Explain the justice of hell.

[SonCatcher]

So God condemned them for child sacrifice by having their children massacred?

It’s a societal dead end. If not contained, it would bring an end to humanity. Also, there weren’t exactly orphanages in every town then.

For some reason that does not seem sufficiently egregious.

Consider that before the doctrine of eternal life developed, people’s best idea of surviving their own death was to have a legacy of great stories for their descendants to tell about them. If Judas’ legacy was to be eternally the villain, he would prefer that his story not be told at all so he could be forgotten. That is, to let it be as though he were never born.

Besides, why make such an issue of warning about Hell if it was intended to be a hollow threat?

It’s not a hollow threat. It is doctrine that a subset of humanity will wind up in Hell. It is just impossible to name any any of them.

 

[jmvizanko]

Apparently you do not understand what I meant by “so as to understand.” One who thinks it’s ridiculous doesn’t. Believe it or not, there are those who do come to understand and hate it.

Just because you are supremely confident in your beliefs does not mean that somebody either understands your beliefs and loves them as much as you, or does not understand them. I’m a confirmed Catholic that has been debating Christianity for years. I will not claim to understand all of the interpretations of this and that verse or Church edict like that of Christian theologians, but I understand the basics of what you believe (and what I once believed) well enough to confidently say that I honestly find what you believe to be implausible. I do not mean that in a condescending way, it is just what it is, just as I’d bet you find Scientology implausible.

The chances are better…

What are you talking about? According to you, anybody that has never heard the gospel will not be held accountable for their beliefs. Which means they have an infinitely better chance of not being judged for their beliefs than anybody who is exposed to the gospel and has the chance to “reject” it or find it implausible.

…and rewards greater for those who accept the Gospel, therefore, the Eskimos are better off for being evangelized.

Are you saying that an Eskimo who has never heard the gospel, who is judged alongside a Christian who has done the exact same amount of good and evil in their life as the Eskimo, is going to be rewarded less in the afterlife? How on earth is that just?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Rain is a benefit…and we all need water…right? Is it given to the righteous as well as the most evil of evil doers? Yes. We wouldn’t even know of an afterlife if God hadn’t revealed it to us. Therefore, it makes sense since all are guranteed to live forever, one should pay particular attention how God wants us to act in this life

OK, but the original comment was referring to Jesus’ command to love one’s enemy in order to show a love as perfect and equal to God’s own.

If God does not love his enemies (as might be inferred by the existence of Hell), but one on Earth does, would that mean the one was able to show even greater love than God?

Don’t good and bad people alike have natural consequences in this life? Just as the next life. Does that mean God doesn’t love us?

I do not know. Consider:

A small child is playing in her yard and is lured away and subsequently abducted because a man approaches her and tells her that he needs her help to find his lost kitten.

Given:

The parents wished for their child to be healthy and so encouraged her to play outside (a positive sentiment), but they were rewarded with a negative outcome (loss of their child).

The child wished to help (a positive trait), but was rewarded with a negative outcome (abduction).

The abductor wished to satisfy animalistic urges and so through deception and selfishness (negative traits) was able to accomplish his aims, which could be argued to be a positive outcome for him assuming he is not apprehended.

What might one expect to be the natural consequences of the good and bad actions in this case?

Might God love the child, the child’s parents, or the abductor more? Or would he love them equally? Where might one discover the evidence for this love?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It’s a societal dead end. If not contained, it would bring an end to humanity. Also, there weren’t exactly orphanages in every town then.

Why would God not have simply inspired them with a great act of love in order to have them change their ways?

Alternately, could he not have simply convinced them by something as simple as sending a strong wind storm every time a child was about to be sacrificed? Would it truly have been very difficult to convince such superstitious people that what they were doing was not pleasing to God? Especially given that the reason it was considered a “sacrifice” was because it was difficult for those offering it to do. How many, might it be imagined, would have preferred to have had their child killed if they imagined that sparing it would have pleased God more?

Consider that before the doctrine of eternal life developed, people’s best idea of surviving their own death was to have a legacy of great stories for their descendants to tell about them. If Judas’ legacy was to be eternally the villain, he would prefer that his story not be told at all so he could be forgotten. That is, to let it be as though he were never born.

Did Judas have any descendants?

Is it probable to consider that this was his chief concern when he wished to return the silver to the high priests? Did it play a role in his decision to hang himself?

It’s not a hollow threat. It is doctrine that a subset of humanity will wind up in Hell. It is just impossible to name any any of them.

