[Alvin Moss]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

H-a-n-g-e-d o-n a c-r-o-s-s

I'm sure you've heard it stated that way before, it's basically the same thing as saying "crucified"

You're mighty sassy, Princess and mistaken to boot. No Christian would claim that Jesus was hung from a cross. And H-a-n-g-e-d-o-n-a-c-r-o-s-s? I have never heard that said by anyone, ever. Jesus was nailed to a cross. That's a pretty big thing to be confused about. For an expert, like yourself, who wants to tell actual Christians about your bizarre theories about Jesus, you are remarkably uninformed. Salvation may still be possible for you, but I doubt it. My guess is that you will be swimming in the Lake of Fire before you know it.

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

You're mighty sassy, Princess and mistaken to boot. No Christian would claim that Jesus was hung from a cross. And H-a-n-g-e-d-o-n-a-c-r-o-s-s? I have never heard that said by anyone, ever. Jesus was nailed to a cross. That's a pretty big thing to be confused about. For an expert, like yourself, who wants to tell actual Christians about your bizarre theories about Jesus, you are remarkably uninformed. Salvation may still be possible for you, but I doubt it. My guess is that you will be swimming in the Lake of Fire before you know it.

Even the KJV uses that terminology

Acts 5:30

[Basilissa]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Neither can I, life is busy.

I'm glad you're back. I enjoy talking to you, as we've been able to stay on the issue rather than throw insults at each other. Which makes us better from the people running for president this election cycle.

Paul is using "works" to refer to those works that naturally follow from true faith. These are referred to in other passages as "the fruits of the spirit". They're implied as necessary because only true belief would result in such actions. In other words, works such as what Paul is talking about are faith->works=saved, not faith+works=saved

Please feel free to provide actual verses (and not refer to some vague "other passages") that support your interpretation.

Otherwise, I do not see anything in the cited passages that would suggest that these works actually stem from faith. Do not get me wrong - I realize that works alone cannot do a thing - Jesus is very clear that good people who do not believe in Him go to Hell (and that includes for example all of the people who lived and died in the Americas before Columbus, and little babies that die before they can accept Jesus as their Savior):

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

However, I think the disagreement between us on this issue is semantic. Whether we see it as:

faith + works -> salvation

or:

faith -> works -> salvation

the point of James 2:14-26 is that:

faith without works -> no salvation

which means we need both faith and works for salvation, whether the works stem from faith or directly from the goodness of your heart.

Wrong. Be careful not to confuse God's merciful offer of salvation with belief in it. Those verses point out that not only do we have no power to save ourselves, but also that God is under no obligation to show mercy to us.

In other words, it's neither faith nor works but God's Grace that saves us. So you can be an exemplary Christian who has faith and does good deeds all over, and yet God can decide to throw you to Hell anyway.

I know, it kinda sucks, but what can we do. As I said before, God created this world, so we have to follow His rules and just hope for the best.

Christ's death and resurrection opened the door of salvation, but we still have to make the decision to enter it.

After which He still can make the decision to throw us to Hell (see your own quote above in bold).

Wrong again. You're misinterpreting that verse. They didn't receive the love of the truth because they chose not to, and God allowed them to give themselves over to their sinful ways. It's not Him damning or saving us, it's Him choosing whether or not to help us out of our earthly temptations. He may have given them a delusion, but the implication is that they embraced it with open arms. I have personally known people who God gave over to their own sin, but in the end came to know salvation.

I see that you concentrate on the Thessalonians verse and chose not to answer to Ezekiel 20:25-26. A wise decision, as the Ezekiel verse really does not leave any room for interpretation.

However, when you look again at 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I'm not really sure how do you get from: "it's Him choosing whether or not to help us out of our earthly temptations" to "It's not Him damning or saving us." I mean, if He doesn't help us out (2 Thess 2:10), then we cannot do it on our own, especially when the He piles up more delusions for us (2 Thess 2:11), so we are damned (2 Thess 2:12).

That becomes even more clear when we look at this verse:

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Here we can see where Kalvin got the idea of predestination from: the Grace was given to certain individuals (obviously not to all people, because God didn't create Hell for it to stay empty) even before the world began.

I suppose we can interpret it in the light of this verse:

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

As evidence that God - who, after all, knows everything - knows how we'll live our lives long before we're born, and gives an extra "push" to those who will make the right choices anyway. Yet, when I try to think about free will in this context, it makes my head spin.

You present God as some vengeful deity like the greco-roman gods. Don't slander him with such speech!

I am not doing it. The Holy Bible does it for me.

He may get to make all the rules and serve out justice as he sees fit, but he is still loving toward us and slow to anger.

True. He really loves the small minority of people whom He chose (whichever way) to be Saved:

Matthew 7:13-14
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Since when is Google a better definition of aspects of Christianity than the Word of God?

