I'm not disagreeing that God hates sin. You are completely misunderstanding me and wrongfully accusing me of not reading the Bible. All I'm trying to say is that God does not revel in the destruction and punishment. He is not pleased to remove Himself from those who deny Him, aka...take revenge on them. "Revenge" in the God-sense is so far removed from the human conception of revenge, that the word revenge probably shouldn't even be used. It is easily distorted and humanized.
Agreed--so it was just a misunderstanding of maybe the words you were using? Sorry then, I was just trying to clarify by giving proper responses with Scripture to back it up. God bless
You mentioned that your mom & dad love you unconditionally. I wonder, do they love each other unconditionally? If your mother left your father does the father still love?
Unconditional love does not void the determined choices of the other party; rather it allows them. Your father can love a spouse that leaves him & so can my Father love his child who rejects Him forever.
nontheistic in nature. Rather than follow a deity (pr deities) of sorts, it seats man in God's place to determine his own views on origin, meaning, morality, & destiny. In the case of the Christian, his life is subject to God. He is accountable to God & must answer for his actions on earth.
It's not God's will that is subjective but the will of His followers when they choose to ignore His teachings in pursuit of their own agendas. I'm assuming that when you invoke "God's will", you are directing your comments to the Christian faith in specific, am I correct? Even Christ Himself specified that not all who called Him "Lord" were in fact His followers. He made that plainly clear. But abuses in religion can come from anywhere. I consider atheism its own form of religion albeit
I will be the first to admit that much wrong has been done in the name of religions--some of that Christian. But...that said, how do you explain the evil perpetuated in the pursuit of atheism/secularism? In attempting to promote a religion-free world, atheist communism is totalitarian, intolerant, unjust, abusive, & unlivable. I guess my question to you is how can you condemn the one & turn a blind eye to the other?
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.
Matthew 26:51-52 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
From Matthew 7 NIV: 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
From Wikipedia about the Khmer Rouge: "The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese."
This is from Wikipedia: "Religion - Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers."
"...in order to construct the ideal communist society".
Stalin's motivation for supressing religion was communism, NOT atheism. If Lenin had wrote that religion was beneficial, Stalin would almost certainly have never adopted an anti-religious position. Communism does not even explicitly state there is no God - only that organised religion is harmful. Stalin was a tyrant who was probably an atheist, NOT an atheistic tyrant - his atheism was as incidental to his actions as his mustache.
@garethac81 Communism was based on atheism. The atrocities & abuses of it were the natural result of an atheistic worldview that viewed people as "cogs" to serve the communist machine w/ no intrinsic value. It amounts to nothing more than wordplay. Atheism freed Stalin to do as he pleased w/out moral complications.
@garethac81 It does nothing of the sort, sir. There are also atheists who live moral lives as well, but as such, they can't justify why that way of life's any better than the atheists who become communists or worse...Anything goes...I do have a question for you though: how do you answer/adress the question of suffering in humanity?
Morality does not require religion in order to be understood as conducive to the common good - the earliest human societies realised that cooperating for mutual benefit was essential to their survival long, long before the idea of religious moral codes became widespread. It's so obvious - if people don't treat each other respectfully, civilisation ceases to function. Are you seriously telling me we need a God to explain that to us?
@garethac81 Yes we need God's son Jesus who paid for our sins. We need ultimate forgiveness for our sins and Jesus is the one who allows that to be so. Can you easily forgive someone who betrays your trust or does wrong to you??? If a person Believe's in God's Son Jesus Christ then they understand from the Bible how they are forgiven and have eternal life. Only Jesus forgives all things, who in your life can forgive you and love you unconditionally???
"Worship me, or burn in hell." I can't think of a more cruel and contemptible example of CONDITIONAL love than the kind offered by God and Jesus in the Bible.
My mother and father love me no matter what...they don't threaten me with punishment if I don't love them back, like God and Jesus do in the Bible. The love of a parent for a child is REAL unconditional love...not the wicked, jealous threats made by a supernatural tyrant with a torture fetish.
You are very mistaken on the difference between unconditional love and righteousness. God loves unconditionally, but he is righteous. He provided a way to escape hell, so He does not send people to hell. People send themselves by refusing the pardon He has provided. I can not imagine loving someone who constantly spat in my face, and the way this world sees it I shouldn't. Becuas God loves me, I can love others unconditionally.
"God loves unconditionally, BUT..." = your words disprove your own argument. There is not "but" with true unconditonal love. "People send themselves to hell..." What a load of fucking horseshit! Stupid comments like that really make me angry. Who created hell? GOD. Who decides who goes to hell? GOD. Who could choose to forgive sinners, but wants to subject them to everlasting torture instead? GOD.
WAKE UP! Your God has the blood of billions on his hands.
God doesn't love unconditionally---this is a word mix up that's slipped it's way into our modern day "Christendom"--He loves undeservedly. While we were yet sinners, He died for us--even though we didn't deserve it.
God will cast people into hell bound hand and foot(I cannot imagine anyone's going to want to go willingly)---and its for their sins and His justice. Just because God is love, does not discount His other characteristics---societies can show love/mercy and justice.
@garethac81 Hell isn't torture performed directly by God or as repayment for not worshiping him, at least as I understand it. I'm sorry that is your current perception of it. If anything, I'd say hell is torturous because you're separated from God forever. I hope you can at least respect my point of view, as I respect yours. This stuff is confusing and tough and I struggle with it on a daily basis.
I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Read the Bible--God created hell and it will be an eternal torture. The angels will bind people hand and foot and violently cast them into the lake of fire. They will be judged for their works because they refused the offer of mercy/grace given by God through His Son Jesus Christ. And they will deserve their punishment because God is just. Matt 13:21-22, among many other parables and passages in Revelation about their punishment.
@droptozro I never implied that the damned "didn't deserve" punishment. I am calling into question the issue of Divine torture. When Jesus warns that not all who call him at the End will be answered, he describes the response as: 'I never knew you. Away from me!'
This implies an impassable separation & estrangement rather than vindictive, repeated punishment exacted by God. Are the consequences torturous? Undoubtedly, but that's bc God is all that is good. Lose Him and find utter suffering.
They are separated relationship.. this is the antithesis between light/dark, found/lost and you're correct that God will make it final. But it is repeated because it's everlasting---if the punishment is not everlasting, then our life is also not everlasting. That is the consistency of the verses, such as Matt 25:46.
It's a final separation and inability to come back to God, the doors of mercy will be closed and judgment(day, final) will be set and irreversible.
@droptozro I think we are in agreement ultimately :) However I do not believe God exerts Himself in the punishment. Sin and death is inherently absent of God. They are apart from his immense, unsearchable attributes. God cannot be what He is not. Anything apart from God is effectively nothing, and therefore permanently separated out of necessity. The depiction of God as an angry despot exacting pointed revenge on those who oppose him, simply put, is not the God I know and try to serve...
"The depiction of God as an angry despot exacting pointed revenge on those who oppose him, simply put, is not the God I know and try to serve..."
I think you really need to read your Bible more... God's not going to exact pointless revenge, but proper and fitted judgement. People in the end times are going to be so proud and bold that when Christ returns to reign... they're going to try and overthrow Him. Uh... yeah read Joel 3:9-17 Revelation 14:17-20 and 2 Thess 1:5-10
God promises that He will exact vengeance, and the martyred saints will cry out for it in front of Him... Revelation 6:10.
I don't know, maybe you're just using words that are not fully expressing what you mean---but God is just, and angry at sin and sinners(Psalm 7:11, Psalm 5:5)--and if they don't repent, as a true King He is coming back and will rule with a rod of Iron to force those into submission who don't willfully submit. God bless
Oh, and my last post ABSOLUTELY disproves your ridiculous claim about communism being "the natural result of atheism". If that was true, every atheist would be a communist. They're not, so you're wrong. Now, let's move on. You talk about "anything goes" morality? If history has taught us anything, it is that anything can be justified BY RELIGION. "It's God's will" = the best excuse for the worst deeds. The Nazis called the Holocaust God's will...the 9/11 terrorists had the same story.
