PDA

View Full Version : Religious question


el borracho
05-07-2006, 03:56 PM
Is the christian god a god of wrath?

KcMizzou
05-07-2006, 03:57 PM
Well this should be good for 50-60 pages, at least.

JBucc
05-07-2006, 03:58 PM
He is the god of saran wrap

Count Alex's Losses
05-07-2006, 03:59 PM
He's a god of math.

KcMizzou
05-07-2006, 04:00 PM
I follow the Gaz of wrath. This poll is invalid.

SNR
05-07-2006, 04:00 PM
I don't believe so. I really don't believe a lot of what the old testament says.

A God who would be so benevolent as to put us on this earth and then send us to hell at the drop of a hat doesn't seem right.

cdcox
05-07-2006, 04:02 PM
Didn't vote because your options were too limited. He is a God of wrath and a God of mercy. Wrath towards sin, mercy towards humans.

Phobia
05-07-2006, 04:02 PM
I was raised Pentecostal. I used to believe he was a God of wrath. I've since come to a better understanding.

el borracho
05-07-2006, 04:02 PM
Not trying to provoke anybody but the Phelps video from another thread made me curious. From what I understand the old testament was pretty full of hand-on smiting and such. I am wondering how people perceive the christian god and how his actions from the old testament fit into that ideal.

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 04:03 PM
From the standpoint of accepting that he exists, the only thing I'm certain of is that he is inordinately fond of vacuum. After all, he created more of it than anything else.

As for feeling wrathful towards that vacuum, I have no data on which to base a conclusion.

JBucc
05-07-2006, 04:03 PM
I aslo refuse to vote because there is no Saran Wrap option

el borracho
05-07-2006, 04:04 PM
p.s. I have to duck out to go to work but I'll respond to any dialogue directed at me (if there is any) in the next day or so.

FAX
05-07-2006, 04:05 PM
Not in my experience, Mr. el borracho.

God is a God of Love and Peace offering Strength and Courage to those who ask for it. And, when he's not providing those things, he's sort of a God of Ambivalence.

I think that the hell and damnation approach to prophecy and sermonizing was/is a way to draw larger crowds, increase or retain flocks through intimidation and fear, and for people to connect with a darker side of existence. Sort of like what going to Saw II does for people today.

FAX

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 04:09 PM
Christian God is one of righteousness....which sometimes requires wrath or punishment at other times mercy; and yet at other times forgiveness which of course when one takes responsibility for having done wrong and/or amends.

elvomito
05-07-2006, 04:16 PM
God is a God of Love and Peace offering Strength and Courage to those who ask for it.i agree... religion is manmade and is used to manipulate and control by means of fear.
based on what jesus had to say, you could reason that the commandments are condensed into one... love everyone. doing that would be the straight and narrow for sure right? it'd sure fix a lot of wrong

cdcox
05-07-2006, 04:27 PM
Not trying to provoke anybody but the Phelps video from another thread made me curious. From what I understand the old testament was pretty full of hand-on smiting and such. I am wondering how people perceive the christian god and how his actions from the old testament fit into that ideal.

Phelps is an idiot.

I'm not going to argue religion on this thread, but since you asked an honest question, I'll try to answer.

The purpose of God's actions in the OT is to show people their need for a Savior. In the OT God's wrath was directed toward those who opposed the Israelites and blatant unrepentant sinners. These acts show God's wrath toward sin. God's wrath was also directed against the Israelites when they broke the covenant God made with them. The point was that even with God on their side, they could not keep the covenant due to their sinful nature. They needed a covenant where the responsibilities for promise keeping fall all on God. So in the OT God's wrath falls on everyone, because everyone is a sinner.

In the NT Christ comes into the world to make peace between God and man. The peace offering comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Those that reject the peace offering through unbelief (which includes unrepentant sin) will once again experience his wrath on the last day.

C-Mac
05-07-2006, 04:57 PM
Not trying to provoke anybody but the Phelps video from another thread made me curious. From what I understand the old testament was pretty full of hand-on smiting and such. I am wondering how people perceive the christian god and how his actions from the old testament fit into that ideal.

The Christian God is the same as the Jewish God(Yahweh,Jehovah). He is a God of justice, a God of Love a God of Mercy and a God of Power. When he had set up his chosen people in the past, he many times miraculously protected the Jewish nation until they no longer chose to follow his ways and then ultimately rejected his son. Jesus then opened the door for people from all the nations to be part of Gods new Jerusalem if they believed in Jesus and followed his footsteps. The bible does says that thru Jesus, God will come back(apparently quite soon) and clean house once again at the battle of Harmageddon for a final time. It is God who will bring the judgement the wrongdoers, it is not the job of a Christian to do so.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 05:02 PM
The Christian God is an inveterate douchebag.

plbrdude
05-07-2006, 05:06 PM
Phelps is an idiot.

I'm not going to argue religion on this thread, but since you asked an honest question, I'll try to answer.

The purpose of God's actions in the OT is to show people their need for a Savior. In the OT God's wrath was directed toward those who opposed the Israelites and blatant unrepentant sinners. These acts show God's wrath toward sin. God's wrath was also directed against the Israelites when they broke the covenant God made with them. The point was that even with God on their side, they could not keep the covenant due to their sinful nature. They needed a covenant where the responsibilities for promise keeping fall all on God. So in the OT God's wrath falls on everyone, because everyone is a sinner.

In the NT Christ comes into the world to make peace between God and man. The peace offering comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Those that reject the peace offering through unbelief (which includes unrepentant sin) will once again experience his wrath on the last day.


good answer. i also believe that God is a God of patience and long-suffering. i'm also inclined to think that God's wrath has nothing to do with natural disasters as some would like to think. disasters happen,storms come. the bible would let us know it rains on the just as well as the unjust. i do believe that God can and will supernaturally protect or save someone who cries out to him in the middle of the disaster. i don't think for a minute that hurricanes or tsunamis or the such are directed at non believers. earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, plane crashes, car wrecks, and those type things are things that happen. i just happen to think it's a good idea to be prepared to meet your maker on any given day.
and yes i do believe that God is a God of wrath, and we haven't seen it yet. and we may, or may not.

plbrdude
05-07-2006, 05:06 PM
I would like to see the good pastor's take on this.

SPchief
05-07-2006, 05:10 PM
The Christian God is an inveterate douchebag.


Well this could be fun

Auld Lang Syne
05-07-2006, 05:15 PM
Not trying to provoke anybody but the Phelps video from another thread made me curious. From what I understand the old testament was pretty full of hand-on smiting and such. I am wondering how people perceive the christian god and how his actions from the old testament fit into that ideal.

My view would be that if you do the sin you do the time. Or in easier terms, if you sin you are held responsible for your actions.

I think that Mr. Phelps will be held accountable for what he has done plus held accountable for what he has encouraged others to do in the name of religion. In most people's eyes he has terribly mis-interpeted what the bible says.

kc-nd
05-07-2006, 05:15 PM
God loves what is good and hates what is evil.

Satan is the one who screwed it all up. He fell from above, and then played a major role in causing the first sin by promising Adam and Eve that they could become just like God if they ate from the tree.

If there is anyone who should be scrutinized or criticized, it is Satan.

Thanks to Jesus, we have power over Satan.

Welcome it or reject it. We all have that choice.

Auld Lang Syne
05-07-2006, 05:16 PM
Well this could be fun

with a name like hamas you should just consider the source. he sounds like a racist to me.

JBucc
05-07-2006, 05:17 PM
with a name like hamas you should just consider the source. he sounds like a racist to me.
He is. He made fun of me just because I dated a white chic.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 05:26 PM
He is. He made fun of me just because I dated a white chic.

WTF??

stevieray
05-07-2006, 05:28 PM
Is the christian god a god of wrath?

like death and taxes, another absolute is someone has always been in charge.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 05:28 PM
with a name like hamas you should just consider the source. he sounds like a racist to me.

Consider the source? I'm not the dumbass following the 3,000 year old superstitions of nomadic and largely illiterate populace that shirks everything logical in an affirmation of the ever unprovable 'faith' Give me a freaking break.

stevieray
05-07-2006, 05:32 PM
Consider the source? I'm not the dumbass following the 3,000 year old superstitions of nomadic and largely illiterate populace that shirks everything logical in an affirmation of the ever unprovable 'faith' Give me a freaking break.

these apples are delicious.

;)

Skip Towne
05-07-2006, 05:32 PM
Oh, Jesus, I hope a mod moves this.

Logical
05-07-2006, 05:35 PM
I think there is just a creator, not a God of any one religion. I believe that if he intervenes it is not likely in a wrathful manner

plbrdude
05-07-2006, 05:42 PM
Not trying to provoke anybody but the Phelps video from another thread made me curious. From what I understand the old testament was pretty full of hand-on smiting and such. I am wondering how people perceive the christian god and how his actions from the old testament fit into that ideal.


it would do phelps good to do a reread on the story of the conversion of saul of tarsus. of course he is now known as paul. he found out that his work for God was not that at all. it was nothing more than persecution of christians

DanT
05-07-2006, 05:52 PM
Not trying to provoke anybody but the Phelps video from another thread made me curious. From what I understand the old testament was pretty full of hand-on smiting and such. I am wondering how people perceive the christian god and how his actions from the old testament fit into that ideal.

There is a such thing as the wrath of God, but I wouldn't say that He is a "god of wrath". Even in the Old Testament accounts concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, His mercy was as apparent as His wrath:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis18.htm


20
6 Then the LORD said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave,
21
that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out."
22
While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham.
23
Then Abraham drew nearer to him and said: "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?
24
Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it?
25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?"
26
The LORD replied, "If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27
Abraham spoke up again: "See how I am presuming to speak to my Lord, though I am but dust and ashes!
28
What if there are five less than fifty innocent people? Will you destroy the whole city because of those five?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "if I find forty-five there."
29
But Abraham persisted, saying, "What if only forty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it for the sake of the forty."
30
Then he said, "Let not my Lord grow impatient if I go on. What if only thirty are found there?" He replied, "I will forebear doing it if I can find but thirty there."
31
Still he went on, "Since I have thus dared to speak to my Lord, what if there are no more than twenty?" "I will not destroy it," he answered, "for the sake of the twenty."
32
But he still persisted: "Please, let not my Lord grow angry if I speak up this last time. What if there are at least ten there?" "For the sake of those ten," he replied, "I will not destroy it."
33
The LORD departed as soon as he had finished speaking with Abraham, and Abraham returned home.

chiefsgrl
05-07-2006, 06:35 PM
not a god of wrath

chiefs4me
05-07-2006, 06:46 PM
hmmm, around our house we have the wrath of dad...