Well, all of the words contained in the Holy Bible have their definitions in the English language. While the Holy Bible does not provide such definitions, because it's not a dictionary, we have dictionaries to provide such definitions. Merriam-Webster is a very reliable source of such definitions, whether in its printed or online version.

Yeah I know I'm not "blessed" in that way, I guess my name isn't the only thing I share with a certain doubtful apostle.

You should pray to Jesus to help you with that weakness.

You presume that it is impossible to know that God loves me. I have been through far too many trials in life to believe anything else. Were it not for the love and grace of God, I wouldn't still be here.

And I respect your faith in this respect.

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

I'm glad you're back. I enjoy talking to you, as we've been able to stay on the issue rather than throw insults at each other. Which makes us better from the people running for president this election cycle.

Haha, I definitely agree with you on that last part.

Please feel free to provide actual verses (and not refer to some vague "other passages") that support your interpretation.

Galatians 5:22-23, 1 John 4:16, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

It has always been my understanding that the "works" that are mentioned are the same as or come from the "fruits of the Spirit" talked about in the above verses.

Otherwise, I do not see anything in the cited passages that would suggest that these works actually stem from faith. Do not get me wrong - I realize that works alone cannot do a thing - Jesus is very clear that good people who do not believe in Him go to Hell (and that includes for example all of the people who lived and died in the Americas before Columbus, and little babies that die before they can accept Jesus as their Savior):

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

However, I think the disagreement between us on this issue is semantic. Whether we see it as:

faith + works -> salvation

or:

faith -> works -> salvation

the point of James 2:14-26 is that:

faith without works -> no salvation

which means we need both faith and works for salvation, whether the works stem from faith or directly from the goodness of your heart.

I agree that both faith and works are necessary for salvation. However the origin of this discussion was whether or not specific works such as childbirth are necessary for salvation. I believe that Paul defines the "fruits of the Spirit" the way he does (as following from love and a desire to be obedient to God) because of how Christ sums up the commandments; "Love the lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself."

I believe that God works through the Holy Spirit in every believer's heart to convict them of how they should follow Him; that is why they are referred to as "the fruits of the Spirit". As an example, my personal conviction is that God has called me not to be in any sexual relationship, but to live my life as a caring and strong friend, to help others through their trials without my mind becoming clouded by sensual desire.

In other words, it's neither faith nor works but God's Grace that saves us. So you can be an exemplary Christian who has faith and does good deeds all over, and yet God can decide to throw you to Hell anyway.

I know, it kinda sucks, but what can we do. As I said before, God created this world, so we have to follow His rules and just hope for the best.

After which He still can make the decision to throw us to Hell (see your own quote above in bold).

I see that you concentrate on the Thessalonians verse and chose not to answer to Ezekiel 20:25-26. A wise decision, as the Ezekiel verse really does not leave any room for interpretation.

However, when you look again at 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I'm not really sure how do you get from: "it's Him choosing whether or not to help us out of our earthly temptations" to "It's not Him damning or saving us." I mean, if He doesn't help us out (2 Thess 2:10), then we cannot do it on our own, especially when the He piles up more delusions for us (2 Thess 2:11), so we are damned (2 Thess 2:12).

That becomes even more clear when we look at this verse:

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Here we can see where Kalvin got the idea of predestination from: the Grace was given to certain individuals (obviously not to all people, because God didn't create Hell for it to stay empty) even before the world began.

I suppose we can interpret it in the light of this verse:

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

As evidence that God - who, after all, knows everything - knows how we'll live our lives long before we're born, and gives an extra "push" to those who will make the right choices anyway. Yet, when I try to think about free will in this context, it makes my head spin.

Oh believe me, this was a tough issue for me to consider too (and I could have explained it better). When I said "under no obligation to show us mercy", I should have explained that more clearly as "under no obligation to offer us salvation".

The solution I found after months of careful thought was the relationship between God and mankind as that of a parent with His children. A good parent doesn't force their child to think in a certain way, but allows them to live their life ultimately as they choose, sometimes choosing to make an effort to help them out of temptation and other times allowing them to be consumed by their own desires. I still strongly believe that we have absolutely no power to achieve salvation by ourselves, but we still have to plead with God for salvation. I always picture accepting salvation as the "child"(us) being in prison with a death sentence, and the "parent" (God) being the only one that can redeem us by sending our "brother" (Jesus) in our place, but we still have to ask and plead with Him to do it.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

The solution I found after months of careful thought

Well there's your problem, dear. You're putting way too much thought into this. The Good Lord didn't write the King James Bible to be studied and analyzed and held accountable to reality, but for Salvation™! While it's true the Bible is confounding enough to spend a lifetime figuring out (so it must be deep), it's also simple enough for a three year old to understand! Do you think God would make Salvation™ too hard for a three year old?

Think about it, dear. As Sam Harris explains, "Nine million children die each year before the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami, of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people. One of those every ten days, killing only those under five. 24,000 children a day, a thousand an hour, seventeen or so a minute, that means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children will have died in terror and agony."

