cman044@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Eva) (03/20/91)
I have a question for this group that has been
bothering me for a while. I was taught in my religious
studies that certain sins were unforgivable -- murder,
suicide, etc. Can a person be forgiven for a past
suicide attempt, or is this person damned to hell?
Thanks
[I think I can safely speak for Christians as a whole on this one. No
sin is unforgiveable. That's the whole point of many of Jesus
parables, including in particular the parable of the laborers in the
vineyard, the prodigal son, etc. It seems unjust to us that someone
who has worked the whole day will get paid the same as someone who
only joined up at the last minute. It seems to us that the father
should refuse to welcome back the son who has rejected his father, and
only comes back after he has no choice. But God's love rejoices more
over the one who comes back than the 99 who had never strayed (Mt.
18:13). The one issue here is a passage (Mat 12:32) that refers to a
sin against the Holy Spirit which is said to be unforgivable. There
is no concensus as to what this sin might be. But I think most
Christians take it to be an attitude whose very nature would prevent
someone from repenting in the first place. --clh]kenns@prism.cs.orst.edu (Kenn R. Stump) (03/22/91)
In <Mar.20.02.50.32.1991.8883@athos.rutgers.edu> cman044@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu (Eva) writes: > I have a question for this group that has been > bothering me for a while. I was taught in my religious > studies that certain sins were unforgivable -- murder, > suicide, etc. Can a person be forgiven for a past > suicide attempt, or is this person damned to hell? > Thanks Only unforgivable AFTER you have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. Otherwise, how would the system of salvation work? consider: Ezekiel 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Also, I can only paraphrase another OT scripture (related to me by a friend on the phone). "God does not rejoice when even one wicked person is condemned." God wants you to love Him. But this could be a sticky situation if you've known Christ before and have turned away and continued sinning. >18:13). The one issue here is a passage (Mat 12:32) that refers to a >sin against the Holy Spirit which is said to be unforgivable. There >is no concensus as to what this sin might be. But I think most >Christians take it to be an attitude whose very nature would prevent >someone from repenting in the first place. --clh] Mat. 12:32 ...but whosoever speaketh against the Holy ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. To me, it would appear that just speaking out against the Holy Spirit might be this one sin. If you didn't *know* that speaking against the Holy Spirit was a sin, then I believe that it would be forgiven. but that's me. I pesonally wouldn't do it, now that I know the result of such action. There is so much explained about God in scripture, but yet we people still cannot comprehend the full-ness of God. Some people say that the Holy spirit isn't a person. Check out for reference any of Benny Hinn's Weekly shows. the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to be just a symbol there. (For people's info, Benny Hinn's show, "Miracle Invasion", airs at 11:30 am weekdays on TBN. This is proof positive that the Holy Spirit is a person. If, however, you watch one of his shows and they show no "clip" from one of their average sunday evening services, then tune in the next day or so. Also, Benny Hinn can be caught teaching the scripture on Saturday at 4:00 pm on TBN (trinity Broadcasting Network) and Benny is quite knowledgeable about the Holy Spirit. <whew!> ) Other people say that the trinity is ONE. (unitarian) and yet others claim trinitarian labels. I won't post my 'flavor' although it is obvious. 8) "Hey! Where do I turn in my soap box?" - kenns@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) (03/30/91)
I firmly believe that, with one grave and serious exception, there is no
unforgivable sin. Jesus Christ even said on the cross "Tetelestia" or "It
is finished." The entire sin dept we inherited from the fall was
completely paid, and God's justice was satisfied. Forgiveness was freely
available to us without any other sacrifice or offering, as was required
previously in the Old Testament under Mosaic Law.
The only exception is the refusal of one to accept Jesus's death as
that sin dept payment, and therefore refusing to accept Jesus into your
heart as Lord and Savior. That refusal results in an eternity in hell,
forever separated from God's glory and majesty and love in heaven. To sin
against the Holy Spirit, I believe, is this outright rejection of Jesus,
and is the one sin that cannot be excused, and leads to death (i.e. eternal
separation from our loving God.)
Maureenberylg@mentorg.com (Beryl Gray @ APD x ) (04/01/91)
Eva writes: > > I have a question for this group that has been > bothering me for a while. I was taught in my religious > studies that certain sins were unforgivable -- murder, > suicide, etc. Can a person be forgiven for a past > suicide attempt, or is this person damned to hell? > Thanks > And our gentle moderator responds: >[I think I can safely speak for Christians as a whole on this one. No >sin is unforgiveable... ... The one issue here is a passage (Mat 12:32) that refers to a >sin against the Holy Spirit which is said to be unforgivable. There >is no concensus as to what this sin might be. But I think most >Christians take it to be an attitude whose very nature would prevent >someone from repenting in the first place. --clh] I attended a seminar once on coping with the aftermath of suicide. The speaker pointed out that suicide is _not_ the unforgivable sin. The "unforgivable sin" is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. And what, they asked, is blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Walter Martin used to answer this question by refering to the context (always a good idea!). In Matthew 19, the issue was Jesus healing on the sabbath. The Pharisees (who were eyewitnesses) attributed the miracles to Beelzebul, the ruler of demons. So apparently the "unfor- givable sin" is to be an eyewitness of a miracle performed by the incarnate Jesus, then attribute the power behind the miracle to demons. Since we were born too late to be eyewitnesses, we are not subject to falling into that sin. Q.E.D. -- Buford Beryl Gray - Mentor Graphics Corp., Advanced Products Division "Humor is a knife and what it cuts off doesn't grow back right away..."
lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (04/05/91)
In article <Mar.30.02.48.59.1991.14776@athos.rutgers.edu> psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) writes: >I firmly believe that, with one grave and serious exception, there is no >unforgivable sin.... > The only exception is the refusal of one to accept Jesus's death as >that sin dept payment, and therefore refusing to accept Jesus into your >heart as Lord and Savior. What about those of us who are not able to believe your hypothesis? Quite simply I am not able to force myself to believe that Christ was the Son of God (or that there is, indeed, a god in the first place). I believe that (according to you) your god is responsible for giving me my skeptical mind... is He not then responsible for my eternal damnation too? >That refusal results in an eternity in hell, >forever separated from God's glory and majesty and love in heaven. I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called "love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. Doesn't sound real merciful or kind either... Jeff Lindborg
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (04/05/91)
Jeff Lindborg says he is unable to force himself to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and indicates that if we're right, this has to be a result of God's giving him of a sceptical mind. This would make God responsible for his damnation. I guess I'm not prepared to give up so easily on him. It's now pretty common for Christians to believe that people who have not heard of Christ can still be saved. Some Catholics refer to this as "anonymous Christians", people who have responded to Christ in their hearts even though they don't know him by that name. Of course they are still saved by Christ, and we expect that they will recognize him when they finally meet him after death. Now clearly Jeff has heard of Christ. But I'm willing to believe that there are some who have heard of Christ, but not in a comvincing way, who have also responded to him in their hearts. At any rate, I don't find preaching fire and brimstone very helpful. It may have played a role in a society where everyone was basically Christian, and the primary goal was to get people who just somewhat lazy or apathetic to think seriously about their spiritual situation. (In saying this I'm giving the approach more credit than I really feel it deserves.) However I don't see what use it can possibly play when dealing with those who do not believe the Bible at all. The impression Jeff has gotten -- and I think he's got some justification for drawing this conclusion -- is that God provides only the most ambiguous evidence for himself, and then tortures people for making an error in evaluating evidence which is stacked against them. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to follow such a God. I don't blame Jeff for finding such a concept unattractive. I believe that God has actually provided everyone with a true opportunity to respond to him. This all seems to be implied in Romans, in Chap 1 where Paul claims that everyone, apparently including pagans who clearly could not have heard about Christ, has had the opportunity to know God, and in Chap 2, which talks about pagans who have God's law within them. I am not yet convinced that anyone will finally end up in hell (due to passages such as Rom 5:18, 11:32, 1 Tim 4:10, Tit 2:11 -- I do not find interpretations of "all people" as meaning "a few elect" very convincing), but I am convinced that if they do, it will be due to a responsible rejection of God, and not to a misevaluation of evidence.
