Battle of the monotheistic religions

[Jollybear]

Well, of course it sounds nice. God IS nice. He is loving and merciful and He offers His children every possible chance to repent. Thank God for a God who really does believe in repentance!

I agree God is nice and believes in repentance, but do you think that in hell it would be hard to repent?

How does one "make it right with God"? Must one be a Christian to make it right with God? If so, 70 or 80 years living today in North Korea, for instance, probably wouldn't be enough time. And in other periods of time (go back to second or third century China or to the eighth or ninth century in the middle of the African jungle), a person's chances of becoming a Christian would be completely nil. Christianity wasn't exactly a world religion in its infancy.

In the case of North Korea, those who honestly obey the light or knowledge they have received will be right with God. So, the “general revelation” of God says that the North Korea dictator is NOT God, he is a mere human being just like anybody else, and he deserves no more worship then another person would if at all worship went to a human being. But also general revelation would tell us that worship does not go to a human being, for we are mortal and we are finite. So, common sense logic and honesty to oneself would tell them this. So, if they OBEYED this knowledge within their conscience, and defied the dictator and died for it, they would be received by God I believe.

In the case of the jungle, the same principle applies, if they obey the general revelation God gives them, they will be right with God.

Plus, if I were to be technical, if you really think about it, even without hearing of the name Jesus, or Son of God. You can still get from the general revelation that God can make himself a man, thus the Son of God as this is called. By God creating things, he is giving birth in a sense to things. So, can God birth himself into a body? Surely if someone put thought into it, they could realize he could. They could reason that God would want to identify with us.

Actually, I agree with you that God won't hold people accountable for what they haven't been taught. I just believe that He has a plan that is going to enable them to be taught. It may not be until they are in the Spirit World awaiting the resurrection, but they will have the ability to learn what they need to know in order to make the decisions they need to make to receive the blessings God has in store for them. How could God punish someone for not accepting Jesus Christ if that person had never heard of Jesus Christ? On the other hand, how could God bless someone for being faithful to Christ's teachings if that person didn't know what Jesus taught?

Right, I agree. But at the same time, for those who do know about Jesus and reject him based on this reasoning that God will accept a honest person who did not hear of Jesus, so therefore God will accept them if they reject Jesus, because the honest person did not accept Jesus because he did not hear of him, then this person will not be accepted by God, because they KNOW of Jesus, but still reject him. They think that just because God accepted the honest ignorant person, they will accept them as well, even though they are not ignorant, but still reject what they know about Jesus. And this is where they are mistaken. The ignorant but honest person is trying to find the truth, so therefore God credits the atonement of Christ’s death to their account because he sees there heart as being sincere for truth.

I do agree, but in order to really look at the "cycle of sin" and "Hell" objectively, you've got to recognize that we really don't all have the same advantages. Some kid growing up in a society where he is never exposed to much of anything but sin is likely going to find himself in that cycle before he even has a chance to make a choice to take a different path. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of choosing a life of depravity and evil. There are terrible influences everywhere we look and we have to realize how easily we can be sucked in, little by little, to the cycle of sin you've mentioned. I'm just looking at the picture from a different angle and thinking that we are making a huge mistake when we try to oversimplify the situation.

I agree that the cycle of sin can catch us anywhere, either in a broken society or a civilized society. It can happen either in a messed up family, or a fairly good family. Sin has two sides to it, ugly and masked. As for the kid, not all kids are the same, look at Cain and Abel, one turned out nasty the other completely different, but were both raised by the same parents. Even me for example, I was not raised by devote parents; they were not at all interested in religious and spiritual matters. My sister went there way (accept the self righteous part) and worse, got into drugs, and I went the other way, on a spiritual quest. I mean, everyone is different, that certainly does not make me better, because sin has two sides, the ugly and the masked. I must be careful of both.

Oh, sorry it took long to respond, I am doing ten hour shifts, but I get more days off though, which is the upside to it.

 

[Katzpur]

Jollybear, I'd just like to start out by telling you that I'm enjoying our conversation very much. It's always a pleasure to talk to someone who is sincerely interested in having a meaningful dialogue, but it doesn't seem to happen anywhere near often enough.

When Jesus talked about the rich man in hell, it says he was in torments in a flame. How do you interpret that “flame”? And he asked for a drop of water, how do you interpret that drop of water? Also the book of revelation talks about the “lake of fire” and those that are thrown in will be in “torments forever and ever”. How do you interpret this?

To me, the flame is symbolic of spiritual anguish that results from sin. The water is the forgiveness that alleviates this anguish. Water does, of course, put out fire, just as forgiveness gives relief from guilt. Also, Christ is often spoken of as being the source of "living water." It is through Him that our thirst for eternal life is quenched.

Also how do I account for when the bible speaks of hell as in the “outer darkness”? Like how can hell be fire and darkness at the same time? Well two ways this can happen, lots of fire can bring lots of smoke, the smoke brings darkness. Plus the second way is the hottest flame is not orange and it’s not blue (hotter than the orange) but it’s INVISIBLE. So a invisible flame will give off no light, thus “the outer darkness”. But then again, this can be a twofold type of flame that could be an emotional torment, because I do not see how a none physical entity (our conscious spirit) can be touched by a physical flame. But then again, perhaps the hottest flame, which is invisible, can touch the spirit, since the spirit is invisible.

