What do you classify yourself as and what do you define that as?

[robsker]

You did copypasta from John Piper. Here's one source, word for word with this post. Those are Piper's points, from a sermon he gave sometime in the 1980s (If I recall correctly).

 

Piper most certainly does say that the purpose of God is to glorify himself. The very first line of the first paragraph of the points you copied states, "I would like to try to persuade you that the chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever. Or to put it another way: the chief end of God is to enjoy glorifying Himself." This is a picture of a self-serving God, not a loving God.

 

 

Frankly, if this is truly the God of Christianity, it doesn't hold water. Creation would be pointless, or rather, it would point to a God so vain that the entire reason for Creation was to provide him with praise. But even if that's the God of Christianity, why make man? He already had angels to do his worshiping. What need does he have of man?

 

 

Well... if I did copy paste that from Piper then I did so a long time ago... because what i did yesterday was copy paste it from a Bible study i led several years ago that I have in my files on my hard-drive (a subset of a 50 page document I generated from many sources). Of course, for such studies I draw (like just about any pastor) from tons of resources. It is just as likely that I culled it straight from seminary notes given out in class --- which were themselves drawn from Piper. So, perhaps years ago I did pull it from Piper or from another source that pulled from Piper. Nevertheless, the position I hold, and Piper holds, and Calvin, Luther, Beza, etc hold to varying degrees... all draw from the same Scriptures and common arguments --- original in full to none of us, really. We all use the same passages and similar arguments. Anyway...

 

Regarding Piper (or, I suppose, more pointedly, the position in general)--- you have to read the whole thing -- follow the argument in full --- it is intertrinitarian expression he has in view -- that is, one has to understand the "Himself" within the intertrinitarian context -- as in inter (that is between the Persons within the Trinity). This makes the inter-glorification other centered --- the Son gloryfying the Father, the Father glorifying the Son, etc. That is, anyway, the manner in which I read Piper --- and in which it best connects to past arguments from others, and represents the general position as historically posited. It is "Himself" in the sense that the Trinity is one God (in three persons) and again takes us to the difficulty in understanding the Trinity in general (how do we wrap our brains around the notion of homo-ousious -- or one essence -- in three Persons of identical nature yet distinct and in perfect unity, yet separate). These are not simple matters. And, Piper did not originate any of this any more than I did or any of the countless that hold the view. What he wrote is borrowed too --- with his slant and emphases, etc. That is what I did too. It is a long, long, long 1800 year old position.

 

You said: "I would like to try to persuade you that the chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever. Or to put it another way: the chief end of God is to enjoy glorifying Himself." This is a picture of a self-serving God, not a loving God.' My response: It would be, I suppose... if God benefited by displaying His glory and that was His express purpose in displaying His glory. But He does not benefit and He is not motivated in that manner. In order to manifest His glory (in perfect justice and perfect love, grace, and forgiveness) among His creation, His Son had to die. That is sacrificial giving and love --- infinitely so. The ultimate expression of love.

 

Finally Knapp... again... worship is not our gift to God --- it is God's gift to us. Unless I am misunderstanding you (which is entirely possible) you seem to have this impression that God receives something from His Glory displayed. Or that God receives something from praise or worship. He does not. He places His glory on display for our benefit --- we gain. When He moves our hearts to praise Him it is He who blesses us. When He moves our minds to contemplate His glory, we benefit, not Him. It is all grace. Oh... and He made men so as to bless them... or so it would seem.

 

Knapp I sense within you a real desire to view God in a noble manner -- to see God as all loving. That is a wonderful perspective to hold. I hold to the same. Your problem with the perspective I hold seems truly right-motivated, as you see it (this position I and others hold) is one that disparages God, making Him somehow self-centered in a manner befitting of a loving God. To discount the view I hold on these grounds is the right thing to do. I applaud you --- if I thought someones view of God disparaged God's character, I too would oppose it. As it were, the view I (and many others) hold that I attempted here to represent --- I have apparently failed to articulate well, in that, God, viewed this way does, in fact, show forth His great love in a manner most befitting of His perfection. It would appear that i cannot convince you of this in this context. If you are at all interested in a great book that sets the stage for understanding God's manifest glory among His creation, I forward to you "The Sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink. Great book. Challenging. But rewarding.