goguenm@chopin.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen) (04/06/91)
In article <Apr.5.04.11.50.1991.10252@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Mar.30.02.48.59.1991.14776@athos.rutgers.edu> psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) writes: > >>I firmly believe that, with one grave and serious exception, there is no >>unforgivable sin.... >> The only exception is the refusal of one to accept Jesus's death as >>that sin dept payment, and therefore refusing to accept Jesus into your >>heart as Lord and Savior. > >What about those of us who are not able to believe your hypothesis? >Quite simply I am not able to force myself to believe that Christ was the >Son of God (or that there is, indeed, a god in the first place). I >believe that (according to you) your god is responsible for giving me my >skeptical mind... is He not then responsible for my eternal damnation >too? It is written: Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord and Saviour. Ref. Romans 14:11 This is a rough paraphrase of the verse. According to what is written you will bow before God and will answer to him for all YOUR works (DECISIONS). I don't write what is in the book I only try to explaine it. >>That refusal results in an eternity in hell, >>forever separated from God's glory and majesty and love in heaven. > >I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called >"love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the >human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. Let's play with an anology for a minute. If God were reduced to man and man were reduced to computers. Wouldn't God have the right as the creator to smash a computer, reprogram it, or turn it off whenever he wants? Only we are a little more capable than a machine. God is much more capable than us. Computers don't see, hear, feel, taste, or touch. We can can not God do more? Religion may seem archich to you but so is the 1800's to most people today. Take a trip to Williamsburg VA sometime. It might enlighten you to a simple fact, we haven't advanced as much as you might think we have. The founding fathers were brilliant considering what they could do with the primitave materials they had. We required perfection to do almost anything, they were able to use dirt. Who was smarter? >Doesn't sound real merciful or kind either... Maybe so however check out SATANISM some time you might like their <SARCASM ON> mercy and kindness <SARCASM OFF> better. They would like to see you dead only they won't tell you that. >Jeff Lindborg ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Matthew L. Goguen // Choose this day whom ye // // ELEG(SOPH) // will serve as for me and // // goguenm@chopin.udel.edu // my house we will serve // // goguenm@brahms.udel.edu // the LORD. Joshua 24:15 // //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) (04/08/91)
In article <Apr.5.05.16.42.1991.10582@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu says: >I believe that God has actually provided everyone with a true >opportunity to respond to him. This all seems to be implied in Bzzt! Nope, wrong. I disagree. I agree with the previous poster that a loving God and a Hell of Eternal Suffering for His wayward creations, who He knew would end up there in the first place! No. I've been raised a Christian, and still consider myself to be one, but I'm a borderline agnostic. I have asked God, pleaded with Him to somehow help me to make sense of all of the conflicting things I am supposed to believe, but it STILL doesn't make sense! But, Jesus preached about Hell a lot! But, Hell *can't* exist! Or maybe God is vengeful... I don't know. The beliefs Christians are supposed to hold just don't fit together. And, I hate to say it, but God hasn't chosen to help me reconcile it all, for whatever reason. But, from my experience, NOT everyone has the chance to *really* know God. ..not to mention children who die at birth, but that's another story... Kurt Ludwick ------------
lindborg@basin.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (04/10/91)
In article <Apr.6.01.24.34.1991.3328@athos.rutgers.edu> goguenm@chopin.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen) writes: >In article <Apr.5.04.11.50.1991.10252@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>What about those of us who are not able to believe your hypothesis? >>Quite simply I am not able to force myself to believe that Christ was the >>Son of God (or that there is, indeed, a god in the first place). I >>believe that (according to you) your god is responsible for giving me my >>skeptical mind... is He not then responsible for my eternal damnation >>too? >It is written: Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Christ >is Lord and Saviour. Ref. Romans 14:11 This is a rough paraphrase of >the verse. According to what is written you will bow before God and >will answer to him for all YOUR works (DECISIONS). Of course you are assuming the truth of the Bible... I, however, do not. It is also written that "I will not eat green eggs and ham, said Sam I am!" What's your point? >>I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called >>"love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the >>human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. >Let's play with an anology for a minute. If God were reduced to man and >man were reduced to computers. Wouldn't God have the right as the creator >to smash a computer, reprogram it, or turn it off whenever he wants? Excellent! I'd been fishing for an explanation of the motivations God had in creating human life for some time... now I have an answer. We are mere play things for His amusement. He can break his toys when they displease Him (as we see he does quite often in the Bible). In answer to your question, yes, He would. I would, however, question his so-called kindness, love, grace, mercy etc... You paint a pretty unflattering picture of God and His relationship to mankind in general. He comes off as somewhat of a spoiled child who is easily prone