What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New title - Christian Discussion (2 Viewers)

A question that always pops in my brain when my family asks for prayers is what exactly are we praying for? Is God bending an ear to us that otherwise would not be bent? Is He going to save us from the devastation or medical circumstances that he has already awarded us?
 
A question that always pops in my brain when my family asks for prayers is what exactly are we praying for? Is God bending an ear to us that otherwise would not be bent? Is He going to save us from the devastation or medical circumstances that he has already awarded us?
It's a good and fair question.

A couple of thoughts.

It always sounds kind of odd to me when we pray that "God's will be done". Like God needs permission from us?

Another. There are instances in the Old Testament where people in the Bible do change God's mind. When they talk to or pray to God and He does something different.

I don't think God sees prayer as some sort of magic genie grant a wish thing.

I could well be wrong, but I see prayer more as a "Talk to" thing and less of a "Can I have this" thing.
 
I could well be wrong, but I see prayer more as a "Talk to" thing and less of a "Can I have this" thing.
That makes sense to me although I doubt it aligns with my family who asks others to pray. Otherwise why would they care that others are talking to God on the matter.
 
I could well be wrong, but I see prayer more as a "Talk to" thing and less of a "Can I have this" thing.
That makes sense to me although I doubt it aligns with my family who asks others to pray. Otherwise why would they care that others are talking to God on the matter.

Random thought - in the instance you may be talking about when other people ask friends to pray for them, I think that can be complicated. Lots of times people are just reaching out for help. And there's an element of community and friendship and connectedness where they'll ask others to "be with them". Sometimes that can look like joining them in prayer.

I don't know how God works in things like this. Now maybe He has some sort of scoreboard registering prayers and if he gets enough requests than something happens. Maybe but I'm not sure that's how it works. I think it it's more a thing where people are pulling together and looking for a higher power or something bigger than them to help. For a Christian person, that is praying to God.

Asking God for help is sort of a "vertical" communication and support.

Asking your friends and those around you for help is more a 'horizontal" communication and support. That may be more of what you're seeing there.

I'll also say I think there is benefit for the others being asked. There's a connectedness that I think is good.

It's part of why it always bums me out to see people mock "thoughts and prayers". There is value in thinking of others and praying for others I think. It kind of goes with the whole "selfless" thing. Anything that takes the focus off myself and spreads the focus to others is a good thing I think.

And sorry for the scattered rambling. Was just thinking of this today.
 
It always sounds kind of odd to me when we pray that "God's will be done". Like God needs permission from us?

Hey Joe, when I think of that line, I think of our Catholic "Our Father" prayer. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" is immediately followed by "on earth as it is in heaven." We then ask for bread and sustenance from him and beg his forgiveness, but I don't ever think we're telling him he has our permission. We're reprimanding ourselves to not sin on earth and to do his will and begging for survival. The prayer is not for God or to grant God permission. He doesn't need that. It's us who so desperately need to be reminded every waking moment of our tendency towards serious, mortal sin.

I'm sure you thought of that; it also just struck me today now that you mention it.

And also, the older I get, the more I realize the almost canyon-like chasm between Catholic and Protestant and what certain phrases and words invoke. So if "God's will be done" has a specific Protestant meaning of Calvinist fatalism, I'd be a bit lost.
 
It's part of why it always bums me out to see people mock "thoughts and prayers".
I don't think people mock "thoughts and prayers" per se.

But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful.

Reminds me of the joke about a man praying for god to save him from rising waters:

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”



To the extent people believe in god, god has given people agency to act, to make changes, to address problems. In other words, god has given us the tools to address the very things people pray about - its up to us to use those tools, and take tangible steps - not offer up more prayers and thoughts - god has heard them already. When we, collectively, opt to not address problems - its not because god wasn't listening, its because we were too busy praying to listen for the answers.
 
It's part of why it always bums me out to see people mock "thoughts and prayers".
I don't think people mock "thoughts and prayers" per se.

But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful.

Reminds me of the joke about a man praying for god to save him from rising waters:

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”



To the extent people believe in god, god has given people agency to act, to make changes, to address problems. In other words, god has given us the tools to address the very things people pray about - its up to us to use those tools, and take tangible steps - not offer up more prayers and thoughts - god has heard them already. When we, collectively, opt to not address problems - its not because god wasn't listening, its because we were too busy praying to listen for the answers.
Most of the time, offering "thoughts and prayers" is literally the only action available for us. Okay, maybe not 100% literally. If you develop a serious medical condition, for example, I suppose I could drop everything to get in my car, drive to wherever you live, and help you with your medical appointments or meal prep or something. But realistically we all know that's not really a live option. "Thoughts and prayers" is just a friendly attempt to say that we're on your side and thinking about you. The objections to this seem to come from semi-autistic people who don't understand how these kinds of social interactions work. (Similar to the "God bless you" after sneezing thing).

Obviously I agree that if you have the agency to solve a particular problem, you should do so.
 
The objections to this seem to come from semi-autistic people who don't understand how these kinds of social interactions work. (Similar to the "God bless you" after sneezing thing).

Always fascinating to see what insults are allowed, and by whom. Believe it or not, sometimes people just have a different opinion than you - and are not autistic at all...

Your post also ignores the gist of my post:

"But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
 
The objections to this seem to come from semi-autistic people who don't understand how these kinds of social interactions work. (Similar to the "God bless you" after sneezing thing).

Always fascinating to see what insults are allowed, and by whom. Believe it or not, sometimes people just have a different opinion than you - and are not autistic at all...

Your post also ignores the gist of my post:

"But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
It's not an insult. I'm one of those people who does not naturally "read the room," and for as long as I've been alive I've been puzzled by innocuous social conventions, like how we play the national anthem before football games. At some point, it just sort of dawned on me that this is entirely a "me" thing. Other people of this type can do likewise, and it makes life a lot easier to navigate.

In other words, if I can make peace with the fact that "this is just a social convention and maybe I shouldn't take it too terribly literally," others can do so too.

(If you're troubled by my use of the term "autistic," well, that's actually what I'm talking about. I know you don't literally have autism. Neither do I. But normal people have no problem recognizing hyperbole and metaphor in everyday conversation. It's people like us who get confused by figures of speech. "That guy is kind of lame." "What do you mean? He can walk just fine and that's an insulting term for people with disabilities." smh.)
 
