You Can't Have It Both Ways.

Started by FeceMan4 pages

You Can't Have It Both Ways.

For people arguing against the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, I see time and time again one issue brought up:

A loving God would not send anyone to hell.

However, in the Christian religion, God is shown to be a merciful, ever-patient, forgiving God. [Not in some parts of the Old Testament, heh.] In describing this quality, I have pointed out that Hitler, though hideously evil, could very well be in heaven.

Then the same people who say that a loving God would not send anyone to hell get bent out of shape over this.

This, clearly, is a contradiction of the arguments against God's existence. To have a God who sends people to hell is proof against God, but having a God who forgives without a second thought is also against God. So, there cannot be judgment but there must be judgment. No punishment but punishment indeed.

Impossible.

When saying that God clearly isn't benevolent because of His sending people to hell, one must take into account several things of the Christian faith.

1. God is giving these people exactly what they want--a life without Him.

2. God sent His son--who is part of him--to die a long, agonizing death in order to rescue every single person, past and present, from hell.

3. In order to be saved from hell, all one must do is ask for rescue.

Now, looking at these three things, one must ask oneself:

Is it unloving to give people what they want?
Is it unloving to sacrifice one's son for the greater good?
Is it unloving to promise eternal salvation in exchange for a few words spoken?

Tell me, in what way is it unloving to forgive the sins of a man such as Hitler and grant him entrance to paradise--one who surely, by our accounts, deserves great punishment?

In the end, one must either come to the conclusion that God is either good or bad. Is He bad because He sends people to hell, or is He good for promising (and delivering) eternal salvation to the most wretched of us all? Is He bad because others have made the choice to deny His sacrifice, or is He good because His sacrifice, while so terrible and great, is granted to us in exchange for nothing?

God is either good or bad. He is not some neutral deity. Take your stance and stick with it. Do not proclaim some of God's actions as bad when they are clearly signs of a good God.

So, tell me--is He evil for damnation or is He good for salvation?

Originally posted by FeceMan
For people arguing against the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, I see time and time again one issue brought up:

A loving God would not send anyone to hell.

However, in the Christian religion, God is shown to be a merciful, ever-patient, forgiving God. [Not in some parts of the Old Testament, heh.] In describing this quality, I have pointed out that Hitler, though hideously evil, could very well be in heaven.

Then the same people who say that a loving God would not send anyone to hell get bent out of shape over this.

This, clearly, is a contradiction of the arguments against God's existence. To have a God who sends people to hell is proof against God, but having a God who forgives without a second thought is also against God. So, there cannot be judgment but there must be judgment. No punishment but punishment indeed.

Impossible.

When saying that God clearly isn't benevolent because of His sending people to hell, one must take into account several things of the Christian faith.

1. God is giving these people exactly what they want--a life without Him.

2. God sent His son--who is part of him--to die a long, agonizing death in order to rescue every single person, past and present, from hell.

3. In order to be saved from hell, all one must do is ask for rescue.

Now, looking at these three things, one must ask oneself:

Is it unloving to give people what they want?
Is it unloving to sacrifice one's son for the greater good?
Is it unloving to promise eternal salvation in exchange for a few words spoken?

Tell me, in what way is it unloving to forgive the sins of a man such as Hitler and grant him entrance to paradise--one who surely, by our accounts, deserves great punishment?

In the end, one must either come to the conclusion that God is either good or bad. Is He bad because He sends people to hell, or is He good for promising (and delivering) eternal salvation to the most wretched of us all? Is He bad because others have made the choice to deny His sacrifice, or is He good because His sacrifice, while so terrible and great, is granted to us in exchange for nothing?

God is either good or bad. He is not some neutral deity. Take your stance and stick with it. Do not proclaim some of God's actions as bad when they are clearly signs of a good God.

So, tell me--is He evil for damnation or is He good for salvation?


From a christian point of view, God is not limited to good or bad. God is everything.
He isn't an all-loving, all-accepting, big, love bear. He's just and fair, he sets ground rules and people must follow them or pay for not doing so.

God is either good or bad. He is not some neutral deity. Take your stance and stick with it.
The god of the bible is both good and evil the contrasts are clear from the NT to the OT....but a real god would be neutral because it would be beyond our thinking and piddly actions of humans.

Is it unloving to give people what they want?
Is it unloving to sacrifice one's son for the greater good?
Is it unloving to promise eternal salvation in exchange for a few words spoken?
God gave us free will, so that is what we have. To exercise it sends us to hell?..