@garethac81 Funny how now the atheist resorts to absolutes now that it supposedly proves his point. The reality is it does not. Anything goes w/ atheism. There is no set morality. You can do "good" as it may be defined by another religion/worldview. It's almost like borrowing from another religion, but still, how do you justify it? All you'd be saying is that one way's better than another, but, why? Based on feelings? Feelings are not logical.
There is no set morality with religion. The eternally subjective nature of "God's will" means that the worst atrocities imaginable can be justified by invoking a higher power, which is why, over and over again throughout history, religion has been used as an excuse to kill, torture, oppress and conquer. Christianity is particularly useful in this regard, because the Bible contains so many passages in which God commands people to commit atrocities in his name.
As for "comparing numbers", I can give you a dozen different examples of atrocities committed by people who openly described themselves as religious, and declared their actions in the name of religion. Can you give me even ONE example of an atrocity committed by someone who openly described themselves as an atheist, and declared their actions in the name of atheism? Here's a clue: None of the 20th century communist leaders did either of those two things.
" None of the 20th century communist leaders did either of those two things."
lol....wow! thought I read it all on utube....whoa! pol pot, stalin, and mao over a weekend picnic killed more people than ALL religions combined have in the last 2000 yrs....now explain to me what marxism teaches about God again....thanks
Since you failed to answer my challenge in your last post, I'll repeat it for you:
Can you give me even ONE example of an atrocity committed by someone who openly described themselves as an atheist, and declared their actions in the name of atheism?
If you want to offer Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao as an example, then you'll have to show me a) evidence that they described themselves as atheists, and b) evidence that they committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. Well?
lol.ur going somewhere that you do not want to go my friend.
Give me ONE example of a Christian who committed an atrocity in the name of Christianity...after u get 1,show me the verse from Jesus or the bible, where by this person was justified.
The religion of atheism could undoubtedly lead to atrocities in its namew/outGod as a moral giver, there are really no wrongs within ur religion, at its core. dictators & the sheep under this religion proved this many times over in last 100 yrs
One example? I'll give you three: The Crusades. The Inquisition. The Witch Trials. All carried out by self-declared devoted Christians in the name of Christianity. Which verse of the Bible they were following is irrelevant...the fact that these atrocities would not have occured without the pretense of "doing God's work" (which, as history teaches us, can mean ANYTHING, no matter how immoral) IS relevant.
Now that I've answered your challenge, do I need to make my challenge a THIRD time?
"Which verse of the Bible they were following is irrelevant..." lol of course it is....what was I thinking...
crusades, inquisition & witch trials combined then times by 10 still wouldn’t add up to even one of the atheistic killers in the last centuries total slaughter numbers in the name atheistic marxism, Mao....
face it, atheist will NEVER win this argument, NEVER
""Which verse of the Bible they were following is irrelevant..." lol of course it is....what was I thinking..."
the problem with your ignorance is that there is NO verse that would lead a Christian to kill, none..nada.... when a "christian" kills, hes NOT doing it in the name of .....ok...pls move on im tired of replying to your ignorance
The Crusades, The Witch Trials and the Inquisition were all perpetrated BY Christians, who claimed they were doing it BECAUSE they were Christians. You STILL haven't given me a single historical example of an atrocity committed by people who claimed they were atheists, and claimed they were doing it because they were atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...none of these men ever described themselves as atheists, and CERTAINLY never declared their atrocities in the name of atheism.
@garethac81 but they WERE atheist, and if the history books tell it, then they must've shown it in their actions, even if they didn't say it. And if you're going to refer to the salem witch trials, all I can say is that NOT EVERYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A CHRISTIAN REALLY IS. a TRUE Chrisitian would tell you that those historic events were horrible mistakes; you should NEVER measure a religion by the level to which it is abused, or you will never be satisfied!
