Why would God send good people to Hell just because they dont believe he exists?

[9Westy9]

Have you noticed that before God brings judgment in the form of a conquering nation or any other judgment there is always warning and a long time period before it happens? Have you also noticed that It says somewhere in the OT and I'm not exactly sure without looking it up, that God does not desire the death of the wicked, but that they should turn from their evil ways and live?

Is there a particular account you have in mind which you feel shows that God is immoral?

There are quite a few. The one where God mauls 42 children to death, without warning, for making fun of Elisha.

He treats humans as plunder (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Kidnapping and possibly rape as well (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) This means a man can rape a woman and then must take her as his wife

 

[Falcon]

One of your biggest problems is that you must learn to interpret the various Books[ [Daniel and Revelation are most difficult ] along with understand the various literary forms which appear in Holy nScripture : myth, legend, debate, fiction, Gospel, parable , allegory, letter, and apocalypse.

 

[InChrist]

There are quite a few. The one where God mauls 42 children to death, without warning, for making fun of Elisha.

He treats humans as plunder (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Kidnapping and possibly rape as well (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) This means a man can rape a woman and then must take her as his wife

That is quite a list. I believe some of your conclusions may be inaccurate, but I will spend some time looking up and reading these passages. I'm about to get offline and off the computer for now and get some other things done. Hopefully, I'll be able to get back to you in a couple days.

 

[9Westy9]

One of your biggest problems is that you must learn to interpret the various Books[ [Daniel and Revelation are most difficult ] along with understand the various literary forms which appear in Holy nScripture : myth, legend, debate, fiction, Gospel, parable , allegory, letter, and apocalypse.

My reply is, why would a perfect god make a book that can be misinterpreted so easily?

 

[JMorris]

Why would God send good people to Hell just because they dont believe he exists?

for fun?

 

[9Westy9]

for fun?

Just like the sims

 

[Falcon]

Originally Posted by Falcon
One of your biggest problems is that you must learn to interpret the various Books[ [Daniel and Revelation are most difficult ] along with understand the various literary forms which appear in Holy nScripture : myth, legend, debate, fiction, Gospel, parable , allegory, letter, and apocalypse.

9Westy9 ,You wrote : " My reply is, why would a perfect god make a book that can be misinterpreted so easily?"

My reply is from the Bible itself where is says that : "In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand , which the unlearned and the ubstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction" { 2nd Peter 3:16 ]

Now maybe you can understand why Jesus never left us a Holy Book first, but a Holy Church , that same One Holy Church gave us the completed Holy Bible with its "Teachers with Authority "[ Teaching Apostles and their Successors ] to help us interpret that One Sacred Interpretation ]That was God's idea and not just my opinion.

 

[9Westy9]

Originally Posted by Falcon
One of your biggest problems is that you must learn to interpret the various Books[ [Daniel and Revelation are most difficult ] along with understand the various literary forms which appear in Holy nScripture : myth, legend, debate, fiction, Gospel, parable , allegory, letter, and apocalypse.

9Westy9 ,You wrote : " My reply is, why would a perfect god make a book that can be misinterpreted so easily?"

My reply is from the Bible itself where is says that : "In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand , which the unlearned and the ubstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction" { 2nd Peter 3:16 ]

And how do we know Paul has got it right?

Now maybe you can understand why Jesus never left us a Holy Book first, but a Holy Church , that same One Holy Church gave us the completed Holy Bible with its "Teachers with Authority "[ Teaching Apostles and their Successors ] to help us interpret that One Sacred Interpretation ]That was God's idea and not just my opinion.

No I don't understand at all. If Jesus message was for everyone why write the bible in one word and leave it up to imperfect humans to translate?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How do you know? I'm not arguing that they lived a sinless life - but it says that Enoch walked with God for 300 years. His faith made him righteous - but faith in what? If he walked and talked with God for 300 years, it seems that it had to be in something more - perhaps it was Christ's life, death and resurrection to come? Elijah did a lot of amazing things and was in constant contact with God. Could their faith in the coming, dying and resurrection of Christ have made them 'righteous' before God? I don't know.

Actually, I don’t know. But since you put so much stock in the word of God, let’s see what scripture says:

1 Kings 8:46 - "When they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin..”

2 Chronicles 6:36 – “There is no man which sinneth not.”

Ecclesiastes 7:20 – “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.”

Romans 3:23 – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Either the authors who wrote these verses were wrong or Elijah had not been redeemed when he went up to heaven.

