Theological question of the day.

Simple bullshit, whatever you call it.

Let me walk you through it - which if you understood what you read you wouldn't need this:

the core of Christian theology is that Christ' death and resurrection provided vicarious atonement for ANY person who was willing to accept the offer.

Thus, there is a "come with me if you want to live" offer - those who decline the offer condemn themselves to whatever hell is, those who accept avoid it.

that doctrine is spread in glaring neon all over the New Testament (though some would quibble concerning the book of James)

Feel free to cite the verse which say or implies that hell is forced anyway upon those who made the right choice.

By the way, it DOES say it is agonizing torment - it doesn't use the word "punishment"

But then, for all we know, living in a place God has divorced himself from might very well be agonizing by definition.

That it's not make-believe and is what the evidence of reality points to.

No, it isn't.
how can I say that something unexaminable is less likely to be true? Because of the very fact it is 'unexaminable'. Somewhat calls it claims to truthfulness into doubt.

Um... you probably see the issue with that sentence yourself but for fun's sake.

How can God's Dirty Harry-esque offer really be presented as a 'free' choice?

"You have two choices. Come with me, eternal happiness, fun yadda yadda. Or ignore me, eternal torment blah blah. Whadda ya reckon?"

He's left the are you feeling lucky punk out of that but you see where it might come in.

I don't care about Christian theology, as I've made plain. Or agree with your interpretation of the New Testament.

The following passages indicate hell as being an imposed punishment. Note the repeated references to people being "cast in" to fire, not choosing it freely, Jesus's supervision of the process, and the very word "punishment" itself.

I think things are starting to define themselves just a little bit in this thread, although it is certainly a very, very big mess.


J.

You realize that the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest, right?

And that at the time it was introduced it was met with widespread criticism for trying to bring God into physics?

Yes, I'm aware of the history of the theories development. You're somewhat overstating the religious implications, but it's true that some latched onto it simply because it implied that the universe had a beginning at all, something that was in doubt until then.

But an Atheist can read it cover to cover to within an inch if its life until their eyes bleed, and they'll always be wrong.

Neat trick.

Most Christian theologians think so, though there are varying interpretations.

My faith in God's justice (since if he's not just he's not God) demands they got a fair deal...I would hesitate to take a firm stand on the nature of that bargain.

If god wants everyone to accept his offer he is going to have to provide more convincing proof. What he has given us so far is very badly lacking.[/QUOTE]

Where there is proof, there's no need for faith. The deal that is attached to vicarious redemption is that BY FAITH one accepts the free gift.

To continue the previous illustration - Arnold didn't take the time to PROVE you should come with him - he said "Come with me" and the choice was whether to believe him or not.

That's the choice you and I have.

If you can't go without proof - that's your call.

It's pretty simple - HE'S the one who made the sacrifice. All he's asking you to do is accept the debt being paid on your behalf.

It's why I could never believe a works based religion - if we had 900,000 rules to keep in order to be right with him, then it would all be on us and there would be a quid-pro-quo.

But laying all that aside.

If I walk up to you on the street and say "The CIA is trying to kill you, I can take you to a place where you'll be safe"

You can chose to believe me and go, or chose to consider me a nutter and go on about your business. If I AM a nutter, you'll be fine - if I'm not, you may well get dead.

But either way - I gave you a choice between a good outcome and a bad one and then let you decide.

You'd have to be a total imbecile to say I was "forcing" you to go. Why does that logic fall apart because the proposed good and bad is writ more largely?

I reject the notion that I have any responsibility for a man being tortured and murdered in the most grisly way imaginable. Even less so when it involves an omnipotent being doing so to appease himself. That sounds less like a sacrifice than an extreme BDSM fetish.

You do realize how you get "written in the book"?

right?

Symbolic language since he had just used a parable which contained the metaphor of burning up weeds which had been pulled.

For there lack of faith - in that passage he had just gotten through praising a centurion for what? Having great faith - believing Jesus was who he said he was.

those who rejected Christ made a choice - and receive/d the consequences of that choice.

I hope you are not hanging your understanding of the Bible on Revelation. Pretty much nobody fully understands The Revelation.

That verse is the last one in a parable. the parable speaks of people being rewarded and punished for being good to other people:

" 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "

Since we know from the rest of the NT that salvation is not based on works, this is a flimsy support for the idea of "punishment"

Still, the word is there so points for that.

All that said, you can proof-text anything - understanding the Bible is a matter of understanding the whole.

the absolute MOST shallow reading of the Bible is that which pulls out an individual verse and builds a point around it. the book explains itself.

Some are more reasonable than others, at least in my view.

Since I'm not trying to recruit you, why do you care?

How exactly oes not beliveing in him "hedge your bets"?

It seems to me right the opposite - Christians are sometimes accused of believing in God as "fire insurance" per Pascal's Wager.

I've never heard anyone accuse an unbeliever of playing it safe.

You are entirely free to reach that conclusion.

I'm just not sure why you need to spend so much time attacking the idea.

For people who don't believe in evangelism, you guys spend a lot of time trying to push your ideas.

As I said, I'm aware of those convolutions. The bible is inconsistent and may say other things in other places, but those say what they say. And I have read it, despite you assuming otherwise. The "context" argument can be used in any instance of trying to maintain that black is white.

EDIT: Responding to Post #916

That's how he did it.

One verse uses the phrase "he made himself a little lower than the angels" or some such.

Several verses speak of making himself less than he was entitled to be.

Now, if you ask me how he can be both the God of the universe who's there making the trains run on time AND the humble carpenter who's life was brutally ended on this planet - I haven't a clue.

that falls entirely into the "God is too big for us to understand" framework.

Does it defy human logic?

Absolutely.

I don't see the point in believing in a god so humble that I can figure him out.

Because ideas as barbaric as that have enormously retarding effects on society when lots of people believe in them.
There are plenty of ideas that you attack, and an even greater number that you consider fair game for attack. Religious ones ought to be treated no differently.

Huuummm...

Ok, here's the concept:

"God" hates sin and wants sinless people
"God" recognizes men are incapable of being sinless
"God" makes his own sacrifice, pays his own price, and makes the sin situation right
"God" asks ONLY that the individual accept that payment has been made on his behalf and trust in him
"God" makes no demands on your politics, your rituals, your life in most any way (albeit he gives a lot of advice)

Yeah, TONS of "barbarism" there.

Or just gamesmanship.

if that's what it is, he's entitled to it as far as I'm concerned.

As if there were fuck-all anyone could do about it, anyway.

God as the ultimate troll. Interesting...

Rank hath its privlidges.

There is that.

That's certainly understandable.