something else, fallen angels and men possessed by demons, men and women of certain bloodlines, demons pretending to be paganistic gods (thus Hercules would have been Nephilim had not the Nephilim been terminated) and other, stranger things. Vague stories with numerous different interpretations.

And wiping out the bloodlines capable of producing the seed... obviously not God. Since really he was the source of Jesus.

And is this another one of those "they were extremely evil because extremely evil is what they were..." like the people of the flood and all that? Were they capable of human things? I mean they had part human origins, and possibly part divine origins, did they get a chance? Did they get a choice? Did they have emotions? Or were they simply evil because they were half-breeds? What does "extremely evil" really mean? Because really what I am getting is the termination of sentient beings on species wide scale for simply being an inconvenience. Because lets face it, inconvenience is really all it was - if God could exterminate them then by rights he should have been able to do something else. But yes.... wiping out the seed bloodline, definitely evil (how did they know who was of the seed bloodline? Was every single Niphilim hunting them? Did they have some reason for this, or was it just they decided "I don't like them". Version like the whole "oppress humanity and make them suffer" - sure, that doesn't sound nice, but then again sounds quite similar to plenty of human tyrants over the years. And versions about how God turned some into demons with the purpose of trying to mess up weak, easily led people - well, that really makes the whole business sound better.

Why did it take so long for God to act? If he knows as much as some claim surely he'd know the angels/whatever were going native. And I mean - for long enough to build up a sizable population of Niphilim. All sounds shakey, and a bit cruel:

God: "Hmmm. No, I don't think there is a quite enough Niphilim brutilising humanity with there uncontrolable urges born from the unholy union of angels and women, that I kind of let happen. Better wait for a few more so when I exterminate them it will look more impressive."

The Bible says of the Nephilim that 'every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually' which is what I meant by extremely evil. Now the Nephilim would hate the seed of Eve (ie, through the bloodline of Seth). So the Nephilim would have been against the bloodline of Seth and tried to defeat them because preceeding the flood God said " (ie. Jesus) shall bruise thy head". Therefore by corrupting and/or destroying the bloodline of Seth they tried to prevent this. God wiped these Nephilim out with the flood. Then God later says to Abraham that from Isaac will the seed come. Later God gives Moses the promised land of Canaan from whence the seed was to come. However, the Philistines who were the second incursion of Nephilim inhabited the land ahead of them. The Philistines were the descendants of the mysterious Sea Peoples (who are historical) that raided the Middle East, but were stopped by Egypt (sparing the Israelites who were living there at the time). This is why God commanded Joshua to and the Israelites to destroy them to the last person. Later when the seed was prophecied to come from David Jezebel nearly successfully wiped out the bloodline (one Joash survived) in the third attempt by Satan to stop the coming of the Messiah. I believe that Herod was the fourth and final attempt.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The Bible says of the Nephilim that 'every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually' which is what I meant by extremely evil. Now the Nephilim would hate the seed of Eve (ie, through the bloodline of Seth). So the Nephilim would have been against the bloodline of Seth and tried to defeat them because preceeding the flood God said " (ie. Jesus) shall bruise thy head". Therefore by corrupting and/or destroying the bloodline of Seth they tried to prevent this. God wiped these Nephilim out with the flood. Then God later says to Abraham that from Isaac will the seed come. Later God gives Moses the promised land of Canaan from whence the seed was to come. However, the Philistines who were the second incursion of Nephilim inhabited the land ahead of them. The Philistines were the descendants of the mysterious Sea Peoples (who are historical) that raided the Middle East, but were stopped by Egypt (sparing the Israelites who were living there at the time). This is why God commanded Joshua to and the Israelites to destroy them to the last person. Later when the seed was prophecied to come from David Jezebel nearly successfully wiped out the bloodline (one Joash survived) in the third attempt by Satan to stop the coming of the Messiah. I believe that Herod was the fourth and final attempt.

This seems mildly insane you know. (I have nothing against it, it's just wierd.)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I have said Jesus is not our savior, because that's what I truly beleive. I didn't choose what to beleive however.