OK.

 

[Searcher360]

Precisely the problem. This difficulty is paramount.

Indeed. The degree of circular logic espoused by many is great. I respect the rights of free men to have faith, but am troubled by the apparent difficulty many have separating fact from belief. The degree to which some of faith have constructed entire alternate universes and volumes of thoughts based on little more than the similar, but earlier suppositions of others troubles me. It seems that the passage of time and age of writings is often a convenient substitute for fact. Simply because something was written several hundred or even a few thousand years ago it is assumed true or even divine.

I do believe in God, but can’t get past thinking that God is too all knowing & powerful to care about man made rites and man made issues. Why would God be bothered?

I really want to explore this, hence my presence here. I seek truth. Faith alone, especially based on others unsubstantiated beliefs doesn’t work for me.

 

[Ignatius]

[Iquote=gnatius]
*Your error, my friend, is that you do not know what hell is.

If you gave a party and invited all of your friends because you want to be with them, but some of them do not want to come to the party, would you force them to?

Of course not, because that would not be love. Neither will God force us to be with Him if we choose not to. If we decide that we do not want to be with God, He will let us have our way and be separated from Him.

Hell is nothing more than separation from God of those who wish to be separated from Him.*

And if all hell is is separation from a god that would send people there to begin with.

See, you didn’t read the post! Read it again instead of just reacting, If you re-read it, you will se that God doesn’t send anyone to hell. God simply does not force anyone to be with him in eternity if they don’t want to. It is the opposite of being cruel. It really seems that you don’t want to know the truth of the matter. That’s up to you. Go whereever you will and do whatever you want. No one is going to force you to accept the truth. Have a nice life.

 

[minkymurph]

My own particular concern might then be: if the author of the book of Kings might invent such concepts in order to arrive at a predetermined outcome, how is one to believe any part of the Bible given the likelihood that its other authors might be considered to do likewise?

Why would God allow his words to be mixed with falsehood and yet still presented as his own? …unless he placed a lying spirit in the mouth of his authors…

I’m not sure if I’m reading the meaning of your words accurately. Please correct me if this is the case.

Let’s say the author of the book of Kings invented the whole story, and none of it is true. Let’s go further and say every author of the bible invented the story, none of them were telling the truth and none of them can be believed. Possible. How valid is the argument?

In order to assess the intentions of the authors of the bible, one to has three options:

1) The authors were lying, and knew they were lying.
2) The authors were lying, but believed they were telling the truth.
3) The authors were telling the truth.

Is it not fair to say our answer to any of these questions is can only be answered subjectively and according to our own belief? If one believes God does not exist on the basis there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, one will answer the above questions subjectively. The alternative would be to accept the possibility the authors of the bible may have telling the truth. In which case, God may exist. One who believes in God will also answer the above questions subjectively, as the alternative is to accept the possibility God does not exist. Therefore, the answer to the above questions hinges on whether or not we believe in God.

Let’s examine the above questions from a more objective position. I say a more objective position because I don’t go for Rawl’s theory of the unencumbered self and the veil of ignorance. That’s another story but for now, suffice to say I don’t think anyone has the capacity to be totally objective for a variety of reasons and therefore, we all have a particular bias.

If you don’t mind a long post and you can bear with me, I’ll examine these questions in stages.

 

[minkymurph]

First question: The authors of the bible were lying and knew they were.

Who wrote the bible, why and who put it together in the format we have today? Topic for great speculation and involves a variety of opinion. However, what is in question is the truthfulness of the authors and their intentions - irrespective of who they were.

What we do know, is the authors of the bible lived centuries apart. The scrolls and writings that have been discovered tell us that. Did they all believe what they were writing was not true? It’s possible. Let’s say they did know. We are then faced with the question why would they write it all down and go to great lengths to preserve it? Why would others claim to believe it if in fact they don’t, and go to great lengths to preserve it? Why these particular books? Why not other writings? There are many other questions that can be asked but for now, is the challenge that the author of every book of the bible knew what they were writing was not true, and their intention in writing, and the intention of others in preserving these writings to control others feasible? It’s possible. But is it not fair to say no one can know this with any great degree of certainty? Is it not fair to say this opinion is based on an assumption concerning what was in the authors mind, and the basis of that assumption is there is no empirical evidence for existence of God? That it is in fact a belief?