Rain Man
05-07-2006, 06:48 PM
Oh, Jesus, I hope a mod moves this.

I didn't know we allowed public prayer on this BB.

Skip Towne
05-07-2006, 06:52 PM
I didn't know we allowed public prayer on this BB.
You must have 70 100 post threads to do it.

banyon
05-07-2006, 06:57 PM
Ezekiel 25:17
Pulp Fiction version (YEAH!)
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Rain Man
05-07-2006, 07:22 PM
You must have 70 100 post threads to do it.

Impossible. No mortal could do such a thing.

Auld Lang Syne
05-07-2006, 08:05 PM
There is a such thing as the wrath of God, but I wouldn't say that He is a "god of wrath". Even in the Old Testament accounts concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, His mercy was as apparent as His wrath:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis18.htm


I would consider the flood that wiped out virtually all of the earth in some ways considered wrathful.

I also wonder what the people of the earth did in those days that would incur the wrath of God? Do you think the earth might have been as advanced in technology as we are now? Just think of what mankind has come up with in the way of inventions in the past 250 years. I don't think man was any less inventive back then, what could they have done?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 08:18 PM
I would consider the flood that wiped out virtually all of the earth in some ways considered wrathful.

I also wonder what the people of the earth did in those days that would incur the wrath of God? Do you think the earth might have been as advanced in technology as we are now? Just think of what mankind has come up with in the way of inventions in the past 250 years. I don't think man was any less inventive back then, what could they have done?

Please don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old....Did you ever think that maybe the 'flood' was a meterological anamoly?? Or a tsunami after a large earthquake a la what happened in Banda Aceh??

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 08:22 PM
Do you think the earth might have been as advanced in technology as we are now?
Let's see. We can find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old but we have yet to find evidence of a 6,000 year old microwave oven.

I'm going to say, no.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 08:26 PM
Let's see. We can find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old but we have yet to find evidence of a 6,000 year old microwave oven.

I'm going to say, no.

It was 'vaporized' when god got pissed and put us all in *his* microwave oven. :spock:

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 08:30 PM
It was 'vaporized' when god got pissed and put us all in *his* microwave oven. :spock:
Scientific evidence does not support your claim. Please, don't quit your day job.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 08:35 PM
Scientific evidence does not support your claim. Please, don't quit your day job.

Science, schmience, we're talking about the word of God here, you know, the snake oil proferred to people through such outlets as the whore-chasing Jimmy Swaggert, Serial Pedophiles in the Catholic Church (the same organization that denied the existence of the Holocaust for decades :shrug: ), Jim Baker and his wife Pennywise the Clown.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 08:37 PM
Science, schmience, we're talking about the word of God here, you know, the snake oil proferred to people through such outlets as the whore-chasing Jimmy Swaggert, Serial Pedophiles in the Catholic Church (the same organization that denied the existence of the Holocaust for decades :shrug: ), Jim Baker and his wife Pennywise the Clown.
Swaggert, Baker and the like aside, if you are calling religion and the existence of God, "snake oil," then I have nothing left to say to you.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 08:41 PM
...Catholic Church (the same organization that denied the existence of the Holocaust for decades ),

A complete lie!

You seem to prefer sensationalized news stories of the less than 1% when it comes to people of faith. RCC priests...2% of them. Teachers caught doing the same over 10%.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 08:42 PM
A complete lie!

You seem to prefer sensationalized news stories of the less than 1% when it comes to people of faith. RCC priests...2% of them. Teachers caught doing the same over 10%.

I'd like to see the link that says teachers are 5 times more likely to molest kids than priests.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 08:43 PM
Swaggert, Baker and the like aside, if you are calling religion and the existence of God, "snake oil," then I have nothing left to say to you.

That silence you hear is my heart breaking...

Iowanian
05-07-2006, 08:44 PM
I'll describe my thinking the best way I can in cliff notes, that isn't on the pick list.

I believe in 1 God, A God of love, capable of great wrath.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 08:45 PM
I'll describe my thinking the best way I can in cliff notes, that isn't on the pick list.

I believe in 1 God, A God of love, capable of great wrath.

Your existence is the proof of the nonexistence of God.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 08:48 PM
That silence you hear is my heart breaking...
All I hear is uneducated blathering from you. You talk much, yet say little. Some substance to support your claims on this thread might give you some credibility.

KcMizzou
05-07-2006, 08:50 PM
Arguing religion is pretty pointless, IMO. It's not like you're going to change anyone's mind either way.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 08:51 PM
Arguing religion is pretty pointless, IMO. It's not like you're going to change anyone's mind either way.
Agreed. It's like arguing politics, hence my absence from the DC forum.

chiefqueen
05-07-2006, 08:57 PM
it would do phelps good to do a reread on the story of the conversion of saul of tarsus. of course he is now known as paul. he found out that his work for God was not that at all. it was nothing more than persecution of christians

Actually I think Phelps should read 2 Corinthians 13, especially the part where Paul writes that when we speak without love we are nothing more than a clanging symbol.

Nzoner
05-07-2006, 09:08 PM
A God who would be so benevolent as to put us on this earth and then send us to hell at the drop of a hat doesn't seem right.

Just my .02 but it may not seem right because personally I don't think it is right.God created us with a freewill to make our own choices,I don't believe he sends anyone to hell,that decision is left up to us.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 09:08 PM
Arguing religion is pretty pointless, IMO. It's not like you're going to change anyone's mind either way.
Yeah, plus religion is a personal thing.

At least in politics you can wind up with more of your money taken, your kid kidnapped by pedophile or lose your life in a needless war.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 09:09 PM
Agreed. It's like arguing politics, hence my absence from the DC forum.

I, for one, don't expect to change people's minds, debating political issues.
I just enjoy the subject and it helps me to hone my skills.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 09:10 PM
All I hear is uneducated blathering from you. You talk much, yet say little. Some substance to support your claims on this thread might give you some credibility.

Now this is irony, a religious nut accusing someone of not having tangible evidence. Well riddle me this, where is your ark of the aforementioned flood?? How do you negotiate carbon 14 dating, which proves that the world is billions, not thousands, of years old. How do you explain the size of the universe if God made but one species "in his image"??? How do you tout the supremacy of your beliefs, when they've been selectively culled and interpreted over centuries. Ever hear of the gnostic texts, the texts that were conveniently left out of the Bible after a meeting of higher ups in Christianity in the centuries after Christ?? And I am the one lacking sources??? ROFL

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 09:13 PM
Hamas...4th and Long is FAR from being a religious nut!

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 09:15 PM
Hamas...4th and Long is FAR from being a religious nut!

Dammit, you broke kayfabe!!

DanT
05-07-2006, 09:16 PM
I would consider the flood that wiped out virtually all of the earth in some ways considered wrathful.

I also wonder what the people of the earth did in those days that would incur the wrath of God? Do you think the earth might have been as advanced in technology as we are now? Just think of what mankind has come up with in the way of inventions in the past 250 years. I don't think man was any less inventive back then, what could they have done?

No, I don't think that the people in the time of Abraham had as advanced a technology as we do. I don't know how inventive they were. They were certainly inventive enough to break the rules that were later codified as the 10 commandments. You don't have to be all that advanced to kill people, worship false idols and walk outside of God's friendship.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 09:16 PM
I, for one, don't expect to change people's minds, debating political issues.
I just enjoy the subject and it helps me to hone my skills.
Given what you do for a living, exactly what "skill" are you honing and why?

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 09:17 PM
Now this is irony, a religious nut accusing someone of not having tangible evidence.
Me? A religious nut?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Any credibility you had just dropped to zero.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-07-2006, 09:19 PM
Me? A religious nut?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Any credibility you had just dropped to zero.

Nice job addressing the point of the post :clap: :clap: really, nice work :spock:

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 09:20 PM
Given what you do for a living, exactly what "skill" are you honing and why?
That's confidential. :harumph:

chiefqueen
05-07-2006, 09:24 PM
I meant to pick the 4th option but actually the 8th option.

Basically I am a Christain who believes that God is now a God of Grace but soon will become a God of wrath. Currently we are living in the age of grace meaning the one just has to repent from their sins and trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour to be saved and have eternal life.

At some point I believe all Christians will vanish from the earth in an event called the Rapture. At that point God will become a God of wrath and will pour out his wrath during the period called the tribulation.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 09:50 PM
Nice job addressing the point of the post :clap: :clap: really, nice work :spock:
First of all, the site crashed (shock!) before I could properly respond. That really pissed me off that I had to type this all over again. Secondly, your post rather lacked a point, actually. Instead, it was filled with some rudimentary questions but, if you insist, here we go.
Now this is irony, a religious nut accusing someone of not having tangible evidence.
As I said, I'm not a religious nut. Prove otherwise or can it.
Well riddle me this, where is your ark of the aforementioned flood??
Well Mr. Riddler, there is no tangible evidence that the arc still exists. Given the time frame in question, it would have most likely disintegrated by now. There are some people that believe it rests atop Mount Ararat. The government of that region refuses to allow anyone atop the mountain to prove or disprove that theory.
How do you negotiate carbon 14 dating, which proves that the world is billions, not thousands, of years old.
Carbon dating is not an exact science. You'd know that if you did your homework.
How do you explain the size of the universe if God made but one species "in his image"???
Wow. You're really reaching now. The size of the universe has nothing to do with God creating us in his image. Answer me this. In all your travels, how many other species have you met that do not look like us? In fact, how many other species have you met at all?
How do you tout the supremacy of your beliefs, when they've been selectively culled and interpreted over centuries.
I claim no supremacy. I merely stand by my beliefs. Beliefs that were taught to me by my parents.

If you were taught that jumping off a high mountain would kill you, yet you never saw anyone do it, would you risk it?
Ever hear of the gnostic texts, the texts that were conveniently left out of the Bible after a meeting of higher ups in Christianity in the centuries after Christ??
Prove it. Got an original copy handy? I want so SEE IT!

