A few questions for any Christian

[emeraldgirl]

Sylvan's view is totally rational. If he/she is "adding" a word by saying God was angry, he/she at least is stating what the overall picture is in this story.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

If that is not a picture of anger, I don't know what is. At the very least, it's not a picture of someone who knows the future, as you can't regret doing something if you knew the outcome to begin with. How can someone imagine God drowning the whole human race, and all animals, except just a tiny few and not be horrified? Remember the Tsunami of 2004? If God provoked that disaster because all the people were wicked, would you feel good about that god? Most Christians today, in the face of such horrors, say it is not God's punishment on mankind, but why not believe that it is, if we have the Bible to look at that says He DOES do that?

[Guest shiloh357]

If that is not a picture of anger, I don't know what is. At the very least, it's not a picture of someone who knows the future, as you can't regret doing something if you knew the outcome to begin with.

That is not true. It shows that God was grieved even though He knew what was going to happen.

Here is the part of the story that you leave out. When God told Noah to build the ark, Noah was not just building the ark. The Bible says that Noah preached to the wicked people about the flood that was coming. Noah preached to them, according to the Bible for 120 years about the coming of the flood (Gen. 6:3 2Pet. 2:5). God did not just up and destroy the earth in just a few days. He allowed a very long time for the people to repent. God in his mercy would have averted the flood if the people would have repented at the preaching of Noah. When the people of Ninevah repented at the preaching of Jonah, God did not send the promised destruction.

God has provided another ark of salvation, namely Jesus Christ. Yes, God promises destruction for the unrepentant, however in His mercy God provides a way out. He does not want to judge anyone. God prefers that all men repent and be saved. The Bible tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but all men everywhere come to a knowledge of the truth.

This the part that you want to overlook, emaraldgirl. You want to condemn God's intolerance of sin, but you convenienly ignore the other side of the coin. God's condemnation of sin is met fully in love for you, and His willingness to sacrifice everything to be able to love you and be loved by you.

You are looking for excuses to reject God. In your posts, I see a person who knows the truth, and probably knows the answers but is running from them. You WANT to reject God and you are fishing for anything that will quiet your conscience about this willful rebellion on your part. If you remain in rebellion, it will be worse for on judgement day because you knew the truth, and rejected it. It would be better to have never been born than to know and have tasted of the truth, and reject it.

[sylvan3]

I like Emeraldgirl's viewpoints.

Shiloh's comments about "rebellion" and what happens to those who supposedly rebel (by being honest about their feelings, no less) underscores a major problem with Christianity. This is that God's love is conditional--the condition being that one has to believe in Jesus in order to avoid eternal torture. Since we all know that the greatest love is unconditional love, why is it that God does not practice this?

It is important to understand that if God, because of his omniscience, knew that someone was going to reject him (prior to that person being born), God is, therefore, creating a person that he knows he will send to hell. This clearly does not square with what the traditional concept of God is (i.e. God is love).

[eric]

Great posting by EricH and Shiloh. I was saved tweny years ago, give or take a month or two, and I have learned more from this board in the last four years, simply by people like these two men, who have answered questions like those asked by people struggling with the word, like you Emerald girl and sylvan3.

The only advice I can offer, is that you keep asking and believe the answers from some of the senior members of this board and as is says inthe word, *Trust in God and lean not on your own understanding*

eric. with a little e.

[WayneB]

if I tell the truth and say that I don't have any troubling things on my mind or heart, am I less human in your eyes?

No, Wayne. But it's hard for me to believe that any person could read and study the Bible for years and not find at least a few things troubling. The reference to "humanity" was more because I think there are Christians who are too proud to even admit that they are troubled by any aspect of the Christian faith.

Conversely, if indeed you are not at all troubled by any tenent of the faith, if you are not at all troubled by anything in the Bible, the next introspective question I have is, "Then what is the matter with me?" How can I be "okay" with something I find reprehensible? I don't know how to, or why to. Christianity should be able to withstand objective scrutiny if it is Truth.

I never said I didn

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh's comments about "rebellion" and what happens to those who supposedly rebel (by being honest about their feelings, no less) underscores a major problem with Christianity.

Having doubts or legitimate questions is not "rebellion." Rebellion, at least as it applies to the context of this discussion, means going against what you know to be true. Our questions and doubts do not take God by surprise. He is not disturbed or threatened by doubts, or challenges to his character, and operations. You are completely mischaracterizing what I stated earlier.

This is that God's love is conditional--the condition being that one has to believe in Jesus in order to avoid eternal torture. Since we all know that the greatest love is unconditional love, why is it that God does not practice this?

God's love is unconditional. God does not expect you to live up to a certain moral code before He will accept you. He does not expect you to have your life figured out before He will offer Himself to you. It is precisely His unconditional love for mankind that drove Jesus to the cross. He offers salvation as a free gift. It is not based upon what you do. God does not engage in "performance based acceptance." He offers His love and His righteousness to you as a free gift, and all you have to do is accept it. He loves you even though He knows everything you have done both bad and good. He knows your faults and shortcomings. He knows your weaknesses, and still he loves you. THAT is unconditional love.

God does not love us, or bless because we are good. He loves us and blesses us because HE is good. He holds out the same unconditional love to even the most vilest of criminals. He would have saved Hitler if Hitler would have only come to Jesus and repented.

If a person goes to hell, it is because the rejected God's unconditional love. It is not God rescinding his love from you that sends you to hell. His love is extended to you everyday of your life. If you reject that love, if you claim that you don't want His love, and you will live as YOU see fit, and God can keep his Gospel, His Love, and His salvation to Himself and stay out of your life, then YOU are the problem, not God. You cannot hold God accountable for the choices and decisions that YOU made.

It is important to understand that if God, because of his omniscience, knew that someone was going to reject him (prior to that person being born), God is, therefore, creating a person that he knows he will send to hell. This clearly does not square with what the traditional concept of God is (i.e. God is love).

Yes it does. Because God does not desire a race of automatons. He gives every person, the choice. He extends mercy to everyone even those he knows will make the wrong choice. That is what demonstrates that God is fair and that everyone has an equal chance in salvation. Those who reject Him, are without excuse.

BTW, you have a false premise here. It is a false premise to say that every person born is born because God caused them to exist. There is a difference between knowing who will and will not be born, and being the actually catalyst for that person's existance. God does not create people in order to send them to hell, which is what you are implying. God does not cause children to be born out of rape, but he can take anyone born out in adverse circumstances and bring something beautiful out of their life. God is in the business of bringing good out of a bad situation when given the chance.

[WayneB]

I like Emeraldgirl's viewpoints.

Shiloh's comments about "rebellion" and what happens to those who supposedly rebel (by being honest about their feelings, no less) underscores a major problem with Christianity. This is that God's love is conditional--the condition being that one has to believe in Jesus in order to avoid eternal torture. Since we all know that the greatest love is unconditional love, why is it that God does not practice this?

It is important to understand that if God, because of his omniscience, knew that someone was going to reject him (prior to that person being born), God is, therefore, creating a person that he knows he will send to hell. This clearly does not square with what the traditional concept of God is (i.e. God is love).

What you forget is that God is a JUST God. His mercy and love are unfathomable but must be kept in context with JUSTICE. God must uphold what is just; He must confrom to the TRUTH. Why? It is HIS perfect nature. God's love is not conditional; rather it is just. How can you say it is conditional when HE has offered to clothe you in HIS righteousness?

It is much like a invitation to a wedding feast. Your invitation is unconditional but when you get there, you aren't properly attired. Is it "conditional" when the Father brings you clothes to wear ensuring you are properly attired for the Wedding Feast? Rather than a condition, it is a free gift that HE offers you...a gift to clothe you in clean & white linen (a metphor for God's perfect righteousness).

What is "conditional" about a FREE gift? If you choose to not accept it, then you are the one to set the conditions...that you will only attend the wedding feast if you can come as you are even though you are not properly clothed. Isn't that just silly pride? Would you really reject the free gift and miss the feast?

[sylvan3]

What you forget is that God is a JUST God. His mercy and love are unfathomable but must be kept in context with JUSTICE. God must uphold what is just; He must confrom to the TRUTH. Why? It is HIS perfect nature. God's love is not conditional; rather it is just. How can you say it is conditional when HE has offered to clothe you in HIS righteousness?

It is much like a invitation to a wedding feast. Your invitation is unconditional but when you get there, you aren't properly attired. Is it "conditional" when the Father brings you clothes to wear ensuring you are properly attired for the Wedding Feast? Rather than a condition, it is a free gift that HE offers you...a gift to clothe you in clean & white linen (a metphor for God's perfect righteousness).

What is "conditional" about a FREE gift? If you choose to not accept it, then you are the one to set the conditions...that you will only attend the wedding feast if you can come as you are even though you are not properly clothed. Isn't that just silly pride? Would you really reject the free gift and miss the feast?

Of course it is conditional. The condition is that the person must believe in the Bible in order not to be tortured for eternity (which you consider to be "just"). That is a condition--there is no other way of looking at it.

This is particularly evident when one considers that beliefs are not truly under a person's control. People can say they believe something but not truly believe it. If I told you that the local youth (ages 12-15) football team could beat the Pittsburgh Steelers ten times in a row in a series of legitimate football games, could you believe this? Of course not--even if you wanted to believe it (i.e. maybe you don't like the Steelers and you really like the youth football team).

In fact, there are many people who you know that may say they believe in Christ who truly, deep down, don't believe it for reasons that are out of their control (you might be a very surprised person someday!) They could be lying to you or themselves. Is it OK to lie to yourself? Which takes more character, to be honest with yourself and others, or to say you believe something you don't truly believe?

Ergo, given the fact that the Bible is extremely difficult to interpret (how about Revelations?), contains many contradictory passages (faith vs. works being one), is illogical (perfect deity creates an imperfect world), and is interpreted in numerous ways (200 church denominations, I believe), it goes beyond normal reason to "require" that someone believe this in order to avoid eternal torture. There is something wrong with a philosophy that is of this type of conditional nature.

It can't be a free gift, if someone is unable to accept it.

[Guest shiloh357]

Of course it is conditional. The condition is that the person must believe in the Bible in order not to be tortured for eternity (which you consider to be "just"). That is a condition--there is no other way of looking at it.

No, salvation is conditional upon receiving Jesus, but God's love is unconditional. You are confusing the issue. God does not place ANY conditions upon who may or may not get saved if they receive Jesus. Everyone who believes is welcomed by God unconditionally into the family. He does not allow some in and some not. Jesus said, "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37)

If God said, "I will only love if you go to church, or if you live up to this, or that standard," THEN You could His love is conditional. Apparently, you don't understand how conditional love works. Perhaps you should study your concepts before attempting to use them.

This is particularly evident when one considers that beliefs are not truly under a person's control. People can say they believe something but not truly believe it. If I told you that the local youth (ages 12-15) football team could beat the Pittsburgh Steelers ten times in a row in a series of legitimate football games, could you believe this? Of course not--even if you wanted to believe it (i.e. maybe you don't like the Steelers and you really like the youth football team).

In fact, there are many people who you know that may say they believe in Christ who truly, deep down, don't believe it for reasons that are out of their control (you might be a very surprised person someday!) They could be lying to you or themselves. Is it OK to lie to yourself? Which takes more character, to be honest with yourself and others, or to say you believe something you don't truly believe?

Whether or not someone else believes or does not believe the Bible "deep down," does not excuse me from believing. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the Bible is true, or not. Frankly, I really don't see any connection between your analogy, and the unconditional love of God.

Ergo, given the fact that the Bible is extremely difficult to interpret (how about Revelations?), contains many contradictory passages (faith vs. works being one)

You apparently don't understand how contradictions work. Contradictions are two things that cannot both be true at the same time. Works vs. faith offers no contradictions whatsoever.

is illogical (perfect deity creates an imperfect world),

God did not create an imperfect world. When God saw all that He had made, on the sixth day, He said it was "very good" which in Hebrew, denotes perfection. Furthermore, it was man's sin that brought imperfection into the world. So as always, you operate from false premises, because you simply don't know what you are talking about. You are trying to criticize the Bible, and you obviously lack the knowledge to even get its foundational teachings straight before you launch into your diatribes against them. At least, if you are going to criticize the Bible, you could at least do us the service of doing some research first and get your facts straight.

and is interpreted in numerous ways (200 church denominations, I believe), it goes beyond normal reason to "require" that someone believe this in order to avoid eternal torture.

Again, another false premise. Nothing of wht you have complained about thus far is required for anyone to avoid hell. One does not have to have all of their theology correct in order to be saved. Being saved has nothing to do with what denomination you belong to. All that is required is that you believe on Jesus Christ. It simply amounts to acknowledging that you are a sinner, and that you repent of your sin and believe that Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day. It does not get any simpler than that. Perhaps if you would bother to learn what the Bible says about salvation first, then we can discuss what it is about this free gift you have a problem with accepting for yourself.

There is something wrong with a philosophy that is of this type of conditional nature.

No the problem lies with your lack of research and the fact that you do not have a clear grasp on what the Bible says in the first place. You have no business criticizing the Bible, if you are not going to at least bother to study it, and be intellectually honest about what it says.

[WayneB]

In fact, there are many people who you know that may say they believe in Christ who truly, deep down, don't believe it for reasons that are out of their control (you might be a very surprised person someday!) They could be lying to you or themselves. Is it OK to lie to yourself? Which takes more character, to be honest with yourself and others, or to say you believe something you don't truly believe?

sylvan, I won't be surprised. I came to this realization long ago. I actually teach the exact same thing...that folks will be surprised one day when they see who is not at the Wedding Feast and more importantly, who is present. People can only see the outward but God sees the heart & mind of every man. Only HE knows if a man believes HIM and willingly accepts HIS free gift of salvation.

Regardless, there is a story in Scripture where the resurrected Christ was walking with His Disciples. Jesus was walking with Peter, reinstating him, when Peter looked back at John who followed close behind. When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." In other words, keep your eyes on Jesus and remove your focus on those around you. As far as I am aware, NO other man, past or present, suffered and died, nailed to an old wooden Cross, for my iniquities EXCEPT Jesus Christ. He, therefore, is my focal point and how I view everything is and will continue to be through HIS eyes.

So I agree with you. You cannot lie to yourself. The problem I have with you and others who reject Christ is that in most cases, they have not approached the issue objectively and with knowledge. They remain in rebellion against God because they are rebelling against parents, society, whatever and they mix the physical with the spiritual. With rare exception, they have NEVER read the Bible through or seeked God with an open mind and heart. Rather they come with preconceived ideas and beliefs. I chose a different path and after many years, I could only come to one conclusion.

It can't be a free gift, if someone is unable to accept it.

Why are you "unable" to accept it? Unwilling maybe...BUT not unable.