And you believe this because you've chosen to believe it. Unless you're insinuating that someone stuck a gun to your head, forcing you not to believe in Christ.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I used to beleive in Christ simply because I was convinced of his divinity. I am no longer convinced so how am I supposed to sincerely beleive ?


By having faith, loving others, and trying to do what's right as described by the bible. Or simply put, by loving God and loving others. This is not the type of love one demonstrates by doing stuff for the sake of strictly pleasing themselves.

It is a love that is comprised of truth, and it involves putting others before oneself. If you embrace this type of love in all that you do, then you'll have no problem finding Christ, and he'll have no problem finding you(hey that last part rhymed, I'm so cool!)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hell, like Heaven, like Earth, is manifest from your God, according to your religion.

So, everything that is born of God, represents him. Hell, which is a part of God, because he created it, and because he permits it into existance, shows a side of him I do not desire or respect.

You can't give me a sincere answer, so instead you stoop so low as to accuse me of wanting to go to Hell, and rejecting happiness....


Wrong thread for this stuff. Click below if you want to discuss further.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/438204_10-hmm-if-youre-tortured-permanently-in-hell#post8251371

Originally posted by Thundar
And you believe this because you've chosen to believe it. Unless you're insinuating that someone stuck a gun to your head, forcing you not to believe in Christ.


PLEASE tell me you are NOT this slow...



I did not choose to disbeleive in Christ...I chose to stop pretending that I beleive.

My loss of beleif was due to the fact that the Church is and always has been filled with Hypocrisy, the fact that the Bible contradicts itself, the fact that the Bible contradicts other Truths, the fact that so many people who claim to know God are so annoyingly judgemental and bigotted, the fact that the God of the Bible condones violence, and the fact that God has not proven his existance to me.


I did NOT CHOOSE:


1) For the Church to be hypocritical and corrupt
2) For the Bible to contradict itself
3) For the Bible to contradict other Truths
4) For so many Christians to be bigotted
5) For the Bible condoning violence and discrimination
6) for God's lack of proof for his existance
7) For none of this makign any sense...




What I had a was a LOSS OF BELEIF, I did not CONCIOUSLY decide, Oh, I'm gonna just stop beleiving in Jesus, because I don't feel like it..im too lazy"


I did not buy it anymore.


I was Christian for 18 years of my life, and little by little, I was less and less convinced of the validity of the Bible, until my entire beleif died off.

I did not choose to beleive in Christ, and I cannot choose to beleive now. I AM NOT CONVINCED

AT ALL that Christ is nothing more than another man....a great man, but a man nonetheless.

For me to say that I beleive in Jesus Christ would NOT be sincere, because I simply don't beleive....I can't make myself beleive something that does not seem true to me...can you ?






Originally posted by Thundar
By having faith, loving others, and trying to do what's right as described by the bible. Or simply put, by loving God and loving others. This is not the type of love one demonstrates by doing stuff for the sake of strictly pleasing themselves.


You are preaching to the choir my freind


I do not do good things for my own pleasure. I care the world for other people, and my love for several people surpasses my love for myself. I hold an ultamate respect for life, which is why I am against killing, I am against Death Penalty, I am against Late-term Abortions, I am against violence period....


I do not have to beleive in God to love other people...please erase that mode of thinking from your mind....thanks








Originally posted by Thundar
It is a love that is comprised of truth, and it involves putting others before oneself. If you embrace this type of love in all that you do, then you'll have no problem finding Christ, and he'll have no problem finding you(hey that last part rhymed, I'm so cool!)




I do put others before myself...I've done so all my life. I have not found Christ yet though

Part fallen angel = part demon.

FTW.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This seems mildly insane you know. (I have nothing against it, it's just wierd.)
I kinda think so too. It's weird and vague, but it does make some sense, especially the Sea Peoples whom I knew about long before I became a Christian. The connection to the Nephilim is almost too convenient to be coincidence. Now I do believe that Satan worked to stop the Messiah from coming, the Nephilim stuff is sketchy at times though.

Whenever I think of the Nephilim, I always think of those giant stories like Jack and the beanstalk. Every story I've ever read about regarding these creatures has portrayed them in a negative light. If we just go by these stories alone, it would appear that they were rather cannabilistic in nature, often times eating their half bretheren(half bretheren being mankind of course).

Originally posted by Thundar
Whenever I think of the Nephilim, I always think of those giant stories like Jack and the beanstalk. Every story I've ever read about regarding these creatures has portrayed them in a negative light. If we just go by these stories alone, it would appear that they were rather cannabilistic in nature, often times eating their half bretheren(half bretheren being mankind of course).

I'd say its pretty easy to agree these were the types that really had it coming.

However, there is a thread about his alreadly. Please discuss it there.

I think gods prejudiced against tall people.

As for demons and redemption. There are no demons to redeem. The only demons that are, are people. AND if a god cannot forgive a poor little angel, which are what demons are supposed to of been, then god is a very poor example of a father who created them in the first place to be what they are. Make his children suffer for one mistake of thinking for them selves.

Can a demon find redemption? Ask Spawn!

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Can a demon find redemption? Ask Spawn!



God did not redeem Spawn....Mom did.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God did not redeem Spawn....Mom did.....

And wasn't he human anyway?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And wasn't he human anyway?


What ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What ?

I thought he was human originally.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought he was human originally.


Yes, as Al Simmons...for more info on that, check out the Spawn Respect Thread in the comic book forums, this is getting off topic

Knowledge of evil does not equal doing evil. You fail again.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Knowledge of evil does not equal doing evil. You fail again.

God created the universe

God existd before the universe

God had absolute control over what went into the universe

There is evil in the universe

God placed evil in the universe

Knowledge of good and evil was always possessed by God, but when mankind gained this knowledge and commits it of his own volition it does not equal God doing equal.
The main point of my earlier point being that the verse she posted was not applicable to her conclusion.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Knowledge of good and evil was always possessed by God, but when mankind gained this knowledge and commits it of his own volition it does not equal God doing equal.
The main point of my earlier point being that the verse she posted was not applicable to her conclusion.

My post didn't say God was evil, it just said that he put evil into the universe.

This is kinda a confusing topic when I think about it, it's like evil existed after God's first creation.

God is all things, this is why the Bible is contradicting in this point. People try to make evil and good separate entities when they are only one. Two opposing forces, polar, Opposites of the same force. Kinda like Star Wars..lol The tree of knowledge of good and evil. One tree, two sides metaphorically. God created it and it represents the total of these acting forces. Just like "There is no place where god is not." Meaning that god is also in evil.

Well according to the bible they took in this knowledge (eating the fruit) and it became part of them. It was only knowledge until they ate it, after that it became experience.

You do realize that God excludes himself from evil... Although he has knowledge of evil He does not use it. So in a way I guess He does have evil, but His perfection and love makes it so He doesn't use it.

Well if god is in everything visible and invisible, then god would be in all emotions, actions including evil. The beginning and the end. Author and the finisher and everything in between.

Being in something infers that it is a physical place. Emotions and actions of each person are not controlled by God and therefore, acts of evil are not of God.

It doesn't say that. Visible and invisible is what god is in, and invisible would imply a non physical place.

Where does it say it? Show me.

I'd like to learn more about the Nephalim, this sounds interesting, Nellinator didn't you make a thread about that ?

Originally posted by Nellinator
You do realize that God excludes himself from evil... Although he has knowledge of evil He does not use it. So in a way I guess He does have evil, but His perfection and love makes it so He doesn't use it.


That's an interesting interpretation Nellinator. I've always thought that evil in itself existed outside of God, rather than God himself possessing it.

Or let me put it this way. God has defined himself within the bible to be loving by nature. Being such, he is not capable of acting any way but loving in all of his actions, thoughts, or knowledge..since he defines himself as not being contradictary, and states that he "revels in truth."

But think about this for a moment. If God is indeed loving, then of course..he will then have to allow his creations the ability to decide whether or not they want to love him. This then means from the onset of creation, God will have to instill all of his creations with this thing called "free will", which is demonstrative of this loving character which he possesses.

He does this of course with the knowledge that at some point free will; a loving gift of choosing to be with God, will allow some of his children the choice of not wanting to be with him. Thus God only has knowledge of his children not choosing him, but that does not mean in anyway that God himself is responsable for his children making this choice. And logically it couldn't, or he wouldn't really be giving them free will.

So from the beginning all of this makes God always completely loving by nature, never possessing an evil thought or commiting an evil action. He will only be responsable for granting free will to his creation, not instilling them with evil. Any act of free will that is used to choose the alternative of what he represents, will then be the responsability of his creation and definitionally be defined as the alternative to what he himself is.

But let's put a more human outlook on it. Say I have a child and train them in the ways I've defined to be loving. At some point if that child decides to leave from my house, any choices he makes against what I've taught or instilled in him regarding what love is, are entirely coming from him and not myself.

This is a bit off topic and deep I know. Just a little food for thought.

Originally posted by Thundar
That's an interesting interpretation Nellinator. I've always thought that evil in itself existed outside of God, rather than God himself possessing it.

Or let me put it this way. God has defined himself within the bible to be loving by nature. Being such, he is not capable of acting any way but loving in all of his actions, thoughts, or knowledge..since he defines himself as not being contradictary, and states that he "revels in truth."

But think about this for a moment. If God is indeed loving, then of course..he will then have to allow his creations the ability to decide whether or not they want to love him. This then means from the onset of creation, God will have to instill all of his creations with this thing called "free will", which is demonstrative of this loving character which he possesses.

He does this of course with the knowledge that at some point free will; a loving gift of choosing to be with God, will allow some of his children the choice of not wanting to be with him. Thus God only has knowledge of his children not choosing him, but that does not mean in anyway that God himself is responsable for his children making this choice. And logically it couldn't, or he wouldn't really be giving them free will.

So from the beginning all of this makes God always completely loving by nature, never possessing an evil thought or commiting an evil action. He will only be responsable for granting free will to his creation, not instilling them with evil. Any act of free will that is used to choose the alternative of what he represents, will then be the responsability of his creation and definitionally be defined as the alternative to what he himself is.

But let's put a more human outlook on it. Say I have a child and train them in the ways I've defined to be loving. At some point if that child decides to leave from my house, any choices he makes against what I've taught or instilled in him regarding what love is, are entirely coming from him and not myself.

This is a bit off topic and deep I know. Just a little food for thought.

So, basically god is not greater then everything?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Hell is a spiritual place. Emotions are far different. I was hoping you would go for something along these lines because it only went to show that God is in all PLACES not all things. It specifically says that his presence is in all places not in all things.

If "place" is a location and "thing" is an object then, all objects have a location. If god is in all places then god is in all things.

Yes, but an emotion is not an object.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, but an emotion is not an object.

True.

Did you just make a typo above?

I was including emotions in things. A poor choice of vocabulary perhaps, but my meaning hopefully gets through.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I was including emotions in things. A poor choice of vocabulary perhaps, but my meaning hopefully gets through.

However, can there be an evil thing?

I don't think so because it is the emotions and thoughts connected with it that make it evil. Emotions and thoughts can definitely be evil and if they are connected with an object it can be good to remove the object even though it is not the object that is at fault. One thing that Jesus taught was removing value from objects which I think is very important. Materialism is basically idolatry.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I don't think so because it is the emotions and thoughts connected with it that make it evil. Emotions and thoughts can definitely be evil and if they are connected with an object it can be good to remove the object even though it is not the object that is at fault. One thing that Jesus taught was removing value from objects which I think is very important. Materialism is basically idolatry.

So, god would be in all things even a false idol, but the worship of the idol is the offence to god, not the idol its self?

Some demons in folklore have been known to disguise themselves as mortals and aid the cause of the holy.

Originally posted by DarkC
Some demons in folklore have been known to disguise themselves as mortals and aid the cause of the holy.

To help the side of good?

A lot of demons take the form of humans in order to manipulate them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To help the side of good?

A lot of demons take the form of humans in order to manipulate them.