In order to be guilty of lying, one has to aware of the fact what one is saying is not true. To illustrate, a child tells you Santa left them presents, or the tooth fairy visited them and left them money. What the child is saying is not true - but is the child lying? There is no doubt as to the event in question - the child did receive money and presents. Therefore, in relation to the presents and the money the child is not lying. However, the presents were left by mum and dad and not Santa or the tooth fairy. Does the child believe this? If the answer if yes, what the child is saying may not be true, but can the child be deemed to be lying? I suppose it depends on your definition of lying.

In a court of law, a defendant would not be deemed to be lying or dishonest if they honestly held the belief they did. The prosecution and defense would argue the same facts in relation to a persons state of mind when they carried out a particular act. It is then left for a jury to decide whether the person was acting honestly or lying. The jury will consider the evidence, which has been put to them, and the same evidence is argued from two different perspectives but ultimately, whether the person is found guilty or acquitted comes down to whether or not the jury believes the defendant honestly held the belief.

So, did the authors of the bible believe they were lying? On the balance of probabilities, given that no one can truly know what is in another’s mind, I would argue we cannot conclude every author of the bible believed they were lying. We can conclude what they wrote is not true, but we cannot conclude they did not believe it was true. That pretty much addresses the second question.

 

[minkymurph]

The third question then is the were the authors of the bible telling the truth?

Why would the parents want the child to believe Santa leaves the presents and the tooth fairy leaves money? Depends to what extent one feels a child should be permitted to have an imagination, and be a child. However, is it not fair to say the intention behind the leaving of presents and money on the parents part is to demonstrate their love for the child? The child will learn in years to come Santa and the tooth fairy are in fact mum and dad. However, the fact that they received presents and money and the intention behind was to demonstrate love for them doesn’t change. Now, when you ask a young child to draw a picture of God, they very often draw a picture of an old man with a beard. Ask a teenager, their picture will be different. Ask an adult, most adults can’t do it. In the first instance because they have lost their imagination and in the second, they have grown up spiritually and no longer think of God as an old man with a beard.

It’s the same with the nation of Israel. They had just come to know God, God had just been revealed to them and it was a learning curve. Why did God not ensure every thing the authors of the bible wrote was exact in terms of the image of God? For the same reason he doesn’t send the Holy Spirit to rub out a child’s drawing of Him as an old man with a beard because he doesn’t look like that. God is infinite and cannot be known in his infinite form in this world. Therefore, our understanding of God is always changing. The bible demonstrates that. Again, I go back to how the terms ‘inspiration’ and ‘Revelation’ are understood. There are people who understand the term ‘inspiration’ to mean that by supernatural means, God placed the exact words of scripture in the authors mind. It’s not how I would understand the term ‘inspiration.’ God’s Revelation does not change, but our understanding of it does for reasons mentioned above. Scripture also has a dynamic character in that meanings of words can change according to circumstances. That does not mean what is true becomes false, or what is false becomes true. To illustrate; two people can read a passage of writing and come to two very different conclusions that in fact may be contradictory. However, they could both be true.

Here is an equation - 2 + 4 X 5 = ?

Is the answer 30 or 22? Both answers could in fact be right. It would depend what answer the person who wrote the equation wants you to come up with.

Now, equations are not usually written like this. Brackets are inserted to assist in coming up with the correct answer. If you’re into this sort of thing I’ll leave it to you to play around with. The point I’m a making is how much more difficult is it with words to guide a reader to conclusion you want them to come up with? To illustrate further, when Philip the evangelizer encountered the Ethiopian eunuch reading from Isaiah, he asked if he understood what he was reading. His reply was, ‘how can I understand it with no one to explain it to me?’ If what was written was so obvious, why could he not just read for himself and understand?

To illustrate further, I could write an autobiography and you could read it. Would you really know me? There is a certain amount you would know, but is it not fair to say people I have a relationship with would know me much better? Is it not also fair to say I would be writing about me in terms of how I see me, and others may see me differently, and they may misunderstand what it is I’m saying about myself irrespective of well I have written the book? Is it not fair to say someone who doesn’t like me would read that autobiography from a different perspective than one who does? What if someone doesn’t believe I exist? What if someone else writes the autobiography? Is it not fair to say they are writing from their perspective, can it be said it is not true? We can know about God from reading the bible, but enhancing our understanding of Revelation requires engagement with God.

 

[minkymurph]

Might you ever seek to forget them and lock them out of your life completely?

A human might in extreme circumstances - like if they turned out to be a complete psychopath or something. However, a child can lock themselves out of their parents life by their own choice. As a parent you hope that will never happen, and you do everything in your power to ensure it won’t. The child may choose to do that anyway in spite of your best efforts. That choice is one you cannot and should not control by force, and it cannot be considered just to attempt to do so.

Is an adult on Earth viewed to be an adult when likened to God, or is he closer to being a child?

Your child is always your child. Anyone who is an elderly parent, or who has an elderly parent will tell you that.

God sees us in terms of the stage we are at spiritually. The name of the theologian who described these stages escapes me at the moment. It was either Rayner or Westerhoff, I’d have to go back on it to be sure. He proposes that in order to hand on faith, we need to recognize the stage the other person is at, and God recognizes the stage we are at and fills our spiritual needs accordingly. If someone has progressed in terms of spiritual development, God knows they are capable of reasoning for themselves to a greater extent than one who has not. To go back to the illustration of the child and the hot iron. If your child is 25 you would expect them to have the wit not to touch a hot iron themselves. You wouldn’t expect it of a 2 year old. That is something they need to learn. You wouldn’t or shouldn’t have to expect to physically lift a 25 year old away from an iron or stop them running out onto the road. However, if they got hurt from doing something stupid when they should have know better you would still offer medical assistance, or see to it they got medical assistance. You wouldn’t just leave them mangled on the road or running around the house screaming in pain because of their burnt hand.

However, in simplistic terms the theory is we all experience stages of spiritual growth, which has nothing to do with our biological age. He describes several stages of spiritual development three of which are; a ‘child’ stage, and a ‘critic’ stage which can be equated to a ‘teenage’ stage, and an ‘adult’ or ‘transcendent’ stage were a person is actually in love with God. He proposes that spiritually, some people stay at the ‘child’ stage throughout their lives. To a child everything is black and white, and unquestionable accepts what their parents, and teacher say, and at a later stage their peers. We have a saying in my part of the world, you probably have an equivalent in yours, ‘throwing teddy out of the cot.’ What this means is when a person’s beliefs or opinions, are challenged it provokes a child-like tantrum in response - because the person has been challenged. If you have ever encountered a very spiritual person, challenges to their faith and belief’s doesn’t prompt that response because they have matured, are very comfortable with being challenged because of their deep belief, and the hairs on the back of their neck don’t stand on end when someone disagrees with them.

The ‘teenage’ or ‘critic’ stage is described as the most difficult stage but a very necessary one. During this stage, the person starts to form their own opinions rather than unquestioningly accept those of their parents and community they are raised, and everything is questioned and criticized. It is during this stage a person can loose faith. They can also revert back to the ‘child’ stage because this stage is so difficult. However, the theory is those who push past this stage press on to the ‘transcendent’ stage, and in order to enter the ‘transcendent’ stage, it is necessary to pass through the ‘critic’ stage.

Hope you borne with me through the long posts. I felt the questions you raised merited an in depth answer, and if you take the time to read it all I appreciate it.

 

[catholictiger]

this may be a little bit of a stretch but I would say that it would be a better question to ask how is it justified that we can obtain heaven. Because of the fact that we are all sinner, it doesn’t make sense that we sinners can obtain heaven. thankfully by the mercy and Love of God we can go to heaven.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

And if all hell is is separation from a god that would send people there to begin with.

See, you didn’t read the post! Read it again instead of just reacting, If you re-read it, you will se that God doesn’t send anyone to hell. God simply does not force anyone to be with him in eternity if they don’t want to. It is the opposite of being cruel. It really seems that you don’t want to know the truth of the matter. That’s up to you. Go whereever you will and do whatever you want. No one is going to force you to accept the truth. Have a nice life.

If I might be permitted to interject for my atheistic comrade, might not his difficulty lie with accepting the choice of either residing or departing from a deity who not only does not appear to exist, from his perspective, but who also appears largely indifferent to the outcome?

For example, let us imagine an erstwhile loving parent (indeed, one with a reputation as a great humanitarian) who might invite an estranged child who always doubted his/her sincerity to a thanksgiving dinner. Now suppose this child, in a fit of rebellion, decided against attending the banquet on the principle that he never felt real affection from this parent and imagined the ordeal would be an uncomfortable one.

Supposing this child’s turning down of the offer were met with no objection and the feast proceeded as planned as though his absence were inconsequential, would his belief in the superficiality (or perhaps, vagarity) of the love in question be justified?