@garethac81 Besides, who ever declares anythign in the name of atheism? Of course they won't; atheism is a mere relative measure in everything, so it wouldn't really matter if they did. Have you ever considered that maybe some people just claim to be Christian so the blame is redirected from them onto the Christian community? Seriously, why does nobody think of this? It's like that one bible story, can't remember which, when Jesus said that people will do things like this, and shame us all.
@garethac81 The story went something like this; a man had asked Jesus why he'd seen bad things happen in the name of Christianity, and Jesus explained it to be basically identity theft. Something like "if someone stole your clothes and committed a bunch of crimes while dressed as you, you'd be affected, right? They'd blame you, and the real criminal would get away." So it is with many so-called god worshippers. They bring us all to shame with their lies, and we do not support them!
And the link between having no shame and secularism is...?
That's right. There IS no link. Theists attempt to portray a secular world as a world where people no longer have any need for morality...unfortunately, this attempt is constantly confounded by the truth of history. That truth is simply this: many of the most shameful acts of humankind were committed under divine inspiration. Oh, and since Ravi mentions him, that includes Adolph Hitler: devoted theist.
The point in the full lecture is that our pluralistic society has surgically removed any reason to feel guilt for wrongdoing, since that guilt is a merely realization of your actions having socially inconvenienced others. So why not focus on solely yourself and to hell with everyone else? Now, if you want to compare numbers, how about atheistic communism with killed 80,000,000+ in 80 years. I think the depravity of man speaks for itself, but this is not a refutation of the existence of God.
1) If human beings have no interest in showing compassion to one another, then society ceases to function. To call this "social inconvenience" is a ludicrous understatement. Morality is essential to our very existence as civilised beings...you may as well claim that we need religion to tell us that oxygen is important.
2) The fact that you've lumped together two different ideologies - "atheistic communism" - proves how little you've studied this subject. Firstly, communism was modelled after Christian theocracy, which worships an absolute ruler. Secondly, Stalin tore down thousands of Orthodox parishes in the 30's, then reopened them in the 40's. He was sufficiently indifferent to his atheism to support the church when it suited him politically - thus proving that atheism was NOT his primary motivation.
@garethac81 Here's one of his summation quotes from this lecture; "If pluralization is extrapolated into meaning moral relativism, that's when the danger signs begin." Frankly, I think that quote is hard to argue with but you're welcome to try.
"If pluralization is extrapolated into meaning moral relativism, that's when the danger signs begin."
That quote is easy to argue with...and here's why: the worst examples of moral relativism come not from atheism, but theism. In theism, everything is permissable if sanctioned by God. Murder, rape, slavery and genocide are all sanctioned by God in the Bible. Anyone who believes - for whatever reason, no matter how deluded - that they are doing "God's will" has license to do ANYTHING.
Blah, blah, blah ... don't be gay ... blah, blah, blah ... believe in Angry Invisible Cloud Father who tells you to hate yourself if you're gay ... blah, blah, blah ... believe Leviticus 20:13 that says gay boys should be killed and be ashamed and suicidal if you are gay ... blah, blah, blah ... vote against gay marriage ... blah, blah, blah ... send me money for preying on your deepest fears -- I only raked in 10 million tax free last year ... blah, blah, blah ...
I'm not disagreeing that God hates sin. You are completely misunderstanding me and wrongfully accusing me of not reading the Bible. All I'm trying to say is that God does not revel in the destruction and punishment. He is not pleased to remove Himself from those who deny Him, aka...take revenge on them. "Revenge" in the God-sense is so far removed from the human conception of revenge, that the word revenge probably shouldn't even be used. It is easily distorted and humanized.
fergusonat 4 months ago
@fergusonat
Agreed--so it was just a misunderstanding of maybe the words you were using? Sorry then, I was just trying to clarify by giving proper responses with Scripture to back it up. God bless
droptozro 4 months ago
@garethac81
You mentioned that your mom & dad love you unconditionally. I wonder, do they love each other unconditionally? If your mother left your father does the father still love?