Hell is not a real place as a concordance will show you...it just means death. So a few words is not saving you from anything.

Dionysus also sacrificed his son before the god of the bible did, shouldn't we be asking him for forgiveness along with Mithra?

God is both good and evil.

Is it unloving to give people what they want?

Try not to be stupid. Sending souls to oblivion would be giving people who didn't want God what they wanted; sending them to Hell is being a vindictive *******.

Is it unloving to sacrifice one's son for the greater good?

Yes. Your invisible sky fairy does Machiavelli proud.

Not to mention that it's gibberish, in light of the Trinity. "For God so loved humanity that he sent himself as a sacrifice to himself placate his wrath." Real coherent theology you have there.

Not to mention, I suppose that, you know, just forgiving peoples' sins without murdering his son in the process was a little out of his reach, eh? I constantly forgive people for their slights without having family members nailed to trees, but hell, that's just me.

Is it unloving to promise eternal salvation in exchange for a few words spoken?

He doesn't. "Faith without works is dead."

Originally posted by Gregory
Try not to be stupid. Sending souls to oblivion would be giving people who didn't want God what they wanted; sending them to Hell is being a vindictive *******.

Yes. Your invisible sky fairy does Machiavelli proud.

Not to mention that it's gibberish, in light of the Trinity. "For God so loved humanity that he sent himself as a sacrifice to himself placate his wrath." Real coherent theology you have there.

Not to mention, I suppose that, you know, just forgiving peoples' sins without murdering his son in the process was a little out of his reach, eh? I constantly forgive people for their slights without having family members nailed to trees, but hell, that's just me.

He doesn't. "Faith without works is dead."


1. They chose a life without God; therefore, they have been given an afterlife without God.

2. Lol. Unloving...just stop posting.

As far as forgiving sins goes, God, being just, would have to punish mankind for their sins. It was hardly murdering his son, mind you, as Christ himself knew what was to come.

3. Because, clearly, that proves that one must do good works in order to be saved.

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. They chose a life without God; therefore, they have been given an afterlife without God.

2. Lol. Unloving...just stop posting.

As far as forgiving sins goes, God, being just, would have to punish mankind for their sins. It was hardly murdering his son, mind you, as Christ himself knew what was to come.

3. Because, clearly, that proves that one must do good works in order to be saved.

That's certainly too simple. They didn't choose a life without God. They encountered one. Also they didn't want to be ass raped by Satan but just be dead for good. So God should give them that.....the merciful bastard.

Also, I personally didn't kill his son...so him being just he shouldn't.
Not to forget that he created every criminal on this planet and knew that they would be criminals so basically it's his own fault....being just he should jut abort himself.

*I'm saying "he" cause it's just so much easier.

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. They chose a life without God; therefore, they have been given an afterlife without God.

"Well, they didn't worship God, therefore if he throws them into a pit of fire and tortures them for eternity he's only giving them what they want! Tell me you're trolling. Please, please tell me no is this divorced from reality.

You know, it's been said before, but it bears repeating. Unless they're Satan-worshippers, they didn't ask for an afterlife with him, either.

(Really, I should end this conversation here, but I'm afraid that if I say I want nothing more to do with you, you'll track me down and murder me in my sleep)

2. Lol. Unloving...just stop posting.

As far as forgiving sins goes, God, being just, would have to punish mankind for their sins. It was hardly murdering his son, mind you, as Christ himself knew what was to come.

Bullshit. "I'm perfectly just, so rather then just forgive them, I'll torture someone to death who never did anything wrong. Because ... you know ... justice, and ... uh ... yeh ..."

I think we should operate American courts on the same principle. Every time someone breaks a law, just randomly grab a perfectly innocent bystander and kill him for it. It's good enough for God, it should be good enough for us.

3. Because, clearly, that proves that one must do good works in order to be saved.

First, you said you could be saved for "a few spoken words." Now, you admit those "few spoken words" aren't enough. Which is it?

Also, I personally didn't kill his son...so him being just he shouldn't
Good point.!!...........Wouldn't that be considered predigest?.....Punishing ones sins for another.........It's like saying my neighbor raped a girl, so ...Oh oh....that's my fault.

OT = The Problem
NT = What was done to fix the problem

That's my worthless opinion.

Bible ALTERED!!

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
OT = The Problem
NT = What was done to fix the problem

That's my worthless opinion.

Early Christians wouldn't have seen it that way. They used the Torah as their holy book, just like any other Jew.

Originally posted by FeceMan
For people arguing against the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, I see time and time again one issue brought up:

A loving God would not send anyone to hell.

However, in the Christian religion, God is shown to be a merciful, ever-patient, forgiving God. [Not in some parts of the Old Testament, heh.] In describing this quality, I have pointed out that Hitler, though hideously evil, could very well be in heaven.

Then the same people who say that a loving God would not send anyone to hell get bent out of shape over this.

This, clearly, is a contradiction of the arguments against God's existence. To have a God who sends people to hell is proof against God, but having a God who forgives without a second thought is also against God. So, there cannot be judgment but there must be judgment. No punishment but punishment indeed.

Impossible.

When saying that God clearly isn't benevolent because of His sending people to hell, one must take into account several things of the Christian faith.

1. God is giving these people exactly what they want--a life without Him.

2. God sent His son--who is part of him--to die a long, agonizing death in order to rescue every single person, past and present, from hell.

3. In order to be saved from hell, all one must do is ask for rescue.

Now, looking at these three things, one must ask oneself:

Is it unloving to give people what they want?
Is it unloving to sacrifice one's son for the greater good?
Is it unloving to promise eternal salvation in exchange for a few words spoken?

Tell me, in what way is it unloving to forgive the sins of a man such as Hitler and grant him entrance to paradise--one who surely, by our accounts, deserves great punishment?

In the end, one must either come to the conclusion that God is either good or bad. Is He bad because He sends people to hell, or is He good for promising (and delivering) eternal salvation to the most wretched of us all? Is He bad because others have made the choice to deny His sacrifice, or is He good because His sacrifice, while so terrible and great, is granted to us in exchange for nothing?

God is either good or bad. He is not some neutral deity. Take your stance and stick with it. Do not proclaim some of God's actions as bad when they are clearly signs of a good God.

So, tell me--is He evil for damnation or is He good for salvation?

🤨 does not compute 🪩

how do we know hell is a bad place and not just a place to keep the bad people away from the good people?

^^^

Mark wrote:

What does Hell look like? Who is there? The Hell of the Bible is one of these two pictures. Do you know which one? You might be surprised.

VISIT http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/

IMPORTANT FACTS

1.. Gehenna was a well-known locality near Jerusalem, and ought no more to be translated Hell, than should Sodom or Gomorrah. See Josh. 15: 8; II Kings 17: 10; II Chron. 28: 3; Jer. 7: 31, 32; 19: 2.

2.. Gehenna is never employed in the Old Testament to mean anything else than the place with which every Jew was familiar.

3.. The word should have been left untranslated as it is in some versions, and it would not be misunderstood. It was not misunderstood by the Jews to whom Jesus addressed it. Walter Balfour well says: "What meaning would the Jews who were familiar with this word, and knew it to signify the valley of Hinnom, be likely to attach to it when they heard it used by our Lord? Would they, contrary to all former usage, transfer its meaning from a place with whose locality and history they had been familiar from their infancy, to a place of misery in another world? This conclusion is certainly inadmissible. By what rule of interpretation, then, can we arrive at the conclusion that this word means a place of misery and death?"

4.. The French Bible, the Emphatic Diaglott, Improved Version, Wakefield's Translation and Newcomb's retain the proper noun, Gehenna, the name of a place as well-known as Babylon.

5.. Gehenna is never mentioned in the Apocrypha as a place of future punishment as it would have been had such been its meaning before and at the time of Christ.

6.. No Jewish writer, such as Josephus or Philo, ever uses it as the name of a place of future punishment, as they would have done had such then been its meaning.

7.. No classic Greek author ever alludes to it and therefore it was a Jewish locality, purely.

8.. The first Jewish writer who ever names it as a place of future punishment is Jonathan Ben Uzziel who wrote, according to various authorities, from the second to the eighth century, A. D.

9.. The first Christian writer who calls Hell Gehenna is Justin Martyr who wrote about A. D. 150.

10.. Neither Christ nor his apostles ever named it to Gentiles, but only to Jews which proves it a locality only known to Jews, whereas, if it were a place of punishment after death for sinners, it would have been preached to Gentiles as well as Jews.

11.. It was only referred to twelve times on eight occasions in all the ministry of Christ and the apostles, and in the Gospels and Epistles. Were they faithful to their mission to say no more than this on so vital a theme as an endless Hell, if they intended to teach it?

