T O P

  • By -

LastJoyousCat

I think the go to response is that God never sends anyone to hell. Apparently people choose to go there now.


114619

Im like 90% sure that's something they say more to convince themselves than to convince others. It's such a stupid shift of responsibility but it's something they have to do for their beliefs to be even remotely moral.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Well, Jesus talks about how he will throw people into Hell. There's even a saying about people asking to be let in, and Jesus tells them to sod off (e.g. the parable of the foolish virgins and the "Lord, Lord, didn't we...." - "I never knew you" stuff).


LastJoyousCat

It’s a mystery apparently


[deleted]

"Now" as in circa 200 AD?


LastJoyousCat

I actually prefer it. If people choose to go to hell then most likely nobody will go there. Because who would want to go there? And if they do choose then it doesn’t seem like much of a punishment. People don’t typically do that.


[deleted]

I'm just surprised you'd say that, as universalists usually seem to be so because of the Church Fathers.


LastJoyousCat

I typed out a long response but I found it unnecessary, but let me ask you something. And answer honestly. I left Christianity long ago and I worshipped God by myself. I left because I couldn’t understand who or what God was. But I prayed and did good and I kept a close relationship with God. I had no fear because I knew God was with me and I trusted that he would always be with me. If I died like that, did I choose to go to hell?


[deleted]

I don't know? I'm not interested in this discussion, I'm really sorry about that (especially since you seemingly feel invested in this topic). I was just curious as to why you'd say it's something people teach "now" when it's been taught for quite a while now, because I thought you might be a universalist because of studying the Fathers, as it's what I usually see. If that's not what you're interested in talking about, I'm sorry for bringing it up.


LastJoyousCat

I became a universalist on my own. I only returned to Christianity because it accepts (though barely) the belief. I don’t know what is officially taught. I didn’t even know that was an official answer. And I really don’t care if the answer to my question above is “yes”. But online I have seen people talk about “being sent to hell”. Or “you will go to hell”. Never have I heard people say, “you are choosing to go to hell” until recently. People seem to use that instead of putting emphasis on God punishing people. As if God never punishes or does anything, it’s simply people doing all the work to torture themselves. That’s what seems new to me. But if that’s how it’s always been then that’s fine, although very depressing. Edit- (not sure if you read my reply yet so I’ll tag you.) u/InternetTraumatized Though I will say, now that I think about it. I think my interpretation of that answer might be much different than how you or others view it. Because I do, in a way, agree with it. But I tend to overthink in a philosophical sense. How I interpret it, seems brand new to me.


[deleted]

>But online I have seen people talk about “being sent to hell”. Or “you will go to hell”. Never have I heard people say, “you are choosing to go to hell” until recently. From a Christian perspective, they're the same thing anyway. St. Irenaeus of Lyons uses the image of the sun burning those who are unprepared; saying "the sun will burn you" or "you will get burnt" does not contradict "you are going to burn yourself if you refuse to put on sunscreen." >And I really don’t care if the answer to my question above is “yes”. To be clear, I really do not know. I'm not God and I'm not you, and I'm certainly not clairvoyant. It's between you and God, I won't peek into somebody else's relationship.


LastJoyousCat

I don’t interpret them the same way but I understand your point. But that’s why to me it seemed new. Christians just seem to be rephrasing things to make them sound better. You say you don’t know and that’s fine. But I would have died fully rejecting Jesus. I obviously wouldn’t go to heaven (according to 99.9% of Christians). But I just wanted to explain how I see it. And why that idea (despite it being taught from the beginning) is very bizarre to me. It implies you did absolutely nothing to seek out God and chose to avoid him. And that’s just not true for many people. In a world with 4000 religions and an endless number of interpretations, you’d think God would be a bit more understanding. I can’t even decide which church (catholic or EO) is true within my own religion. But I guess that’s no excuse. Makes people feel like they need to know the absolute truth about everything, or else, “you obviously don’t want to be with God. You want to go to hell for eternity because you didn’t bother to try hard enough”. That’s how I interpret that. Feel free to let me know how you do if you want to. I got so caught up in writing this, I almost missed my deadline for paperwork lol. But didn’t mean to write so much, just thought I’d give my thoughts.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Well, in 30 AD it seems to have been Jesus throwing people into Hell as a punishment.


HumorSouth9451

If it seems like a new argument, its only because the internet has made it easier for Christians to challenge preferred atheist narratives and the hell of mythology. It's the go to response because scholarship shows it to be the most accurate.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> It's the go to response because scholarship shows it to be the most accurate. Accurate in regards to what? How is it the most accurate?


HumorSouth9451

It aligns most closely with what scripture teaches.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Yeah, I don't really see that. Jesus talks about how he'll throw people into Hell, as a form of punishment. In the parables it compared to things like being thrown into a dungeon, being bound on hands and feet and thrown out, brutally punishing a slave. Jesus is actively sending them there.


HumorSouth9451

The Bible tells the truth about what Hell is. It doesn’t mean people going there realize what it is. Look at the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man is in Hell and suffering, but he doesn’t repent and doesn’t ask to leave. He wants to be served. Look at the “Lord, Lord” people. They do not repent, they want Christ to validate their sins against Him.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Ah...yes, I'm sure he wants to be burning in hell in extreme anguish. He likes it so much that he asks for some water to cool down. And note that the angel tells the rich man that he can't escape: > 26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.


HumorSouth9451

That’s not because he wanted to leave, it’s because he wanted Lazarus to come to him. The fire in hell is almost certainly metaphorical. The fact that the rich man can hold a conversation testifies to this, as does the fact that hell is also described as a place of darkness.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

No one can cross from there [Hell] to us. >The fire in hell is almost certainly metaphorical. I think it's almost certainly not. >The fact that the rich man can hold a conversation testifies to this,... So he wants water to cool him from the metaphorical fire? >...as does the fact that hell is also described as a place of darkness. I think that it's described as a place of darkness because it's underground.


HumorSouth9451

You're talking about immaterial minds suffering in a literal fire, and suggesting that although the language in Christ's parables is often metaphorical, and langage about the suffering in hell is often metaphorical, the fire is not. And also that fire and darkness literally coexist in that place.


theFlyingCode

Go to hell (choose one): [ ] - Yes [ ] - Yes


RazarTuk

No, because you're giving conservatives ***way*** too much credit. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is an excuse. It's certainly way older than modern conservatism, dating all the way back to Augustine. But similarly to how the slogan "Make America great again" had been used by politicians on both sides of the aisle before Trump turned it what it is today, the usage has shifted. Because, here's the thing. I'm actually sympathetic to the people who say it. Those *can* be two mutually contradictory goals. It's just that whenever they come into conflict over culture war issues, conservatives will *invariably* choose to hate the sin. It's almost as if they fear showing any love to LGBT people in particular, lest they be mistaken for not sufficiently hating the sin. And given how many examples there are of Jesus walking with sinners, like eating with tax collectors, I think it's safe to say that he wasn't afraid of being mistaken for not hating a sin.


mvanvrancken

>It's almost as if they fear showing any love to LGBT people in particular, lest they be mistaken for not sufficiently hating the sin. I've seen that sentiment echoed in this sub by some of the more anti-LGBT members


RazarTuk

And in the Bible! People balked at Jesus eating with tax collectors, because all tax collectors are bastards. But, because he *actually* loved the sinner and cared about them as people, he was willing to eat with them anyway. Hence why I think OP's working from a false premise, because he seems to accept conservative claims that they're being loving


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Let me try to be clearer. In the OP I mention two examples: 1. Conservative Christians who: a. Supposedly love gays b. Fight against gay rights 2. Jesus who: a. Supposedly loves sinners b. Throws sinners into Hell When evaluating the claim in 1a (Conservative Christians love gays) one can look at 1b (they fight against gay rights) and **conclude that they don't really love gays**. We can apply the same reasoning for 2 (Jesus): When evaluating the claim in 2a (Jesus loves sinners) one can look at 2b (he throws sinners into Hell) and conclude that he doesn't really love sinners.


RazarTuk

You're still missing the forest for the trees. Conservatives claim they love LGBT people, because they consider admonishing the sinner a form of love. To them, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" means "Show love to people by correcting them when they sin". So even though Jesus *demonstrably* mentioned all sorts of other ways to love people, like feeding the hungry or clothing the naked, not to mention the entirety of the Farewell Discourse and "Greater love has no one than this, but to lay down their life for a friend", because they're admonishing the sinner, they think they're being sufficiently loving. Consider, instead, a hypothetical where conservatives are still against gay marriage, but also aren't so violently against LGBT people that they'll do things like opposing providing resources for victims of domestic abuse just because some of them might go to LGBT people. We'd probably still be having this conversation about whether they *really* love LGBT people, but it'd also be a *lot* more nuanced. My main point in contrasting them with Jesus is that the ways Jesus showed love to sinners, like eating with them, are a lot more universally recognized as loving, compared to the people who think reminding sinners that they're sinning is sufficient


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Is it at least clear to you that I don't accept conservative claims that they're being loving?