Unconditional love does not void the determined choices of the other party; rather it allows them. Your father can love a spouse that leaves him & so can my Father love his child who rejects Him forever.
Fillymonn 10 months ago
@garethac81 When you speak of abuses, do you refer to the commands to order the destruction of certain cities long ago as recorded in the OT?
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
nontheistic in nature. Rather than follow a deity (pr deities) of sorts, it seats man in God's place to determine his own views on origin, meaning, morality, & destiny. In the case of the Christian, his life is subject to God. He is accountable to God & must answer for his actions on earth.
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
It's not God's will that is subjective but the will of His followers when they choose to ignore His teachings in pursuit of their own agendas. I'm assuming that when you invoke "God's will", you are directing your comments to the Christian faith in specific, am I correct? Even Christ Himself specified that not all who called Him "Lord" were in fact His followers. He made that plainly clear. But abuses in religion can come from anywhere. I consider atheism its own form of religion albeit
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
I will be the first to admit that much wrong has been done in the name of religions--some of that Christian. But...that said, how do you explain the evil perpetuated in the pursuit of atheism/secularism? In attempting to promote a religion-free world, atheist communism is totalitarian, intolerant, unjust, abusive, & unlivable. I guess my question to you is how can you condemn the one & turn a blind eye to the other?
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
Ravi Zacharias loses by Godwin's law. NEXT
teoferrazzi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.
Matthew 26:51-52 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
Comment removed
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
Comment removed
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From Matthew 7 NIV: 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
From Wikipedia about the Khmer Rouge: "The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese."
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
This is from Wikipedia: "Religion - Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers."
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
"...in order to construct the ideal communist society".
Stalin's motivation for supressing religion was communism, NOT atheism. If Lenin had wrote that religion was beneficial, Stalin would almost certainly have never adopted an anti-religious position. Communism does not even explicitly state there is no God - only that organised religion is harmful. Stalin was a tyrant who was probably an atheist, NOT an atheistic tyrant - his atheism was as incidental to his actions as his mustache.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Communism was based on atheism. The atrocities & abuses of it were the natural result of an atheistic worldview that viewed people as "cogs" to serve the communist machine w/ no intrinsic value. It amounts to nothing more than wordplay. Atheism freed Stalin to do as he pleased w/out moral complications.
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
@kainosktisis1
I'm an atheist. I'm not a communist. This is sufficient to falsify your claim that "communism is the natural result of atheism".
Try again.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 It does nothing of the sort, sir. There are also atheists who live moral lives as well, but as such, they can't justify why that way of life's any better than the atheists who become communists or worse...Anything goes...I do have a question for you though: how do you answer/adress the question of suffering in humanity?
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
@kainosktisis1
Morality does not require religion in order to be understood as conducive to the common good - the earliest human societies realised that cooperating for mutual benefit was essential to their survival long, long before the idea of religious moral codes became widespread. It's so obvious - if people don't treat each other respectfully, civilisation ceases to function. Are you seriously telling me we need a God to explain that to us?
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Yes we need God's son Jesus who paid for our sins. We need ultimate forgiveness for our sins and Jesus is the one who allows that to be so. Can you easily forgive someone who betrays your trust or does wrong to you??? If a person Believe's in God's Son Jesus Christ then they understand from the Bible how they are forgiven and have eternal life. Only Jesus forgives all things, who in your life can forgive you and love you unconditionally???
dlaumbach1 1 year ago
@dlaumbach1
"Worship me, or burn in hell." I can't think of a more cruel and contemptible example of CONDITIONAL love than the kind offered by God and Jesus in the Bible.
My mother and father love me no matter what...they don't threaten me with punishment if I don't love them back, like God and Jesus do in the Bible. The love of a parent for a child is REAL unconditional love...not the wicked, jealous threats made by a supernatural tyrant with a torture fetish.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81
You are very mistaken on the difference between unconditional love and righteousness. God loves unconditionally, but he is righteous. He provided a way to escape hell, so He does not send people to hell. People send themselves by refusing the pardon He has provided. I can not imagine loving someone who constantly spat in my face, and the way this world sees it I shouldn't. Becuas God loves me, I can love others unconditionally.
msuchristianartist 1 year ago
@msuchristianartist
"God loves unconditionally, BUT..." = your words disprove your own argument. There is not "but" with true unconditonal love. "People send themselves to hell..." What a load of fucking horseshit! Stupid comments like that really make me angry. Who created hell? GOD. Who decides who goes to hell? GOD. Who could choose to forgive sinners, but wants to subject them to everlasting torture instead? GOD.
WAKE UP! Your God has the blood of billions on his hands.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81
God doesn't love unconditionally---this is a word mix up that's slipped it's way into our modern day "Christendom"--He loves undeservedly. While we were yet sinners, He died for us--even though we didn't deserve it.
God will cast people into hell bound hand and foot(I cannot imagine anyone's going to want to go willingly)---and its for their sins and His justice. Just because God is love, does not discount His other characteristics---societies can show love/mercy and justice.
droptozro 4 months ago
@garethac81 Hell isn't torture performed directly by God or as repayment for not worshiping him, at least as I understand it. I'm sorry that is your current perception of it. If anything, I'd say hell is torturous because you're separated from God forever. I hope you can at least respect my point of view, as I respect yours. This stuff is confusing and tough and I struggle with it on a daily basis.
fergusonat 8 months ago
@fergusonat
I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Read the Bible--God created hell and it will be an eternal torture. The angels will bind people hand and foot and violently cast them into the lake of fire. They will be judged for their works because they refused the offer of mercy/grace given by God through His Son Jesus Christ. And they will deserve their punishment because God is just. Matt 13:21-22, among many other parables and passages in Revelation about their punishment.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro I never implied that the damned "didn't deserve" punishment. I am calling into question the issue of Divine torture. When Jesus warns that not all who call him at the End will be answered, he describes the response as: 'I never knew you. Away from me!'
This implies an impassable separation & estrangement rather than vindictive, repeated punishment exacted by God. Are the consequences torturous? Undoubtedly, but that's bc God is all that is good. Lose Him and find utter suffering.
fergusonat 4 months ago
@fergusonat
They are separated relationship.. this is the antithesis between light/dark, found/lost and you're correct that God will make it final. But it is repeated because it's everlasting---if the punishment is not everlasting, then our life is also not everlasting. That is the consistency of the verses, such as Matt 25:46.
It's a final separation and inability to come back to God, the doors of mercy will be closed and judgment(day, final) will be set and irreversible.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro I think we are in agreement ultimately :) However I do not believe God exerts Himself in the punishment. Sin and death is inherently absent of God. They are apart from his immense, unsearchable attributes. God cannot be what He is not. Anything apart from God is effectively nothing, and therefore permanently separated out of necessity. The depiction of God as an angry despot exacting pointed revenge on those who oppose him, simply put, is not the God I know and try to serve...
fergusonat 4 months ago
@fergusonat
"The depiction of God as an angry despot exacting pointed revenge on those who oppose him, simply put, is not the God I know and try to serve..."
I think you really need to read your Bible more... God's not going to exact pointless revenge, but proper and fitted judgement. People in the end times are going to be so proud and bold that when Christ returns to reign... they're going to try and overthrow Him. Uh... yeah read Joel 3:9-17 Revelation 14:17-20 and 2 Thess 1:5-10
droptozro 4 months ago
@fergusonat
God promises that He will exact vengeance, and the martyred saints will cry out for it in front of Him... Revelation 6:10.