 

These forums, after all, are a cumbersome medium for meaningful interaction. Talking directly is so much better. In any event, I am glad we had this interchange --- and I hope you are too. It makes us think. It makes us refine our way of communicating (and this electronic manner to communicate something meaningful is pretty new to me --- normally it is just issues like "what will be NU's record next season?" that we address). I hope you retain your desire to see God as loving. For indeed He is.

[knapplc]

Stripped to its essential core, the point of Piper's sermon is that God shows love by allowing us to share in his glory.

 

But that's not correct, because we don't inherently share in that glory. We have to jump through hoops. We were placed in this creation, branded guilty from birth through association with Adam & Eve, and we have to spend the rest of our lives trying not to muck up our chance at heaven, where we then get to abide in the glory. God's glory comes with many strings. If I do not believe in him, and in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross on my behalf, I am precluded from God's heaven.

 

God states that he loves me:

 

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

 

Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

 

Ephesians 2:4-7

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. In order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

 

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

 

But does he? Does he really love me? I don't think so. If he did, he would not have branded me guilty at birth. He would not have placed me in this creation at all, where all I can do is mess up my chances of everlasting heaven, and where the pitfall of hell is far more likely:

 

Matthew 7:13-14 - Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.

 

So, to review: God loves me so very, very much. Despite this, he condemns me to everlasting damnation by placing me in this creation. I have a chance at salvation (from a crime of which I am not the perpetrator), but the chances of that salvation are quite slim. In fact, even though God loves everyone everywhere equally, most of us won't go to heaven. Why? Because we didn't jump through the hoops. Do this, think this, believe this, and you're in. Don't do those things and you're out.

 

Why? What is the point in this? It's ridiculous to think that a God who loves me like his own dear son would even dream of treating me this way. Becoming a father very much opened my eyes to the logical fallacy of this tenet of Christianity. There is NO WAY I would treat my child like this. Not remotely. Yet my capacity for love is infinitely lesser than that of God. So how can a God who loves me like this display his love for me by condemning me?

 

And make no mistake - it's God who condemns us. God is omnipotent. There is nothing God cannot do. God could, if he wanted, have simply created Man in heaven with him (where he says he wants us eventually), and entirely cut out the sinful creation in which he places us. There is NO NEED to put me here, to brand me sinful, and "give me chances" to gain salvation. An omnipotent God can put me in heaven from the start - but he didn't, meaning he wanted me here, sinful, needing salvation. Sorry, but that's not how a loving father treats their child.

[robsker]

Stripped to its essential core, the point of Piper's sermon is that God shows love by allowing us to share in his glory.

 

But that's not correct, because we don't inherently share in that glory. We have to jump through hoops. We were placed in this creation, branded guilty from birth through association with Adam & Eve, and we have to spend the rest of our lives trying not to muck up our chance at heaven, where we then get to abide in the glory. God's glory comes with many strings. If I do not believe in him, and in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross on my behalf, I am precluded from God's heaven.

 

God states that he loves me:

 

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

 

Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

 

Ephesians 2:4-7

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. In order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

 

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

 

But does he? Does he really love me? I don't think so. If he did, he would not have branded me guilty at birth. He would not have placed me in this creation at all, where all I can do is mess up my chances of everlasting heaven, and where the pitfall of hell is far more likely:

 

Matthew 7:13-14 - Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.

 

So, to review: God loves me so very, very much. Despite this, he condemns me to everlasting damnation by placing me in this creation. I have a chance at salvation (from a crime of which I am not the perpetrator), but the chances of that salvation are quite slim. In fact, even though God loves everyone everywhere equally, most of us won't go to heaven. Why? Because we didn't jump through the hoops. Do this, think this, believe this, and you're in. Don't do those things and you're out.

 

Why? What is the point in this? It's ridiculous to think that a God who loves me like his own dear son would even dream of treating me this way. Becoming a father very much opened my eyes to the logical fallacy of this tenet of Christianity. There is NO WAY I would treat my child like this. Not remotely. Yet my capacity for love is infinitely lesser than that of God. So how can a God who loves me like this display his love for me by condemning me?

