Comments on: vote for me or burn

By: Piask

Piask — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:00:28 +0000

That was an interesting link there, Rev, jesusradicals.com I never realized that a movement like that existed. I think that I’ll just go for the radical and leave the anarchy-part, although I tend to agree with one of the statements on the site:we do believe that when Christianity is lived rightly it looks a lot like anarchism There is so much conformity in christian communities everywhere - it’s really not hard to understand why some people can have a hard time believing Jesus is for real… I much prefer “getting in trouble with the christians for not representing the community” to getting in trouble with the ones looking for Jesus for not being anything like him!

By: fighting video

fighting video — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:05:38 +0000

Why would a boxer kiss another boxer? Cause he wanted to get knocked out! Ouch: http://www.monkeybriefs.com/view.video.php?id=916&no=11420&cat=Fights&page=1

By: the rev

the rev — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:35:33 +0000

Only if your analogy includes the caviat that if the kid doesn’t want the bicycle his “punishment” is not getting to feel the wind in his hair as he races down the street.

the rev

By: Kieren Green

Kieren Green — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:46:59 +0000

You talk about God offering eternal life (like offering a product), and then use the analogy of warning a child about the dangers of a hot stove. What is the connection? Is God warning us about not accepting his offer of eternal life?

Should I change my example to offering a child a bicycle for a birthday present, and threating to punish him if he refuses? The child may not be interesting in bicycles (he might even be a quadraplegic), but, by hell, he’s going to get it if he refuses that bicycle.

By: the rev

the rev — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:56:04 +0000

I do not believe anyone I have ever met has accepted Jesus because they were scared of hell.

Also, if you ask me what I believe, then you have to accept my analogies or metaphors. You cannot make me accept yours, or tell me mine is incorrect. I believe that my metaphor perfectly describes my point of view, if you don’t like my point of view fine, if you don’t agree with it fine, but do not tell me what my point of view really is.

As to your first statement, I disagree with you.

the rev

By: Kieren Green

Kieren Green — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:49:37 +0000

Perhaps the pain signifies spiritual separation or something else. The point is, the “dwellers in hell” are in a situation not of their own volition, but because of the power of God.

A better analogy is if you offer to your child to celebrate her birthday at McDonalds, but your child rejects it because that is so “uncool”, do you get into a fit of rage because you like hamburgers so much? Of course not.

You, Rev, might be see the Christian life as all about compassion and helping the disadvantaged and living communally, but don’t you also need to warn people about God’s wrath and the dire consequences of the last judgement?

Where’s the hell-fire preaching gone today?

By: the rev

the rev — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:51:40 +0000

Well, we can argue about the nature of hell if you like, but tell me this how can you be in physical pain if you have no physical body?

If hell exists in the dante’s inferno way, then it is possible that you are correct, but… I not only do not think of hell that way, nor do I feel my arguement is irreconcilable if it is.

Now, if my child is going to touch the hot stove I can use force to stop them from hurting themselves. Now it would appear your arguement is more about God not using his power in this instance. But I also could yell, “don’t touch that” but still then leave the choice up to the child. If the child therefore touches the hot stove, you cannot hold the parent guilty for using power, but rather not using it. Now even though the fire was made in the stove by me, it was not for the purpose of burning the child it was to warm and cook, but the choice of the child to wind up suffering for this is still there. Also, it is my opinion that God, not being contenct to warn us about the hot stove, limited Himself to become one of us. And then though He knew all about the hot stove, allowed himself to be burnt by it anyways, so that we could see the danger thereof. It is not the use of force that you are not happy with, but rather the refusal to use force.

Which is a fair and difficult arguement.

the rev

By: Kieren Green

Kieren Green — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:19:28 +0000

Hell is described in the bible as a place where the occupants are in great pain. It is not merely non-existence. So what happens to those who reject the offer of eternal life? They get eternal suffering. Hell is about God exerting power, not influence through relationship.

By: the rev

the rev — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:25:02 +0000

First off, the jealousy bit does not go with the hell bit, different ideas, just explaining God’s transcendence.

Second, if the product you are offering is eternal life, and the customer decided not to accept your offer, then they my the very nature of the product do not receive eternal life. My concept of hell is not the same as yours I would venture.

the rev

By: Kieren Green

Kieren Green — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:10:37 +0000

You’re adding a bullying element to God’s love, somewhat softened by the mysterious transcendence (which somehow excuses God from normal polite standards of behaviour?).

If I listen to an Amway distributor, I don’t expect to be bullyed into accepting the plan and joining a distribution group. Maybe it’s not a good example, but you know what I mean. I’m not rejecting the Amway distributor - I may still maintain a cordial relationship with her - I’m just saying thanks, but no thanks. God, on the other hand, won’t just take no for an answer. He gets into a jealous rage (for our benefit?) and sends us to hell.