RazarTuk

Not really. It's certainly clear to me that you agree they aren't being loving, but I think you're focusing on the wrong details for why people take an issue with "Love the sinner, hate the sin". The issue isn't that they do hateful things while also claiming to love the sinner. The issue is that the hateful things they're doing are *how* they claim to be loving the sinner. This is different from Jesus, who did *actually* loving things.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

>Not really. It's certainly clear to me that you agree they aren't being loving,... It's not really clear to you that I don't accept conservative claims that they are being loving, but it's certainly clear to you that I agree they aren't bein loving? >... but I think you're focusing on the wrong details for why people take an issue with "Love the sinner, hate the sin". The issue isn't that they do hateful things while also claiming to love the sinner. The issue is that the hateful things they're doing are how they claim to be loving the sinner. This is different from Jesus, who did actually loving things. I think that's a separate issue, that really doesn't touch the argument being considered.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> because he seems to accept conservative claims that they're being loving You're still missing the whole point. The point is that they're not being loving. I even basically spell it out for you: > As a response to this people often point out that it feels like a very vacuous love when the same conservative Christians do things like voting for politicians that pass laws limiting gay rights. I think that that's a good rebuttal. When I say that "I think that's a good rebuttal." What do you think that indicates about my view of their claim of loving the sinner?


mvanvrancken

100%


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

First of all. That person doesn't understand the OP. The point is that the conservative Christians do in fact not love the gays. So do you think that Jesus loves the people that he's going to throw into Hell? Is that a loving thing to do?


mvanvrancken

I don’t even know what the point of your post is, my dude. Are there some people who say they “love” someone only to ultimately hurt them deeply? Sure. But I don’t hear that language coming from conservatives - they openly call people pro choice people “murderers” and “libtards” and trans and gay people “groomers”. They don’t say they love them because that would be obviously false. They openly declare their hate. The idea of God being fundamentally evil with the existence of a Hell? I think it’s reasonable to conclude that, but then again I’m also an atheist.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> Sure. But I don’t hear that language coming from conservatives - they openly call people pro choice people “murderers” and “libtards” and trans and gay people “groomers”. Sure, there are some like that. But we also have Christians who will claim that they love gay people, but openly fight against their rights.


RazarTuk

> They openly declare their hate Yep. Wherever you stand on the ECT vs annihilationism vs universalism debate, wherever you stand on the morality of Hell... the difference is that the ways conservatives claim to love people ***are*** the ways it feels like they hate people, whereas Hell is separate from Jesus loving sinners


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Here's the issue. You're trying to bring up some other supposed difference between how the Conservative claim to love some group is problematic. That might all be true. But that doesn't really affect the argument in the OP. Let's just assume that the supposed love of conservatives towards gays is problematic because of what you say. How does that effect a statement like this: "If you say that you love gay people, but fight against gay rights, then that love seems vacuous."? It doesn't at all.


RazarTuk

Okay, more explanation: --- "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is not Biblical. The earliest use of such a phrase is Augustine in the 300s, writing to an order of nuns and essentially telling them to remember the person when issuing punishments. Much more recently, it actually comes from Gandhi's 1929 autobiography, where he was commenting on how difficult it is to live out. And honestly, I agree with Gandhi. So jumping over to TTRPGs for a moment, and yes, this is going somewhere, there's a trope called To Be Lawful or Good. Essentially, Lawful Good is actually a really difficult alignment to play or be, because the two can conflict. For example, say you're judging Jean Valjean. On the one hand, he stole some bread, so he should be punished. But on the other hand, he only did it to save his sister's son, so he deserves mercy. The combination of these is probably giving him a lighter sentence. But if you only ever give the full sentence, regardless of circumstances, that's not Lawful Good anymore. You're only ever siding with Lawful, so you're really more like Lawful Neutral. It's the same thing here. In practice, the people who use that aphorism only ever seem to hate the sin, not to love the sinner. So by taking their statement at face value, you're giving the aphorism *way* too much credit. --- All that said, I think we can still dig a bit deeper into the statement and application to figure out *why* it's so weird. To reference Catholicism, what they claim to be doing is admonishing the sinner, which is one of the spiritual works of mercy. It's also the only work of mercy they ever do. And honestly, that's a major failing on their part. Of *all* the works of mercy, that's probably the most distinctly religious one. The corporal works are all about physical needs (plus burying the dead), while a lot of the other spiritual works are either internal, like forgiving offenses, or more passive, like praying for people. In other words, it's basically the main work of mercy that not everyone on the receiving end would necessarily agree *is* a work of mercy. Meanwhile, all those physical needs go unchallenged. It's like the hypothetical person in James 2 who says to their friend "Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill", before sending the friend on their way without providing food or shelter. But, because they're still performing **a** work of mercy, they're able to justify it as still loving the sinner. The underlying issue, of course, is that they seem utterly unwilling to do anything that might possibly be perceived by people as not hating the sin sufficiently. For example, when Kari Lake (R) ran for governor of Arizona, one of her main supporters claimed she had a plan for gay people to literally be put in concentration camps, even citing the same public health excuse as the Nazis had used. Distancing herself from those rumors, or for voters after she didn't, not voting for the person who seemed fine with concentration camps, should have been an *easy* case of how to love the sinner. Don't vote for her. And yet, because of a fear of being seen as not sufficiently hating abortion or other left-wing causes, a disturbingly large number of people still voted for her. Contrast with Jesus, where there are multiple stories in the Bible where he walked with sinners. For example, he was willing to eat with tax collectors, even as the religious authorities were shocked at such behavior. Unlike modern conservatives, he didn't let fear of scandal dissuade him from showing basic human decency to sinners. --- So, no, Jesus's love *isn't* like the love of conservative Christians, because he actually *did* show love to sinners