Last edited:
The objections to this seem to come from semi-autistic people who don't understand how these kinds of social interactions work. (Similar to the "God bless you" after sneezing thing).

Always fascinating to see what insults are allowed, and by whom. Believe it or not, sometimes people just have a different opinion than you - and are not autistic at all...

Your post also ignores the gist of my post:

"But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
It's not an insult. I'm one of those people who does not naturally "read the room," and for as long as I've been alive I've been puzzled by innocuous social conventions, like how we play the national anthem before football games. At some point, it just sort of dawned on me that this is entirely a "me" thing. Other people of this type can do likewise, and it makes life a lot easier to navigate.

In other words, if I can make peace with the fact that "this is just a social convention and maybe I shouldn't take it too terribly literally," others can do so too.
I've spent quite a bit of time in this thread arguing that we need to be better at trying to understand the intent of the Biblical authors if we are going to try to make claims about what it is and isn't doing. As I've tried to learn more and more about that topic as it relates to the Bible, I've come to realize that it is just basic interpretation skills of all communication. I don't know enough to say whether we are worse at interpreting communication than previous eras, but I think we really struggle with understanding each other.
 
It's part of why it always bums me out to see people mock "thoughts and prayers".
I don't think people mock "thoughts and prayers" per se.

But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful.

Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers". Lots of times there isn't much tangible that can be done. But I find myself making sure not to phrase it exactly as "thoughts and prayers" when I'm sincerely talking to people as that's become a joke for some. But no worries.

The rescue story with the helicopter is a great example though. And connects back to the "God's will be done" that @rockaction mentioned. I think many times people think of God doing something and it's more like something magically appears out of thin air.

I think the reality is that many times God does thing through people. It's the mother praying that her child makes friends in the new school and another person at school responding by inviting the kid to sit at the lunch table. Or whatever.

Big picture - I do think God works through people.
 
This may be too much of an offshoot but I often think of this along the lines of what @TennesseeJed brought up in the "Faith and Good Deeds" area.

In James 2, James writes:

Faith without Good Deeds Is Dead

14What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? 15Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?


So yes. While prayer is of course vital. As is faith. We're also called as Christians to actually do stuff.
 
Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers".

I don't think we actually disagree - as my message was effectively the same as James' which you posted below.

What you, and your GB Ivan both seem to have overlooked - was the end of my statement: "But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
Nothing in there says that all "thoughts and prayers" always are, or should be, mocked. But, as James notes: "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"

As an example - recently SWC asked for some positive thoughts - and I don't recall seeing anyone mocked for asking or giving such thoughts (and prayers). And, indeed, and a testament to many of the good people who are here, many did not simply offer a mindless "thoughts and prayers" and instead offered much more constructive comments to show how much SWC was appreciated, and thought of within the community. Those posts were were the "action" that we talk about.

I don't often see people mocked for "thoughts and prayers", but when I do, it is typically when someone offers thoughts and prayers, when they could affect changes with their actions, but choose not to do so. I can understand why that may frustrate people - knowing that god has given them the tools, and they refuse to use them...instead hoping for god to act on his own.

As James notes: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
 
Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers".

I don't think we actually disagree - as my message was effectively the same as James' which you posted below.

What you, and your GB Ivan both seem to have overlooked - was the end of my statement: "But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
Nothing in there says that all "thoughts and prayers" always are, or should be, mocked. But, as James notes: "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"

As an example - recently SWC asked for some positive thoughts - and I don't recall seeing anyone mocked for asking or giving such thoughts (and prayers). And, indeed, and a testament to many of the good people who are here, many did not simply offer a mindless "thoughts and prayers" and instead offered much more constructive comments to show how much SWC was appreciated, and thought of within the community. Those posts were were the "action" that we talk about.

I don't often see people mocked for "thoughts and prayers", but when I do, it is typically when someone offers thoughts and prayers, when they could affect changes with their actions, but choose not to do so. I can understand why that may frustrate people - knowing that god has given them the tools, and they refuse to use them...instead hoping for god to act on his own.

As James notes: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Not sure what you mean on GB. And we definitely disagree if you think praying for and thinking of someone should be "rightly mocked". I don't agree there.

I do agree with what I posted in I think it's important we take action too. Sounds like we agree there. :thumbup:
 
Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers".

I don't think we actually disagree - as my message was effectively the same as James' which you posted below.

What you, and your GB Ivan both seem to have overlooked - was the end of my statement: "But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
Nothing in there says that all "thoughts and prayers" always are, or should be, mocked. But, as James notes: "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"

As an example - recently SWC asked for some positive thoughts - and I don't recall seeing anyone mocked for asking or giving such thoughts (and prayers). And, indeed, and a testament to many of the good people who are here, many did not simply offer a mindless "thoughts and prayers" and instead offered much more constructive comments to show how much SWC was appreciated, and thought of within the community. Those posts were were the "action" that we talk about.

I don't often see people mocked for "thoughts and prayers", but when I do, it is typically when someone offers thoughts and prayers, when they could affect changes with their actions, but choose not to do so. I can understand why that may frustrate people - knowing that god has given them the tools, and they refuse to use them...instead hoping for god to act on his own.

As James notes: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Not sure what you mean on GB. And we definitely disagree if you think praying for and thinking of someone should be "rightly mocked". I don't agree there.

I do agree with what I posted in I think it's important we take action too. Sounds like we agree there. :thumbup:
I don't think it's the praying and thinking of someone that is being mocked. It's more the lip service and lack of action that is being mocked. At least, it started with mocking people in a position to act who are seemingly just posting on social media. Maybe it's grown beyond that to mocking anyone who offers their thoughts and prayers, but I don't think that's where it started and it's not the context that comes to my mind when I think of this topic.

@TennesseeJed 's point is that James is doing something similar. I guess we could quibble about whether or not James is "mocking" or if another word is more appropriate to describe his rhetoric, but I think the situations are parallel. If people are professing a faith in something that calls them to action, yet they do not act, then I can agree with them being "rightly mocked" (or insert a different word for "mocked" if that makes more sense).
 
Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers".

I don't think we actually disagree - as my message was effectively the same as James' which you posted below.