But Harris doesn't understand. God calls us all to be Judged before Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). He doesn't leave us without Hope! Even the three year old can have hope because True Faith™ is that simple!

was the relationship between God and mankind as that of a parent with His children. A good parent doesn't force their child to think in a certain way, but allows them to live their life ultimately as they choose, sometimes choosing to make an effort to help them out of temptation and other times allowing them to be consumed by their own desires.

Balderdash. A good parent doesn't watch a child wander off into traffic, muttering to himself, "Well, I can't really force him one way or another. He's got to make his own choices."

Why do you think the LORD preserves parenting guides in the Holy Bible that function to shape a child's thought process, or as Pope Franny calls it, "ideological colonization"? He doesn't like it because he knows it works, and will work against his Satanic cult! Praise Jesus! We know the Holy Bible is the Perfect Guide for Parenting, and nowhere will you find advice to just leave children to their own thoughts.

[Basilissa]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Galatians 5:22-23,

It says that both works and faith are the the fruits of walking in the Spirit.

1 John 4:16,

This whole chapter talks about loving one another. Not all works come from love and not all love has to result in works. I have seen many Christians who do good works not because they love "the poor children in Africa," to the contrary, they feel disgust and disdain towards them, and the act of helping simply makes them feel even more superior. On the other hand, even if you love "the poor children in Africa" you might want to chose to pray for them rather than do something good for them.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

The way I understand these verses is the difference between doing something so you can feel better about yourself and doing something because you're really are a kind person who doesn't want people to suffer.

Mother Teresa was a perfect example of the former, as she really enjoyed being seen helping the poor, received millions of dollars in donations yet her hospitals were dirty, nasty places where people were coming to die because they were not receiving actual medical attention. And they were baptized against their will/without their knowledge during the process of dying. (Which didn't make any difference anyway, as they definitely had no faith necessary to be Saved in the first place).

It has always been my understanding that the "works" that are mentioned are the same as or come from the "fruits of the Spirit" talked about in the above verses.

I agree that both faith and works are necessary for salvation. However the origin of this discussion was whether or not specific works such as childbirth are necessary for salvation.

Let's agree to disagree, then. To me, works are a requirement, and 1 Timothy 2:15 clearly shows what specific work is necessary for women to be Saved.

I believe that God works through the Holy Spirit in every believer's heart to convict them of how they should follow Him; that is why they are referred to as "the fruits of the Spirit".

If He did that for every believer, I don't think we'd have as many shades of Christianity as we do - or do you think that God gives different directions on how to follow Him to the members of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches?

Or do you think that none of the members of ... (fill in the blank) churches are true believers, and only the members of... (fill in the blank) church are true believers?

This is a serious question when you think about all of the religious wars within Christianity, all of the genocides of Christian religious minorities, starting with the genocide of early gnostic sects (OK, they were really weird and only tangentially based on the canon of the Bible as we know it, but - they originated before there was a canon of the Bible), the crusades (when Europeans killed the Eastern Christians together with the Muslims, because they couldn't tell the difference), the genocides of Huguenots and other protestant minorities in Europe, the Hundred Years' War, etc, etc.

Looking at that violent history within different branches of Christianity, do you think that God guided all these people in different ways so that all of the genocides in His Name could happen, or do you think that 99% of the people who call themselves Christian were and are wrong and there is only a tiny minority that really believes what God wants them to believe?

If the latter, what makes you think that you're one of these true believers? What makes you so special?

As an example, my personal conviction is that God has called me not to be in any sexual relationship, but to live my life as a caring and strong friend, to help others through their trials without my mind becoming clouded by sensual desire.

How can you be so sure, though? I understand that God played with your life, exposing you to some bad stuff so that He could see how you behave in difficult circumstances (who knows, maybe He even placed a bet over your life with the Devil just like He did with Job, Job 1:6-12). You cannot really know, though, whether He is telling you to follow the right path or leading you towards eternal damnation (2 Thess 2:11-12).

The solution I found after months of careful thought was the relationship between God and mankind as that of a parent with His children. A good parent doesn't force their child to think in a certain way, but allows them to live their life ultimately as they choose, sometimes choosing to make an effort to help them out of temptation and other times allowing them to be consumed by their own desires.

Good comparison, with the difference that a good parent loves their children in a truly unconditional way - so a loving parent never sends his/her children to eternal damnation, but always gives a second, third, and n-th chance.

I still strongly believe that we have absolutely no power to achieve salvation by ourselves, but we still have to plead with God for salvation. I always picture accepting salvation as the "child"(us) being in prison with a death sentence, and the "parent" (God) being the only one that can redeem us by sending our "brother" (Jesus) in our place, but we still have to ask and plead with Him to do it.

And all of the truly good people who never had a chance to hear about God and Jesus are predestined to Hell, no matter how much good they do in the world. Praise God for letting us be born in nice white middle class families in America, where we actually got a chance to love God and follow His word, while millions of other people are on the way to Hell and have no way of doing anything to change it!