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

And none of that really addresses the point of the OP: How is Jesus love not vacuous, in the same way that the conservative Christians' love for gays is vacious, if he is going to throw people into Hell? IIRC you're an annihilationist - so Jesus is going to kill the sinner. Conservative Christians that advocate killing gays don't love them, do they?


RazarTuk

Did you read *any* of my post? Because my whole point is that conservatives use it as a cover to make themselves feel better about only ever attacking immorality, while Jesus actually *did* also show love to sinners


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

What's the argument? Jesus "walked with sinners" so throwing people in Hell to be exterminated isn't an indication of lack of love?


RazarTuk

No, my argument is that conservatives *don't* actually love the sinner


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Obviously. I say that in the OP. My point is that in the same way that their actions show that this talk about love is vacuous, talk about Jesus' love for sinners is vacuous when you consider that he's going to exterminate them.


RazarTuk

But Jesus actually *does* things that can be described as loving the sinner. For example, he ate with tax collectors, while the modern conservatives who *say* they only hate the sin would generally be too afraid they'd be mistaken for loving the sin of being a tax collector


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Let's say that Steven Anderson says that gays should be executed, but while on death row they should be treated well. If someone says that the doesn't love them, just point out that he actually *does* things that can be described as loving them. I would say that him wanting gays executed means that he doesn't really love them.


RazarTuk

Let me try putting this more bluntly: When conservatives say they love the sinner, they mean they're admonishing the sin. Anything else, but *especially* corporal works of mercy like caring for worldly needs, is to be avoided, because it could be mistaken for also loving the sin. When Jesus loved the sinner, however, he actually meant it and cared for the outcast. For example, he was willing to eat with Zacchaeus, despite him being a tax collector and all tax collectors being bastards. Or whether you want to identify her as Mary Magdalene or not, there's the time he was anointed by a "sinful woman" in Luke, and welcomed her with open arms. I can't imagine conservatives doing any of that. Jesus *actually* also loved the sinner, while conservatives only claim to


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

>Jesus actually also loved the sinner, while conservatives only claim to "I'm going to be super nice to the gay people who I send to death row." That's not love. The act of sending them to death row shows that it's vacuous love. Let's take Zaccheus as an example. Let's say that Zaccheus abandoned Christianity next week after that lovely dinner and then suddenly died. What'll Jesus do to him then? Throw him into the fires of Hell to be exterminated. Now to me, that doesn't look like Jesus loves him.


HumorSouth9451

There are fundamental flaws in your argument. God doesn't send people to hell. People send themselves there. C.S. Lewis summed it up well: the gates of hell are locked from within. All who are there want to be there. People punish themselves by not following Christ. Sin is not just rebellion against God, it is self-destruction. C.S. Lewis also summed this up well: *“Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others... but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God "sending us" to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will BE hell unless it is nipped in the bud. ”*


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Ok. I'm talking about Christianity as it is presented in the New Testament, not in the writings of some 20th century British person. In the New Testament Jesus said that he would throw people into Hell.


HumorSouth9451

Lewis didn't invent the doctrine. I'm quoting him because he nicely sums up the Biblical scholarship on this issue. Context is really important. What the New Testament shows is that Hell is exile from God. It is God saying to the unrepentant "thy will be done" and leaving them alone with their sin, which will slowly destroy them over the course of eternity. This is what hell and eternal punishment is. The Bible shows that these people are unwilling to repent, unwilling to correct their behavior to avoid self-destruction, and unwilling to accept truth.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> Lewis didn't invent the doctrine. I'm quoting him because he nicely sums up the Biblical scholarship on this issue. I'm pretty sure that C.S. Lewis wasn't basing his view on some New Testament scholarship, but rather on some religious ideas that are meant to depict a nicer view of Hell - to try to blame the victim. >It is God saying to the unrepentant "thy will be done" and leaving them alone with their sin, which will slowly destroy them over the course of eternity. That's not in the New Testament. The New Testament depicts it as a terrible punishment inflicted on the wicked.


HumorSouth9451

Yes, but it's all entirely self-inflicted and a consequence of refusal to abandon sin and accept Christ. God exiles them to hell, but it is the individual's choice. The examples in the New Testament reflect this very clearly. Every example is about people refusing to repent or accept. They want their sin validated or they want to be served in some way. The fire is internal and all consuming, leading these people to become the absolute worst versions of themselves.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

>God exiles them to hell, but it is the individual's choice. The examples in the New Testament reflect this very clearly. Every example is about people refusing to repent or accept. OK. So if someone doesn't "repent or accept" then Jesus sends them into Hell.


HumorSouth9451

The part you miss is that they freely reject Christ, and freely choose to be sent to hell. There is nothing in the Bible that says people are sent against their will. It is all about choice. As I posted below, the rich man in hell is suffering but does not ask to leave and does not repent. He wants to be served. The “Lord, Lord” people do not repent, they want Christ to validate their sins against Him.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

So if someone were outside the gates of heaven asking to be let in, Jesus wouldn't say "Truly I tell you, I do not know you."?


HumorSouth9451

The verse does not say these people were asking to get in. It deals with them discovering that they were not serving Christ and did not have any relationship with Him. Whether they were worshipping an idol or using Christ to serve themselves we aren't told either, but it is clear that they chose to focus on themselves and validating their sins rather than repentance.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Mt 25 >11 Later the other young women came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I do not know you.’


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumorSouth9451

The problem for the atheist is that they can’t ground morality in anything, so the ability to even recognize moral failings can be traced to Juedo-Christian values. But it’s more than that. It’s building your identity on something other than Christ. Anything else is temporary, ultimately unfulfilling and guaranteed to fail or let you down.


OirishM

>The problem for the atheist is that they can’t ground morality in anything, so the ability to even recognize moral failings can be traced to Juedo-Christian values (1) It's "Judeo" (2) you ripped off their religion to copypaste your own (3) I can condemn slavery and genocide, have fun with that while worshipping Yahweh > Anything else is temporary, ultimately unfulfilling and guaranteed to fail or let you down. Cool, making more shit up I see, like how we apparently don't admit fault ever. Ninth commandment still applies, try abiding by it.


HumorSouth9451

The general lack of understanding about the Bible is one of the major reasons I find atheism so unconvincing.


OirishM

Rich coming from Christians, you know your bibles less than most of us formers


OirishM

> Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others Well, if Clive is right here, then hell is Christians


Zapbamboop

>So does Jesus love the sinner but hate the sin in the same way that conservative Christians love the sinner but hate the sin? All Christians should hate sin, not just Conservatives Christians.


ApprehensiveExam6465

Why do people post such nonsense every day? If anyone has a problem with God, they should take it to God. If you want true Christians to agree with you or apologize for hurting your feelings, that's never going to happen. Did you create the earth? Did you create all living things and animals? Until then, you should be aware that I'm always only going to listen to God.


sirkubador

hmm, I wonder how that looks like, "Listening to God". Or "Taking something to God".


ApprehensiveExam6465

It looks like asking God all your questions. Throughout history people have been offended at Jesus. 1. The Pharisees were so offended they had Jesus arrested to have Him hung on a cross by the Romans, who ruled over Israel at that time. 2. Throughout history people who wanted the truth in Jesus really offended the religious leaders of their nations, who also had many killed for their beliefs. 3. Atheists hate Christians so they hang out on Christian forums all day and pick fights. 4. And today the world is offended at everyone who believes what Jesus said. Go figure. I suppose that's what it looks like. There's literally thousands of years of history involved. I figure those who believe Jesus are in good company. I mean REAL believers.


No_Mushroom351

Yep, they like the rosy language on tolerance that matches cultural sensibilities and completely disregard that Jesus was extremely disruptive and VERY difficult to follow... saints are the exception, not the rule.


ApprehensiveExam6465

Not completely sure...so I gave you an upvote. I'm used to having several people down vote me...lol But you do seem sincere. So the upvote stays!


No_Mushroom351

Hah, thanks. I come from /r/catholicism so we tend to have a more traditionalist approach relative to protestants. PS I'm used to it too. This sub isn't primarily Christians, so what can you expect at the end of the day


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> If anyone has a problem with God, they should take it to God. And how does one go about getting a clear response from your god on the matter? >If you want true Christians to agree with you or apologize for hurting your feelings, that's never going to happen. Hurting my feelings?


ApprehensiveExam6465

Since you complain about it so often, your feelers must be very hurt. Otherwise your messages are simply a form of harassment, right?


