
Originally Posted by
David M
God has made it very clear about the type of people who will perish. It is not necessary to produce a quote to support this. Universal salvation is not taught in the Bible and I shudder to think of the consequences if it was. It is not my place to judge nor is it my place to limit God's mercy.
You "shudder" to think that the Almighty God of Perfect Love would be able to redeem all creation, as it is written?
2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
God can't be "all in all" and have a hell full of billions of unreconciled sinners. Many early Christians were Universalists. This site says:As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says "most people" (plerique), and Augustine "very many" (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.
And there is a book (available online here) that says Universalism was the prevailing Christian doctrine until the fifth century. You should research the history of Christianity before you make such judgments.

Originally Posted by
David M
I don't understand why God would use "belief" in a dogma as a criterion for anything. Most people throughout history never even had a chance to "believe" because they never heard, and of those that have heard, most have held contrary beliefs. For example, you deny that Jesus is God. Most Christians would say that is a damnable heresy and so class you amongst the unbelievers who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are correct that Jesus is not God, then all the "orthodox" Christians would be damned because claiming a man to be God would be a blasphemous error.
Those who have not received the law, are not under the condemnation of the law and therefore, I leave it to God to be just and show mercy on whom He will, if they are judged.
God is looking for obedience. Jesus demonstrated perfect obedience. Faith and belief is necessary;(Heb 11:6)
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
With others, I claim Jesus is not God. If I am wrong in my belief of his nature, I cannot be accused of diminishing the victory and the accomplishment of Jesus or of not holding him in the highest esteem. I praise God for providing Jesus and providing a way for us to be saved. I acknowledge God as the One and only true God and that His Only Begotten Son is living for evermore and has earned the highest position in Heaven next to God, and who is presently our mediator between man and God and eventually we shall see Jesus and be with Jesus in the kingdom. I shall leave it to God to decide if what I believe is blasphemous' otherwise it is the word of man against me. I hold God in the highest possible esteem and Jesus as His only begotten Son. The promises of God are to those who believe this (John3:16) I am confident that the Trinity was wrongly derived at, but this is not the thread to continue this subject.
You didn't answer my question. Why would God use the criterion of "belief" to determine the eternal fate of a person? That makes no sense at all. What does my opinion about which religious dogmas are true or false have to do with my eternal fate?
Why would God accept or reject a person depending only on if they assert the Jesus is or is not the Son of God? I don't understand.

Originally Posted by
David M
John 3:16 for starters and this means understanding the implication of what this verse means. Faith only comes by hearing and hearing, by the Word of God. As for those religions that have produced their own books by which to teach the followers, then they can be dead in their sins if they are not doing as God requires and has revealed in His inspired word. You accuse me at times of not accepting the words at face value and saying they are as plain as day and yet verses that are likewise clear as day, relating to the nature of Jesus, you cannot accept (as a lot of others). The thread on 'Jesus is not God' has come to a halt for the moment, it is time I think to produce as much evidence for and against and see which way the balance tips.
Mormons believe John 3:16. Are they saved?
You say that I must "understand the implications of what this verse means." That's the problem. The devil is in the details. Everyone has different "interpretations" of what that verse means. Calvinists say the "whosoever" applies only to the Elect and that the idea that anyone can choose to believe is a heresy. And on it goes - why would anyone believe that God would determine our eternal fate based upon our half-informed fallible opinions about the meaning of an ancient book written in Greek? It makes no sense to me at all.

Originally Posted by
David M
Once you have been told the Truth of God's Word, you cannot say you have not been told. You are expected to do your own due diligence and check what you hear and read with the word of God. Few people properly understand it because they do not take the time to find out what it means. It takes many hours to read the Bible. At first it helps to be guided in what to read to get to the fundamental truths more quickly. God has put on record so much in the Bible, it is a lifetime's study and a lifetime is not long enough to appreciate everything it is telling us. Reading the Bible over and over, brings new revelations each time. It is amazing how much can be brought to light by considering small passages of scripture. Unless, you have a desire to search out the truth, only a fraction of what God is teaching in His revealed word is appreciated. The more it is studied in depth, the more wonderful the divine authorship is seen. People who mock the Bible, are the ones who either have not read it fully, or have not tried to understand it. Hosea 6:4 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,
Your answer only amplifies the problem. It's all a matter of highly disputable INTERPRETATIONS made by fallible and ignorant people. Everybody has different opinions and nobody can have any certainty that their opinions are correct. It would be insane for God to judge people by such a standard.

Originally Posted by
David M
Why should God save those who completely reject Him?
Nobody is rejecting "God" - we are rejecting a demonstrably fallacious ancient book that makes false claims about God. There is a world of difference. And the true God would understand that it would be entirely irrational to condemn people to an eternal hell (or annihilation, or whatever) because of the opinion they held about such a book.

Originally Posted by
David M
Why should God save nations which have completely rejected Him? How can you say of nations that are Godless, and who practice idolatry that anyone of those people is guiltless or innocent? Babies are innocent but also of an age not to understand while it is horrible to read of, it is the parents who are at fault and guilty of bringing God's vengeance on themselves. Babies would grow up in an idolatrous and wicked culture and become adults equally rejecting God. What happens if you kill all the adults and spare the babies? Who looks after them? They would die if left alone.
So you advocate killing babies because they would have no one to care for them? Why then did Moses kill everyone except the 32,000 virgins? Obviously, they had a "use" for those women. To hell with rest.
God could have driven those people out of the land any way he wanted to. He didn't have to order his people to become murderous genocidal maniacs. Have you no concept of what murdering thousands of women and children would do to your soul? It would totally brutalize you! Why would God freely choose to corrupt his people like that? He had no limit to the choices he could have made. He freely CHOSE violence. And oddly enough, it seems to be his "modus operandi." Why is God so enamored with VIOLENCE????

