Killing in the name of......

[502mania]

quote from the webpage regarding the children - "we cannot keep all of God's laws because of our selfishness and self-centeredness" - didn't he create us that way? my metaphor - isn't that like training a dog to fetch and punishing him when he fetches?  i'm still reading both, i'm just posting questions as they rise.

[shernajwine]

dosen't psalms 104 refer to a completely different time period? and is that supposed to mean god didn't kill every 'living and breathing thing" as he said?

Psalm 104 is the known as the "creation" psalm. It coincides with Genesis creation. We know the earth was once completely covered in water, it states You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:9)1  Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth

And when reading the words ALL and EARTH in the flood account, you have to look at the original Hebrew and the correct interpretation. I'm sure as you read down the page you will get a better understanding of what the writer is getting across.

quote from the webpage regarding the children - "we cannot keep all of God's laws because of our selfishness and self-centeredness" - didn't he create us that way? my metaphor - isn't that like training a dog to fetch and punishing him when he fetches?  i'm still reading both, i'm just posting questions as they rise.

He did create us that way, He didn't want perfect robots. By the way, God didn't teach us to sin "fetch" it is the sinful nature. I am a sinner, but through grace I don't have to feel guilt every time I mess up. I know God loves me and forgave me. It gives me the strength to continue, and the joy to live my life without constant condemnation.

This is addressed on the issue about why God created the devil and Adam and Eve knowing they would sin.

[queenofnines]

Jcribb and Annella -- I appreciate your responses, really I do, but you didn't answer my question.  I didn't ask if you wanted me to go to hell, I asked if you think solely for being a non-believer, I *deserve* it.  It's a yes or no question.

Do YOU guys think it is right to punish otherwise good people forever on the sole basis of being skeptical of the god claims, OR being in the wrong religion?  Yes or no.  Don't say "only god can judge"; I really want to know if deep in your heart, you think it's morally correct?

[queenofnines]

He almost killed everything on the planet in the flood....

Not to mention nearly ALL of the vegetation would have been destroyed when they got off the boat.  How did the millions of animals not starve?  Did they all eat the dinosaurs and that's why they're now extinct?  lol

[jordandog]

Jcribb and Annella -- I appreciate your responses, really I do, but you didn't answer my question.  I didn't ask if you wanted me to go to hell, I asked if you think solely for being a non-believer, I *deserve* it.  It's a yes or no question.

Do YOU guys think it is right to punish otherwise good people forever on the sole basis of being skeptical of the god claims, OR being in the wrong religion?  Yes or no.  Don't say "only god can judge"; I really want to know if deep in your heart, you think it's morally correct?

I am surprised you have not gotten an answer to this yet, just looked at how long it has been since you posted it. Thinking about it though, I shouldn't be 'surprised' now should I? Without using the standard pool of answers ie the Bible says, it might not be answered. That takes some out-of-the-box thinking and that's definitely not something I see from one person you asked. It's hard to be the lone sheep bold enough to venture from the flock. If I was a betting person, my money would be on finding jcribb in the other field though. She has shown an ability to disengage from the party line at times. That is intended as a compliment, jcribb, even if not seen or taken as one.

[queenofnines]

I am surprised you have not gotten an answer to this yet, just looked at how long it has been since you posted it. Thinking about it though, I shouldn't be 'surprised' now should I?

I know I didn't think about hell much when I was a Christian.  I think it's all too easy to ignore this horrific aspect of many religions, or assume - as in the case of my husband's Mormon parents - that an atheist will "find their way" a few years down the line, and so they don't have to concern themselves with their child burning forever for the time being.

Any good/sane person who seriously wraps their brain around the connotations of hell cannot remain a believer.

[queenofnines]

Video that directly relates to my question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_7vKFAx6Q&feature=related

[jcribb16]

Jcribb and Annella -- I appreciate your responses, really I do, but you didn't answer my question.  I didn't ask if you wanted me to go to hell, I asked if you think solely for being a non-believer, I *deserve* it.  It's a yes or no question.

Do YOU guys think it is right to punish otherwise good people forever on the sole basis of being skeptical of the god claims, OR being in the wrong religion?  Yes or no.  Don't say "only god can judge"; I really want to know if deep in your heart, you think it's morally correct?

I am surprised you have not gotten an answer to this yet, just looked at how long it has been since you posted it. Thinking about it though, I shouldn't be 'surprised' now should I? Without using the standard pool of answers ie the Bible says, it might not be answered. That takes some out-of-the-box thinking and that's definitely not something I see from one person you asked. It's hard to be the lone sheep bold enough to venture from the flock. If I was a betting person, my money would be on finding jcribb in the other field though. She has shown an ability to disengage from the party line at times. That is intended as a compliment, jcribb, even if not seen or taken as one.

I don't usually work on Fridays but was called in today to substitute.  I just got home and am actually reading things on the forum now.  I will answer as soon as I can.  I'm just reading through right now, not ignoring anyone.  Thanks! 

[shernajwine]

He almost killed everything on the planet in the flood....

Not to mention nearly ALL of the vegetation would have been destroyed when they got off the boat.  How did the millions of animals not starve?  Did they all eat the dinosaurs and that's why they're now extinct?  lol

Nearly all the vegetation wasn't destroyed. We already talked about why it was a local flood. We already talked about how dinosaurs were created and extinct before man, but you continue to ignore old earth creation and local flood theory so you can continue to mock.

[queenofnines]

Old Earth Creation:

So 15 billion years ago, god starts a universe.

Hit sits around for 10 BILLION years and then finally creates Earth.

He sits around for another 4 BILLION years before finally creating modern man.

Then he waits 198,000 years to send himself to die on a cross.


Sorry, not buying it.

[shernajwine]

Old Earth Creation:

So 15 billion years ago, god starts a universe.

Hit sits around for 10 BILLION years and then finally creates Earth.

He sits around for another 4 BILLION years before finally creating modern man.

Then he waits 198,000 years to send himself to die on a cross.


Sorry, not buying it.

You're forgetting that time does not exist for God that way. But you don't have to believe it,  you can stop using beliefs from young earth creation to make a point while ignoring old earth creation when it suits you.

[queenofnines]

You're forgetting that time does not exist for God that way.

How does it exist for him, then?  If it's been scientifically demonstrated that the universe is ~14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion...is that just an illusion, or what?

[jcribb16]

Jcribb and Annella -- I appreciate your responses, really I do, but you didn't answer my question.  I didn't ask if you wanted me to go to hell, I asked if you think solely for being a non-believer, I *deserve* it.  It's a yes or no question.

Do YOU guys think it is right to punish otherwise good people forever on the sole basis of being skeptical of the god claims, OR being in the wrong religion?  Yes or no.  Don't say "only god can judge"; I really want to know if deep in your heart, you think it's morally correct?

I will attempt to answer your question as honestly and biblically as I can.

1. People who have issues and questions with the fact and reality of hell don't realize that their issue lies with Christ Himself.

2. Jesus taught about hell in that we should be willing to give up anything, that comes between Him and us, and accept Him as Lord so we can    
    spend eternity with Him in heaven. We all sin and until any one person acknowledges Him personally, that person is not exempt or free from the  
    wrath of God. Even children are born with a sin nature and will become sinners by choice.

3. "And the greatest sin in the world is to reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior." Those who do will spend eternity in hell.  I'm not saying that I like
this or even agree with this, BUT, God created the earth and the heaven and mankind. He made the rules and the consequences and it's not up    to me to say you deserve to go to hell because you won't accept Him. I am saying that if you choose to not accept Him, then unfortunately you made your choice to now spend eternity in hell.

  4. This quote says it better that I can: " The Bible says that God prepared hell for the devil and his demonic cohorts (Matthew 25:41), that He is "...not wishing for any [person] to perish but for all to come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9), and that He has done everything possible to save us from that terrible, terrible place. Yet in the end God will not violate or overrule the deliberate choice of those who consciously and willfully turn away from Him."
   —Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute

Added to that: "Fire burns. Gravity kills. Water drowns. And you can say, "God is love, God is love, God is love," until you're blue in the face. But water will still drown you, fire will burn you, and gravity will kill you, and sin will damn you no matter how much you say about a loving God."

To sum up, I am not your judge and I am not happy that you won't accept Him.  All I can do is pray for you (whether you like it or not), answer as honestly as I can and show proof in whatever way I can.  It's up to you and you only, not me, not your family and/or friends, and above all, not God.

I used some information and helps from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-grace/hell-and-god.html

[Annella]

Jcribb and Annella -- I appreciate your responses, really I do, but you didn't answer my question.  I didn't ask if you wanted me to go to hell, I asked if you think solely for being a non-believer, I *deserve* it.  It's a yes or no question.

Do YOU guys think it is right to punish otherwise good people forever on the sole basis of being skeptical of the god claims, OR being in the wrong religion?  Yes or no.  Don't say "only god can judge"; I really want to know if deep in your heart, you think it's morally correct?

I am surprised you have not gotten an answer to this yet, just looked at how long it has been since you posted it. Thinking about it though, I shouldn't be 'surprised' now should I? Without using the standard pool of answers ie the Bible says, it might not be answered. That takes some out-of-the-box thinking and that's definitely not something I see from one person you asked. It's hard to be the lone sheep bold enough to venture from the flock. If I was a betting person, my money would be on finding jcribb in the other field though. She has shown an ability to disengage from the party line at times. That is intended as a compliment, jcribb, even if not seen or taken as one.

For one thing, I don't live on this forum.  I just got on after a very busy morning (and afternoon). The question is not being ignored, as there is no other answer that I can give.  I'm not the Judge.  I believe the Bible addresses this as I wrote before. As far as your effort to "bait" me jordandog.  Your problem seems to be me in particular, and that's glaringly evident.  However, I'm not going to go against the Bible in no way shape or form.  

I've already stated what is written Biblically, and how I perceive it.  If you keep on asking the same questions in a different way......sorry, it's still the same answer.  I'm not changing my answer, or sugar coating it for anybody.  

Here's something else, I don't believe once saved, always saved.  There are to many scriptures to indicate otherwise.  Especially after you've turned your back on it.  My main question is if qon was actually a Christian before, according to the plan of Salvation in the Bible.  If not, she hasn't denounced anything as someone not coming to the full knowledge of Christ, and can be redeemed.  Anybody can for that matter.  A Reprobate cannot, and is another situation all together.

Now....some of you don't like how I post things.  I'm not sorry for the Word of God and how I follow it.  Someday I will give account of how I preached/taught it.  Giving an answer to you, and getting "blasted for it" makes no difference to me, as you will not Judge me.  You will always know how I stand, and no name calling or posting negative innuendos, etc., is NOT going to change my walk with God, or change any stance that's written in the Word because you find it hard to swallow.  I take the Bible quite literally, and do not look for loopholes.  There are times I study something out completely and come out with a better understanding, but the Bible is written with main points (Salvation) covered so anyone can understand it.

Here's my question?  Since you don't believe the Bible, or that there is a God, why is this important to you, except to "bait" anyone that's a Christian, so you can belittle them.  I said before.....arguing the Bible will not be acceptable.



 

[shernajwine]

You're forgetting that time does not exist for God that way.

How does it exist for him, then?  If it's been scientifically demonstrated that the universe is ~14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion...is that just an illusion, or what?

No, it's not an illusion. God is infinite, He didn't begin to exist so He has no beginning and no end. The earth has a beginning and therefore we have perception of time that is finite and measured.

We perceive time as linear. You were born and thus begins your timeline, when you die, your timeline stops. For God it is not a line, it is a circle in which He is in the middle and is touching all points in time at the same time. That is how He can be omnipresent.

Also have you ever thought about the stars you see that are billions of light years away? By the time you see it, by the time the light reaches you, it has already existed for billions of years? Time is relative.

There was an experiment done that I read about, it was reported in the journal Science by scientists Hafele and Keating of WA University and the U.S Naval Observatory. I read about it in a book by physicist Gerald Schroader Ph.D.

Hafele and Keating sent four cesium-beam clocks on around the world trips aboard commercial, scheduled TWA and Pan Am flights using Boeing 707 and Concorde aircraft. Cesium-beam clocks were used because of their extreme precision.

The Earth rotates from west to east. Viewing the Earth from space high above the north pole, we see that on the eastward flight, the speed of the plane added to the speed of the Earth. As predicted by relativity, the flying clocks lost time relative to cesium-beam clocks stationed at the U.S. Naval Observatory in D.C. (the source of all the clocks in this study.) On the westward flight, the speed of the plane subtracted from the Earth's rotation and the clocks, as predicted, gained time.

Not just the sensation of time, but the actuality of time's passage changes in accord with the relative motion of the observers. Within each of the given reference frames all seems natural. But when the frames come together and the clocks are compared, the passage of time, the actual aging, is seen to have been different.