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Good comparison, with the difference that a good parent loves their children in a truly unconditional way - so a loving parent never sends his/her children to eternal damnation, but always gives a second, third, and n-th chance.

If God was a regular parent, someone would have called child services by now.
I mean, if you drown all your children but one, because you don't like how they behave, well, you will be prosecuted.
Of course, this could only happen in our godless society, where you cannot use the rod as commanded by the Bible without getting your kids taken away from you.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Asexuality and anal sex are opposites, you imbecile.

That is what Catholic priests always say. And is not true for them. You have the warning in 1 Corinthians 7:5. Satan will tempt you.


BTW: the guy you were answering is an imbecile, no doubt about it.

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

It says that both works and faith are the the fruits of walking in the Spirit.

To me, the final word on this topic is Ephesians 2:8-9. This verse tells me that, while works are an inseparable part of life as a Christian, they are not necessary for salvation.

This whole chapter talks about loving one another. Not all works come from love and not all love has to result in works. I have seen many Christians who do good works not because they love "the poor children in Africa," to the contrary, they feel disgust and disdain towards them, and the act of helping simply makes them feel even more superior. On the other hand, even if you love "the poor children in Africa" you might want to chose to pray for them rather than do something good for them.

The way I understand these verses is the difference between doing something so you can feel better about yourself and doing something because you're really are a kind person who doesn't want people to suffer.

Mother Teresa was a perfect example of the former, as she really enjoyed being seen helping the poor, received millions of dollars in donations yet her hospitals were dirty, nasty places where people were coming to die because they were not receiving actual medical attention. And they were baptized against their will/without their knowledge during the process of dying. (Which didn't make any difference anyway, as they definitely had no faith necessary to be Saved in the first place).

Let's agree to disagree, then. To me, works are a requirement, and 1 Timothy 2:15 clearly shows what specific work is necessary for women to be Saved.

Oh believe me I wholeheartedly agree with you about our motives for doing good works. As a matter of fact, that's why I'm against considering works as a requirement of salvation. Good works can be done for all the wrong reasons, but true faith can only come from a personal understanding of what Christ did for us and how wretched we are as sinners in need of salvation.

If He did that for every believer, I don't think we'd have as many shades of Christianity as we do - or do you think that God gives different directions on how to follow Him to the members of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches?

Or do you think that none of the members of ... (fill in the blank) churches are true believers, and only the members of... (fill in the blank) church are true believers?

This is a serious question when you think about all of the religious wars within Christianity, all of the genocides of Christian religious minorities, starting with the genocide of early gnostic sects (OK, they were really weird and only tangentially based on the canon of the Bible as we know it, but - they originated before there was a canon of the Bible), the crusades (when Europeans killed the Eastern Christians together with the Muslims, because they couldn't tell the difference), the genocides of Huguenots and other protestant minorities in Europe, the Hundred Years' War, etc, etc.

Looking at that violent history within different branches of Christianity, do you think that God guided all these people in different ways so that all of the genocides in His Name could happen, or do you think that 99% of the people who call themselves Christian were and are wrong and there is only a tiny minority that really believes what God wants them to believe?

If the latter, what makes you think that you're one of these true believers? What makes you so special?

I think God gives all of us the same convictions, but sometimes we just selectively follow them.

If you look at many of the different sects of "christians" that you mentioned, you see that many of them had God as just an excuse for their own worldly schemes (e.g. crusaders conquering the middle east, noblemen in the Catholic church using their own ideas to twist scripture to their own ends, Eastern Orthodox modeled after the tastes of a monarch, etc.).

How can you be so sure, though? I understand that God played with your life, exposing you to some bad stuff so that He could see how you behave in difficult circumstances (who knows, maybe He even placed a bet over your life with the Devil just like He did with Job, Job 1:6-12). You cannot really know, though, whether He is telling you to follow the right path or leading you towards eternal damnation (2 Thess 2:11-12).

Ah, but there's a key part of 2 Thess 2:12, "had pleasure in unrighteousness". Nowhere does the Bible make it clear that people who truly believe were sent to hell

Good comparison, with the difference that a good parent loves their children in a truly unconditional way - so a loving parent never sends his/her children to eternal damnation, but always gives a second, third, and n-th chance.

To an extent. To better clarify, I should say a parent with a mature child, mature being defined as someone who fully understand the gravity of their actions. The parent still loves their child, but is under no obligation to pull them out of whatever trouble their actions get them into. That is why I don't believe that children who die before they're saved go to Hell; they have no idea what they're doing, they can't possible understand their actions yet (that and I believe a few verses in Revelations mention the saints caring for infants in the presence of God).

The best way to sum up this and my other argument about works is Jesus's parable of the prodigal son. The father allowed his son to go off and waste his inheritance without going after him, but when the son repented and came back to the father with humility and repentance, the father embraced him with open arms. To parallel the discussion on works, the older brother had followed the father obediently, but the parable implies that the prodigal son will ultimately receive a greater inheritance and love from their father. The older brother's true nature is hinted at when he basically complains to the father that it's unfair that he never celebrated so much over him.