No? You don't have one? And you chastise me for believing in something I can't see? Tisk, tisk.
And I am the one lacking sources??? ROFL
Apparently so.

I'm going to eat some ice cream now. For breakfast tomorrow, I think I'll drop by Lamars and grab some devils food :evil: doughnuts.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 09:52 PM
That's confidential. :harumph:
Holding out for that CIA Director's position are we? :p

cdcox
05-07-2006, 09:55 PM
How do you negotiate carbon 14 dating, which proves that the world is billions, not thousands, of years old.


Carbon dating only works 60,000 into the past. Other radioisotopes are used to establish the age of the earth. But you've pretty well demonstrated that you aren't able to offer an informed opinion on the subject.

4th and Long
05-07-2006, 09:58 PM
Carbon dating only works 60,000 into the past. Other radioisotopes are used to establish the age of the earth. But you've pretty well demonstrated that you aren't able to offer an informed opinion on the subject.
Save your breath, bro. If this guy were a vampire, and what we say was the blinding sunlight of truth, he's probably refuse to die, claiming vampires like catching rays and working on their tan.

The Rick
05-07-2006, 09:59 PM
He was. When Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, God's wrath for those sins was released.

So, I guess my opinion is that yes He is, but Jesus bore that wrath for us all.

greg63
05-07-2006, 10:13 PM
Is the christian god a god of wrath?

He is a just God.

C-Mac
05-07-2006, 10:14 PM
Your existence is the proof of the nonexistence of God.


Hmmm..... we either evolved or we were created, so thats a minimum 50/50 shot. Given all the evolutionary facts verses the reality of the complexity of life, I'd have to give it at least 60/40 for a creator. I do respect religion and the bible but I wouldnt call myself a religious nut just because I try to be informed.

listopencil
05-07-2006, 10:24 PM
God should be remembered as a war President.

SNR
05-07-2006, 10:26 PM
I have some questions for Hamas

1. This is a civilized discussion, not a pissing match. If you're not going to tell us what YOU believe in and not just what you don't believe in then get the hell out of here. I really don't care to talk to another blathering dumbshit who refuses to think before he speaks

2. So what started everything? The big bang? That's cool, but can you tell me where all of the matter came from to start it?

3. More to the point, since the universe is ever expanding, it must have limits. In order for everything to keep unwinding and spreading like it does, there must be an outside source of energy being fed into the universe. Like winding up a clock. Well, where is this outside force coming from?

4. Is it just incapability of humans or something else that we can synthetically form the compounds that make up a cell but we can't create one?

Try to answer them like a grown-up this time

Moooo
05-07-2006, 10:28 PM
Does anyone else find it flat out strange that according to the poll, believers in God find him to not be full of wrath and those who don't do find him to be (for the most part, respectively). It seems to me that faith or lack thereof is more about perception of how you think God wants you to live your life, than it is about anything else.

Its kinda like cheering for the Lions, or playing an impossible video game. People who can't do something or aren't rewarded enough for doing so don't bother trying. The same goes for religion. If a person doesn't think what God asks for is obtainable or doesn't see any sort of reward for it, they won't bother trying and will deny his existence consequently. Keep in mind I'm not preaching at people. Whether he exists or not is irrelevant for the purpose of the argument.

Moooo

mississippichiefan
05-07-2006, 10:31 PM
I meant to pick the 4th option but actually the 8th option.

Basically I am a Christain who believes that God is now a God of Grace but soon will become a God of wrath. Currently we are living in the age of grace meaning the one just has to repent from their sins and trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour to be saved and have eternal life.

At some point I believe all Christians will vanish from the earth in an event called the Rapture. At that point God will become a God of wrath and will pour out his wrath during the period called the tribulation.
This is the way I feel also . Now is the time to repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour. God has by his mercy and grace provided us a way for salvation .

luv
05-07-2006, 10:35 PM
Arguing religion is pretty pointless, IMO. It's not like you're going to change anyone's mind either way.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

People believe what they believe. There will always be people "pushing religion down people's throats", and there will always be those who try to challenge people's beliefs with "logic". People believe what they choose to believe, and no amount of arguing is going to do anything besides either annoy people or piss them off. Even those who believe in God have different beliefs about him. People believe in other gods. People believe in no God or gods.

C-Mac
05-07-2006, 10:48 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

People believe what they believe. There will always be people "pushing religion down people's throats", and there will always be those who try to challenge people's beliefs with "logic". People believe what they choose to believe, and no amount of arguing is going to do anything besides either annoy people or piss them off. Even those who believe in God have different beliefs about him. People believe in other gods. People believe in no God or gods.

I respectfully disagree. People believe what they think they believe or what they are raised to believe, but I can speak first hand that people do change what they believe when they are presented with logical and accurate information. Think about it, how can we really learn or discern anything fairly without first asking....why?

luv
05-07-2006, 10:52 PM
I respectfully disagree. People believe what they think they believe or what they are raised to believe, but I can speak first hand that people do change what they believe when they are presented with logical and accurate information. Think about it, how can we really learn or discern anything fairly without first asking....why?
What's making you question your beliefs?

I agree that beliefs change. I don't believe exactly what I believed 10 years ago. We do learn/experience things in life that either justify or disprove what we believe. While I may not believe things in exactly the same way, my core beliefs remain the same. My core beliefs are things that I have never questioned/had reason to question.

greg63
05-07-2006, 11:02 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

People believe what they believe. There will always be people "pushing religion down people's throats", and there will always be those who try to challenge people's beliefs with "logic". People believe what they choose to believe, and no amount of arguing is going to do anything besides either annoy people or piss them off. Even those who believe in God have different beliefs about him. People believe in other gods. People believe in no God or gods.


Yup; being, myself, a Christian I refuse to take part in a mindless debate over God's existence.

C-Mac
05-07-2006, 11:02 PM
What's making you question your beliefs?

I agree that beliefs change. I don't believe exactly what I believed 10 years ago. We do learn/experience things in life that either justify or disprove what we believe. While I may not believe things in exactly the same way, my core beliefs remain the same. My core beliefs are things that I have never questioned/had reason to question.

For example, I was challenged on a "religious belief" verses "biblical accuracy". I was told that no where in the bible does it state that humans have an immortal soul even though it is taught by most biblical based religions. I did my research and sure enough he was right, thus causing me to change part of my core belief.

irishjayhawk
05-07-2006, 11:14 PM
Just a question: Why do people always point to the big bang and say "where'd all the stuff come from" yet return to the fact that a "being/creator/whatever" just "exists" there; always has and always will?

luv
05-07-2006, 11:16 PM
For example, I was challenged on a "religious belief" verses "biblical accuracy". I was told that no where in the bible does it state that humans have an immortal soul even though it is taught by most biblical based religions. I did my research and sure enough he was right, thus causing me to change part of my core belief.
I believe that I will one day find a man, settle down, and have kids. Is that able to be proved? Only with time. Later in life, my belief might change.

Count Alex's Losses
05-07-2006, 11:24 PM
Name the author of this quote:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

SNR
05-07-2006, 11:31 PM
Name the author of this quote:"Ancient world"?

I'm going to say Jean Jacque Rouseau

cdcox
05-07-2006, 11:35 PM
I think he wore a mustache no wider than his nose.

Count Alex's Losses
05-07-2006, 11:39 PM
I think he wore a mustache no wider than his nose.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/images/hitler_adolf.jpg

Dave Lane
05-07-2006, 11:43 PM
There is no I am not a xtian and I don't believe that the xtian god exists.

Dave

Moooo
05-07-2006, 11:45 PM
Just a question: Why do people always point to the big bang and say "where'd all the stuff come from" yet return to the fact that a "being/creator/whatever" just "exists" there; always has and always will?

Perception. It's like aliens (And I'm not talking on Earth, I mean any life anywhere in the entire universe). There is no proof whatsoever that aliens exist in any way, shape or form, yet you ask some people and they say, "How could they, when you take into consideration how amazingly miraculous the chain reaction that allowed life to occur on our planet was?" And some people say, "How could they not, with the Trillions of possible planets, even if the odds were one in a trillion, there would be another case of life."

Neither are wrong, and both are basing their beliefs on little to no factual evidence. This is the same thing.

Though I do say if there is a God, the lack of physical evidence to support him or the physical enbodiment of Jesus Christ is on purpose. If there was evidence to support his existence, it would be easy to believe in him, which would consequently not show true faith.

Moooo

Dave Lane
05-07-2006, 11:49 PM
I respectfully disagree. People believe what they think they believe or what they are raised to believe, but I can speak first hand that people do change what they believe when they are presented with logical and accurate information. Think about it, how can we really learn or discern anything fairly without first asking....why?

Holy crap I can't believe this statement. Who hacked your account and is posting as you? Logic and accurate used in the same sentence and by you. OMG there may actually be a creator if this "miracle" can come into being.

Dave

luv
05-07-2006, 11:50 PM
If there was evidence to support his existence, it would be easy to believe in him, which would consequently not show true faith.

Moooo
This reminds me of a "joke".

Non-Christian: I have never seen, heard, smelled, felt, or tasted God. Therefore, He does not exist.

Christian to Non-Christian: I have never seen, heard, smelled, felt, or tasted your brain. Therefore, it does not exist.

C-Mac
05-07-2006, 11:50 PM
I believe that I will one day find a man, settle down, and have kids. Is that able to be proved? Only with time. Later in life, my belief might change.

I'm not attempting to change your beliefs and I'm not trying to attach tangibles to certain non-tangibles of your life. I was just trying to point out that sometimes when something is presented with logical and accurate knowledge, one may very well change what they had believed or perceived.

Dave Lane
05-07-2006, 11:51 PM
Perception. It's like aliens (And I'm not talking on Earth, I mean any life anywhere in the entire universe). There is no proof whatsoever that aliens exist in any way, shape or form, yet you ask some people and they say, "How could they, when you take into consideration how amazingly miraculous the chain reaction that allowed life to occur on our planet was?" And some people say, "How could they not, with the Trillions of possible planets, even if the odds were one in a trillion, there would be another case of life."