Some speculate that the two will be the two witnesses at the end times - the two that stand from the wailing wall - the two that will be killed and then brought back to life. Maybe because it is appointed to man to die once, they couldn't die, be brought back to life, then die and be brought back to life again - perhaps that doesn't jive with the rules set in place. This is all wild speculation based off of my feeble understanding...

Well, as you say, it’s all speculation. So all we have to go on is what it says in scripture. That’s not to say that the scripture is true, only that it’s all we have.

It could very well be, though since God created time, it means that certainly He existed before time existed - thus making Him timeless. Perhaps the act of creating time itself and then entering into this creation constrained by time meant that God entered Himself into time - if this is so, I would think He could just as easily remove Himself from the constraints of time. But God Himself, He is timeless, that is part of His definition, which is clear from the text - He has no end and no beginning, that's essential to what He is. I see no contradiction but that's another issue for another thread - this thread is about Hell and judgement and whatnot (I think?).

Again, it’s all speculation. My point was that I hear Christians say all the time that God is outside of space and time yet scripture says nothing about this.

It is true that God knows everything that will happen (all true statements) and I didn't mean it any other way. God knew they were going to eat it and I think God knew exactly what His plan was going to be to fix everything. When I say new plan, I mean it's unfolding began at the time of consumption (of the fruit) and the first prophecy of Christ is given in chapter 3 when God speaks to the serpent.

What is the point of creating something with the intention of it being perfect when you know that it won’t be and then having to devise patches and fixes beforehand? That makes no sense.

In Luke 10 Jesus says that he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning, so clearly the fall and everything happened before Christ came to Earth, meaning it happened well before the end of days depicted in Revelation.

If you read this verse in context, he is obviously responding to the excited reports from the disciples about vanquishing demons and whatnot. The passage reads more or less like this:

“Man! You should have seen it Lord! Even the demons submit to us in your name!”

“Yeah I know, I saw Satan fall from heaven.”

There is no indication whatsoever that he’s talking about something that happened thousands of years before.

I'd have to read more of Isaiah, it's difficult for me to fully grasp, just like Ezekiel. There is a passage in Ezekiel 28 (I think) when God talks against the 'ruler/prince of Tyre' who is a mortal then to the 'king of Tyre' - it's obvious that it is Satan that is the 'king' - remember, Satan is the 'king' behind the earthly kings and rulers, the ruler of this world.

If you notice, Satan was behind anyone that the Israelites didn’t like. But anyway, let’s delve a little further into Isaiah starting with the verse I cited already, 14:12. Pay particular attention to verse 17:

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [c]

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."

15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,

17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"

As I mentioned in my last post, chapter 14 is a continuation of chapter 13 which was a prophecy against the king of Babylon. That being the case, verse 17 is the clincher as it obviously refers to the Babylonian exile where many Israelites were carted off to Babylon as captives.

As for the story in Revelation regarding the woman and the dragon, I always took that to be a simple summation of history itself. The woman is Israel, pregnant with the messiah (Christ) and from the beginning of time Satan has tried to kill the child (Christ), because as God declared in Genesis 3, Christ would defeat Satan and save a portion of the human creation that Satan so despised.

If that’s true then Satan wasn’t cast out of heaven until after Jesus’ birth.

As far as the timing goes and the chronological order of events, I would have to read and study and ask others questions because Revelation is a book full of symbolism and other wild imagery that I do not understand because I don't understand the culture, the time period or the thinking of the people back then, the one writing it and to whom he was writing it for.

In other words, I don't want to just give something the one over, then reread it, do a quick google search and then come to a conclusive decision as to what it says, what it means and how that all ties into the rest of the Revelation narrative, the historical narrative and the Biblical narrative.

I understand.

I agree. But your choice words to me, though not found guilty by the courts we have created, may be hateful or hurtful or whatnot and may influence my violent actions - putting us both at fault in God's eyes. I agree though that spoken words does not make our choices for us - but they can certainly make it easier or harder to make a certain decision.

Well, yes and no. Not only is it a choice as to how to react but it’s also a choice as to whether or not one allows himself to be triggered in the first place. For example, some bald guys are sensitive about their baldness so when someone ribs them about it, they might get irritated or outright ticked off. I’m bald myself (inherited from both my father’s and mother’s sides) but it never bothered me and I’ve never been sensitive about it. So when someone ribs me, it doesn’t trigger me in any way.