Now suppose this child arrived at the very door of his parent’s abode and could hear the merriment within. The child is cold and hungry and it is dark outside so he reasons with himself that he might as well recant his objections and make a civil attempt to join in the festivities for his suspicion of the love of the parent has only brought him further misery. So, boldly, he knocks at the door, but it remains locked fast. After repeated attempts he finally hears his parent yell at him from an upper story window to depart as he is accursed for not having believed in his love before the party began.

Has he not just been vindicated in his suspicions from the outset? Where resides the proof of the claim that his parent’s love was great? Where is the proof of the parent’s claim that the child was loved more than he could know, even before he was born? Does the parent’s attitude not instead strike one as indifferent?

What Earthly parent might enjoy a festive party while any of his children languish in the street outside for any reason, let alone because he has bolted his door to them?

Now, in fairness, this might not be the situation one might encounter in an afterlife, but if it is the essence as fairly described by the Bible is it not understandable for many to arrive at this conclusion and so reject this particular god’s claim to be loving based upon it? And if this claim might be rejected, how much easier is it to proceed to reject the rest since all is built upon the presumption of this loving nature? Now, once the rest is rejected, does this necessarily imply that the atheist wished to do so from the onset?

What choice might then exist for the atheist to love such a god?

My apologies, jmvizanko, if I have in any way misrepresented any part of your position or taken liberties in replying on your behalf.

 

[SonCatcher]

Just because you are supremely confident in your beliefs does not mean that somebody either understands your beliefs and loves them as much as you, or does not understand them. I’m a confirmed Catholic that has been debating Christianity for years. I will not claim to understand all of the interpretations of this and that verse or Church edict like that of Christian theologians, but I understand the basics of what you believe (and what I once believed) well enough to confidently say that I honestly find what you believe to be implausible. I do not mean that in a condescending way, it is just what it is, just as I’d bet you find Scientology implausible.

The term “implausible” seems to me a synonym for “misunderstood”.

What are you talking about? According to you, anybody that has never heard the gospel will not be held accountable for their beliefs. Which means they have an infinitely better chance of not being judged for their beliefs than anybody who is exposed to the gospel and has the chance to “reject” it or find it implausible.

I never inferred such a thing. Those who never heard the Gospel are certainly accountable to their own beliefs insofar as those are compatible with the Gospel.

If such a person ends up in Heaven, it is only through Christ and the Church that it is possible.

Are you saying that an Eskimo who has never heard the gospel, who is judged alongside a Christian who has done the exact same amount of good and evil in their life as the Eskimo, is going to be rewarded less in the afterlife? How on earth is that just?

We’re not talking about Earth, here. However, the Christian does indeed have potential for higher reward and for greater punishment.

 

[SonCatcher]

Why would God not have simply inspired them with a great act of love in order to have them change their ways?

Alternately, could he not have simply convinced them by something as simple as sending a strong wind storm every time a child was about to be sacrificed? Would it truly have been very difficult to convince such superstitious people that what they were doing was not pleasing to God? Especially given that the reason it was considered a “sacrifice” was because it was difficult for those offering it to do. How many, might it be imagined, would have preferred to have had their child killed if they imagined that sparing it would have pleased God more

God is not a puppeteer.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Indeed. The degree of circular logic espoused by many is great. I respect the rights of free men to have faith, but am troubled by the apparent difficulty many have separating fact from belief. The degree to which some of faith have constructed entire alternate universes and volumes of thoughts based on little more than the similar, but earlier suppositions of others troubles me. It seems that the passage of time and age of writings is often a convenient substitute for fact. Simply because something was written several hundred or even a few thousand years ago it is assumed true or even divine.

Agreed, it is curious.

I do believe in God, but can’t get past thinking that God is too all knowing & powerful to care about man made rites and man made issues. Why would God be bothered?

A good question.

I really want to explore this, hence my presence here. I seek truth. Faith alone, especially based on others unsubstantiated beliefs doesn’t work for me.

This is particularly difficult in light of the conflicting evidence and varied interpretations of same.

I have sought after answers surrounding this faith from a variety of sources, but it is only here that any have agreed to any prolonged engagement (even so, some of my threads get shut down for asking what is apparently taboo). My doubts often cause frustration or disdain in those I ask; it is difficult to seek the truth when the questions might be interpreted as provocative to those whose most cherished beliefs might be being so scrutinized…but what else is there to do?

I hope you find what you seek. I consider we are all in this together.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[SonCatcher]

I respect the rights of free men to have faith, but am troubled by the apparent difficulty many have separating fact from belief.

What is a fact?

What is a belief?

Would you care to explain the difference?