[Basilissa]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

To me, the final word on this topic is Ephesians 2:8-9. This verse tells me that, while works are an inseparable part of life as a Christian, they are not necessary for salvation.

And I think James 2:14-26 proves you're wrong, but we've been over this already.

Oh believe me I wholeheartedly agree with you about our motives for doing good works. As a matter of fact, that's why I'm against considering works as a requirement of salvation.

And you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. I prefer to stick to what the Holy Bible says on this subject.

Good works can be done for all the wrong reasons,

So, when an atheist helps out at a homeless shelter because he/she wants to help fellow human beings (and therefore definitely not out of his/her love for God), would you consider that doing good works for all the wrong reasons?

but true faith can only come from a personal understanding of what Christ did for us and how wretched we are as sinners in need of salvation.

So you're perfectly OK with the fact that people who lived and died without even having a chance to hear about Jesus and have a personal understanding of His sacrifice (an eternal being who was dead for about 1 and 1/2 days, I mean, we mortal humans cannot even begin to imagine how unbearable that was!) are condemned to Hell even though they have no way of knowing that they are sinning by not accepting Jesus?

I understand why atheists who live in the Western civilization are doomed. They are fools who deserve to fry in Hell:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

These filthy atheists grew up in the environment which informed them about Christianity and encouraged them to be Christians, yet they consciously decided to reject Jesus.

The same way, I'm OK with Jesus condemning to eternal hellfire all of the Indians who lived in the Americas before 1492 (and even until recently in some remote areas of the Amazon jungle). I'm sure there never were any good people among them anyway, no way, impossible, not a chance, right?

However, what about babies that die as infants? They never had a chance to accept Jesus, and they all are marked by the original sin. While some Christian churches practice baptism of infants (and we can have a discussion on whether that practice even makes sense some other day), others don't. The same goes for children dying in non-Christian societies - they are too young to understand the vileness of whatever false religion they're brought up in, and often die before they get a chance of hearing of Jesus.

And Jesus is very clear - for that sin they are worthy of eternal damnation:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I think God gives all of us the same convictions, but sometimes we just selectively follow them.

If you look at many of the different sects of "christians" that you mentioned, you see that many of them had God as just an excuse for their own worldly schemes (e.g. crusaders conquering the middle east, noblemen in the Catholic church using their own ideas to twist scripture to their own ends, Eastern Orthodox modeled after the tastes of a monarch, etc.).

Now you're confusing the leaders/elites (who were the ones with political/economic gains in minds) and the faithful followers (who thought they were fighting holy wars/murdering the heretics for a good purpose).

While the divisions between Christian denominations definitely had political/economical aspects, they also involve deep theological questions which consumed minds of people who truly wanted to be true believers. Does Jesus have two natures (human/divine) or just one? Is the world in an eternal battle between the spiritual/light and the material/darkness? Does the Holy Spirit come from God or from God and Son? Is celibacy for priests required or frowned upon? Do we have a free will or are we predestined one way or another? Is the transformation of bread/wine into Body/Blood of Christ material or metaphorical?

These are good theological questions, and each one of these resulted in one or more Christian denominations, whose followers believed that they heard what God was saying while every one else was mistaken - and many of these faithful followers either killed/tortured/raped/enslaved or were killed/tortured/raped/enslaved for what they believed in.

Ah, but there's a key part of 2 Thess 2:12, "had pleasure in unrighteousness". Nowhere does the Bible make it clear that people who truly believe were sent to hell

Well, God does admit to hating Esau for no apparent reason (Genesis 25:23, Malachi 1:3, Romans 9:13).

To an extent. To better clarify, I should say a parent with a mature child, mature being defined as someone who fully understand the gravity of their actions. The parent still loves their child, but is under no obligation to pull them out of whatever trouble their actions get them into.

Yes. But a loving human parent is also supposed to give his/her children a second, third, at infinitum chance - especially when we are talking about one short human life versus the eternal punishment for things committed during that one short life - and especially if you've done these things because you were 100% certain that you were following the only correct way to praise the true God. Infinity in Hell is a bit harsh punishment for crimes committed during that one very short life, isn't it?

Also, good human parents are not supposed to randomly love or hate their children (aforementioned case of Esau).

That is why I don't believe that children who die before they're saved go to Hell; they have no idea what they're doing, they can't possible understand their actions yet (that and I believe a few verses in Revelations mention the saints caring for infants in the presence of God).

This is very sweet, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the Holy Scripture (I do not recall such a verse in Revelation). I am very curious about what Scripture can you produce to back up your view.