 

And make no mistake - it's God who condemns us. God is omnipotent. There is nothing God cannot do. God could, if he wanted, have simply created Man in heaven with him (where he says he wants us eventually), and entirely cut out the sinful creation in which he places us. There is NO NEED to put me here, to brand me sinful, and "give me chances" to gain salvation. An omnipotent God can put me in heaven from the start - but he didn't, meaning he wanted me here, sinful, needing salvation. Sorry, but that's not how a loving father treats their child.

 

Wow, Knapp... That was the mother of all posts! To respond to that one would take 10 posts... at a minimum! Again, if you get the chance, take a look at Pinks book --- most of what you post here is addressed --- in a sense --- in Pink's book.

 

Good luck!

[knapplc]

I don't need to read another book. I've read 100 books on this stuff. I'm one of the few people you'll run across on the Internet who really, truly has read the Bible cover-to-cover (no BS) (although I skipped a bit of Leviticus). I know what it says, I know the theology behind it, and the bottom line is, it makes no sense. An omnipotent God has no reason to filter his children through this reality.

[robsker]

I don't need to read another book. I've read 100 books on this stuff. I'm one of the few people you'll run across on the Internet who really, truly has read the Bible cover-to-cover (no BS) (although I skipped a bit of Leviticus). I know what it says, I know the theology behind it, and the bottom line is, it makes no sense. An omnipotent God has no reason to filter his children through this reality.

 

I can only respond by saying that your post embodies (the mother of all posts above)a goodly array of tacit assumptions and assumptions that lead to theological mistaken notions on your behalf --- that is, little of what is in your mother of all posts actually reflects what the Scriptures teach. The reality that you derive from your biblical understanding (the one you denounce) is not the reality that the Bible describes and is no reality at all.

[knapplc]

Tell me where I'm wrong:

 

God is omnipotent.

 

God loves me unconditionally.

 

God placed me in this creation.

 

It is within God's power to have placed me directly in Heaven.

 

I was born guilty of another man's sin.

 

It is within God's power to obviate all of my sin right now.

 

Which of those statements is wrong?

[fro daddy]

I have enjoyed reading the opinions of others here. Everyone is going to have their own belief system, even if that doesnt include belief in anything. I for one dont believe it is anyones job to try to implant their beliefs or theories on others. Having open discussions, answering questions about why you believe what you do and giving the reasons behinds those thoughts is very interesting to me though.

 

As for myself....I am not even sure i have a "title". I am not sure what I believe. There are so many questions out there. The first one that has puzzled me for my lifetime is whose religion is correct. If there is a God, shouldnt there be just one. Or are there multiple Gods who are using us to form teams? There have been so many religions, Gods, beings, whatever their label, and most have spread the same messages. To do good to others and life a well life.

Does it matter if I am Hindu or Christian? And if I am Christian, what type of Christian am I. There are so many different dominations. Schools of different thoughts, if you will. Who is right? Or all they all right? Did the addicts get saved by the church, or did they replace one addiction with another? Traded in their crack for their bible. I have always wondered if people who said their life was missing something until they found church would have found what they were missing if they had volunteered their time to charities on Sundays instead. If by being a big brother/sister and role model to a young child if they would have found the same love in their hearts that church gives them?

 

If there is/was a god, was he really a supreme being? Or was this all based on a great man who people wanted to model their lives after? Stories of men, by men can and have been manipulated. It is a fact of history. Stories change from language to language. From story teller to story teller. It is impossible to believe that even if the bible was the word of god, that the details have not been changed, embellished or some left out all together. The Catholic Church was one of the greatest evils of Medieval times. But that doesnt mean that the religion is evil. There are so many questions and so many different answers to the same questions. I guess the right answer is the one that you feel best about.

 

 

I have so many questions. So many things that cant really be answered. There are my opinions and I just wanted to share like some of the others have also. Ultimately I dont believe that anyone is wrong as long as they live a good life. I could be wrong i suppose, but if there is a heaven, I cant believe that I could life a good life, be a caring father, husband, friend and neighbor. Treat people with respect and honesty and be condemned by a god because I didnt worship him or attend church.

 

After some thought I guess you could call me a "believer". I am believer in mankind. A believer in the good that is within people. A believer that how ever it is that you find your piece, with what ever god or no god at all, that it is the right piece for you. I have faith in people and in myself that with the right amount of effort I can be a great man and end up happy. Where ever it is I may end up....

[robsker]

Tell me where I'm wrong:

 

God is omnipotent.

 

God loves me unconditionally.

 

God placed me in this creation.

 

It is within God's power to have placed me directly in Heaven.

 

I was born guilty of another man's sin.

 

It is within God's power to obviate all of my sin right now.

 

Which of those statements is wrong?

 

God is indeed omnipotent.

 

Yes, He loves you unconditionally --- in that nothing you say, do, or believe results in His view towards you. Yet, His love for a person is not necessarily manifest in saving that person (which seems to be the view you hold... at least it looks that way based upon your posts --- that is, it appears that you think God's love for a person equates to His saving that person). The Scriptures certainly would not suggest such to be the case (Romans 9). Again, many contend otherwise, though at least to me, in an non-compelling manner.

 

You state that "you know the theology behind the Bible" --- hmnn... Calvin, Beza, Luther, Augustine, Wesley, Edwards, Hodge, Finney, Arminius, Pelagius.... none of them who spent their entire lives dedicated to the task were so bold as to claim such. The "theology behind the Bible" is something that one person can never claim to know --- it is too much, too varied, too detailed and too complex to master. Theology is a journy not a destination. Like science... only more so. Your views appear to be colored by a general Arminian perspective whereby salvation is a synergistic process between God and man. It seems that that is your position anyway... that is but one view... earlier you said that God loves all equally.... that is again a tough one to defend in the Word (though admittedly some have thought so... like Arminius, Pelagious, Finney).

 

God did indeed place you in this creation.

 

You state: "It is within God's power to have placed me directly in Heaven." OK. It is within His power to have it rain purple elephants --- He simply has not chosen to do so. He could place you directly in Heaven and retain His perfect justice only if you were w/o sin in this life --- which no one (other than Christ) has done. Now... it seems you mean that He could have, theoretically, placed you in heaven w/o ever placing you on earth. He did do precisely that for the elect angels. But... not for men. The Scriptures do not tell us why.

 

You state: "I was born guilty of another man's sin." Yes, you were. Me too. All of us (save for Christ who was not born of the seed of Adam). Federal headship is the concept. Though, you are condemned (me too) based upon both your actual sin (that you commit) and the sin imputed to you (Adam's sin). Your actual sin is sufficient for damnation --- for God cannot be subjected to sin (it would violate His holiness). So... we all have earned a hell sentence.... on our own (you and I included).

 

You state: "It is within God's power to obviate all of my sin right now." Not quite sure what you mean here... Obviate means, literally, "to remove a difficulty, especially so that action to deal with it becomes unnecessary." Sin is never obviated for anyone. There is always going to be a penalty meted out against sin --- mandated by the dynamic tension between the perfect justice and the perfect holiness of God --- The penalty (the action) is always necessary. Sin mandates hell for the sinner. Thus, we all deserve hell. God's perfect justice and holiness --- alone and in isolation --- would lead to all being condemned w/o exception. All deserve hell. But God --- praise Him --- also is perfectly loving and possesses perfect grace. He sent His Son. When Christ died on the Cross, then the sin penalty for those for whom He died was meted out to Christ and the wrath against the sin for those individuals was experienced by Christ (who suffered, essentially, the hell sentence for those individuals). Christ died savingly for many, but not all, (by the way... this is the Calvinistic perspective of limited scope of atonement). So...Either we serve our own hell sentence for our sin or God the Son (Jesus) serves it for us. But it is never obviated.

 

That any are saved at all is wonderful testimony of Grace --- and Justice, perfectly manifest. Those who will, ultimately, serve their own hell sentence, are a people still blessed by grace for they have the time here on earth to be loved and to love and to receive common grace (as opposed to being immediately sent to hell --- which we all deserve).

