Posted                         

quote:

---

Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

You're asking us in this thread to imagine what we would do if we believed a number of things, including that

quote:

---

Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.

---

In order to imagine that, I'd need to know what you mean by that "acknowledge".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I'm not sure what this leads me to think, except that I suppose we'll all find out the truth after we're dead and perhaps there is little point fighting about it now?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
So I can only conclude that you mean that we live in a universe totally controlled by a supremely powerful Being whose value system rates self-glorification higher than goodness (in the common usage of the word). Who a prudent man may collaborate with for reasons of self-preservation but no moral being can morally look up to.

---

I think there is an element of this in God.

If there wasn't, why would the first two commandments be all about worshipping Him, and Him alone? I think God has quite an ego .

---

Unless it's about truth rather than Divine Ego ? I always thought God wanted us to worship him, and him alone, because it was the truthful and right thing to do, and that giving worship to anything else was at best useless and at worst harmful. I don't think I ever saw it as fulfilling a 'need' in God's flagging ego !

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I'm not sure what this leads me to think, except that I suppose we'll all find out the truth after we're dead and perhaps there is little point fighting about it now?

---

Unless you believe there is nothing you can do about it after you are dead. Which was the point of the thread.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I always thought God wanted us to worship him, and him alone, because it was the truthful and right thing to do, and that giving worship to anything else was at best useless and at worst harmful

---

quote:

---

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I suppose we'll all find out the truth after we're dead and perhaps there is little point fighting about it now? (Unless of course those who think we'll all get what we expect are correct, then we'll all be able to go to heaven, hell, eternity or oblivion with smug looks on our faces, and God will have a good chortle at us all).

---

There is a story in the doctrines of my church, in which Christians who had recently arrived in the next life were gathered together to a conference. The topic of the conference was "What heaven is like." Everyone was asked to give their opinion of what happens to a person after death.

The recent arrivals gave the opinions that are commonly believed among Christians in this world. Some thought that those who accepted Christ would reign with Him for a thousand years. Others that they would feast with Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Others envisioned life in paradisal gardens. Still others expected perpetual glorification of God in glorious cathedrals.

Each group was then given the opportunity to experience the heaven that they had their hearts set on.

The settings were astounding. The gardens, cathedrals, feasts and thrones were beyond what anyone could ever imagine in this world. Each group's joy exceeded their wildest dreams, believing that they had at last entered heaven itself.

After some time, however, the groups were visited again. They were no longer quite so happy. The joy of feasting, living in paradise, worshiping, and reigning with Christ, had faded. They realized that these were not things that you could enjoy forever. Their dreams were ruined.

Angels then instructed them and told them that they were not lost. Heaven is not a place of happiness that you are admitted to. Heaven is within you.

That is, if you have been willing to receive heavenly love into your heart from God then you are in heaven.

Heavenly love is the love of serving others and serving God because you care more about them than about yourself. The expression of this love is a life of useful activity. A varied life, that is organized around this kind of desire to serve, brings the kind of eternal happiness that does not grow stale. This is what Jesus taught, and believing in Him means to understand this and have it in your heart and life.

The recent arrivals heard this news, and they were overjoyed that they were not lost. They saw that their ideas were not right, and since they did actually believe in the Lord and have this love in their hearts they were able to adjust their thinking.

I believe that in a sense the OP is right. But it's not the details of that belief (which I mostly disagree with) that save a person. It is the change of heart that a person who lives in obedience to Jesus experiences. When they arrive in heaven they will gradually learn what the truth actually is. If they have heavenly love from God in their hearts they will be able to accept it. If not they will seek out people who think and live the way they do. Depending on what those people are like this could well be a "lake of fire" experience.

But what if the OP is literally right? I don't think that anyone can orient their life around what they don't truly believe.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:
the post began on a bad premise. no wonder a lot of people don't like the god the premise is describing.

first stop, we are not saved by by obeying all the commandments of the bible. salvation by grace means, we are not the savior of ourselves. their is a GOD who is loving and is ever ready to save us if we let HIM. if you want a life free of sin he will give you a chance. satan wants you to believe its impossible to live a sin free life. GOD says you can. JESUS led a sin free life with GOD's help.
2nd, people in old testament are not saved by doing the guidelines set out in scripture, for then this would be considered their savior. their is only one SAVIOR for humanity for all time, that is JESUS. the ceremonies that they perform points to JESUS' sacrifice on the cross. old testament people should believe that JESUS' sacrifice in the future will pay for the penalty of their sin.
3rd, there is no real hell NOW. satan is not in hell now. GOD threw that dragon satan here on earth as described in revelation. he is not in charge of hell. who gave him the authority? GOD is the absolute ruler of the universe, the future hell included. at the end of the world when HE comes, he will judge the world, those who permitted GOD to save them will given eternal fellowship with HIM, those who chose to continue to perpetuate their depraved and sinful existence will not be permitted to continue. "they will be thrown in the lake of fire."
4th, the purpose of hell is to burn sinners, to put an end to their existence. the fire of hell will consume them. just like the eternal fire that ravaged sodom and gomorrah consumed them, the inhabitants and their works. GOD does not take enjoyment from the torment of the wicked. GOD wants to save all people, a hitler included. but a lot of people dont want to be saved.

people should not be scared by the torment of hell to take refuge in the gates of heaven. they should be won by GOD's love and sacrifice. that's salvation by grace 101.

---

Hello sanc, welcome

First, I'd appreciate it if you didn't type as if you are stabbing me in the chest with your finger. Thanks.

Second, I think you make some interesting points, although I don't really think you have adequately answered the Hitler issue. Surely grace is rather severely cheapened if Hitler can do all the things he did, say sorry and get into heaven.

Third, do you really think God wants to burn sinners? Maybe it is not what you meant, but suggesting that God was the 'absolute ruler' of all the universe including hell implies to me some level of preplanning. It might well be crap theology but my impression is that at the last God will have tried every way he knows to lovingly convince people to chose life, but some will be so wrapped up in themselves that they will not want to know. Like a broken hearted father, God will watch them leave with tears in his eyes.

Hope you enjoy the ride, sanc.

Freddy - that is interesting. I have heard a philosophy before that said people experience the afterlife they believe in (uh-oh I think it might have been from Terry Pratchett ). I hope to see a large number of people in heaven I am not expecting. Frankly, there are some who have had such appalling lives down here that they deserve it and the God I believe in would not cast them away. I hope to be there and what an honour it will be to be amoungst them.

C

--------------------
arse

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,

but how much confidence do you have in your interpretation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,
if you were a doctor, would you try and witness to each dying patient - for as long as necessary to acheive conversion. would you withold painkillers in the last hours lest they prevent a conversion?

or would your god given common sense tell you that whatever your interpretation of a passage, this didn't seem like the right way to act?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Hello sanc, welcome

First, I'd appreciate it if you didn't type as if you are stabbing me in the chest with your finger. Thanks.

Second, I think you make some interesting points, although I don't really think you have adequately answered the Hitler issue. Surely grace is rather severely cheapened if Hitler can do all the things he did, say sorry and get into heaven.

Third, do you really think God wants to burn sinners? Maybe it is not what you meant, but suggesting that God was the 'absolute ruler' of all the universe including hell implies to me some level of preplanning. It might well be crap theology but my impression is that at the last God will have tried every way he knows to lovingly convince people to chose life, but some will be so wrapped up in themselves that they will not want to know. Like a broken hearted father, God will watch them leave with tears in his eyes.

Hope you enjoy the ride, sanc.

Freddy - that is interesting. I have heard a philosophy before that said people experience the afterlife they believe in (uh-oh I think it might have been from Terry Pratchett ). I hope to see a large number of people in heaven I am not expecting. Frankly, there are some who have had such appalling lives down here that they deserve it and the God I believe in would not cast them away. I hope to be there and what an honour it will be to be amoungst them.

C

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,

but how much confidence do you have in your interpretation?

---

Much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
sharkshooter,
if you were a doctor, would you try and witness to each dying patient - for as long as necessary to acheive conversion. would you withold painkillers in the last hours lest they prevent a conversion?

or would your god given common sense tell you that whatever your interpretation of a passage, this didn't seem like the right way to act?

---

This is too much of a tangent - it has lost any sense of the purpose of the thread.

---

quote:

---

What if ...

There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.

Have you seriously considered it? What would you do/change if you were suddenly, somehow, convinced of it? How would it affect you?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
i am fundamentalist and inerrantist. because of my fundamentalist, inerrantist interpretation of Matthew 25, i do not believe that only those professing Jesus as Lord will go to heaven.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
so tell me - would you advise me to do that?

