Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PhillyB

I just spent the last hour calculating how many people are in hell according to establishment christian theology

124 posts in this topic

My position is that there are some in the faith that major on minors so to speak. The age of the earth issues can never be proven/disproven from reading the bible. The whole "gap" theory from the first couple verses and what "create" and "make" meant in Hebrew are all philosophical arguments about the creation and science and how they mesh and how they don't.

Tons of exhaustive work has been done on gap theories and the like. All I am saying, it is not a quick open and shut study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smugness? i'm being genuine in supporting philly in his endeavor. he is searching and doing his homework and i commend him for that. im not slamming him and saying he is wrong or wasting his time.

so some of you need to spare me the self righteous piety.

i have read the bible thru mulitple times. i understand Greek and the Maccabee's and the Apocrphya that goes on. I don't interject all this stuff because it's a can of worms not worth opening.

the age of the earth is a non issue in terms of salvation or the inspiration of the bible. for some its superseded God and Jesus and that's wrong. not to mention dumb.

in all of Jesus' interactions with people he didn't go ok rich young ruler, what about the commandments? The rich young ruler goes I have kept them since I was a boy. You don't see Jesus go ok for the show case showdown, how old is the earth?

the age of the earth is a shiny object that simply distracts from core issues of personal change, conviction and ultimately salvation.

i highly doubt some who are on the fence are going to go oh, you mean the earth is 1 million years old? ok i think Noah's Ark was real then.

maybe some want to know that so there is some way of linking the great flood with other culture's and the bible etc. maybe not.

personally, all im saying is there is nothing wrong with doing some research etc on a myriad of topics, you are talking to the king of reading stuff and analyzing things, but more importantly, its better to focus on the things that will simply help you impact others going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im amazed and some of the leaps some of you make as i go back and read. critical thinking equals arrogance? HUH???

when i say we as a SOCIETY(didn't say non believers but included all us mouth breathers) have a hard time grasping heady stuff im saying we do very goofy things and so its funny to me when look at the things the way WE do. sheesh

and im not going well thats what the bible says so shut up. i keep going back to Jesus. look at his life, what he did, what he focused on, how he treated others, why he did what he did, why did he stir up so much in such a short period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people who read the bible as something of a moral compass, helpful anecdotes which talk about the human experience.

But if you take any of the stories in the bible as literal truth or a scientific description of the universe around us? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you believe in the Trinity then Jesus was around for the genocide he commanded on the Amalekites. you always bring up love mercy and grace but in all reality that concept is only a small fragment of what's in the Bible. you accept the in the Bible as the inspired Word of God yet you only pay attentionto a handful of text of your choosing that match your own morality. Your god simply reflects your own morality and beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we can understand everything. But historically religion has hindered our scientific understanding of the world rather than help it whenever it disagrees with scripture. Hell just look at the middle east right now

I havent read the thread beyond this post so i apologize if this has been addressed

Historically religious groups have advanced our scientific understanding of the world. Sure, western Europe during the middle ages was a time when Christianity became ruled by man's inability to reason rather than scripture, and that is the exception rather than the norm.

I'm sure you're not going to discount all the medical advances made by Muslims, or the Catholic derived Big Bang Theory itself, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you believe in the Trinity then Jesus was around for the genocide he commanded on the Amalekites. you always bring up love mercy and grace but in all reality that concept is only a small fragment of what's in the Bible. you accept the in the Bible as the inspired Word of God yet you only pay attentionto a handful of text of your choosing that match your own morality. Your god simply reflects your own morality and beliefs.

Sure cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the first post, those calculations are simply wrong. It's based on the wrong thinking. God judges us based on what we know. Yes it is true that according to what is taught in Scripture, Jesus is the Savior of the world. Yet who is Jesus? He is grace personified. We don't earn Jesus, we don't earn our salvation. Most think because people are born into another culture, when they die, they go to Hell because they didn't become believers while alive. In other words, they were born into the wrong culture, and the penalty is an eternity of seperation from God. Yet that is not what the Bible teaches at all. Saying we were born into the right culture, is saying we earned salvation from God. Yet if it's earned, then it's not grace.

So what I'm saying is, if a person never heard of Jesus, God takes that into account. If they were graceful to others, God will be graceful to them, and they can receive Jesus perhaps upon death. (I don't know exactly how this will work, but I imagine it was something like how all the old testament patrons died before Jesus arrived on the earth. They will have a chance to receive Jesus) There are no children in Hell, as children don't know anything, because remember God judges us based on what we know. Now once you know, you are going to be held accountable for that. With that said, not everyone has heard the true message of Jesus just yet, even people who have heard of this doctrine before haven't heard about who Jesus truly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the first post, those calculations are simply wrong. It's based on the wrong thinking. God judges us based on what we know. Yes it is true that according to what is taught in Scripture, Jesus is the Savior of the world. Yet who is Jesus? He is grace personified. We don't earn Jesus, we don't earn our salvation. Most think because people are born into another culture, when they die, they go to Hell because they didn't become believers while alive. In other words, they were born into the wrong culture, and the penalty is an eternity of seperation from God. Yet that is not what the Bible teaches at all. Saying we were born into the right culture, is saying we earned salvation from God. Yet if it's earned, then it's not grace.

So what I'm saying is, if a person never heard of Jesus, God takes that into account. If they were graceful to others, God will be graceful to them, and they can receive Jesus perhaps upon death. (I don't know exactly how this will work, but I imagine it was something like how all the old testament patrons died before Jesus arrived on the earth. They will have a chance to receive Jesus) There are no children in Hell, as children don't know anything, because remember God judges us based on what we know. Now once you know, you are going to be held accountable for that. With that said, not everyone has heard the true message of Jesus just yet, even people who have heard of this doctrine before haven't heard about who Jesus truly is.

if the number was generously reduced to one billion people, reflecting the most lax, liberal theological understanding of salvation requirements one could imagine, would that negate the point behind the post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites