That is a pretty simplistic way to look at the issue. Sure you are right in most cases in biblical contexts as to gods wrath (although I would count Job's issues as having received quite a bit of wrath for no reason.) Now when you say that God punishes for sin, you may be right (if I were to believe in God in the first place.) Still, sin is defined in many ways. To worship any other God (according to Mosaic law, and implied prior to) is a condemnable sin. Yet Christianity has not always been as widely known as it is now. This means for centuries, people have been living in sin, and are being condemned for not knowing any better. Would you count this as justifiable retribution, or the big bad guy in the sky?
One, why would I start taking sides, and why would I have anything against you, I just joined this site today, and know none of you. You wanted to make a point, but then criticize me for thinking if you are going to tell us "how it is" you may want to define it. I was simplyresponding to you telling us the "facts". And then you think it is some kind of rebuttle to jump on people for wanting clarity in the so called facts you provide? If you know the facts, this should be easy for you. If you feel there should be nothing wrong with saying the non believers will be condemned, why not just answer the question. You act as if the answers are simple, so it should be just as simple to clarify them.
Look, I don't know you, I have never spoken to you, and I know nothing about you, so playing the Christian martyr being attacked by the simple minded non believers wont work here. I simply asked for clarification on what you are calling facts. I think if we are going to talk about undeniable eternal damnation, and if you are going to tell us that it is a fact, you have an obligation to back it up with some clarification. This is pretty serious stuff to be vague about if you are truely giving facts.
"Notice how the unbelievers gather when mike speaks? You see, they have this daft idea that it's acceptable to say " you unbelievers won't perish " rather than simply not judge them at all. I guess they prefer Jar's gospel."
If you were not confirming that you yourself had taken an opposing stance to Jar's I don't know what it says. That is what I got from it. There are three points of view at work here. Jar's; you do not have to be a Christian to achieve redemption. The other side; only those that believe in Jesus may find redemption. Non-Believers; doesn't matter either way. Now seeing as you seemed to oppose Jar's view, and the fact that you refer to others as non-believers, I only see one option left. As you only show opposition to Jar's view, and nothing in support of it, I find it almost impossible to see the neutral nature of your comments.
Because of this I could only assume (along with your comment's trying to say that God is not any type of bully, and you tried to justify it through biblical reference) that this was the stance you had taken. Since you were making a point against the God=Bully mentality, I was simply putting forth a question based on the subjects of redemption, and the bully mentality of God. You brought up the subject matter (redemption believers/non-believers, sin and condemnation) yourself, I did nothing more than question it.
This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 08:56 PM
No, Bob could say whatever he likes about himself, but it would not be out of line to ask why Bob would say that.
Is Bob depressed, does he have a low opinion of himself because it is true, or because someone else has instilled this mentality in him. Does Bob need help? Who is Bob? Was he serious?
These questions are not out of line. The other difference is you are giving a direct quote from someone. We are talking about interpretations. If you gave me an interpretation of what Bob said, I may ask to find out WHY you interpreted him in such a manner, are you correct in said interpretation, was it painted by personal feelings? Maybe it could be interpreted differently.
So questions on a topic you speak about in a public forum is not an unfounded thing. You say things in a public forum, people may question it. Simple, nothing more. You can answer questions, or you can ignore them. Either way.