---

quote:

---

would you withold painkillers in the last hours lest they prevent a conversion?

---

quote:

---

I see a person living a life in accordance with the teachings of scripture - a person who has dedicated his/her life to following Christ. I see a person who is sharing his/her faith in Jesus with family/friends/etc. - with words, too. I see someone daily reading the Bible and praying. I see someone who is active in his/her church and working for the betterment of the community because of a belief that that is what the Bible teaches. I see someone actively involved in promoting Christianity locally and worldwide - and willing to take the heat for it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
it says that those who did not recognise they were doing anything for the lord will nevertheless enter heaven because of their actions (feeding hungry, visiting prisoners)

they are defined as righteous, and worthy of heaven because of their action, not their profession - and given that they did not recognise they were doing it for christ, it is hard to see that they were professing him as lord.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I always thought God wanted us to worship him, and him alone, because it was the truthful and right thing to do, and that giving worship to anything else was at best useless and at worst harmful

---

God did use rather harsh words for something that might be "useless or at worst harmful":

quote:

---

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

---

Jealous, punishing, loving - all in One. I didn't write it - I just believe it - all of it.

---

Punishment isn't 'harmful'? Have I not embellished the word 'harmful' with enough overtones of fire and brimstone? Forgive the understatement. Let me elaborate, then. By 'harmful' I mean engaging in behaviour which is destructive either to others', or to one's own, humanity. Is that a wide enough catch-all to satisfy even the most sadistic rendering of what God would like to do to people who get on his wrong side?

Leaving aside the obvious Old Testament comeback from Ezekiel that 'the son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father....', referring to the learning processes of repentance undergone by Israel and Judah as they progressed in their relationship with God; I'm well aware that God is jealous for the worship of his creation.

Again, I would assume this is because it is the right and truthful thing to do? And not because he'll go to bed of an evening all huffy because he's being ignored?

I really can't imagine anyone would like to champion the 'God's got this big ego and it needs to be satisfied' argument over 'worshipping God pleases him and is demanded by him, because it is good and right to do it' !

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
No - it doesn't define them as righteous because of their actions. It describes them as righteous, then lists some of their actions.

Besides, basic prinicple of understanding scripture for inerrantists (and others) is that you understand scripture in the light of scripture. Hence the word "righteous" in Matthew is defined by Matthew as a whole (maybe even bringing in the rest of the Bible), of which the last bit of Matt 25 is only a part.

Custard

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
...believing someone just needs to make an acknowledgement of christ on their death bed to escape hell would lead to some of the kinds of behaviour i describe.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
...believing someone just needs to make an acknowledgement of christ on their death bed to escape hell would lead to some of the kinds of behaviour i describe.

---

Could, not would.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
...believing someone just needs to make an acknowledgement of christ on their death bed to escape hell would lead to some of the kinds of behaviour i describe.

---

Could, not would.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
JJ - I don't see a wall; I see Leprechaun giving honest answers and thinking carefully about what he/she believes.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
how else should we interpret this passage?

---

Ideally I'd spend a few days looking at the passage now, but don't have the time.



Maybe Kerygmania would be a better place for this one....

Here are some quick thoughts though.

In context (Mt 24-25), it seems to be about how those who profess to follow Jesus should live in the light of the fact that we do not know when Jesus will come back. This is the last in a sequence of 4 (or 5) parables from Mt 24:43 onwards. All the previous ones have been about aspects of being ready, so this one probably is too.

The passage itself has several different ways of describing those who go to heaven, including "you who are blessed by my Father" and even "you for whom a kingdom was prepared before the creation of the world" which comes before any mention of their actions.

So what is it about their actions?

The righteous are seen to be righteous by their love for God's people (and it is referring to stuff done for Christians v40). They see themselves as unworthy, but God counts positive actions on their part as demonstrating their saved status.

The cursed (v41), by contrast, think that they are worthy. What God counts as demonstration of their unworthiness, however, is not their actions but their omissions (v45). They aren't necessarily better than the "righteous" - the righteous did not feed, visit everyone. The actions are measured differently for the blessed and the cursed.

So what makes the difference in the passage?
Two things:

* Whether God describes them as blessed or cursed.
* Whether they think they are righteous or not.

So how should we be ready? In a sense, we can't be.

I'm sure there's a lot more there that I've missed, but that's a few quick thoughts.