Originally Posted by
David M
God has shown patience tolerating the nations as long as He has. Look at the number of nations and people that have rejected Him. Man has shown he is incapable of ruling himself in ways that are right. For the last 2000 years God has left us with the teaching and the example of His Son and what has man done? The world is no better for letting man rule. The attrocities Rose is attributing to God, pale compared to the killing that has gone on in all the wars throughout the world. Have faith that God will deal justly with the innocent and do not limit His grace to be merciful on whom He will. In the meantime, teach the ways of the Lord are just. Hosea 14:9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.
The world is infinitely better when humans rule with no religious dogmas. Just compare life under the medieval Roman Catholic Church or under the modern Taliban and you must admit this truth.
It is not Rose who attributes moral abominations to God. IT IS THE BIBLE that says those things about him.

Originally Posted by
David M
You are not condemned for being honest. I am not going to judge. God knows your heart and if your heart is right with God, that is all that counts. As I have said in another post to you, take out of the Bible, all that offends you and see what you have left. Can you believe in God with what you have left? Rose and you are highlighting what you consider are abominable things done by God. I suggest you list the ways that God has demonstrated His love and His patience and His longsuffering. Consider all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering. Rightly balance the word of God so you get things into the right perspective. Others have, and others are countering your claims. I would worry if they could not. The fact is; your arguments are not water-tight. I do not express myself that well on occassions and use the wrong words, and I can understand the way you show the weakness in some of the statements made and how you point out the weakness of other's statements, which I would agree with you. I think you need to think about what others are saying instead of leaping to rubbish alternative explanations. As a bystander, I appreciate the arguments presented from both sides and I am more likely to see a middle way. All possible interpretations should be held in abeyance, until all the evidence is in, by which to make a balanced decision.
That's a very good suggestion. I can see how you might think that we are "skewed" towards the problems in the Bible. But you must not forget that I spent over a decade proclaim the wonders of God's Word and the glory of the Gospel. So now I'm just balancing the record.
But let me follow your advice. You want me to consider "all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering." That's the problem. His "promises" are all for the "sweet bye and bye" - an imaginary future. Is there any reason I should believe those promises? If God refuses to answer any prayer in this life why should I believe that he would hold good to those promises? It's all just fantasy - you believe it because it's in the book. You have not given me any reason I should think those promises are true. And worse, the whole concept of God presented in the Bible is obviously false because there is no "God" who goes about doing things or intervening in human affairs. The proof is obvious. Suppose I knew that the Haitian earthquake would kill 200,000 people and I had the ability to warn them but did not. I would be a MORAL MONSTER if I failed to warn them. Therefore, the God of the Bible is either a moral monster or he does not exist.

Originally Posted by
David M
Stated plainly, it seems insane to me. I can't imagine that the true God would set up such an irrational system of salvation.
How is it irrational? God knows the end from the beginning. God has a plan and He has a stratedgy. This does not have to mean that every tactical move was planned by God, but God uses tactics at the time to bring about His pupose and keep His plan on course.
Right from the very beginning, the principle is; there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. That principle was in force up to the time God gave His only begotten Son as the perfect one-off sacrifice. We do not enter the Kingdom of God by taking an exam at the end of our lives. We are judged by the person we are and what we have done with our lives and whether we have believed in God and His Son and tried to be obedient and do the will of God. By rights we have all sinned and therefore (with the exception of Jesus), no one deserves to be in the kingdom of God.
It is irrational because God would know that an intelligent and careful reading of the Bible gives any reasonable person good reason to reject it.
And worse, even if the Bible could be trusted, it would still be irrational to base a person's eternal fate upon their fallible intellectual opinion about a book.
You seem to be changing the rules. What determines a person's eternal fate? Is it belief in Jesus or following rules or being a good person or having my heart right with God? Or what?
As for the concept that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. That's what primitive people all over the planet have believed, long before Judaism or Christianity evolved. Primitive people have always been into bloody sacrifices. Most if not every doctrine in the NT can be found in the mystery religions that predated it. Read the book Mystery Religions by S. Angus for a good introduction to these facts.

Originally Posted by
David M
I am thankful that God was so merciful to king David for the two offences he committed and for which he would have been put to death; God spared him. That gives me hope for all the wrong I have done, and yet I do not feel I match up to the stature of David, whereby God called David, "a man after His own heart". You criticize God for not putting David to death under the penalty of the law and ignore the fact that God was very merciful. If David had been put to death, we would not have so many Psalms written by him which teach us so much about David's character and his thoughts towards God. God knows our hearts and whatever we say by word of mouth or in print, God knows the intent of our hearts. How contrite are we? Do we recognize that we need forgiveness?
I did not "ignore" that God was "merciful" to David. The problem is that God was inconsistent and unjust. He was "merciful" to the guilty (David) and unjust to the innocent child he chose to slay to "punish" David. That seems like very bad morals to me. God set up a law with supposed "consequences" and then arbitrarily violates his own law and imposes a death penalty on an innocent child.

Originally Posted by
David M
I can liken God selecting His people for the kingdom to be like gathering precious stones (gems). Gems are few and far between. Amongst the hundreds of tons of dirt you find one precious stone here and there. Do we consider oursleves as precious stones chosen by God making up His jewels? I think there will be a great multitude in the kingdom to come, but few by comparison to the billions that have ever lived. How many more will be saved during the millennium reign of Christ? We have no idea; it could be millions.
So only "good people" get saved, eh? Why then do they need salvation if they are already "gems" that God finds?
Again, your doctrine is contrary to the dominant teachings of historical Christianity.
Great chatting!
Richard
Bookmarks