to fits of rage and jealousy, who then abuses His power by wreaking havok and pain (eternal pain mind you) on His toys that fail to please Him. God is love... >Take a trip to Williamsburg VA >sometime. It might enlighten you to a simple fact, we haven't advanced >as much as you might think we have. The continued insistence on a belief in immortality, heaven and hell are certainly proof of that... >Maybe so however check out SATANISM some time you might >like their <SARCASM ON> mercy and kindness <SARCASM OFF> better. >They would like to see you dead only they won't tell you that. This is, of course, a rather silly thing to say to an agnostic. I don't give Satanism any more credit than Christianity. Why would I care what they would like to do to me? You seem to imply that if I don't like Christianity I'm stuck only with Satanism. Thank the Great Pumpkin that this is not the case! BTW Your characterization of "Satanism"(tm) is more than just a little naive. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject rather than employing narrow minded preconceptions about things which you don't understand and/or believe. Jeff Lindborg
RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.10.04.25.53.1991.11122@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@basin.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) says: >In article <Apr.5.04.11.50.1991.10252@athos.rutgers.edu> >lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > >>>What about those of us who are not able to believe your hypothesis? >>>Quite simply I am not able to force myself to believe that Christ was the >>>Son of God (or that there is, indeed, a god in the first place). I >>>believe that (according to you) your god is responsible for giving me my >>>skeptical mind... is He not then responsible for my eternal damnation >>>too? Responsibility for what we *are* rests with God (or whatever higher power you might believe in). Responsibility for what you *do* with the attributes that are given you rests entirely with you. The argument that "I had no choice" simply doesn't wash. We are all given choices. I would not say that our wills are "free" (whatever THAT means), but the essential choice between right and wrong will be there. Does that mean that (according to Christian beliefs) that you're condemned because you've got a "skeptical mind?" Let me ask this: do you think you need to committ intellectual suicide to believe that Jesus was the son of God? If your answer is "yes," then consider also applying your "skeptical mind" to addressing the question "did King Charlemagne ever exist?" You have not seen him in the flesh; you only accept "historical evidence." There are things your "skeptical mind" accept without question! There is historical evidence that Jesus lived. Most Christians say that there is more than ample evidence (by the standards employed by historians themselves) that he even rose from the dead. Now, I'm not trying to give you the Christian "hard-sell," but I am trying to point-up an inconsistency. You say you cannot believe that Jesus was the son of God. You indeed have the choice to believe that. But to argue that somehow being a Christian involves being intellectually irresponsible is indefensible. Ask yourself seriously about what you *really* know... I think alot of hard feelings erupt in discussions like this because personal morals come to the fore fairly quickly. Non-Christians quickly become tired of the smug self-righteousness that is exuded by some of the weaker brothers. A good friend of mine is an agnostic, and his friendship has enriched me greatly. Our (infrequent) religious discussions are fun, lively, and exude a feeling of respect and intellectual playfulness. I am a particle physicist, and he is a talented robotics scientist. Please understand: the Christian is not commanded to point-out your short-comings to you. He has no right to do this as a Christian. It is not given to us to know who is "saved" and who is "not." >Of course you are assuming the truth of the Bible... I, however, do not. It >is also written that "I will not eat green eggs and ham, said Sam I am!" >What's your point? The reference would be relevant if it was considered to be true (or at least has the POSSIBILITY of being true) by both parties. Am I correct in assuming that there is no way that you'd consider that the Bible could even *possibly* be true (even in light of what I've written above)? A principle I usually adhere to when discussing apologetics with Agnostics is not to "beat 'em with a bible." This is probably the single "worst" thing one can do. If they start trying to blast *me* with it, however... all bets are off! >>>I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called >>>"love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the >>>human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. You are correct in that it is hard to see the "justice" in the above. I think the crux of your argument (to paraphrase) is that "Your god cannot be a loving god if he would inflict an eternity of punishment for the comparitively small crime of sins in 50+ years of life." The way I would answer is based on your two implicit assumptions: 1) You know how the Christian God sees sin. You, in fact, don't. (Nobody does.) I struggle all of the time with personal sins, and arguments like "its just a small thing... God really doesn't care about this particular sin all that much" come to my mind all of the time. We don't really know what the consequences of our sins are. How do we really know how serious they are with God, then? You see, the biblical principle that "God hates all sin equally" isn't entirely senseless. 