THE WORD OF GOD

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by dj2becker
a)It is rocorded in the Bible that hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels
b)NO!

I meant how do you know that he could not have banished them back to hell?

Well if you are spiritu ...[text shortened]... sh gains, he loved Lazarus and gave in to his own emotional needs.

I am fully aware of why he chose to do it, I am putting forth a viewpoint that finds his actions offensive, as requested in the thread's title. His showmanship, for want of a better word, is callous and unnecessary. I find it hard to believe that the son of god would resort to crowd pleasing stunts to illustrate his points.

You find his showmanship unnecessary? Do mean to say it would have been better for the demons to destroy the man? You are making no sense whatsoever. I am afraid I don't see his actions as being 'crowd pleasing stunts.' They were miracles aimed at building up the people around him.

However I do not see why Jesus is allowed to break the rules to raise the dead.

Since when is it breaking the rules for the Son of God to raise someone from the dead?

Would you not count the ressurection of Lazarus as a sin?

Would you mind pointing out why it might even be regarded as a sin?

If not, you must acknowledge that Jesus does not suffer from the same constraints and rules as the rest of us. If this is so, how can we consider him a role model for human life?

He is the son of God. He has the ability to raise someone from the dead. Of course in that sense he is not the same as us. I mean he is the perfect example. He is the real thing. Necromancy would be trying to copy what Jesus did using evil powers.

I find this double standard offensive, if any human being had raised the dead he would be packed off to hell.

Do you mean to say that you find it offensive that you cannot raise someone from the dead? Don't be absurd.

And what is worse, Jesus did it for his own selfish gains, he loved Lazarus and gave in to his own emotional needs.

You are being totally absurd. What proof do you have that he was doing it for his own selfish gains? Why would he not be doing it to uplift the name of God his father? I suppose you would say it was selfish of him to die on the cross to grant us eternal salvation and forgiveness of sins!

I will deal with this tomorrow as I am too drunk to forma coherent response 🙂

Originally posted by Starrman
I will deal with this tomorrow as I am too drunk to forma coherent response 🙂

Hope you don't have too much of a headache tomorrow 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
You find his showmanship unnecessary? Do mean to say it would have been better for the demons to destroy the man? You are making no sense whatsoever. I am afraid I don't see his actions as being 'crowd pleasing stunts.' They were miracles aimed at building up the people around him.

Of course I don't think the demons should have destroyed the man. I am questioning why jesus could not just have sent them back to hell quietly and saved the man from sin.

Since when is it breaking the rules for the Son of God to raise someone from the dead?

I'm sure it's not, but as he was living as a human, I feel that doing the very things which he would have humans not do, is somewhat wrong.

Would you mind pointing out why it might even be regarded as a sin?

It is upsetting the natural process of life and death, if any human being had this power would they be sinning in your eyes to raise the dead? I wonder if Lazarus went to heaven when he died and did Jesus bring him back from there.

He is the son of God. He has the ability to raise someone from the dead. Of course in that sense he is not the same as us. I mean he is the perfect example. He is the real thing. Necromancy would be trying to copy what Jesus did using evil powers.

So it is not the resulting action, but the power used to accomplish the feat which matters?

Do you mean to say that you find it offensive that you cannot raise someone from the dead? Don't be absurd.

No I did not mean this although if I could raise people from the dead I would do so. Would I be sinning if I did?

You are being totally absurd. What proof do you have that he was doing it for his own selfish gains? Why would he not be doing it to uplift the name of God his father? I suppose you would say it was selfish of him to die on the cross to grant us eternal salvation and forgiveness of sins!

Well I believe Jesus knew and loved Lazarus, he wept over his death did he not? The very use of a two word sentence "Jesus wept." has obvious intention to create a situation of personality and meaning above other references to death. Are you saying Jesus' decision was not based on his human emotion at this point, but on some higher plan?

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You find his showmanship unnecessary? Do mean to say it would have been better for the demons to destroy the man? You are making no sense whatsoever. I am afraid I don't see his actions as being 'crowd pleasing stunts.' They were miracles aimed at building up the people around him.

Of course I don't think ...[text shortened]... ng Jesus' decision was not based on his human emotion at this point, but on some higher plan? [/b]

I am questioning why jesus could not just have sent them back to hell quietly and saved the man from sin.

I explained to you why he did this. You replied that you understood why he did it but you are questioning his showmanship. So my answer to you is that you don't really understand why he did it even if you insist that you do. Because if you really understood why you would not continue asking why he did not do it differently.

I'm sure it's not, but as he was living as a human, I feel that doing the very things which he would have humans not do, is somewhat wrong.

I think that you don't understand what he did. He raised someone from the dead using the power that God gave him. He would not have us doing that same with the power of the Devil. I'm sure it's not wrong to do something if God gives you the power to do it.

It is upsetting the natural process of life and death, if any human being had this power would they be sinning in your eyes to raise the dead?

The point is that human beings don't have the human power to do this. The fact that Jesus did it proves that he was the Messiah. He was human yet at the same time he was the son of God.

I wonder if Lazarus went to heaven when he died and did Jesus bring him back from there.

There are many people that I know that have died that have seen Heaven and were sent back to tell the people on Earth what it is like. I find no problem with Lazarus being brought back to life to tell the people how Heaven is like. In fact that should only strengthen our faith.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I am questioning why jesus could not just have sent them back to hell quietly and saved the man from sin.

I explained to you why he did this. You replied that you understood why he did it but you are questioning his showmanship. So my answer to you is that you don't really understand why he did it even if you insist that you do. Because if you r ...[text shortened]... life to tell the people how Heaven is like. In fact that should only strengthen our faith.


[/b]

My questions were aimed at bigger points than the as and when situation really. Although at the time, Jesus may have used these things as examples of the power of god, why is it that god had to resort to this process at all?

I guess we'll just have to see it from different viewpoints.

Originally posted by Starrman

My questions were aimed at bigger points than the as and when situation really.

Such as?

Although at the time, Jesus may have used these things as examples of the power of god, why is it that god had to resort to this process at all?

How else would you suggest Him to portray the power of God?

I guess we'll just have to see it from different viewpoints.

I don't think that I quite understand your viewpoint. Would you mind clarifying it a bit?

Originally posted by dj2becker
My questions were aimed at bigger points than the as and when situation really.

Such as?

Although at the time, Jesus may have used these things as examples of the power of god, why is it that god had to resort to this process ...[text shortened]... understand your viewpoint. Would you mind clarifying it a bit?

Considering god is supposedly pretty much able to do anything, he had to resort to these means? Just seems a bit rubbish, if the aim was to get people to believe, why not something more spectacular? Why not something not involving Jesus, but instead flaming chariots, the whole host of heaven coming down? Why the dead pigs?

My viewpoint is from non-belief, to me non of these things really happened, so we're talking hypotheticals. To be honest I have trouble forming a stance on necromancy or demons when I don't believe they exist, so picking the hypocritical out of the imaginary is somewhat confusing.

Originally posted by Starrman
Considering god is supposedly pretty much able to do anything, he had to resort to these means? Just seems a bit rubbish, if the aim was to get people to believe, why not something more spectacular? Why not something not involving Jesus, but instead flaming chariots, the whole host of heaven coming down? Why the dead pigs?

My viewpoint is from non-bel ...[text shortened]... n't believe they exist, so picking the hypocritical out of the imaginary is somewhat confusing.

Considering god is supposedly pretty much able to do anything, he had to resort to these means? Just seems a bit rubbish, if the aim was to get people to believe, why not something more spectacular? Why not something not involving Jesus, but instead flaming chariots, the whole host of heaven coming down? Why the dead pigs?

Don't you think if he did that, he would be forcing the people to believe. He gave man a free will. If He did it your way, wouldn't he be forcing people to believe.

My viewpoint is from non-belief, to me non of these things really happened, so we're talking hypotheticals. To be honest I have trouble forming a stance on necromancy or demons when I don't believe they exist, so picking the hypocritical out of the imaginary is somewhat confusing.

If you have trouble forming a stance on necromancy, then why accuse Jesus of doing necromancy in the first place?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Don't you think if he did that, he would be forcing the people to believe. He gave man a free will. If He did it your way, wouldn't he be forcing people to believe.

The threat of eternal damnation in hell is force.

If you have trouble forming a stance on necromancy, then why accuse Jesus of doing necromancy in the first place?

I am not entirely certain Jesus even existed. I was entertaining a theoretical arguement based on what I would think about his actions if he was the son of god. My stance on necromancy is uncertain, as I am applying it to a theoretical figure I do not believe in.

Originally posted by Starrman
The threat of eternal damnation in hell is force.

The threat of eternal damnation in hell is force. The warning of eternal damnation in hell is not.

Originally posted by Starrman

The threat of eternal damnation in hell is force.
...

You are confusing persuasion with force. One goes against the will, the other influences the mind. No one can be forced into believing something they do not believe. Their belief may change if they find the arguments convincing. Why would anyone believe in God for the sake of eternal damnation unless they presuppose one or the other, and one necessarily implies the other.

Originally posted by Coletti
You are confusing persuasion with force. One goes against the will, the other influences the mind. No one can be forced into believing something they do not believe. Their belief may change if they find the arguments convincing. Why would anyone believe in God for the sake of eternal damnation unless they presuppose one or the other, and one necessarily implies the other.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that there are some people who are frightened enough by the possibility of spending eternity in hell to choose to believe. Perhaps not for a rationed atheist, but certianly people who are undecided or have not considered where they stand could be swayed by such a thing. I would go so far as to say that this very threat is used openly by evangelical preachers on TV and in public. I have certainly come across those that have screamed 'repent and believe or you will burn in the fiery pit for all eternity' etc.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that there are some people who are frightened enough by the possibility of spending eternity in hell to choose to believe. Perhaps not for a rationed atheist, but certianly people who are undecided or have not considered where they stand could be swayed by such a thing. I would go so far as to say that this very t ...[text shortened]... hat have screamed 'repent and believe or you will burn in the fiery pit for all eternity' etc.

Does the statement, "If you drive in this [drunken] condition, you will end up in jail or, worse, dead," sound like a threat to you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does the statement, "If you drive in this [drunken] condition, you will end up in jail or, worse, dead," sound like a threat to you?

No, but id a policeman said "If you drive in this [drunken] condition, I will send you to jail" then yes it would be. Yours has passive inference: What you do will cause something to happen which you have brought upon yourself. The second is active: What you do will cause me to do something to you.

I believe hell falls in the second category, if you do not do as god says he will put you in hell. The decision to send you there lies with him.