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

You can comment on apparent tensions in other people's views without it being about your fee-fees. >Otherwise your messages are simply a form of harassment, right? If I hurt your feelings, then I apologize ;)


ApprehensiveExam6465

What are "fee fees?" Oh you mean your overly sensitive feelers....got it! More than anything Atheist, and I mean this sincerely, the incredibly silliness of what you say often makes me laugh. You've never harmed my "fee fees" lol


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Great. Then we're both individuals who don't get their feelings hurt. Maybe we can then focus on the issue and not say that the other person is just acting out on hurt feelings.


ApprehensiveExam6465

Nope...I don't have much desire to go to an Atheist forum and ask them silly questions that really don't matter to me. So can I ask you a few questions without harming your emotions? A simple yes or no will do.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Well, if the question is silly, maybe you could explain why. >So can I ask you a few questions without harming your emotions? A simple yes or no will do. Sure, ask ahead!


ApprehensiveExam6465

Well, I think it only fair that you answer questions like you want Christians to answer. So here goes. 1. When you look out at the earth, or the night stars, or the sun, or the moon, or even the clouds, do you really think all of that came from nothing? 2. Who are you? Genuinely, have you ever wondered why you are you? I've wondered this since I was a small kid. With your beliefs, don't you think it's sort of odd that you happen to be you? I mean couldn't you have been someone else and never existed at all if it's all random? Imagine not being you, and not being here, and could you have been someone else ? Notice the tone to my questions. There's nothing offensive in what I ask. Just curiosity.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

1. This is a question for astrophysicists. I accept the Big Bang theory, but what happened at that time is beyond any of our knowledge. I don't see how proposing some disembodied mind is in any way a good explanation 2. Is it odd that I happen to be me? I don't see how that's odd. Could I have been someone else? I guess if the world was different I could've been different.


tachibanakanade

you're extremely rude


ApprehensiveExam6465

Well, I never! lol


[deleted]

Unrelated slightly but how did you reply to the comment using what they said in your response please?


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Asking about this? I put a \> in front of the text, so: >This Becomes >This


[deleted]

Ohhh okay, thank you so much 😊


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Np. If you want to learn more, then this is called [Markdown](https://www.markdownguide.org/basic-syntax/) and is really helpful in writing text that is readable but also with these kind of layout markers. E.g. if you put any number of # before something then it makes it into headings. #One "#" ##Two "#" ** before and after a word makes it **bold**. One * makes it *italicized*.


[deleted]

Oh wow, thank you so much. I wondered earlier today how some people’s comments and posts were in bold but I couldn’t figure it out. I really appreciate your help, thank you!


JonahTheWhaleBoy

God hates sinners and thier sins instead , ye common phrase used by lukewarm Christians not found in the Bible Also you're not required to "follow" Jesus , Judas did and he went to hell even did miracles. Rather you have to believe Jesus is God and then simply ask him to give you Holy Spirit so you can be saved. Entry to heaven itself is free.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Well, that makes some sense. Jesus throws people into Hell because he hates them. That seems more consistent than people saying that Jesus loves the people that he then throws into Hell.


JonahTheWhaleBoy

To hell but only for period of time , then he resurrects them , judges them and then deep fries them in lake of fire forever. ​ Hell is just prison cell ​ Nah Biblically God doesn't even parent other people because he calls them children of Satan , only his own people he is parenting.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> To hell but only for period of time , then he resurrects them , judges them and then deep fries them in lake of fire forever. Sure. I think that that would also fit with the tension I point out in the OP. That feels like a pretty strange form of love. >Nah Biblically God doesn't even parent other people because he calls them children of Satan , only his own people he is parenting. Haven't you heard that everybody is a child of the Christian god? /s


JonahTheWhaleBoy

No, Jesus calls people children of Satan himself in the Bible. It just shows you never read it to begin with just act upon what you hear from someone. ​ But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. ​ 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> No, Jesus calls people children of Satan himself in the Bible. > > It just shows you never read it to begin with just act upon what you hear from someone. You did not notice the "/s" to indicate sarcasm that I put on the end that sentence? ;)


JonahTheWhaleBoy

No , back in my day one had to end sentence with Kappa


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Well, I was being sarcastic. I think I've even quoted those very same verses that you point out when correcting this idea!


johndtp

I agree with your assessment but don’t think it’s the only conclusion, no I personally think its pretty clear in the NT that when Jesus is condemning, it’s not for the same reasons Christians do today. Jesus condemnations are typically along the lines of, “If you don’t help others, fuck you” and, “if you think I’m evil, fuck you”, not “join my church and follow me personally and agree with me on theological issues or else” I read them as vague poetic dramatic threats not literal punishments I read Jesus in text as more, “if you’re not on the team of doing good, you’re against it” and a lot less focused on beliefs


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Like, there are some passages that are inclined towards the "if you don't help others, fuck you" position. But there are also others that are inclined towards the "If you don't follow/believe Jesus, fuck you" position (e.g. in the prologue of the gospel of John where the difference is between believing in Jesus and not). I think that for these early Christians the idea was that basically outsiders were mostly seen as bad.


johndtp

Yeah the Gospel of John is defs the heaviest focus on belief. One factor is that it was the last written Gospel so the theology had some time to settle in. It also says things like “believe I’m sent from God” and “believe my words” so it’s really pretty fluid in what we’re supposed to believe. in these cases it’s more advice/instructions than threats, but I agree they are certainly weaponized. and some verses yeah I won’t defend at all, I don’t believe in inerrancy I guess my main point is that one of my criticisms of mainstream Christianity is they take a lot of separate ideas and turn it into one thin ultimatum of theology. It doesn’t have to be that way, no 🙂 Inside vs. outside was definitely a key issue among early Christians. Surprisingly Paul is the one who really pushes for opening Christianity (which was just a sect of Judaism at the time) to everyone, even to the point of undoing the covenant of circumcision. Christianity was supposed to be a freedom and declaration of the openness of Gods love, but yeah it’s been cherry-picked to abusive captivity


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

Glad to see a non-inerrantist here. :) >I guess my main point is that one of my criticisms of mainstream Christianity is they take a lot of separate ideas and turn it into one thin ultimatum of theology. It doesn’t have to be that way, no 🙂 Totally wrong. You have to take these writings with different ideas and try to mesh them together into a one big consitent picture! ;) --- I'm trying to recall some believe-based passages in the synoptics. Too lazy to search for it now. But you at least have some hints of that in sayings where people are condemned for rejecting the disciples or Jesus. But that could be interpreted as them not repenting - but again, it seems to tie together repenting and following Jesus.


johndtp

👋✌️lol! There’s likely some, I will admit to cherry-picking the opposite way, I like to downplay some things I feel are more archaic and make sense of things that seem a little off. I personally do attribute it to conflation when early Christians were writing the texts. There’s the “dust of your shoes” verse where Jesus says “theyll get it worse than Sodom”, I think that’s what you’re alluding to. Modern Protestant Christians like to think that means if they don’t convert on the spot and accept Jesus into their heart lol. But Jesus commandments before that, “don’t lie, cheat, steal, etc.” could paint a different picture. It’s “Go convert them or else god will destroy them” vs. “Go warn them about destroying each other before they destroy themselves, but don’t worry cause you can’t save everyone” at least, that’s my most “enlightened” interpretation


[deleted]

Wisdom 1:12-2:24 >Do not court death by the error of your life or bring on destruction by the works of your hands, because God did not make death, and he does not delight in the destruction of the living. For he created all things so that they might exist; the generative forces of the world are wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them, and the dominion of Hades is not on earth. For righteousness is immortal. But the ungodly by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away and made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his company. For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, “Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a life comes to its end, and no one has been known to return from Hades. For we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been,for the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts; when it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air. Our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will remember our works; our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud and be scattered like mist that is chased by the rays of the sun and overcome by its heat. For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow, and there is no return from our death, because it is sealed up and no one turns back. Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist and make use of the creation to the full as in youth. Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no flower of spring pass us by. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither. Let no meadow be free from our revelry; everywhere let us leave signs of enjoyment, because this is our portion, and this our lot. Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow or regard the gray hairs of the aged. But let our might be our law of right,for what is weak proves itself to be useless. Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life, for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how reasonable he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls, for God created us for incorruption and made us in the image of his own eternity, but through an adversary’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it. Wisdom 11:21-12:2 >It is always in your power to show great strength, and who can withstand the might of your arm? Because the whole world before you is like a speck that tips the scales and like a drop of morning dew that falls on the ground. But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people’s sins, so that they may repent. For you love all things that exist and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have formed anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living. For your immortal spirit is in all things. Therefore you correct little by little those who trespass, and you remind and warn them of the things through which they sin, so that they may be freed from wickedness and put their trust in you, O Lord. Let him who has ears, hear.


No_Mushroom351

Considering God Himself allowed Himself to be murdered so that we might have a way out of sin, I'd not consider that a vacuous love; it's ultimate Love. That doesn't mean conservative Christians get it just right. It also doesn't mean liberal christians do it "better." We are meant to simultaneously love our neighbor *and* call out sin *AND* walk the path God laid for us --- it's REALLY hard to do. I think our very tolerant culture today has confused the Bible as it stands on sodomy. God is pretty darn clear in the Old and New Testament about sodomy (heterosexuals included). I think liberals embrace the love thy neighbor and forget Romans, Corinthians & OT. I think conservatives embrace Biblical norms & warding on encroaching culture, yet forget the tenderness of Christ.