Good question. I've never really thought about it in those terms before, but the idea of an invisible flame giving off no light is an interesting one. I've always thought of God as being the ultimate source of light and truth. Light is always spoken of in the scriptures as something we should seek after, and because darkness is its opposite, darkness would be something we would want to avoid. There are over five dozen verses in the Bible in which light and darkness are both mentioned within the same verse. I see the glory of God as filling the human soul with light and hope and the absense of His glory as filling the soul with darkness and despair. I guess I have always thought of Outer Darkness as a place completely devoid of God's glory. I don't see it so much as being physically dark but as being spiritually dark and spiritually cold. There would be only the emotional torment and spritual anguish for eternity. You know how they say that dry ice burns? If we were to think of that working in reverse, we might be able to comprehend how a hot enough flame could essentially incinerate everything, leaving the human spirit in a state much like I picture a nuclear winter.

That is a interesting point. I did hear another view that says that when Jesus was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit through which he preached to the spirits in prison back from Noah’s day, that this did not mean Jesus was giving them another chance to repent, but basically proclaiming to them what they lost out on. Because how do we explain the parts in scripture that say “torments forever” how do you deal with the word “forever”?

That's an interpretation I really can't go along with. These individuals had never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ since they had lived hundreds of years before He did, and not by choice either. True, a person can live a good life without knowing anything at all about Jesus Christ, and it would hardly make sense to say that their lack of knowledge was an excuse for them to lived depraved lives. But seriously, can you imagine Jesus descending into the Spirit Prison, teaching the people there and then after three days, turning away and saying, "So... now you know why I suffered and died. Too bad you were born at the wrong time and in the wrong place. The billions who will be born in the future will be able to repent of their sins and receive the blessing of my atoning sacrifice, but because you lived before I did, you're just out of luck."? As far as what "forever" means, I think it means exactly what it says, but I believe that it applies solely to those who refuse to repent.

I also believe that the “righteous” who did not hear of Christ, but obeyed in all honesty the light or knowledge they have received that they will have a chance to accept Christ during the thousand year reign. I also believe that babies, who died, will be given the chance to accept or reject Christ during this thousand year reign.

Okay, that's essentially what I believe, too. I guess I'm just willing to take it a step further and say that people are "wicked" for a lot of reasons we are not always able to understand. God knows what those reasons are even if we don't. I often think of the advantages I've had in comparison to someone who may, for example, have been born as the illegitmate daughter of some woman living in a brothel in the slums of Calcutta. If such a child were to grow up to be "wicked," wouldn't she deserve some kind of a chance to hear what Jesus did for her, and to make an informed decision as to whether to accept His gift of redemption? There are just so many factors to consider before writing someone off as worthy to spend eternity in Hell.

I differ with you here slightly. I believe that those who have more knowledge of God, but reject it, will not just go to hell, but go to the DEPTHS of hell, the deepest darkness of suffering. While those who received little knowledge, and still rejected it, they will go to hell, but not go to the greatest amount of darkness or suffering. Just as Jesus said, those who been given much, and reject, will be beaten with many blows, but those who have been given little and reject it, will be beaten with few blows.

This is interesting. You seem to see different degrees of darkness or suffering in Hell whereas I see different degrees of glory and happiness in Heaven. We agree that there are different degrees of wickedness and different degrees of righteousness. I see God as having a degree of compassion that far outweighs His desire to punish the wicked, but as intending to reward the righteous to a greater degree than He will the unrighteous. Your focus appears to be on His intent to punish the more wicked to a greater degree than He will the less wicked.

The reason I say that once a person is in hell I don’t go with the traditional view that says that there is no hope is because God is a God of mercy and hope, I can’t deny that. But the reason I also say it’s hard for them to get out of hell, is because in hell, the cycle of sin grips them more. Here is what I mean by that: when someone is in hell, they are suffering; the first thing they want is to get out of there. So, suppose they saw an angel up ahead, they cry out “please, get me out of here!” the angel says “wait, you deserve to be here because of your sins” the sinner responds “no, no, please, let me explain, I was an ok person, I did this and that good for some people”. Angel responds “I see your still not ready to get out of here, you are still self righteous”. Then the sinner says “ok, ok, you’re right then, I did wrong at times in my life, even a lot of times, now please GET ME OUT OF HERE!” Angel responds “you’re just saying that because your first explanation was not good enough for me, so now you lie to me so I will get you out, your good sounding response that is motivated with lies, is selfishness, and thus not repentance, therefore, you will remain here UNTIL you LOSE your selfish ways”.

That is why I say it is HARD to get out of hell. Up here on earth people are prone to selfishness and lies and sin, but down there, it will be magnified, therefore harder to break out of that evil cycle, although it is not impossible to break it.