What you, and your GB Ivan both seem to have overlooked - was the end of my statement: "But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
Nothing in there says that all "thoughts and prayers" always are, or should be, mocked. But, as James notes: "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"

As an example - recently SWC asked for some positive thoughts - and I don't recall seeing anyone mocked for asking or giving such thoughts (and prayers). And, indeed, and a testament to many of the good people who are here, many did not simply offer a mindless "thoughts and prayers" and instead offered much more constructive comments to show how much SWC was appreciated, and thought of within the community. Those posts were were the "action" that we talk about.

I don't often see people mocked for "thoughts and prayers", but when I do, it is typically when someone offers thoughts and prayers, when they could affect changes with their actions, but choose not to do so. I can understand why that may frustrate people - knowing that god has given them the tools, and they refuse to use them...instead hoping for god to act on his own.

As James notes: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Not sure what you mean on GB. And we definitely disagree if you think praying for and thinking of someone should be "rightly mocked". I don't agree there.

I do agree with what I posted in I think it's important we take action too. Sounds like we agree there. :thumbup:
I don't think it's the praying and thinking of someone that is being mocked. It's more the lip service and lack of action that is being mocked. At least, it started with mocking people in a position to act who are seemingly just posting on social media. Maybe it's grown beyond that to mocking anyone who offers their thoughts and prayers, but I don't think that's where it started and it's not the context that comes to my mind when I think of this topic.

@TennesseeJed 's point is that James is doing something similar. I guess we could quibble about whether or not James is "mocking" or if another word is more appropriate to describe his rhetoric, but I think the situations are parallel. If people are professing a faith in something that calls them to action, yet they do not act, then I can agree with them being "rightly mocked" (or insert a different word for "mocked" if that makes more sense).

Thanks. Agreed. I think we all get along best when we:
1. Don't mock people for thinking of and praying for other people.
2. Take helpful actions when we can and put our faith to work.

I think we all agree on that.
 
God sets the standards, I do not.
I don't believe this is true in this thread. Maybe the "standards" you are repeating didn't originate with you, but I doubt they are God's standards. And if they are, that god doesn't deserve worship and praise for any other reason than "might makes right" .

The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. .
Ephesians 2:8-9

If there are conditions, then it is not a gift.
 
Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers".

I don't think we actually disagree - as my message was effectively the same as James' which you posted below.

What you, and your GB Ivan both seem to have overlooked - was the end of my statement: "But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
Nothing in there says that all "thoughts and prayers" always are, or should be, mocked. But, as James notes: "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"

As an example - recently SWC asked for some positive thoughts - and I don't recall seeing anyone mocked for asking or giving such thoughts (and prayers). And, indeed, and a testament to many of the good people who are here, many did not simply offer a mindless "thoughts and prayers" and instead offered much more constructive comments to show how much SWC was appreciated, and thought of within the community. Those posts were were the "action" that we talk about.

I don't often see people mocked for "thoughts and prayers", but when I do, it is typically when someone offers thoughts and prayers, when they could affect changes with their actions, but choose not to do so. I can understand why that may frustrate people - knowing that god has given them the tools, and they refuse to use them...instead hoping for god to act on his own.

As James notes: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Not sure what you mean on GB. And we definitely disagree if you think praying for and thinking of someone should be "rightly mocked". I don't agree there.

I do agree with what I posted in I think it's important we take action too. Sounds like we agree there. :thumbup:
I don't think it's the praying and thinking of someone that is being mocked. It's more the lip service and lack of action that is being mocked. At least, it started with mocking people in a position to act who are seemingly just posting on social media. Maybe it's grown beyond that to mocking anyone who offers their thoughts and prayers, but I don't think that's where it started and it's not the context that comes to my mind when I think of this topic.
My understanding is that it "started" in response to a number of politicians reactions to a particular tragedy that keeps occurring in our country at a much higher rate than others and, as such, the issue has become politicized (which is why I'm staying vague about the issue) because the "thoughts and prayers" are perceived as mere lip service by the people capable of changing law and/or policy but choosing not to. Obviously, in such a situation, "thoughts and prayers" seem hollow in sentiment and therefore got mocked.

Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree that it's generally worthless to criticize a person of faith for offering prayers even if the listener has zero faith such will do anything because who cares? It's just them being nice and offering what they can so it just makes sense to say thank you and move on because those prayers aren't harming anybody.
 
Thanks. We can disagree on people "rightfully" mocking "thoughts and prayers".

I don't think we actually disagree - as my message was effectively the same as James' which you posted below.

What you, and your GB Ivan both seem to have overlooked - was the end of my statement: "But, what is mocked, and probably rightfully so, is when people offer thoughts and prayers when actions would be more helpful."
Nothing in there says that all "thoughts and prayers" always are, or should be, mocked. But, as James notes: "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"

As an example - recently SWC asked for some positive thoughts - and I don't recall seeing anyone mocked for asking or giving such thoughts (and prayers). And, indeed, and a testament to many of the good people who are here, many did not simply offer a mindless "thoughts and prayers" and instead offered much more constructive comments to show how much SWC was appreciated, and thought of within the community. Those posts were were the "action" that we talk about.

I don't often see people mocked for "thoughts and prayers", but when I do, it is typically when someone offers thoughts and prayers, when they could affect changes with their actions, but choose not to do so. I can understand why that may frustrate people - knowing that god has given them the tools, and they refuse to use them...instead hoping for god to act on his own.

As James notes: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Not sure what you mean on GB. And we definitely disagree if you think praying for and thinking of someone should be "rightly mocked". I don't agree there.

I do agree with what I posted in I think it's important we take action too. Sounds like we agree there. :thumbup:
I don't think it's the praying and thinking of someone that is being mocked. It's more the lip service and lack of action that is being mocked. At least, it started with mocking people in a position to act who are seemingly just posting on social media. Maybe it's grown beyond that to mocking anyone who offers their thoughts and prayers, but I don't think that's where it started and it's not the context that comes to my mind when I think of this topic.

@TennesseeJed 's point is that James is doing something similar. I guess we could quibble about whether or not James is "mocking" or if another word is more appropriate to describe his rhetoric, but I think the situations are parallel. If people are professing a faith in something that calls them to action, yet they do not act, then I can agree with them being "rightly mocked" (or insert a different word for "mocked" if that makes more sense).
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
 
Thanks. Agreed. I think we all get along best when we:
1. Don't mock people for thinking of and praying for other people.
2. Take helpful actions when we can and put our faith to work.

I think we all agree on that.

3. Don't confuse mocking lip service for mocking faith.

Agreed. I do my best to not confuse those. I don't think anyone here has mocked faith.

I find in general, I do best to just do what I said above and try not to mock people when they say they are thinking of and praying for other people.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.
What happened to god's subjects before Jesus was born? If the keys to heaven lie with accepting Jesus as the son of god, was everyone before him automatically banished to hell?
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.

Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.


Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
The bold makes complete sense to me and is pretty close to how free will was taught to me in Catholic school. And, if God wants to reward those who do choose to love him, that's certainly his prerogative and reasonable under the circumstances.

My issue, and where the rationality with the bold loses me, is that if somebody exercises his free will and chooses not to follow God is that the consequence is eternal damnation. That seems incredibly disproportionate to the act. It's like if Jim Carey in Bruce Almighty sent the girl who didn't love him to the torture chamber for eternity or some such simply because she didn't share his feelings (which should be her right). He'd rightly turn antagonist if he did that.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.
What happened to god's subjects before Jesus was born? If the keys to heaven lie with accepting Jesus as the son of god, was everyone before him automatically banished to hell?
In Catholicism I was taught that many went to Purgatory because that was the only option. I believe this dogma is unique to Catholicism. I don't know how the other Christian religions answer this question.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.
What happened to god's subjects before Jesus was born? If the keys to heaven lie with accepting Jesus as the son of god, was everyone before him automatically banished to hell?
In Catholicism I was taught that many went to Purgatory because that was the only option. I believe this dogma is unique to Catholicism. I don't know how the other Christian religions answer this question.
Which doesn't sit well with me, as people believed in god for thousands of years before Jesus arrived. Seems unnecessarily cruel.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.
What happened to god's subjects before Jesus was born? If the keys to heaven lie with accepting Jesus as the son of god, was everyone before him automatically banished to hell?
In Catholicism I was taught that many went to Purgatory because that was the only option. I believe this dogma is unique to Catholicism. I don't know how the other Christian religions answer this question.
Which doesn't sit well with me, as people believed in god for thousands of years before Jesus arrived. Seems unnecessarily cruel.
Well, we shouldn't have done that thing that God knowingly created us to do but doesn't want us to do. :shrug:
 
Has the dogma that a non-belief in God is the worst sin and if you dont believe you are damned to hell been around since the beginning of Christianity?

It just reeks of an awfully convenient thing to add to the dogma as a means to control the population. "Believe in God (us) and do exactly as he (we) say or you will go to Hell!"

It's why if I ever did develop faith in a higher power there is no way I would associate or follow any of the major organized religions. No way to tell what any of that dogma was created by men to control other men a thousand years ago.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.


Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
The bold makes complete sense to me and is pretty close to how free will was taught to me in Catholic school. And, if God wants to reward those who do choose to love him, that's certainly his prerogative and reasonable under the circumstances.

My issue, and where the rationality with the bold loses me, is that if somebody exercises his free will and chooses not to follow God is that the consequence is eternal damnation. That seems incredibly disproportionate to the act. It's like if Jim Carey in Bruce Almighty sent the girl who didn't love him to the torture chamber for eternity or some such simply because she didn't share his feelings (which should be her right). He'd rightly turn antagonist if he did that.
Maybe that's just how free will works, and God decided it was worth it. :shrug:

Humans are made in the image of God, and in some ways, we are angelic creatures. We are unique in knowing the difference between good and evil and having free will to choose between them. Maybe the benefits of having some of those beings choose "good" is so powerful that it's worth it to let some people choose "evil." Maybe you can't have a God without also having a Lucifer. Who knows?

This is one of those things where I just don't understand why people expect to have all the answer. I'm fine with just saying "That's how it is, and I don't know why." We can't even decide if free will is even a thing or not, so it shouldn't be too surprising to speculate that an omnipotent creator might be better-placed to understand the situation than we do.
 
Well, we shouldn't have done that thing that God knowingly created us to do but doesn't want us to do. :shrug:

I may be misunderstanding what you mean but I think it's less that God created us to do a thing as if we had no choice. And more He created us with free will having the choice to do a thing.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.


Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
The bold makes complete sense to me and is pretty close to how free will was taught to me in Catholic school. And, if God wants to reward those who do choose to love him, that's certainly his prerogative and reasonable under the circumstances.

My issue, and where the rationality with the bold loses me, is that if somebody exercises his free will and chooses not to follow God is that the consequence is eternal damnation. That seems incredibly disproportionate to the act. It's like if Jim Carey in Bruce Almighty sent the girl who didn't love him to the torture chamber for eternity or some such simply because she didn't share his feelings (which should be her right). He'd rightly turn antagonist if he did that.
Maybe that's just how free will works, and God decided it was worth it. :shrug:

Humans are made in the image of God, and in some ways, we are angelic creatures. We are unique in knowing the difference between good and evil and having free will to choose between them. Maybe the benefits of having some of those beings choose "good" is so powerful that it's worth it to let some people choose "evil." Maybe you can't have a God without also having a Lucifer. Who knows?

This is one of those things where I just don't understand why people expect to have all the answer. I'm fine with just saying "That's how it is, and I don't know why." We can't even decide if free will is even a thing or not, so it shouldn't be too surprising to speculate that an omnipotent creator might be better-placed to understand the situation than we do.
Or maybe the omnipotent creator is just an *******. Or, perhaps, the "omnipotent creator" is just something humans made up and that's why there are logical fallacies found in many religious dogmas.

Regardless, respectfully, suggesting that we "don't know why" is not much of a solace to the idea that a human shouldn't be punished so harshly for simply engaging in critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Well, we shouldn't have done that thing that God knowingly created us to do but doesn't want us to do. :shrug:

I may be misunderstanding what you mean but I think it's less that God created us to do a thing as if we had no choice. And more He created us with free will having the choice to do a thing.
Right. But if we make the wrong choice, even if that choice was made in good faith, we go to Hell for eternity.

That sounds objectively unfair to me.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.

Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
In Judaism, they talk about the evil inclination (yetzer hara) as something that was created by God (along with the "good inclination). Despite having "evil" in its name, I think it's analogous to how we talk about free will and I think it's possible what Paul has in mind when he talks about "the flesh". Here are some rabbinic parables about the evil inclination:

...without the evil inclination, a man would not build a house, would never marry a wife, would never beget children, and would never engage in commerce.”

A person hit his son with a strong blow and placed a bandage on his wound. And he said to him, “My son, as long as this bandage is on your wound and is healing you, eat what you enjoy and drink what you enjoy, and bathe in either hot water or cold water, and you do not need to be afraid, as it will heal your wound. But if you take it off, the wound will become gangrenous.” So, too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel, “My children, I created the evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you are engaged in Torah study you will not be given over into the hand of the evil inclination.”

If a potter makes a jar but leaves a stone inside it, when the jar comes forth from the kiln, if someone puts liquid inside, it will leak from the spot where the stone was and lose liquid within. Who caused the jar to leak and to lose what was in it? The potter who left the stone inside. This is what Israel said to the Holy One Blessed be He: “Master of the World, you have created the evil inclination within us from our youth and this is what causes us to sin, but you attribute the sin to us. So please remove it from us in order that we may do your will.” He replied: “This is just what I will do in the age to come.”
 
Last edited:
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.

Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
Judaism does a much better job of discussing this.

Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.

Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
In Judaism, they talk about the evil inclination (yetzer hara) as something that was created by God (along with the "good inclination). Despite having "evil" in its name, I think it's analogous to how we talk about free will and I think it's possible what Paul has in mind when he talks about "the flesh". Here are some rabbinic parables about the evil inclination:

...without the evil inclination, a man would not build a house, would never marry a wife, would never beget children, and would never engage in commerce.”

A person hit his son with a strong blow and placed a bandage on his wound. And he said to him, “My son, as long as this bandage is on your wound and is healing you, eat what you enjoy and drink what you enjoy, and bathe in either hot water or cold water, and you do not need to be afraid, as it will heal your wound. But if you take it off, the wound will become gangrenous.” So, too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel, “My children, I created the evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you are engaged in Torah study you will not be given over into the hand of the evil inclination.”

If a potter makes a jar but leaves a stone inside it, when the jar comes forth from the kiln, if someone puts liquid inside, it will leak from the spot where the stone was and lose liquid within. Who caused the jar to leak and to lose what was in it? The potter who left the stone inside. This is what Israel said to the Holy One Blessed be He: “Master of the World, you have created the evil inclination within us from our youth and this is what causes us to sin, but you attribute the sin to us. So please remove it from us in order that we may do your will.” He replied: “This is just what I will do in the age to come.”

Thanks. I don't know much about Judaism which seems odd as a Christian since they're connected. Thanks for sharing your insights.
 
Has the dogma that a non-belief in God is the worst sin and if you dont believe you are damned to hell been around since the beginning of Christianity?

It just reeks of an awfully convenient thing to add to the dogma as a means to control the population. "Believe in God (us) and do exactly as he (we) say or you will go to Hell!"

It's why if I ever did develop faith in a higher power there is no way I would associate or follow any of the major organized religions. No way to tell what any of that dogma was created by men to control other men a thousand years ago.
Good question. I don't know the details to answer your question in depth, but I do think it's possible that many non-Biblical views entered Christianity after the Gentiles basically forced Jews out of the movement. The argument is that a ton of damage has been done to the story the last 1800ish years and we (Jews and Gentile Christians) are possibly in the early stages or repairing some of that with a lot of work occurring in academic circles.
 
Because you can't be good and do good deeds to get to heaven. You have to place your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to pay for your sins. That's why you need to read this first post please
So going by this definition... Let's say I have found the love of my life, my soul mate whom I spend every waking moment with until the day I die. The only real difference between us is that they have faith in Jesus Christ, while I do not. What kind of heaven is that for the believer if their soul mate is not also permitted in? How can it be paradise for them if the love of their entire life is doomed to a fate in hell?

Yes, I'm aware this is real close to the plot of a Robin Williams movie.
God sets the standards, I do not. God wants people to believe and trust in Him. When someone doesn't trust God, they won't obey God or love Him. When someone doesn't believe God, they won't love or obey Him. The worst sin you can commit is unbelief, lack of faith in God. You must trust in the Lord. If you aren't serving the Lord, you are serving satan, whether you understand that or not.

You didn’t really answer the question. And are you saying that as a non-believer I’m committing a worse sin than say rape or murder?
I don't think Christianity's god ranks sins, but there is only one he won't forgive: disbelief/rejecting Jesus as savior.
Seems like a strange hill for a god to die on.
Especially after creating us with the ability for critical thinking and logic whereby it seems quite plausible for a human to rationally get to a conclusion G/god doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't "The Savior" or whatever given the arguable lack of evidence for the same as well as some of the logical fallacies contained in many religious dogmas. In other words, as has been noted above but I think worth stressing, God knowingly creates an entity capable of X then harshly punishes the entity for doing X even if the person isn't doing X maliciously. Seems pretty cruel through any objective lens.

Interestingly, Jim Carey's movie "Bruce Almighty" illustrates some of this pretty well.

Jim Carey wants a girl to fall in love with him. He is granted all the powers of God. Meaning he can do miracles and make birds fly and squirrels dance the way he wants them to and control all of nature.

Except he can't make the girl love him.

I fully get it's difficult to grasp a ton of this.

But I think God gave people free will as he didn't want robots to follow him.

He wanted people to follow him on their own choice. With their own free will.


Yes, there is all kinds of upper level theological discussion there that's beyond my expertise. But that's how I understand it.
The bold makes complete sense to me and is pretty close to how free will was taught to me in Catholic school. And, if God wants to reward those who do choose to love him, that's certainly his prerogative and reasonable under the circumstances.

My issue, and where the rationality with the bold loses me, is that if somebody exercises his free will and chooses not to follow God is that the consequence is eternal damnation. That seems incredibly disproportionate to the act. It's like if Jim Carey in Bruce Almighty sent the girl who didn't love him to the torture chamber for eternity or some such simply because she didn't share his feelings (which should be her right). He'd rightly turn antagonist if he did that.
Maybe that's just how free will works, and God decided it was worth it. :shrug:

Humans are made in the image of God, and in some ways, we are angelic creatures. We are unique in knowing the difference between good and evil and having free will to choose between them. Maybe the benefits of having some of those beings choose "good" is so powerful that it's worth it to let some people choose "evil." Maybe you can't have a God without also having a Lucifer. Who knows?

This is one of those things where I just don't understand why people expect to have all the answer. I'm fine with just saying "That's how it is, and I don't know why." We can't even decide if free will is even a thing or not, so it shouldn't be too surprising to speculate that an omnipotent creator might be better-placed to understand the situation than we do.
Or maybe the omnipotent creator is just an *******. Or, perhaps, the "omnipotent creator" is just something humans made up and that's why there are logical fallacies found in many religious dogmas.

Regardless, respectfully, suggesting that we "don't know why" is not much of a solace to the idea that a human shouldn't be punished so harshly for simply engaging in critical thinking.
I don't think God has any problem with critical thinking. OT characters argue with God all the time, and God seems generally cool with that. Even Job, who got an extended "who are you to question me?" speech, wasn't punished for asking God a question in good faith.

I've never belonged a church that said "Don't ask questions, and don't think for yourself -- we have all the answers." Nobody has ever told me to turn off my critical thinking when it comes time to consider religion, and I wouldn't belong to such a congregation. I don't think it's compatible in any way with scripture, let alone reason.

On a related note, I have had multiple pastors preach from the pulpit that we are not going to be asked to pass a theology exam when we die. If I'm wrong about transubstantiation, infant baptism, the trinity, Biblical inerrancy, etc., it will be fine. Now, maybe all of my co-congregationalists are wrong about that, and maybe God is a massive ******* who will take great delight in punishing me for thinking about the age of the earth (or whatever) in the wrong way. But that hasn't been my experience with God so far, and so I'm not really considering that as a live possibility.
 
Last edited:
So much of these conversations are, IMO, arguing against a false narrative. People are, correctly, arguing against what they've been taught, but I don't think they are arguments against the story God told nor who God is. For anyone interested and willing to spend 30 minutes (or less if you watch on a higher speed!), Tim Mackie takes on the conventional idea of Heaven and Hell in this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykH8E9wTCcQ&t=28s
 
So much of these conversations are, IMO, arguing against a false narrative. People are, correctly, arguing against what they've been taught, but I don't think they are arguments against the story God told nor who God is. For anyone interested and willing to spend 30 minutes (or less if you watch on a higher speed!), Tim Mackie takes on the conventional idea of Heaven and Hell in this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykH8E9wTCcQ&t=28s
I had this on in the background while I was working on something trivial. It was good, and I agree that Mackie (who I don't know otherwise) does a good job of explaining the general gist of the Biblical narrative.

But, in an effort to be fair to our non-believing friends, I'm not sure how many Christians actually think about their faith the way Mackie describes. I mean, sure, I think about Christianity that way, and so do you. But let's be honest. A lot of the people who we are sharing a pew with on Sunday are actually thinking "I should be a good person so I'll go to heaven when I die." And we're having this conversation in a thread started by a Christian titled "How to Get to Heaven When You Die." If non-believers got the impression that we're laser-focused on some kind of after-death reward or punishment, it shouldn't be too hard to see how they got that idea. They probably see this as a No True Scotsman move on our part, and they're not totally wrong.

MT used to talk about this back when we did more religion threads. There's a high-level version of Christianity that tends to be embraced by highly-educated people who spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. That's the flavor of Christianity that one encounters in CS Lewis. It's not lost on me that Mackie referenced The Great Divorce -- of course he's thinking along those lines. But that's not most people. The majority of actual, real-world Christians hold the same "Sunday school" version of their faith that they held when they were in 3rd grade. They remember about as much from confirmation as they remember algebra. That's not intended as an insult -- it's just how average people are.

But yeah, that video is actually a pretty good (but very, very broad) overview of what I understand to be the Biblical view of this stuff.
 
So much of these conversations are, IMO, arguing against a false narrative. People are, correctly, arguing against what they've been taught, but I don't think they are arguments against the story God told nor who God is. For anyone interested and willing to spend 30 minutes (or less if you watch on a higher speed!), Tim Mackie takes on the conventional idea of Heaven and Hell in this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykH8E9wTCcQ&t=28s
I had this on in the background while I was working on something trivial. It was good, and I agree that Mackie (who I don't know otherwise) does a good job of explaining the general gist of the Biblical narrative.

But, in an effort to be fair to our non-believing friends, I'm not sure how many Christians actually think about their faith the way Mackie describes. I mean, sure, I think about Christianity that way, and so do you. But let's be honest. A lot of the people who we are sharing a pew with on Sunday are actually thinking "I should be a good person so I'll go to heaven when I die." And we're having this conversation in a thread started by a Christian titled "How to Get to Heaven When You Die." If non-believers got the impression that we're laser-focused on some kind of after-death reward or punishment, it shouldn't be too hard to see how they got that idea. They probably see this as a No True Scotsman move on our part, and they're not totally wrong.

MT used to talk about this back when we did more religion threads. There's a high-level version of Christianity that tends to be embraced by highly-educated people who spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. That's the flavor of Christianity that one encounters in CS Lewis. It's not lost on me that Mackie referenced The Great Divorce -- of course he's thinking along those lines. But that's not most people. The majority of actual, real-world Christians hold the same "Sunday school" version of their faith that they held when they were in 3rd grade. They remember about as much from confirmation as they remember algebra. That's not intended as an insult -- it's just how average people are.

But yeah, that video is actually a pretty good (but very, very broad) overview of what I understand to be the Biblical view of this stuff.
I think one of Mackie's points is that Christians don’t actually think about their faith the way he describes. I think he's saying "this is what people think you believe" because he knows many do believe that and he's trying to nicely tell them they are wrong by basically saying those other people are wrong. His message is for Christians, not non-believers.

Mackie is the creator of The Bible Project which produces excellent content. They have some very, very broad stuff (like the video he showed) and more in-depth stuff (podcasts series that are many hours long). He, and his co-creator, have a great talent of bringing this high-level version to the masses.
 
So much of these conversations are, IMO, arguing against a false narrative. People are, correctly, arguing against what they've been taught, but I don't think they are arguments against the story God told nor who God is. For anyone interested and willing to spend 30 minutes (or less if you watch on a higher speed!), Tim Mackie takes on the conventional idea of Heaven and Hell in this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykH8E9wTCcQ&t=28s
I had this on in the background while I was working on something trivial. It was good, and I agree that Mackie (who I don't know otherwise) does a good job of explaining the general gist of the Biblical narrative.

