My understanding of Panda's position is that, while it is certainly the case that the Bible's position on gays and such is that they're immoral and mustn't be tolerated, it is also the case that the Bible states that one should treat everyone with respect.
And he's saying that Phelps showed no respect whatsoever.
But that's the thing, magickware99. To say that the two are consistent is dissonant.
Just as Pandas selects the verses of the Bible he likes, and discards those he doesn't,
Which, I will say, I have no problem with provided one doesn't deny the existence of the passages one doesn't like. It's one thing to say that one disagrees with Phelps, or disagrees with Paul. It's another to ignore/handwave that these parts of the Bible exist and claim that the Bible consistently supports a single position on how to treat such people, particularly since it's difficult to find a consistent position on anything in the Bible, given that the Bible is a collection of many different books by many different authors and editors over many different time periods.
No, here's the problem, and I want you to address it as opposed to dancing around it.
I haven't been dancing around anything.
According to Paul, and this is not ambiguous, homosexual sex is a damnable offense.
Yes, that's exactly right. So too is "envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness" and all other manner of "things that should not be done." All of which is symptomatic of the sin nature inherited by all people from Adam. The fact that Paul chooses to make an extended example of homosexuality most likely has to do with the fact that it is a very unambiguous and commonsense deviation from "God's design." Even so...
Of course there's justification for trumpeting that homosexuality must not be tolerated. Paul says it's a damnable offense! Damnable! That's not a metaphor, Panda, Paul's talking about a very literal eternity of suffering for those who practice sexual immorality. That those who practice it are affronts to God, engaging in wanton acts of evil, and the widespread condoning of it to be a sign of the moral degradation of our time.
Again, in various points in the epistles (and at least once in Revelation) homosexual acts are indeed mentioned as mortal sins. But they are always part of a laundry list of mortal sins, such as what you already quoted. There is no indication that the gay are "double damned." They are in the same hell as "those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
And it would indeed make sense if a Christian were to preach against all such sin, which is what Paul does. Sometimes, yes, he highlights gay sex. At another instance he highlights, as exceedingly immoral, a man who has heterosexual relations with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
But now let me ask you to imagine that St. Paul were to witness two men kissing in ancient Athens. No doubt he would engage them in conversation. But would he engage them in a constructive or combative way? Would he say, "Brothers, don't you know that what you are doing is an offense against God?" Or would he say, "You filthy heathen dogs, you're going to burn in hell for giving in to your unnatural passion!"
Hopefully the answer is obvious. In case not, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 reads, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, if the early Christian churches could include people who had used to engage in homosexual acts, then clearly Paul and his cohorts did not drive them away with hateful and condemning words and deeds.
Two thoughts, then, in closing. Paul consistently preached "hate the sin, love the sinner;" though I think he would err on the side of love if it came to that. The problem with a number of Christians is that they are eager to hate the sin but incapable of fully loving the sinner, because they have not fully accepted the depths of their own sin or the impartiality of God's love. Therefore their compassion is feigned and forced, and their insincerity is obvious and repulsive to everyone. And then you have people like Phelps, who are simply twisted by hate and darkness through and through.
Secondly: no, I do not agree with Paul that gay sex is inherently sinful. I recently began attending a Congregational church specifically because they declared themselves an "open and affirming" congregation. But I can see arguments both ways; and I do believe that a Christian is capable of genuinely hating or "abominating" gay sex (and murder, and thievery, and pedophilia, etc.) while also genuinely loving gays (and murderers, and thieves, and pedophiles, etc.) But it takes deep humility and maturity to attain such faith, and the voices of those who do are only a whisper in the shouting match of the culture wars.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Again, in various points in the epistles (and at least once in Revelation) homosexual acts are indeed mentioned as mortal sins. But they are always part of a laundry list of mortal sins, such as what you already quoted. There is no indication that the gay are "double damned." They are in the same hell as "those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
And it would indeed make sense if a Christian were to preach against all such sin, which is what Paul does. Sometimes, yes, he highlights gay sex. At another instance he highlights, as exceedingly immoral, a man who has heterosexual relations with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
Although the "God hates ****" sign is their most popular, the Westboro people do condemn a laundry list of sins. You'll find all manner of other sins listed in their signs and press releases. This includes abortion, divorce, adultery, violence, bestiality, pedophilia, and many others.
Again, in various points in the epistles (and at least once in Revelation) homosexual acts are indeed mentioned as mortal sins. But they are always part of a laundry list of mortal sins, such as what you already quoted. There is no indication that the gay are "double damned." They are in the same hell as "those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
Ok, focus on what you just said.
If there were a bunch of people running around committing murders, shouldn't there be moral outrage?
So if the argument is that homosexual acts are morally abominable, why is this not something you regard as something that should be met with widespread protest?
But now let me ask you to imagine that St. Paul were to witness two men kissing in ancient Athens. No doubt he would engage them in conversation. But would he engage them in a constructive or combative way? Would he say, "Brothers, don't you know that what you are doing is an offense against God?" Or would he say, "You filthy heathen dogs, you're going to burn in hell for giving in to your unnatural passion!"
Hopefully the answer is obvious.
Of course it isn't obvious. I've never met the man, nor met anyone who has.
What I do know is that he wrote a lot about loving one another and working for the benefit of others, and about how certain people are wicked and deserve to be abandoned to suffer eternally in hellfire. You speak of consistency, but I don't see it.
In case not, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 reads, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, if the early Christian churches could include people who had used to engage in homosexual acts, then clearly Paul and his cohorts did not drive them away with hateful and condemning words and deeds.
So now you're just forgetting the parts in which Paul told people explicitly that unnatural lusts are the signs of a God-forsaken people and to cast out any who engage in homosexual lusts to the damnation they so deserve?
Two thoughts, then, in closing. Paul consistently preached "hate the sin, love the sinner;" though I think he would err on the side of love if it came to that.
Which is why he told people to cast out from the community of faith those who were sinful? How is that consistent?
The problem with a number of Christians is that they are eager to hate the sin but incapable of fully loving the sinner, because they have not fully accepted the depths of their own sin or the impartiality of God's love.
The impartiality of God's love? How do you reconcile the impartiality of God's love with the notion that God will throw the vast majority of God's people into hell?
If you believe in the latter, then it sounds like God's love is partial, doesn't it? God chooses his own and casts out everyone else.
And then you have people like Phelps, who are simply twisted by hate and darkness through and through.
Maybe Phelps was, but I don't believe a person who preaches that our nation is a den of sin, that our allowing of homosexuality brings upon us destruction from God, and that homosexuals deserve to die and burn in eternal hellfire is something we cannot find justification for in the Pauline Epistles. I don't see what specifically about the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church you claim has no justification in Paul's words. I do believe they genuinely think they are behaving in the best way they can to prevent people from being damned to hell.
Secondly: no, I do not agree with Paul that gay sex is inherently sinful.
Which I have no problem with. I don't agree with Paul either.
What I DO have a problem with is you trying to make Paul say something he did not say and would not have believed.
I recently began attending a Congregational church specifically because they declared themselves an "open and affirming" congregation. But I can see arguments both ways; and I do believe that a Christian is capable of genuinely hating or "abominating" gay sex (and murder, and thievery, and pedophilia, etc.) while also genuinely loving gays (and murderers, and thieves, and pedophiles, etc.) But it takes deep humility and maturity to attain such faith
I don't think so. I think it takes ignorance to lump gay sex with murder, thievery, and pedophilia.
I'm going to respond one last time to you on this matter and then be done. You can have the final word if you'd like, but it's clear that neither of us is going to very well persuade the other.
If there were a bunch of people running around committing murders, shouldn't there be moral outrage?
So if the argument is that homosexual acts are morally abominable, why is this not something you regard as something that should be met with widespread protest?
You can feel moral outrage in your heart; but you don't serve as the "salt of the earth" by continually and publicly raging. If there is something regarded by society at large as a "victimless crime," or not immoral at all -- gay sex, looking at porn, getting drunk (as long as you're not driving) etc. -- then you have to engage the matter with tact and grace. Yes, you'll express your outrage when "preaching to the choir;" but in that case you still must walk a delicate line and be sensitive to the fact that immature Christians who hear you will be eager to prove their devotion by hating the sinner concurrently with the sin.
Of course it isn't obvious. I've never met the man, nor met anyone who has.
So afraid to extrapolate even a little?
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Gay people would count as simply one category of those "not under the law." And Paul would try to save them by all possible means.
What I do know is that he wrote a lot about loving one another and working for the benefit of others, and about how certain people are wicked and deserve to be abandoned to suffer eternally in hellfire. You speak of consistency, but I don't see it.
You don't seem to appreciate that Paul insisted Christians hold each other to a much higher standard so as to preserve their identity and integrity in a largely godless world. It can't get any more explicit than this:
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
Whenever, therefore, Paul told Christians to abandon anyone to hellfire, he was always speaking about severing ties with false or fallen Christians.
Which is why he told people to cast out from the community of faith those who were sinful? How is that consistent?
God disciplines those whom he loves. Also, kicking them out was not the initial impetus but the measure of last resort.
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)
The impartiality of God's love? How do you reconcile the impartiality of God's love with the notion that God will throw the vast majority of God's people into hell?
The doctrine of hell itself is a separate issue for a separate discussion.
Maybe Phelps was, but I don't believe a person who preaches that our nation is a den of sin, that our allowing of homosexuality brings upon us destruction from God, and that homosexuals deserve to die and burn in eternal hellfire is something we cannot find justification for in the Pauline Epistles. I don't see what specifically about the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church you claim has no justification in Paul's words. I do believe they genuinely think they are behaving in the best way they can to prevent people from being damned to hell.
So what? The Nazis sincerely believed they were doing the best thing for Germany; does that excuse them? The WBC people are twisted through and through, claiming allegiance to God with their lips while mocking him continually by their hateful actions. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20)
And if they *can find* justification for their hate in the Pauline epistles, that also proves nothing. I once read on the internet a sincere argument that Jesus wanted people to drink their own urine for health reasons; the justification provided was John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." Because that passage was *found* to be a veiled reference to urination. What nonsense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I'm going to respond one last time to you on this matter and then be done. You can have the final word if you'd like, but it's clear that neither of us is going to very well persuade the other.
Run away if you want to, Pandas, but know I respect what you're trying to do, and I think you can accomplish something here if you're willing to confront legitimate problems people might have with what the Bible says.
So afraid to extrapolate even a little?
I don't know Paul. Neither do you. Therefore I do not claim to know what he would or would not have done, because I do not have sufficient evidence to make a statement like that.
What I do not do is make Paul a mouthpiece for my own ideas. Paul didn't write what Pandas wanted him to write, nor did he believe what Pandas believes. Paul wrote what Paul wrote, and believed what Paul believed.
Which is why he told people to cast out from the community of faith those who were sinful? How is that consistent?
God disciplines those whom he loves.
No, I'm talking about Paul calling on people to cast out those who are gay from the Christian community to receive the damnation that Paul feels they deserve. According to Paul, God does not love gay people. They are abominable in God's sight.
The impartiality of God's love? How do you reconcile the impartiality of God's love with the notion that God will throw the vast majority of God's people into hell?
The doctrine of hell itself is a separate issue for a separate discussion.
Really? You mentioned it in the OP, didn't you? It seems that the doctrine of hell is certainly a part of this discussion, especially when Paul is claiming homosexuality is a punishment entirely deserving of eternal suffering in hell.
So what? The Nazis sincerely believed they were doing the best thing for Germany; does that excuse them?
First of all, association fallacy. Please don't pull the same stunts HerewardWake did.
Second, not analogous. The Nazis were genocidal mass murders who had an agenda of militaristic takeover. As far as I know, the Westboro Baptist Church has staged entirely peaceful protests. If they've engaged in any violence, I don't know about it. My understanding is that they've been expressing themselves peacefully.
Which brings me to my question: What is it specifically that you object about them? You accuse them of hatred. Is it because you don't agree with what they're saying, or their methods, and what is it specifically about their methods? That they stage public protests? Why are they different from anyone else who stages public protests?
Or is it specifically their idealogy that troubles you? That's fine, I agree, but recognize that their ideology of God hating homosexuality, and the moral bankruptcy of allowing homosexuality brings suffering down upon both homosexuals and the society that harbors them is something Paul agrees with. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but "God hates ****" is something the Pauline Epistles undeniably support.
The WBC people are twisted through and through, claiming allegiance to God with their lips while mocking him continually by their hateful actions.
Justify this.
And if they *can find* justification for their hate in the Pauline epistles, that also proves nothing.
No, it does prove something. It proves you wrong. That is to say, it proves your assertion that the Bible consistently goes against what people like Fred Phelps believed is wrong.
Which is not something I think you're prepared to accept.
I feel it's important at this point to clarify what I'm objecting to here. I am objecting specifically to your assertion that the Bible "consistently" (your words) rebukes the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and other "hatemongers." I will disagree and say it does not do so.
I wish it did. The fact of the matter is the Bible has been used to justify a great deal of horrible things. Not so very long ago it was used to defend slavery. And I would love it if we could just say, "Those people find no justification within the Bible, it is consistently against them." That'd be great. It's also not true, and we have to acknowledge it.
You made a thread specifically asking why people have problems with Christianity. The fact that the Bible has a lot of stuff that people might take issue with is a major part of that, and one must honestly confront that.
I once read on the internet a sincere argument that Jesus wanted people to drink their own urine for health reasons; the justification provided was John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." Because that passage was *found* to be a veiled reference to urination. What nonsense.
Yes, that's ridiculous. It's not analogous to God hating gay people. That's explicit within Paul.
Once again, you don't have to agree with Paul. I'm a Christian and I don't agree with Paul. But you cannot say that Paul was saying something other than what he was saying, and you cannot say that those who say that God hates gay people don't find any justification within Paul.
Run away if you want to, Pandas, but know I respect what you're trying to do, and I think you can accomplish something here if you're willing to confront legitimate problems people might have with what the Bible says.
Okay, fine. I've heard what you've said and we'll see if there is some consensus to be had after all.
According to Paul, God does not love gay people. They are abominable in God's sight.
I think we ought to be very careful with our language here. Paul (and the rest of the Bible) does not acknowledge the existence of gay people as we understand them. Everyone is assumed to be heterosexual in their nature; but some give in to unnatural desires to engage in homosexual acts (and/or acts of incest, bestiality, etc.)
So the letter of Biblical law counts against gays. But the spirit of the law says that God's anger is aroused when people defile such natures as He has given them. If, then, our modern understanding of homosexuality is correct -- that some people are that way simply by nature -- then being gay is nothing to condemn and "progressive" Christians have a leg to stand on.
First of all, association fallacy. Please don't pull the same stunts HerewardWake did.
Second, not analogous. The Nazis were genocidal mass murders who had an agenda of militaristic takeover. As far as I know, the Westboro Baptist Church has staged entirely peaceful protests. If they've engaged in any violence, I don't know about it. My understanding is that they've been expressing themselves peacefully.
Which brings me to my question: What is it specifically that you object about them? You accuse them of hatred. Is it because you don't agree with what they're saying, or their methods, and what is it specifically about their methods? That they stage public protests? Why are they different from anyone else who stages public protests?
It has everything, everything, to do with their methods.
Check out this video from John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UousPa1ks0w
He expresses very strong (and some would say very offensive), Biblically grounded views against gay marriage. But he does so without name calling, without deliberate provocation, in a soft-spoken way and expressing genuine sorrow rather than rancor.
Fred Phelps, by contrast, became the "most hated man in America" because he gleefully positioned himself as the most hateful. Just saying such things as "God hates ****" or "Thank God for dead soldiers" is bad enough. But who even thinks to protest at funerals? Who seeks notoriety by harassing grieving people in their most vulnerable hour? That sort of wicked inspiration, calculated for maximum vulgarity, comes straight from Satan. The WBC is thoroughly demonic.
And I could not call their protests non-violent. True, they did not involve physical assault; but every manner of psychological and spiritual assault they could get away with under the exceedingly broad provisions of the First Amendment, they did.
No, it does prove something. It proves you wrong. That is to say, it proves your assertion that the Bible consistently goes against what people like Fred Phelps believed is wrong.
Which is not something I think you're prepared to accept.
I never said it consistently goes against what Phelps believed. I said that the Bible (or at the very least the New Testament, which ought to have primacy for a professing Christian) consistently goes against how Phelps acted.
And you have not refuted this. You have not provided so much as one verse from any gospel or epistle that even suggests it is acceptable for true followers of Christ to harass, mock and degrade non-believers under any circumstance. So if I am wrong, prove me wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
According to Paul, God does not love gay people. They are abominable in God's sight.
I think we ought to be very careful with our language here. Paul (and the rest of the Bible) does not acknowledge the existence of gay people as we understand them. Everyone is assumed to be heterosexual in their nature; but some give in to unnatural desires to engage in homosexual acts (and/or acts of incest, bestiality, etc.)
So the letter of Biblical law counts against gays. But the spirit of the law says that God's anger is aroused when people defile such natures as He has given them. If, then, our modern understanding of homosexuality is correct -- that some people are that way simply by nature -- then being gay is nothing to condemn and "progressive" Christians have a leg to stand on.
Not according to Paul.
Now, do I agree with what you just posted? Yes.
But Paul wouldn't. That's the thing. To Paul, there is no "homosexual orientation," or rather there is, but that nature is under the broader category of "lust." Homosexuality is a perversion and an unnatural lust that is abominable in the sight of God, and all those who engage in homosexual acts deservedly bring disasters on themselves and are condemned to die and suffer eternally in hell. That's Paul's view.
This needs to be clarified because my point of disagreement is saying that there is consistency within the Bible against someone promoting hatred of homosexuality. I don't believe there is. Not if we have Paul saying God himself hates homosexual acts, and that horrible things happening to people who engage in homosexual acts are just and entirely deserved.
I never said it consistently goes against what Phelps believed. I said that the Bible (or at the very least the New Testament, which ought to have primacy for a professing Christian) consistently goes against how Phelps acted.
I'm not convinced. If, according to Paul, homosexuality is truly a damnable offense, if the act of committing it is an act of immoral sex crime, if the condoning of it is the mark of wickedness and showcases the moral degeneracy of our society, then does not Phelps have justification for what he does?
I'm not denying that you can find parts of the Bible that go against Phelps. I'm denying you can't find anything within the Bible that doesn't justify him. You say this:
Just saying such things as "God hates ****" or "Thank God for dead soldiers" is bad enough.
You don't think either of those can be justified by Paul? Heck, we've already demonstrated that "God hates ****" is straight out of the Pauline Epistles.
I never said it consistently goes against what Phelps believed. I said that the Bible (or at the very least the New Testament, which ought to have primacy for a professing Christian) consistently goes against how Phelps acted.
Which it does not.
Now does it consistently support him? No. As I said, the Bible does not consistently support Phelps, nor does it consistently support your case against Phelps. The Bible seldom consistently supports any one position on anything, and this is not an exception. It's easily to make a case for Phelps using the Bible, just as it's easy to make a case against him.
Indeed, and it gives me no pleasure to say it, according to the Pauline Epistles, you are at least as evil and hypocritical as Phelps is, if not more so. Phelps might be too extreme in his methods according to Paul, but you are preaching that there's nothing wrong with affronts against God. You are preaching high blasphemies in the name of Christ according to Paul, and openly advocating abominable perversions. On top of that, you're judging another person, claiming him to be hypocritical and blasphemous when you're doing the exact same thing! Moreover, you are denying Paul as having been given authority because his revelation was from Jesus himself.
Now, as to "spirit of the law," what do you think the great Christian hope was back in those times? What do you think all of this was going toward? Where do you think this lead?
To the apocalypse of course. The dawning of the new age. The coming of the Kingdom of God, right?
Now do you think everyone was going to enter the kingdom of God? Certainly not! Not according to Paul, indeed, not according to anything in the New Testament that I know of. Paul and the Gospels point to a winnowing, a separating of the wheat from the chaff, that the righteous people of God would be taken up, while everyone else, EVERYONE else, would be abandoned to eternal hellfire, suffering, and torment.
This was what they were hoping for, that all the unrighteous would be swept away and cast down into hellfire and torment, while the followers of Christ would live in joy in the Kingdom of God. That was the celebrated day of their dreams and hopes.
Now do you want to claim that the Bible gives a consistent message against someone like Phelps?
Going back to HerewardWake's quote that started this sidetopic:
Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution.
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all since they abide by Christianity's foundational text and loudly preach it, as The Bible orders. The reason Christianity is so repugnant is not people falsely judging it by the few "bad apples," just like there are in every institution. It's built on a horrible book with immoral teachings and most of its followers still retard intellectual, moral, and technological progress to this day, often with deadly consequences. The fact that there are some young, "progressive" Christians that lean toward reasonableness doesn't compromise how detestable Christianity is.
Now, as I demonstrated earlier, I don't agree with what he's saying. But he's also not totally without basis. Neither is Phelps. There are a lot of morally problematic parts of the Bible, parts that intolerant people over the years have used to justify their beliefs.
I am rather dismayed that you are sidestepping or willfully ignoring what is for me the crux of the matter; because I have not once denied that Paul's writings can and do support a hatred of homosexual acts. I am not denying that Phelps had scriptural justification in believing that gays go to hell. I am only denying that he had any scriptural justification for acting with hatred and malice towards unbelievers. And I should hope you are able to call black "black" and admit that protesting at someone's funeral is an utterly hateful and malicious act. If not, then we are really done here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I am rather dismayed that you are sidestepping or willfully ignoring what is for me the crux of the matter; because I have not once denied that Paul's writings can and do support a hatred of homosexual acts. I am not denying that Phelps had scriptural justification in believing that gays go to hell. I am only denying that he had any scriptural justification for acting with hatred and malice towards unbelievers.
To which I repeat, this is the same movement of people of whom the great hope and cause of future rejoicing is that God will one day sweep away the world and damn all those not part of the Christ movement to eternal hellfire. This is the same movement that says that all those who behave in wickedness through unnatural lusts deserve horrible punishments. This is the same movement that praises God for God's bestowing justice unto those who behaved wickedly.
What do you call someone who wishes and hopes for untold suffering upon people?
Do you see the problem? Yes, the Bible will say repeatedly that we should love one another. It will say that over and over again.
It will also advocate a doctrine about how God, who is the greatest good, hates gay people and that the Christ movement should rejoice at the multitudes of humanity that are sent to hell.
Do you not see the disconnect?
Of course I could find so very many Scriptural passages repudiating Phelps. It'd be simple to do. You've already done it.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is not a unified, consistent repudiation of Phelps.
I am rather dismayed that you are sidestepping or willfully ignoring what is for me the crux of the matter; because I have not once denied that Paul's writings can and do support a hatred of homosexual acts. I am not denying that Phelps had scriptural justification in believing that gays go to hell. I am only denying that he had any scriptural justification for acting with hatred and malice towards unbelievers. And I should hope you are able to call black "black" and admit that protesting at someone's funeral is an utterly hateful and malicious act. If not, then we are really done here.
Quote from Aquinas »
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Summa Theologica, 2.2.11.3. It seems that Aquinas himself would have found the WBC, which has after all not yet killed any sinners to my knowledge, to be a font of mercy by comparison.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
To which I repeat, this is the same movement of people of whom the great hope and cause of future rejoicing is that God will one day sweep away the world and damn all those not part of the Christ movement to eternal hellfire. This is the same movement that says that all those who behave in wickedness through unnatural lusts deserve horrible punishments. This is the same movement that praises God for God's bestowing justice unto those who behaved wickedly.
Yes, Christians were and are called to anticipate the eschaton, the ultimate victory of God, when death dies, evil is vanquished and the unrepentant evildoers are cast into "the outer darkness," removed from Creation itself. But they are not called to wish the ultimate punishment upon anyone.
As Jesus declared, the "gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Justice and mercy both demand that everyone be given a chance to hear and respond. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32)
Where, then, do you see the Bible instructing Christians to rejoice in or hope for the damnation of anyone? The closest thing I could find is in Revelation, when God condemns the Whore of Babylon to hell and the saints respond to the announcement by saying, "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever!" (Revelation 19:3) Yet the Whore of Babylon is not even a proper person, but a demonic eschatological figure who rides the seven headed beast from Daniel's prophecy. She is "drunk with the blood of the saints" (Rev. 17:6), and is explicitly a stand-in for Rome, and all the brutality, idolatry and oppression coming from Rome: "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth." (Rev. 17:18)
So, anywaaaaay...
You keep saying that the Bible says Christians should hate sinners and should rejoice at those who get damned. Now it's time to start backing it up with actual passages from the Bible, if you have any.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
To which I repeat, this is the same movement of people of whom the great hope and cause of future rejoicing is that God will one day sweep away the world and damn all those not part of the Christ movement to eternal hellfire. This is the same movement that says that all those who behave in wickedness through unnatural lusts deserve horrible punishments. This is the same movement that praises God for God's bestowing justice unto those who behaved wickedly.
Yes, Christians were and are called to anticipate the eschaton, the ultimate victory of God, when death dies, evil is vanquished and the unrepentant evildoers are cast into "the outer darkness," removed from Creation itself. But they are not called to wish the ultimate punishment upon anyone.
So one can want the time of judgment and damnation to come, but not for judgment and damnation to come?
That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it? That's like saying that one can want a horse race but not the racing of horses.
As Jesus declared, the "gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Justice and mercy both demand that everyone be given a chance to hear and respond. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32)
Ok, now you're just being disingenuous.
Yes, you can cherry pick a hundred quotes about how much God loves everyone from the Bible. None of that changes the fact that God damns people to eternal suffering in the Bible, which is incongruous with love, and sooner or later, you're going to have to actually address the problem instead of pretending it will go away.
Where, then, do you see the Bible instructing Christians to rejoice in or hope for the damnation of anyone?
What do you think the coming of the Kingdom of God meant?
Oh right.
Yes, Christians were and are called to anticipate the eschaton, the ultimate victory of God, when death dies, evil is vanquished and the unrepentant evildoers are cast into "the outer darkness," removed from Creation itself.
Yes, all the wicked people damned to eternal suffering in hell, correct.
So one can want the time of judgment and damnation to come, but not for judgment and damnation to come?
That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it? That's like saying that one can want a horse race but not the racing of horses.
Not at all. Whenever there is an outbreak of a deadly, contagious and incurable disease like ebola, we wish (for the good of everyone) that those who are infected be quarantined, even against their will if necessary. Does that mean that we wish for quarantines, or that we hate sick people?
The Christian position is roughly this: sin is sickness. There is an a cure, freely offered to everyone. But the pernicious thing about sin is that this disease is so widespread that its symptoms are popularly mistaken for signs of normalcy or health; and many of the most virulently infected will not even admit that they are sick. Eventually, for the ultimate good of everyone, God is going to establish a quarantine zone for those who refuse the cure. That quarantine zone is, of course, the hell to which you object so strongly.
Yes, you can cherry pick a hundred quotes about how much God loves everyone from the Bible. None of that changes the fact that God damns people to eternal suffering in the Bible, which is incongruous with love, and sooner or later, you're going to have to actually address the problem instead of pretending it will go away.
Hell is only incongruous with love if you don't value human autonomy very much.
Do you suppose that there can be such a thing as "heaven" if therein are unrepentant murderers, rapists, thieves and liars? Of course not. So what will God do when confronted with an evildoer who refuses to repent or admit his evil? He can let that person into heaven anyway, and thereby destroy heaven; or He can forcibly "reprogram" or brainwash the evildoer into being a good person, and thereby destroy human autonomy. And if He refuses to destroy our autonomy (since He created us in His own image), there remains only one option: exclude the rebel from heaven. Put him somewhere else, with all the other hardened rebels; and that "somewhere else" need not be a literal lake of fire. It could even start out as a very pleasant place. But it inexorably becomes hell because of the nature of its inhabitants. No more kindness, patience, generosity or empathy. Only a million deranged and utterly selfish selves, narcisists suffering the intolerable presence of other narcisists, perpetually hating and being hated, each one becoming a furnace of indignation and rage that burns hotter than any physical fire.
Now you might say that God should snuff such people out rather than allowing them to come to such a wretched state. And that course of action would no doubt be less painful for God. But the orthodox Christian position is that God values us so highly that He is willing to let us see the consequences of our free will through to the very end, whether that end be glorious or bitter.
So no, hell is not incongruous with God's love. You can certainly argue otherwise; but I don't see how you can argue otherwise and still call yourself a Christian, seeing as Jesus spoke of hell more than He did of heaven.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Not at all. Whenever there is an outbreak of a deadly, contagious and incurable disease like ebola, we wish (for the good of everyone) that those who are infected be quarantined, even against their will if necessary. Does that mean that we wish for quarantines, or that we hate sick people?
You know, you're just as bad as HerewardWake. Do you realize that? You both think that somehow you can come in and make these completely disingenuous, dishonest, oblivious analogies as though that crap would fly around here.
No, the hope of the early Christian community was specifically that the evil people of the world would be destroyed. Evil would be destroyed, and the evil people of the world sent to hell was part of that hope. They definitely wanted the people to be damned. In the case of the analogy, that's praying for the ebola outbreak. Did you think praying for the coming of the time of judgment meant something else?
The Christian position is roughly this: sin is sickness. There is an a cure, freely offered to everyone. But the pernicious thing about sin is that this disease is so widespread that its symptoms are popularly mistaken for signs of normalcy or health; and many of the most virulently infected will not even admit that they are sick. Eventually, for the ultimate good of everyone, God is going to establish a quarantine zone for those who refuse the cure. That quarantine zone is, of course, the hell to which you object so strongly.
"The ultimate good of everyone"? Infinite, eternal suffering for people is the ultimate good? By what distorted, insane logic is that good? By what distorted, insane logic is that love?
Hell is only incongruous with love if you don't value human autonomy very much.
Hell is incongruous with love period. You do not torture infinitely someone you love.
Do you suppose that there can be such a thing as "heaven" if therein are unrepentant murderers, rapists, thieves and liars?
Of course.
Of course not.
Then God is not God.
So what will God do when confronted with an evildoer who refuses to repent or admit his evil? He can let that person into heaven anyway, and thereby destroy heaven;
"Destroy heaven"?
or He can forcibly "reprogram" or brainwash the evildoer into being a good person, and thereby destroy human autonomy. And if He refuses to destroy our autonomy (since He created us in His own image), there remains only one option: exclude the rebel from heaven. Put him somewhere else, with all the other hardened rebels; and that "somewhere else" need not be a literal lake of fire. It could even start out as a very pleasant place. But it inexorably becomes hell because of the nature of its inhabitants.
Or it could be unpleasant because it's a literal lake of fire, which Jesus describes it as being.
Now you might say that God should snuff such people out rather than allowing them to come to such a wretched state.
That would also be evil.
So no, hell is not incongruous with God's love.
So you would cause someone you love to suffer eternally in fire and torment?
No, you wouldn't. You couldn't and still claim to love them. Because that's not what love is. That's not what love does.
If you made this thread because you wanted to know why people might find Christianity morally unacceptable, congratulations, you answered your own question. Look no further than the post you just made.
And then you have the gall to call Phelps a hypocrite? Remove plank from eye, Pandas.
You can certainly argue otherwise; but I don't see how you can argue otherwise and still call yourself a Christian, seeing as Jesus spoke of hell more than He did of heaven.
You know, you're just as bad as HerewardWake. Do you realize that? You both think that somehow you can come in and make these completely disingenuous, dishonest, oblivious analogies as though that crap would fly around here.
And you're perpetually evasive. Your posts are full of words but often say very little. You make assertions and never back them up.
No, the hope of the early Christian community was specifically that the evil people of the world would be destroyed. Evil would be destroyed, and the evil people of the world sent to hell was part of that hope. They definitely wanted the people to be damned.
Like this nugget here. You keep making the early Christian church out to be a bunch of arrogant spiritual sadists, without providing one scrap of scripture or extra-Biblical evidence to back it up. Yes, the Christians prayed for God's coming judgment; but they also took it earnestly as their commission to evangelize day and night so that as many people as possible might escape that judgment. They did not want anyone to be damned.
"The ultimate good of everyone"? Infinite, eternal suffering for people is the ultimate good? By what distorted, insane logic is that good? By what distorted, insane logic is that love?
Now on to this matter. Very intelligent and thoughtful Christians of this day and others have looked at the doctrine of hell and found it to be disturbing, yet ultimately consistent with a God of love. If you want a more contemporary take on it than you'd get from the church fathers, read C.S. Lewis or Timothy Keller. If you disagree with them (and me), then fine. However, I will make two further points:
The lake of fire is metaphorical. Hell is a place or state of being that is no doubt horrific; being burnt alive is meant to convey that. However, Jesus did not refer to hell only as a lake of fire but also as "the darkness outside," suggesting both coldness and the absence of such light as fire would create. Hell is again the place "where the worm does not die," suggesting a state of perpetual decay and corruption, though moist wormy decay would again seem to be incompatible with fire. All of this symbolic language is simply meant to drive home the point that hell is not somewhere you want to go. Thankfully, anyone can turn aside from it, because...
Hell is not God actively torturing people, but passively allowing them to torture themselves. And this is a reluctant letting go. But if people consistently choose to abuse and deceive and boast and mock -- if that is the character they build in this life -- then one day God is going to say, "You're not hurting my children anymore. I'm taking them away from you and your predations. Now you will have no one to abuse but abusers, no one to deceive but deceivers, no one to boast to but boasters, no one to mock but mockers. You will be treated to the mirror gallery of horrors that is your life, always afflicted, confused and belittled. For as you did unto others, so shall it be done unto you."
If you made this thread because you wanted to know why people might find Christianity morally unacceptable, congratulations, you answered your own question. Look no further than the post you just made.
Well, there is that. We have a very soft and sugar-coated view of love in the peaceful West. We believe that forgiveness is cheap and easy, because most of us have never been subjected to anything really horrific. But how does one forgive the destruction of one's home in war? Or the rape and murder of one's sister? Or the oppression of an occupying army? How does one not seek vengeance in those cases? The only way is to believe in a God not only of love, but of justice. Only through assurance by faith that justice will be done can we resist the urge to make ourselves judge, jury and executioner, opening up the possibility of forgiveness. "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
Take away hell, and you take away divine justice. How then is the human cycle of hatred and violence broken?
EDIT:
Finally I will add this. If you are a universalist, if you believe there is no hell and God takes everyone into heaven, then you are really being dishonest with yourself and everyone else by calling yourself a Christian.
Let "sin" equal "anything that drives a wedge between man and God, creating separation." If you believe that everyone goes to heaven, then ultimately there is no separation between man and God -- therefore no sin or at least no mortal sin. If there is no mortal sin, then Jesus did not need to die for our sake. He was not, as accredited by John the Baptist, "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." So the eschatalogical significance of his death on the cross -- truly the crux of Christian faith -- is removed and his death is death is rendered merely tragic, his resurrection absurd.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3-4) This is a matter of primal importance. If you don't believe it, do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop professing to be a Christian; because what you really are is a monist who thinks Jesus is pretty cool.
You keep making the early Christian church out to be a bunch of arrogant spiritual sadists, without providing one scrap of scripture or extra-Biblical evidence to back it up.
Really?
Quote from Jonathan Edwards »
The sight of Hell's torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever.
Quote from Martin Luther »
Will not the Blessed be saddened by seeing their nearest and dearest tortured? Not in the least.
Quote from Tertullian »
At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment, how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause.
Quote from Aquinas »
That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more abundant thanks for it to God, a perfect sight of the punishment of the damned is granted them.
"Arrogant spiritual sadists" (not to mention actual physical sadists in many cases) is a remarkably apt description of many theologians and church fathers. And all of their exegeses ultimately find their roots in Scripture.
The problem is that Scripture is self-contradictory and can therefore be used to justify anything. There is no standard you can appeal to to say that the Church fathers are wrong. One can cite verses that contradict their exegeses, or claim that the New Testament supersedes the Old, or whatever else one likes. One can also say that this exegesis governs, or point out that the New Testament incorporates the entirety of the Old by reference by way of e.g. Matthew 5:17-20, or whatever else one likes.
There's nothing that makes them wrong and you right, except perhaps for an appeal to an extrabiblical, extrareligious analysis of morality -- but once you grant that such an analysis is sound, all need for exegesis disappears and you were wasting your time even bothering with the Bible or any of its various interpreters down the ages.
I'M perpetually evasive? How many times have you attempted to dodge or dance around things I've brought up? It's practically a drinking game.
Like this nugget here. You keep making the early Christian church out to be a bunch of arrogant spiritual sadists,
They're wishing infinite suffering on people. If the shoe fits...
without providing one scrap of scripture or extra-Biblical evidence to back it up.
What, are you denying that the coming of the Kingdom of God does not involve sweeping away the evil people into hell? That's the whole point of apocalyptic eschatology. Fundamental to that is the belief that the world is locked in a battle of good and evil, and in the end, the evil of the world, especially the evil people, will be destroyed in a climactic battle by God and only the good will remain. The evil people will go to eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Yes, the Christians prayed for God's coming judgment; but they also took it earnestly as their commission to evangelize day and night so that as many people as possible might escape that judgment. They did not want anyone to be damned.
Yes, they clearly did want people to be damned. They were eagerly awaiting the time when the wicked would be sent to hell. That's the point of the apocalypse.
Now on to this matter. Very intelligent and thoughtful Christians of this day and others have looked at the doctrine of hell and found it to be disturbing, yet ultimately consistent with a God of love.
No doubt through disingenuous handwaving and reluctance to face the facts.
If you want a more contemporary take on it than you'd get from the church fathers, read C.S. Lewis or Timothy Keller. If you disagree with them (and me), then fine. However, I will make two further points:
The lake of fire is metaphorical. Hell is a place or state of being that is no doubt horrific; being burnt alive is meant to convey that. However, Jesus did not refer to hell only as a lake of fire but also as "the darkness outside," suggesting both coldness and the absence of such light as fire would create. Hell is again the place "where the worm does not die," suggesting a state of perpetual decay and corruption, though moist wormy decay would again seem to be incompatible with fire. All of this symbolic language is simply meant to drive home the point that hell is not somewhere you want to go. Thankfully, anyone can turn aside from it, because...
What was going through your mind when you posted this, I wonder? Did you think that when I responded that it was morally wrong for God to throw people in a lake of fire to suffer for all of eternity, that if you said that the lake of fire wasn't a literal lake of fire, but a place for people to suffer for all of eternity, I would say, "Oh, ok, problem solved?"
Well that's clearly not the case. It doesn't matter whether it's a literal lake of fire or not, that there's wailing and gnashing of teeth is pretty much a consensus, and the point is people will suffer as though it were. That's the part that's morally disturbing, and is inconsistent with an infinitely loving, benevolent, omnipotent deity.
Hell is not God actively torturing people, but passively allowing them to torture themselves.
Bull.
It's clear that hell is where sinners are to suffer the wrath of God. The wrath of God. Those who sin are said to be storing up God's wrath for themselves. The judgement will be the coming of God's wrath. God is characterized acting out of wrath and vengeance. God is clearly active in this.
If you made this thread because you wanted to know why people might find Christianity morally unacceptable, congratulations, you answered your own question. Look no further than the post you just made.
Well, there is that. We have a very soft and sugar-coated view of love in the peaceful West. We believe that forgiveness is cheap and easy, because most of us have never been subjected to anything really horrific. But how does one forgive the destruction of one's home in war? Or the rape and murder of one's sister? Or the oppression of an occupying army? How does one not seek vengeance in those cases?
You're kidding, right?
Quote from Matthew 8:43-48 »
‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The only way is to believe in a God not only of love, but of justice. Only through assurance by faith that justice will be done can we resist the urge to make ourselves judge, jury and executioner, opening up the possibility of forgiveness.
No, forgiveness that relies on someone else exacting vengeance on someone is not forgiveness. That is the opposite of forgiveness. Saying, "God will make you suffer for what you did," is not forgiveness.
Do you see how you are no better than Fred Phelps in saying thus?
Take away hell, and you take away divine justice.
Interesting that you object to someone taking away hell and divine justice.
You get the irony right? It's because we're talking about Christianity.
EDIT:
Finally I will add this. If you are a universalist, if you believe there is no hell and God takes everyone into heaven, then you are really being dishonest with yourself and everyone else by calling yourself a Christian.
Let "sin" equal "anything that drives a wedge between man and God, creating separation." If you believe that everyone goes to heaven, then ultimately there is no separation between man and God
Correct. To believe anything else is to believe either that will not redeem everyone, and therefore God's love is finite, or that God is incapable of redeeming everyone, and therefore God is not omnipotent.
If there is no mortal sin, then Jesus did not need to die for our sake.
Not necessarily. But I don't believe blood is necessary to expiate sin. The idea that forgiveness has a blood cost doesn't really make any sense.
his resurrection absurd.
I don't see how that follows.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3-4) This is a matter of primal importance. If you don't believe it, do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop professing to be a Christian; because what you really are is a monist who thinks Jesus is pretty cool.
Oh hardly. The term "Christian" applies to a far larger range of belief systems than people give it credit for.
Indeed, one of the big debates in early Christianity was exactly what Jesus was. There were people who argued that Jesus was man only, and not God. Then there were the people who believed that Jesus was never actually born as a human being, and therefore never actually died. This is called "appearance Christology."
Once again, you'd be hard pressed to find things Bible actually gives a unified, consistent stance on. It's a collection of numerous different writings from numerous different traditions from numerous different civilizations and time periods.
What, are you denying that the coming of the Kingdom of God does not involve sweeping away the evil people into hell? That's the whole point of apocalyptic eschatology. Fundamental to that is the belief that the world is locked in a battle of good and evil, and in the end, the evil of the world, especially the evil people, will be destroyed in a climactic battle by God and only the good will remain. The evil people will go to eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Okay, let me ask you: what do you think is the spiritual significance of the evil in the world? Apparently you do not believe it derives from Satan, so what is it? Simple ignorance, coupled with addictive passions and a lack of self-control, perhaps? Would we all be good if only we knew better? Seriously, what's your take on it?
Bull.
It's clear that hell is where sinners are to suffer the wrath of God. The wrath of God. Those who sin are said to be storing up God's wrath for themselves. The judgement will be the coming of God's wrath. God is characterized acting out of wrath and vengeance. God is clearly active in this.
Wrath is not always an acting out; sometimes it is to refrain from acting. If you're pissed at someone because he's running a meth lab out of his garage and ruining himself and others, and then he blows up his house, and you hear him screaming in the flames but don't try to save him because you think he deserves to burn, that is passive wrath.
Of course, I will grant that God who set up the parameters of the universe is ultimately active in whatever transpires therein. So you can have this point.
No, forgiveness that relies on someone else exacting vengeance on someone is not forgiveness. That is the opposite of forgiveness. Saying, "God will make you suffer for what you did," is not forgiveness.
To clarify, you would not be saying, "God will make you suffer for what you did." You would be saying, "I trust that God will deal with you justly." Maybe that person will repent without your knowledge and meet you in heaven and all will be wonderful. But you have to trust that people who do evil, continually and willfully, and feel no pangs of conscience but indeed are gratified by it, will finally be excluded from the human community that they have mocked and degraded.
Do you see how you are no better than Fred Phelps in saying thus?
Intrinsically I am no better than Phelps. We're both sinners, yes. But I do not think I am wrong or hypocritical in discerning that Phelps made a life out of inflicting pain and misery; that he took pride in that; and that this evinced that he turned his back on, or never knew, the love of Christ. "You shall know a tree by its fruits" and all that. Testimony from a couple of his kids that his rage was a fixture of his life even from their childhood, that he physically and verbally abused them growing up, only further confirms how lost he was.
Interesting that you object to someone taking away hell and divine justice.
You get the irony right? It's because we're talking about Christianity.
Surely you know that the orthodox Christian position is not that Christ's sacrifice removed hell or God's justice. The opening chapters of Romans are very explicit about this.
Correct. To believe anything else is to believe either that will not redeem everyone, and therefore God's love is finite, or that God is incapable of redeeming everyone, and therefore God is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. I maintain that it is logically impossible to act lovingly towards someone by redeeming them against their will. That God will not say to unrepentant evildoers, "Okay, guys, enough of this. I'm strapping you down and performing open heart surgery, taking out those shriveled wicked hearts of yours and implanting shiny new compassionate ones, so you can actually participate in heaven. I know you hate me and you're going to fight this to the end, but believe me, it's for your own good."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
@Crashing00: Thank you for actually providing evidence.
I've provided plenty of evidence.
Okay, let me ask you: what do you think is the spiritual significance of the evil in the world? Apparently you do not believe it derives from Satan, so what is it? Simple ignorance, coupled with addictive passions and a lack of self-control, perhaps? Would we all be good if only we knew better? Seriously, what's your take on it?
*Shrug* I dunno. Ignorance I guess.
Wrath is not always an acting out; sometimes it is to refrain from acting. If you're pissed at someone because he's running a meth lab out of his garage and ruining himself and others, and then he blows up his house, and you hear him screaming in the flames but don't try to save him because you think he deserves to burn, that is passive wrath.
Which is not what is being described. God is described as actively casting people into hell. For this analogy to work, God would have to be the one blowing up the house.
To clarify, you would not be saying, "God will make you suffer for what you did." You would be saying, "I trust that God will deal with you justly."
It's the exact same thing.
Intrinsically I am no better than Phelps. We're both sinners, yes. But I do not think I am wrong or hypocritical in discerning that Phelps made a life out of inflicting pain and misery; that he took pride in that; and that this evinced that he turned his back on, or never knew, the love of Christ. "You shall know a tree by its fruits" and all that. Testimony from a couple of his kids that his rage was a fixture of his life even from their childhood, that he physically and verbally abused them growing up, only further confirms how lost he was.
Phelps was guilty of a lot of things, and was not shining example of humanity, to be sure. However, one thing that can be said about him was that he did not claim he wasn't advocating the damnation of people when he was. He was upfront and honest about that fact.
So for you to condemn him for wanting people to be sent to hell when you're doing the exact same thing makes you completely hypocritical. So for someone who wants to run around talking about hypocrisy, well: remove plank from eye.
But you have to trust that people who do evil, continually and willfully, and feel no pangs of conscience but indeed are gratified by it, will finally be excluded from the human community that they have mocked and degraded.
To suffer in eternal hellfire.
Which is not the behavior of a loving or compassionate person.
Surely you know that the orthodox Christian position is not that Christ's sacrifice removed hell or God's justice.
I never claimed it was.
I do, however, find it noteworthy that you take umbrage at the idea of people not receiving hell or divine justice, when the entire point of Jesus' ministry was to prevent such things from happening.
It's rather odd that you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in someone claiming to love the sinner and not the sin, claiming to be compassionate towards sinners and not want them to be damned, start complaining at the idea that those who sin wouldn't be sent into hell to suffer with all eternity.
Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. I maintain that it is logically impossible to act lovingly towards someone by redeeming them against their will.
That's ridiculous. It is entirely possible to forgive someone even when they don't want us to.
That God will not say to unrepentant evildoers, "Okay, guys, enough of this. I'm strapping you down and performing open heart surgery, taking out those shriveled wicked hearts of yours and implanting shiny new compassionate ones, so you can actually participate in heaven. I know you hate me and you're going to fight this to the end, but believe me, it's for your own good."
Or God could just forgive them and let them in.
Kind of ruins that nice false dichotomy you were creating though, huh?
Phelps was guilty of a lot of things, and was not shining example of humanity, to be sure. However, one thing that can be said about him was that he did not claim he wasn't advocating the damnation of people when he was. He was upfront and honest about that fact.
So for you to condemn him for wanting people to be sent to hell when you're doing the exact same thing makes you completely hypocritical. So for someone who wants to run around talking about hypocrisy, well: remove plank from eye.
There's no hypocrisy. Phelps did want people to go to hell; I don't want anyone to go there. Neither should any Christian.
To me it seems like I'm saying, "If you smoke and eat a lot of processed meat, you're going to get cancer," and you're saying, "How dare you believe that such a dreadful consequence could follow from such minor vices as smoking and meat-eating? You clearly want people to get cancer!"
I do, however, find it noteworthy that you take umbrage at the idea of people not receiving hell or divine justice, when the entire point of Jesus' ministry was to prevent such things from happening.
Jesus continually preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 4:17) All his parables dealing with judgment made it clear that there would be many who would not heed his message, would not repent, and who would go to hell as a result. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
It's rather odd that you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in someone claiming to love the sinner and not the sin, claiming to be compassionate towards sinners and not want them to be damned, start complaining at the idea that those who sin wouldn't be sent into hell to suffer with all eternity.
You are willfully omitting a qualifying word that I have tried to be careful and use wherever it is warranted. My claim (and the gospel's) is that unrepentant sinners will go to hell. Do you hear that, Highroller? UNREPENTANT. The serial rapist who feels no shame, but gloats about how many virgins he defiled. The Ponzi scheme architect who suffers no pangs of conscience for robbing his investors, but laughs inwardly at their gullibility. The abusive husband who, every time he beats his wife and leaves her bruised and whimpering, assures himself that she actually deserved worse than what he gave her. People like that are the hellbound ones.
And yes, God does love them. But true love does not permit or accommodate all. It is candid. It says to the wayward beloved, "You can make better choices. I believe that you can; I will help you to do so if you let me. But if you're going to keep pushing me away and keep causing harm, then one day I will remove my embrace from you. I will allow you to suffer the full consequences of your evil, because the way you are living is incompatible with reality, and I love you too much to lie to you."
That's ridiculous. It is entirely possible to forgive someone even when they don't want us to.
Forgiving and redeeming are not the same thing.
Or God could just forgive them and let them in.
Kind of ruins that nice false dichotomy you were creating though, huh?
So God says to Osama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, etc: "Hey guys, you killed thousands and millions, causing untold fear and suffering. But you know what? All's forgiven, since you were clearly acting out of ignorance. The gates of heaven are open -- c'mon in!"
What then does God say to their victims?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
It is when "I trust God to deal with you justly" means sending that person to hell.
Phelps was guilty of a lot of things, and was not shining example of humanity, to be sure. However, one thing that can be said about him was that he did not claim he wasn't advocating the damnation of people when he was. He was upfront and honest about that fact.
So for you to condemn him for wanting people to be sent to hell when you're doing the exact same thing makes you completely hypocritical. So for someone who wants to run around talking about hypocrisy, well: remove plank from eye.
There's no hypocrisy. Phelps did want people to go to hell; I don't want anyone to go there. Neither should any Christian.
You don't want anyone to go to hell, but you would object to God not sending anyone to hell?
You are demonstrating you do want people to go to hell.
To me it seems like I'm saying, "If you smoke and eat a lot of processed meat, you're going to get cancer," and you're saying, "How dare you believe that such a dreadful consequence could follow from such minor vices as smoking and meat-eating? You clearly want people to get cancer!"
No, it's not the same thing, because you are taking umbrage at the idea that God wouldn't send people to hell.
It would be like if I saw an apple on top of a table and knocked it off the table onto the floor, then blamed the apple being on the table for it falling. Except that doesn't work, because the apple fell because I knocked it off the table.
Jesus continually preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 4:17) All his parables dealing with judgment made it clear that there would be many who would not heed his message, would not repent, and who would go to hell as a result. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
Yeah. Your point?
The point of Jesus was to save people from hell, right? So why are you totally ok with some sinners not going to hell but not all of them? You claim that you don't like the idea of people going to hell, but you then object to the idea of no one going to hell, which means clearly you advocate the idea of people being condemned to eternal suffering.
Clearly, you DO want people to go to hell.
It's rather odd that you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in someone claiming to love the sinner and not the sin, claiming to be compassionate towards sinners and not want them to be damned, start complaining at the idea that those who sin wouldn't be sent into hell to suffer with all eternity.
You are willfully omitting a qualifying word that I have tried to be careful and use wherever it is warranted. My claim (and the gospel's) is that unrepentant sinners will go to hell. Do you hear that, Highroller? UNREPENTANT. The serial rapist who feels no shame, but gloats about how many virgins he defiled. The Ponzi scheme architect who suffers no pangs of conscience for robbing his investors, but laughs inwardly at their gullibility. The abusive husband who, every time he beats his wife and leaves her bruised and whimpering, assures himself that she actually deserved worse than what he gave her. People like that are the hellbound ones.
First of all, disingenuous. Someone could commit a moral transgression and say, "Wow, I feel terrible for this, I'm going to go pray to Buddha for forgiveness." Damned.
Second, I don't see why the qualification matters. You're still complaining that I'm saying people shouldn't be sent to hell while trumpeting yourself as being loving and forgiving like the hypocrite you are.
You want to see love and forgiveness? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/iran-parents-halt-killer-execution
That's loving those who injure you. That's compassion. Not endorsing misfortune being heaped upon him because he's "getting what he deserved," which is what you're advocating and simultaneously berating Phelps for.
And yes, God does love them. But true love does not permit or accommodate all. It is candid. It says to the wayward beloved, "You can make better choices. I believe that you can; I will help you to do so if you let me. But if you're going to keep pushing me away and keep causing harm, then one day I will remove my embrace from you. I will allow you to suffer the full consequences of your evil, because the way you are living is incompatible with reality, and I love you too much to lie to you."
Then that's not true love.
Forgiving and redeeming are not the same thing.
It is in this case. Redemption from sin is God forgiving our sins, right? We can certainly forgive people who don't want us to forgive them without violating free will or whatever.
So God says to Osama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, etc: "Hey guys, you killed thousands and millions, causing untold fear and suffering. But you know what? All's forgiven, since you were clearly acting out of ignorance. The gates of heaven are open -- c'mon in!"
What then does God say to their victims?
The same thing. "All's forgiven, since you were clearly acting out of ignorance. The gates of heaven are open -- c'mon in!"
Clearly, this is the cornerstone of everything here: we disagree on what true love is and whether it is compatible with hell.
Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain which nicely sums up my view of God:
Quote from C.S. Lewis »
“You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the 'lord of terrible aspect,' is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.”
See, that's the only conception of love that I find to be really dignifying. Whereas you seem to prefer to believe in (in Lewis's words) a "senile benevolence" in heaven, I want a God who cares enough about me to get angry if I start mucking up my life. I want a God who respects me enough to allow me to experience (and if need be suffer) the consequences of my actions. Not a "helicopter parent" who dashes in with a Magic Eraser to wipe away every unpleasantry, regardless of whether I even feel any contrition or remorse.
My God! I want a God who takes good and evil seriously! Who created a universe not as some idle simulation, where running someone over with your car has ultimately the same impact (read: NONE) whether done in real life or in Grand Theft Auto, but where our words and deeds and cultivated characters have genuine and even everlasting repercussions. None of this, "bloodthirsty mass murderers are on the same page as average people" bull*****.
Yes, I want there to be a heaven and a hell! I want an abyss of darkness that contrasts the light and allows it to shine all the brighter, or even to shine at all. And I don't just want hell for other people, as you slanderously insinuate. I want to be allowed to damn myself if such is my will. I want there to be a separation of the sheep and the goats even without taking for granted that I am one of the sheep.
No doubt you will find all of this abominable and will sharply criticize me. Well, in the words of Martin Luther: "Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders."* We both claim to be Christians but our conceptions of Christ are incompatible, and evidently intractable. So now there is really no point in continuing this. One day, in any case, the truth will be made manifest.
*= Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Which, I will say, I have no problem with provided one doesn't deny the existence of the passages one doesn't like. It's one thing to say that one disagrees with Phelps, or disagrees with Paul. It's another to ignore/handwave that these parts of the Bible exist and claim that the Bible consistently supports a single position on how to treat such people, particularly since it's difficult to find a consistent position on anything in the Bible, given that the Bible is a collection of many different books by many different authors and editors over many different time periods.
Certainly portions of the Bible are fictional, the question is which parts.
Coincidentally, the parts of the Bible people don't like are the parts of the Bible they know to be metaphorical.
Christianity revolves around torture.
Christians worship God just because he's powerful.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
I haven't been dancing around anything.
Yes, that's exactly right. So too is "envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness" and all other manner of "things that should not be done." All of which is symptomatic of the sin nature inherited by all people from Adam. The fact that Paul chooses to make an extended example of homosexuality most likely has to do with the fact that it is a very unambiguous and commonsense deviation from "God's design." Even so...
Again, in various points in the epistles (and at least once in Revelation) homosexual acts are indeed mentioned as mortal sins. But they are always part of a laundry list of mortal sins, such as what you already quoted. There is no indication that the gay are "double damned." They are in the same hell as "those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
And it would indeed make sense if a Christian were to preach against all such sin, which is what Paul does. Sometimes, yes, he highlights gay sex. At another instance he highlights, as exceedingly immoral, a man who has heterosexual relations with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
But now let me ask you to imagine that St. Paul were to witness two men kissing in ancient Athens. No doubt he would engage them in conversation. But would he engage them in a constructive or combative way? Would he say, "Brothers, don't you know that what you are doing is an offense against God?" Or would he say, "You filthy heathen dogs, you're going to burn in hell for giving in to your unnatural passion!"
Hopefully the answer is obvious. In case not, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 reads, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, if the early Christian churches could include people who had used to engage in homosexual acts, then clearly Paul and his cohorts did not drive them away with hateful and condemning words and deeds.
Two thoughts, then, in closing. Paul consistently preached "hate the sin, love the sinner;" though I think he would err on the side of love if it came to that. The problem with a number of Christians is that they are eager to hate the sin but incapable of fully loving the sinner, because they have not fully accepted the depths of their own sin or the impartiality of God's love. Therefore their compassion is feigned and forced, and their insincerity is obvious and repulsive to everyone. And then you have people like Phelps, who are simply twisted by hate and darkness through and through.
Secondly: no, I do not agree with Paul that gay sex is inherently sinful. I recently began attending a Congregational church specifically because they declared themselves an "open and affirming" congregation. But I can see arguments both ways; and I do believe that a Christian is capable of genuinely hating or "abominating" gay sex (and murder, and thievery, and pedophilia, etc.) while also genuinely loving gays (and murderers, and thieves, and pedophiles, etc.) But it takes deep humility and maturity to attain such faith, and the voices of those who do are only a whisper in the shouting match of the culture wars.
Although the "God hates ****" sign is their most popular, the Westboro people do condemn a laundry list of sins. You'll find all manner of other sins listed in their signs and press releases. This includes abortion, divorce, adultery, violence, bestiality, pedophilia, and many others.
If there were a bunch of people running around committing murders, shouldn't there be moral outrage?
So if the argument is that homosexual acts are morally abominable, why is this not something you regard as something that should be met with widespread protest?
Of course it isn't obvious. I've never met the man, nor met anyone who has.
What I do know is that he wrote a lot about loving one another and working for the benefit of others, and about how certain people are wicked and deserve to be abandoned to suffer eternally in hellfire. You speak of consistency, but I don't see it.
So now you're just forgetting the parts in which Paul told people explicitly that unnatural lusts are the signs of a God-forsaken people and to cast out any who engage in homosexual lusts to the damnation they so deserve?
Which is why he told people to cast out from the community of faith those who were sinful? How is that consistent?
The impartiality of God's love? How do you reconcile the impartiality of God's love with the notion that God will throw the vast majority of God's people into hell?
If you believe in the latter, then it sounds like God's love is partial, doesn't it? God chooses his own and casts out everyone else.
Maybe Phelps was, but I don't believe a person who preaches that our nation is a den of sin, that our allowing of homosexuality brings upon us destruction from God, and that homosexuals deserve to die and burn in eternal hellfire is something we cannot find justification for in the Pauline Epistles. I don't see what specifically about the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church you claim has no justification in Paul's words. I do believe they genuinely think they are behaving in the best way they can to prevent people from being damned to hell.
Which I have no problem with. I don't agree with Paul either.
What I DO have a problem with is you trying to make Paul say something he did not say and would not have believed.
I don't think so. I think it takes ignorance to lump gay sex with murder, thievery, and pedophilia.
I'm going to respond one last time to you on this matter and then be done. You can have the final word if you'd like, but it's clear that neither of us is going to very well persuade the other.
You can feel moral outrage in your heart; but you don't serve as the "salt of the earth" by continually and publicly raging. If there is something regarded by society at large as a "victimless crime," or not immoral at all -- gay sex, looking at porn, getting drunk (as long as you're not driving) etc. -- then you have to engage the matter with tact and grace. Yes, you'll express your outrage when "preaching to the choir;" but in that case you still must walk a delicate line and be sensitive to the fact that immature Christians who hear you will be eager to prove their devotion by hating the sinner concurrently with the sin.
So afraid to extrapolate even a little?
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Gay people would count as simply one category of those "not under the law." And Paul would try to save them by all possible means.
You don't seem to appreciate that Paul insisted Christians hold each other to a much higher standard so as to preserve their identity and integrity in a largely godless world. It can't get any more explicit than this:
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
Whenever, therefore, Paul told Christians to abandon anyone to hellfire, he was always speaking about severing ties with false or fallen Christians.
God disciplines those whom he loves. Also, kicking them out was not the initial impetus but the measure of last resort.
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)
The doctrine of hell itself is a separate issue for a separate discussion.
So what? The Nazis sincerely believed they were doing the best thing for Germany; does that excuse them? The WBC people are twisted through and through, claiming allegiance to God with their lips while mocking him continually by their hateful actions. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20)
And if they *can find* justification for their hate in the Pauline epistles, that also proves nothing. I once read on the internet a sincere argument that Jesus wanted people to drink their own urine for health reasons; the justification provided was John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." Because that passage was *found* to be a veiled reference to urination. What nonsense.
I don't know Paul. Neither do you. Therefore I do not claim to know what he would or would not have done, because I do not have sufficient evidence to make a statement like that.
What I do not do is make Paul a mouthpiece for my own ideas. Paul didn't write what Pandas wanted him to write, nor did he believe what Pandas believes. Paul wrote what Paul wrote, and believed what Paul believed.
No, I'm talking about Paul calling on people to cast out those who are gay from the Christian community to receive the damnation that Paul feels they deserve. According to Paul, God does not love gay people. They are abominable in God's sight.
Really? You mentioned it in the OP, didn't you? It seems that the doctrine of hell is certainly a part of this discussion, especially when Paul is claiming homosexuality is a punishment entirely deserving of eternal suffering in hell.
First of all, association fallacy. Please don't pull the same stunts HerewardWake did.
Second, not analogous. The Nazis were genocidal mass murders who had an agenda of militaristic takeover. As far as I know, the Westboro Baptist Church has staged entirely peaceful protests. If they've engaged in any violence, I don't know about it. My understanding is that they've been expressing themselves peacefully.
Which brings me to my question: What is it specifically that you object about them? You accuse them of hatred. Is it because you don't agree with what they're saying, or their methods, and what is it specifically about their methods? That they stage public protests? Why are they different from anyone else who stages public protests?
Or is it specifically their idealogy that troubles you? That's fine, I agree, but recognize that their ideology of God hating homosexuality, and the moral bankruptcy of allowing homosexuality brings suffering down upon both homosexuals and the society that harbors them is something Paul agrees with. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but "God hates ****" is something the Pauline Epistles undeniably support.
Justify this.
No, it does prove something. It proves you wrong. That is to say, it proves your assertion that the Bible consistently goes against what people like Fred Phelps believed is wrong.
Which is not something I think you're prepared to accept.
I feel it's important at this point to clarify what I'm objecting to here. I am objecting specifically to your assertion that the Bible "consistently" (your words) rebukes the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and other "hatemongers." I will disagree and say it does not do so.
I wish it did. The fact of the matter is the Bible has been used to justify a great deal of horrible things. Not so very long ago it was used to defend slavery. And I would love it if we could just say, "Those people find no justification within the Bible, it is consistently against them." That'd be great. It's also not true, and we have to acknowledge it.
You made a thread specifically asking why people have problems with Christianity. The fact that the Bible has a lot of stuff that people might take issue with is a major part of that, and one must honestly confront that.
Yes, that's ridiculous. It's not analogous to God hating gay people. That's explicit within Paul.
Once again, you don't have to agree with Paul. I'm a Christian and I don't agree with Paul. But you cannot say that Paul was saying something other than what he was saying, and you cannot say that those who say that God hates gay people don't find any justification within Paul.
Okay, fine. I've heard what you've said and we'll see if there is some consensus to be had after all.
I think we ought to be very careful with our language here. Paul (and the rest of the Bible) does not acknowledge the existence of gay people as we understand them. Everyone is assumed to be heterosexual in their nature; but some give in to unnatural desires to engage in homosexual acts (and/or acts of incest, bestiality, etc.)
So the letter of Biblical law counts against gays. But the spirit of the law says that God's anger is aroused when people defile such natures as He has given them. If, then, our modern understanding of homosexuality is correct -- that some people are that way simply by nature -- then being gay is nothing to condemn and "progressive" Christians have a leg to stand on.
It has everything, everything, to do with their methods.
Check out this video from John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UousPa1ks0w
He expresses very strong (and some would say very offensive), Biblically grounded views against gay marriage. But he does so without name calling, without deliberate provocation, in a soft-spoken way and expressing genuine sorrow rather than rancor.
Fred Phelps, by contrast, became the "most hated man in America" because he gleefully positioned himself as the most hateful. Just saying such things as "God hates ****" or "Thank God for dead soldiers" is bad enough. But who even thinks to protest at funerals? Who seeks notoriety by harassing grieving people in their most vulnerable hour? That sort of wicked inspiration, calculated for maximum vulgarity, comes straight from Satan. The WBC is thoroughly demonic.
And I could not call their protests non-violent. True, they did not involve physical assault; but every manner of psychological and spiritual assault they could get away with under the exceedingly broad provisions of the First Amendment, they did.
I never said it consistently goes against what Phelps believed. I said that the Bible (or at the very least the New Testament, which ought to have primacy for a professing Christian) consistently goes against how Phelps acted.
And you have not refuted this. You have not provided so much as one verse from any gospel or epistle that even suggests it is acceptable for true followers of Christ to harass, mock and degrade non-believers under any circumstance. So if I am wrong, prove me wrong.
Not according to Paul.
Now, do I agree with what you just posted? Yes.
But Paul wouldn't. That's the thing. To Paul, there is no "homosexual orientation," or rather there is, but that nature is under the broader category of "lust." Homosexuality is a perversion and an unnatural lust that is abominable in the sight of God, and all those who engage in homosexual acts deservedly bring disasters on themselves and are condemned to die and suffer eternally in hell. That's Paul's view.
This needs to be clarified because my point of disagreement is saying that there is consistency within the Bible against someone promoting hatred of homosexuality. I don't believe there is. Not if we have Paul saying God himself hates homosexual acts, and that horrible things happening to people who engage in homosexual acts are just and entirely deserved.
I'm not convinced. If, according to Paul, homosexuality is truly a damnable offense, if the act of committing it is an act of immoral sex crime, if the condoning of it is the mark of wickedness and showcases the moral degeneracy of our society, then does not Phelps have justification for what he does?
I'm not denying that you can find parts of the Bible that go against Phelps. I'm denying you can't find anything within the Bible that doesn't justify him. You say this:
You don't think either of those can be justified by Paul? Heck, we've already demonstrated that "God hates ****" is straight out of the Pauline Epistles.
Which it does not.
Now does it consistently support him? No. As I said, the Bible does not consistently support Phelps, nor does it consistently support your case against Phelps. The Bible seldom consistently supports any one position on anything, and this is not an exception. It's easily to make a case for Phelps using the Bible, just as it's easy to make a case against him.
Indeed, and it gives me no pleasure to say it, according to the Pauline Epistles, you are at least as evil and hypocritical as Phelps is, if not more so. Phelps might be too extreme in his methods according to Paul, but you are preaching that there's nothing wrong with affronts against God. You are preaching high blasphemies in the name of Christ according to Paul, and openly advocating abominable perversions. On top of that, you're judging another person, claiming him to be hypocritical and blasphemous when you're doing the exact same thing! Moreover, you are denying Paul as having been given authority because his revelation was from Jesus himself.
Now, as to "spirit of the law," what do you think the great Christian hope was back in those times? What do you think all of this was going toward? Where do you think this lead?
To the apocalypse of course. The dawning of the new age. The coming of the Kingdom of God, right?
Now do you think everyone was going to enter the kingdom of God? Certainly not! Not according to Paul, indeed, not according to anything in the New Testament that I know of. Paul and the Gospels point to a winnowing, a separating of the wheat from the chaff, that the righteous people of God would be taken up, while everyone else, EVERYONE else, would be abandoned to eternal hellfire, suffering, and torment.
This was what they were hoping for, that all the unrighteous would be swept away and cast down into hellfire and torment, while the followers of Christ would live in joy in the Kingdom of God. That was the celebrated day of their dreams and hopes.
Now do you want to claim that the Bible gives a consistent message against someone like Phelps?
Going back to HerewardWake's quote that started this sidetopic:
Now, as I demonstrated earlier, I don't agree with what he's saying. But he's also not totally without basis. Neither is Phelps. There are a lot of morally problematic parts of the Bible, parts that intolerant people over the years have used to justify their beliefs.
I am rather dismayed that you are sidestepping or willfully ignoring what is for me the crux of the matter; because I have not once denied that Paul's writings can and do support a hatred of homosexual acts. I am not denying that Phelps had scriptural justification in believing that gays go to hell. I am only denying that he had any scriptural justification for acting with hatred and malice towards unbelievers. And I should hope you are able to call black "black" and admit that protesting at someone's funeral is an utterly hateful and malicious act. If not, then we are really done here.
What do you call someone who wishes and hopes for untold suffering upon people?
Do you see the problem? Yes, the Bible will say repeatedly that we should love one another. It will say that over and over again.
It will also advocate a doctrine about how God, who is the greatest good, hates gay people and that the Christ movement should rejoice at the multitudes of humanity that are sent to hell.
Do you not see the disconnect?
Of course I could find so very many Scriptural passages repudiating Phelps. It'd be simple to do. You've already done it.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is not a unified, consistent repudiation of Phelps.
Summa Theologica, 2.2.11.3. It seems that Aquinas himself would have found the WBC, which has after all not yet killed any sinners to my knowledge, to be a font of mercy by comparison.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Yes, Christians were and are called to anticipate the eschaton, the ultimate victory of God, when death dies, evil is vanquished and the unrepentant evildoers are cast into "the outer darkness," removed from Creation itself. But they are not called to wish the ultimate punishment upon anyone.
As Jesus declared, the "gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Justice and mercy both demand that everyone be given a chance to hear and respond. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
"For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32)
Where, then, do you see the Bible instructing Christians to rejoice in or hope for the damnation of anyone? The closest thing I could find is in Revelation, when God condemns the Whore of Babylon to hell and the saints respond to the announcement by saying, "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever!" (Revelation 19:3) Yet the Whore of Babylon is not even a proper person, but a demonic eschatological figure who rides the seven headed beast from Daniel's prophecy. She is "drunk with the blood of the saints" (Rev. 17:6), and is explicitly a stand-in for Rome, and all the brutality, idolatry and oppression coming from Rome: "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth." (Rev. 17:18)
So, anywaaaaay...
You keep saying that the Bible says Christians should hate sinners and should rejoice at those who get damned. Now it's time to start backing it up with actual passages from the Bible, if you have any.
That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it? That's like saying that one can want a horse race but not the racing of horses.
Ok, now you're just being disingenuous.
Yes, you can cherry pick a hundred quotes about how much God loves everyone from the Bible. None of that changes the fact that God damns people to eternal suffering in the Bible, which is incongruous with love, and sooner or later, you're going to have to actually address the problem instead of pretending it will go away.
What do you think the coming of the Kingdom of God meant?
Oh right.
Yes, all the wicked people damned to eternal suffering in hell, correct.
Not at all. Whenever there is an outbreak of a deadly, contagious and incurable disease like ebola, we wish (for the good of everyone) that those who are infected be quarantined, even against their will if necessary. Does that mean that we wish for quarantines, or that we hate sick people?
The Christian position is roughly this: sin is sickness. There is an a cure, freely offered to everyone. But the pernicious thing about sin is that this disease is so widespread that its symptoms are popularly mistaken for signs of normalcy or health; and many of the most virulently infected will not even admit that they are sick. Eventually, for the ultimate good of everyone, God is going to establish a quarantine zone for those who refuse the cure. That quarantine zone is, of course, the hell to which you object so strongly.
Hell is only incongruous with love if you don't value human autonomy very much.
Do you suppose that there can be such a thing as "heaven" if therein are unrepentant murderers, rapists, thieves and liars? Of course not. So what will God do when confronted with an evildoer who refuses to repent or admit his evil? He can let that person into heaven anyway, and thereby destroy heaven; or He can forcibly "reprogram" or brainwash the evildoer into being a good person, and thereby destroy human autonomy. And if He refuses to destroy our autonomy (since He created us in His own image), there remains only one option: exclude the rebel from heaven. Put him somewhere else, with all the other hardened rebels; and that "somewhere else" need not be a literal lake of fire. It could even start out as a very pleasant place. But it inexorably becomes hell because of the nature of its inhabitants. No more kindness, patience, generosity or empathy. Only a million deranged and utterly selfish selves, narcisists suffering the intolerable presence of other narcisists, perpetually hating and being hated, each one becoming a furnace of indignation and rage that burns hotter than any physical fire.
Now you might say that God should snuff such people out rather than allowing them to come to such a wretched state. And that course of action would no doubt be less painful for God. But the orthodox Christian position is that God values us so highly that He is willing to let us see the consequences of our free will through to the very end, whether that end be glorious or bitter.
So no, hell is not incongruous with God's love. You can certainly argue otherwise; but I don't see how you can argue otherwise and still call yourself a Christian, seeing as Jesus spoke of hell more than He did of heaven.
No, the hope of the early Christian community was specifically that the evil people of the world would be destroyed. Evil would be destroyed, and the evil people of the world sent to hell was part of that hope. They definitely wanted the people to be damned. In the case of the analogy, that's praying for the ebola outbreak. Did you think praying for the coming of the time of judgment meant something else?
"The ultimate good of everyone"? Infinite, eternal suffering for people is the ultimate good? By what distorted, insane logic is that good? By what distorted, insane logic is that love?
Hell is incongruous with love period. You do not torture infinitely someone you love.
Of course.
Then God is not God.
"Destroy heaven"?
Or it could be unpleasant because it's a literal lake of fire, which Jesus describes it as being.
That would also be evil.
So you would cause someone you love to suffer eternally in fire and torment?
No, you wouldn't. You couldn't and still claim to love them. Because that's not what love is. That's not what love does.
If you made this thread because you wanted to know why people might find Christianity morally unacceptable, congratulations, you answered your own question. Look no further than the post you just made.
And then you have the gall to call Phelps a hypocrite? Remove plank from eye, Pandas.
Oh I'm well aware.
And you're perpetually evasive. Your posts are full of words but often say very little. You make assertions and never back them up.
Like this nugget here. You keep making the early Christian church out to be a bunch of arrogant spiritual sadists, without providing one scrap of scripture or extra-Biblical evidence to back it up. Yes, the Christians prayed for God's coming judgment; but they also took it earnestly as their commission to evangelize day and night so that as many people as possible might escape that judgment. They did not want anyone to be damned.
Now on to this matter. Very intelligent and thoughtful Christians of this day and others have looked at the doctrine of hell and found it to be disturbing, yet ultimately consistent with a God of love. If you want a more contemporary take on it than you'd get from the church fathers, read C.S. Lewis or Timothy Keller. If you disagree with them (and me), then fine. However, I will make two further points:
The lake of fire is metaphorical. Hell is a place or state of being that is no doubt horrific; being burnt alive is meant to convey that. However, Jesus did not refer to hell only as a lake of fire but also as "the darkness outside," suggesting both coldness and the absence of such light as fire would create. Hell is again the place "where the worm does not die," suggesting a state of perpetual decay and corruption, though moist wormy decay would again seem to be incompatible with fire. All of this symbolic language is simply meant to drive home the point that hell is not somewhere you want to go. Thankfully, anyone can turn aside from it, because...
Hell is not God actively torturing people, but passively allowing them to torture themselves. And this is a reluctant letting go. But if people consistently choose to abuse and deceive and boast and mock -- if that is the character they build in this life -- then one day God is going to say, "You're not hurting my children anymore. I'm taking them away from you and your predations. Now you will have no one to abuse but abusers, no one to deceive but deceivers, no one to boast to but boasters, no one to mock but mockers. You will be treated to the mirror gallery of horrors that is your life, always afflicted, confused and belittled. For as you did unto others, so shall it be done unto you."
Well, there is that. We have a very soft and sugar-coated view of love in the peaceful West. We believe that forgiveness is cheap and easy, because most of us have never been subjected to anything really horrific. But how does one forgive the destruction of one's home in war? Or the rape and murder of one's sister? Or the oppression of an occupying army? How does one not seek vengeance in those cases? The only way is to believe in a God not only of love, but of justice. Only through assurance by faith that justice will be done can we resist the urge to make ourselves judge, jury and executioner, opening up the possibility of forgiveness. "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
Take away hell, and you take away divine justice. How then is the human cycle of hatred and violence broken?
EDIT:
Finally I will add this. If you are a universalist, if you believe there is no hell and God takes everyone into heaven, then you are really being dishonest with yourself and everyone else by calling yourself a Christian.
Let "sin" equal "anything that drives a wedge between man and God, creating separation." If you believe that everyone goes to heaven, then ultimately there is no separation between man and God -- therefore no sin or at least no mortal sin. If there is no mortal sin, then Jesus did not need to die for our sake. He was not, as accredited by John the Baptist, "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." So the eschatalogical significance of his death on the cross -- truly the crux of Christian faith -- is removed and his death is death is rendered merely tragic, his resurrection absurd.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3-4) This is a matter of primal importance. If you don't believe it, do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop professing to be a Christian; because what you really are is a monist who thinks Jesus is pretty cool.
Really?