2) God metes out eternal torment and pain. I don't see the necessity of this particular statement. God is complete... he doesn't *need* external sources of satisfaction. Causing another to be in pain isn't necessary. However [crucial] God is holy. He will not tolerate unrighteousness in his presence. Hell, then, is eternal separation from God. Descriptions of hell are usually couched in painful terms because, to the Christian, such separation would really be painful. God doesn't inflict the pain in hell... it is the *desire* to be with God that inflicts the pain. Have you ever been tormented by a desire before? I, personally, believe that hell is where you will want to be if that's where you're going. Its the place you go if self is the only thing you want to serve. You get set-up in front of a mirror for eternity to worship yourself as god, and to relish in your "incompleteness." (This is probably unbiblical... but there's freedom for interpretation here). The Bible speaks in metaphores in many places. Many of the statements about hell are, in fact, metaphorical. >Excellent! I'd been fishing for an explanation of the motivations God had in >creating human life for some time... now I have an answer. We are mere play >things for His amusement. He can break his toys when they displease Him (as >we see he does quite often in the Bible). I guess you're free to believe that. But in that belief, also know that in your mind you've built-up a "straw-man" christian faith that's only suitable for a seven-year-old (and you've shown your considerable intellectual prowess in knocking down such a construct). The questions you raise aren't easy. No one should put you down for asking them. If you're interested in my arguments for why I belive that the Christian God is not a capricious God, then e-mail me (I've already used lots of band-width! :-) ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Belcinski | Any opinion expressed above is not | Bitnet: RJB@SLACVM.BITNET | necessarily that of SLAC or the US DOE. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Note that there's a difference between Jeff's saying that he cannot bring himself to believe something and making a general assertion that being a Christian involves being intellectually irresponsible. At least in the posting you quote, Jeff was saying only the former. While I certainly believe there is good evidence for God's action in history, it also seems clear that this evidence is not unambiguous enough to convince everyone. It seems that attempts to provide "historical proof" are not convincing unless the listener is also being convinced in their heart by the Spirit. People who believe they have presented completely convincing arguments are likely to get frustrated, and I fear (based on a history of reading talk.religion.misc) that at times this frustration affects their ability to deal with non-Christians in an understanding manner. --clh]
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.7.22.06.13.1991.28720@athos.rutgers.edu>, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes: > No. I've been raised a Christian, and still consider myself to be one, > but I'm a borderline agnostic. I have asked God, pleaded with Him to > somehow help me to make sense of all of the conflicting things I am > supposed to believe, but it STILL doesn't make sense! I am convinced that Christianity is true. However, I think that it is wrong for anyone to try to believe evil of God. No doubt many of you will disagree with what I'm about to do, and say "how could a Christian in this situation suggest anything other than the True Faith?" I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the first step is to assure Kurt Ludwick that he can believe in God without straining his integrity. _Then_ from a base that is not in doubt we can discuss things specific to Christian belief. Here goes: Christianity and agnosticism are not the only alternatives. I think that Kurt Ludwick might be helped by reading Martin Gardner's "The Whys of a Philsophical Scrivener". Martin Gardner (a tireless and formidable champion of Reason) was raised a "fundamentalist" (whatever that means). Now he isn't any kind of Christian. He calls himself a "philosophical theist". He believes -- that God is One -- that God is Creator -- that God is good -- that there is life after death (_not_ reincarnation) and a bunch of other things. In fact, Martin Gardner is the best approximation I've seen of the Jewish concept of a "righteous Gentile". The book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" explains Gardner's philosophical, political, and moral views. If I weren't a Christian, I hope that I would be something like Gardner. Just because you find it hard to believe in Hell doesn't mean that you have to doubt the existence of _God_, only the existence of Hell. Having said that, I have some questions. > But, Jesus preached about Hell a lot! But, Hell *can't* exist! I can't honestly say that I like the idea of Hell myself. If you read some of the pseudepigraphical stuff which wasn't let into the Bible (1 Enoch, Bartholomew, others) you find something approaching glee at the destruction of the wicked (if I remember correctly, `Bartholomew' says that only 1 in 3000 avoids hell), and I find that horrible. There are a lot of ideas about Hell in our culture, not all of which can be justified from Scripture. (For example, I came across one book which argued that Dante's geography of the Inferno came from Islamic sources.) Popular legend has it that Hell is a place where demons torment human souls. That doesn't come from the Bible. Although there is a difference between the OT picture of Hell and the NT picture, it is clear from extra-Biblical sources that the NT picture is not a Christian innovation, nor did Jesus say anything about Hell which came as a real surprise to His hearers. The thing that puzzles me is why you say Hell "*can't* exist". Why "*can't*"? There can be no such thing as a scientific argument against it, because Hell is not a region in or state of the physical universe. The only way that we could be sure that Hell "*can't* exist" is if the concept turns out to be inconsistent. Hell not being a physical place which we can examine with our ordinary senses, what we say about it has to be metaphorical. Are you sure that (whatever Jesus meant by His metaphor) can't exist, or is it just (the interpretation you learned at your