DRSmith Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I have never understood the need for others to suffer, that it is not enough to get the reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Lord knows we have enough legalism and interpretations from what we have generally accepted as Gospel. (in Jay Silverheels' voice) "What do you mean 'we', white man?" :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I'm sticking with what Yoda said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (in Jay Silverheels' voice) "What do you mean 'we', white man?" :pfft: It is generally accepted even by agnostics or atheists that it(Gospels) is the story of Jesus Of course they favor it being a story part more than others;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 There are a lot of arguments on hell being a place of eternal torment versus hell being a place that simply annihilates the soul. They mostly center around the fact that the opposite of "eternal damnation" in the bible isn't eternal reward, but instead "eternal life". I've heard arguments both ways but all of them have been significantly more though provoking than how they article seems to describe the pastors argument. His logic appears to center around the fact that eternal damnation bothers him which isn't much of an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 There are a lot of arguments on hell being a place of eternal torment versus hell being a place that simply annihilates the soul. They mostly center around the fact that the opposite of "eternal damnation" in the bible isn't eternal reward, but instead "eternal life". I've heard arguments both ways but all of them have been significantly more though provoking than how they article seems to describe the pastors argument. His logic appears to center around the fact that eternal damnation bothers him which isn't much of an argument. no ... what bothers him is the dissemination of eternal life by a supposed all loving god that damns those that dont subscribe to simple idolatry even though they live an honest loving life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Are we still blaming God for bad carreer decisions. He gives out giant brains and free will and he gets blamed for people going to hell? Its his fault people choose to live at the bottom of a volcano. Its his fault people choose to live below a levy or a mobile home in tornado alley? Come on people, if you just followed his crib notes of 10 this world would be spectacular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 not an expert on alot of things, but i've read the bible, and i can guarantee you the God of the bible doesnt send people to hell (whatever 'hell' that may be) who have never heard of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Why is everyone so concerned with what God will do with those who have never heard of him ? The fact that you're discussing this means that you have actually heard of him, so you should be more concerned with what you do with the knowledge about him that you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 There are a lot of arguments on hell being a place of eternal torment versus hell being a place that simply annihilates the soul. They mostly center around the fact that the opposite of "eternal damnation" in the bible isn't eternal reward, but instead "eternal life". I've heard arguments both ways but all of them have been significantly more though provoking than how they article seems to describe the pastors argument. His logic appears to center around the fact that eternal damnation bothers him which isn't much of an argument. I think you'd have to read the other guys book, which is what made him question his belief and is apparently causing a ruckus elsewhere too, to see exactly what his logic consists of, beyond what a reporter would gather for a short piece. And why would eternal damnation for a resident of the upper Amazon, who never heard of Jesus. be something not worth arguing about? Or thought provoking? ---------- Post added March-24th-2011 at 07:27 PM ---------- Why is everyone so concerned with what God will do with those who have never heard of him ?The fact that you're discussing this means that you have actually heard of him, so you should be more concerned with what you do with the knowledge about him that you have. If you heard of him, and still don't believe in him, it's interesting to see what the people who do, do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Well this was predictable. It's really all NT Wright's fault. He wrote a great book called "Surprised by Hope" explaining the Resurrection and how modern Christianity's view of Heaven was missing God's purpose for Creation in the "Kingdom of God." It left some ends dangling regarding hell and I knew it was going to be red meat for the Emergent crowd...great opportunity to poke 20th century Evangecalism in the eye. It didn't surprise me at all when I heard Rob Bell was coming out with a book on Hell. He's a really good communicator but where NT Wright says shocking things in the most reasonable way he can, Rob Bell says even simple things in the most shocking way he can. So of course people are going to get riled up, that's what Bell is going for. And its not all bad because Christians need to think critically and be forced to distinguish the essentials from the non-essentials. And its good for Rob Bell because he's going to sell a hell of a lot of books. As for this yahoo in North Carolina, I don't know that he's put too much thought into it...but he's a Methodist minister, you kind of expect those guys to go off half ****ed That's a tenet of Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists don't have tenets (in theory any way). This is in the preamble to their "Faith and Message": "Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God." Of course, they aren't nearly so generous in practice anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 There are a lot of arguments on hell being a place of eternal torment versus hell being a place that simply annihilates the soul. They mostly center around the fact that the opposite of "eternal damnation" in the bible isn't eternal reward, but instead "eternal life". I've heard arguments both ways but all of them have been significantly more though provoking than how they article seems to describe the pastors argument. His logic appears to center around the fact that eternal damnation bothers him which isn't much of an argument. For me some the things that influenced me was God always put life and death before people that was it, no mention of the creation of hell, the fact that Gehenna was literal place and makes sense Jesus would use something people were famaliar with to talk about destruction. Finally what parent would feel so vindicative that they needed to spend eternity torturing their children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 no ... what bothers him is the dissemination of eternal life by a supposed all loving god that damns those that dont subscribe to simple idolatry even though they live an honest loving life. That seems to be two arguments. Is there a hell? Who goes to hell? and I'd add "if there is a hell what happens there?