In Buddhism mythology, demons are not always evil.

I think Buddhism borrowed a lot of mythology from the Hindus.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, god would be in all things even a false idol, but the worship of the idol is the offence to god, not the idol its self?
Using the verse debbiejo referenced, His presence would indeed be there, in is not exactly the best word for it (saw where you were going with that one). Worshipping an idol would indeed be the offense, though God commanded the destruction of idols numerous times which ultimately prevents the offense from occurring.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In Buddhism mythology, demons are not always evil.

I think Buddhism borrowed a lot of mythology from the Hindus.
Likely, was Buddha was a Hindu/Indian prince before he left was he not?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To help the side of good?

A lot of demons take the form of humans in order to manipulate them.
'God' being Buddha, yes.

Some were discovered, but begged and kowtowed until they were allowed to stay and aid.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Likely, was Buddha was a Hindu/Indian prince before he left was he not?

He was a prince, but India came hundreds of years later.

Hindu was the dominant religion at the time and place. I believe that Buddha used the Hindu mythology as an expedient means.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Using the verse debbiejo referenced, His presence would indeed be there, in is not exactly the best word for it (saw where you were going with that one). Worshipping an idol would indeed be the offense, though God commanded the destruction of idols numerous times which ultimately prevents the offense from occurring.

So, there is not such thing as an evil "thing"?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Likely, was Buddha was a Hindu/Indian prince before he left was he not?

I'm not sure. But India did not exist in his life time. Buddha was from a land that is now in Nepal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, there is not such thing as an evil "thing"?
That would be the jist of it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not sure. But India did not exist in his life time. Buddha was from a land that is now in Nepal. True enough, but I was generally referring to that area which has been known as India for a long time. Named after the Indus River in Pakistan if I remember right.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That would be the jist of it.
True enough, but I was generally referring to that area which has been known as India for a long time. Named after the Indus River in Pakistan if I remember right.

If there are no evil things, then how can a demon possess a thing?

Originally posted by Thundar
That's an interesting interpretation Nellinator. I've always thought that evil in itself existed outside of God, rather than God himself possessing it.

Or let me put it this way. God has defined himself within the bible to be loving by nature. Being such, he is not capable of acting any way but loving in all of his actions, thoughts, or knowledge..since he defines himself as not being contradictary, and states that he "revels in truth."

But think about this for a moment. If God is indeed loving, then of course..he will then have to allow his creations the ability to decide whether or not they want to love him. This then means from the onset of creation, God will have to instill all of his creations with this thing called "free will", which is demonstrative of this loving character which he possesses.

He does this of course with the knowledge that at some point free will; a loving gift of choosing to be with God, will allow some of his children the choice of not wanting to be with him. Thus God only has knowledge of his children not choosing him, but that does not mean in anyway that God himself is responsable for his children making this choice. And logically it couldn't, or he wouldn't really be giving them free will.

So from the beginning all of this makes God always completely loving by nature, never possessing an evil thought or commiting an evil action. He will only be responsable for granting free will to his creation, not instilling them with evil. Any act of free will that is used to choose the alternative of what he represents, will then be the responsability of his creation and definitionally be defined as the alternative to what he himself is.

But let's put a more human outlook on it. Say I have a child and train them in the ways I've defined to be loving. At some point if that child decides to leave from my house, any choices he makes against what I've taught or instilled in him regarding what love is, are entirely coming from him and not myself.

This is a bit off topic and deep I know. Just a little food for thought. It is obvious by scripture that God does not even entertain evil thoughts, thereby not performing any evil actions. Now its not as complicated as you are making it and perhaps a rephrasing of my previous statement is needed... Because God has absolute knowledge of good and evil He obviously knows what it is by definition of what He is not. Now as you said:
which falls more in line with my previous statement of though perhaps it should actually be 'the first rational being created by God' as God give choice to everyone. Thereby God created a way by which evil could exist in opposition to His being, while not Himself having any evil within Him.

BUT "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. " For his good pleasure. wink1 Coming from a god who created talking snakes and donkeys, a man taking two of every living species to survive a flood in a wooden boat, and a god who hates pillows, shrimp, mixed fabrics, and fig trees for some reason.