I agree. That's why it is important for us not to procrastinate the day of our repentance. It's not going to get easier; it's going to get harder. Murder is seldom the first really serious sin a murderer commits. It's the culmination of a lifetime of acts of inhumanity and lack of concern for other people. I suspect that once a person finds himself in Hell, the road out is not going to be a cakewalk by any means.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree God is nice and believes in repentance, but do you think that in hell it would be hard to repent?

As I've said before, but I think it would be possible. The first two steps in the repentence process (as I've been taught) are recognition of one's sins, and remorse for them. It would be impossible to move to the next step without having completed those two. But if someone recognises his misdeeds and sincerely feels sorry for them, it can be done. In LDS theology, the first priciple of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Chrst. The second is repentence. In order to be able to completely forsake sin, a person would have to first believe in Jesus Christ's power to make it possible at all. Once a person had that faith, repentence would be a great deal easier than it would be otherwise. A person who has faith in Christ at least knows that there is someone pulling for him, so to speak, someone who wants to help him succeed and that it's the person who can make his efforts worthwhile. For a person who did not have this faith, it would be much, much more difficult, perhaps impossible.

In the case of North Korea, those who honestly obey the light or knowledge they have received will be right with God. So, the “general revelation” of God says that the North Korea dictator is NOT God, he is a mere human being just like anybody else, and he deserves no more worship then another person would if at all worship went to a human being. But also general revelation would tell us that worship does not go to a human being, for we are mortal and we are finite. So, common sense logic and honesty to oneself would tell them this. So, if they OBEYED this knowledge within their conscience, and defied the dictator and died for it, they would be received by God I believe.

In the case of the jungle, the same principle applies, if they obey the general revelation God gives them, they will be right with God.

So you are basically saying that even without a knowledge of Jesus Christ, a person can be "right with God." Up to a point, I agree. Undoubtedly, there have been many people over the ages who have been "right with God" and have not been Christians. And yet the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the light and that no one can return to God's presence without His intercession. I'm just saying that God has provided a way for all of those people (the ones who were "right with God" based on a limited knowledge of His plan for their eternal happiness) to find that Intercessor after death but before the resurrection. He has even provided a way for those who weren't right with Him to become right with him. Some won't want to accept it, but some will. I also think that the line between what makes a person right with God or not right with God may be a kind of fuzzy one. I mean even those who have lived essentially righteous lives have sinned in some ways, and even those who have lived essentially wicked lives have some redeeming qualities. It's not a matter of whether a person's righteousness outweighs his wickedness; ultimately every person needs a Savior (in my opinion).

Plus, if I were to be technical, if you really think about it, even without hearing of the name Jesus, or Son of God. You can still get from the general revelation that God can make himself a man, thus the Son of God as this is called. By God creating things, he is giving birth in a sense to things. So, can God birth himself into a body? Surely if someone put thought into it, they could realize he could. They could reason that God would want to identify with us.

I suppose so, but I'm not sure that this vague sort of knowledge would be sufficient in the end.

Right, I agree. But at the same time, for those who do know about Jesus and reject him based on this reasoning that God will accept a honest person who did not hear of Jesus, so therefore God will accept them if they reject Jesus, because the honest person did not accept Jesus because he did not hear of him, then this person will not be accepted by God, because they KNOW of Jesus, but still reject him. They think that just because God accepted the honest ignorant person, they will accept them as well, even though they are not ignorant, but still reject what they know about Jesus. And this is where they are mistaken. The ignorant but honest person is trying to find the truth, so therefore God credits the atonement of Christ’s death to their account because he sees there heart as being sincere for truth.

I agree.

I agree that the cycle of sin can catch us anywhere, either in a broken society or a civilized society. It can happen either in a messed up family, or a fairly good family. Sin has two sides to it, ugly and masked. As for the kid, not all kids are the same, look at Cain and Abel, one turned out nasty the other completely different, but were both raised by the same parents. Even me for example, I was not raised by devote parents; they were not at all interested in religious and spiritual matters. My sister went there way (accept the self righteous part) and worse, got into drugs, and I went the other way, on a spiritual quest. I mean, everyone is different, that certainly does not make me better, because sin has two sides, the ugly and the masked. I must be careful of both.

Again, I have no quarrel with you on this.

Oh, sorry it took long to respond, I am doing ten hour shifts, but I get more days off though, which is the upside to it.

Wow! I couldn't do that. Are you in nursing or something like that?

 

[Jollybear]

Katzpur

Jollybear

, I'd just like to start out by telling you that I'm enjoying our conversation very much. It's always a pleasure to talk to someone who is sincerely interested in having a meaningful dialogue, but it doesn't seem to happen anywhere near often enough.

I too am enjoying it, and I agree with you, it does not happen as much as it should. And I think that is because allot of folk make it about their belief, rather than about truth. If we make it about our belief, pride will result if another shakes the belief with facts, if we make it about truth, humility results when others shake the belief with facts.

To me, the flame is symbolic of spiritual anguish that results from sin. The water is the forgiveness that alleviates this anguish. Water does, of course, put out fire, just as forgiveness gives relief from guilt. Also, Christ is often spoken of as being the source of "living water." It is through Him that our thirst for eternal life is quenched.

