The Tension of Faith

Don't be silly, we know that that Faith doesn't want her friends to go to hell. If she thought that, they are very unlikely to be her friends. (She often though derives a lot of satisfaction from telling her opponants here that we're heading that way.)She now seems happy that she's found a neat little linguistic way over the problem of feeling bad about her friends - who, presumably, are in every other way except in believing something different to her are decent people - are going to be tortured by her god forever and ever, amen.She can feel better knowing that it's not her fault, don't shoot the messenger. The point we're discussing is about whether the message itself makes any kind of sense and of course it doesn't. The message is at its very best a childish fantasy and horror story.

There are very few people here I'd like to see in Hell either. A couple perhaps. But I'd prefer it if they'd repent and be saved, just as God does:2 Peter 3:9:

Prayer is not about begging. It's about turning off your inner Alpha Male for a moment and surrendering to peace, patience, and wisdom. Granted you don't pray...but what would be your method if you were in a hurricane and the roof suddenly blew off? would you matter of factly and instinctively react or would you freeze...paralyzed by fear?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I think you're confusing the sort of prayer you do in quiet moments with the sort of prayer you do when you're entire life is being blown away in a category 5 hurricane. I would do something practical and if I couldn't I get the scotch out and hope for the best.

Since the main point of Tangle's criticism seems accurate, I don't understand why you're saying "nothing...was actually accurate." Faith's stated position in Message 23 was, "I believe you have to put all your trust in Jesus as the only salvation from Hell." Faith later mitigates her position a bit, for instance in Message 28 where she states that are those "who intuitively understand the Moral Law and obey it, so they will certainly receive mercy," but she confirms in Message 31 that they're still going to hell.So Faith condemns the vast proportion of the human race to hell. Tangle pointed this out in Message 37, but you're objecting to it as inaccurate. Where's the inaccuracy?--Percy

I commented about a specific statement by Tangle. That statement was totally inaccurate, and so far I have heard nothing but excuses about why he does not have to do better.I even acknowledged that there were better arguments to be made. I doubt either you are he would tolerate the same kind of nonsense from a creationist. But apparently when folks you agree with make a bad argument, that's just fine with you. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Another contentless reply. What ARE you talking about?

But that's NOT the point of this thread or of the OP, as I understand it. The point is to help unbelievers understand our perspective. We don't pick and choose the parts that we like about religion or theology, throwing away the rest. Rather, we have become convinced that the Bible is true, and we are captive to the Word of God. Often we become convinced of things that seem to be counterintuitive or that we would not have chosen on our own.When a doctor gives you an unpleasant diagnosis, you are certainly free to reject it and to call it a "childish fantasy" and a "horror story".But what if it is true?

It doesn't say that. In the story, it isn't even a question of choosing between the two. They could have had both.

Gen 3:22 says that IF they had been allowed to eat from the tree, then they WOULD have been able to live forever. What do you think this verse means?

If that IS the point, then of course I understand that Faith doesn't actually want her friends to go to hell, but nevertheless she thinks they will. If that's a point you think requires making, well ok.I think it unlikely to carry much weight with her friends but at least it's a coherent intellectual position. It's hardly a difficult point to make or understand.But we've moved on. In the case of the doctor, it's obviously very likely to be true - he's acting on ral evidence in the real world. In the case of a hell belief for the majority of all mankind, the argument has progressed on to why it is obviously NOT true or at least not internally consistent within the belief system in question.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

That is a truly mostrous thing to say Faith. Just horrifying to hear come from the mouth of a non-psychopathic human being. You would like to see a human writhe in eternal agony? Would you look on in smug satisfaction that you had been proved right all along? Is this truly in your heart? Do your words mean anything?Which atheist here have you heard say anything as immorally animalistic as this? This is a serious question, please answer me! I want you to show me where a single one of the "godless atheists" here have ever spoken that way to you. Can you even imagine it? There are very few christians here I would like to see thrown to the lions. A couple perhaps. There are very few Chrisitans here I would like to see slowly burned alive at the stake. A couple perhaps. Despite our great differences of opinion I would not wish the smallest harm on you Faith. I wish you a long and fullfilled life despite what I believe to be astounding desusion on your part. Where is your moral compass here? Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.

The couple I have in mind regularly blaspheme God way beyond normal atheism, and say things that would seriously mislead others. If they repent and get saved I will of course be very happy. Is there anyone at all you yourself think might deserve Hell? Mass murderers? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think it means that IF they had been allowed to eat from the tree, then they WOULD have been able to live forever.It seems to suggest that they didn't eat from the tree.

quote:

---

But that's NOT the point of this thread or of the OP, as I understand it. The point is to help unbelievers understand our perspective. We don't pick and choose the parts that we like about religion or theology, throwing away the rest.

---

More accurately you don't let your conscience influence your belief. But that, I must say is a worrying thing. To follow conscience when it is difficult is one thing - to go against it is quite another, especially when you hold your religion up as a source of morality.That doesn't show that you don't engage in picking and choosing, and it is quite likely that you do.But I have to say that I find what you call "picking and choosing" - on these grounds - more admirable then celebrating evil and calling it good. And if God is really perfectly good and just, I am pretty sure that is what He would prefer.