 

[steve_b]

OK, but the original comment was referring to Jesus’ command to love one’s enemy in order to show a love as perfect and equal to God’s own.

If God does not love his enemies (as might be inferred by the existence of Hell), but one on Earth does, would that mean the one was able to show even greater love than God?

Let’s not forget the key point. Love is tied to forgiveness of one who is sorry for their wrong doing. If one isn’t sorry, then forgiveness isn’t given.

God has already, and continues to show, his unbelievably great love for all of creation. That doesn’t mean He takes away consequences in this life, or that consequences mean a lack of love on His part. Same with the next life… I see this life as one big test of free will.

“Today I put before you life and death blessings and curses…choose life”

Every decision we make has this quality to it. We really can choose which to take each and every decision we make. God has His own desire for us, but He also gave us free will. It’s in the end what makes us culpable for what we do. Without it we’re not guilty of anything, and responsible for nothing. God didn’t incarnate, live in this life, then die for a creation that has no free will.

I would suggest, if you as a parent just let your children run wild, with no guidance and punishments along the way, that is not loving them at all.
J:

I do not know. Consider:

A small child is playing in her yard and is lured away and subsequently abducted because a man approaches her and tells her that he needs her help to find his lost kitten.

Given:

The parents wished for their child to be healthy and so encouraged her to play outside (a positive sentiment), but they were rewarded with a negative outcome (loss of their child).

The child wished to help (a positive trait), but was rewarded with a negative outcome (abduction).

The abductor wished to satisfy animalistic urges and so through deception and selfishness (negative traits) was able to accomplish his aims, which could be argued to be a positive outcome for him assuming he is not apprehended.

What might one expect to be the natural consequences of the good and bad actions in this case?

Might God love the child, the child’s parents, or the abductor more? Or would he love them equally? Where might one discover the evidence for this love?

All things being considered there, if both child and abductor died in their present state, and the child went to heaven for all eternity and the abductor went to hell for all eternity, how would you judge that scenerio? Is it just? Is it fair?

When one considers what heaven is, is there room for reprobates i.e. ones who have done terrible wrongs and aren’t sorry for any of it, next to saints? In my view, that wouldn’t be heaven.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

minkymurph:
You have certainly put some real effort into these answers and for that I thank you.

Here are some considerations:

If the Bible is a combination of truths, half-truths, and outright misrepresentations (however accidentally), why is God so unconcerned with it standing as a reference to his commands?

A child’s picture of his family might be inaccurate, but still acceptable to the parent; however, would said parent place it in the family album instead of a more accurate photograph?

Alternately, would a parent provide a child’s self-portrait to the police should the child go missing in order that he be found? What parent might be so unconcerned as to the safety of his child that he might choose to use the child’s own substitute for reality to stand as a means of bringing him safely home?

Further, considering the different stages available in spiritual development, what dedicated teacher might assemble in a class all his/her students and then allow them to muddle through their lessons without providing clear direction in areas of confusion, but instead allowing each to argue with one another over the rightness or wrongness of their interpretation of said teacher’s vaguely written outline? What teacher would do so knowing that the graduate students were approaching their year-end finals and that their understanding of the information would be paramount to their looming success or failure? Would a graduate of this class be correct in assuming that this teacher was as deeply interested in his future as was suggested in the lesson outline?

Finally, if one were to occupy a position of authority, such as the top general in an army, would one allow any given instructions to subordinates to be open to broad interpretation? Particularly if one were responsible for the outcomes and the fate of many followers might hang in the balance?

Is one to consider that God is sloppy? Disinterested? Preoccupied? Naive? Or just not a very good communicator?

Would he not seemingly make a challenging husband?

Thank you so much for your patient efforts.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

this may be a little bit of a stretch but I would say that it would be a better question to ask how is it justified that we can obtain heaven. Because of the fact that we are all sinner, it doesn’t make sense that we sinners can obtain heaven. thankfully by the mercy and Love of God we can go to heaven.

While this is a perfectly valid point from the view of one who has accepted the reality as to both God’s goodness and mankind’s sinfulness, might it not be somewhat premature in this particular topic whereby neither has yet been fully established?

To clarify: if God is claimed to be all good, but an investigation of this claims suggests that he is not, is it not fair to first examine this claim before emphatically concluding that since he is all good all evil must come from mankind?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God is not a puppeteer.

I mean no offense, but is it better then to imagine him a murderer?

Is “Do my will or die!” necessarily better than “You are not doing my will when you kill children, as I shall clearly demonstrate…”?