That is a very interesting point that also is consistent with other sections of scripture. But the thing that still makes me doubt this interpretation is the fact of millions of near death experiences where people have died and come back and spoke about hell. I read a book called “23 minutes in hell” by bill weise, in his case he did not die, he had a out of body experience. He went to hell and witnessed horrifying things, he smelled smoke and heard screams. He witnessed hell being not just a “emotional” torment of guilt, but also a torment of a (I don’t want to say physical, because it was in the spirit realm obviously) nature that one could SEE or witness. Perhaps the emotional torment was such a degree that it could almost be FELT as if it was physical? I remember talking to someone once, he said he use to be into witchcraft. Well, him and a few mediums went to sleep in a room one night. They all had the SAME dream, and one of the mediums went over and boot the guy in the face. As soon as he did that, he woke up and had a bleeding nose in the physical realm. So what happened in a dream (spirit realm) converted to the physical realm. So perhaps likewise, this is how hell is, accept obviously a lot more vivid then a dream, but as vivid as real life. I also listened to a former atheist, who had a NEAR DEATH experience, after he had that, he went to hell. And he described it as not just emotional torment of guilt, but also of a spiritual/physical torment to it. I’ll call it “spiritual/physical” because it’s not in the physical realm, but the spirit realm, but that realm is so real, it appears to be physical. Like on another frequency if yea will. Well this atheist described like vicious creatures tearing at his skin and brining him into a deeper darkness in this hallway. Anyway this atheist got resuscitated and it changed his life, he is now a minister. I have also listened to this other guy’s testimony on youtube, he is now a minister as well. He was a former atheist who died by a jellyfish sting. He experienced hell as in deep darkness, then he cried to God and he saw a light, then he was resuscitated and it changed his life, he is now a minister.

So, my question to you is, how can this “flame” be only “guilt of sin” in light of all these near death experiences? I know that scripture holds more weight than personal experiences, granted, but if the experiences are sincere and they do not directly contradict scripture, then perhaps they can help us understand a correct interpretation of scripture?

Now I don’t want you to think I am disagreeing with you, I do believe there is a emotional torment of guilt in hell, by all means. But in light of the many near death experiences, could it be that this emotional torment converts to a torment that appears to be spiritual/physical in nature?

Good question. I've never really thought about it in those terms before, but the idea of an invisible flame giving off no light is an interesting one.

Here is a youtube video demonstrating an invisible fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS1FphiGy9c&feature=related it’s quite interesting if you have not already seen it before. So it demonstrates that if hell does have fire and darkness at the same time as Jesus said, it can actually happen and there be no contradiction.

I've always thought of God as being the ultimate source of light and truth.

I agree. I see the light as God, truth, justice, love and honesty. So the light is not physical, like one’s lamp, but of a virtuous thing. But at the same time, the light can be a spiritual/physical thing. Like Ezekiel saw the glory of God and there was light all around. Also John said Jesus face shown like the sun. Also the near death experience I told you of, well the guy who saw darkness, also saw a spiritual/physical light and then heard God’s addable voice coming from this light. And he said this light had waves of love radiating from it and flowing INTO him.

Light is always spoken of in the scriptures as something we should seek after, and because darkness is its opposite, darkness would be something we would want to avoid. There are over five dozen verses in the Bible in which light and darkness are both mentioned within the same verse. I see the glory of God as filling the human soul with light and hope and the absense of His glory as filling the soul with darkness and despair. I guess I have always thought of Outer Darkness as a place completely devoid of God's glory. I don't see it so much as being physically dark but as being spiritually dark and spiritually cold. There would be only the emotional torment and spritual anguish for eternity. You know how they say that dry ice burns? If we were to think of that working in reverse, we might be able to comprehend how a hot enough flame could essentially incinerate everything, leaving the human spirit in a state much like I picture a nuclear winter.

When you say the darkness is not so much as being physically dark, but spiritually dark, do you mean the same way I am saying it, in a spiritually/physical sense? Or do you mean ONLY spiritual? The way I view it is that this darkness in hell APPEARS to be physical, but IS in essence spiritual and effects the person emotional, that is how they feel it, and they feel it so strong emotionally, that it appears to feel physical as well, and it looks physical as well, even though it’s not in the physical realm, but is in the spirit realm. Likewise the same thing applies to the light, it appears to be physical, but is in essence spiritual and effects the person emotionally, and they feel it emotionally, and they feel it so strongly that it appears to be felt even physically.

Do you agree with that, or do you see it differently on this line?

Also when you say emotional torment, I am going to assume you mean the same thing I mean when I say it, but when you say “spiritual anguish” are you saying the same thing I am saying when I talk about a spiritual/physical experience the person is having? Or are you meaning something different on this line?

 

[Jollybear]

That's an interpretation I really can't go along with. These individuals had never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ since they had lived hundreds of years before He did, and not by choice either. True, a person can live a good life without knowing anything at all about Jesus Christ, and it would hardly make sense to say that their lack of knowledge was an excuse for them to lived depraved lives. But seriously, can you imagine Jesus descending into the Spirit Prison, teaching the people there and then after three days, turning away and saying, "So... now you know why I suffered and died. Too bad you were born at the wrong time and in the wrong place. The billions who will be born in the future will be able to repent of their sins and receive the blessing of my atoning sacrifice, but because you lived before I did, you're just out of luck."?

Actually I should have clarified that interpretation better. That interpretation does not say that Jesus went into the spirit prison and in so many words say to them, I died for sin, rose from death, but you did not know, so you’re out of luck. He went in there to tell them that they did not listen to NOAH and his message given by God, therefore their out of luck. Because according to the passage in 1 Peter 3:19-20 says that these people disobeyed God in the day of Noah. So therefore, they had to have HEARD a message from Noah in order to disobey it. Therefore, they are JUSTLY in that spirit prison, because they KNEW of God’s message, yet rebelled against it.

That just reminds me of another point. If God can reveal his Son through the prophets in the OT, why could he not do so to people today in remote places who happen to be out of reach of missionaries at the time?

Now even though I am saying all this, I still believe there is hope in hell just that it is hard to get out. I am just throwing that interpretation out for you to see what you think of it.

As far as what "forever" means, I think it means exactly what it says, but I believe that it applies solely to those who refuse to repent.

I agree.

Okay, that's essentially what I believe, too. I guess I'm just willing to take it a step further and say that people are "wicked" for a lot of reasons we are not always able to understand.

I agree that we are all wicked in different ways. But at the same time, I believe we can be cleansed from it and repent of it by God revealing to us our sin, then us turning from that sin, and his helping us be freed from that sin. For instance, one could be tempted to tell a lie because they are afraid, but they could go against the grain of their fear and exercise courage and tell the truth. It boils down to a choice, every moment of every day. Just as Jesus said “take up there cross DAILY and follow me”. True, sometimes we may throw down the cross and say “I am sick of this! I am not carrying that splintered heavy thing one step further right now!”

God knows what those reasons are even if we don't.

I think I may slightly disagree with you here. I believe that we know when we sin every time we actually do it. It pricks us in our conscience, plus the bible says that the Holy Spirit will CONVICT us of our sin. He will show us. It is true though that some can “burn their conscience as with a hot iron” by constantly resisting that pricking and resisting the Spirit striving with them. If they keep resisting, they risk the Spirit ceasing to strive with them. But in the case of the follower of God, they don’t have that high risk, so God always shows them. Even for the person who is not a follower of God, God still strives and convicts them as well, just they are the one’s resisting. Paul says in the book of Romans 1:18 that people suppress the truth by their wickedness. In other words, they know the truth, or they know where they have sinned, but they ignore it. They don’t pretend TO know, they pretend NOT to know.

I often think of the advantages I've had in comparison to someone who may, for example, have been born as the illegitmate daughter of some woman living in a brothel in the slums of Calcutta. If such a child were to grow up to be "wicked," wouldn't she deserve some kind of a chance to hear what Jesus did for her, and to make an informed decision as to whether to accept His gift of redemption?

Absolutely, she does deserve the chance to hear the plan of redemption. None of us deserves to actually have redemption, but since it’s given, God has thus made us deserving to hear it and be given the chance to accept it or not.

There are just so many factors to consider before writing someone off as worthy to spend eternity in Hell.

I agree.

This is interesting. You seem to see different degrees of darkness or suffering in Hell whereas I see different degrees of glory and happiness in Heaven. We agree that there are different degrees of wickedness and different degrees of righteousness. I see God as having a degree of compassion that far outweighs His desire to punish the wicked, but as intending to reward the righteous to a greater degree than He will the unrighteous. Your focus appears to be on His intent to punish the more wicked to a greater degree than He will the less wicked.

Right, I agree with you that there are degrees of righteousness and wickedness, reward and punishment. When I say reward, I am not implying that heaven is a reward, but that there are rewards IN heaven, heaven is the gift that is given based on the gift of God’s mercy to us when we receive it.

As I've said before, but I think it would be possible. The first two steps in the repentence process (as I've been taught) are recognition of one's sins, and remorse for them. It would be impossible to move to the next step without having completed those two. But if someone recognises his misdeeds and sincerely feels sorry for them, it can be done. In LDS theology, the first priciple of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Chrst. The second is repentence. In order to be able to completely forsake sin, a person would have to first believe in Jesus Christ's power to make it possible at all. Once a person had that faith, repentence would be a great deal easier than it would be otherwise. A person who has faith in Christ at least knows that there is someone pulling for him, so to speak, someone who wants to help him succeed and that it's the person who can make his efforts worthwhile. For a person who did not have this faith, it would be much, much more difficult, perhaps impossible.

 

[Jollybear]

I agree with everything you said here. We must recognize our sin first, be sorry for it, and then ask God for help to turn from it and then turn from it. And then God forgives the sin and cleanses us and frees us from it. But he forgives us because Jesus paid for the sin. When we accept that payment, God helps us and forgives us. If we reject that payment, then we are seeking to pay our debt by ourselves, which means we will never get it paid. So those who have not heard of Christ, by general revelation, may reason to themselves that God somehow could pay for their sin and that he is a good God. Because I think even general revelation tells us that God is not only mercy, he is also just at the same time. For if he was only merciful and not just, then he would not be merciful either, since mercy is directed toward something that is an unjust deed that was done. You can’t have mercy on someone if you don’t think they done something wrong. So if there is no justice with God, then that means he does not have warnings and standards, which means anything goes, which means, there is nothing wrong to God to have mercy for. So, I think general revelation would have us hear that God is both merciful and just. So therefore, one could say who is born in the jungle somewhere “since I am still alive, God must have mercy on me, and since we grow old and die, God must have justice on us. So, since I am still alive, God must be a good God and he must have somehow paid for my sin, which I do not know how he has though". This is what I mean, if somewhere someone was to put enough thought into it, they could tap into this general revelation, for it seems to be there.

And building on the other thing I was saying, one could cry out to God to reveal himself if he be real, and help them. I remember one time, when I was tempted to commit lustful sin, I prayed to God for 15 minutes, pleading for strength. And then I felt a warm heat come over me, and it killed the desire that was stimulated by the temptation and I died to that temptation. It was no longer a pull on me. And I felt a warm piece. I thought, this is obviously the presence of God right now.

So you are basically saying that even without a knowledge of Jesus Christ, a person can be "right with God." Up to a point, I agree. Undoubtedly, there have been many people over the ages who have been "right with God" and have not been Christians. And yet the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the light and that no one can return to God's presence without His intercession. I'm just saying that God has provided a way for all of those people (the ones who were "right with God" based on a limited knowledge of His plan for their eternal happiness) to find that Intercessor after death but before the resurrection. He has even provided a way for those who weren't right with Him to become right with him. Some won't want to accept it, but some will. I also think that the line between what makes a person right with God or not right with God may be a kind of fuzzy one. I mean even those who have lived essentially righteous lives have sinned in some ways, and even those who have lived essentially wicked lives have some redeeming qualities. It's not a matter of whether a person's righteousness outweighs his wickedness; ultimately every person needs a Savior (in my opinion).

Yes, I agree that everyone needs a savior, for all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glorious law. Everyone needs that sin debt paid for.

And building on what you said, some in the Old Testament did not hear of Jesus, but they did prophesy or see him according to the New Testament.

But, even those who did not prophesy or see him, still had some general revelation, which was animal, and lamb and goat and bull sacrifices and grain and wheat sacrifices. Like sin offerings and things to make atonement and these were temporary down payments for the communities sins foreshadowing what was to come in Jesus ultimate sacrifice. Now of course, some nations outside Israel had this general revelation to, but twisted it around and so were deceived. They thought they could sacrifice their babies for instance and animal’s with defects. Some thought they needed not just any baby, but a kings baby to sacrifice. So everyone had a sense of guilt and need to be redeemed, so there was this general revelation there, and if it was there, why would it not still be here now, in like say a jungle somewhere?

I suppose so, but I'm not sure that this vague sort of knowledge would be sufficient in the end.

Right, the bible says every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. This obviously means everyone will have a perfect knowledge of who Jesus is and what he did and what he wants. So all the vague knowledge, the right temporal but general knowledge will be filled in, and all the twisted general and false knowledge will be corrected. Then the choice will be given to repent. The ones who had the right but general knowledge, will probably accept Christ more than likely since they were honest in their life on earth. And the ones who had a twisted knowledge will probably reject, although some may try to repent, but like Jesus said, some will try to enter in the narrow way, but will not be able to (that selfish thing again, lying to the angel, like the scenario I gave before).

Wow! I couldn't do that. Are you in nursing or something like that?

No, I am not a nurse, I work at Home Depot. Sometimes I don’t work ten hour shifts. They shuffle there schedules all over the place. I get different hours, and different days off each week. It would be nice to have a set schedule, but, that is the way they do it. But for three weeks strait, I have been working ten hour shifts, and gotten three days off in a row for those three weeks.

 

[Katzpur]

...when you say emotional torment, I am going to assume you mean the same thing I mean when I say it, but when you say “spiritual anguish” are you saying the same thing I am saying when I talk about a spiritual/physical experience the person is having? Or are you meaning something different on this line?

I think you and I are pretty much on agreement on this. I, too, understand it as being a spiritual/physical experience. Even though it is in the spiritual realm, I imagine there would be a physical element to it. I can't say I know how that would be, but I don't disagree with you.

 

[haltensie]

well I at least got some proper responses. but some how this turned into a "is this what you meant?" discussion.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

well I at least got some proper responses. but some how this turned into a "is this what you meant?" discussion.

Since this is your thread, how are you doing? Have you had any thoughts or feelings about this whole thing? What is your opinion at the moment?

 

[Levite]

So, I'm just going to toss this out here:

There is no One True religion. I say that God speaks to different peoples, at different times, for different reasons, giving them similar but not identical messages in order to establish relationships of various kinds with many peoples.

Judaism is the true religion of the Jews.

Zoroastrianism is the true religion of Zoroastrians.

Islam is the true religion of Muslims.

Christianity, Sikhism, Baha'iism, and the rest are true paths that their adherents can follow to develop spiritually and grow closer to the One God.

So long as you believe in the One God, it seems to me from my admittedly limited readings of the various sacred Scriptures (I know Hebrew Scriptures well, Christian and Muslim scriptures a little less well, the others not at all) that He doesn't seem to care too much about whether your theology is perfect or you have all the little details right. He seems to be pretty interested in you knowing that all things are connected through Him, the Creator, and that you ought to do what you can to help the helpless and the downtrodden, and make a just society.

So if we're doing those things, what does it matter which religion we practice? Practice the religion you inherited. If you absolutely, with all your soul and being, feel drawn to a different religion than the one you inherited, convert and practice that one.

But it seems to me that, as long as you're trying to make the world a more just and compassionate place, and as long as you're doing your part to help out widows and orphans and poor folks and suchlike, the rest is really kind of icing on the cake.

 

[Jollybear]

Haltensie

well I at least got some proper responses. but some how this turned into a "is this what you meant?" discussion.

Is there something wrong with that? If so, what and why? I think that is called “good communication” skill.


Levite

So, I'm just going to toss this out here:

There is no One True religion. I say that God speaks to different peoples, at different times, for different reasons, giving them similar but not identical messages in order to establish relationships of various kinds with many peoples.

It shows your religion is Jewish, do you believe the Old Testament is ALL true which the Jewish religion is based on? Yes or no?

Judaism is the true religion of the Jews.

Zoroastrianism is the true religion of Zoroastrians.

Islam is the true religion of Muslims.

Christianity, Sikhism, Baha'iism, and the rest are true paths that their adherents can follow to develop spiritually and grow closer to the One God.

Ok, what about all the “false gods” in the Old Testament that the bible condemns? Are they also the one true God, just a different understanding of him with different messages? And that is the pagan worlds truth? Why not include them?

Is truth relative or absolute? And why to whatever your answer is?

So long as you believe in the One God, it seems to me from my admittedly limited readings of the various sacred Scriptures (I know Hebrew Scriptures well, Christian and Muslim scriptures a little less well, the others not at all) that He doesn't seem to care too much about whether your theology is perfect or you have all the little details right.

Actually, according to your own scriptures (the Old Testament) which I have studied a lot, your own book says that God is against false gods and false ideas of God, which is equivalent to a false god. So, why does your book say there that God is interested in those “little details”?

Your own book also says that if someone prophesies something and it comes to pass but it’s in the name of a false god, that prophet is to be condemned. It also says that if a prophet prophesies something and it comes to pass and is said in the name of a FALSE god, that prophet ALSO is to be condemned. That looks like YOUR God (which also is my God, the Judao/Christian God) is interested in all kinds of “little details”. It looks like the Jewish God is VERY interested in TRUTH and REALITY and HATES falsehood and lies. I can understand why he would hate such things, I to hate them.

He seems to be pretty interested in you knowing that all things are connected through Him, the Creator, and that you ought to do what you can to help the helpless and the downtrodden, and make a just society.

Is refusal to help the downtrodden and make a just society CONNECTED THROUGH HIM? If no, then why say “all things are connected through him”?

So if we're doing those things, what does it matter which religion we practice?

Here is why it matters, because TRUTH matters, and justice and TRUTH hold hands together. What is just for one person may not be just to another person, you even said it yourself when you said “Judaism is the true religion of the Jews. Zoroastrianism is the true religion of Zoroastrians. Islam is the true religion of Muslims. Christianity, Sikhism, Baha'iism, and the rest are true paths that their adherents can follow to develop spiritually and grow closer to the One God.”

Some Muslims consider it JUST to fly there plains into the twin towers, but that is considered UNJUST by many other religions and people. But to those CERTAIN KIND of Muslims they consider there actions to be TRUE, and they consider it a TRUE command by their God “alah” to kill for his name sake. So they are “practicing” there “religion”. So according to you *those kinds of muslims have the truth according to them and they can practice it*. The point I am trying to show is, what someone believes, or their religion says, that is what they will practice. I am showing you that truth and justice HOLD HANDS together. In other words, what is TRUE justice? That gets into TRUTH finding. You have to know what is true and what is false in order to administer TRUE justice and deter away from FALSE justice, which is no justice at all. Because if you say truth is relative, you in essence say that justice is relative and then that gets into meaninglessness. What a person believes is true is what they will practice and what they practice can EFFECT others and there society, thus this gets into the justice field. You can’t separate truth from justice.

Practice the religion you inherited.

So if I was born into a Satanist family, I should be a Satanist then?

If you absolutely, with all your soul and being, feel drawn to a different religion than the one you inherited, convert and practice that one.

So if I converted to the religion of some Muslims that kill for their religion, that is ok then because I am “practicing my religion” after all, wouldn’t I?

But it seems to me that, as long as you're trying to make the world a more just and compassionate place, and as long as you're doing your part to help out widows and orphans and poor folks and suchlike, the rest is really kind of icing on the cake.