"Arrogant spiritual sadists" (not to mention actual physical sadists in many cases) is a remarkably apt description of many theologians and church fathers. And all of their exegeses ultimately find their roots in Scripture.
The problem is that Scripture is self-contradictory and can therefore be used to justify anything. There is no standard you can appeal to to say that the Church fathers are wrong. One can cite verses that contradict their exegeses, or claim that the New Testament supersedes the Old, or whatever else one likes. One can also say that this exegesis governs, or point out that the New Testament incorporates the entirety of the Old by reference by way of e.g. Matthew 5:17-20, or whatever else one likes.
There's nothing that makes them wrong and you right, except perhaps for an appeal to an extrabiblical, extrareligious analysis of morality -- but once you grant that such an analysis is sound, all need for exegesis disappears and you were wasting your time even bothering with the Bible or any of its various interpreters down the ages.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
They're wishing infinite suffering on people. If the shoe fits...
What, are you denying that the coming of the Kingdom of God does not involve sweeping away the evil people into hell? That's the whole point of apocalyptic eschatology. Fundamental to that is the belief that the world is locked in a battle of good and evil, and in the end, the evil of the world, especially the evil people, will be destroyed in a climactic battle by God and only the good will remain. The evil people will go to eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Yes, they clearly did want people to be damned. They were eagerly awaiting the time when the wicked would be sent to hell. That's the point of the apocalypse.
No doubt through disingenuous handwaving and reluctance to face the facts.
What was going through your mind when you posted this, I wonder? Did you think that when I responded that it was morally wrong for God to throw people in a lake of fire to suffer for all of eternity, that if you said that the lake of fire wasn't a literal lake of fire, but a place for people to suffer for all of eternity, I would say, "Oh, ok, problem solved?"
Well that's clearly not the case. It doesn't matter whether it's a literal lake of fire or not, that there's wailing and gnashing of teeth is pretty much a consensus, and the point is people will suffer as though it were. That's the part that's morally disturbing, and is inconsistent with an infinitely loving, benevolent, omnipotent deity.
Bull.
It's clear that hell is where sinners are to suffer the wrath of God. The wrath of God. Those who sin are said to be storing up God's wrath for themselves. The judgement will be the coming of God's wrath. God is characterized acting out of wrath and vengeance. God is clearly active in this.
You're kidding, right?
No, forgiveness that relies on someone else exacting vengeance on someone is not forgiveness. That is the opposite of forgiveness. Saying, "God will make you suffer for what you did," is not forgiveness.
Do you see how you are no better than Fred Phelps in saying thus?
Interesting that you object to someone taking away hell and divine justice.
You get the irony right? It's because we're talking about Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism
Correct. To believe anything else is to believe either that will not redeem everyone, and therefore God's love is finite, or that God is incapable of redeeming everyone, and therefore God is not omnipotent.
Not necessarily. But I don't believe blood is necessary to expiate sin. The idea that forgiveness has a blood cost doesn't really make any sense.
I don't see how that follows.
Oh hardly. The term "Christian" applies to a far larger range of belief systems than people give it credit for.
Indeed, one of the big debates in early Christianity was exactly what Jesus was. There were people who argued that Jesus was man only, and not God. Then there were the people who believed that Jesus was never actually born as a human being, and therefore never actually died. This is called "appearance Christology."
Once again, you'd be hard pressed to find things Bible actually gives a unified, consistent stance on. It's a collection of numerous different writings from numerous different traditions from numerous different civilizations and time periods.
Okay, let me ask you: what do you think is the spiritual significance of the evil in the world? Apparently you do not believe it derives from Satan, so what is it? Simple ignorance, coupled with addictive passions and a lack of self-control, perhaps? Would we all be good if only we knew better? Seriously, what's your take on it?
Wrath is not always an acting out; sometimes it is to refrain from acting. If you're pissed at someone because he's running a meth lab out of his garage and ruining himself and others, and then he blows up his house, and you hear him screaming in the flames but don't try to save him because you think he deserves to burn, that is passive wrath.
Of course, I will grant that God who set up the parameters of the universe is ultimately active in whatever transpires therein. So you can have this point.
To clarify, you would not be saying, "God will make you suffer for what you did." You would be saying, "I trust that God will deal with you justly." Maybe that person will repent without your knowledge and meet you in heaven and all will be wonderful. But you have to trust that people who do evil, continually and willfully, and feel no pangs of conscience but indeed are gratified by it, will finally be excluded from the human community that they have mocked and degraded.
Intrinsically I am no better than Phelps. We're both sinners, yes. But I do not think I am wrong or hypocritical in discerning that Phelps made a life out of inflicting pain and misery; that he took pride in that; and that this evinced that he turned his back on, or never knew, the love of Christ. "You shall know a tree by its fruits" and all that. Testimony from a couple of his kids that his rage was a fixture of his life even from their childhood, that he physically and verbally abused them growing up, only further confirms how lost he was.
Surely you know that the orthodox Christian position is not that Christ's sacrifice removed hell or God's justice. The opening chapters of Romans are very explicit about this.
Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. I maintain that it is logically impossible to act lovingly towards someone by redeeming them against their will. That God will not say to unrepentant evildoers, "Okay, guys, enough of this. I'm strapping you down and performing open heart surgery, taking out those shriveled wicked hearts of yours and implanting shiny new compassionate ones, so you can actually participate in heaven. I know you hate me and you're going to fight this to the end, but believe me, it's for your own good."
*Shrug* I dunno. Ignorance I guess.
Which is not what is being described. God is described as actively casting people into hell. For this analogy to work, God would have to be the one blowing up the house.
It's the exact same thing.
Phelps was guilty of a lot of things, and was not shining example of humanity, to be sure. However, one thing that can be said about him was that he did not claim he wasn't advocating the damnation of people when he was. He was upfront and honest about that fact.
So for you to condemn him for wanting people to be sent to hell when you're doing the exact same thing makes you completely hypocritical. So for someone who wants to run around talking about hypocrisy, well: remove plank from eye.
To suffer in eternal hellfire.
Which is not the behavior of a loving or compassionate person.
I never claimed it was.
I do, however, find it noteworthy that you take umbrage at the idea of people not receiving hell or divine justice, when the entire point of Jesus' ministry was to prevent such things from happening.
It's rather odd that you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in someone claiming to love the sinner and not the sin, claiming to be compassionate towards sinners and not want them to be damned, start complaining at the idea that those who sin wouldn't be sent into hell to suffer with all eternity.
That's ridiculous. It is entirely possible to forgive someone even when they don't want us to.
Or God could just forgive them and let them in.
Kind of ruins that nice false dichotomy you were creating though, huh?
No, it really isn't.
There's no hypocrisy. Phelps did want people to go to hell; I don't want anyone to go there. Neither should any Christian.
To me it seems like I'm saying, "If you smoke and eat a lot of processed meat, you're going to get cancer," and you're saying, "How dare you believe that such a dreadful consequence could follow from such minor vices as smoking and meat-eating? You clearly want people to get cancer!"
Jesus continually preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 4:17) All his parables dealing with judgment made it clear that there would be many who would not heed his message, would not repent, and who would go to hell as a result. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
You are willfully omitting a qualifying word that I have tried to be careful and use wherever it is warranted. My claim (and the gospel's) is that unrepentant sinners will go to hell. Do you hear that, Highroller? UNREPENTANT. The serial rapist who feels no shame, but gloats about how many virgins he defiled. The Ponzi scheme architect who suffers no pangs of conscience for robbing his investors, but laughs inwardly at their gullibility. The abusive husband who, every time he beats his wife and leaves her bruised and whimpering, assures himself that she actually deserved worse than what he gave her. People like that are the hellbound ones.
And yes, God does love them. But true love does not permit or accommodate all. It is candid. It says to the wayward beloved, "You can make better choices. I believe that you can; I will help you to do so if you let me. But if you're going to keep pushing me away and keep causing harm, then one day I will remove my embrace from you. I will allow you to suffer the full consequences of your evil, because the way you are living is incompatible with reality, and I love you too much to lie to you."
Forgiving and redeeming are not the same thing.
So God says to Osama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, etc: "Hey guys, you killed thousands and millions, causing untold fear and suffering. But you know what? All's forgiven, since you were clearly acting out of ignorance. The gates of heaven are open -- c'mon in!"
What then does God say to their victims?
You don't want anyone to go to hell, but you would object to God not sending anyone to hell?
You are demonstrating you do want people to go to hell.
No, it's not the same thing, because you are taking umbrage at the idea that God wouldn't send people to hell.
It would be like if I saw an apple on top of a table and knocked it off the table onto the floor, then blamed the apple being on the table for it falling. Except that doesn't work, because the apple fell because I knocked it off the table.
Yeah. Your point?
The point of Jesus was to save people from hell, right? So why are you totally ok with some sinners not going to hell but not all of them? You claim that you don't like the idea of people going to hell, but you then object to the idea of no one going to hell, which means clearly you advocate the idea of people being condemned to eternal suffering.
Clearly, you DO want people to go to hell.
First of all, disingenuous. Someone could commit a moral transgression and say, "Wow, I feel terrible for this, I'm going to go pray to Buddha for forgiveness." Damned.
Second, I don't see why the qualification matters. You're still complaining that I'm saying people shouldn't be sent to hell while trumpeting yourself as being loving and forgiving like the hypocrite you are.
You want to see love and forgiveness?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/iran-parents-halt-killer-execution
That's loving those who injure you. That's compassion. Not endorsing misfortune being heaped upon him because he's "getting what he deserved," which is what you're advocating and simultaneously berating Phelps for.
Then that's not true love.
It is in this case. Redemption from sin is God forgiving our sins, right? We can certainly forgive people who don't want us to forgive them without violating free will or whatever.
The same thing. "All's forgiven, since you were clearly acting out of ignorance. The gates of heaven are open -- c'mon in!"
Clearly, this is the cornerstone of everything here: we disagree on what true love is and whether it is compatible with hell.
Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain which nicely sums up my view of God:
See, that's the only conception of love that I find to be really dignifying. Whereas you seem to prefer to believe in (in Lewis's words) a "senile benevolence" in heaven, I want a God who cares enough about me to get angry if I start mucking up my life. I want a God who respects me enough to allow me to experience (and if need be suffer) the consequences of my actions. Not a "helicopter parent" who dashes in with a Magic Eraser to wipe away every unpleasantry, regardless of whether I even feel any contrition or remorse.
My God! I want a God who takes good and evil seriously! Who created a universe not as some idle simulation, where running someone over with your car has ultimately the same impact (read: NONE) whether done in real life or in Grand Theft Auto, but where our words and deeds and cultivated characters have genuine and even everlasting repercussions. None of this, "bloodthirsty mass murderers are on the same page as average people" bull*****.
Yes, I want there to be a heaven and a hell! I want an abyss of darkness that contrasts the light and allows it to shine all the brighter, or even to shine at all. And I don't just want hell for other people, as you slanderously insinuate. I want to be allowed to damn myself if such is my will. I want there to be a separation of the sheep and the goats even without taking for granted that I am one of the sheep.
No doubt you will find all of this abominable and will sharply criticize me. Well, in the words of Martin Luther: "Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders."* We both claim to be Christians but our conceptions of Christ are incompatible, and evidently intractable. So now there is really no point in continuing this. One day, in any case, the truth will be made manifest.
*= Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.