The best way to sum up this and my other argument about works is Jesus's parable of the prodigal son. The father allowed his son to go off and waste his inheritance without going after him, but when the son repented and came back to the father with humility and repentance, the father embraced him with open arms. To parallel the discussion on works, the older brother had followed the father obediently, but the parable implies that the prodigal son will ultimately receive a greater inheritance and love from their father. The older brother's true nature is hinted at when he basically complains to the father that it's unfair that he never celebrated so much over him.

Frankly, I think most children would complain in similar way - after all, the father in the parable seems to reward his son for rebelling - implying, it's more rewarding to rebel and repent rather than obey all the time.

[handmaiden]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

. That is why I don't believe that children who die before they're saved go to Hell; they have no idea what they're doing, they can't possible understand their actions yet (that and I believe a few verses in Revelationsmention the saints caring for infants in the presence of God).

You have a great deal to say on various biblical subjects, but basically it all comes down to how you see things. You can't possibly prove that you and you alone have the ultimate revealed wisdom on what is--to many and varied believers -- the revealed Truth from the mind of God.


Right now you are comforting yourself with the belief that God--as you construct Him--doesn't send children who die unsaved to hell. But you haven't backed that idea up with a specific scripture. Furthermore, the very definition of "unsaved" means "condemned to hell".


Either Jesus saved people from going to hell or He didn't. How can someone who has not been saved by Jesus not go to hell?That is a complete and utter logical inconsistency. Why are you putting forth so much thought and energy into lengthy discussions of works versus faith when you cannot accept this core concept of your own belief system?


Also, the final book of the Bible is not "Revelations". It is "Revelation." Singular. This may seem like a petty little nitpick detail to harp on, but it does strike me as odd that you could overlook it.


But then, you have overlooked the thousands of children that God has ordered His obedient believers to slaughter for His divine purpose. Were these children of unbelieving tribes and peoples spared the judgment of hell as you choose to believe? Then why would God judge them in the first place and order them to be put to the sword?


And please, whatever you do, don't pull the standard "that was the Old Testament/Jesus and His teachings aren't like that" response out of your bag of cognitive dissonance rationales. There are many well-schooled biblical scholars here who will most definitely tear that argument to shreds in a decidedly Old Testament manner.


The only reason that I won't do it is because you have indicated that you are a man and the Apostle Paul (sort of a favorite of mine) clearly commands that a woman is not to teach a man. You have read that verse, haven't you?


That being said, I have endeavored to refrain from expounding upon the Word of God to you because the Word of God orders me not to. Instead, I have put my focus on you and your inconsistencies. Far be it for me to shed my meager light on Holy Scripture.


Now, I must close and allow others to do the work that is not permitted to me. Happily, I am at peace with my status in God's ordered plan. Because of the extent of my faith in Him, I don't concern myself with my inferior role or the thought of unsaved children burning in hell.


Acceptingly Yours,


Handmaiden

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

And I think James 2:14-26 proves you're wrong, but we've been over this already.

And you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. I prefer to stick to what the Holy Bible says on this subject.

So do I.

So, when an atheist helps out at a homeless shelter because he/she wants to help fellow human beings (and therefore definitely not out of his/her love for God), would you consider that doing good works for all the wrong reasons?

CAN be done for all the wrong reasons. An atheist can do good works too for right reasons the same as a Christian can do good works for wrong reasons and vice-versa. Not only do I see your interpretation as stretching the meaning of the verse, but the general theme of salvation is that it can only happen through things specific to true faith; good works on the other hand can be done by anyone. That's why it doesn't make logical sense that God would require works as part of salvation.

So you're perfectly OK with the fact that people who lived and died without even having a chance to hear about Jesus and have a personal understanding of His sacrifice (an eternal being who was dead for about 1 and 1/2 days, I mean, we mortal humans cannot even begin to imagine how unbearable that was!) are condemned to Hell even though they have no way of knowing that they are sinning by not accepting Jesus?

I understand why atheists who live in the Western civilization are doomed. They are fools who deserve to fry in Hell:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

These filthy atheists grew up in the environment which informed them about Christianity and encouraged them to be Christians, yet they consciously decided to reject Jesus.

The same way, I'm OK with Jesus condemning to eternal hellfire all of the Indians who lived in the Americas before 1492 (and even until recently in some remote areas of the Amazon jungle). I'm sure there never were any good people among them anyway, no way, impossible, not a chance, right?

This is also a tough question. My personal believe is that on the day when Christ comes again, all those who have died without hearing the Word of God will come to understand who he is, and will have the choice to accept him into their hearts. While scripture is silent on this, there is a precedent that supports it. The two criminals who were hanged on either side of Jesus had most likely been on trial and in prison up to that point, with no chance to hear his teaching. However, in the last moments of their earthly lives, they were both in the same situation, but the one decided to accept Jesus and was saved. Further scripture that supports this would be Jesus's parable of the laborers who received equal wages even though some worked longer/shorter than others.

However, what about babies that die as infants? They never had a chance to accept Jesus, and they all are marked by the original sin. While some Christian churches practice baptism of infants (and we can have a discussion on whether that practice even makes sense some other day), others don't. The same goes for children dying in non-Christian societies - they are too young to understand the vileness of whatever false religion they're brought up in, and often die before they get a chance of hearing of Jesus.

Damning children doesn't fit with God's character. A child has no possible capacity to atone for it's sin or to accept Christ.

And Jesus is very clear - for that sin they are worthy of eternal damnation:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

He says "Except a man...", which implies someone of maturity. And as I stated already, a child can't believe or disbelieve.

Now you're confusing the leaders/elites (who were the ones with political/economic gains in minds) and the faithful followers (who thought they were fighting holy wars/murdering the heretics for a good purpose).

While the divisions between Christian denominations definitely had political/economical aspects, they also involve deep theological questions which consumed minds of people who truly wanted to be true believers. Does Jesus have two natures (human/divine) or just one? Is the world in an eternal battle between the spiritual/light and the material/darkness? Does the Holy Spirit come from God or from God and Son? Is celibacy for priests required or frowned upon? Do we have a free will or are we predestined one way or another? Is the transformation of bread/wine into Body/Blood of Christ material or metaphorical?

These are good theological questions, and each one of these resulted in one or more Christian denominations, whose followers believed that they heard what God was saying while every one else was mistaken - and many of these faithful followers either killed/tortured/raped/enslaved or were killed/tortured/raped/enslaved for what they believed in.

I ask you this then, what is your reasoning for being sooooo sure of what you believe?

Well, God does admit to hating Esau for no apparent reason (Genesis 25:23, Malachi 1:3, Romans 9:13).

Uh, actually to me the reasons are pretty obvious. First of all, Esau was the illegitimate child born out of Abraham's disobedience before God. Second, Esau's wild character is stated pretty clearly.

Yes. But a loving human parent is also supposed to give his/her children a second, third, at infinitum chance - especially when we are talking about one short human life versus the eternal punishment for things committed during that one short life - and especially if you've done these things because you were 100% certain that you were following the only correct way to praise the true God. Infinity in Hell is a bit harsh punishment for crimes committed during that one very short life, isn't it?

Also, good human parents are not supposed to randomly love or hate their children (aforementioned case of Esau).

If you had a grown child who committed every single crime possible and was on trial to be executed (a rough analogy of how terrible our sin is to God), would your unconditional love be a reason to get them off the hook? Certainly not! You love them, yes, but their actions were their own doing, and you're under no obligation to save them from just punishment. In the same way, God is under no obligation to save any of us from eternal torment.

As a final argument against works as a requirement of salvation, let's look at the big picture of salvation. In the light of our wretchedness as sinners no amount of "good works" could ever absolve or repay our sins; the blood of Christ alone is the only thing that could save us from our just punishment of eternal damnation. It's like crimes committed here on earth: jail time or community service may atone for the punishment for a specific crime, but it doesn't expunge it from our criminal record.

This is very sweet, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the Holy Scripture (I do not recall such a verse in Revelation). I am very curious about what Scripture can you produce to back up your view.

I can't remember the specific verse, but there're a few that support my argument and are well outlined here: http://www.jonathancarl.org/2013/06/...ies-and_5.html

Frankly, I think most children would complain in similar way - after all, the father in the parable seems to reward his son for rebelling - implying, it's more rewarding to rebel and repent rather than obey all the time.

First, the father wasn't rewarding him for his rebellion, he was rewarding him for coming back. Second, as I said before, the elder brother's motives for obedience in the first place are questionable.

[Princess L]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

Ugh, I'm tired, I messed up. Wrong Old Testament Brothers. Jacob and Esau were both born, and Esau was technically the oldest, but he gave up his birthright as the firstborn to Jacob, which was his own fault. Hebrews 12:16 does reference Esau's character as "godless", so God didn't disfavour him for no apparent reason.

[handmaiden]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

My personal believe is that on the day when Christ comes again, all those who have died without hearing the Word of God will come to understand who he is, and will have the choice to accept him into their hearts. While scripture is silent on this, there is a precedent that supports it.

Damning children doesn't fit with God's character. A child has no possible capacity to atone for it's sin or to accept Christ.

Again, we are treated to a treatise on your personal beliefs. Are you planning to establish your own sect of Christianity? Perhaps it will be one in which all the challenges of obedience to God's Word are swept away with an airy wave of your hand as you excise large portions of the Bible.


And not to put too fine a point on it, but God's character is defined by God's commands and God's actions as set for in God's Word. You have parsed a few specific verses ad infinitum. Now, I encourage you to peruse the other verses to gain a more mature and informed view of the rigors of being a True Christian(tm).


Wholeheartedly Yours,


Handmaiden

[Basilissa]

Re: God Hates Asexuals

CAN be done for all the wrong reasons. An atheist can do good works too for right reasons the same as a Christian can do good works for wrong reasons and vice-versa. Not only do I see your interpretation as stretching the meaning of the verse, but the general theme of salvation is that it can only happen through things specific to true faith; good works on the other hand can be done by anyone.