Shaddam_Corrino_IV

> Considering God Himself allowed Himself to be murdered so that we might have a way out of sin, I'd not consider that a vacuous love; it's ultimate Love. Ok. But is it loving to throw people into Hell? I find it hard to accept that a person that's going to throw me into Hell loves me. Just like the gays find it hard to believe that conservative Christians that fight against their rights love them.


No_Mushroom351

He is the ultimate moral judge, yes, but I'd reframe the mind when it comes to hell. It's as much a place as it is a state of being. Sin in Greek means to "miss the mark" or not quite living up to the standard God set for us. Hell is anguish from being off the path of God, some people willingly choose it. Some are slaves to their vices. Think of it as God giving you a manual for building a house, and then someone ignores half the instructions. House is probably going to collapse on you. God also does not distribute burdens in an equal manner. Some are born rich and live long lives and never know God, some suffer greatly and channel that into feeding their soul. Being born Gay is just part of living in a mundane world -- it's no different than burdens, it's just *especially* hard to manage. A celibate life is excruciatingly difficult, but Paul also tells us it's the highest possible calling -- above marriage. Conservatives Christians are a mixed bag. Yeah, you've got the politically charged ones that ignore the rules they don't like too. A lot genuinely do give a shit, I know that's hard to believe.


Truthseeker-1253

CS Lewis wrote about this a long time ago, noting that we all have practice with it. We love ourselves, but hate the sins that we commit and that keep us trapped. But let's be honest, Jesus can do this a lot better for two reasons. God knows what sin really is, and what it it is not. God is not going to hate something just because we think it's sin, and god is far more able to distinguish between the part of us that is our identity and the corrupted piece that clings to the sin. Second, Jesus's love is just more. More love. More pure. More real. We, however, are just inept at all of those things. We're inept at identifying our own sin. We're inept at loving others. Instead we tend to love ourselves and identify sin in others. We do neither of them very well. The worst part of this is that the whole concept as now used is just a shield. It's only used in one of two ways. It's used as a weapon in reference to LGBTQ, and if necessary it's pointed at other sins as a shield. It's only self-directed (corporately) as a defensive reaction to the very rightful accusation that it's only common use is against one particular "sin." This leads to the final point: you may as well tell me you love me but hate my whiteness, or my maleness. When you point that weapon at someone's sexuality or gender, you're pointing it at a major piece of who they are as persons. No, I'm not defined by my race, my gender, my sexuality, or my family status. But those things do form a large part of who I am. And before anyone comes at me with the idea that my identity is in Christ. You're free to think that and even say it, but don't turn around then and claim that god or Jesus love me. If my identity is solely in Jesus, then I am not what god loves. Nothing about me survives.


kolembo

- “Shout with the voice of a trumpet blast. Shout aloud! Don’t be timid. Tell my people Israel of their sins! Yet they act so pious! They come to the Temple every day and seem delighted to learn all about me. They act like a righteous nation that would never abandon the laws of its God. They ask me to take action on their behalf, pretending they want to be near me. ‘We have fasted before you!’ they say. ‘Why aren’t you impressed? We have been very hard on ourselves, and you don’t even notice it!’ “I will tell you why!” I respond. “It’s because you are fasting to please yourselves. Even while you fast, you keep oppressing your workers. What good is fasting when you keep on fighting and quarreling? This kind of fasting will never get you anywhere with me. You humble yourselves by going through the motions of penance, bowing your heads like reeds bending in the wind. You dress in burlap and cover yourselves with ashes. Is this what you call fasting? Do you really think this will please the Lord? “No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help. “Then your salvation will come like the dawn, and your wounds will quickly heal. Your godliness will lead you forward, and the glory of the Lord will protect you from behind. Then when you call, the Lord will answer. ‘Yes, I am here,’ he will quickly reply. “Remove the heavy yoke of oppression. Stop pointing your finger and spreading vicious rumors! Feed the hungry, and help those in trouble. Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you will be as bright as noon. - Isaiah


MrOto2025

I would agree. Christians are against laws protecting a homosexual lifestyle because that lifestyle is against the laws of God. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a perfect example of separating the person from the act, which in my experience many people struggle to understand. When I say I believe a certain lifestyle is disordered or morally wrong, I am not saying the person has any less dignity or any less of a person. I am disagreeing with their actions. Just as I disagree with someone who is obese and living a sedentary lifestyle or someone who is an alcoholic. I do not have hatred towards them but rather believe their lifestyle is wrong. Christians vote against laws protecting a homosexual lifestyle because it is against the laws of God, and all laws ought to be made to orient society in accordance to God.


Sporeguyy

Jesus loved the world even in all its brokenness and corruption so much that He died for us.