With suffering and hell, how can God be thought of as fair or kind.

[jeager106]

Listen: The wonderfulness about love and forgivness is it's UNFAIRNESS.
Get it?
It's not supposed to be fair.
Many just don't see the perfection of love and forgivness in it's unfairness.
None of us deserve to be treated fairly.
Read the book Alcohlics Annonymous. The BIG BOOK.
The word fair does not exist. Niether does justice.
Nothing about recovery, love, forgivness is fair.
Forgiving ones self isn't fair either.
Read Alcoholics Anonymous. That will get you ready to read the BIG BIG BOOK. The BIBLE. Then perhaps you will understand why love and forgiveness can't possibly be fair.
People try to justify the reason Jesus died for all mankind.
Some critters say he committed suicide.
Some just don't get it. Some try to reason, to belittle the sacrifice He made.
Some absolutely don't deserve what He did but YOU are forgiven anyway.
Undeserved, loving, kindness, in it's unfairness.

 

[jeager106]

Read the Bible about the prodigal son.
The younger son asked for his inheritance before his father died.
What an insult to his father.
The son took his money, sqandered it on prostitutes, wine, fine living.
Then he was flat broke, feeding pigs, more than even he had to eat.
He crawls home tho he deserves NOTHING.
His father rejoyces. The father puts a fine rob on his son, a ring on his finger.
That is what a son gets. A robe & ring is what a father does for a beloved son.
The eldest son is really pissed about the love and attention paid to the younger son.
The eldest won't attend the party for the youngest son saying it isn't FAIR to treat the young sone with such love when he returns in disgrace.
The eldest son complains to his father saying he has "slaved for his father all his life" and never got so much as a goat to roast and party with his friends.
There isn't much fatted meat on a goat you see but the young son gets a fatted calf upon his return and a party to celebrate.
The eldest son feels slighted because it just isn't fair to treat the young son with such FORGIVENESS.
The father tells the eldest son "you have always been with me, everything I have is yours". The father is nothing like a slave driver. The father already gave all to his eldest. The eldest could have had a party and a fatted calf anytime he wanted, he just didn't realize it.
There are 3 stories in that one story.
The eldest had it all and never realized it.
The youngest son deserved nothing but got everything any way.
The father forgave his youngest son, gave him a robe, a ring on his finger, a fatted calf to party upon his return.
A joyous occasion, the father has two fine sons again.
The eldest is a fine son but thought he was a slave.
The youngest son gets what he does NOT deserve.
The eldest had it all and never saw it.
The father loves them both equally.
The beauty of it all is it's UNfairness.
We don't deserve what we get. We get it all anyway.
The robe, the ring, the fatted calf, the party, the unfair forgivness and rejoycing upon our return to the FATHER.
The FATHER loves us and gives us what we do not deserve.
How grateful should we be? On bended knee I pray to Him and thank Him for the blessings I don't deserve.
Call Him what you feel you must. I call Him my Father. He loves me.
I had no earthly father or a mother, but I feel warm in the embrace of my real Father.
He never left me. He forgave me before I asked. He rejoyced when I came home.
He filled me with love that I might share that love with my own beloved son.
My daughter suffers right now from heroin withdrawl.
She is 40, has a daughter who is but 9 years old.
I gave my daughter all the love given me in the hope she will not die an addicts death.
My elder son is in a prison serving a long, long, time for horrible crimes committed under the influence of heroin.
I love my son and daughter, do not resent them. I give them the love that He gave me.
My elder son confessed his crime to me and asked what he should do.
I told him to go to the police and turn himself in or get shot to death by a home owner, or be found dead in a ditch with a spike in his arm.
He walked to the police and confessed to 22 home burglaries.
He did what he needed to do for himself. He will do 7 to 15 years in prison.
He could be serving 15 to 30 years had he not grown a set and confessed.
He gets out next year. I will give him my home on 15 acres of woods and help him start a business of his own. He is a gifted contractor, a builder.
In prison he helps the inmates, he was given a job as a trustee, lives in the honor block, earned the respect of his fellows and warden. He leads narcotics anonymous meetings 5 evenings a week. His best friend is his mentor. This mentor is serving a life term for murder. He murdered a man over $49 bucks. Perhaps this is his purpose? Perhaps this is the reason they were put together; to help others?
He comes home to me you see. Is it fair to give him a home in the country, a boat, a car, and money to start a busness?
Is it fair to help my daughter going thru heroin withdrawl?
No it isn't fair at all.
It's LOVE.

 

[thau]

Evening,

Actually, for me--in my noggin and in my heart--hell doesn't exist. It's actually defeating the purpose of God giving man the free will to choose Him and punish Him (directly or not) for the choice He gave man to begin with. Since God is never comfortable with the decisions He made on behalf of taking care of His Children and is not at least accepting that some will not love Him they way He wants them to, there will always be a force on the parent for His child to love Him (not a choice).

It is like a human parent telling a child, "oh you have a choice to play with anything in the play pin except for this knife here."

And the child is wide eyed and jumps....listening to his or her inner voice "what is that shinny thing over there... go see what it is"

As a child he touches the knife, and of course, he is punished for his disobeydience.

I don't believe in physical harm (by fire, ignoring, things like that) to punish people for their mistakes--that's just me. God is the opposite. We cannot learn to love and want to love Him when the only choices we have is to love Him or die.

That is not a choice, that is an ultimatum. That is not love.

Many non-christians who have this feeling may not feel love through an ultimatum. They may feel they have no freedom of choice and their freedom of choice is not given by their parent with whom gave them any choice to begin with.

It's a cycle. So it does not make sense to believe in a God (being) who sanctions punishment and sends people for hell for the simple act of disbelief.

It's natural for you to want someone else to know the love you feel with God. On the other hand, it has to be accepted that each person is different and what you feel is perfect, eternal, and nice is to another person bad, cruel, or unrealistic. (One man's trash is another man's treasure; visa versa).
---
I'm sure many non-believers accept that Christianity's doctrine is that all without Christ will suffer (either from an absence of Him or by literal punishment);

...they, just want Christians to accept their belief in hell not existing and accept they can feel the same amount of love you feel even though they personally don't get it from God.

Fine, so you tell me what you do not believe in and also what it is you cannot accept. My question is what do you believe in, what do you accept as revelation? Are you so dissatisfied with God’s offer of eternal life for a minimal amount of faith and charity that you turn your back on Him? To me, that is a position of pride. Is it fatal? Who knows? I just know through the reality of Jesus Christ, the words He has given us, historical record of events and the works of the faithful, and through divine signs and wonders that our God is God. I have legitimate hope that I will one day be with those who are dear to me, forever. I am not about to fight God on the mystical matters I cannot understand or be given the answers to. I am grateful.

God is our Father. He treats us as his children. If we rebel and do not care about his love and teaching and correction, then look what happens to a rebellious child. Usually sadness.

 

[thau]

Read the Bible about the prodigal son.
The younger son asked for his inheritance before his father died.
What an insult to his father.
The son took his money, sqandered it on prostitutes, wine, fine living.
Then he was flat broke, feeding pigs, more than even he had to eat.
He crawls home tho he deserves NOTHING.
His father rejoyces. The father puts a fine rob on his son, a ring on his finger.
That is what a son gets. A robe & ring is what a father does for a beloved son.
The eldest son is really pissed about the love and attention paid to the younger son.
The eldest won't attend the party for the youngest son saying it isn't FAIR to treat the young sone with such love when he returns in disgrace.
The eldest son complains to his father saying he has "slaved for his father all his life" and never got so much as a goat to roast and party with his friends.
There isn't much fatted meat on a goat you see but the young son gets a fatted calf upon his return and a party to celebrate.
The eldest son feels slighted because it just isn't fair to treat the young son with such FORGIVENESS.
The father tells the eldest son "you have always been with me, everything I have is yours". The father is nothing like a slave driver. The father already gave all to his eldest. The eldest could have had a party and a fatted calf anytime he wanted, he just didn't realize it.
There are 3 stories in that one story.
The eldest had it all and never realized it.
The youngest son deserved nothing but got everything any way.
The father forgave his youngest son, gave him a robe, a ring on his finger, a fatted calf to party upon his return.
A joyous occasion, the father has two fine sons again.
The eldest is a fine son but thought he was a slave.
The youngest son gets what he does NOT deserve.
The eldest had it all and never saw it.
The father loves them both equally.
The beauty of it all is it's UNfairness.
We don't deserve what we get. We get it all anyway.
The robe, the ring, the fatted calf, the party, the unfair forgivness and rejoycing upon our return to the FATHER.
The FATHER loves us and gives us what we do not deserve.
How grateful should we be? On bended knee I pray to Him and thank Him for the blessings I don't deserve.
Call Him what you feel you must. I call Him my Father. He loves me.
I had no earthly father or a mother, but I feel warm in the embrace of my real Father.
He never left me. He forgave me before I asked. He rejoyced when I came home.
He filled me with love that I might share that love with my own beloved son.
My daughter suffers right now from heroin withdrawl.
She is 40, has a daughter who is but 9 years old.
I gave my daughter all the love given me in the hope she will not die an addicts death.
My elder son is in a prison serving a long, long, time for horrible crimes committed under the influence of heroin.
I love my son and daughter, do not resent them. I give them the love that He gave me.
My elder son confessed his crime to me and asked what he should do.
I told him to go to the police and turn himself in or get shot to death by a home owner, or be found dead in a ditch with a spike in his arm.
He walked to the police and confessed to 22 home burglaries.
He did what he needed to do for himself. He will do 7 to 15 years in prison.
He could be serving 15 to 30 years had he not grown a set and confessed.
He gets out next year. I will give him my home on 15 acres of woods and help him start a business of his own. He is a gifted contractor, a builder.
In prison he helps the inmates, he was given a job as a trustee, lives in the honor block, earned the respect of his fellows and warden. He leads narcotics anonymous meetings 5 evenings a week. His best friend is his mentor. This mentor is serving a life term for murder. He murdered a man over $49 bucks. Perhaps this is his purpose? Perhaps this is the reason they were put together; to help others?
He comes home to me you see. Is it fair to give him a home in the country, a boat, a car, and money to start a busness?
Is it fair to help my daughter going thru heroin withdrawl?
No it isn't fair at all.
It's LOVE.

I am not arguing with your example of unfair or undeserved love and redemption. All wonderful.

My post was about the mystery of hell and how "unfair" or unjust that strikes the unbeliever. Then I proposed a hypothetical proposition from God to those who reject His words. I.E., "If you choose not to believe in Me or in what I have revealed through various means because for some who remain obstinate and selfish the possiblility of eternal punishment may remain a possibility. If you want to avoid that possibility of punishment, then ask me to blot you out of existence upon your death and you will not feel any pain. Am I now being unfair to you? No risk of punishment if that is your choice, yet you forfeit the option of being with Me forever."

Is that unfair I ask? Would you choose that option?

 

[thau]

Don't be ridiculous. If I thought there was a better than 50% chance that your beliefs were valid (i.e., true) I would be talking to a priest in no time. I’m not building up a case to disobey, because if there was a promise of eternal reward I would happily believe. Alas, the chances of Christianity being true are dismal. The bare assertions that Christianity offers eternal life do not move me any more than the Book of Mormon or the Quran. I won’t lose any sleep over Islamic hellfire or the threat of outer darkness, nor will I anticipate virgins and exaltation.





Right, that’s the central question: Why? And why are the reasons and explanations given by “God’s church” and the “Word of God” so muddled and unworthy of credence?




Many of those people believed that the world was a dome and condemned geocentrism as heresy. They murdered people, often after torture, for the “sins” of atheism, apostasy, heresy, premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality. They thought that Jews engaged in cannibalistic rituals, and placed collective blame on them for deicide. They slaughtered Muslims who dared to occupy “their” holy land. Their moral and intellectual compass is about as trustworthy as Joseph Stalin’s.




See what’s fascinating about this claim is that nature consistently reveals design, but no designer. I am not denying that there are emergent, complex properties, but they are explained without resort to an omnipotent Creator. Nature does not foreclose a certain kind of deity, but it does not mandate one either.

As for experience, it is almost always subjective, individual experience we are left to believe in these days. The testimony of cradle to grave believers, whose accounts predictably vary based on geography and religious upbringing. There are no djinn sightings in the United States, and very few appearances of the Virgin Mary in Thailand. The bible does recount amazing tales of collective experience of the divine, but these examples of God’s intervention miraculously recede as recording mechanisms improve and scientists and engineers map the contours of the unknown.




So clear that he has not only divided the children of Abraham into three major traditions, but has further subdivided those traditions. Particularly Christianity, which has been divided from its inception. This is not exactly a model of clarity, and you certainly do not see this level of conflict over basic principles within other fields of inquiry (i.e., biology).




Not God in the abstract, which may or may not exist, but your Jesus god. He was just a failed messianic claimant, which were a dime a dozen during the Second Temple period. After he was executed his followers came up with a way of explaining his death, using innovative but tortured readings of a flawed Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures, and combining those “interpretations” with made up stories about his life. There was probably a skeleton of truth in some collected sayings and the passion narrative (temple, execution, burial), but that’s it.




If I did not go to heaven as a result of my failure to believe, absolutely! It would mean that I was wrong, and that I missed out on a (literally) once in a lifetime opportunity. So yes. Of course, if we all go to heaven anyway and it is of no consequence what I believed or how I behaved, I probably wouldn’t be too upset.



Advanced economies, which does not necessarily imply anything about their level of moral and intellectual sophistication. That said, education has clearly helped drive a stake through the heart of Christian dominance.





Praise and worship of the Creator, surely, is the point of this earthly vale of tears? I mean I am not sure what to take away from this kind of question, because you would seem to imply that if God’s message is sufficiently clear there’s no purpose at all to life, yet you just got done telling me that God is quite clear about revealing himself and his expectations of humanity. When I point out a much better method of communication, you resort to the need for faith. Then you say that the “biggest pieces are known,” but you’ve already implicitly conceded that they can’t be known because we need to have faith!

It is just a completely irrational way of looking at the world. You’re twisting and turning to accommodate a belief system that you can clearly see is riddled with holes.

Don't be ridiculous. If I thought there was a better than 50% chance that your beliefs were valid (i.e., true) I would be talking to a priest in no time. I’m not building up a case to disobey, because if there was a promise of eternal reward I would happily believe. Alas, the chances of Christianity being true are dismal. The bare assertions that Christianity offers eternal life do not move me any more than the Book of Mormon or the Quran. I won’t lose any sleep over Islamic hellfire or the threat of outer darkness, nor will I anticipate virgins and exaltation.

I do not lose any sleep over Islamic warnings either. If teachings are in opposition to each other then only one can be true. You say there is little or no evidence that Christianity holds the truth. Ok, that explains everything. You do not see so why should you concede. I see, therefore I embrace it. I try to show reasons and evidence for Christ, but all too often it is rejected. What can I do about that? God said we are not required to succeed, just to plant the seed. Whether it takes root is not up to us.


Many of those people believed that the world was a dome and condemned geocentrism as heresy. They murdered people, often after torture, for the “sins” of atheism, apostasy, heresy, premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality. They thought that Jews engaged in cannibalistic rituals, and placed collective blame on them for deicide. They slaughtered Muslims who dared to occupy “their” holy land. Their moral and intellectual compass is about as trustworthy as Joseph Stalin’s.

I know there is sin in the Church, we are all weak vessels and sinners. Know anybody who is not? Given that, I still find your charges to be filled with error or demagoguery and I have no interest in taking the time to explain why.


See what’s fascinating about this claim is that nature consistently reveals design, but no designer. I am not denying that there are emergent, complex properties, but they are explained without resort to an omnipotent Creator. Nature does not foreclose a certain kind of deity, but it does not mandate one either.

Fine, whatever you want. I personally find such a position as totally untenable and another desperate act to keep maintaining there is no sign that a Supreme Being exists.


As for experience, it is almost always subjective, individual experience we are left to believe in these days.

Subjective? Hardly in the case of magnificent well documented signs and wonders, especially those approved by the Church. Again, I tire trying to point out the fallacy in all that.


So clear that he has not only divided the children of Abraham into three major traditions, but has further subdivided those traditions. Particularly Christianity, which has been divided from its inception. This is not exactly a model of clarity, and you certainly do not see this level of conflict over basic principles within other fields of inquiry (i.e., biology).

Not unexpected given man’s pride and weaknesses and causes me no discomfort. As Cardinal John Henry Newman said: “a thousand difficulties does not make for one doubt.”


Praise and worship of the Creator, surely, is the point of this earthly vale of tears? I mean I am not sure what to take away from this kind of question, because you would seem to imply that if God’s message is sufficiently clear there’s no purpose at all to life, yet you just got done telling me that God is quite clear about revealing himself and his expectations of humanity. When I point out a much better method of communication, you resort to the need for faith. Then you say that the “biggest pieces are known,” but you’ve already implicitly conceded that they can’t be known because we need to have faith!

Yes, both revelation and trust are at work here. More than enough given to know Jesus Christ is Lord and heaven exists. Also enough given to know something is required on our part to attain eternal life (I do not care what the protestants are teaching about just believe and it’s done. That is called the sin of presumption and it mocks most of what the Bible is saying.)

Faith comes in various means. Faith that our prayers are assisting our loved ones in their journey. Faith that our acts of sacrifice and charity will alleviate our sufferings in purgatory. Faith that there is hope for even the most vile of sinners. Faith that the Holy Spirit will continue to assist and correct the Church and its clergy when they go astray. Faith that sin causes punishment but obedience reaps grace. God apparently had no desire to just place us in heaven without any trial or experience of love and suffering, failure and redemption, love and care for one another, etc. We are not angels, we have been given free will. And the word says we are higher than the angels because of these gifts and trials. I am not one to tell God not interested in your gift of life given to me and the promise of eternal life. I am grateful.

 

[jeager106]

thau I understand what you meant. I was trying to show kindness and undeserved
mercy and love from God.
The parable of the 2 sons are us, the father is God.
Hellfire does not exist, It's a myth having roots in paganism. The notion of hell brings no glory to God and would better glorify Satan.
What we invision as Dante's Inferno A Devine Comedy was a play, a joke.
Dante's painting was a spoof about hell.
God never created hell and would not send anyone there if it did exist.
The word hell should not be in the Bible.
Many modern Christian chruchs are taking hell out of the Bible and don't teach
the concept.
Jesus was a Jew. The Jews have no concept of a hell so why would Jesus preach what a Jew did not believe in.
The worse thing that could befall a Jew would be to have God removed from life with no hope of reconciliation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Fine, so you tell me what you do not believe in and also what it is you cannot accept. My question is what do you believe in, what do you accept as revelation?

What do you mean by revelation? Believe? In regards to hell?

Are you so dissatisfied with God’s offer of eternal life for a minimal amount of faith and charity that you turn your back on Him? To me, that is a position of pride. Is it fatal? Who knows?

If you mean the Christian God, I had a personal relationship with Christ once, and it ended; now He is my friend. Was I dissatisfied, I guess you can say that. I just found the truth and living a lie to me was immoral regardless where I go in the afterlife. If I cannot love the Father, how can I love Christ? That is my conclusion.

Something else you said I didn't catch... this comment is regarding that.

That's the thing, and it is an ultimatum, "I give you eternal life, if you disagree, you will be punished. Why don't you accept an offer I give you the choice to accept or not?" That is not love.

Love is when a parent loves you even if his does not love him back. It is unconditional love for people who have harmed you. Since hell exists to many Christians, this unconditional love does not exist. It takes on a different meaning; which, to many people that is not love.

A believer needs to "accept they [the non-believer] can feel the same amount of love you feel [as a Christian]" even though they personally don't get it from God. While you feel charity and the hope from eternal life from God, others don't get that same love from the Christian Creator. Yet, in other religions, they also have the concept of "heaven" (they don't call it that), eternal life, and so forth. If not accept others feel the same as you just different faith, can you at least understand it?

I just know through the reality of Jesus Christ, the words He has given us, historical record of events and the works of the faithful, and through divine signs and wonders that our God is God. I have legitimate hope that I will one day be with those who are dear to me, forever. I am not about to fight God on the mystical matters I cannot understand or be given the answers to. I am grateful.

This will poke a nerve. Only good intentions to learn not to insult:

I have legitimate hope that I will one day be with those who are dear to me, forever. I am not about to fight God on the mystical matters I cannot understand or be given the answers to.

That is good that you have hope. When I came from Christianity, I realize in my belief I don't have to hope anymore. It's a fact. It's not based on faith; faith keeps me in tune with my faith... a relationship with it. So I am grateful to; we share the same sentiments of our gratitude for life.

The difference is, in my point of view, I do not need to point out how people are different from me and how they will be disadvantaged because of what I believe. To do that is thinking of myself not of others. I may believe they are about to fly off a cliff. Since there is no universal consensus that there is a cliff present and they will fly off, it is my belief and to me that is also a fact. I can educate them about it. I don't see them going into impending doom because they don't do what I tell them to do. That's silly.

God is our Father. He treats us as his children. If we rebel and do not care about his love and teaching and correction, then look what happens to a rebellious child. Usually sadness.

Another ultimatum. There is no love coming from a God who does not accept the choice He gave His own children to rebel against Him.

That's like my parent punishing me for telling him I do not love him anymore. That is wrong and it is completely different than punishing a child who has touched fire or educating that child before he touches the fire.

I cannot learn from Christian's version of love through the Creator because I do not want to mirror the acts He did in the OT (even as far as to judge another person's spirituality by saying he/she is denying or rejecting Christ). I learned a lot from Christ; but, everything from Christ comes from His Father. So, if I don't believe in a Creator (deity) and don't want to mirror Him in regards to His supposed acts of "justice", why would I want to continue to mirror Christ when everything Christ does comes from the Father?

Some people believe because they don't want to go to hell. They fear hell and accept the gift of eternal life they feel, since it doesn't come with fear, will help them grow and have hope for the next.

This type of thinking embedded in Christianity among other things is not in itself bad. It fosters some growth. It's when negative evangelizing skills and negative comments come from the believer, it makes me question what Christ really said.

 

[thau]

What do you mean by revelation? Believe? In regards to hell?

If you mean the Christian God, I had a personal relationship with Christ once, and it ended; now He is my friend. Was I dissatisfied, I guess you can say that. I just found the truth and living a lie to me was immoral regardless where I go in the afterlife. If I cannot love the Father, how can I love Christ? That is my conclusion.

Something else you said I didn't catch... this comment is regarding that.

That's the thing, and it is an ultimatum, "I give you eternal life, if you disagree, you will be punished. Why don't you accept an offer I give you the choice to accept or not?" That is not love.

Love is when a parent loves you even if his does not love him back. It is unconditional love for people who have harmed you. Since hell exists to many Christians, this unconditional love does not exist. It takes on a different meaning; which, to many people that is not love.

A believer needs to "accept they [the non-believer] can feel the same amount of love you feel [as a Christian]" even though they personally don't get it from God. While you feel charity and the hope from eternal life from God, others don't get that same love from the Christian Creator. Yet, in other religions, they also have the concept of "heaven" (they don't call it that), eternal life, and so forth. If not accept others feel the same as you just different faith, can you at least understand it?

This will poke a nerve. Only good intentions to learn not to insult:

I have legitimate hope that I will one day be with those who are dear to me, forever. I am not about to fight God on the mystical matters I cannot understand or be given the answers to.

That is good that you have hope. When I came from Christianity, I realize in my belief I don't have to hope anymore. It's a fact. It's not based on faith; faith keeps me in tune with my faith... a relationship with it. So I am grateful to; we share the same sentiments of our gratitude for life.

The difference is, in my point of view, I do not need to point out how people are different from me and how they will be disadvantaged because of what I believe. To do that is thinking of myself not of others. I may believe they are about to fly off a cliff. Since there is no universal consensus that there is a cliff present and they will fly off, it is my belief and to me that is also a fact. I can educate them about it. I don't see them going into impending doom because they don't do what I tell them to do. That's silly.


Another ultimatum. There is no love coming from a God who does not accept the choice He gave His own children to rebel against Him.

That's like my parent punishing me for telling him I do not love him anymore. That is wrong and it is completely different than punishing a child who has touched fire or educating that child before he touches the fire.

I cannot learn from Christian's version of love through the Creator because I do not want to mirror the acts He did in the OT (even as far as to judge another person's spirituality by saying he/she is denying or rejecting Christ). I learned a lot from Christ; but, everything from Christ comes from His Father. So, if I don't believe in a Creator (deity) and don't want to mirror Him in regards to His supposed acts of "justice", why would I want to continue to mirror Christ when everything Christ does comes from the Father?

Some people believe because they don't want to go to hell. They fear hell and accept the gift of eternal life they feel, since it doesn't come with fear, will help them grow and have hope for the next.

This type of thinking embedded in Christianity among other things is not in itself bad. It fosters some growth. It's when negative evangelizing skills and negative comments come from the believer, it makes me question what Christ really said.

You've said a lot there Carlita, and heart felt. I will offer a few comments.


Love is when a parent loves you even if his does not love him back. It is unconditional love for people who have harmed you. Since hell exists to many Christians, this unconditional love does not exist. It takes on a different meaning; which, to many people that is not love.

God’s love cannot be truly be compared to the love of mankind. But those who have been there in NDEs often say you feel its presence and it is total love and peace. I do not think we can say God’s love is flawed because of hell’s existence. We simply do not understand, nor do we really know what hell is all about.


A believer needs to "accept they [the non-believer] can feel the same amount of love you feel [as a Christian]" even though they personally don't get it from God. While you feel charity and the hope from eternal life from God, others don't get that same love from the Christian Creator. Yet, in other religions, they also have the concept of "heaven" (they don't call it that), eternal life, and so forth. If not accept others feel the same as you just different faith, can you at least understand it?

Yes, I can understand it. Nor do I condemn it. Nor does the pope. Even the Virgin Mary more or less said (paraphrase) “all the world’s religions have some virtue in them. They are not without some good. But stay away from the cults.” Do not think I or my Church passes judgments on those outside the Church. They only share their beliefs, no coercing.


The difference is, in my point of view, I do not need to point out how people are different from me and how they will be disadvantaged because of what I believe. To do that is thinking of myself not of others. I may believe they are about to fly off a cliff. Since there is no universal consensus that there is a cliff present and they will fly off, it is my belief and to me that is also a fact. I can educate them about it. I don't see them going into impending doom because they don't do what I tell them to do. That's silly.

I would not who is “disadvantaged,” I just know that gaining the knowledge of God and His mercy is all good and my sharing it is not to harm others, albeit, I grant you many Christians may be doing more harm than good in their words. The intent is to be charitable to all and then witness. I know, doesn’t work that way quite often. But if I see a man permeated with wanton sin, I think it would be honorable and courageous and virtuous of me to warn him of some teachings on all that. Which is not the same as saying if you die like this you will go to hell. Far different.


Another ultimatum. There is no love coming from a God who does not accept the choice He gave His own children to rebel against Him.

When you know the better of what your parents told you, but you choose to do wrong, you know you are taking risks of bad consequences. If that occurs do you blame your parents? Is it punishment you are totally opposed to, or just eternal punishment? I can understand the latter since it remains a disturbing mystery, but I have no problem with a stage or correction and purification for our selfish indulgences and not caring what God is asking us to do, i.e. be kind and generous to others and deny ourselves.


I cannot learn from Christian's version of love through the Creator because I do not want to mirror the acts He did in the OT (even as far as to judge another person's spirituality by saying he/she is denying or rejecting Christ). I learned a lot from Christ; but, everything from Christ comes from His Father. So, if I don't believe in a Creator (deity) and don't want to mirror Him in regards to His supposed acts of "justice", why would I want to continue to mirror Christ when everything Christ does comes from the Father?

I follow your line of reasoning, it hardly seems like the biggest problem here. But since you are rejecting God on what the OT says, I believe you are putting God on trial too much. For you to accept what violence is in the OT why would you? You do not accept anything else He says?


This type of thinking (fear of hell) embedded in Christianity among other things is not in itself bad. It fosters some growth. It's when negative evangelizing skills and negative comments come from the believer, it makes me question what Christ really said.

I cannot fight against the sins and ways of Christians if that is how you are primarily judging the teachings of Jesus. We cannot prevail. Since you will not accept any divine manifestations via signs and wonders, maybe an honest analysis of the immeasurable charity and mercy coming from this faith is all we have left to offer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If my comments so far sound like I am judging or blaming God or Christ for anything, I am not. If I gave off that impression, I did not mean to insult your faith by how I feel.

Love is when a parent loves you even if his does not love him back. It is unconditional love for people who have harmed you. Since hell exists to many Christians, this unconditional love does not exist. It takes on a different meaning; which, to many people that is not love.

God’s love cannot be truly be compared to the love of mankind. But those who have been there in NDEs often say you feel its presence and it is total love and peace. I do not think we can say God’s love is flawed because of hell’s existence. We simply do not understand, nor do we really know what hell is all about.

I don't believe that God's love and our love are any different. I don't consider God as a deity or Being (or force or universe) to where "he or she" is more profound than the love my family has for each other. I don't see a hierarchy in spirituality.

A believer needs to "accept they [the non-believer] can feel the same amount of love you feel [as a Christian]" even though they personally don't get it from God. While you feel charity and the hope from eternal life from God, others don't get that same love from the Christian Creator. Yet, in other religions, they also have the concept of "heaven" (they don't call it that), eternal life, and so forth. If not accept others feel the same as you just different faith, can you at least understand it?

Yes, I can understand it. Nor do I condemn it. Nor does the pope. Even the Virgin Mary more or less said (paraphrase) “all the world’s religions have some virtue in them. They are not without some good. But stay away from the cults.” Do not think I or my Church passes judgments on those outside the Church. They only share their beliefs, no coercing.

I know each person has different intentions. The Church has taught me a lot about Christ and the Church itself very welcoming. Unfortunately, for outsiders, the members do represent the Church; so, whatever members say will be interpreted as teachings from the Church.

My experiences in the Church have been wonderful. So, I can't complain with that.

The difference is, in my point of view, I do not need to point out how people are different from me and how they will be disadvantaged because of what I believe. To do that is thinking of myself not of others. I may believe they are about to fly off a cliff. Since there is no universal consensus that there is a cliff present and they will fly off, it is my belief and to me that is also a fact. I can educate them about it. I don't see them going into impending doom because they don't do what I tell them to do. That's silly.

I would not who is “disadvantaged,” I just know that gaining the knowledge of God and His mercy is all good and my sharing it is not to harm others, albeit, I grant you many Christians may be doing more harm than good in their words. The intent is to be charitable to all and then witness. I know, doesn’t work that way quite often. But if I see a man permeated with wanton sin, I think it would be honorable and courageous and virtuous of me to warn him of some teachings on all that. Which is not the same as saying if you die like this you will go to hell. Far different.

I understand why you'd warn them about their sins. Can you imagine every religion trying to warn each other of the "danger" they are in at this very moment. The intent is well understood; how it is approached, is different.

Another ultimatum. There is no love coming from a God who does not accept the choice He gave His own children to rebel against Him.

You said:
When you know the better of what your parents told you, but you choose to do wrong, you know you are taking risks of bad consequences. If that occurs do you blame your parents? Is it punishment you are totally opposed to, or just eternal punishment?

The thing is, the children did not know they did wrong until they are punished. In Adam and Eve's situation, it was because of their temptation and they fell into it. They actually did something to offend God. What I have a concern with is punishing for disbelief. That is not something everyone can chose.

I used the example of a parent and child. When the child grows older, he may decide he doesn't want to love his parent anymore (or for some people, they never have). Does the parent have a right to punish him because they don't receive the love they want his child to give him? Or should that parent think of the child's decision and although in pain, accept it as it is?

If I did not love my parent anymore, I would not blame her for my not loving her. The issue is not understanding and confusion because I am punished for my lack of love. So, there is no blaming involved. A lot of it is wrapped in anger and confusion. (In my case, I do not believe in a Creator; so, there is no spiritual parent that will punish me because I don't love Him or Her.)

It's the reasoning behind the punishment and what it is for rather than the punishment itself. I accept Christianity teaches the literal or concept version of hell. I get confused and annoyed because of the confusion when mere disbelief (rather than action, say put your hand over the fire) can get you dammed for eternity.

I can understand the latter since it remains a disturbing mystery, but I have no problem with a stage or correction and purification for our selfish indulgences and not caring what God is asking us to do, i.e. be kind and generous to others and deny ourselves.

I cannot learn from Christian's version of love through the Creator because I do not want to mirror the acts He did in the OT (even as far as to judge another person's spirituality by saying he/she is denying or rejecting Christ). I learned a lot from Christ; but, everything from Christ comes from His Father. So, if I don't believe in a Creator (deity) and don't want to mirror Him in regards to His supposed acts of "justice", why would I want to continue to mirror Christ when everything Christ does comes from the Father?

I follow your line of reasoning, it hardly seems like the biggest problem here. But since you are rejecting God on what the OT says, I believe you are putting God on trial too much. For you to accept what violence is in the OT why would you? You do not accept anything else He says?

Actually, its the ideal of God that I don't understand. I don't believe in a Creator so that would be hard to defend whether or not I blame Him for anything.

That is right. I said I cannot follow Christ because I don't believe in the Father. So, asking anything in the perspective of scripture would only get an scriptural or opinionated reply. It can't be based on my beliefs because I'd have to believe in the Christian God to begin with in order to reject what He says.

Since I do not believe in the Christian God, by default, I do not accept what He says.

This type of thinking (fear of hell) embedded in Christianity among other things is not in itself bad. It fosters some growth. It's when negative evangelizing skills and negative comments come from the believer, it makes me question what Christ really said.

I cannot fight against the sins and ways of Christians if that is how you are primarily judging the teachings of Jesus. We cannot prevail. Since you will not accept any divine manifestations via signs and wonders, maybe an honest analysis of the immeasurable charity and mercy coming from this faith is all we have left to offer.

The teachings of Jesus are beautiful. Like I said, I learned a lot by dying in Christ and taking the sacraments in the Church. I am Christ's friend. What I said is I cannot continue to follow Christ now that I know that in order to believe in Christ you must believe in His Father. If it was just Christ, than it would be somewhat easier to understand.

Also, I find this language harsh: "Since you will not accept..." The ball doesn't roll in a Christian's court just because he or she gets the majority vote. Christians do not have the claims on truth. I see that all in Christian history, people regardless the intent, wanting to do well for people they feel is going to hell and dying in their sins and they are at that time literally murdering people who disagree.

Now we are murdering people with our words. "If you don't accept what I believe is true, you are doomed." If I said the same thing to you, I'm sure you would feel uncomfortable at the least. When I do the same for you, what I am doing is saying "I" am the only one who knows the truth.

That is silly. Discussion is where we learn from each other rather than tell each other who is wrong and who isn't.

Spirituality is supposed to let you step out of your shoes and see it from another person's perspective. Thereby, when evangelizing, you are looking at how they believe. It is not about the Christian evangelizing, it is about the person they are evangelizing to. Christians seem to forget that--no matter how well intention they may be.


----
Maybe you can explain why Christians say "you just don't accept. You are rejecting. You are denying." so I understand the context behind this.

What it is coming across is, "I am right and you are wrong. You just don't want to accept what I believe. If you defend yourself you are denying my truth. And by that defense, you are also rejecting my truth too.
--

Practicing Jews and Muslims also see revelations, signs, and wonders. They will most likely say it is common sense too. However, why am I to pick Christianity over Muslim or Judaism? (Rhetorical question)

What I see in the natural world that is also spiritual does not have a label that says "Christian God."

There are no labels on spirituality. Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people.

Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.

It is like meeting a friend and going into a relationship with him/her. You find out that you are not compatible. You are not rejecting that person and saying "I do not like you" you are not saying "oh, I never loved you to begin with." and you're not saying "I wasn't in love with you." You're just calmly telling your mate, I still love you and we do not work well being in a relationship, let's be friends.

It's up to that other person to say yes or no. I shouldn't have to be punished for my decision to leave on good terms.

 

[thau]

If my comments so far sound like I am judging or blaming God or Christ for anything, I am not. If I gave off that impression, I did not mean to insult your faith by how I feel.

Love is when a parent loves you even if his does not love him back. It is unconditional love for people who have harmed you. Since hell exists to many Christians, this unconditional love does not exist. It takes on a different meaning; which, to many people that is not love.

I don't believe that God's love and our love are any different. I don't consider God as a deity or Being (or force or universe) to where "he or she" is more profound than the love my family has for each other. I don't see a hierarchy in spirituality.

A believer needs to "accept they [the non-believer] can feel the same amount of love you feel [as a Christian]" even though they personally don't get it from God. While you feel charity and the hope from eternal life from God, others don't get that same love from the Christian Creator. Yet, in other religions, they also have the concept of "heaven" (they don't call it that), eternal life, and so forth. If not accept others feel the same as you just different faith, can you at least understand it?

I know each person has different intentions. The Church has taught me a lot about Christ and the Church itself very welcoming. Unfortunately, for outsiders, the members do represent the Church; so, whatever members say will be interpreted as teachings from the Church.

My experiences in the Church have been wonderful. So, I can't complain with that.

The difference is, in my point of view, I do not need to point out how people are different from me and how they will be disadvantaged because of what I believe. To do that is thinking of myself not of others. I may believe they are about to fly off a cliff. Since there is no universal consensus that there is a cliff present and they will fly off, it is my belief and to me that is also a fact. I can educate them about it. I don't see them going into impending doom because they don't do what I tell them to do. That's silly.

I understand why you'd warn them about their sins. Can you imagine every religion trying to warn each other of the "danger" they are in at this very moment. The intent is well understood; how it is approached, is different.

Another ultimatum. There is no love coming from a God who does not accept the choice He gave His own children to rebel against Him.

You said:
When you know the better of what your parents told you, but you choose to do wrong, you know you are taking risks of bad consequences. If that occurs do you blame your parents? Is it punishment you are totally opposed to, or just eternal punishment?

The thing is, the children did not know they did wrong until they are punished. In Adam and Eve's situation, it was because of their temptation and they fell into it. They actually did something to offend God. What I have a concern with is punishing for disbelief. That is not something everyone can chose.

I used the example of a parent and child. When the child grows older, he may decide he doesn't want to love his parent anymore (or for some people, they never have). Does the parent have a right to punish him because they don't receive the love they want his child to give him? Or should that parent think of the child's decision and although in pain, accept it as it is?

If I did not love my parent anymore, I would not blame her for my not loving her. The issue is not understanding and confusion because I am punished for my lack of love. So, there is no blaming involved. A lot of it is wrapped in anger and confusion. (In my case, I do not believe in a Creator; so, there is no spiritual parent that will punish me because I don't love Him or Her.)

It's the reasoning behind the punishment and what it is for rather than the punishment itself. I accept Christianity teaches the literal or concept version of hell. I get confused and annoyed because of the confusion when mere disbelief (rather than action, say put your hand over the fire) can get you dammed for eternity.

I cannot learn from Christian's version of love through the Creator because I do not want to mirror the acts He did in the OT (even as far as to judge another person's spirituality by saying he/she is denying or rejecting Christ). I learned a lot from Christ; but, everything from Christ comes from His Father. So, if I don't believe in a Creator (deity) and don't want to mirror Him in regards to His supposed acts of "justice", why would I want to continue to mirror Christ when everything Christ does comes from the Father?

Actually, its the ideal of God that I don't understand. I don't believe in a Creator so that would be hard to defend whether or not I blame Him for anything.

That is right. I said I cannot follow Christ because I don't believe in the Father. So, asking anything in the perspective of scripture would only get an scriptural or opinionated reply. It can't be based on my beliefs because I'd have to believe in the Christian God to begin with in order to reject what He says.

Since I do not believe in the Christian God, by default, I do not accept what He says.

This type of thinking (fear of hell) embedded in Christianity among other things is not in itself bad. It fosters some growth. It's when negative evangelizing skills and negative comments come from the believer, it makes me question what Christ really said.


The teachings of Jesus are beautiful. Like I said, I learned a lot by dying in Christ and taking the sacraments in the Church. I am Christ's friend. What I said is I cannot continue to follow Christ now that I know that in order to believe in Christ you must believe in His Father. If it was just Christ, than it would be somewhat easier to understand.

Also, I find this language harsh: "Since you will not accept..." The ball doesn't roll in a Christian's court just because he or she gets the majority vote. Christians do not have the claims on truth. I see that all in Christian history, people regardless the intent, wanting to do well for people they feel is going to hell and dying in their sins and they are at that time literally murdering people who disagree.

Now we are murdering people with our words. "If you don't accept what I believe is true, you are doomed." If I said the same thing to you, I'm sure you would feel uncomfortable at the least. When I do the same for you, what I am doing is saying "I" am the only one who knows the truth.

That is silly. Discussion is where we learn from each other rather than tell each other who is wrong and who isn't.

Spirituality is supposed to let you step out of your shoes and see it from another person's perspective. Thereby, when evangelizing, you are looking at how they believe. It is not about the Christian evangelizing, it is about the person they are evangelizing to. Christians seem to forget that--no matter how well intention they may be.


----
Maybe you can explain why Christians say "you just don't accept. You are rejecting. You are denying." so I understand the context behind this.

What it is coming across is, "I am right and you are wrong. You just don't want to accept what I believe. If you defend yourself you are denying my truth. And by that defense, you are also rejecting my truth too.
--

Practicing Jews and Muslims also see revelations, signs, and wonders. They will most likely say it is common sense too. However, why am I to pick Christianity over Muslim or Judaism? (Rhetorical question)

What I see in the natural world that is also spiritual does not have a label that says "Christian God."

There are no labels on spirituality. Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people.

Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.

It is like meeting a friend and going into a relationship with him/her. You find out that you are not compatible. You are not rejecting that person and saying "I do not like you" you are not saying "oh, I never loved you to begin with." and you're not saying "I wasn't in love with you." You're just calmly telling your mate, I still love you and we do not work well being in a relationship, let's be friends.

It's up to that other person to say yes or no. I shouldn't have to be punished for my decision to leave on good terms.

Revisiting some of your many words:

I previously said: >>When you know the better of what your parents told you, but you choose to do wrong, you know you are taking risks of bad consequences. If that occurs do you blame your parents? Is it punishment you are totally opposed to, or just eternal punishment?<<

The thing is, the children did not know they did wrong until they are punished. In Adam and Eve's situation, it was because of their temptation and they fell into it. They actually did something to offend God. What I have a concern with is punishing for disbelief. That is not something everyone can choose... I used the example of a parent and child. When the child grows older, he may decide he doesn't want to love his parent anymore (or for some people, they never have). Does the parent have a right to punish him because they don't receive the love they want his child to give him? Or should that parent think of the child's decision and although in pain, accept it as it is?

God is not judging that person how much they loved God but how much they loved their fellow man. That is quite clear in Matthew 25 (the final judgment) where God separates the sheep from the goats based solely on their charity towards others.

The Judgment 31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [a]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”



If I did not love my parent anymore, I would not blame her for my not loving her. The issue is not understanding and confusion because I am punished for my lack of love. So, there is no blaming involved. A lot of it is wrapped in anger and confusion. (In my case, I do not believe in a Creator; so, there is no spiritual parent that will punish me because I don't love Him or Her.)... It's the reasoning behind the punishment and what it is for rather than the punishment itself. I accept Christianity teaches the literal or concept version of hell. I get confused and annoyed because of the confusion when mere disbelief (rather than action, say put your hand over the fire) can get you dammed for eternity.

Not sure I followed this totally correctly, but if you do not love God because you do not understand this teaching, you do not see evidence for it, or you are confused, then you, imo, will not be judged nearly so strongly for having not loved or served Him. But for those who once did see clearly but moved away out of selfishness or laziness or anger towards certain teachings, imo, they will be held far more accountable for their actions or lack of actions. “To whom God has given more, more will be required.”


Actually, it’s the ideal of God that I don't understand. I don't believe in a Creator so that would be hard to defend whether or not I blame Him for anything… Since I do not believe in the Christian God, by default, I do not accept what He says.

And I am at a loss to know what it would take for you to believe in a Creator?


Also, I find this language harsh: "Since you will not accept..." The ball doesn't roll in a Christian's court just because he or she gets the majority vote. Christians do not have the claims on truth. I see that all in Christian history, people regardless the intent, wanting to do well for people they feel is going to hell and dying in their sins and they are at that time literally murdering people who disagree.

Now I find your judgments to be harsh. It is so easy to point out sins of followers, especially of ages past when brutal measures was the norm of virtually all ruling bodies, kingdoms, fiefdoms, courts, nations, etc. The Catholic Church surely had its faults but the charges against it are in most cases demagogic and framed in 20th century civilized standards and norms.


Now we are murdering people with our words. "If you don't accept what I believe is true, you are doomed." If I said the same thing to you, I'm sure you would feel uncomfortable at the least. When I do the same for you, what I am doing is saying "I" am the only one who knows the truth. .

This is where you need to be careful (imo) because I challenge you to find that in Catholic teaching. You need to dismiss one or two passages of a pope or council from centuries past that seem to allude to that idea, they are not what it seems. But more importantly, the teachings of the Catholic Church make clear in numerous documents and ways that we do not judge any soul nor do we declare any man doomed for his beliefs or sins. Quite the contrary. The Church teaches the kingdom of heaven is open to all souls, believer and unbeliever alike.
.
.
Spirituality is supposed to let you step out of your shoes and see it from another person's perspective. Thereby, when evangelizing, you are looking at how they believe. It is not about the Christian evangelizing, it is about the person they are evangelizing to. Christians seem to forget that--no matter how well intention they may be.

This is a statement of value, imo. I think I agree mostly and I give you credit.


Practicing Jews and Muslims also see revelations, signs, and wonders. They will most likely say it is common sense too. However, why am I to pick Christianity over Muslim or Judaism? (Rhetorical question)

The Jewish revelations and miracles were by and large in the pre-Christian era save for those things we call Jewish miracles others would not. (Such as their return to the Holy Land, their revival of a dead language, and this tiny people holding off 8 Arab armies on the day they declared themselves a nation in May 1948.)

The supernatural manifestations of other faiths (Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, animism, etc) do not compare in the least to what signs and wonders God has given to the Catholic faith, time and time again. Even the protestant faiths have nothing documented or revealed that compares save for some divine healings.


What I see in the natural world that is also spiritual does not have a label that says "Christian God."... There are no labels on spirituality. Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people... Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.

Ok, I believe you. But where are you looking? Individual voices on the internet? Tele-evangelists? Zealots in the news? Select Biblical passages? That can surely repulse an unbeliever I imagine. But do you also look at the immeasurable charity and kindness the Church has given to the most impoverished or malnourished in foreign lands? Do you look at its history of building hospitals, schools, orphanages, homeless shelters, AIDS clinics, homes for single mothers and those domestically abused? And so much more? The Catholic Church in particular is far more welcome to the abandoned and the downtrodden than any secular ideology or unbelieving force has ever endeavored upon. The Catholic Church also is not giving the message “Accept or else” so you really have to be sure of what you accuse us of.


“God...was in the food they ate, in the water they drank, in the air they breathed, in the earth they trod and died on, in the words they spoke, in the sleep they slept, and in the dreams they dreampt in the everywhere and everything.” ~Albert Wendt “Some Pacific cultures don't even have a name for God because God is already assumed. God is so present that there is no need for a term because God is life itself.”~Anne Wilson Schaef

Well if that is all God cared about then we are truly of bad sorts and it makes no sense God would find the need to send His Son Jesus to earth to suffer horribly and die for us.

I am not rejecting the goodness of a pagan, I am accepting God’s word and purpose for my life and for His Church. It is one of true charity, forgiveness and witness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We sure do have a lot of words to make our points. Let me think.

"God is not judging that person how much they loved God but how much they loved their fellow man."

That makes more sense. However, the first commandment does say love God with all your heart. So, I'm sure there is some type of action God does against those who do not love Him anymore.

Not sure I followed this totally correctly, but if you do not love God because you do not understand this teaching, you do not see evidence for it, or you are confused, then you, imo, will not be judged nearly so strongly for having not loved or served Him. But for those who once did see clearly but moved away out of selfishness or laziness or anger towards certain teachings, imo, they will be held far more accountable for their actions or lack of actions. “To whom God has given more, more will be required.”

Actually, when I took the sacraments of the Church I knew God's love. When I learned more about Christ and how the Church teaches that Jesus is God, I slowly came away. I knew that I died in Christ at baptism and I also know that Jesus does not need to be God for Him to save me. (Or I thought, for my to be saved in Him). I stopped practicing because I did not have full fellowship with my peers at the Church. Fellowship is an extreme importance to me. It takes a lot of strength to say "this is what I believe and this is what I don't" without being swayed with what my friends and family believe are true.

And I am at a loss to know what it would take for you to believe in a Creator?

Christ and I are not compatible in a relationship. I consider Him a friend. I pay my respects to the Church and to all Christians within the Church (Body of Christ not building). Unfortunately, Christ doesn't consider me a friend. Not everyone in life will be your friend if you don't want to be theirs. That's something I accept.

Now I find your judgments to be harsh. It is so easy to point out sins of followers, especially of ages past when brutal measures was the norm of virtually all ruling bodies, kingdoms, fiefdoms, courts, nations, etc. The Catholic Church surely had its faults but the charges against it are in most cases demagogic and framed in 20th century civilized standards and norms.

Yes, the Catholic Church has it's faults. Just like my family, no one is perfect. I accept the Church as a full expression of Christian devotion. Although I don't connect with the Romanization of the Church and was appalled at the history when I studied it, the Church saved my life. I will never forget that.

Spirituality is supposed to let you step out of your shoes and see it from another person's perspective. Thereby, when evangelizing, you are looking at how they believe. It is not about the Christian evangelizing, it is about the person they are evangelizing to. Christians seem to forget that--no matter how well intention they may be.

This is a statement of value, imo. I think I agree mostly and I give you credit.

Thank you.

What I see in the natural world that is also spiritual does not have a label that says "Christian God."... There are no labels on spirituality. Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people... Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.

Ok, I believe you. But where are you looking? Individual voices on the internet? Tele-evangelists? Zealots in the news? Select Biblical passages? That can surely repulse an unbeliever I imagine. But do you also look at the immeasurable charity and kindness the Church has given to the most impoverished or malnourished in foreign lands? Do you look at its history of building hospitals, schools, orphanages, homeless shelters, AIDS clinics, homes for single mothers and those domestically abused? And so much more? The Catholic Church in particular is far more welcome to the abandoned and the downtrodden than any secular ideology or unbelieving force has ever endeavored upon. The Catholic Church also is not giving the message “Accept or else” so you really have to be sure of what you accuse us of.

What?!?

"Ok, I believe you. But where are you looking? Individual voices on the internet? Tele-evangelists? Zealots in the news? Select Biblical passages?"

I don't care for the tone. To answer your question, no. Where did you get that from?

"But do you also look at the immeasurable charity and kindness the Church has given to the most impoverished or malnourished in foreign lands? "

The Church saved my life. The Church gave me food when I did not have any. The Church showed me fellowship, love, and acceptance. The Church showed me what she does for all people even in her flawed moments. The Church has helped many who believe in Christ to further grow In Him. Without the Church, I don't know where I'd be spiritually.

I don't know where you getting at. The Church does teach if you are not a part of the Church you are not fully Christian. I never agreed with this teaching because it slaps all other Christians in the face. AND the Church still saved my life.

“God...was in the food they ate, in the water they drank, in the air they breathed, in the earth they trod and died on, in the words they spoke, in the sleep they slept, and in the dreams they dreampt in the everywhere and everything.” ~Albert Wendt “Some Pacific cultures don't even have a name for God because God is already assumed. God is so present that there is no need for a term because God is life itself.”~Anne Wilson Schaef

Well if that is all God cared about then we are truly of bad sorts and it makes no sense God would find the need to send His Son Jesus to earth to suffer horribly and die for us.

This is not animism. Anne Shaef is a Christian. She believes in a Creator. She also was raised is influenced by native cultures around the world. They view God in a non-western (and not Eastern new age) light. Very cultural and poetic.

God was in the food they ate, the water they drink.... God IS life. He isn't the water they drank, and the food they ate. He (Albert Whent) is talking about the nature of God--how simple He is in His relationship with people and His creation. He is saying that without these things the creator brought, water, food, etc, we wouldnt be here. It is poetic rather than literal. It is not new age.

Many Pacific Cultures do not have a term for God because God is assumed. -- Meaning God is common sense. Many people don't have to think about God existing, they just know "there is something higher than themselves." In Shaef and Albert's case, that is the Creator.

When we stop anaylizing the nature of God, we will just accept He is the Creator and He is interacting with us through His creation--and that is the water, the food, and everything He gives us.

I am not rejecting the goodness of a pagan, I am accepting God’s word and purpose for my life and for His Church. It is one of true charity, forgiveness and witness.

I understand your concern. I don't consider myself a pagan because it has been so messed up that every other Christian who wants to speak against it finds verses in the Bible that have nothing to do what individual pagans belief in. Sometimes they'd look online or read in books rather than asking the person (remember person rather than evangelizer) what they believe.

 

[thau]

We sure do have a lot of words to make our points. Let me think.

That makes more sense. However, the first commandment does say love God with all your heart. So, I'm sure there is some type of action God does against those who do not love Him anymore.

Actually, when I took the sacraments of the Church I knew God's love. When I learned more about Christ and how the Church teaches that Jesus is God, I slowly came away. I knew that I died in Christ at baptism and I also know that Jesus does not need to be God for Him to save me. (Or I thought, for my to be saved in Him). I stopped practicing because I did not have full fellowship with my peers at the Church. Fellowship is an extreme importance to me. It takes a lot of strength to say "this is what I believe and this is what I don't" without being swayed with what my friends and family believe are true.

Christ and I are not compatible in a relationship. I consider Him a friend. I pay my respects to the Church and to all Christians within the Church (Body of Christ not building). Unfortunately, Christ doesn't consider me a friend. Not everyone in life will be your friend if you don't want to be theirs. That's something I accept.


Yes, the Catholic Church has it's faults. Just like my family, no one is perfect. I accept the Church as a full expression of Christian devotion. Although I don't connect with the Romanization of the Church and was appalled at the history when I studied it, the Church saved my life. I will never forget that.

Spirituality is supposed to let you step out of your shoes and see it from another person's perspective. Thereby, when evangelizing, you are looking at how they believe. It is not about the Christian evangelizing, it is about the person they are evangelizing to. Christians seem to forget that--no matter how well intention they may be.

Thank you.

What I see in the natural world that is also spiritual does not have a label that says "Christian God."... There are no labels on spirituality. Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people... Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.

What?!?

"Ok, I believe you. But where are you looking? Individual voices on the internet? Tele-evangelists? Zealots in the news? Select Biblical passages?"

I don't care for the tone. To answer your question, no. Where did you get that from?

"But do you also look at the immeasurable charity and kindness the Church has given to the most impoverished or malnourished in foreign lands? "

The Church saved my life. The Church gave me food when I did not have any. The Church showed me fellowship, love, and acceptance. The Church showed me what she does for all people even in her flawed moments. The Church has helped many who believe in Christ to further grow In Him. Without the Church, I don't know where I'd be spiritually.

I don't know where you getting at. The Church does teach if you are not a part of the Church you are not fully Christian. I never agreed with this teaching because it slaps all other Christians in the face. AND the Church still saved my life.

“God...was in the food they ate, in the water they drank, in the air they breathed, in the earth they trod and died on, in the words they spoke, in the sleep they slept, and in the dreams they dreampt in the everywhere and everything.” ~Albert Wendt “Some Pacific cultures don't even have a name for God because God is already assumed. God is so present that there is no need for a term because God is life itself.”~Anne Wilson Schaef

This is not animism. Anne Shaef is a Christian. She believes in a Creator. She also was raised is influenced by native cultures around the world. They view God in a non-western (and not Eastern new age) light. Very cultural and poetic.

God was in the food they ate, the water they drink.... God IS life. He isn't the water they drank, and the food they ate. He (Albert Whent) is talking about the nature of God--how simple He is in His relationship with people and His creation. He is saying that without these things the creator brought, water, food, etc, we wouldnt be here. It is poetic rather than literal. It is not new age.

Many Pacific Cultures do not have a term for God because God is assumed. -- Meaning God is common sense. Many people don't have to think about God existing, they just know "there is something higher than themselves." In Shaef and Albert's case, that is the Creator.

When we stop anaylizing the nature of God, we will just accept He is the Creator and He is interacting with us through His creation--and that is the water, the food, and everything He gives us.


I understand your concern. I don't consider myself a pagan because it has been so messed up that every other Christian who wants to speak against it finds verses in the Bible that have nothing to do what individual pagans belief in. Sometimes they'd look online or read in books rather than asking the person (remember person rather than evangelizer) what they believe.

* I stopped practicing because I did not have full fellowship with my peers at the Church. Fellowship is an extreme importance to me. It takes a lot of strength to say "this is what I believe and this is what I don't" without being swayed with what my friends and family believe are true. *

You not only stopped practicing it appears you stopped believing in some core Christian dogmas along with your discontent of your fellow peers? I do think the dogma could have remained since it is virtually universal amongst all Christian denominations.


* Christ and I are not compatible in a relationship. I consider Him a friend. I pay my respects to the Church and to all Christians within the Church (Body of Christ not building). Unfortunately, Christ doesn't consider me a friend. Not everyone in life will be your friend if you don't want to be theirs. That's something I accept. *

Well wherever you got that idea Christ does not consider you a friend surely escapes me. Maybe right from the Bible I guess (your interpretation) so at least it does not have a second opportunity to be misrepresented by one of the Lord’s “messengers.”


* Although I don't connect with the Romanization of the Church and was appalled at the history when I studied it, the Church saved my life. I will never forget that. *

Funny the great saints of centuries past who demonstrated undeniable charity, wisdom and insight into God’s love were not as appalled. They were not compelled to leave the Church but to admonish and build it up. I cannot accept this dichotomy between God’s heroes and prophets and those who rebelled and started their own “church.”


* I don't care for the tone. To answer your question, no. Where did you get that from? *

There was no tone, it was only in response to your words --- “Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people... Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.” ---- And my response was not that derogatory. I was merely trying to point out that whatever one or two Christian voices air out can very, very often be incorrect and judgmental. As such, it tarnishes the listerner’s idea of what Jesus was saying. That is why it all gets divisive or nuanced between denominations, and that is why I insist the Catholic Church is the only authority granted by Jesus to be his vicar on earth. Despite all our sinful representatives, the teachings remain the truth.


* I don't know where you getting at. The Church does teach if you are not a part of the Church you are not fully Christian. I never agreed with this teaching because it slaps all other Christians in the face. AND the Church still saved my life. *

Well do you think if you are a Muslim or an atheist that you would or could be “fully Christian?” If so, of what value is the term Christian or of what value is the establishment of a community of believers and dogma? The Catholic Church is clear that salvation is open to all people no matter what they believe and they are judged fairly and uniquely by God based on their origins, situations and circumstances. But the Church also holds that special graces are received through Christian faith, piety and the sacraments in the Catholic Church.


* Many Pacific Cultures do not have a term for God because God is assumed. -- Meaning God is common sense. Many people don't have to think about God existing, they just know "there is something higher than themselves." In Shaef and Albert's case, that is the Creator. *

That is all well and good and I am not even about to call it inadequate in their life’s fulfillment because I have not been given heavenly knowledge to make such calls. But having said that, Jesus did say to his disciples to go to all corners of the world sharing the good news and baptizing. He also spoke grandly about charity and care for the needy. So I do say the Christianization of many nations, cultures and barbaric places was very much a good thing and with implication beyond the temporal or the needs of the physical body.


* We all have ancestors, both of blood and of spirit, and each of our lives rests firmly on the foundation of their sacrifice. They are as near to us as our breath. Our ancestors bring vital support to fulfill our potential here on Earth. (Daniel) They are our blood; they are our bones. Who we are lies in them. *

I am sure there is much truth to your bemoanings. I also believe you are following your heart and your conscience, so I do not believe that can take you far off where we Christians are striving for.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I hope you can follow this. My comments are in italics.

* I stopped practicing because I did not have full fellowship with my peers at the Church. Fellowship is an extreme importance to me. It takes a lot of strength to say "this is what I believe and this is what I don't" without being swayed with what my friends and family believe are true. *

You not only stopped practicing it appears you stopped believing in some core Christian dogmas along with your discontent of your fellow peers? I do think the dogma could have remained since it is virtually universal amongst all Christian denominations.

I do still believe in some dogma. I do believe Jesus is in the Eucharist and Baptism in water and in spirit, the combination, one needs to be in union with Christ. My peers, we actually stayed in touch for a while. They were not close friends, though. I guess we figure that if we're not getting together in fellowship, why meet up. I have a Catholic friend I've known going on 13 years; we go to Mass together, a lot. So, it's not really the people in the Church.

The core beliefs are universal. Catholicism, as with other denominations, has its differences of course.

* Christ and I are not compatible in a relationship. I consider Him a friend. I pay my respects to the Church and to all Christians within the Church (Body of Christ not building). Unfortunately, Christ doesn't consider me a friend. Not everyone in life will be your friend if you don't want to be theirs. That's something I accept. *

Well wherever you got that idea Christ does not consider you a friend surely escapes me. Maybe right from the Bible I guess (your interpretation) so at least it does not have a second opportunity to be misrepresented by one of the Lord’s “messengers.”

I read in the gospel that Jesus, during judgement day, He will tell people who go to Him when it's too late, that He never knew them. I read else where many times Jesus had a strong impression against people who did not follow His Father's Will. Since I am not following His Father's Will--as described in the Bible--I would not be one of the people He'd chose as an disciple. Just going off of Jesus' interactions with the Jews who kept their traditions and the pharisees who did not submit to His Father.

The gospel teaches if you are not for Christ, you are against Him. I got the impression that if you are against Christ then Christ will be against you. "I never knew you." We share different views on this.

* Although I don't connect with the Romanization of the Church and was appalled at the history when I studied it, the Church saved my life. I will never forget that. *

Funny the great saints of centuries past who demonstrated undeniable charity, wisdom and insight into God’s love were not as appalled. They were not compelled to leave the Church but to admonish and build it up. I cannot accept this dichotomy between God’s heroes and prophets and those who rebelled and started their own “church.”

I don't understand how the reply went with my comment.


* I don't care for the tone. To answer your question, no. Where did you get that from? *

There was no tone, it was only in response to your words --- “Christianity has been labeling people for the longest. I don't know if it's in it's scripture to do so or if it's just the people... Whatever it is that makes people say "you just won't accept; you are rejecting; you are denying" literally telling what they should believe is wrong. It is not an attractive aspect of Christianity.” ---- And my response was not that derogatory. I was merely trying to point out that whatever one or two Christian voices air out can very, very often be incorrect and judgmental. As such, it tarnishes the listerner’s idea of what Jesus was saying. That is why it all gets divisive or nuanced between denominations, and that is why I insist the Catholic Church is the only authority granted by Jesus to be his vicar on earth. Despite all our sinful representatives, the teachings remain the truth.

True. It comes off different ways when you're online compared to hearing it in person or on the phone.

* I don't know where you getting at. The Church does teach if you are not a part of the Church you are not fully Christian. I never agreed with this teaching because it slaps all other Christians in the face. AND the Church still saved my life. *

Well do you think if you are a Muslim or an atheist that you would or could be “fully Christian?” If so, of what value is the term Christian or of what value is the establishment of a community of believers and dogma?

Yes, because the Church believes that Christ is continuing to call the person who falls astray. If they come back to the Church, they welcome him or her with open arms. Once part of the Church, always a part of the Church.

It is different from a protestant view, where belief in itself makes something true and the sacraments are only symbolism rather than actual events that are real even if the participant doesn't believe in it (follow it).

If you took the sacraments of the Church and converted to Muslim, the Church does not forget you. I don't know the Muslim point of view, but if that convert decides to come back to Christ, I don't see how he'd be any less Christian than He was when he was a Muslim. The sacraments puts us on the road to God. If someone wants to follow another road, that is okay. Nothing wrong with that.

The Catholic Church is clear that salvation is open to all people no matter what they believe and they are judged fairly and uniquely by God based on their origins, situations and circumstances. But the Church also holds that special graces are received through Christian faith, piety and the sacraments in the Catholic Church.

Exactly

* Many Pacific Cultures do not have a term for God because God is assumed. -- Meaning God is common sense. Many people don't have to think about God existing, they just know "there is something higher than themselves." In Shaef and Albert's case, that is the Creator. *

That is all well and good and I am not even about to call it inadequate in their life’s fulfillment because I have not been given heavenly knowledge to make such calls. But having said that, Jesus did say to his disciples to go to all corners of the world sharing the good news and baptizing. He also spoke grandly about charity and care for the needy. So I do say the Christianization of many nations, cultures and barbaric places was very much a good thing and with implication beyond the temporal or the needs of the physical body.

I don't see how that connects with my post in bold, above.

* We all have ancestors, both of blood and of spirit, and each of our lives rests firmly on the foundation of their sacrifice. They are as near to us as our breath. Our ancestors bring vital support to fulfill our potential here on Earth. (Daniel) They are our blood; they are our bones. Who we are lies in them. *

I am sure there is much truth to your bemoanings. I also believe you are following your heart and your conscience, so I do not believe that can take you far off where we Christians are striving for.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth. And by remaining in dissent they often refuse to consider all that has been manifested in history which cries out the God of Abraham is God. To many, these troubling affairs must first be satisfied or explained before they draw any nearer.

The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering. A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end. There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part. If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings. God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us. Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Sirach 2:1-6
My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake Him not, thus your future will be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why must there be a hell, I submit, surpasses all mysteries of life, death and eternity. It seems apparent that answer is not for man to know this side of the grave and is as God so intended. Has not enough been revealed to us in order to know God exists, what He asks of us, and what He promises to those willing to accept it and try to live by the gospel? What right does one have to demand the answers to all of their questions before they accept all else which has been revealed? Is that not the great sin of the pride of man? Is this not where our faith is truly tested? “My ways are not your ways, sayeth the Lord.”

C.S. Lewis imagined what hell might be like in his intriguing novel “The Great Divorce.” A fantasy account of souls in heaven and in hell conversing with one another. In two of the final three chapters of this book Lewis suggests an explanation for hell, (my crude paraphrase) that being that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven (also declared in the Book of Revelation 21:27). God is pure holiness and heaven is immaculate and therefore cannot contain even the slightest defilement of even one single sin. (cue: a need for purgatory as well) So if those who rejected God cannot let go of their bad ways or selfish thoughts (as Lewis suggests is the condition of a soul in hell), then the heavens are compelled to repel the very idea that such a soul or condition could ever be allowed to defile the immaculate purity of God's kingdom. Such a man has rejected God so utterly on earth he cannot let go of his defiance or objection to God’s justice --- and God cannot allow that unrepentant soul’s present state to defile the pure holiness of heaven. The soul in hell says God’s punishments are unjust and demands some level of mercy because God created him, but even his demands are part of his unholiness. He expects God to change before he does. We are at an impasse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps no one can say why there has to be an eternal hell for some souls, but I do have a question for those who may reject God for that reason. I am wondering now. But I believe God loves you enough where perhaps if you are not happy with the idea of being given the gift of eternal life because the possibility of hell also exists, then maybe you can appeal in a prayer? Ask God if at the moment you pass from this world, might he just turn you into a rock instead? Pure oblivion, no pain, no consciousness, no nothing. In that way you will not risk any suffering in hell -- which you never asked for, by the way, when He created you. Ok, that’s true. However, in so doing, neither will you ever be given the opportunity to know heaven or see your loved ones again or have any consciousness. That would have to be the bargain.

I am curious to know if this disturbance to the idea of hell is a primary reason many choose to not to think about God very much or do much about it? Perhaps understandable to a degree, but why would anyone still not be fascinated, if not obsessed, with what life and death is all about and what may lie ahead? The evidence can be found in so many places, in so many ways about this God which so many want to believe in yet keep at a safe distance just the same. The evidence for Jesus, Mary, the saints, the miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, and redemption all can be known. I submit Christianity has given far more to this world than all of its failures combined. God can only work with sinners so is it fair to point only to the failures of this faith and ignore its virtues when judging the message and works?

God’s promise to the world is that heaven awaits those who seek Him, yet if you choose to be filled with pride and live this life only for yourself, its pleasures and its comforts --- and in so doing ignore His calling, even His existence, then perhaps an awful fate is possible? It is a risk, granted, but is it unfair? Would one prefer to be turned into a rock instead? Maybe God will honor your free will and grant such a way out? But who would choose anything so dour and final as that when there is so much to hope for and be grateful for? Nothing unfair or unloving about it in the least.

“God reveals His covenant to those who fear Him.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:
Can Life Be Made Fair? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Nakosis]

It's never made sense to me why a loving God would allow genocide, wars, crime, child abuse, murder, famine, poverty, disease, cancer and so on. It still doesn't I'm afraid.

Not sure it makes sense why man allows these things. If no God to lay the blame on, Who's going to take the responsibility?

It's all God's fault kind of makes it easy to deal with the guilt.

What if God created a world for man and said here, do what you want with it, but you have to deal with the consequences. If there is a God then he/she is pretty much absent from the world. Some folks waiting around for God to pull their back-sides out of the fire. It ain't going to happen.

 

[Kolibri]

Not sure it makes sense why man allows these things. If no God to lay the blame on, Who's going to take the responsibility?

It's all God's fault kind of makes it easy to deal with the guilt.

What if God created a world for man and said here, do what you want with it, but you have to deal with the consequences. If there is a God then he/she is pretty much absent from the world. Some folks waiting around for God to pull their back-sides out of the fire. It ain't going to happen.

Much of what you say is actually in harmony with scripture.

"If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things (or "this age.") has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination (or "light.") of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." - 2 Cor 4:3,4

Who is this "god of this system of things"? Not the true God. Remember what the Devil tempted Jesus with?

"Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him: 'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.'" - Mt 4:8,9

Jesus did not deny that they were in the Devil's hands to give to whom he wished. The world that we live in is sadistic in many ways because Satan is the one that has power over it. He is it's current god. It is even worse now since he has been confined to the earth. While we each carry some fault due to our own actions, it is the god who has power over this world who bears the primary blame.

"Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time." - Re 12:12b

That last part is good news. The increase of trouble is a prelude to Satan and the system we live under being removed for something better.

When the wicked sprout like weeds (or "grass.")
And all the wrongdoers flourish,
It is that they may be annihilated forever.
- Psalm 92:7

 

[thau]

Check this out:
Can Life Be Made Fair? | ReligiousForums.com

It was an interesting or provoking OP you made albeit somewhat short on solutions. A couple of excerpts of yours ----

>>” If we were immortal, we wouldn't be able to bear it (the injustices we committed upon others), which is the ultimate point of judgement whether it occurs in this life, or the next. But hell would only be acceptable to the vindictive sadists who invented it in the first place, and with judgement making them the intended fodder for Hell's flames. It would be an bearable cacophony in heaven. Oblivion would be the only humane solution.”<<

Your last two sentences are not clear to me. Did you mean “those in heaven having to witness what’s going on in hell would be “an Unbearable cacophony for heaven?” Or something else?

And was “oblivion would be the only humane solution” meant for those suffering in hell? Meaning if God is just and merciful He would have to blot them out of existence instead of prolonging the agony?

If so, I would think most of humanity would have to agree. We cannot conceive torment for all eternity. I, myself, leave that one to God and do not let it bother or influence all other godly matters of importance.


Also: >>“They only think it's unfair if they believe God could have prevented it. Atheism and deism take the "why?" out of the disasters of life which otherwise adds to our grief.”<<

Again, not certain here. Are you saying atheism is less of grief in this respect because those who believe in eternal life and judgments would fret endlessly over their injustices they inflicted upon others, while atheists do not see any upcoming consequences for it so less to fret over?

If so, then maybe. For a believer though, I would call it a healthy fear. For an atheist, they may not feel any angst over past sins much, but they surely must feel it in other arenas, such as, the shortness of their existence?

 

[Levite]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth. And by remaining in dissent they often refuse to consider all that has been manifested in history which cries out the God of Abraham is God. To many, these troubling affairs must first be satisfied or explained before they draw any nearer.

The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering. A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end. There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part. If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings. God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us. Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Sirach 2:1-6
My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake Him not, thus your future will be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why must there be a hell, I submit, surpasses all mysteries of life, death and eternity. It seems apparent that answer is not for man to know this side of the grave and is as God so intended. Has not enough been revealed to us in order to know God exists, what He asks of us, and what He promises to those willing to accept it and try to live by the gospel? What right does one have to demand the answers to all of their questions before they accept all else which has been revealed? Is that not the great sin of the pride of man? Is this not where our faith is truly tested? “My ways are not your ways, sayeth the Lord.”

C.S. Lewis imagined what hell might be like in his intriguing novel “The Great Divorce.” A fantasy account of souls in heaven and in hell conversing with one another. In two of the final three chapters of this book Lewis suggests an explanation for hell, (my crude paraphrase) that being that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven (also declared in the Book of Revelation 21:27). God is pure holiness and heaven is immaculate and therefore cannot contain even the slightest defilement of even one single sin. (cue: a need for purgatory as well) So if those who rejected God cannot let go of their bad ways or selfish thoughts (as Lewis suggests is the condition of a soul in hell), then the heavens are compelled to repel the very idea that such a soul or condition could ever be allowed to defile the immaculate purity of God's kingdom. Such a man has rejected God so utterly on earth he cannot let go of his defiance or objection to God’s justice --- and God cannot allow that unrepentant soul’s present state to defile the pure holiness of heaven. The soul in hell says God’s punishments are unjust and demands some level of mercy because God created him, but even his demands are part of his unholiness. He expects God to change before he does. We are at an impasse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps no one can say why there has to be an eternal hell for some souls, but I do have a question for those who may reject God for that reason. I am wondering now. But I believe God loves you enough where perhaps if you are not happy with the idea of being given the gift of eternal life because the possibility of hell also exists, then maybe you can appeal in a prayer? Ask God if at the moment you pass from this world, might he just turn you into a rock instead? Pure oblivion, no pain, no consciousness, no nothing. In that way you will not risk any suffering in hell -- which you never asked for, by the way, when He created you. Ok, that’s true. However, in so doing, neither will you ever be given the opportunity to know heaven or see your loved ones again or have any consciousness. That would have to be the bargain.

I am curious to know if this disturbance to the idea of hell is a primary reason many choose to not to think about God very much or do much about it? Perhaps understandable to a degree, but why would anyone still not be fascinated, if not obsessed, with what life and death is all about and what may lie ahead? The evidence can be found in so many places, in so many ways about this God which so many want to believe in yet keep at a safe distance just the same. The evidence for Jesus, Mary, the saints, the miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, and redemption all can be known. I submit Christianity has given far more to this world than all of its failures combined. God can only work with sinners so is it fair to point only to the failures of this faith and ignore its virtues when judging the message and works?

God’s promise to the world is that heaven awaits those who seek Him, yet if you choose to be filled with pride and live this life only for yourself, its pleasures and its comforts --- and in so doing ignore His calling, even His existence, then perhaps an awful fate is possible? It is a risk, granted, but is it unfair? Would one prefer to be turned into a rock instead? Maybe God will honor your free will and grant such a way out? But who would choose anything so dour and final as that when there is so much to hope for and be grateful for? Nothing unfair or unloving about it in the least.

“God reveals His covenant to those who fear Him.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

God is just and compassionate, which are not always the same things as being fair.

I can't help you with hell, though. I think hell and damnation make for abysmal theology. I have no idea how anyone can reconcile them with the notion of a loving and compassionate God, or why anyone would want to. Fortunately, Judaism doesn't have doctrines of hell or damnation, so it's not anything I have to worry about.

 

[Starjade]

I have met many souls who all claim the Living God is responsable for all the miseries on earth. However, upon investigation it will be discovered those miseries are caused by mankind. It is not justifiable to then go blame the living God for the acts of mankind.

If I plant a seed in a garden then I expect it to grow given the right envoroment. If I go away to do other things I had no reason to think those seeds would not flourish. If something comes along and causes that seed to perish then that is outside my actions.

Panic not however, upon my return a new cultivation will take place. And the rank weeds will be removed solving the problem. In the case of humanity this cultivation is called the apocalypse. It will soon be upon you all and then the evil is going to be extinct. Then we shall see what other things can be planted in that garden.

 

[thau]

I think hell and damnation make for abysmal theology. I have no idea how anyone can reconcile them with the notion of a loving and compassionate God, or why anyone would want to.

Well I already tried above.

For Christians like myself, once we are convinced of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ via various ways, evidence, et al., then we have no reason to doubt his word. And just because we cannot be certain of every single doctrine (such as is hell really eternal?), we can be certain of those most critical for us, i.e. the importance of faithfulness, obedience, prayer, charity, and the realities of heaven, hell and purgatory.

Fortunately, Judaism doesn't have doctrines of hell or damnation, so it's not anything I have to worry about.

Perhaps, but Sheol is no bargain. There are not many Sadducees left so I expect most practicing Jews are pretty well fixed they will live on after death?