Amen. All so-called "good people" who worked their whole lives to improve the lives of other human beings but did not love God truly deserve to be punished in Hell forever.

That's why it doesn't make logical sense that God would require works as part of salvation.

I am very sorry if the Holy Bible doesn't make sense to you.

Matthew 16:26-27
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 25:34-40
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mark 10:17-21 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
[. . .]
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Revelation 20:12-13
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

This is also a tough question. My personal believe is that on the day when Christ comes again, all those who have died without hearing the Word of God will come to understand who he is, and will have the choice to accept him into their hearts. While scripture is silent on this, there is a precedent that supports it. The two criminals who were hanged on either side of Jesus had most likely been on trial and in prison up to that point, with no chance to hear his teaching. However, in the last moments of their earthly lives, they were both in the same situation, but the one decided to accept Jesus and was saved.

Well, that refers to people who repented for their sins while still alive. So if for example Hitler and Stalin repented at the last moment before their deaths, we will meet them in Heaven.

However, this passage certainly does not refer to people who did not repent while alive.

Further scripture that supports this would be Jesus's parable of the laborers who received equal wages even though some worked longer/shorter than others.

I think that parable seems to bring more support to what I said - that if Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc decided to repent at the last moment, they will be equally rewarded.

Damning children doesn't fit with God's character.

Why?

We are talking about the same God, right? The God that ordered Israelites to kill everything that breathes (and yes, that includes infants), just out of fear of cultural diffusion?

Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

2 Chronicles 15:12-13
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;
13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

And the same God who ordered the massacre of 42 little children just because they laughed at a bald man:

2 Kings 2:23-24
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

And please do not forget, that the sound of little babies brains splashing on rocks is pleasant to God:

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

And it's also the same God who enjoys when heathen babies are dashed to pieces with swords, and pregnant women's bellies are open so both they and their worthless fetuses can die:

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

All of this is the Wrath of God. The same Wrath of God also nearly destroyed humanity during the Flood - and while it absolutely certain that all of the adolescents and adults living at that time were vile individuals, some people might argue that the infants whom God drowned at that time were not as guilty (only bearing the debt of the original sin but nothing sinful of their own). The same goes for little babies killed in Sodom and Gomorrah.

A child has no possible capacity to atone for it's sin or to accept Christ.

Agreed.

He says "Except a man...", which implies someone of maturity. And as I stated already, a child can't believe or disbelieve.

Agreed. Which proves that baptism of little children is just a worthless waste of time, money, and water.

I ask you this then, what is your reasoning for being sooooo sure of what you believe?

I read the Bible. All of it, not just some selected verses which sound nice and conform to what I want to think about God.

Uh, actually to me the reasons are pretty obvious. First of all, Esau was the illegitimate child born out of Abraham's disobedience before God. Second, Esau's wild character is stated pretty clearly.

For your information, Esau was the son of Isaac, and twin brother of Jacob. Nothing there about being illegitimate.

(EDIT: just saw your correction post. Still, God hated Esau when Esau was still in the womb - do you think Esau was already a fornicator in the womb?!)

If you had a grown child who committed every single crime possible and was on trial to be executed (a rough analogy of how terrible our sin is to God), would your unconditional love be a reason to get them off the hook? Certainly not! You love them, yes, but their actions were their own doing, and you're under no obligation to save them from just punishment. In the same way, God is under no obligation to save any of us from eternal torment.

Eternal torment for a microscopically short life? Yes, our God certainly knows how to hold a grudge. For ever and ever and ever and ever. Thankfully most human parents aren't that merciless.

As a final argument against works as a requirement of salvation, let's look at the big picture of salvation. In the light of our wretchedness as sinners no amount of "good works" could ever absolve or repay our sins; the blood of Christ alone is the only thing that could save us from our just punishment of eternal damnation.

The Bible verses above prove the opposite.

I can't remember the specific verse, but there're a few that support my argument and are well outlined here: http://www.jonathancarl.org/2013/06/...ies-and_5.html

That website sells you baloney.

• Points 1 and 2 have nothing to do with children's fate after their death.
• Point 3 makes no sense as in Old Testament tradition all souls went to Sheol, no Hell nor Heaven (as you might remember, Jesus after His death descended to Sheol and fished out the decent souls on a trip to Heaven). Even if we assume that Job possessed the knowledge of what Jesus was going to do all these centuries later, "never seeing light" is definitely not the same as "being in Heaven."
• The same goes for point 4 - being in darkness (=death) is not the same as being in Heaven (why does the author of this article imagine Heaven as a dark place?!).
• And point 5 seems particularly interesting if we read it in context of God ordering to murder babies - when they are sacrificed to the false gods, that makes them "innocent," but when Israelites come to commit genocide, they are in line to be eliminated as well.

I apologize for a very lengthy message. Going back to listening to the debate now.