I agree the poor and downtrodden need to be helped, but truth is not icing on the cake, truth is your meat and vegetables. Without truth, TRUE JUSTICE is thwarted. The root of true justice is TRUTH.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Greetings!




(And this is ignoring for the nonce the fact that IOV all the great religions started out as monotheistic.)

really?

that leaves out Judaism, christianity and Islam...

which leaves out bahai, it being an offshoot of islam...

oh well

 

[Mr Cheese]

the one true religion is of course the one with the biggest stick
and the one that declares "I have the biggest stick, so there."

this would leave out all others beside Islam and Christianity.
Arguably as christianity is divided into so many numerous sects, Islam is no.1 as it only has two sects, those with beards and those without....

So Islam wins the race, Jews get to suck lemons and the Bahai have to do with orange juice. Christianity mean while gets an attractive teddy bear , that comes with a free tea set, allowing you and your teddy to eat bananas with a monkey

 

[Mr Cheese]

Some Muslims consider it JUST to fly there plains into the twin towers, but that is considered UNJUST by many other religions and people. But to those CERTAIN KIND of Muslims they consider there actions to be TRUE, and they consider it a TRUE command by their God “alah” to kill for his name sake. So they are “practicing” there “religion”.

Some christians think Ronald Reagan was a great man, Sarah Palin is sexy and smart, killing doctors and bombing clinics will prevent abortions and that ensuring the end of the world comes soon is their mission from God.

:areyoucra

 

[Jollybear]

Mr Cheese

Some christians think Ronald Reagan was a great man, Sarah Palin is sexy and smart, killing doctors and bombing clinics will prevent abortions and that ensuring the end of the world comes soon is their mission from God.

Right, and that just goes back to my point. Truth matters, we must know what is true and right in order for our “practice” to be “just” and to be able to administer “TRUE justice”.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Mr Cheese



Right, and that just goes back to my point. Truth matters, we must know what is true and right in order for our “practice” to be “just” and to be able to administer “TRUE justice”.

so thinking sarah palin is sexy and intelligent is true justice?
Or was the bombing and killing of doctors mean true justice?

 

[Humanistheart]

Hi, I'm a zoroastrian from England and lately I've been getting curious about the other monotheistic religions i.e. judaism, christianity, islam, and mormonism. The reason I only mention monotheistic religions is because I firmly believe there is only one true God, however I'm not sure which religion is God's religion. I suppose I'm just beginning to have doubts about my own religion and I am now willing to branch out to others. So, all who are adherents of the religions listed above, please do respond. I really want to know what makes you believe your religion is God's religion.

I'm curious halstenie, do you make a disctintion between pure monotheism and qualified monotheism or is it all the same to you? Meaning are religions that only have one god in one being like Judiasm and Islam more valid to you than the qualified monothiest religions like christianity and mormonism (which are closer to poly/panthiesm.

 

[Jollybear]

Mr Cheese

so thinking sarah palin is sexy and intelligent is true justice?
Or was the bombing and killing of doctors mean true justice?

You misunderstood me. Thinking Sarah Palin is sexy and intelligent has nothing to do with justice, nor injustice for that matter. It’s a perspective. If someone thinks she looks good, fine, if someone thinks she is intelligent, fine. Although according to Jesus one should not border over the line of lust within their thoughts.

Also bombing and killing doctors is not true justice, it is INJUSTICE AND a double standard. For if they do that to stop the killing of babies, they are saying murder is wrong, yet they murder in order to stop murder, that is a double standard. So, double standards and injustice is AGAINST TRUE Christianity, which is rooted IN the bible.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Mr Cheese



You misunderstood me. Thinking Sarah Palin is sexy and intelligent has nothing to do with justice, nor injustice for that matter. It’s a perspective. If someone thinks she looks good, fine, if someone thinks she is intelligent, fine. Although according to Jesus one should not border over the line of lust within their thoughts.

Also bombing and killing doctors is not true justice, it is INJUSTICE AND a double standard. For if they do that to stop the killing of babies, they are saying murder is wrong, yet they murder in order to stop murder, that is a double standard. So, double standards and injustice is AGAINST TRUE Christianity, which is rooted IN the bible.

agreed...

yet there are inastances of murder, rape, war and incest in the bible...by the supposed "righteous".... I think TRUE CHRISTIANITY as you state, is found in CHRIST, not a book.

 

[Jollybear]

Mr Cheese

agreed...

yet there are inastances of murder, rape, war and incest in the bible...by the supposed "righteous"....

Right, but they also would confess and repent of those things. King David for example, he committed adultery, but he confessed it as wrong. As for rape, there was no one that was “righteous” who actually did this in the bible. As for murder, well, yes Moses murdered, but he also did some other stuff wrong too, did he have remorse for it? Probably.

Also capital punishment is not to be confused with murder.

I think TRUE CHRISTIANITY as you state, is found in CHRIST, not a book.

Right, it is found in Christ, but anyone can claim they have the true Christianity and say it’s in “Christ”. The “checks and balances” for safety purposes are by checking it and lining it up with the bible. The bible, particularly the New Testament is the foundation of where true Christianity comes from.