Neither are wrong, and both are basing their beliefs on little to no factual evidence. This is the same thing.

Though I do say if there is a God, the lack of physical evidence to support him or the physical enbodiment of Jesus Christ is on purpose. If there was evidence to support his existence, it would be easy to believe in him, which would consequently not show true faith.

Moooo


Now there is a nice circular arguement. Lack of proof is proof. Yes god moves in mysterious ways! ROFL

Dave

Katipan
05-07-2006, 11:51 PM
Christians tell bad jokes

C-Mac
05-07-2006, 11:52 PM
Holy crap I can't believe this statement. Who hacked your account and is posting as you? Logic and accurate used in the same sentence and by you. OMG there may actually be a creator if this "miracle" can come into being.

Dave

Hi Dave, I'm sure all here are delighted to see you have joined in to save the day.........

luv
05-07-2006, 11:53 PM
Christians tell bad jokes
I think I heard that when I was in elementary school, if that helps.

Also why joke is in quotes.

Katipan
05-07-2006, 11:59 PM
don't defend yourself to me unless you're waving a cucumber and crying en garde.

greg63
05-08-2006, 12:02 AM
I think I heard that when I was in elementary school, if that helps.

Also why joke is in quotes.

I think it illustrates a valid point. Too much of what we believe in is contingent upon our senses..

Moooo
05-08-2006, 12:06 AM
I think it illustrates a valid point. Too much of what we believe in is contingent upon our senses..

One might go as far as to say EVERYTHING we believe is contingent upon our senses. If you were born without sight, smell, hearing, taste, or feeling, what would you know at the age of 30?

Moooo

greg63
05-08-2006, 12:15 AM
One might go as far as to say EVERYTHING we believe is contingent upon our senses. If you were born without sight, smell, hearing, taste, or feeling, what would you know at the age of 30?

Moooo


You wouldn’t know anything. That is not the point I was making. I never said "nothing" was contingent upon our senses; I said "Too much is".

Just because you don't see, hear, smell, taste or feel it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Moooo
05-08-2006, 12:16 AM
Just because you don't see, hear, smell, taste or feel it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I follow, though some Philosophers would question that. But they question everything, that's what they do.

Moooo

luv
05-08-2006, 12:19 AM
I follow, though some Philosophers would question that. But they question everything, that's what they do.

Moooo
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?


ROFL

(I really shouldn't always type the first thing that comes to my mind.)

greg63
05-08-2006, 12:24 AM
I follow, though some Philosophers would question that. But they question everything, that's what they do.

Moooo

Questions are fine; it is the only why in which we hope to gain answers, but at what point does questioning everything to no end become none productive reasoning. I think there has to come a time when some things should be accepted as a matter of faith. IMHO

However, I understand where you are coming from.

greg63
05-08-2006, 12:25 AM
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?


ROFL

(I really shouldn't always type the first thing that comes to my mind.)


ROFLROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-08-2006, 01:53 AM
First of all, the site crashed (shock!) before I could properly respond. That really pissed me off that I had to type this all over again. Secondly, your post rather lacked a point, actually. Instead, it was filled with some rudimentary questions but, if you insist, here we go.

As I said, I'm not a religious nut. Prove otherwise or can it.

Well Mr. Riddler, there is no tangible evidence that the arc still exists. Given the time frame in question, it would have most likely disintegrated by now. There are some people that believe it rests atop Mount Ararat. The government of that region refuses to allow anyone atop the mountain to prove or disprove that theory.

Carbon dating is not an exact science. You'd know that if you did your homework.

Wow. You're really reaching now. The size of the universe has nothing to do with God creating us in his image. Answer me this. In all your travels, how many other species have you met that do not look like us? In fact, how many other species have you met at all?

I claim no supremacy. I merely stand by my beliefs. Beliefs that were taught to me by my parents.

If you were taught that jumping off a high mountain would kill you, yet you never saw anyone do it, would you risk it?

Prove it. Got an original copy handy? I want so SEE IT!

No? You don't have one? And you chastise me for believing in something I can't see? Tisk, tisk.

Apparently so.

I'm going to eat some ice cream now. For breakfast tomorrow, I think I'll drop by Lamars and grab some devils food :evil: doughnuts.

So you place all of your faith in a text that has been translated from Hebrew to Latin to English, and despite all the changes the English language has gone through in the last 500 years, (let alone 3000+ years of linguistic shifts among several languages) you choose to believe these words as accurate???

If you put someone from 1300 in the present day period, the dumb sonofabitch would still believe the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it, but yet his religion is still followed. That shows you how preposterous and outdated the concept is

Furthermore, let's taken the assertoin that carbon dating is only good for 60,000 years...that's still 10X longer than the time frame of the ENTIRE BIBLE....so you have something that can prove the existence of things ten times longer than your so called 'infallible text' claims for the ENTIRE WORLD to even exist?? That undermines it's entire credibility, as then none of the dates can be considered accurate, for God can't create a world, if it's already been there for at least 54,000 years (and in all reality 4.5-5.0 billion).

Moreover, you put absolute faith in the Christian texts, assuming they haven't been corrupted, absolute faith in the ark, despite having never seen it, but you want me to produe the gnostic texts to believe it??? That seems like a ridiculous logical fallacy to me.

The many worlds thing is quite salient for this discussion. There are 100 billion galaxies in the known universe, and each one has billions of stars. And yet we are the only beings in all of that cosmic matter created by this "God"??

You disbelieve the Big Bang, arguing that God created it...well by that logic, then who created God??

Everything that people do in their lives is geared towards logic and the pursuit of truth. Religion runs counter to all of that. It's a fundamental fallacy of human existence and the equivalent of brain cancer for anyone who takes it seriously. If you want to place all your faith in semi-literate sheep herders who *heard voices* (see schizophrenia)...well then I guess that's your prerogative.

I'll take the guys at the Jet Propulsion Labatory. They actually have an education.

Is there anything else you would like me to clear up??

luv
05-08-2006, 01:58 AM
So you place all of your faith in a text that has been translated from Hebrew to Latin to English, and despite all the changes the English language has gone through in the last 500 years, (let alone 3000+ years of linguistic shifts among several languages) you choose to believe these words as accurate???

If you put someone from 1300 in the present day period, the dumb sonofabitch would still believe the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it, but yet his religion is still followed. That shows you how preposterous and outdated the concept is

Furthermore, let's taken the assertoin that carbon dating is only good for 60,000 years...that's still 10X longer than the time frame of the ENTIRE BIBLE....so you have something that can prove the existence of things ten times longer than your so called 'infallible text' claims for the ENTIRE WORLD to even exist?? That undermines it's entire credibility, as then none of the dates can be considered accurate, for God can't create a world, if it's already been there for at least 54,000 years (and in all reality 4.5-5.0 billion).

Moreover, you put absolute faith in the Christian texts, assuming they haven't been corrupted, absolute faith in the ark, despite having never seen it, but you want me to produe the gnostic texts to believe it??? That seems like a ridiculous logical fallacy to me.

The many worlds thing is quite salient for this discussion. There are 100 billion galaxies in the known universe, and each one has billions of stars. And yet we are the only beings in all of that cosmic matter created by this "God"??

You disbelieve the Big Bang, arguing that God created it...well by that logic, then who created God??

Everything that people do in their lives is geared towards logic and the pursuit of truth. Religion runs counter to all of that. It's a fundamental fallacy of human existence and the equivalent of brain cancer for anyone who takes it seriously. If you want to place all your faith in semi-literate sheep herders who *heard voices* (see schizophrenia)...well then I guess that's your prerogative.

I'll take the guys at the Jet Propulsion Labatory. They actually have an education.

Is there anything else you would like me to clear up??
Don't get so uptight. This is a football BB, not a seminary.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-08-2006, 02:06 AM
Don't get so uptight. This is a football BB, not a seminary.

Fair enough, I felt the need to squash the rebellion before the peasants thought they could get away flaming me whilst I was away :fire:

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 07:30 AM
Hamas Jenkins

Actually if you study the Bible the earth is older than 4000 yrs. It existed before Lucifer fell. Plus about the whole trusting the text thing....yeah!!! It has been translated alot...but if you compare todays manuscripts with ones from thousands of years ago...I believe only 1 out of 1000 words can be considered in accurate. I have a book that talks about it, but I am not at home to reference it.

3 thoughts and I am done:

1) In the Lion King and science class we learned about the circle of life. The Bible says we have dominion over everything. If you think about it we are the only things that partake in the circle, but are not part of it...?

2) This one will really get you thinking......Did God design us different than the rest of the world. Humans are the only creation designed or capable of mating face to face!!!

3) This is the obvious question....We cannot deny that a man named Jesus walked the earth over 2000 years ago and was crucified for claiming to be God....So where is he buried????? Show us that and we are wrong, but until then.....how well done do you like your flesh :)

stevieray
05-08-2006, 07:37 AM
Is there anything else you would like me to clear up??

sure..why did you spend so much time and energy on this thread?

greg63
05-08-2006, 08:28 AM
Hamas Jenkins

Actually if you study the Bible the earth is older than 4000 yrs. It existed before Lucifer fell. Plus about the whole trusting the text thing....yeah!!! It has been translated alot...but if you compare todays manuscripts with ones from thousands of years ago...I believe only 1 out of 1000 words can be considered in accurate. I have a book that talks about it, but I am not at home to reference it.

3 thoughts and I am done:

1) In the Lion King and science class we learned about the circle of life. The Bible says we have dominion over everything. If you think about it we are the only things that partake in the circle, but are not part of it...?

2) This one will really get you thinking......Did God design us different than the rest of the world. Humans are the only creation designed or capable of mating face to face!!!

3) This is the obvious question....We cannot deny that a man named Jesus walked the earth over 2000 years ago and was crucified for claiming to be God....So where is he buried????? Show us that and we are wrong, but until then.....how well done do you like your flesh :)

I'm a Christian, and trust me I don't mean to rain on this particular parade, but, they have yet to find Jimmy Hoffa; that doesn't make him a deity. One must really either deny God's existence or except it by faith.

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 08:48 AM
Jimmy Hoffa never claimed to be God, and there are not 500 witnesses that claim to have saw him raised from the dead.

While I do agree with you that we have to accept it by faith. Sometimes a logical question can bring someone who thinks their so smart to think more about things they think they already know, and then maybe....hopefully they to will get more truth and come to faith in our awesome God.

picasso
05-08-2006, 08:54 AM
Didn't vote because your options were too limited. He is a God of wrath and a God of mercy. Wrath towards sin, mercy towards humans.

Towards humans?
As opposed to martians, or animals, maybe insects? :)

chagrin
05-08-2006, 09:03 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, believers and non-believers. This is very simple, It's called Faith in God, we don't need Scientific proof. Believers believe, non-believers don't and will not until they are touched by God - simple as that.

Hamas, dude relax. It's fine that you believe you are correct and it's fine that 4th believes he is right. Let's not get all upitty, geesh!

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:11 AM
Jimmy Hoffa never claimed to be God, and there are not 500 witnesses that claim to have saw him raised from the dead.

While I do agree with you that we have to accept it by faith. Sometimes a logical question can bring someone who thinks their so smart to think more about things they think they already know, and then maybe....hopefully they to will get more truth and come to faith in our awesome God.
I agree; except that you premised the entire statement on the fact the Jesus could not be found where it is said that his body was laid to rest as proof of His deity.

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:19 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, believers and non-believers. This is very simple, It's called Faith in God, we don't need Scientific proof. Believers believe, non-believers don't and will not until they are touched by God - simple as that.

Hamas, dude relax. It's fine that you believe you are correct and it's fine that 4th believes he is right. Let's not get all upitty, geesh!


:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Iowanian
05-08-2006, 09:24 AM
Faith.
The Definition of...



It does zero good to discuss a topic like this with people who are only interested in being phallic and antagonistic.

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:24 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, believers and non-believers...

...Lets get ready to RUUUUMMMMBBBBLLLLE!!!!!


Sorry, but after re-reading your post I couldn't resist. :D

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:36 AM
Faith.
The Definition of...



It does zero good to discuss a topic like this with people who are only interested in being phallic and antagonistic.
Good point.

NIV Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

jspchief
05-08-2006, 09:38 AM
Faith.
The Definition of...



It does zero good to discuss a topic like this with people who are only interested in being phallic and antagonistic.Someone pointing out the flaws in something you have blind faith in tends to come off as antagonistic regardless.

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 09:40 AM
I can't believe no one has commented on my #2 previous about designed intimate mating created by God for humans only....come on I thought I was at Chiefsplanet

Iowanian
05-08-2006, 09:41 AM
The Christian God is an inveterate douchebag.

JSP...
You don't see a difference between a disagreement in beliefs and discussing them, as compared to posts like the above?


No one is going to change anyone's mind here. that much is fact.

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:42 AM
I can't believe no one has commented on my #2 previous about designed intimate mating created by God for humans only....come on I thought I was at Chiefsplanet


Uuuuuummm; ok.


There I commented.

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:43 AM
JSP...
You don't see a difference between a disagreement in beliefs and discussing them, as compared to posts like the above?


No one is going to change anyone's mind here. that much is fact.

...More then likely.

jspchief
05-08-2006, 09:46 AM
JSP...
You don't see a difference between a disagreement in beliefs and discussing them, as compared to posts like the above?


No one is going to change anyone's mind here. that much is fact.Well, ya. That was pretty antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic.

But it doesn't change my point. These discussions always turn into the believers saying they are being attacked by the non-believers. The root of the problem is the word faith.

greg63
05-08-2006, 09:52 AM
Well, ya. That was pretty antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic.

But it doesn't change my point. These discussions always turn into the believers saying they are being attacked by the non-believers. The root of the problem is the word faith.

Yup
It, like so many other theological terms tends to be viewed, not only in the secular world, but in the Christian community, as subjective; it's all personal. IMO.

Katipan
05-08-2006, 09:52 AM
How do we know we're supposed to hump missionary?

luv
05-08-2006, 09:53 AM
How do we know we're supposed to hump missionary?
We're supposed to?

Katipan
05-08-2006, 09:53 AM
I didn't get the memo, but thats what I gather.

luv
05-08-2006, 09:54 AM
I didn't get the memo, but thats what I gather.
But we don't have to ONLY do missionary, right?

Katipan
05-08-2006, 09:56 AM
heeheheh I should hope not.


I can do it standing on my damn head.
I think thats how God intended it.

el borracho
05-08-2006, 10:00 AM
First of all, thanks to those who have kept it civil and tried to answer the actual question. I am much more interested in the perception of the christian god than the whole, “yes, there is” “no, there isn’t” debate.

Second of all, I think we can all agree that Phelps and his associates are nuts… but I don’t think they actually invented the idea of the biblical god as the “god of wrath” so I am curious where the idea came from and where the idea went since the poll results seem to indicate that most christians do not view god as a god of wrath.

For the record, “wrath” is defined as 1: strong vengeful anger or indignation. 2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime: divine chastisement. It seems like a number of old testament events (great flood, plague, and Passover for example) would qualify as wrathful but perhaps I am mistaken/ misinformed/ ignorant on the subject or maybe those events are discounted for some reason when considering god’s overall demeanor?

I saw one explanation that credits Jesus’ death with a change in god’s behavior. Again, I am not interested in debating the plausibility/ voracity of the explanation, just interested in what explanations there might be which unite the perception of the old testament god (god of wrath) with the current view of god (not seen as wrathful). Do all christians agree that Jesus’ death caused a change in god’s behavior?

It is also interesting to see that at least some christians believe that god will again become vengeful, full of wrath/ fury/ etc. Here is where my ignorance on the topic will become very apparent but I am curious so I will ask, do most christians believe in a judgment day and, if so, is that a literal or figurative event? Do people really anticipate an apocalyptic destruction of evil and/ or non-believers? And if the answer is “yes”, does that change the perception of god?

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 10:06 AM
How do we know we're supposed to hump missionary?

I never said you have to...Humans are the only creation that physically can. Face to Face is more intimate!!!!!!!!

luv
05-08-2006, 10:06 AM
First of all, thanks to those who have kept it civil and tried to answer the actual question. I am much more interested in the perception of the christian god than the whole, “yes, there is” “no, there isn’t” debate.

Second of all, I think we can all agree that Phelps and his associates are nuts… but I don’t think they actually invented the idea of the biblical god as the “god of wrath” so I am curious where the idea came from and where the idea went since the poll results seem to indicate that most christians do not view god as a god of wrath.

For the record, “wrath” is defined as 1: strong vengeful anger or indignation. 2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime: divine chastisement. It seems like a number of old testament events (great flood, plague, and Passover for example) would qualify as wrathful but perhaps I am mistaken/ misinformed/ ignorant on the subject or maybe those events are discounted for some reason when considering god’s overall demeanor?

I saw one explanation that credits Jesus’ death with a change in god’s behavior. Again, I am not interested in debating the plausibility/ voracity of the explanation, just interested in what explanations there might be which unite the perception of the old testament god (god of wrath) with the current view of god (not seen as wrathful). Do all christians agree that Jesus’ death caused a change in god’s behavior?

It is also interesting to see that at least some christians believe that god will again become vengeful, full of wrath/ fury/ etc. Here is where my ignorance on the topic will become very apparent but I am curious so I will ask, do most christians believe in a judgment day and, if so, is that a literal or figurative event? Do people really anticipate an apocalyptic destruction of evil and/ or non-believers? And if the answer is “yes”, does that change the perception of god?
In the Old Testament, people had to live by certain rules in order to be in God's favor. It's like raising children. If they do something wrong, do you not punish them for it? Does that mean you love them even less? God loved the world so much that He sent His only Son to die for it. Yes, there is a place called Hell, which is why several people still believe God is the God of Wrath. However, He sent His Son so that we could escape this fate.

Just my view. Do not feel the need to debate over it.

Inspector
05-08-2006, 10:08 AM
I heard he was the grapes of wrath.

But I don't get it.....

Katipan
05-08-2006, 10:08 AM
I never said you have to...Humans are the only creation that physically can. Face to Face is more intimate!!!!!!!!

Monkeys could do it, but why bother?

luv
05-08-2006, 10:10 AM
Monkeys could do it, but why bother?
Wild monkey sex? What do you mean why bother?

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 10:12 AM
do most christians believe in a judgment day and, if so, is that a literal or figurative event? Do people really anticipate an apocalyptic destruction of evil and/ or non-believers? And if the answer is “yes”, does that change the perception of god?

I believe what the Bible says and yes, Judgement Day is coming and I pray everyone come to know the truth and avoid those times. God is a God of Love (He sent Jesus for us), but he is a God of Wrath and must give sin and satan their reward.

The Bible describes what will all happen during the last years on earth after the rapture, and the part that freaks me out is when people are in so much pain they start trying to kill themselves and they can't and must continue to face the price for the choice they made....ouch :(

jspchief
05-08-2006, 10:14 AM
I never said you have to...Humans are the only creation that physically can. Face to Face is more intimate!!!!!!!!Humans are the only ones attractive enough to want to look at their face while doing it. :)

IMO, it's like a lot of things humans can do that other animals can't. It's a product superior evolution. I don't really see how it can be any type of argument that god exists.

el borracho
05-08-2006, 10:14 AM
In the Old Testament, people had to live by certain rules in order to be in God's favor. It's like raising children. If they do something wrong, do you not punish them for it? Does that mean you love them even less? God loved the world so much that He sent His only Son to die for it. Yes, there is a place called Hell, which is why several people still believe God is the God of Wrath. However, He sent His Son so that we could escape this fate.

Just my view. Do not feel the need to debate over it.
Of course I don't yet have children and I would have to see how badly they misbehaved but I probably wouldn't send them to an eternal hell.

Katipan
05-08-2006, 10:14 AM
Wild monkey sex? What do you mean why bother?

Humans are the only ones that have sex with emotion involved. If we weren't, i bet we'd make the beast with 2 backs all the time too.

greg63
05-08-2006, 10:18 AM
In the Old Testament, people had to live by certain rules in order to be in God's favor. It's like raising children. If they do something wrong, do you not punish them for it? Does that mean you love them even less? God loved the world so much that He sent His only Son to die for it. Yes, there is a place called Hell, which is why several people still believe God is the God of Wrath. However, He sent His Son so that we could escape this fate.

Just my view. Do not feel the need to debate over it.


This is, I believe to be, the fact of the matter as viewed by Christians. Revelations also speaks of an Armageddon day; one that will not see the mercy of God but rather His apocalyptic judgment.

Sully
05-08-2006, 10:19 AM
A couple of things about this question...
1) I think it is a question that goes hand in hand with the question of whether or not you are a Biblical literalist. There are those who believe every word was God-breathed, and has not been transformed by the years and cultures which have re-translated it, and those who believe otherwise. There are plenty of problems on either side of this, logic-wise.
2) Although I struggle with this, so I don't know the answer of how to reconcile it, I have trouble with assigning human qualities to God. We often do this, as a way to understand God. We call God "He," do you really believe God has a gender? We ask questions about God's emotions, Do we believe a perfect being has emotions such as anger, happiness and wrath? I often think of God as a God of infinite love, but even that assigns human emotion to GOd, and I'm not sure how to fix that. But it is the pea under my mattress, so to speak (insert princcess joke here). We can explain this away by saying humans were created in God's image, but that returns us to my first point.

The reason these two points are important to me, and my belief, is that they remind me to always learn, and always question. I was looking for an old Greg Easterbrook article, in which he discussed how he believed near-death experiences held some proof of God. I didn't find that article, but I did find one in which he discussed how both those who say the Bible is fully true, and those who say the Bible is fully false suffer fromt he same type of problem. Neither allow themselves to constantly question and re-prove the validity of their belief.

Sully
05-08-2006, 10:22 AM
That last post was long-winded, and addressed the argument happening, but not the initial poll question. Here is my answer.
I am a Christian, and the God I believe in is not a God of wrath. Added to that, I believe that different Christians believe in a different God, if not different characteristics for the same God, and I believe there are many Christians whose God is a God of wrath.

greg63
05-08-2006, 10:26 AM
A couple of things about this question...
1) I think it is a question that goes hand in hand with the question of whether or not you are a Biblical literalist. There are those who believe every word was God-breathed, and has not been transformed by the years and cultures which have re-translated it, and those who believe otherwise. There are plenty of problems on either side of this, logic-wise.
2) Although I struggle with this, so I don't know the answer of how to reconcile it, I have trouble with assigning human qualities to God. We often do this, as a way to understand God. We call God "He," do you really believe God has a gender? We ask questions about God's emotions, Do we believe a perfect being has emotions such as anger, happiness and wrath? I often think of God as a God of infinite love, but even that assigns human emotion to GOd, and I'm not sure how to fix that. But it is the pea under my mattress, so to speak (insert princcess joke here). We can explain this away by saying humans were created in God's image, but that returns us to my first point.

The reason these two points are important to me, and my belief, is that they remind me to always learn, and always question. I was looking for an old Greg Easterbrook article, in which he discussed how he believed near-death experiences held some proof of God. I didn't find that article, but I did find one in which he discussed how both those who say the Bible is fully true, and those who say the Bible is fully false suffer fromt he same type of problem. Neither allow themselves to constantly question and re-prove the validity of their belief.



I think that you think too much; while it is certain that I do not think enough. :D

luv
05-08-2006, 10:26 AM
Of course I don't yet have children and I would have to see how badly they misbehaved but I probably wouldn't send them to an eternal hell.
That's why he sent His Son. After that, it is our free will to decide for ourselves.

greg63
05-08-2006, 10:27 AM
That's why he sent His Son. After that, it is our free will to decide for ourselves.


BINGO! We have a winner.

greg63
05-08-2006, 10:53 AM
Just like clock work.

Sully
05-08-2006, 11:07 AM
I think that you think too much; while it is certain that I do not think enough. :D

That's not even the first time I've heard that today.

greg63
05-08-2006, 11:09 AM
That's not even the first time I've heard that today.


ROFLROFLROFL

irishjayhawk
05-08-2006, 11:12 AM
How come god didn't sent a daughter?

picasso
05-08-2006, 11:22 AM
Humans are the only ones that have sex with emotion involved. If we weren't, i bet we'd make the beast with 2 backs all the time too.

I am sure that you've had sex without emotions involved. I know that most people have as have I. Now for reasons to procreate if love is there it becomes much more meaningful but isn't really necessary to have a child.

Katipan
05-08-2006, 11:24 AM
I am sure that you've had sex without emotions involved. I know that most people have as have I. Now for reasons to procreate if love is there it becomes much more meaningful but isn't really necessary to have a child.

I dont really understand this post or what it has to do with what I said. :) But thank you!

RedNFeisty
05-08-2006, 11:26 AM
My God is a vengful God and his wrath should be feared. I was looking for information to back what I think and found this....

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=236

The Wrath of God by W. J. Grier

One of the evidences of decay and departure in the professing Church is the large-scale rejection of the teaching of the Scriptures on the wrath of God. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his recently-issued Exposition of Romans draws attention to this and shows that it is not only among Modernists and Ritualists that this attitude prevails; it is evident too among some who are evangelicals by repute.

Dr C. H. Dodd, for some 14 years professor of Divinity at Cambridge and chairman of the panel of translators of the New English Bible [New Testament section], deals in his Commentary on Romans with the phrase ‘the wrath of God’ in Romans 1.18. He speaks of it as ‘an archaic phrase’ which ‘suits a thoroughly archaic idea’. In other words, he looks on the idea of God’s wrath as out-of-date, antiquated. Early in 1931 there was a dialogue in the pulpit of Elmwood Presbyterian Church, Belfast, two prominent ministers Drs Frazer-Hurst and Hyndman taking part. The former quoted from a Catechism he was taught in his boyhood. The question was: ‘What are you by nature?’ and the answer: ‘I am an enemy of God, a child of Satan and an heir of hell’. Dr Frazer-Hurst described such teaching as monstrous and Dr Hyndman supported him by saying:

‘These ideas belong to the mentality and outlook of bygone ages.’ It would seem as if these men believed that we come into the world as little cherubs sprouting wings.

To adopt such views one would have to repudiate a large part of Scripture from Genesis through to Revelation. In Genesis 3 we find Adam and Eve thrust out of the garden for their sin and a flaming sword set to keep them from the tree of life. Not only were they affected, but the sentence of condemnation fell upon the race [Romans 5.12, 18, 19]. In Genesis 6 we find God saying: ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ — and the deluge ensued. Then in Genesis 19 we have the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire and brimstone from heaven.

I might go on citing countless examples of the manifestation of divine wrath right through the Bible. Dr Leon Morris says of the Old Testament in his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross: ‘There are more than 20 words used to express the wrath conception as it applies to Jehovah’ and ‘these are used so frequently that there are over 580 occurrences to be taken into consideration’ [p 131]. He adds that this conception ‘cannot be eradicated from the Old Testament without irreparable loss’ [p 156]. So the Old Testament is full of the concept of the wrath of God.

In his Commentary on Romans Dr Dodd says that the wrath of God ‘does not appear in the teaching of Jesus’. One is reminded of John Newton’s reply to Dr Taylor of Norwich when the latter said: ‘I have collated every word in the Hebrew Scriptures 17 times, and it is very strange if the doctrine of the atonement you hold should not have been found by me.’ Newton’s reply was: ‘I am not surprised at this; I once went to light my candle with the extinguisher on it.’ He meant that prejudices from education, learning, etc., often form an extinguisher which must be removed and which only God can remove.

Dr Dodd speaks of the thought of anger as an attitude of God to men as disappearing and adds: ‘His love and mercy become all-embracing’. This really smacks of universalism. One suspects that universalistic presuppositions are really in many cases responsible for the rejection of the concept of the wrath of God.

Jesus spoke of the rich man in the torments of hell and He warned again and again of ‘the weeping and the gnashing of teeth’ and of hell fire and the unquenchable fire and the undying worm and the outer darkness. Describing how He would act as King at His coming one day to sit on the throne of His glory He pictures Himself as saying: ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.’ Surely the extinguisher is functioning when Dr Dodd claims that the idea of the wrath of God is absent from the teaching of Jesus.

Nor is the wrath of God absent from the teaching of the apostle Paul. He pictured that wrath as like a dark cloud overhanging a guilty world and he proclaimed Jesus as the only deliverer from this coming wrath [I Thess. 1.10]. He also describes this wrath as evident in the heathen world of his day — evident in God’s giving them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness and vile passions and a reprobate mind [Romans 1.24, 26, 28]. And in Romans chapter 2 he warns of ‘wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God’. These are but a few of the citations which might be given from Paul’s teaching.

We have the same testimony from John, the apostle of love. What a tremendous picture he gives of Christ coming as King of kings and Lord of lords ‘treading the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of God the Almighty’ [Rev. 19.151! How can anyone that has read Jonathan Edwards’ comment on this verse ever forget it? ‘The words’, he says, ‘are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said ‘the wrath of God’, the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is ‘the fierceness and wrath of God’. The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! O how dreadful must that be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them? But it is also ‘the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God’ — as though there would be a very great manifestation of His almighty power in what the fierceness of His wrath would inflict, as though omnipotence should as it were be enraged and exerted as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath.’

Many more Scriptures could be appealed to, but sufficient evidence has been produced to show that the witness to the idea of the wrath of God is pervasive in the Scriptures.

When the doctrine of the wrath of God is denied, other great truths are affected by this denial. First among these is the historic doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures.

I. THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES

Anyone who denies the wrath of God strikes a blow at divine revelation — for, as we have seen, God’s wrath is plainly revealed in His Word. His holy indignation against sin is one of the great ‘burdens’ of Scripture, one of the Bible’s great oracles; and he who denies this holy indignation is flouting the verdict of the Judge of all the earth, a verdict repeated times without number in His Word. Professor T. J. Crawford was right when he said: ‘A great part of the Bible would need to be written over again before we can expunge from it the broad and palpable evidence of God’s holy displeasure against sinful men and of His righteous purpose to inflict judgment for their iniquities.’ The effect then of the denial of the divine wrath then would be devastating in its effect upon the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures.

II. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

If we preach the wrath of God, we are sometimes accused of representing God as a Being of fitful passion and vindictive fury. In other words, we are accused of blackening the character of God. But we plead ‘Not guilty’. The God of the Bible is not subject to sudden and irrational fits of anger. His wrath is His settled indignation against sin. Dr Leon Morris rightly speaks of it as ‘a burning zeal for the right coupled with a perfect hatred for everything that is evil’.

When men reject the idea of the wrath of God, it is evident that they really do not believe in the perfect holiness of God, for that holiness involves a settled and burning indignation against sin. Moses could say of the adversaries of Israel: ‘their rock is not as our Rock’ and we can say the same of men who reject the divine wrath. Their god is a flabby sort of being, not the God who is holy in all His ways and righteous in all His works.

III. THE DOCTRINE OF SIN

There is a close connection between the denial of God’s wrath and a light view of sin, as Dr J. G. Machen said: ‘The modern rejection of God’s wrath proceeds from a light view of sin which is totally at variance with the teaching of the whole New Testament and of Jesus Himself’. It is the sight of the infinite holiness of God which leads a man to a true sense of his sin and depravity. When Isaiah viewed God as sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and worshipped as the perfectly Holy One by the seraphim, then he cried ‘Woe is me, for I am undone’. When men see God’s righteousness and His wrath, it is then that they become earnest seekers after grace.

Once when Whitefleld was preaching at Norwich, a thoughtless youth was led by a gipsy’s forecast of his future to go and hear the great preacher. The sermon was based on John the Baptist’s appeal to the Sadducees to flee from the wrath to come. As he preached Whitefleld burst into a flood of tears and then cried with all his might: ‘O my hearers, the wrath is to come, the wrath is to come’. The words sank into the young man’s heart; they followed him for days and weeks and he could think of little else but ‘the wrath to come’. He later became, as Andrew Fuller tells us, ‘a considerable preacher’. Such conviction of sin followed by genuine conversion is not likely to occur where the note of divine wrath is muted; sin is no longer regarded as ‘the abominable thing which God hates’.

IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

In his commentary on Romans chapter 1, Dr Dodd denies divine wrath. It is small wonder that he proceeds in his commentary on chapter 3, verse 25-26, to repudiate the idea of ‘the propitiation of the wrath of God’ and of ‘the satisfaction demanded by His justice and afforded by Christ’s vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin.’ Small wonder too that the word ‘propitiation’ was removed from the New English Bible as well as from the Revised Standard Version. One of the RSV translators, Dr C. T. Craig of Oberlin School of Theology, commenting on the omission of the word ‘propitiation’, said: ‘Any attempt to show that there was something in the essential nature of God that demanded satisfaction for sin ends only in blackening the character of God.’ So the doctrine of the atonement must go in the interests of the Modernist view of a flabby deity!

Dr Dodd admits that in classical Greek and in the Koiné [or Hellenistic Greek] the word ‘propitiate’ has the idea of placating or appeasing wrath. But he seeks to argue from the Septuagint [the Greek translation of the New Testament made a few centuries before Christ] that a change had taken place in the meaning of the word. Dr Roger Nicole of Gordon Divinity School has produced 21 arguments against Dr Dodd’s line of reasoning [see the Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 2]. Dr Nicole’s article is simply devastating in its force; he seems to have shot Dr Dodd down entirely.

Dr Leon Morris in his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross says that Dr Dodd ‘totally ignores the fact that in many passages there is explicit mention of the putting away of God’s anger, and accordingly his conclusions cannot be accepted without serious modification.’ Indeed, Dr Morris produces arguments to show that ‘it is manifestly impossible to maintain that the verb [propitiate’] has been emptied of its force.’

One must be supremely thankful for the labours of these two fine scholars of a younger generation for their labours in putting up such a capable defence of, and devastating argument for, the historic Christian doctrine of the atonement as a propitiation of divine wrath and a satisfaction to divine justice.

V. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOVE OF GOD

Those who reject the wrath of God often plead that their rejection is in the interests of the love of God; but actually their rejection of divine wrath inificts a grievous wound on the doctrine which they profess ardently to espouse. This is so because Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and propitiate God’s wrath is the greatest exhibition of divine love. We read in Scripture: ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ [1 John 4.10].

Dr James Denney said: ‘If the propitiatory death of Jesus is eliminated from the love of God, it might be unfair to say that the love of God is robbed of all meaning, but it is certainly robbed of its apostolic meaning’ [Denney’s Death of Christ, p 152]. And this is the meaning that supremely matters.

VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE JUDGMENT

If there is no wrath of God, then the tremendous terrors of the judgment are eliminated. Then that ancient hymn loses its significance which says:


That day of wrath, that dreadful day
When heaven and earth shall pass away!
What power shall be the sinner’s stay?
How shall he meet that dreadful day?

Take away the concept of the wrath of God and we strip the great day of assize of much of its tremendous awe.

VII. THE DOCTRINE OF HELL

In 1930 there was a book issued with the title What is Hell? There were twelve contributors. Among them were two novelists, a Spiritist, a Theosophist, a pagan, a Roman Catholic, a Congregationalist who became a Roman Catholic two years later, an Anglican bishop and an Anglican dean. The dean, Dr W. R. Inge, though not thoroughly orthodox, could be quite caustic and penetrating in his comments on the Modernists and he had many true words to say about hell. Indeed, he was the one in this volume who came closest to the Scripture doctrine. He said that ‘heaven and hell stand and fall, together’ and pointed out that our Lord spoke in perfectly plain language about its duration. He added: ‘Modernist Protestantism, though it may be reluctant to admit it, believes in Purgatory, but not in hell.’ When Dr Inge ceased to be dean of St. Paul’s in 1934, his successor was Dr W. R. Matthews and it is interesting to note that he says in his book The Hope of Immortality that to him purgatory ‘has great attractions’; he also says that he believes it ‘right to pray for the dead’ and it would seem that universalism also has ‘attractions’ for him. So it again appears, as we have already noted, that many of the objectors to the concept of God’s wrath are really universalistic in their outlook. A distinguished theologian of the Presbyterian Church, U.S., who is a member of his Church’s Permanent Theological Committee stated in a church paper: ‘God does not have two different purposes for men — that is, punishment for some and reward for others — but only one’. This is just brazen universalism.

In conclusion, I would point out that when men deny the wrath of God, they are cutting one of the vital nerves of evangelism. It was the thought of the wrath of God, as well as His love, that lent such earnestness to the pleadings of the preachers of the gospel. The thought of the overhanging cloud of God’s wrath lent earnestness to the preaching of Paul. Knowing the fear of the Lord, he persuaded men. It was the same with Whitefield and Brownlow North and R. M. M’Cheyne and Henry Martyn. Of North his biographer wrote: ‘The immortality of the human soul and its endless existence in a state of holiness and blessedness, or of corruption and misery, were subjects constantly on his lips.’ Listen to M’Cheyne also as he says: ‘As I walked in the fields, the thought came over me with almost overwhelming power, that every one of my flock must soon be in heaven or hell. 0 how I wished I had a tongue like thunder, that I might make all hear; or that I had a frame like iron, that I might visit every one and say, ‘Escape for thy life’. Ah, sinners! you little know how I fear that you will lay the blame of your damnation at my door.’ And it was he who said that the preacher should never speak of everlasting punishment without tears.

What gratitude should surge in our hearts because God has not appointed us unto wrath but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus! R. M. M’Cheyne stressed this too when he wrote:


Chosen not for good in me,
Wakened up from wrath to flee,
Hidden in the Saviour’s side,
By the Spirit sanctified,
Teach me, Lord, on earth to show,
By my love how much I owe.

By nature we were once ‘children of wrath’ — exposed to the dread wrath of God [Eph 2.3]. But we have been saved by grace through faith, that we might do the good works which God has before ordained for us [Eph 2.8, 10]. We are under a tremendous obligation. This was how Paul saw himself. He said: ‘I am debtor both to Greeks and barbarians . . . So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also . . . . for I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation . . . . : for therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith . . . . for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’ [Rom 1.14-18]. Note the four ‘for’s’, especially the last one — ‘for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven’. The divine wrath was revealed in God’s judgments on the heathen world of that day and it overhung that world like a dark cloud. That same wrath is evident in the world of our day and overhangs it like a dark cloud. We too should have the tremendous sense of obligation which Paul had. We too are debtors — debtors to men of every race and condition. May the spirit of concern fill our hearts as it filled the heart of the apostle — that we may give an account of our stewardship one day with joy and not with grief. Amen.

The above address was given at the opening session of the Leicester Ministers Conference, March 1971.

BIG_DADDY
05-08-2006, 11:27 AM
Where is the Gaz is god option?

Katipan
05-08-2006, 11:28 AM
I'm pretty okay with going to hell rather than worship a wrathful anything.

RedNFeisty
05-08-2006, 11:35 AM
I'm pretty okay with going to hell rather than worship a wrathful anything.

I am a parent full of Wrath. If my child does not obey then he will be punished. It can also be said that I am person of Wrath, if any thing or person were to harm my family they would certainly feel my wrath.

cdcox
05-08-2006, 11:35 AM
I am mistaken/ misinformed/ ignorant on the subject or maybe those events are discounted for some reason when considering god’s overall demeanor?

Do all christians agree that Jesus’ death caused a change in god’s behavior?

It is also interesting to see that at least some christians believe that god will again become vengeful, full of wrath/ fury/ etc. Here is where my ignorance on the topic will become very apparent but I am curious so I will ask, do most christians believe in a judgment day and, if so, is that a literal or figurative event? Do people really anticipate an apocalyptic destruction of evil and/ or non-believers? And if the answer is “yes”, does that change the perception of god?

Let me take a stab at your questions.

God has wrath toward sin and sinners. This wrath was partially expressed in the Old Testament events that you mentioned. But even here, God's wrath was restrained in that the full expression of his wrath would result in the destruction of the fallen world.

On the cross, Jesus bore the full burden of God's wrath. The wrath was placed on his son, not on humans and creation. God's wrath is constant, but on the cross it was directed away from humans onto the God-man Jesus. (Kudos to The Rick who nailed this earlier in the thread).

The Church teaches a literal judgement day. From the Athanasian Creed, to which the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most mainline protestant denominations subscribe:

"From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

Finally, it is helpful to distinguish the diffference between the teaching of the Church and what individuals believe. What I've summarized above are the offical teachings of most Christian church bodies over history. In recent decades some church bodies have started teaching a more figurative interpretation. When you get to individual ministers, you will get even more diversity of thought. And at the pew level you'll get more diversity still, which I think you've seen in the replys from people on this thread.

RedNFeisty
05-08-2006, 11:36 AM
Rom 1:18 (Wey) For God's anger is being revealed from Heaven against all impiety and against the iniquity of men who through iniquity suppress the truth. God is angry.

Zeph 2:3 (NIV) "Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord's anger."

Katipan
05-08-2006, 11:39 AM
I would have zero desire to acquire the love or respect of such a creature. Theres no point in me lying about it. I'm sure he knows.

When I discipline my kids, wrath is the last thing on my mind.

chagrin
05-08-2006, 11:43 AM
Disco sucks, Rock-n-Roll is #1!! :rockon:

Brock
05-08-2006, 11:44 AM
On the cross, Jesus bore the full burden of God's wrath. The wrath was placed on his son, not on humans and creation. God's wrath is constant, but on the cross it was directed away from humans onto the God-man Jesus. (Kudos to The Rick who nailed this earlier in the thread).

Wouldn't the "full burden of God's wrath" include an eternity in Hell?

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 11:53 AM
Wouldn't the "full burden of God's wrath" include an eternity in Hell?

Yes it does, that is why only through faith in Jesus's birth, death, and ressurection can one enter into heaven. He is the sacrafice for our sins who believe, which washes us pure and allows us to be with God the Father. Sin and God the Father can't be together, therefore who ever rejects Jesus and keeps their sin unwashed cannot be with God and therefore faces the alternative.

Brock
05-08-2006, 11:56 AM
Yes it does, that is why only through faith in Jesus's birth, death, and ressurection can one enter into heaven. He is the sacrafice for our sins who believe, which washes us pure and allows us to be with God the Father. Sin and God the Father can't be together, therefore who ever rejects Jesus and keeps their sin unwashed cannot be with God and therefore faces the alternative.

So you're saying Jesus did not bear the "full burden of God's wrath"?

cdcox
05-08-2006, 12:00 PM
Wouldn't the "full burden of God's wrath" include an eternity in Hell?

One definition of Hell is separation from God (none of us has experienced that). On the cross, the Father forsook the Son (My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?"). So yes, Jesus experienced Hell during his six hours on the cross. As to why it was not eternal, Jesus' righteousness overcame Hell, and so Hell was defeated upon Jesus death ("It is finished!"). Jesus experienced eternal hell not only for himsef but for all humanity, during his time on the cross.

Clint in Wichita
05-08-2006, 12:03 PM
If by "wrathful" you mean "willing to drown the entire human race for misbehaving", then yes, the God character in the Bible is wrathful.


If drowning the whole race is wrathful, and not psychotic or sadistic, then I guess what Hitler did was "a little grumpy".

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 12:13 PM
So you're saying Jesus did not bear the "full burden of God's wrath"?

I guy named Jesus buys you a key for $100, he gives it to you after paying for it in full. They key itself doesn't do you any good unless you use it....ok.... Your in a house and someone is coming to kill you, the only safe place to get away is the room that that $100 key is needed to open. If you don't use it and get killed....you are stupid!!!!

Dumb example, but Jesus payed the full price for God's wrath, but not even God can stop a moron.... ROFL

Look if you believe in Hell and choose to go there..... :shake:

Well enough for me...I have enjoyed this thread...Good Day.......I said Good Day

Katipan
05-08-2006, 12:20 PM
I bet you could find hoards of people willing to suffer on the cross for 6 hours to save humanity.

Donger
05-08-2006, 12:21 PM
I bet you could find hoards of people willing to suffer on the cross for 6 hours to save humanity.

I do it just for the exercise.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 12:28 PM
Please don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old....Did you ever think that maybe the 'flood' was a meterological anamoly?? Or a tsunami after a large earthquake a la what happened in Banda Aceh??

Did you ever consider that you don't have a clue about the history of the earth? You seem to have a time problem as well as an assumption problem.

You have no clue as to what I belive, you lump anyone that believes in God into the same group. Wake up boy, there are other theories.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 12:29 PM
Let's see. We can find dinosaur bones that are millions of years old but we have yet to find evidence of a 6,000 year old microwave oven.

I'm going to say, no.

You are saying that because you can't find something that it didn't exist?

That is wrong, very wrong.

Where do you get your 6000 year window?

Donger
05-08-2006, 12:32 PM
Where do you get your 6000 year window?

A literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, I'd imagine.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 12:33 PM
Me? A religious nut?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Any credibility you had just dropped to zero.

Judging from what I see his credibility has risen drastically if it is currently zero.

Ultra Peanut
05-08-2006, 12:42 PM
I don't believe so. I really don't believe a lot of what the old testament says.

A God who would be so benevolent as to put us on this earth and then send us to hell at the drop of a hat doesn't seem right.Agreed.

Either:

1) No one suffers for all eternity. Maybe there's a limbo, or even a hell, but after a while, even the worst of the worst are given God's grace. In a similar vein, I'm a (non-denominational) Christian, but have serious doubts about the whole "accepting Christ is the only way to be saved" thing.*
2) God is wholly unlike any religion's portrayal of "him," and frankly, doesn't care or is downright malevolent at times. The latter seems a tad doubtful, but I could totally buy that there is a "God" but things work completely differently than us pathetic ants down here think they do.
3) There is no God. It's certainly not something you can rule out.

*I cannot reconcile God being a loving god with God letting people suffer without his presence for eternity simply because they picked/were indoctrinated with the wrong belief system. It's like saying, "Walk through one of these ten doors. Nine of the rooms' ceilings will crush you when you step into them."

steve_minor
05-08-2006, 01:18 PM
I cannot reconcile God being a loving god with God letting people suffer without his presence for eternity simply because they picked/were indoctrinated with the wrong belief system. It's like saying, "Walk through one of these ten doors. Nine of the rooms' ceilings will crush you when you step into them."

The Bible says everyone will be exposed to the truth, if there are 10 doors and he tells you which door to walk through, and you don't...thats your problem.

BWillie
05-08-2006, 02:43 PM
People believe in a god to give their life meaning, to fill a void in their life, and to ease their tension of death. That's it, I wish there was a benevolent agenda to life but there just isn't. But of course, nothing of this can be disproved or proved, so it is pointless to talk about. If I was a betting man, I would bet in 99.9 confidence that the Christian god, and any other religions on this planet are false and wise tails. If you changed the stories in the bible, with the ones in your fairy tale books, would you even know the difference?

chagrin
05-08-2006, 02:51 PM
People believe in a god to give their life meaning, to fill a void in their life, and to ease their tension of death. That's it, I wish there was a benevolent agenda to life but there just isn't. But of course, nothing of this can be disproved or proved, so it is pointless to talk about. If I was a betting man, I would bet in 99.9 confidence that the Christian god, and any other religions on this planet are false and wise tails. If you changed the stories in the bible, with the ones in your fairy tale books, would you even know the difference?

ROFL


"That's it, I wish there was a benevolent agenda to life but there just isn't. But of course, nothing of this can be disproved or proved, so it is pointless to talk about."

Taco, is that you?

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 07:06 PM
Disco sucks, Rock-n-Roll is #11! :rockon:

Are you really sure of that?

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 07:18 PM
A literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, I'd imagine.

If you don't have imagination you could take that as years. The comment goes something like: A day in heaven is like 1000 years in Heaven. I think this basically is what you are referring to, God created the heavens and earth in 6 days. Correct? If that is the case, the whole 6000 year thing is shot to heck because God didn't create Man (mankind) until the 6th day. Where does that put the age of the earth if Adam and Eve were created in the last 1000 years?

If you believe that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end he has existed for much longer than 6000 years.

My theory is something like our work week, we go to work at 8:00am on Monday morning, we toil until Friday, Saturday for some. Sunday we take off. At midnight Sunday night we start a new week. If we are patterened after God's image and have work weeks then he also has weeks. Back to the A and O, if he is the beginning and the end how many days has he been working the earth? Multiply that by 1000 years and then get back to me. ;)

What I haven't read here is that as humans we are bound by time, God is not.

Now something to consider; How many times has God recreated the earth? How many times have we, mankind, screwed up and been wiped out? If you listen to Hammy we can't prove anything because we can't find a microwave buried in the dirt.

As for me, I don't need to see an ancient microwave to understand that God is Omnipotent. All of my questions will be answered when I am gone, as will all of our questions.

C-Mac
05-08-2006, 07:25 PM
One definition of Hell is separation from God (none of us has experienced that). On the cross, the Father forsook the Son (My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?"). So yes, Jesus experienced Hell during his six hours on the cross. As to why it was not eternal, Jesus' righteousness overcame Hell, and so Hell was defeated upon Jesus death ("It is finished!"). Jesus experienced eternal hell not only for himsef but for all humanity, during his time on the cross.

Just a side note, "hell" is actually of non-biblical origin and a non-biblical teaching. Plus add the fact that it is completely illogical for a God of love and a God of justice to create a place for eternal tormenting.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 07:41 PM
Just a side note, "hell" is actually of non-biblical origin and a non-biblical teaching. Plus add the fact that it is completely illogical for a God of love and a God of justice to create a place for eternal tormenting.

I think 'hell' is the place the Lucifer resides. In the bible it talks of the lake of fire which may have been named hell for the shock value. At least hell fits in the current language.

stevieray
05-08-2006, 07:43 PM
God isn't responsible for people who suffer.

Suffering brings us to God.

Chieficus
05-08-2006, 08:59 PM
Is the christian god a god of wrath?

Yes. He is a God of wrath and a God of grace. He is a God of justice and a God of mercy. He is a God of holiness and a God of love.

It's as Paul said (Romans 9, NASB):

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

tommykat
05-08-2006, 09:19 PM
I refuse to answer this as I point one finger towards what you are polling for, there are 4 pointing back at me....ponder that one.

C-Mac
05-08-2006, 09:31 PM
I think 'hell' is the place the Lucifer resides. In the bible it talks of the lake of fire which may have been named hell for the shock value. At least hell fits in the current language.

Not sure what you based those thoughts on but in the older version of the King James bible at Rev 20:13,14 it states "the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." "