Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[For_The_Kingdom]

See this is what I am talking about. People conflating their beliefs with The Truth and then regarding that as a licences to insult others with.

I fail to see how it is "insulting" to others...especially if you don't believe in hell. Heck, I don't believe in Islam...and if a Muslim condemns me to the Islamic hell...I surely won't feel "insulted", or even worried, for that matter.

But hey.

As the observant are aware, none of us were 'there at the time' and assuming Jesus did exist and assuming Jesus did speak of hell, the aforementioned observant understand that Christendom itself is well divided on what 'Hell' actually is, so The Truth is that all Christians should refrain from using the idea that humans are evil in the sight of GOD and that GOD is going to send them to hell, as a means to attack individuals or groups.

Point granted. However, I still don't see how it is an "attack", if you don't believe in hell.

Again, conflating ones belief systems with The Truth, is one of the reasons why this problem exists. Believing something is 'the truth' does not make it 'the truth'.

It shouldn't be a problem, though. If you don't believe in hell, why are you so insulted? I will gladly play the "atheist" role, here: Do you believe in Santa Claus? Probably not. So, if someone told you that unless you believe in Santa Claus, you won't get any gifts for Christmas. Are you insulted? If you don't believe in Santa Claus, why even get caught up in the mess? Why worry? Why care?

And I would say that is creating potential business opportunity and controlling individuals though guilt and fear mongering.

Well, that is what you call it. And besides, no need to fear what you don't believe in, right?

Love has to be motivated by the actual truth, and it is plain that - as already mentioned - Christendom is divided on the actual existence of hell and what is actually meant by that.

Ok, and those who doesn't believe in it (hell) don't have anything to worry about, do they?

Until that question is sorted, one needs to refrain from calling one's particular interpretation about it as being 'the truth' of the matter and using that belief to attack others with and declaring that this is motivated by LOVE!!! No abuse is motivated by Love!

Let me set the record straight; I know that God exists, and I have reasons to believe that it is the Judeo-Christian God. So, I've just distinguished what I "know", and what I "believe".

That being said...the entire theme of Christianity is based on love. What person loves you so much that he will let his Son suffer for what you've done (John 3:16). And what person loves you enough that he will allow himself to suffer for what you've done (John 15:13).

If you don't see the love there, then I don't know what to tell you.

I reiterate that deciding what is abuse or not cannot be done on the basis of what one believes.

I agree.

In that case such a thing is best left an issue for the departed rather than used as a device of abuse in the here and the now.

We will all be there (dead) soon. Hey, Pascal's Wager (which I'm sure you are familiar with)..

"Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[William]

[Replying to post 61 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, and those who doesn't believe in it (hell) don't have anything to worry about, do they?

Lets just go with this for the time being.

Are you saying that you believe that those who don't believe in hell won't be going to hell?

IF

Your answer is 'yes';

THEN

There should be no need for you to preach that people are evil and that GOD is going to send them to hell.

IF

Your answer is 'no'

THEN

Regardless of what people believe or not, your preaching that people are evil and that GOD is going to send them to hell can be regarded as offensive even that 'those who don't believe you shouldn't be offended'.

This is to say that, while individual people may or may not be offended, the point is that what you are preaching as 'the truth' is still offensive.

Just in the same way that a person's racial bigotry might not offend those who choose not to believe the reasons WHY a person is bigoted as 'The Truth', does not mean that the person is therefore exempt from having to follow rules which prohibit such expression.

Oh, and about this;

Let me set the record straight; I know that God exists, and I have reasons to believe that it is the Judeo-Christian God. So, I've just distinguished what I "know", and what I "believe".

If you know something is an actual fact (as your claim above seems to imply) then you have to support such claims with evidence.

Essentially you are saying that you are justified in [strike]abusing[/strike] 'loving' others because you KNOW that this GOD exists and you KNOW that this GOD sees humans as evil and you KNOW that this GOD created hell for such individuals and you KNOW that this GOD will send them to hell...and so your argument tries to justify belief by calling it knowledge, and since it is now knowledge-based, to tell people they are evil and going to be sent to hell for eternal suffering is not 'abuse' but 'based on fact and you are only warning them in advance because of 'love'.

In order for you to take this position you have to declare you beliefs as something you KNOW to be The Truth.

Thus, you also have to provide evidence to support your assertion.

Show us this GOD.

Or:

Withdraw your claim.

You know you cannot show us the GOD so your only option is to withdraw your claim.

To underline my argument. At some point in the history of human language, it was agreed that 'to believe' and 'to know' could be used interchangeably. This in effect gives people the opportunity to make declarations of belief as if the declarations were actually The Truth. Sorry, but this is not actually the case. Belief remains belief-based and knowledge remains knowledge-based. Agreeing otherwise is simply being untruthful.

Once belief-based theories become proven, then they become knowledge-based actualities, and making belief and knowledge interchangeably expressions only serve to muddy the waters and give belief equal footing with knowledge, which is simply being untruthful.

The above is just noting. If you want to argue it more, please create another thread to do so.

[marco]

What person loves you so much that he will let his Son suffer for what you've done (John 3:16). And what person loves you enough that he will allow himself to suffer for what you've done (John 15:13).

If you don't see the love there, then I don't know what to tell you.

I completely agree with you that one should feel no insult when fervid folk say you will end up in Hell, when you know there is no such place. I disagree with you about there being "love" in a father watching his son being tortured and killed to put right some offence he has personally felt. One can call this sadism, cruelty, savagery.... but not love. The demi-god Paul said: "Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not arrogant..." He didn't need to say love killeth not one's own son to quench one's anger …. for that wouldn't be love.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 58 by For_The_Kingdom]

The truth is the truth, and will remain true regardless of ones personal feelings/attitudes towards it.

See this is what I am talking about. People conflating their beliefs with The Truth and then regarding that as a licences to insult others with.

You don't think that what you believe is the truth? How is this different from your preaching your truth and insinuating (or stronger) that those who do not accept it are stupid, deluded or worse?

[marco]

You don't think that what you believe is the truth? How is this different from your preaching your truth and insinuating (or stronger) that those who do not accept it are stupid, deluded or worse?

Perhaps the wisest course is not to claim we are in possession of the truth. We have fragments of truth, as in mathematics, but when we move to questions of existence or what existence means, we have only speculation. We may all be dreamers.

[ttruscott]

He didn't need to say love killeth not one's own son to quench one's anger …. for that wouldn't be love.

I doubt if you can prove the bible supports the contention that killing HIS own son quenched HIS anger. HE was never angry at sinners who were under HIS promise of salvation as found in HIS Son's death, they were never under HIS wrath, only HIS promise. Christ's death satisfied justice on our behalf and allowed us to return.

[ttruscott]

You don't think that what you believe is the truth? How is this different from your preaching your truth and insinuating (or stronger) that those who do not accept it are stupid, deluded or worse?

Perhaps the wisest course is not to claim we are in possession of the truth. We have fragments of truth, as in mathematics, but when we move to questions of existence or what existence means, we have only speculation. We may all be dreamers.

Which I add is a pretty good reason not to scorn others...

[PinSeeker]

I completely agree with you that one should feel no insult when fervid folk say you will end up in Hell, when you know there is no such place.

No, what he (or she?) is saying is that, if you don't believe there is any such place, then it's silly for you to feel "insulted" or "attacked," and further that, insofar as you are concerned, you don't have anything to worry about. In other words, ignorance is bliss, right? Except that no one is really ignorant...

I disagree with you about there being "love" in a father watching his son being tortured and killed to put right some offence he has personally felt. One can call this sadism, cruelty, savagery.... but not love.

But of course, this is not even close to what actually took place. Here's the Gospel in a nutshell:

1. God created man, for His own glory, and because of His infinite love.
2. Man, of his own will and accord, rebelled and thus fell from the state of grace in which God had placed him.
3. Despite man's rebellion, God, because of His infinite love, purposed to redeem His creation (and man) to Himself and restore man to that state of grace.
4. But in so doing, God could not compromise His perfect justice; His justice had to be satisfied in full.
5. God knew that the only One who could satisfy His perfect justice was Himself; man was entirely incapable. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed."
6. So God, because He SO LOVED the world, gave Himself -- in the form of the man Jesus -- so that He might satisfy His own justice on man's behalf. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

This is amazing grace, amazing love. The word 'amazing' really seems inadequate to describe what really is incomprehensible grace, and an incomprehensible love.

The demi-god Paul said: "Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not arrogant..." He didn't need to say love killeth not one's own son to quench one's anger …. for that wouldn't be love.

<chuckles> "Demi-god."

Aside from that, agreed. Men killed His Son. We all did. But He did all this for us despite that. Because he SO LOVED the world (us).

[marco]

I doubt if you can prove the bible supports the contention that killing HIS own son quenched HIS anger.

Of course I don't support this view; it is the view of those who believe in the Redemption, in Christ being a second Adam. Wiser people than I have squeezed this theology from Scripture.

I wonder what the reason would be for God allowing the humiliation of his own son, and also allowing an entire race, his chosen people, to be branded as God killers? If it was love, what theology explains this as love?

[PinSeeker]

I doubt if you can prove the bible supports the contention that killing HIS own son quenched HIS anger.

Of course I don't support this view; it is the view of those who believe in the Redemption, in Christ being a second Adam.

It sure as heck ain't my view. See above.

Wiser people than I have squeezed this theology from Scripture.

People who espouse that view certainly aren't "wise." Can you name one?

I wonder what the reason would be for God allowing the humiliation of his own son, and also allowing an entire race, his chosen people, to be branded as God killers? If it was love, what theology explains this as love?

I don't think God is concerned with what other men/women think of his people. Therefore, your question here is a non-sequitur.