12.. Only Jesus and James ever named it. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jude ever employ it. Would they not have warned sinners concerning it, if there were a Gehenna of torment after death?

13.. Paul says he "shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God," and yet though he was the great preacher of the Gospel to the Gentiles he never told them that Gehenna is a place of after-death punishment. Would he not have repeatedly warned sinners against it were there such a place?

Dr. Thayer significantly remarks: "The Savior and James are the only persons in all the New Testament who use the word. John Baptist, who preached to the most wicked of men did not use it once. Paul wrote fourteen epistles and yet never once mentions it. Peter does not name it, nor Jude; and John, who wrote the gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelations, never employs it in a single instance. Now if Gehenna or Hell really reveals the terrible fact of endless woe, how can we account for this strange silence? How is it possible, if they knew its meaning and believed it a part of Christ's teaching that they should not have used it a hundred or a thousand times, instead of never using it at all; especially when we consider the infinite interests involved? The Book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching,and the history of the first planting of the church among the Jews and Gentiles, and embraces a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the disciples and apostles of Jesus there is no mention of Gehenna. In thirty years of missionary effort these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations never under any circumstances threaten them with the torments of Gehenna or allude to it in the most distant manner! In the face of such a fact as this can any man believe that Gehenna signifies endless punishment and that this is part of divine revelation, a part of the Gospel message to the world? These considerations show how impossible it is to establish the doctrine in review on the word Gehenna. All the facts are against the supposition that the term was used by Christ or his disciples in the sense of endless punishment. There is not the least hint of any such meaning attached to it, nor the slightest preparatory notice that any such new revelation was to be looked for in this old familiar word."

14.. Jesus never uttered it to unbelieving Jews, nor to anybody but his disciples, but twice (Matt. 23: 15-33) during his entire ministry, nor but four times in all. If it were the final abode of unhappy millions, would not his warnings abound with exhortations to avoid it?

15.. Jesus never warned unbelievers against it but once in all his ministry (Matt. 23: 33) and he immediately explained it as about to come in this life.

16.. If Gehenna is the name of Hell then men's bodies are burned there as well as their souls. Matt. 5: 29; 18: 9.

17.. If it be the name of endless torment, then literal fire is the sinner's punishment. Mark 9: 43-48.

18.. Salvation is never said to be from Gehenna.

19.. Gehenna is never said to be of endless duration nor spoken of as destined to last forever, so that even admitting the popular ideas of its existence after death it gives no support to the idea of endless torment.

20.. Clement, a Universalist, used Gehenna to describe his ideas of punishment. He was one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers. The word did not then denote endless punishment.

21.. A shameful death or severe punishment in this life was at the time of Christ denominated Gehenna (Schleusner, Canon Farrar and others), and there is no evidence that Gehenna meant anything else at the time of Christ.

from http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's certainly too simple. They didn't choose a life without God. They encountered one. Also they didn't want to be ass raped by Satan but just be dead for good. So God should give them that.....the merciful bastard.

Also, I personally didn't kill his son...so him being just he shouldn't.
Not to forget that he created every criminal on this planet and knew that they would be criminals so basically it's his own fault....being just he should jut abort himself.

*I'm saying "he" cause it's just so much easier.


1. They chose one. Take a look at KMC. Do you think these people have "encountered" a life without God?

Absolutely not. They have heard the truth and have made their choices. If it is a life without God they want, then that is what they shall have.

2. "Also, I personally didn't kill his son...so him being just he shouldn't."

I don't understand what you are saying here.

3. So, because God knew they were to be evil, He should have simply not made them?

Should Hitler's mother have aborted herself if she knew what Hitler would be?

Originally posted by Gregory
"Well, they didn't worship God, therefore if he throws them into a pit of fire and tortures them for eternity he's only giving them what they want! Tell me you're trolling. Please, please tell me no is this divorced from reality.

You know, it's been said before, but it bears repeating. Unless they're Satan-worshippers, they didn't ask for an afterlife with him, either.

(Really, I should end this conversation here, but I'm afraid that if I say I want nothing more to do with you, you'll track me down and murder me in my sleep)

Bullshit. "I'm perfectly just, so rather then just forgive them, I'll torture someone to death who never did anything wrong. Because ... you know ... justice, and ... uh ... yeh ..."

I think we should operate American courts on the same principle. Every time someone breaks a law, just randomly grab a perfectly innocent bystander and kill him for it. It's good enough for God, it should be good enough for us.

First, you said you could be saved for "a few spoken words." Now, you admit those "few spoken words" aren't enough. Which is it?


1. Well, if we're getting into this...

I honestly am uncertain about this whole 'eternity of torment' bit. From what I can tell, everyone who is dead now is in 'Hades', which is divided up into 'hell' and 'paradise'. Hell is very hot and uncomfortable whereas paradise is not. As far as the second death goes, I am thinking that perhaps their consciousnesses simply wink out of existence.

Revelation states that Satan is thrown into a "lake of burning sulphur" and is tormented forever, whereas anyone whose name is not found in the Book of Life is thrown into a "lake of fire" and has a second death.

Of course, I could be very wrong, but I'm no theologian...

Right now, I'm simply taking the stance of the traditionalist.

Anyway, where was I? See what I said to Bardock.

2. Nuurh, me kill you. Nuuuuurh.

*Sighs.*

The entire principle of the crucifixion of Christ was that man must be judged for his wrongdoings. Rather than allow man to be punished, however, God sent Christ who would atone for these sins with his blood. By this shedding of blood, man's sins were atoned for and thus man was allowed into heaven.

3. I was being sarcastic.

And, as for the first point:

In Revelation it also says that those who worship the "beast" are the ones whose names are not written in the Book of Life. So, in fact, it would seem that it would be Satan worshipers--or, in this case, beast worshipers--who are the ones thrown into the lake of fire.

Originally posted by FeceMan
1. Well, if we're getting into this...

I honestly am uncertain about this whole 'eternity of torment' bit. From what I can tell, everyone who is dead now is in 'Hades', which is divided up into 'hell' and 'paradise'. Hell is very hot and uncomfortable whereas paradise is not. As far as the second death goes, I am thinking that perhaps their consciousnesses simply wink out of existence.

Revelation states that Satan is thrown into a "lake of burning sulphur" and is tormented forever, whereas anyone whose name is not found in the Book of Life is thrown into a "lake of fire" and has a second death.

Of course, I could be very wrong, but I'm no theologian...

Right now, I'm simply taking the stance of the traditionalist.

Anyway, where was I? See what I said to Bardock.

Okay.

2. Nuurh, me kill you. Nuuuuurh.

*Sighs.*

The entire principle of the crucifixion of Christ was that man must be judged for his wrongdoings. Rather than allow man to be punished, however, God sent Christ who would atone for these sins with his blood. By this shedding of blood, man's sins were atoned for and thus man was allowed into heaven.

I understand the theory. But in the end, it amounts to what I said; mankind needed to be punished, but God, being merciful, punished someone else in their place. And I still say it doesn't make any sense; if I went down to a courthouse and asked to be executed in the place of someone on deathrow, I would naturally be refused. How is this any different?

And, as for the first point:

In Revelation it also says that those who worship the "beast" are the ones whose names are not written in the Book of Life. So, in fact, it would seem that it would be Satan worshipers--or, in this case, beast worshipers--who are the ones thrown into the lake of fire.

Perhaps. But, for example, one of the parables in Matthew speaks of someone being thrown into the Outer Darkness, and it's stated elsewhere that you can be sent to hell for acting improperly ("Depart from me, you accursed! For I was hungry, and you did not feed me...)

Originally posted by Gregory
Okay.

I understand the theory. But in the end, it amounts to what I said; mankind needed to be punished, but God, being merciful, punished someone else in their place. And I still say it doesn't make any sense; if I went down to a courthouse and asked to be executed in the place of someone on deathrow, I would naturally be refused. How is this any different?

Perhaps. But, for example, one of the parables in Matthew speaks of someone being thrown into the Outer Darkness, and it's stated elsewhere that you can be sent to hell for acting improperly ("Depart from me, you accursed! For I was hungry, and you did not feed me...)


Well, Christ was God in the flesh, so only His blood would have paid the cost for sin--a normal man's blood would have been pointless.

As for the second part, the Old Testament--or "the Law"--was based on legalism. If you didn't follow rule X, you were punished. However, with Christ's sacrifice, the bonds of legalism were broken and grace replaced the stricture of the Law.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, Christ was God in the flesh, so only His blood would have paid the cost for sin--a normal man's blood would have been pointless.

That is why God not only accepted, but commanded animal sacrifice for the sins of man, right?

The sins were never washed with Animal sacrifice like they where on calvary. They where just pushed back a year. Thats why the Christians that died before Christ shed his blood where in Haides. Not Heaven.