mother's knee) which can't exist? > Or maybe God is vengeful... I don't know. It sounds as though you have the idea that Hell is a place or state to which God *chooses* to send people that he *could* have done something else with, and that He sends people there *in order that* they may suffer. Now, it doesn't seem to me that Christians have to believe that. Let's face it, God wanted people to go to Hell so much that He died on a cross (or, not to offend the JWs, a stake) in order to prevent it. There's a book I got recently called "The Paradox of the Wrath of God" that might be helpful, I'll dig out the reference. > The beliefs Christians are supposed to hold just don't fit together. Which beliefs? I think that there is a serious possibility that some of the things which Kurt Ludwick thinks Christians have to believe may be ones where there is a wide range of opinions held in good faith, and that there may be interpretations he can be comfortable with. This forum may not be the best place to discuss particular beliefs, but it's worth a try. Actually, I've got a question I'll post in a few minutes. > But, from my experience, NOT everyone has the chance to *really* know God. I don't know what it means to "*really* know God". I count myself a Christian, and I'm sure that God knows _me_ (which is what counts), but I don't see how a finite (and how!) being can "*really* know God". I don't think subjective certainties have any great merit, and for what it's worth, I think that someone who is struggling not to think evil of God _is_ worshipping Him "in spirit and in truth". -- It is indeed manifest that dead men are formed from living ones; but it does not follow from that, that living men are formed from dead ones. -- Tertullian, on reincarnation.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.10.04.25.53.1991.11122@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@basin.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Apr.6.01.24.34.1991.3328@athos.rutgers.edu> goguenm@chopin.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen) writes: + +>Maybe so however check out SATANISM some time you might +>like their <SARCASM ON> mercy and kindness <SARCASM OFF> better. +>They would like to see you dead only they won't tell you that. You conviently ignore any Christian based group's crimes. Just recent history, Jones Town 900 people dead; an excommunicated Mormon group in OHIO 4 or 5 dead(I consider Mormons and related groups to be essentially Christian derivatives and definately not 'Satanist'); Of course and 'true' Christian group would not do these things so clearly these must be works of the 'Devil' to confuse the masses. It would seem that true Christians set around and blame the 'evil one' rather than looking into themselves. The logical extension of 'no one goes to the Father, exept by Me' is that everything which is not Christianity is of the 'Disceiver'. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu
goguenm@chopin.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.21.02.16.15.1991.19866@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >>In article <Apr.6.01.24.34.1991.3328@athos.rutgers.edu> goguenm@chopin.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen) writes: >+ >+>Maybe so however check out SATANISM some time you might >+>like their <SARCASM ON> mercy and kindness <SARCASM OFF> better. >+>They would like to see you dead only they won't tell you that. > >You conviently ignore any Christian based group's crimes. Just >recent history, Jones Town 900 people dead; an excommunicated Mormon >group in OHIO 4 or 5 dead(I consider Mormons and related groups to >be essentially Christian derivatives and definately not 'Satanist'); > >Of course and 'true' Christian group would not do these things so >clearly these must be works of the 'Devil' to confuse the masses. >It would seem that true Christians set around and blame the 'evil one' >rather than looking into themselves. The logical extension of 'no >one goes to the Father, exept by Me' is that everything which is not >Christianity is of the 'Disceiver'. >-- > >John Clark If you have such insight please share with us what these cults followed from the BIBLE in thier acts of crime. Yes, I attribute many of things to Demonic influence but not Demonic control. God is the one who has the final say. (I do not consider cults to be christian because they stray from the preached words of Christ.) As to the 'Devil' having influence and confusing the masses, it is written about in the new testiment where it tells us to put on the whole armour of God. He walks about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. (IT is written.) We don't wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places. My battle is not with you, John, it is with the deception of Satan in the masses, government, and "religious" leaders. These are the ones I find more dangerous than murders because their crimes are not recognised as such and they are subtle in the meathods. We don't blame Satan for our downfalls, we blame ourselves for letting us be decieved by him. True christians are far from perfect, but they understand this, accept it, accept Christ's gift and move on. A just man will fall seven times and rise up again but the wicked will fall unto mischief. I have fallen at times and I still do. God corrects me and raises me back up again to do His will. I am involved in a war that can not be seen. It is a war for eternal life that is not seen by most. There are two sides to this war. God's and Satans. God is the one that we do not tend to naturally, he calls us. Therefore unless you are called by God and corrected by him, you serve the 'Deceiver'. Now read my sig and tell me if you can understand it. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // Matthew L. Goguen // Choose this day whom ye // // ELEG(SOPH) // will serve as for me and // // goguenm@chopin.udel.edu // my house we will serve // // goguenm@brahms.udel.edu // the LORD. Joshua 24:15 // //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////