But, in an effort to be fair to our non-believing friends, I'm not sure how many Christians actually think about their faith the way Mackie describes. I mean, sure, I think about Christianity that way, and so do you. But let's be honest. A lot of the people who we are sharing a pew with on Sunday are actually thinking "I should be a good person so I'll go to heaven when I die." And we're having this conversation in a thread started by a Christian titled "How to Get to Heaven When You Die." If non-believers got the impression that we're laser-focused on some kind of after-death reward or punishment, it shouldn't be too hard to see how they got that idea. They probably see this as a No True Scotsman move on our part, and they're not totally wrong.

MT used to talk about this back when we did more religion threads. There's a high-level version of Christianity that tends to be embraced by highly-educated people who spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. That's the flavor of Christianity that one encounters in CS Lewis. It's not lost on me that Mackie referenced The Great Divorce -- of course he's thinking along those lines. But that's not most people. The majority of actual, real-world Christians hold the same "Sunday school" version of their faith that they held when they were in 3rd grade. They remember about as much from confirmation as they remember algebra. That's not intended as an insult -- it's just how average people are.

But yeah, that video is actually a pretty good (but very, very broad) overview of what I understand to be the Biblical view of this stuff.
I think one of Mackie's points is that Christians don’t actually think about their faith the way he describes. I think he's saying "this is what people think you believe" because he knows many do believe that and he's trying to nicely tell them they are wrong by basically saying those other people are wrong. His message is for Christians, not non-believers.

Mackie is the creator of The Bible Project which produces excellent content. They have some very, very broad stuff (like the video he showed) and more in-depth stuff (podcasts series that are many hours long). He, and his co-creator, have a great talent of bringing this high-level version to the masses.

Just getting back online, been out the last 25 days dealing with some family medical stuff. Apologies in advance because I’m reverse Hippling - I’ve missed 75% of the discussion & will probably :deadhorse:

*************

I have a lot of issues with Mackie. I don’t know that my nuance is going to land with most folks reading this.

Knowing my own bias, I’ll defer to someone who is aligned with my Reformed theology & appreciates his contributions more than I.

The Bible Project describes itself this way: “The Bible Project is a non-profit animation studio that produces short-form, fully animated videos to make the biblical story accessible to everyone, everywhere. We create videos, podcast, and study guides that explore the Bible’s unified story by focusing on its overarching themes and each book’s literary design. We are committed to understanding the Bible in its historical context and communicating its wisdom for the modern world. Ultimately, we want to change how people read and use the Bible” (https://thebibleproject.com/brand/).

The Bible Project was founded in 2014 by friends Jonathan Collins and Timothy Mackie. The men wanted to help people read through Scripture and understand it without falling into the common trap of seeing the Bible as a rule book or as a “devotional grab bag”; rather, they desired to present the Bible as a “unified story that leads to Jesus.” They started with two videos and have rapidly expanded—the team, the amount of content, and the type of content—from there.

The Bible Project’s team, as an organization, has no denominational ties. Collins and Mackie both attended Multnomah University; Mackie teaches at Western Seminary as does one of their board members, Gerry Breshears. The team includes those with backgrounds in biblical studies, animation, and technology, among other fields.

The Bible Project’s videos are high quality and engaging. The combination of the audio and the visual helps aid understanding. The videos also include study notes, related blogs and podcasts, suggested books, and even suggested classes. The Bible Project encourages broad use of its content, with appropriate citations. Their aim is genuinely to help “everyone, everywhere” have access to the Bible. They know “the Bible speaks God’s word to his people” and believe it will lead people to Jesus, “who has the power to change individuals and whole communities when we let the biblical story speak for itself.” The projects are crowdfunded, or supported through donations.

The Bible Project has received some criticism regarding their portrayals of the atonement and hell. They do not present the atonement as substitutionary, but rather seem to emphasize some of the other theories of the atonement. At times, they seem to deny that hell is a place of eternal suffering. Combined, it would appear that they do not sufficiently emphasize God’s wrath toward sin. As with any teaching, users are wise to evaluate what they see and hear against what the Bible actually says. Overall, The Bible Project’s mission is biblically sound, and it seems the content they produce is genuinely helpful in furthering people’s understanding of and engagement with God’s Word. Please visit their website to check out their videos and other resources for yourself: https://thebibleproject.com.

There ya go.

Don’t like the idea of eternal damnation, fire & brimstone? Then just find a theologian who agrees with your misinterpretation. Problem solved, eh.



Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Now If you don’t think the Bible is authoritative, no worries. That’s a choice, so we’re good here.

If you are a Jesus follower & believe the Bible in this sense

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

but then want to deny penal substitutionary atonement or hell as a real place for all eternity? Then you’ll need to go outside of scripture for your justification. That is not what the Bible teaches.

*
2 Timothy 3:16

Cross-references

Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21
 
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.
 
To be clear, the Bible Project is a high quality production. Truly gifted folks explaining the Bible in an easily digestible format. Doing good work.

I’m pretty sure about one thing, though. Like theology is cool, I love to nerd out on textual issues. But OTOH, I don’t think we’re going to stand before the Bema Seat and hear sorry, but you were a little bit of a heretic, can’t let you in.

SCENE: just outside the pearly gates. Hundreds (Thousands?) of believers are waiting to be che led in by the Intake Angel - the final step before appearing before God Almighty.

“OK, washed by the blood, check. Traded sins for the righteousness of Christ, check. Lived a life of believing Jesus is Lord, yep. Believed man is separated from God by sin, and only the shed blood of Jesus could wash you whiter than snow. Well everything appears to be in order BobbyLayne, well done good and faithful servant. Enter into your place of rest. What’s that? He misinterpreted penal substitutionary atonement? AND he taught others baptism was only for believers who had capacity? Wow…that’s a shame. You were really close, too. Welp…off to hell you go. Hey Michael, when you get a second would you get me some more Eternally Damned by Reason of Faulty Theology forms? Like a whole ream, we’re swamped.

Sheesh, must be an uptick of Episcopalians today….”
 
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.

oki doki
 
So much of these conversations are, IMO, arguing against a false narrative. People are, correctly, arguing against what they've been taught, but I don't think they are arguments against the story God told nor who God is. For anyone interested and willing to spend 30 minutes (or less if you watch on a higher speed!), Tim Mackie takes on the conventional idea of Heaven and Hell in this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykH8E9wTCcQ&t=28s
I had this on in the background while I was working on something trivial. It was good, and I agree that Mackie (who I don't know otherwise) does a good job of explaining the general gist of the Biblical narrative.

But, in an effort to be fair to our non-believing friends, I'm not sure how many Christians actually think about their faith the way Mackie describes. I mean, sure, I think about Christianity that way, and so do you. But let's be honest. A lot of the people who we are sharing a pew with on Sunday are actually thinking "I should be a good person so I'll go to heaven when I die." And we're having this conversation in a thread started by a Christian titled "How to Get to Heaven When You Die." If non-believers got the impression that we're laser-focused on some kind of after-death reward or punishment, it shouldn't be too hard to see how they got that idea. They probably see this as a No True Scotsman move on our part, and they're not totally wrong.

MT used to talk about this back when we did more religion threads. There's a high-level version of Christianity that tends to be embraced by highly-educated people who spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. That's the flavor of Christianity that one encounters in CS Lewis. It's not lost on me that Mackie referenced The Great Divorce -- of course he's thinking along those lines. But that's not most people. The majority of actual, real-world Christians hold the same "Sunday school" version of their faith that they held when they were in 3rd grade. They remember about as much from confirmation as they remember algebra. That's not intended as an insult -- it's just how average people are.

But yeah, that video is actually a pretty good (but very, very broad) overview of what I understand to be the Biblical view of this stuff.
I think one of Mackie's points is that Christians don’t actually think about their faith the way he describes. I think he's saying "this is what people think you believe" because he knows many do believe that and he's trying to nicely tell them they are wrong by basically saying those other people are wrong. His message is for Christians, not non-believers.

Mackie is the creator of The Bible Project which produces excellent content. They have some very, very broad stuff (like the video he showed) and more in-depth stuff (podcasts series that are many hours long). He, and his co-creator, have a great talent of bringing this high-level version to the masses.

Just getting back online, been out the last 25 days dealing with some family medical stuff. Apologies in advance because I’m reverse Hippling - I’ve missed 75% of the discussion & will probably :deadhorse:

*************

I have a lot of issues with Mackie. I don’t know that my nuance is going to land with most folks reading this.

Knowing my own bias, I’ll defer to someone who is aligned with my Reformed theology & appreciates his contributions more than I.

The Bible Project describes itself this way: “The Bible Project is a non-profit animation studio that produces short-form, fully animated videos to make the biblical story accessible to everyone, everywhere. We create videos, podcast, and study guides that explore the Bible’s unified story by focusing on its overarching themes and each book’s literary design. We are committed to understanding the Bible in its historical context and communicating its wisdom for the modern world. Ultimately, we want to change how people read and use the Bible” (https://thebibleproject.com/brand/).

The Bible Project was founded in 2014 by friends Jonathan Collins and Timothy Mackie. The men wanted to help people read through Scripture and understand it without falling into the common trap of seeing the Bible as a rule book or as a “devotional grab bag”; rather, they desired to present the Bible as a “unified story that leads to Jesus.” They started with two videos and have rapidly expanded—the team, the amount of content, and the type of content—from there.

The Bible Project’s team, as an organization, has no denominational ties. Collins and Mackie both attended Multnomah University; Mackie teaches at Western Seminary as does one of their board members, Gerry Breshears. The team includes those with backgrounds in biblical studies, animation, and technology, among other fields.

The Bible Project’s videos are high quality and engaging. The combination of the audio and the visual helps aid understanding. The videos also include study notes, related blogs and podcasts, suggested books, and even suggested classes. The Bible Project encourages broad use of its content, with appropriate citations. Their aim is genuinely to help “everyone, everywhere” have access to the Bible. They know “the Bible speaks God’s word to his people” and believe it will lead people to Jesus, “who has the power to change individuals and whole communities when we let the biblical story speak for itself.” The projects are crowdfunded, or supported through donations.

The Bible Project has received some criticism regarding their portrayals of the atonement and hell. They do not present the atonement as substitutionary, but rather seem to emphasize some of the other theories of the atonement. At times, they seem to deny that hell is a place of eternal suffering. Combined, it would appear that they do not sufficiently emphasize God’s wrath toward sin. As with any teaching, users are wise to evaluate what they see and hear against what the Bible actually says. Overall, The Bible Project’s mission is biblically sound, and it seems the content they produce is genuinely helpful in furthering people’s understanding of and engagement with God’s Word. Please visit their website to check out their videos and other resources for yourself: https://thebibleproject.com.

There ya go.

Don’t like the idea of eternal damnation, fire & brimstone? Then just find a theologian who agrees with your misinterpretation. Problem solved, eh.



Everyone reading this thread is a free will moral agent. You are given the freedom to believe anything you like; you have agency to craft any set of moral values you prefer.

God didn’t want automatons who blindly followed His will. He created man with free will.

If you are interested in a biblical view of whether hell a real place or if hell is eternal, here is a good resource.

Now If you don’t think the Bible is authoritative, no worries. That’s a choice, so we’re good here.

If you are a Jesus follower & believe the Bible in this sense

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

but then want to deny penal substitutionary atonement or hell as a real place for all eternity? Then you’ll need to go outside of scripture for your justification. That is not what the Bible teaches.

*
2 Timothy 3:16

Cross-references

Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21
Why is PSA such a big deal for reformers? It seems like it’s used as a litmus test?

Also, I’m curious what you mean by “outside of scripture”. For example, do you consider when an interpreter looks at culture to be “outside of scripture”? (I’m not asking this specifically about PS and Mackie. I have no idea what his views are on atonement, although one can get some idea from the sermon I posted. And, obviously, anyone can go to the BP and find videos and podcasts where he discusses it.)
 
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness*

To be fair, this becomes a rather self-serving statement - and obviously not scripture when it was written, thus not "breathed by god" - and significantly it was written prior to any of the Gospels being written.

The "Scripture" at the time this was written would have been what is now the Old Testament, much of which is shown to be out of favor by the writings chosen to be in the New Testament.
What do you mean by “out of favor”?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top