 

Would you say that the God the Father loves His Son (Christ)? I'd think you probably would. If not, assume so for the sake of argument. Christ, w/o ever committing a sin of His own, willingly bore the sin of many and suffered more for sin than has any sinner (for He has served the sin penalty of all who are in, or will be in, heaven --- which is, of course, a multitude). And it was the Father who sent Him to the Cross (see Isaiah 53). The Father sent His Son to the Cross guilty of the sins of others --- which is perfectly just and perfectly loving (towards men) at the same time. Interestingly, it was also perfectly loving towards Christ who was provided a context for displaying/manifesting His infinite Glory in perfect love, forgiveness, and grace --- blessing those who deserve only His wrath. That is sacrificial love of the infinite order manifest toward the undeserving (us) --- that is grace.

 

There is much more, but I must attend to other things... and for the last time, I sign off on this interchange. Pick up Pink's Sovereignty of God and continue the quest. We could all learn from yet another book. To continue on with this comes too much at the expense of others I am called to serve --- like my students and others at work. Too time consuming. So from here on, lets debate QB's or something... those posts take tens of seconds... not tens of minutes to craft!

 

All the best to you Knapp...

[knapplc]

I used the word obviate because God did not have to make me sinful. God did not have to put me (or you, or Adam, or anyone) in this Creation. God did not have to make Creation, make it perfect, then put the ONE THING in it that could ruin it for us all, the Tree. I liken this to creating the perfect, most wonderful, most awesome, safest and best room for my child to sleep in, but right in the middle of it I put a shiny mobile full of music and sparkles. I tell her, "You have all the toys in the world, so don't touch that mobile. It's forbidden."

 

What do you think she's going to do? OF COURSE she's going to mess with the shiny, sparkly, eye-catching mobile. No child wouldn't. Adam and Eve couldn't NOT touch the Tree, and God knew this. The Tree should never have been there in the first place. It was the one forbidden thing - so why even include it? What possible need could there have been for the presence of a thing which would forever separate man from God in that garden?

 

God chose to put that Tree there. God, therefore, chose to make me sinful. There should never have been penalty meted out for sin, because there never should have been sin in the first place. Adam should never have been placed in Creation. Creation should never have been made. We should simply have been put in Heaven from the start - something wholly within God's power - and all this rigmarole of sin and salvation and damnation would never exist.

 

God's Omnipotence is dreadfully pertinent here. You admit that God has unlimited, unstoppable power. You admit that God (as described) loves me unconditionally. Well, I love my daughter unconditionally. In my love for her, I would never, EVER place something within her grasp, to which she would be drawn as a moth to a flame, which would forever put a chasm between us. But I'm just a fallible Human. God has no bounds upon his abilities. It is entirely within his ability not to put that Tree there. It is entirely within his ability to create Adam in heaven where there is no sin.

 

The prima facie argument for God, Creation, sin and my involvement in all of it does not make sense in the context of a loving God. But we know that God is love - we're told that throughout the Bible. Therefore we have a quandary - is God not love? Is the Creation story wrong? By extrapolation, which part(s) of the Bible aren't wrong? Where is the answer to that disconnect?

 

I can no longer ignore those glaring questions.

[Husker_x]

Oh Robert Ingersoll...you always have the right words for the occasion.

 

We had Edwards on The Will, in which the reverend author shows

that necessity has no effect on accountability -- and that when God

creates a human being, and at the same time determines and decrees

exactly what that being shall do and be, the human being is

responsible, and God in his justice and mercy has the right to

torture the soul of that human being forever. Yet Edwards said that

he loved God.

 

The fact is that if you believe in an infinite God, and also

in eternal punishment, then you must admit that Edwards and Calvin

were absolutely right. There is no escape from their conclusions if

you admit their premises. They were infinitely cruel, their

premises infinitely absurd, their God infinitely fiendish, and

their logic perfect.

 

And yet I have kindness and candor enough to say that Calvin

and Edwards were both insane.

[HeyBurke]

I am a soft-atheist. I don't have any problem with the beliefs other people unless they violate two directives:

 

1. They're being pushed on me. Not cool.

 

2. These beliefs cause physical harm to others.

 

That's it.

 

One question, though. Could any Christians explain to me why God needs people to "spread His word"? He is omnipotent, right?

[HeyBurke]

The interesting thing to me has always been - we all consider ourselves to be the open minded ones.

 

Probably a lot less true than we think.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't disregard the claims of others. I do honestly evaluate their claims. The

problem is that people have different criteria that they use to establish "truth." I don't think it is close minded to

demand evidence.