Well, we and 'the gods' are totally different creatures/creations. Every 'god' I assume has been in the presence of God, has powers to travel between dimensions or existences (physical/spiritual), do not die, etc. It seems to me that the natural reaction of an angel/god would be to worship and obey God - but that is not our natural reaction. We see the light and we run from it, because we know that the light will reveal the evil in our hearts, the evil that we are - men love darkness more than light. It seems that the gods/angels love light more than darkness and it was actually UNnatural for Satan and the 1/3 to rebel, because they went against the nature they were created with.

And yet, look how easily and quickly these things happened.

You know, I can’t help but note here that, for an omnipotent being, his good intentions and expectations sure went to hell awfully fast.

Let’s face it, I see no justification for judging a creation that you created to fail in the first place. I know what you’re going to say but, if he knew before he created us that we would fail then he created us to fail.

And I just can't see why it's necessary for A&E to need to understand good and evil or have a sinful nature before they could disobey God.

It was never my contention that they had to understand good and evil to sin, only that they had a sinful nature before they sinned else they wouldn’t have sinned. I’ve been
saying all along that being aware of good and evil was irrelevant since NOT being aware of it didn’t deter them from sinning. You’re the one claiming they had a sinful nature after they sinned because they were then aware of it.

Eating the fruit was something UNnatural for them, it wasn't natural, it wasn't what they were created for. Just as the unnatural event of Satan's rebellion led to unnatural results, so too the unnatural event of A&E's disobeying God to gain knowledge of good and evil had unnatural results upon the rest of Creation, including you and me. Agree to disagree?

I reckon so.

 

[DandyAndy]

My reply is, why would a perfect god make a book that can be misinterpreted so easily?

I think it's wiser, more fair and more productive to question the interpreter (mankind) rather than the thing being interpreted (Bible) when it comes to misinterpretation. When science can't find an answer, scientists don't blame what is being studied, they look at and change the way in which they are studying it.

There are plenty of reasons why/how mankind could misinterpret the Bible, or anything else for that matter. If we misinterpret something, it's reasonable to think that we are the ones that are wrong - not the thing we are trying to interpret.

It seems awfully arrogant (to me) whenever someone takes this position that the text is wrong and not the individual. Some Christians do this by reading what they want out of the text rather than what is actually there - is this the texts fault of the readers fault?

 

[DandyAndy]

Actually, I don’t know. But since you put so much stock in the word of God, let’s see what scripture says:

1 Kings 8:46 - "When they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin..”

2 Chronicles 6:36 – “There is no man which sinneth not.”

Ecclesiastes 7:20 – “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.”

Romans 3:23 – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Either the authors who wrote these verses were wrong or Elijah had not been redeemed when he went up to heaven.

All very true, like I said, I never claimed they were sinless. I agree that the text makes it clear that they couldn't have been sinless. Faith and righteousness have a very high standing with God. I can't explain why Enoch and Elijah were caught up without dying. I presented my personal theory but obviously it's just a theory.

Well, as you say, it’s all speculation. So all we have to go on is what it says in scripture. That’s not to say that the scripture is true, only that it’s all we have.

I agree that it is all we got - speculation is fun but not very productive.

Again, it’s all speculation. My point was that I hear Christians say all the time that God is outside of space and time yet scripture says nothing about this.

And as we have agreed upon, the scripture (true or not) is really all we have to go on - the things you hear from Christians, unless backed up by scripture, are just speculation and should be treated us such.

What is the point of creating something with the intention of it being perfect when you know that it won’t be and then having to devise patches and fixes beforehand? That makes no sense.

There is no love when someone is forced to do something against their will.

Creating a living thing, giving it the choice to either submit to rules that are advantageous to its joy or do its own thing, is the only way love can be present. If God forced A&E to be perfect, sure they would be always perfect, but that isn't a loving relationship - that is a heartless dictatorship void of choice, freedom and ultimately love.

That's not why God created everything. He didn't want to be a heartless dictator - He could have been if He wanted - but that's not who He is. He created everything for love and relationship, which is why we have to choose Him in the person of Christ and if we don't choose Christ, we are found guilty of our sins and we get to live with the results of our choices forever.

If you read this verse in context, he is obviously responding to the excited reports from the disciples about vanquishing demons and whatnot. The passage reads more or less like this:

“Man! You should have seen it Lord! Even the demons submit to us in your name!”