And if god created it then it must of come from within him. Part of god contains evil.

Even Job saw god in all things especially evil..Since god did evil and Job said.........OK. bangin

God!! Put that hammer down!!

^So, god is both good and evil?

I think so...What do you think? Do you think so?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think so...What do you think? Do you think so?

I think that any time you say anything about God, you are wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?

*yes...yes..good answer mr. Shaky....other than inquisitive interjections..the only other acceptable response to the above would have been...God is love...

Originally posted by Thundar
*yes...yes..good answer mr. Shaky....other than inquisitive interjections..the only other acceptable response to the above would have been...God is love...

There is no connection between love, god and the verse above. You simply believe that, and nothing more.

So Paul is saying that god doing evil is for our own good because we love him?

No.

Sounds like it to me. I suppose it's called chastisements.

No.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No.

Going for the short answer?

I suppose it's called punishing his children into doing what he wants then....which he says is right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Going for the short answer?
Yes.Originally posted by debbiejo
I suppose it's called punishing his children into doing what he wants then....which he says is right. No.

Then I suppose god took his hand off his children and let Satan play with them so to learn them a lesson. Because he loves them.

No.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No.

Do you enjoy being a man of small answers?

Yes, it has been working well.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, it has been working well.

It is a good method for keeping you from knowing too much.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, it has been working well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no connection between love, god and the verse above. You simply believe that, and nothing more.

*thats the point mr. Shaky...there is only no connection in your mind, as you can't understand everything that goes on "under the sun", and neither can I for that matter. But if one has faith in God being loving, then they know that even though they can't understand everything about him...they can still have faith in him working all things "for the good of those who love him."

Originally posted by Nellinator
No. Then why? Why does god do evil to his children. Is it something he does on weekends cause of boredom, and weekends are generally 2 thousand years long??

Originally posted by Thundar
*thats the point mr. Shaky...there is only no connection in your mind, as you can't understand everything that goes on "under the sun", and neither can I for that matter. But if one has faith in God being loving, then they know that even though they can't understand everything about him...they can still have faith in him working all things "for the good of those who love him."

That is true, and if you did not go to the point of condemning others, I would be more convinced of your faith. When someone passes judgment on others, they believe they have all the information to do so. However, for anyone to pass judgment on someone on a forum, would be foolish, because we really don't know enough about each other. Also, if you think this is a judgment on you, I must tell you that it is not my intention. I am simply applying my beliefs to what I have read. Please remember that you are only doing the same.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Then why? Why does god do evil to his children. Is it something he does on weekends cause of boredom, and weekends are generally 2 thousand years long??

Or how about this. God is Love. Love encompasses everything, Thus encompassing everything, it has reign over everything, including evil. This reign over everything, gives love or God, the ability to righteously condemn evil. Therefore God being fully loving, allows the existence of evil knowing that it will only justify and strengthen the existence and reign of love. And if God did not allow the opposite of himself to exist, then there would be no justification for him being loving, and well quite frankly he himself wouldn't be loving. Or as the apostle Paul whom you like so much graciously puts it:

Romans 5:20-21
"Moreover, the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ, our Lord"

So although sin may have increased with evil's existence, love increased even more so. Or think about it this way. If evil existed outside of God, then God would have no control of it, and we'd all be at the mercy of evil. This would include God or Love himself. By acknowledging himself as encompassing and having complete control and domnion over evil, God once again justifies himself to be fully loving God, capable of offering eternal life to all of his creations through our lord Christ Jesus.

Man that was a headache trying to figure that one out. Now I know why Solomon said the best thing to do was eat, drink and be merry, some things are a bit hard for these little minds of ours to digest...