I don't know, maybe you're just using words that are not fully expressing what you mean---but God is just, and angry at sin and sinners(Psalm 7:11, Psalm 5:5)--and if they don't repent, as a true King He is coming back and will rule with a rod of Iron to force those into submission who don't willfully submit. God bless
droptozro 4 months ago
Oh, and my last post ABSOLUTELY disproves your ridiculous claim about communism being "the natural result of atheism". If that was true, every atheist would be a communist. They're not, so you're wrong. Now, let's move on. You talk about "anything goes" morality? If history has taught us anything, it is that anything can be justified BY RELIGION. "It's God's will" = the best excuse for the worst deeds. The Nazis called the Holocaust God's will...the 9/11 terrorists had the same story.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Funny how now the atheist resorts to absolutes now that it supposedly proves his point. The reality is it does not. Anything goes w/ atheism. There is no set morality. You can do "good" as it may be defined by another religion/worldview. It's almost like borrowing from another religion, but still, how do you justify it? All you'd be saying is that one way's better than another, but, why? Based on feelings? Feelings are not logical.
kainosktisis1 1 year ago
@kainosktisis1
There is no set morality with religion. The eternally subjective nature of "God's will" means that the worst atrocities imaginable can be justified by invoking a higher power, which is why, over and over again throughout history, religion has been used as an excuse to kill, torture, oppress and conquer. Christianity is particularly useful in this regard, because the Bible contains so many passages in which God commands people to commit atrocities in his name.
garethac81 1 year ago
As for "comparing numbers", I can give you a dozen different examples of atrocities committed by people who openly described themselves as religious, and declared their actions in the name of religion. Can you give me even ONE example of an atrocity committed by someone who openly described themselves as an atheist, and declared their actions in the name of atheism? Here's a clue: None of the 20th century communist leaders did either of those two things.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81
" None of the 20th century communist leaders did either of those two things."
lol....wow! thought I read it all on utube....whoa! pol pot, stalin, and mao over a weekend picnic killed more people than ALL religions combined have in the last 2000 yrs....now explain to me what marxism teaches about God again....thanks
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika
Since you failed to answer my challenge in your last post, I'll repeat it for you:
Can you give me even ONE example of an atrocity committed by someone who openly described themselves as an atheist, and declared their actions in the name of atheism?
If you want to offer Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao as an example, then you'll have to show me a) evidence that they described themselves as atheists, and b) evidence that they committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. Well?
garethac81 1 year ago
lol.ur going somewhere that you do not want to go my friend.
Give me ONE example of a Christian who committed an atrocity in the name of Christianity...after u get 1,show me the verse from Jesus or the bible, where by this person was justified.
The religion of atheism could undoubtedly lead to atrocities in its namew/outGod as a moral giver, there are really no wrongs within ur religion, at its core. dictators & the sheep under this religion proved this many times over in last 100 yrs
infinitemika 1 year ago
One example? I'll give you three: The Crusades. The Inquisition. The Witch Trials. All carried out by self-declared devoted Christians in the name of Christianity. Which verse of the Bible they were following is irrelevant...the fact that these atrocities would not have occured without the pretense of "doing God's work" (which, as history teaches us, can mean ANYTHING, no matter how immoral) IS relevant.
Now that I've answered your challenge, do I need to make my challenge a THIRD time?
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81
"Which verse of the Bible they were following is irrelevant..." lol of course it is....what was I thinking...
crusades, inquisition & witch trials combined then times by 10 still wouldn’t add up to even one of the atheistic killers in the last centuries total slaughter numbers in the name atheistic marxism, Mao....
face it, atheist will NEVER win this argument, NEVER
infinitemika 1 year ago
@infinitemika
""Which verse of the Bible they were following is irrelevant..." lol of course it is....what was I thinking..."
the problem with your ignorance is that there is NO verse that would lead a Christian to kill, none..nada.... when a "christian" kills, hes NOT doing it in the name of .....ok...pls move on im tired of replying to your ignorance
infinitemika 1 year ago
The Crusades, The Witch Trials and the Inquisition were all perpetrated BY Christians, who claimed they were doing it BECAUSE they were Christians. You STILL haven't given me a single historical example of an atrocity committed by people who claimed they were atheists, and claimed they were doing it because they were atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...none of these men ever described themselves as atheists, and CERTAINLY never declared their atrocities in the name of atheism.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 but they WERE atheist, and if the history books tell it, then they must've shown it in their actions, even if they didn't say it. And if you're going to refer to the salem witch trials, all I can say is that NOT EVERYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A CHRISTIAN REALLY IS. a TRUE Chrisitian would tell you that those historic events were horrible mistakes; you should NEVER measure a religion by the level to which it is abused, or you will never be satisfied!
Cierrakahana 1 year ago
@garethac81 Besides, who ever declares anythign in the name of atheism? Of course they won't; atheism is a mere relative measure in everything, so it wouldn't really matter if they did. Have you ever considered that maybe some people just claim to be Christian so the blame is redirected from them onto the Christian community? Seriously, why does nobody think of this? It's like that one bible story, can't remember which, when Jesus said that people will do things like this, and shame us all.
Cierrakahana 1 year ago
@garethac81 The story went something like this; a man had asked Jesus why he'd seen bad things happen in the name of Christianity, and Jesus explained it to be basically identity theft. Something like "if someone stole your clothes and committed a bunch of crimes while dressed as you, you'd be affected, right? They'd blame you, and the real criminal would get away." So it is with many so-called god worshippers. They bring us all to shame with their lies, and we do not support them!
Cierrakahana 1 year ago
And the link between having no shame and secularism is...?
That's right. There IS no link. Theists attempt to portray a secular world as a world where people no longer have any need for morality...unfortunately, this attempt is constantly confounded by the truth of history. That truth is simply this: many of the most shameful acts of humankind were committed under divine inspiration. Oh, and since Ravi mentions him, that includes Adolph Hitler: devoted theist.
garethac81 1 year ago
The point in the full lecture is that our pluralistic society has surgically removed any reason to feel guilt for wrongdoing, since that guilt is a merely realization of your actions having socially inconvenienced others. So why not focus on solely yourself and to hell with everyone else? Now, if you want to compare numbers, how about atheistic communism with killed 80,000,000+ in 80 years. I think the depravity of man speaks for itself, but this is not a refutation of the existence of God.
YtseWolf7 1 year ago
@YtseWolf7
2 points:
1) If human beings have no interest in showing compassion to one another, then society ceases to function. To call this "social inconvenience" is a ludicrous understatement. Morality is essential to our very existence as civilised beings...you may as well claim that we need religion to tell us that oxygen is important.
garethac81 1 year ago
2) The fact that you've lumped together two different ideologies - "atheistic communism" - proves how little you've studied this subject. Firstly, communism was modelled after Christian theocracy, which worships an absolute ruler. Secondly, Stalin tore down thousands of Orthodox parishes in the 30's, then reopened them in the 40's. He was sufficiently indifferent to his atheism to support the church when it suited him politically - thus proving that atheism was NOT his primary motivation.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Here's one of his summation quotes from this lecture; "If pluralization is extrapolated into meaning moral relativism, that's when the danger signs begin." Frankly, I think that quote is hard to argue with but you're welcome to try.
YtseWolf7 1 year ago
"If pluralization is extrapolated into meaning moral relativism, that's when the danger signs begin."
That quote is easy to argue with...and here's why: the worst examples of moral relativism come not from atheism, but theism. In theism, everything is permissable if sanctioned by God. Murder, rape, slavery and genocide are all sanctioned by God in the Bible. Anyone who believes - for whatever reason, no matter how deluded - that they are doing "God's will" has license to do ANYTHING.
garethac81 1 year ago
Blah, blah, blah ... don't be gay ... blah, blah, blah ... believe in Angry Invisible Cloud Father who tells you to hate yourself if you're gay ... blah, blah, blah ... believe Leviticus 20:13 that says gay boys should be killed and be ashamed and suicidal if you are gay ... blah, blah, blah ... vote against gay marriage ... blah, blah, blah ... send me money for preying on your deepest fears -- I only raked in 10 million tax free last year ... blah, blah, blah ...
mmmrazor 1 year ago