“Yeah I know, I saw Satan fall from heaven.”

There is no indication whatsoever that he’s talking about something that happened thousands of years before.

And there is no indication that he isn't talking about something that happened thousands of years before either. Clearly it happened sometime before, since he used the word saw. The length of time is unknown.

If you notice, Satan was behind anyone that the Israelites didn’t like. But anyway, let’s delve a little further into Isaiah starting with the verse I cited already, 14:12. Pay particular attention to verse 17:

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [c]

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."

15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,

17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"

As I mentioned in my last post, chapter 14 is a continuation of chapter 13 which was a prophecy against the king of Babylon. That being the case, verse 17 is the clincher as it obviously refers to the Babylonian exile where many Israelites were carted off to Babylon as captives.

I think Babylon has been used as a representation of all pagan religions - I'm just pulling that out of the air though. I hear your point and it is well taken - you use scripture and I appreciate that - and I freely admit that you could be right. But you could be wrong too. It's still inconclusive for me.

Switch it around - Satan was behind anyone that was against the Israelites. Because Satan knew that Jesus (the defeater of Satan) would come through that line/race, and if Satan could eradicate that line/race, he could eradicate the coming Christ. But God intervened again and again to protect that line/race so that Christ could come about and redeem humanity.

If that’s true then Satan wasn’t cast out of heaven until after Jesus’ birth.

I don't know enough of the text to either agree or disagree - my gut says disagree, but clearly my gut is not a reliable source.

Well, yes and no. Not only is it a choice as to how to react but it’s also a choice as to whether or not one allows himself to be triggered in the first place. For example, some bald guys are sensitive about their baldness so when someone ribs them about it, they might get irritated or outright ticked off. I’m bald myself (inherited from both my father’s and mother’s sides) but it never bothered me and I’ve never been sensitive about it. So when someone ribs me, it doesn’t trigger me in any way.

I agree 100%. One mans temptation is not another mans temptation. But we are all tempted in different ways and we are all able to be tempted. I forgot what the point of this was.

And yet, look how easily and quickly these things happened.

Easily and quickly? We must be operating on wildly different definitions of easily and quickly. We only know of 1 heavenly rebellion in however many billions of years (I don't know how old the universe is). And we have no idea how long A&E lived before they ate the fruit. I don't see easily or quickly in either situation.

You know, I can’t help but note here that, for an omnipotent being, his good intentions and expectations sure went to hell awfully fast.

Again, how do you know those good intentions and expectations went to hell so fast?

Let’s face it, I see no justification for judging a creation that you created to fail in the first place. I know what you’re going to say but, if he knew before he created us that we would fail then he created us to fail.

I see a ton of justification for judging a creation that you created to be perfect, knowing they would choose imperfection, then offering them the chance to choose perfection or reject perfection, all the while judging them based upon their own personal choices. God is judging them based upon their own choices, not something He forced them to do or not do. God presents us with good and evil and says 'choose one or the other' and tells us the consequences of making each choice.

I can't think of a better and more fair scenario and I doubt that anyone ever could. He knew before He created us that we would fall, I agree, and He also knew before He created us that He would offer to pick us back up - we just had to want to get back up.

I see something vastly different than you do. The tragic thing is that there is a right and a wrong way to look at it - it's isn't a piece of art where you can see one thing and I can see another and everything is ok.

I guess it all depends upon how you look at it.

It was never my contention that they had to understand good and evil to sin, only that they had a sinful nature before they sinned else they wouldn’t have sinned. I’ve been
saying all along that being aware of good and evil was irrelevant since NOT being aware of it didn’t deter them from sinning. You’re the one claiming they had a sinful nature after they sinned because they were then aware of it.

Oh, ok, sorry. Well I disagree with what I underlined in your quote, because I don't see any necessitation for a sinful nature in their situation to do something as unnatural as disobey God. The very fact that it was unnatural explains why the punishment is so harsh (the way I see it).

 

[9Westy9]

I think it's wiser, more fair and more productive to question the interpreter (mankind) rather than the thing being interpreted (Bible) when it comes to misinterpretation. When science can't find an answer, scientists don't blame what is being studied, they look at and change the way in which they are studying it.

Studying science is a completely different study to scriptural study. Not to mention that an omniscient god should be able to tell that mankind could and would misinterpret it. Unless of course this was his intention?

There are plenty of reasons why/how mankind could misinterpret the Bible, or anything else for that matter. If we misinterpret something, it's reasonable to think that we are the ones that are wrong - not the thing we are trying to interpret.

Yes, but why would a omniscient god allow us to misinterpret it and be 'wrong'

It seems awfully arrogant (to me) whenever someone takes this position that the text is wrong and not the individual. Some Christians do this by reading what they want out of the text rather than what is actually there - is this the texts fault of the readers fault?

Clearly the readers fault as their intention is to read what they want. Does that mean the majority of christian sects (denominations) do this? If so how can you tell?

 

[InChrist]

The scriptures clearly say that God is righteous. It also states that He is the One who determines right and wrong and holds the power over life and death. So my perspective is that it is presumptuous of a finite human with limited knowledge to determine God was immoral in any given situation. For one thing, you or I don’t completely know all the facts of the incidents you have presented below. Secondly, while the OT is an important part of the Bible the historical accounts do not directly relate to you and me as they did to those who were involved and had a better understanding of what was happening. There are plenty of understandable clear scriptures which do relate directly to us, without resorting to the more difficult historical passages with the sole purpose of attempting to charge God of being immoral. If God is righteous and just as the scriptures say and I believe, then I also believe He had/has good and valid reasons for doing or allowing the things He does whether I understand everything or not. I trust His goodness. Of course I can’t make you trust Him, but at least you could take your concerns directly to God and seek His response.

There are quite a few. The one where God mauls 42 children to death, without warning, for making fun of Elisha.

I think the following article linked to below answers this charge as well as I can:
Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the “youths” for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?

Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the “youths” for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

He treats humans as plunder (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

All war involves plunder. Wars and their devastating impact on human life has been a part of this fallen world since sin entered and humans continue perpetuating sin. Since humans prefer to do things their own selfish and sinful way rather than seek God’s wisdom and way, He allows and uses human activities to demonstrate the terrible consequences of sin.

Kidnapping and possibly rape as well (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

Many times the historical accounts of the OT are simply just that: historical accounts of things the people did. Because the tribe of Benjamin had almost been wiped out, except for 600 males they needed wives in order to prevent complete extinction of the tribe. The other eleven tribes decided on a course of action which included fighting against the town of Jabesh Gilead because these Israelites failed to help in the battle which had almost decimated the tribe of Benjamin. Four-hundred women were spared for wives for the men of Benjamin. Then they came up with a scheme for the remaining 200 men who still didn’t have wives to take 200 women from the Israelite town of Shiloh. There is no indication that God commended these actions or that He even approved of them. It is an account of what happened and that's all. You cannot use this to conclude that God is immoral.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) This means a man can rape a woman and then must take her as his wife

[/quote]

I don’t believe you are reading these two verses in context or understanding what they are actually saying. The context of the whole passage in which these two verses are found is sexual purity and a prohibition against rape and infidelity. In most cases the rape was punishable by death. The verses you cited were actually given as a protection for a young woman who was raped by a man. In the culture of that day a raped woman would have no hope of future marriage. That may not be easy to understand or seem like such a big deal today, but it was very important in that time and culture. So God gave that law to protect women who were raped. If a man did so, he was then obligated to marry and provide for that woman.

 

[9Westy9]

The scriptures clearly say that God is righteous. It also states that He is the One who determines right and wrong and holds the power over life and death. So my perspective is that it is presumptuous of a finite human with limited knowledge to determine God was immoral in any given situation. For one thing, you or I don’t completely know all the facts of the incidents you have presented below. Secondly, while the OT is an important part of the Bible the historical accounts do not directly relate to you and me as they did to those who were involved and had a better understanding of what was happening. There are plenty of understandable clear scriptures which do relate directly to us, without resorting to the more difficult historical passages with the sole purpose of attempting to charge God of being immoral. If God is righteous and just as the scriptures say and I believe, then I also believe He had/has good and valid reasons for doing or allowing the things He does whether I understand everything or not. I trust His goodness. Of course I can’t make you trust Him, but at least you could take your concerns directly to God and seek His response.

Depends how you define morality. Personally by the secular definition it appears as though god is immoral. The film 'God on trial' was quite interesting and powerful. It reinforced a lot of these action the bible ascribes to God as immoral.

I think the following article linked to below answers this charge as well as I can:
Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the “youths” for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?

Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the “youths” for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

However does the punishment fit the crime? Celebrities can get mocked in a similar way depending on what they do.= and how they look. Should people who make fun of them be mauled to death for that?

All war involves plunder. Wars and their devastating impact on human life has been a part of this fallen world since sin entered and humans continue perpetuating sin. Since humans prefer to do things their own selfish and sinful way rather than seek God’s wisdom and way, He allows and uses human activities to demonstrate the terrible consequences of sin.

Do human lives count as plunder? Especially when the human plunder is specifically women and children? Would you view this as 'moral behaviour'. If not then why does God command it?

Many times the historical accounts of the OT are simply just that: historical accounts of things the people did. Because the tribe of Benjamin had almost been wiped out, except for 600 males they needed wives in order to prevent complete extinction of the tribe. The other eleven tribes decided on a course of action which included fighting against the town of Jabesh Gilead because these Israelites failed to help in the battle which had almost decimated the tribe of Benjamin. Four-hundred women were spared for wives for the men of Benjamin. Then they came up with a scheme for the remaining 200 men who still didn’t have wives to take 200 women from the Israelite town of Shiloh. There is no indication that God commended these actions or that He even approved of them. It is an account of what happened and that's all. You cannot use this to conclude that God is immoral.

However why did God not answer their prayers? They prayed for God to do something and he didn't. Why? and why did he then allow them to do something so immoral? Ignorance can be viewed as just as immoral as the action itself.

I don’t believe you are reading these two verses in context or understanding what they are actually saying. The context of the whole passage in which these two verses are found is sexual purity and a prohibition against rape and infidelity. In most cases the rape was punishable by death. The verses you cited were actually given as a protection for a young woman who was raped by a man. In the culture of that day a raped woman would have no hope of future marriage. That may not be easy to understand or seem like such a big deal today, but it was very important in that time and culture. So God gave that law to protect women who were raped. If a man did so, he was then obligated to marry and provide for that woman.

However if a man sees a woman he likes, he can rape her thus forcing her, by law, to marry him. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out and it wouldn't surprise me if wealthy men of the time did this.

 

[DandyAndy]

Studying science is a completely different study to scriptural study. Not to mention that an omniscient god should be able to tell that mankind could and would misinterpret it. Unless of course this was his intention?

I was trying to draw a parallel. I don't think God wants us to misunderstand anything, but the existence of choice means that some people will choose wrong.

Yes, but why would a omniscient god allow us to misinterpret it and be 'wrong'

The same reason He would allow us to not believe in Him - it's all about choice and being responsible for our choices. I heard someone say that it is harder for God to reveal Himself to mankind than we may think. The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me. If God revealed Himself the way most people say they want Him to, He would be violating their right to choose and would be forcing Himself upon them - that's not what love is about.

No one needs a diploma to understand Christ, the need to be redeemed, the realization of ones own soul, the existence of God, etc.

Clearly the readers fault as their intention is to read what they want. Does that mean the majority of christian sects (denominations) do this? If so how can you tell?

I can't speak to any certain denomination or sect, but I can guarantee that any and every religious group does this because humans are not perfect. This includes Christians. Too many people, many of them Christians, read the highlights and skim and gather a cliff notes understanding of their beliefs and act like they know it all. I've been guilty of this before and it's something I'm trying to correct - only problem is that it takes a lifetime - literally.

If a Christian tells you one thing and the Bible tells you another thing - stick with what the Bible says. Just like if a scientist tells you one thing and the evidence/results tells you another, stick with the evidence/results.

 

[Meow Mix]

I heard someone say that it is harder for God to reveal Himself to mankind than we may think. The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me. If God revealed Himself the way most people say they want Him to, He would be violating their right to choose and would be forcing Himself upon them - that's not what love is about.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems rather the opposite: not to give evidence of His existence when people's eternal souls are on the line, such that they will be in disgustingly horrific agony for all eternity if they remain unconvinced of God's existence before they die, is a huge reason for God to reveal His existence to them.

It isn't unloving to give people an informed choice. In fact, it's very hateful and malicious not to give them an informed choice. It may even be infinitely malicious given that people who fail to uncover the right evidence in order to make an informed and rational decision on the matter would ostensibly suffer so incomprehensively for all eternity that we can't even describe their torment with words.

Only a very wicked monster (in fact, given the infinite nature of the suffering, the wickedest possible monster by definition) wouldn't give the evidence required for an informed decision. That isn't love. It doesn't "force" anything on anyone to give them the information they need to make a choice. You can't call it a "choice" if people aren't even sure what's being chosen, or that they're "choosing" at all. I truly, truly, truly don't understand this line of reasoning; yet I see some theists (Christians in particular) talking about it all the time. I just don't get it. Anyone else have trouble understanding this reasoning?

 

[Meow Mix]

If I have a child and I want them to choose to love me or not -- such that I will reward them for choosing to love me and punish them grievously for choosing not to love me -- am I really offering them a "choice" by hiding my very existence from them such that they can't even be sure I'm there or not?

Am I "forcing" myself on them to reveal myself to them, say "here I am, you can choose to love me or not?" OF COURSE NOT. I am just giving them an informed choice by revealing myself.

Edit: Furthermore, it doesn't exactly sound like a "choice" when you say "Do this, or I'll cause/allow you to suffer infinitely." That's not a "choice."

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I can't explain why Enoch and Elijah were caught up without dying. I presented my personal theory but obviously it's just a theory.

I think Babylon has been used as a representation of all pagan religions - I'm just pulling that out of the air though. I hear your point and it is well taken - you use scripture and I appreciate that - and I freely admit that you could be right. But you could be wrong too. It's still inconclusive for me.
.

'caught up' did not mean without dying.

First of all please consider that Jesus taught at John [3v13] the no man [Elijah and Enoch included] has Not ascended to heaven.

Jesus was the first to be resurrected to heaven. Rev 1v5.

So the whirlwind storm took Elijah to the physical heavens or mid heavens were the birds fly. Heavenly atmospheric expanse. Gen 1vs6-8.
So, Elijah was just 'caught up' out of Elisha's sight.

The Bible did not say Elijah died. No customary mourning period was mentioned or burial. [ 2nd Sam 19v1; 1st Chron 7v22; 2nd Chron 35v24]

At 2nd Chron [21vs12-15] Elijah was still alive five year later when he wrote to Jehoram.

God did not let enemies of Enoch to kill him.
So, God 'took him' in the way of meaning that Enoch life was cut short.
Cut short so his enemies would not take his life away.

Enoch is mentioned at Hebrews 11v5 and in verses 13 and 39 says he died but did not receive the promise....it was far off.

So like Daniel [12vs2,13] they are awaiting a resurrection during Jesus 1000-year reign over earth. Perhaps to be 'princes' in all the earth.

-Psalm 45v16; Rev. 20vs11-13
_______________________________________________________________

As the people of ancient Babylon migrated throughout the earth they took with them their old pagan religious concepts and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
So, the world-wide false religious Babylon the Great of Rev [17v5] thinks she sits as some sort of religious 'queen' [Rev 18v7] over the political world.
-Rev 17v2

 

[9Westy9]

I was trying to draw a parallel. I don't think God wants us to misunderstand anything, but the existence of choice means that some people will choose wrong.

Some people do choose to do wrong. Some people choose to do right though. Why should they go to hell for eternity?

The same reason He would allow us to not believe in Him - it's all about choice and being responsible for our choices. I heard someone say that it is harder for God to reveal Himself to mankind than we may think. The more I think about it the more it makes sense to me. If God revealed Himself the way most people say they want Him to, He would be violating their right to choose and would be forcing Himself upon them - that's not what love is about.

No one needs a diploma to understand Christ, the need to be redeemed, the realization of ones own soul, the existence of God, etc.

Flawed thinking. If I point a gun at your head and tell you to do what I say or die I'm still giving you a choice. The choice may be obvious but it's still a choice. Also 'hard' isn't in the vocabulary of an omnipotent, omniscient god.

I can't speak to any certain denomination or sect, but I can guarantee that any and every religious group does this because humans are not perfect. This includes Christians. Too many people, many of them Christians, read the highlights and skim and gather a cliff notes understanding of their beliefs and act like they know it all. I've been guilty of this before and it's something I'm trying to correct - only problem is that it takes a lifetime - literally.

If a Christian tells you one thing and the Bible tells you another thing - stick with what the Bible says. Just like if a scientist tells you one thing and the evidence/results tells you another, stick with the evidence/results.

If it takes a lifetime to decipher why would God choose to write it this way? Why not make his meaning clear and apparent?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

All very true, like I said, I never claimed they were sinless. I agree that the text makes it clear that they couldn't have been sinless. Faith and righteousness have a very high standing with God. I can't explain why Enoch and Elijah were caught up without dying. I presented my personal theory but obviously it's just a theory.

So, going strictly by the text, the only two possible scenarios are, 1.) God CAN abide sin in his presence, or 2.) Elijah and Enoch’s sins were redeemed before they arrived which of course begs the question I brought up before: Why then was Jesus’ sacrifice necessary? In either case – whether their sins were redeemed without Jesus or God can abide sin in his presence - why are the rest of us asked to believe in Jesus on the pain of eternal suffering?

There is no love when someone is forced to do something against their will.

Creating a living thing, giving it the choice to either submit to rules that are advantageous to its joy or do its own thing, is the only way love can be present. If God forced A&E to be perfect, sure they would be always perfect, but that isn't a loving relationship - that is a heartless dictatorship void of choice, freedom and ultimately love.

That's not why God created everything. He didn't want to be a heartless dictator - He could have been if He wanted - but that's not who He is. He created everything for love and relationship, which is why we have to choose Him in the person of Christ and if we don't choose Christ, we are found guilty of our sins and we get to live with the results of our choices forever.

I understand the whole thing about freewill but if he doesn’t want to impinge on my freewill to make me love him, why would he then impinge on my freewill and force me into hell? And the old standard argument about getting what you choose does not apply because I do not choose hell. I do not have enough information to make the choice to be with him or not to be with him. My choice not to believe he exists is based on a sincere and reasoned consideration of the evidence, not because I hate him or reject him or because I prefer the company of Satan over his.

And there is no indication that he isn't talking about something that happened thousands of years before either. Clearly it happened sometime before, since he used the word saw. The length of time is unknown.

So if the length of time is unknown and going strictly by text and context, on what basis would I assume he is referring to something that happened thousands of years before?

I think Babylon has been used as a representation of all pagan religions

Though they did practice paganism (or at the very least, they did not practice Judaism), Babylon was not a religion, it was a nation/empire.

Switch it around - Satan was behind anyone that was against the Israelites. Because Satan knew that Jesus (the defeater of Satan) would come through that line/race, and if Satan could eradicate that line/race, he could eradicate the coming Christ. But God intervened again and again to protect that line/race so that Christ could come about and redeem humanity.

At various times throughout the history of Judaism, it was believed that tragedies and hardships such as the Babylonian exile that befell the Israelites was because they had strayed from God (if I’m not mistaken, some of the OT prophets proclaimed just that). If that is the case and if what you say is true; that Satan was behind anyone that was against the Israelites, God himself punished Israel and used Satan as his instrument of death and suffering.

I don't know enough of the text to either agree or disagree - my gut says disagree, but clearly my gut is not a reliable source.

All I can say at this point is that I can’t think of a single reason as to why Revelations 12 shouldn’t be read as a chronological record of events.

I agree 100%. One mans temptation is not another mans temptation. But we are all tempted in different ways and we are all able to be tempted. I forgot what the point of this was.

I believe we were talking about whether or not Satan was directly responsible for making Eve eat the fruit.

Easily and quickly? We must be operating on wildly different definitions of easily and quickly. We only know of 1 heavenly rebellion in however many billions of years (I don't know how old the universe is). And we have no idea how long A&E lived before they ate the fruit. I don't see easily or quickly in either situation.

So if we have no idea of the time frame then it could very well have occurred easily and quickly, correct? I’m willing to concede that I might be wrong but are you willing to admit it could have happened quickly and easily?

I see a ton of justification for judging a creation that you created to be perfect,

If he had wanted to create us perfect then he would have done so. What applies to us also applies to God: you get what you choose. If he chooses to create us imperfect or with the option to sin then as God, he would know the inevitability of some of us choosing sin.


Let me ask you: Would you go ahead and create mankind if you knew beforehand that you would have to consign two thirds of billions of people to eternal torment? I know I couldn’t. The price would be much too high and much too horrible for such a paltry return as having a few people love me.

Oh, ok, sorry. Well I disagree with what I underlined in your quote, because I don't see any necessitation for a sinful nature in their situation to do something as unnatural as disobey God. The very fact that it was unnatural explains why the punishment is so harsh (the way I see it).

If you’re right then that means that when we sin today, it may not necessarily be because we have a sinful nature, correct? If they didn’t need it to sin then we don’t either, right?

Here’s something to think about. What if Adam and Eve had sinned some other way that had not entailed their becoming aware of good and evil? Theoretically, if they had not eaten the fruit and had sinned some other way, we could all be sinning our wretched butts off today without knowing we were sinning, right?