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 the concept of hell and Jesus' teachings of loving your enemy and turning the other cheek don't seem to vibe well together Pet peeve here. In the context of the times, turning your cheek was an insult to who slapped you. It was an indignation and offereing up of the other cheek to slap. It was not about "looking the other way" He was saying, "is that all you got, take a crack at the other one as well" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Pet peeve here. In the context of the times, turning your cheek was an insult to who slapped you. It was an indignation and offereing up of the other cheek to slap. It was not about "looking the other way" He was saying, "is that all you got, take a crack at the other one as well"That might be historically accurate but it doesn't fit the context in which it appears in the bibleMatthew 5:38-42“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. To me it's fairly clear that he's not advocating a challenge or insult at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hmm just another Pastor(?) tainted by Moral Relativism and embracing KMart approach to acknowledging sin and biblical teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Where does who end up?Basically everyone spends some time in purgatory though. Everyone ends up in heaven. I heard from a pretty reputable source that all dogs go to heaven, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Finally what parent would feel so vindicative that they needed to spend eternity torturing their children Possibly Martin Sheen right about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 The problem with the argument over "who goes to hell" is that the only answer is "God decides". A lot of these religious arguments seek to place God in a box and bind Him to a standard when that's not the way it works. “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and, It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master [1] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. There isn't a man alive that can tell you who among us is going up or down. It's not the place of man to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I heard from a pretty reputable source that all dogs go to heaven, as well. That was in the Gospel of Odie, and I subscribe to that theory as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I heard from a pretty reputable source that all dogs go to heaven, as well. What about minorities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 What about minorities? Scottish immigrants go to Ireland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Pet peeve here. In the context of the times, turning your cheek was an insult to who slapped you. It was an indignation and offereing up of the other cheek to slap. It was not about "looking the other way" He was saying, "is that all you got, take a crack at the other one as well" That has NEVER been true; Matthew 5:39 says, "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." What hand does someone strike you on the right cheek with? The left. The left hand was the one you wiped your arse with, the insult was getting struck on the right cheek. Jesus is so absolutely totally NOT telling people to offer an insult to those who slapped them. That goes completely against what Jesus says when he follows that up with "Love your enemies". I seriously suggest that you go back to whoever told you that nonsense about insulting the slapper and tell them to do some credible research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 What hand does someone strike you on the right cheek with? The left. Actually, in Jesus' culture, that depends on whether the person you are striking is an equal or a subordinate. See Marcus Borg's What Would Jesus Think of King's Protests? The upshot is that you'd use a backhand on someone of lower status, and an open hand or fist on someone of equal status, but you wouldn't use the left hand, so when you turn your cheek, you force your oppressor to treat you like an equal if he wants to hit you again. There's similar context behind the other two examples... Roman law allowed a soldier to force any citizen to carry gear for him one and only one mile, so going two creates an awkward situation for the soldier, and if you hand over your shirt too, a peasant ends up naked, and in that culture the shame is accrued to the viewer. In historical context, it can be persuasively argued that Jesus is advocating non-violent but active resistance against oppression, and I find that very consistent with the literary context as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Actually, in Jesus' culture, that depends on whether the person you are striking is an equal or a subordinate. See Marcus Borg's What Would Jesus Think of King's Protests?The upshot is that you'd use a backhand on someone of lower status, and an open hand or fist on someone of equal status, but you wouldn't use the left hand, so when you turn your cheek, you force your oppressor to treat you like an equal if he wants to hit you again. There's similar context behind the other two examples... Roman law allowed a soldier to force any citizen to carry gear for him one and only one mile, so going two creates an awkward situation for the soldier, and if you hand over your shirt too, a peasant ends up naked, and in that culture the shame is accrued to the viewer. In historical context, it can be persuasively argued that Jesus is advocating non-violent but active resistance against oppression, and I find that very consistent with the literary context as well. The "status slaps" may be true, I've never heard that before, but the offering the cheek as an insult is not even remotely close to the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.