Is God more cruel than the worst sadist you know?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Justice in the Bible requires the death of evil and evil doers. On occasion the concept of suffering and torment is introduced and cannot be ignored. The idea of suffering for all eternity without end is not Biblical except for three people mentioned in Revelation. Christ said this about a rich greedy man that ignored his fellowman as he suffered:

And ...[text shortened]... azarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. (Luke 16:23-25 KJV)

Yes, yes, and yes.

The wages of sin are death. Period.

One cannot embrace sin and expect to live forever.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious as to why this is. You seem to take it as obvious that justice requires the suffering of evil doers. Yet closer inspection reveals the fact that it is not obvious, it requires justification. I have actually asked this many times on this forum and have not had a satisfactory answer.

In fact, Jesus negated this statement (that punishment is necessary for evil doers) on several occasions, where the religious leaders of the day insisted on such punishment, but he offered forgiveness. The woman caught in adultery is a case in point.

Originally posted by CalJust
In fact, Jesus negated this statement (that punishment is necessary for evil doers) on several occasions, where the religious leaders of the day insisted on such punishment, but he offered forgiveness. The woman caught in adultery is a case in point.

Note however that he never said that the punishments were incorrect, or morally wrong. I understand why he didn't - if he had, he would have been hanged much sooner. But it does beg the question as to who made up those punishments in the first place.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Justice in the Bible requires the death of evil and evil doers. On occasion the concept of suffering and torment is introduced and cannot be ignored. The idea of suffering for all eternity without end is not Biblical except for three people mentioned in Revelation. Christ said this about a rich greedy man that ignored his fellowman as he suffered:

And ...[text shortened]... azarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. (Luke 16:23-25 KJV)

No, more often than not justice is dispensed with mercy and grace.

The story of Lazarus is often quoted to support the concept of hell. Yet this is clearly an allegorical story, that makes the specific point of caring for the poor rather than salvation and faith in God.

1. How can a drop of water clear thirst? Clearly only a picture.
2. The big gulf between, across which one can talk. Can you picture yourself enjoying heaven whilst listening - for EVER! - to your "unsaved" loved ones screaming in agony?
3. How big is "Abraham' bosom"? For how many people is there room on it?!

Again, there is no mention of faith, forgiveness or being born again, it is all about what we did or did not do here. (Btw, this would be a good scripture to discuss in the Faith vs Works debate, but I did not see it mentioned,)

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, yes, and yes.

The wages of sin are death. Period.

One cannot embrace sin and expect to live forever.

Ah, Suzy, finally we may be getting somewhere...

Both your statements are true, I believe.

He that has the son has life, and without the son you do not - which means death.

So Christian doctrine is that you CAN get eternal life, but it is not a given.

If you do not have life, you don't live forever - neither in heaven, but also not in hell.

Originally posted by CalJust
In fact, Jesus negated this statement (that punishment is necessary for evil doers) on several occasions, where the religious leaders of the day insisted on such punishment, but he offered forgiveness. The woman caught in adultery is a case in point.

What Jesus said in no way negates the statement that punishment is necessary. Jesus was showing that the LAW OF MOSES was not necessary and that its application without the necessary mercy and forgiveness was wrong.

Christ always, always, always after telling someone that they are forgiven, say that GO AND SIN NO MORE. Sin is the problem. The forgiveness part is easy. But you cannot continue to tempt God and sin over and over without dire consequences.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Note however that he never said that the punishments were incorrect, or morally wrong. I understand why he didn't - if he had, he would have been hanged much sooner. But it does beg the question as to who made up those punishments in the first place.

I think I said already that if one studies the doctrine of eternal hellfire, it only appeared somewhere in the Middle Ages. Yet today it is almost universally accepted in the Christian church, without question.

Rajk999 (I think it was) said something to the effect "because the Bible says so!" That is exactly the attitude i want to challenge, because:

1. Everything in the Bible is open to interpretation (as I pointed out in other posts), and
2. This picture of God allowing the majority of the human population to suffer excruciatingly for ever and ever whilst the Chosen Few enjoy eternal bliss, is contrary to many other underlying clear teachings of the Bible, not the least of which is that God is Love, and that Christ came to bring reconciliation.

As I said in my OP, I would really appreciate it if some readers could think beyond just :"That is what the Bible says!", but rather consider: "Yes, this is a God that I can worship. He is at least as moral and humane as some of my friends....."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your answer is fine. I had thought there might be some explanation where punishment serves some known purpose, but it appears not. Its just dictated by Jesus that that is the way it is and you accept it.
So I guess the follow up question would be, if Jesus dictated that the most horrendous punishments (such as those in the OP) should be dished out for ev ...[text shortened]... uess what I am now asking is whether there is a limit to what you will accept being dictated to.

I though it was obvious that punishment acts as a deterrent to sin.

I do not agree with the opening post if it is to be interpreted that people spend an eternity in torment for minor sins.

Originally posted by Rajk999
But you cannot continue to tempt God and sin over and over without dire consequences.

OK, let's look at that. What do YOU think would be appropriate "dire" consequences for somebody who did not believe in God?

Just for a minute, imagine that YOU, with your limited human virtues, were to have to pronounce judgement on such a person, what would YOU say is fair and just?

Originally posted by CalJust
No, more often than not justice is dispensed with mercy and grace.

The story of Lazarus is often quoted to support the concept of hell. Yet this is clearly an allegorical story, that makes the specific point of caring for the poor rather than salvation and faith in God.

1. How can a drop of water clear thirst? Clearly only a picture.
2. The big gulf b ...[text shortened]... ld be a good scripture to discuss in the Faith vs Works debate, but I did not see it mentioned,)

I am familiar with the long list of criticisms attached to that story. But to say Christ did not mean it literally raises some other more important questions. Mostly why did he not explain the correct interpretation to the disciples or to any other group. If you were to read the writings of the Jewish people at that time you would see similar descriptions in greater detail. If they were wrong Christ would have challenged and corrected wrong interpretation. He did no such thing instead he amplified them.

Originally posted by CalJust
..What do YOU think would be appropriate "dire" consequences for somebody who did not believe in God?

-Death and no resurrection if unworthy.
Resurrection with reward if worthy.

Romans 2 : 9-15

Originally posted by CalJust
I think I said already that if one studies the doctrine of eternal hellfire, it only appeared somewhere in the Middle Ages. Yet today it is almost universally accepted in the Christian church, without question.

Rajk999 (I think it was) said something to the effect "because the Bible says so!" That is exactly the attitude i want to challenge, because:

...[text shortened]... this is a God that I can worship. He is at least as moral and humane as some of my friends....."

Actually Im saying .. Christ said so.
Christ is the authority, not the entire Bible.

Originally posted by CalJust
Ah, Suzy, finally we may be getting somewhere...

Both your statements are true, I believe.

He that has the son has life, and without the son you do not - which means death.

So Christian doctrine is that you CAN get eternal life, but it is not a given.

If you do not have life, you don't live forever - neither in heaven, but also not in hell.

Yes, that's right.

I do believe in Annihilation vs. Eternal torture, yes.

But the more important thing I said was that the wages of sin is death. This cannot be watered down. God's wrath and vengeance is not cruel, it is justice. I agree with Rajk999 on that point.

Originally posted by CalJust
I think I said already that if one studies the doctrine of eternal hellfire, it only appeared somewhere in the Middle Ages.

I was referring to barbaric practices such as stoning adulterers. Jesus does not say that it is wrong to do so. Even you do not say it is wrong to do so. You instead say it is right to do so, but you may also be forgiven.

1. Everything in the Bible is open to interpretation
....
but rather consider: "Yes, this is a God that I can worship. He is at least as moral and humane as some of my friends....."
You're going to have to do some pretty fancy interpretation to pull that one off.

Originally posted by Suzianne
God's wrath and vengeance is not cruel, it is justice. I agree with Rajk999 on that point.

Just because it is justice, does not stop it being cruel. Just because Jesus says 'this is the way it is' does not make something that would otherwise be considered cruel suddenly not be cruel.