There should be a supplement for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that applies to faith and evidence: If you have evidence, you don’t need faith. If you have faith you don’t need evidence.

 

No. Just, no.

 

I suppose if you are making the argument to yourself about your own beliefs, then faith is great and doesn't require evidence. But if you're trying to get other people to fairly evaluate your views, you need evidence. Faith isn't (or, at least, shouldn't be) followed in a court of law to determine a verdict. Nor should it be allowed when trying to validate one's beliefs to others.

[HeyBurke]

Stripped to its essential core, the point of Piper's sermon is that God shows love by allowing us to share in his glory.

 

But that's not correct, because we don't inherently share in that glory. We have to jump through hoops. We were placed in this creation, branded guilty from birth through association with Adam & Eve, and we have to spend the rest of our lives trying not to muck up our chance at heaven, where we then get to abide in the glory. God's glory comes with many strings. If I do not believe in him, and in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross on my behalf, I am precluded from God's heaven.

 

God states that he loves me:

 

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

 

Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

 

Ephesians 2:4-7

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. In order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

 

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

 

But does he? Does he really love me? I don't think so. If he did, he would not have branded me guilty at birth. He would not have placed me in this creation at all, where all I can do is mess up my chances of everlasting heaven, and where the pitfall of hell is far more likely:

 

Matthew 7:13-14 - Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.

 

So, to review: God loves me so very, very much. Despite this, he condemns me to everlasting damnation by placing me in this creation. I have a chance at salvation (from a crime of which I am not the perpetrator), but the chances of that salvation are quite slim. In fact, even though God loves everyone everywhere equally, most of us won't go to heaven. Why? Because we didn't jump through the hoops. Do this, think this, believe this, and you're in. Don't do those things and you're out.

 

Why? What is the point in this? It's ridiculous to think that a God who loves me like his own dear son would even dream of treating me this way. Becoming a father very much opened my eyes to the logical fallacy of this tenet of Christianity. There is NO WAY I would treat my child like this. Not remotely. Yet my capacity for love is infinitely lesser than that of God. So how can a God who loves me like this display his love for me by condemning me?

 

And make no mistake - it's God who condemns us. God is omnipotent. There is nothing God cannot do. God could, if he wanted, have simply created Man in heaven with him (where he says he wants us eventually), and entirely cut out the sinful creation in which he places us. There is NO NEED to put me here, to brand me sinful, and "give me chances" to gain salvation. An omnipotent God can put me in heaven from the start - but he didn't, meaning he wanted me here, sinful, needing salvation. Sorry, but that's not how a loving father treats their child.

 

That's beautiful, knapp. +1 bajillion

[Blaze1up]

Taoism – sh_t happens.

Buddhism – if sh_t happens, is it really sh_t?

Islam – if sh_t happens, blame the infidels.

Protestantism – sh_t won’t happen if I work hard enough.

Judaism – why does this sh_t always happen to us?

Hinduism – this sh_t happened before.

Catholicism – if sh_t happens, it’s because I deserve it.

Hare Krishna – sh_t happens, Ramah Lama Ding Dong

TV Evangelism – end more sh_t.

Jehovah’s Witness – knock knock, sh_t happens.

Hedonism – there’s nothing like a good sh_t happening.

Christian Science – sh_t happens in your mind.

Agnosticism – maybe sh_t happens, maybe it doesn’t.

Rastafarianism – let’s smoke this sh_t!

Existentialism – what is sh_t anyway?

Stoicism – this sh_t doesn’t bother me.

Atheism – no sh_t.

[huskerjack23]

I really don't understand how anyone can, in good conscience, describe God's will to another person. If I interpret it the way that I interpret it, how can I possibly be wrong about it? How the hell do you know what's the correct one?

 

The tenets and the doctrines of christianity have been interpreted thousands of times and redone another thousand. The original canon didn't even include all the books written on the subject.

 

What's the difference between your interpretation of the bible and the Westboro idiots? A whole hell of a lot surely. But what's the similarities between your interpretation of the bible and the Westboro idiots? The holy bible.

 

You can't tell me in the same breath that the Westboro church are evil bigots and the bible isn't full of evil and bigotry when it's all the same book.