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
Ideally I'd spend a few days looking at the passage now, but don't have the time.

---

too....

but my point is that with an inerrantist, fundamentalist approach, i arrive at very different conclusions about the nature of judgement.....which seem to be not instantly dismissable.......although you clearly have arguments to support your different interpretation.

my other point (above) was the kinds of behaviour i would logically get drawn into by believing the OP.

--------------------
unbwogable

Posted                         

quote:

---

But where does love fit into the explanation of Hell? I know the argument resembling the classic parents' line: I love you so much that I punish you. But that doesn't entirely explain it I don't think.

---

quote:

---

If God has an unquenchable love for every person he has created, why would he let it be extinguished for people who have neglected, overlooked, or been influenced away from it for whatever fortuitous reasons?

---

quote:

---

Logic fails: if there is a traditional Hell then there is a limit to Love. If there is not then there isn't truly a free will.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.

He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.

His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.

To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.

---

I think the point is that your view makes God's love conditional on our actions- just like humans love conditionally. "I won't love you anymore, if you don't love me." "If I can't have you, nobody can (including you)! " Many of us think God is much better than human.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posted                      

quote:

---

He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jealous, punishing, loving - all in One. I didn't write it - I just believe it - all of it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.

He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.

His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.

To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
Marvin - forgive me, but, if it weren't so sad, it would be hysterically funny that your view of God is so literalist - and therefore so vile - that you're struggling with the first and second commandments. I thought Anselmina's response was spot on.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character...

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
they only seem to get called righteous after their actions are first described - and it does seem to be on the basis of their actions that they get into heaven. and as i say above, they do seem completely unaware that their actions were done for christ until told.
how else should we interpret this passage?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm putting myself into the position of a literalist for the purposes of this thread...I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character... Besides, my post on the first two commandments was very tongue in cheek. I thought the smilie gave that away, but apparently I was wrong.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
but my point is that with an inerrantist, fundamentalist approach, i arrive at very different conclusions about the nature of judgement.....which seem to be not instantly dismissable.......although you clearly have arguments to support your different interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
my other point (above) was the kinds of behaviour i would logically get drawn into by believing the OP.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm putting myself into the position of a literalist for the purposes of this thread...I feel like I'm an actor in a play, and you actually think I am the character... Besides, my post on the first two commandments was very tongue in cheek. I thought the smilie gave that away, but apparently I was wrong.

---

But what about all your other posts? If you're adopting the role for the sake of this thread, then stay in role. Don't take up a role and then, when you're challenged, say, "Oh, but this isn't really what I believe anyway."

---

quote:

---

Who benefits when you adopt a role for the sake of the argument? Both sides (and there are clear 'sides' here) are diminished.

---

quote:

---

Why bother making 'tongue-in-cheek' comments about God?

---

Why not? If we relate to God only in reverence and fear (Biblical sense!), I think that is an incomplete relationship. God's someone you can laugh with, cry with, be angry or content with and yes, even take the mickey out of occasionally

quote:

---

So - do you think the God of the OP is an egotistical tyrant or not? Why not come out of role and tell us what you think?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

1. We are not in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
   
   This is because the God described in the OP is really God and thus the author of morality, and any criticism of his morality is a failure of understanding on our part.
2. We are in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
   
   I suggest two reasons why this can be so:
   
   
   1. Morality is independent of God, and thus God can be judged against it.
   2. The God described in the OP is not God, and is condemned against the standard of the real God, either implicitly by a God-given inituition that suggests that something is wrong with the picture described in the OP, or explicitly by comparing the God of the OP against Scripture and/or Tradition.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I'm not going to try to define it, but describe how it would look if one were to "acknowledge Jesus as Lord."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Now you see, I thought you were asking us to imagine that we believed that there was a strict rule that the acknowledgers go to Heaven and the non-acknowledgers go to Hell, with "acknowledging" being some well-defined action.

But in the light of your response, perhaps that's not what you mean at all. Perhaps what you want us to believe is not that there's a hard-and-fast rule, but that instead we are to be judged by a living personal God who will take account of our entire life. So that (for instance) we can't make a deathbed conversion and get in on a technicality.

Is that closer to what you intend us to imagine ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sungara:
but my point is that with an inerrantist, fundamentalist approach, i arrive at very different conclusions about the nature of judgement.....which seem to be not instantly dismissable.......although you clearly have arguments to support your different interpretation.