Originally posted by Thundar
Or how about this. God is Love. Love encompasses everything, Thus encompassing everything, it has reign over everything, including evil. This reign over everything, gives love or God, the ability to righteously condemn evil. Therefore God being fully loving, allows the existence of evil knowing that it will only justify and strengthen the existence and reign of love. And if God did not allow the opposite of himself to exist, then there would be no justification for him being loving, and well quite frankly he himself wouldn't be loving. Or as the apostle Paul whom you like so much graciously puts it:

Romans 5:20-21
"Moreover, the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ, our Lord"

So although sin may have increased with evil's existence, love increased even more so. Or think about it this way. If evil existed outside of God, then God would have no control of it, and we'd all be at the mercy of evil. This would include God or Love himself. By acknowledging himself as encompassing and having complete control and domnion over evil, God once again justifies himself to be fully loving God, capable of offering eternal life to all of his creations through our lord Christ Jesus.

Man that was a headache trying to figure that one out. Now I know why Solomon said the best thing to do was eat, drink and be merry, some things are a bit hard for these little minds of ours to digest...

You have very strange beliefs. So, without evil, god could not love anyone?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, and if you did not go to the point of condemning others, I would be more convinced of your faith. When someone passes judgment on others, they believe they have all the information to do so. However, for anyone to pass judgment on someone on a forum, would be foolish, because we really don't know enough about each other. Also, if you think this is a judgment on you, I must tell you that it is not my intention. I am simply applying my beliefs to what I have read. Please remember that you are only doing the same.


I don't think I condemned you. I Just expressed my view on things. And I stand by my position, as neither of us could understand everything that goes on under the sun. And even if we did, we couldn't really comprehend it all. To be quite honest, I wouldn't want to in this limited lifetime, because I think in doing so it would cause great misery, which is what Solomon himself had begun to experience with the great knowledge and wisdom God had given him.

So in the words of Jack Nicholson, even if for the tiniest of seconds we entertained the ability that we were able to obtain all of the truth, neither of us could really "handle the truth" in its entirety during this lifetime.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
without evil, god could not love anyone?


Without allowing evil to exist, God would not be loving. And if he allowed evil to exist completely outside of him, he would not be loving either..as he would have no control over nor could he reign over evil.

*so to put it in simpler terms mr. Shaky..God is love..

Originally posted by Thundar
Without allowing evil to exist, God would not be loving. And if he allowed evil to exist completely outside of him, he would not be loving either..as he would have no control over nor could he reign over evil.

*so to put it in simpler terms mr. Shaky..God is love..

So, once Satan has been cast into the lake of fire, and the judgment has been done, the ages of ages will begin. During this time there will be no evil, and therefore god will no longer be love?

If god is dependant on evil in order to love, then god is limited.

God won't be able to love once his nemesis is in hell because there will be no one knowing what love is, since there is no opposite. Hmm Thundar makes it quite clear.

Originally posted by debbiejo
God won't be able to love once his nemesis is in hell because there will be no one knowing what love is, since there is no opposite.


God will still be demonstrating love with hell and even with the lake of fire, as a loving God would not let evil go unpunished, nor would he let it remain present for all eternity. Doing either of these things would mean that he was essentially torturing his creations, particularly those who love him.

Originally posted by Thundar
God will still be demonstrating love with hell and even with the lake of fire

(yes I know it's quoted out of context)

Originally posted by Thundar
A loving God would not let evil go unpunished, nor would he let it remain present for all eternity. Doing either of these things would mean that he was essentially torturing his creations, particularly those who love him.

OK

Originally posted by Thundar
God will still be demonstrating love with hell and even with the lake of fire, as a loving God would not let evil go unpunished, nor would he let it remain present for all eternity. Doing either of these things would mean that he was essentially torturing his creations, particularly those who love him.

That seems to be a contradiction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That seems to be a contradiction. He should have used the phrase "a just God", God is loving, but justice must be met.

Originally posted by Regret
He should have used the phrase "a just God", God is loving, but justice must be met.

It is the fact that he has tied love to the existence of evil that is the contradiction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is the fact that he has tied love to the existence of evil that is the contradiction. Here is a Mormon scripture dealing with justice, mercy and love:

Alma 42

I think it is a decent treatise on the subject.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a Mormon scripture dealing with justice, mercy and love:

Alma 42

I think it is a decent treatise on the subject.

Sorry, I'm not really interested about the topic as much as I am interested in what thundar's point of view is. However, thank you for the information.

Originally posted by Regret
He should have used the phrase "a just God", God is loving, but justice must be met.

1 Corinthians 13:6,7
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So being just and reveling in truth, is just another part of God being loving.

Originally posted by Thundar
1 Corinthians 13:6,7
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So being just and reveling in truth, is just another part of God being loving. That is correct, but those not understanding love in the Biblical sense will not equate the two, and will often ignore correction as loving and only see it as delivering an extremely harsh punishment. Also, they often believe perfect love should be solely personal for each individual without concern for the whole or the impact an individual has on another. Thus, in the context of your audience "a just God" would have been a better choice of phrases to explain the position, unless you had included the Corinthians verse and your explanation in the initial post.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, I'm not really interested about the topic as much as I am interested in what thundar's point of view is. However, thank you for the information. Your welcome, I would be interested on your thoughts on the chapter though, if you ever read it let me know what you think.

Originally posted by Regret
Your welcome, I would be interested on your thoughts on the chapter though, if you ever read it let me know what you think.

It is basically about a paradox that only god could fix. What I found to be most interesting was the threat to god if the paradox was not fixed.

Originally posted by Regret
That is correct, but those not understanding love in the Biblical sense will not equate the two, and will often ignore correction as loving and only see it as delivering an extremely harsh punishment. Also, they often believe perfect love should be solely personal for each individual without concern for the whole or the impact an individual has on another. Thus, in the context of your audience "a just God" would have been a better choice of phrases to explain the position, unless you had included the Corinthians verse and your explanation in the initial post.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Regret. Please take note that I'm not doing so to be argumentative or belligerant, but rather to clarify how important it is for Christians to make no distinctions between God being "loving" or "just." When one does this, they have already inferred that love is something apart from justice. This can get them into a whole lot of trouble, specifically when engaging with those who define certain actions of God as not being loving, despite how just they are.

Ex.

Poster: If God's so loving..how could he send one of his own children to hell?!!!

I've had this question asked to me a ton of times, in a ton of different ways within this forum. And my response has always involved the reason being that God is loving(at least from what I can remember, if it hasn't then feel free to correct me). So I think it's always more accurate to define God as loving..as oppossed to just defining him as any one thing that makes up love(i.e., rightoeusnous, truth, justice, patience, etc, etc, etc....)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is basically about a paradox that only god could fix. What I found to be most interesting was the threat to god if the paradox was not fixed. Yes, I enjoy that chapter for the same reason. I do not think that it is explained as eloquently in the Bible.

Originally posted by Thundar
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Regret. Please take note that I'm not doing so to be argumentative or belligerant, but rather to clarify how important it is for Christians to make no distinctions between God being "loving" or "just." When one does this, they have already inferred that love is something apart from justice. This can get them into a whole lot of trouble, specifically when engaging with those who define certain actions of God as not being loving, despite how just they are.

Ex.

Poster: If God's so loving..how could he send one of his own children to hell?!!!

I've had this question asked to me a ton of times, in a ton of different ways within this forum. And my response has always involved the reason being that God is loving(at least from what I can remember, if it hasn't then feel free to correct me). So I think it's always more accurate to define God as loving..as oppossed to just defining him as any one thing that makes up love(i.e., rightoeusnous, truth, justice, patience, etc, etc, etc....) This does not show consideration for the audience you have. You are not teaching if you do not start at the point your audience is capable of understanding. If you are not teaching you are only pontificating. It isn't incorrect or misleading to state that God is a just God, and it embraces the language of your audience. Regardless of a Biblically correct terminology, you are speaking to people that do not have a great understanding of such. You infer no such separation as you suggest, you merely use the definition. If the separation you suggest is feared then a statement explaining that a part of love as you are speaking of it encompasses justice as well, and thus , would suffice. If you do not explain, or define, your definition of love, your audience will assume you are using love as they do.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Then why? Why does god do evil to his children. Is it something he does on weekends cause of boredom, and weekends are generally 2 thousand years long??
He doesn't do evil to us, we do evil to ourselves.