---

were you really an inerrantist, the discussion would then go towards which conclusion was what Jesus was actually saying there. Yes, Bible study is hard work. But the Bible is consistent, and studying it is worth doing.

---

quote:

---

Ideally I'd spend a few days looking at the passage now, but don't have the time.

---

quote:

---

unfortunately wasn't that realistic. It's not me who "achieves a conversion" - it's God.
<snip>
Would I do that by forcing my point of view onto them? No, because I can't give faith. God does that as the person turns to him.

Would I pray that I would get an opportunity to talk gently about Jesus with a terminally ill patient? Of course.

Would I withhold treatment to force such an opportunity? No, because that wouldn't be doing my job properly.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
God looks at the heart/mind, and it is acknowledging Jesus there that matters.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

1. We are not in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
   
   This is because the God described in the OP is really God and thus the author of morality, and any criticism of his morality is a failure of understanding on our part.
2. We are in a position to rightfully criticize the morality of the God described in the OP.
   
   I suggest two reasons why this can be so:
   
   </font>
   1. Morality is independent of God, and thus God can be judged against it.
   2. The God described in the OP is not God, and is condemned against the standard of the real God, either implicitly by a God-given inituition that suggests that something is wrong with the picture described in the OP, or explicitly by comparing the God of the OP against Scripture and/or Tradition.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

---

This is a bit wordy but I think I understand (and basically agree with it). For me a better way to characterise the differences in this thread is to say that they have to do views of the Bible. For some, their view of the Bible is such that its apparent revelation of God must simply be taken as a given. Any apparent contradictions or tensions must be lived with, or explained away using twisted logic.

For myself and others, a literal reading of the scriptures
actually results in a picture of God which is not self-consistent. So since we are not wedded to a fundamentalist view of the authority of scripture, we are at liberty to interpret scripture according to a framework which makes God logically consistent, with the fundamental anchor point being God-in-Christ's self-revelation as sacrificial love. This is the point psyduck makes in his excellent post.

It also provides the response I would give to Grits' post:

quote:

---

It seems to me that everyone continues to ignore the most basic of all answers to these queries about God's love.

He loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that all might be given the opportunity to profess their belief in Him, be baptized, and be saved.

His love is shown in the gift of His Son. Our love is shown in our response to that gift. The reward is eternal life in heaven with Him.

To me, this is one of the most basic and (excuse me) fundamental of all Christian beliefs. I still cannot get used to it being questioned as it has been here.

---

Grits I'm not aware that anyone is questioning the fact that God's gift of his Son shows his love. Quite the contrary, I think that what some of us are saying is that the love shown by God-in-Christ is foundational to God's character, and if this is so, then other parts of your story (eg only saving those who profess belief in him) are unworthy of the God of love.

Or to put it another way, we look at the big picture and ask, would a God loving enough to sacrifice the Son really set up a world such that the vast majority of those created in his image would end up in eternal torture? And the only answer we can give in the light of the love shown in Christ is "No, such a God of love could not do that - we must have misunderstood his plan."

---

I disagree with your premise that we are entitled to 'judge' God by our standards of morality. I disagree because man's concept of morality is subjective and relativist whereas God's is objective and unchanging.

This is also where I take issue with the posters who have said, in effect, "Ugh! I could never love such a god!"; there is too much of the "clay answering back to the potter" (as Jeremiah would put it) - an attempt to judge God which we are simply not permitted to do. The bottom line for me is this: if we want God to be just, then we all deserve to go to Hell, because we have all fallen short of His perfect standard (Rom 3 etc); we are certainly in no position to judge Him. Thats the starting-point, for all of us. Alternatively, God then becomes created in our own image, a kind of cross between Santa Claus and Professor Dumbledore, who invites us into his study and says "Never mind that you've sinned, it really doesn't matter because it is dreadfully hard to be good; now have a humbug and try not to sin again, but don't worry if you do because it IS dreadfully hard to be good"

The love and mercy bit, as Grits has rightly said, is that God has provided us all (including Hitler if he wanted it) an undeserved way out of that predicament through Jesus, for those who wish to accept it. That goes beyond justice.

So, I have no problem with the God of the OP (although Sharkshooter should have thown in love as that's quite fundamental) - He's the God I love, worship and know, and He is not merely just but also merciful. And, Grits

Yours in Christ

Matt

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

---

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged