Is Christianity a Negative Religion?

[lunamoth]

Now granted, there are milder versions of Christianity that are much more inclusionary, and I admire those who choose to incorporate this tolerance into their faith. But I have to wonder if this does not require compromise to the essence of Christianity itself.

I think that love, forgiveness, inclusiveness is the essence of Christianity, not it's compromise.

And, I don't think there's anything mild about this. It got Jesus killed.

 

[lunamoth]

Whether the form of Christianity being expounded is inclusivist with emphasis on love and mercy or exclusivist with emphasis on judgment and punishment sets the tone as to whether it is "positive" or "negative." Unfortunately, "lunamothian" Christianity is in the minority it seems and, as you know Luna, I'm not optimistic as to it changing in the near future, (though I think her theology is the correct interpretation ). earl

Thank you earl! Hee hee, lunamothian...that's good!

 

[lunamoth]

I believe in your interpretation of these passages, lunamoth, to be correct ones. Jesus wasn't inciting his followers to commit violence of any source, and he was quite clear in his messages not to judge and persecute others.

So frubal to you.

Thank you gnostic. While I shy away from terms like "correct" when it comes to interepretation of scripture, I do think that the clear overarching message of Jesus, from his first teachings and miracles to His death and resurrection, all focus on non-judgement, love, forgiveness, peacefulness. And hope.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

That's a huge problem with this quote, in regarding to the division and the "swords". The misinterpretation have been sources of Christian problem, when Christians tried to justify their violence by quoting these passages, without understanding them. It has been the source of committing torture and execution in the name of Jesus and the Church, during the persecution of heresies and witchcraft.

Jesus actually predicted that his message would be used for personal or political agenda ("mis-use" would be a better word) would cause division, but he wasn't advocating for such division or violence, and he was right.

I believe in your interpretation of these passages, lunamoth, to be correct ones. Jesus wasn't inciting his followers to commit violence of any source, and he was quite clear in his messages not to judge and persecute others.

So frubal to you.

Question. If Jesus knew that this was going to happen, why didn't he clarify his words to the point that they couldn't get twisted by some of his followers like this?

I think that love, forgiveness, inclusiveness is the essence of Christianity, not it's compromise.

And, I don't think there's anything mild about this. It got Jesus killed.

There's some of that, yes. There's also some of this:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, [10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."​

 

[wizanda]

I think and feel he did and why I keep mentioning where and why:

Simon being named peter which means stone is clear.
Those whom say “I am Christ” as if he said it are wrong = whole gospel of John does.
Do not go after Pharisees.
The Judge who goes off to dry places first = Saul/Paul did this
Beware of wolfs in sheep’s clothing = that same Pharisees gang.
Those whom swear by a sacrifice are guilty of it.
Those whom say they can claim an inheritance from his death shall receive nothing. (vine dressers son)

Scriptures out side of that clear as day also, if even read once (in my own case) of knowing what it was he said would happen and then a carefully reading of old testament, to see where he refers to.

Zechariah 11 is word for word clear.
Habakkuk 2 is again word for word and why he said not to drink as he knew it was wrong, they didn’t.
Micah 6:6, Hosea 6:6 Numbers 6:6 easy to see pattern…..in 66 books of the Bible.

There are so many references if you don’t get taught by some drunken preacher as the Bible condemns or traditions passed down by the forefathers ….
Remember every time I asked my Auntie-Christ-ine
=
“go get taught!”….
”what do you mean go get taught, by who?”….
”by a (drunken) preacher”….
=
“I think I will go ask God instead, thanks just the same”
=
Thank God we have Jeremiah 23 on what is a fake prophet
Else might have believed any of the Pharisee rubbish…oh many of you do guess that is why Yeshua did say you will be judged by his wording.….

So did Yeshua let people down or do people think it is so easy to enter heaven?

 

[lunamoth]

There's some of that, yes. There's also some of this:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, [10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."​

First, why would you, like that flavor of Christian who takes the Bible as if it were written as a book of new laws by the hand of God Himself, rather than as a record of human experience of God and the formation of the early Church, decide to focus your attention on one of about three passages, all by Paul, as somehow equal to the most important message in the Bible? You might want to read some of Angellous' threads on homosexuality in the NT. Do you think that Christians should take these three passages (the others are Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Timothy 1-10) and use them to say that Christianity should exclude gay people?

The context of the 1 Corinthians passage starts in chapter five regarding a case of heterosexual immorality: "For a man is living with his father's wife." Paul is in the mode of community building, an apostle but a human being living with the cultural morals and knowledge of his time. The violation of morality in chapter five sets him to the task of describing behavior in the new community. You must know that the word homosexual does not appear in the any Bible until 1946. Paul is speaking not about homosexual relationships of the kind we recognize today...but of passions out of control, of avarice, of the stronger subduing the weaker, of lust and exploitation. Of pederasty and prostitution. From The Good Book by Peter Gomes:

Paul is so horrified by this (the man living with his mother as his wife) that he demands that the man be expelled from the community, and it is this violation of the accepted standard of Christian behavior that leads Paul into another discussion about how Christians ought to live, and how they ought to put their old lives behind them. This passage is not about homosexuality; there is no reason to believe that the Corinthian church was troubled on that topic. We must remind ourselves that when Paul speaks of what we call homosexuality, he is speaking again of what can be called the "Gentile sin, " whose characteristics are those of which we have already spoken: willful, lustful, exploitative, avaricious, self-deceiving, self-absorbed, and thus idolatrous. Of course someone who fits this profile is unfit for the kingdom of heaven. Victor Paul Furnish reminds us that in these examples of wickedness, such as I Corinthians 6:9-10, the vices listed are "understood by Paul to be symptomatic of sin, not as its roots and essence." In other words, because one is sinful one behaves in these ways. In I Timothy 1:10, "sodomites," as we now know, refers almost exculsively to a male prostitute, and is not a Pauline synonym for "homosexual," as we understand that term.

And as for the rest of the Corinthians list, can you tell me exactly where Jesus said we should exclude sinners from anything? Certainly you've reflected upon your own username:

10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

 

[!Fluffy!]

This is my understanding too, but you're completely ignoring that Pilate was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Politically he had to do something about it and he tried to do what was right but found it wasn't possible.

You misunderstood the conversation. I am not "completely ignoring" any such thing. I was responding to a previous poster's claim that the Romans (i.e., Pilate) were out to get Christ as a political subversive and that's why he was crucified == but in fact Pilate had no wish to do what he was finally forced into doing, the crowd (the Jewish community, egged on by their leaders) clamored for another prisoner to be released because they wanted Jesus to be killed. Not Pilate.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Hi Moonwoman,

Interesting post and thank you for taking the time to put together the Bible passages to support your points. I really come to quite different conclusions than you about the message of Jesus and what Christianity is all about, that is if you really feel that the main point of Jesus’ message is about judgment and wrath.

cont

Well, what we have here is a failure to communicate (my apologies to Cool Hand Luke)... and it's really not about hermeneutics.

And I'm certainly not about judging anybody, for any reason. That's not my place.

Make no mistake lunamoth, I do believe Jesus Christ is God's love incarnate. I should know... I have done nothing to deserve salvation, nor can I ever, nor can anyone. I live on grace alone, and know that if I can be saved, his mercy is boundless.

That being said, I see no reason to white-wash, sanitize or mischaracterize the unflinching authority of Christ's words or his earthly ministry, or the meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection. His ministry began with John the Baptist calling for repentance to open the way. Some of what Jesus preached was quite harsh and direct. But to the sheep who know his voice, it is all good. I think of it this way: "thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me".

The cross was for all of us too and that fact remains, which means as a Savior and as the son of God He is an offense to many. More likely, the cross is an offense...

Maybe some, like Pilate just see a nice man they don't wish to crucify, and so just wash their hands of him.

But others see more than just a kind and gentle man, and the deeper truth of his authority and his divinity is exactly what offends.

For example I haven't much witnessed anyone having a normal discussion about the savior with unbelievers present, without discomfort, squirming, and somebody whispering or even saying out loud it's "offensive" or inappropriate and changing the subject. I'm talking about an everyday conversation, you know like we all have, at school, work, a party or whatever. It's verboten. It just isn't done in polite society. It's an offense... that is unless it is a comedy routine or some kind of blasphemous parody which is of course perfectly acceptable. Or a negative hyperintellectual dissection, usually of the dismissive type.

In my part of the world Christians are in a vast majority, and public prayer, saying grace in restaurants etc. is considered normal, and among believers our savior is an okay topic of discussion in the lunch room as well as in church.

But that's not the case in the rest of the country. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But in mixed society it sure SEEMS like Jesus Christ is an unpopular or even an offensive topic of discussion.

btw I stumbled across this recently-

the Cross of Christ unequivocally states that there are no other alternatives to reconciliation with God. We have been hopelessly alienated and the only way is the way provided by God Himself. There are no other options. All can come, but all must come to the foot of the cross, cognizant of their sinfulness, thankful of His offer. And this is an offense to those who think too little of God’s Sovereignty, and too much of their autonomy.

(more)

 

[wizanda]

Looked first at what your religion is and the "no common sense" bit; so here is some. For all of you...people stop talking about it, as you are saying it is right God's kills...
Everyone should know that this is very wrong in their own hearts and it is very, very negative…
You are declaring something that has a name of good, as being both wrong in our own eyes and that of the law (plus Biblical law = Balaam teachings).
It is against Christ to say it is right he was murdered, as repeatedly writing everywhere….that is purely Pharisee in origin as Christ told us in the parable of the vine dressers son, that they who proclaim it would do {Pharisees = John, Paul, Simon the stone (peter)} and they shall get nothing!
On the other hand, those who follow Yeshua’s/Christ’s teachings, will have their payment reduced, as an intercessor can do for you.
Yet not to clean the inside of the cup, that is your own responsibility and in trying to fill the cup, it is worth less; in letting the cup be a open vessel it is worth more, as then God can use it….
So whilst people are continuously reiterating dogma to them self’s and others to fill this cup with prophets bones, then it really does make others look on in anguish for many who can speak negatives over people, in a positive light.
:angel2: may sound harsh, it isn’t meant to be, it is just as the Bible declares things and wishes to help you see the light and find heaven as we said we would do on our return.

 

[eudaimonia]

Do you agree that Christianity has a more negative outlook on things?

I think that Christianity is a mixed bag. It contains both negative and positive outlooks, the inspiring and the revolting, and can't be reduced without remainder to either one.

Please say whether you are or were a Christian, and if you left what made you do so. Was it the teachings, the people, a particular experience?

The lack of evidence. I became convinced that no one really knew that the Bible was telling a true story about reality, and the universe took me aside, sat me down, and told me: "now I'm going to tell you what's really going on". Metaphorically, of course.

Certainly there were negative things about Christianity, or at least the ways in which certain Christians presented Christianity to others, that were a turn off to me. But I also recognized that there were many positive things as well. The positives didn't keep me, and the negatives did not, by themselves, repell me.

From my own perspective, I think Christianity is a very (the most) hopeful and positive religion. I can understand however that the emphasis on sin, and especially the doctrine of Original Sin, is viewed by many as a negative aspect of Christianity, especially when combined with some Protestant teachings about predestination and hell.

This is the "mixed bag". The negative aspects really are negative. It's difficult to paper over the problem of an all-good God creating a universe in which there exists the possibility of a Christian having unbelieving relatives who will go to Hell for all eternity, and the trauma this is going to cause everyone involved.

But the positives really are positive. The meaning, purpose, and hope Christianity provides can be healthy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[wizanda]

Mar 10:39-44
(39) And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
(40) But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.
(41) And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
(42) But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
(43) But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
(44) And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

==

God chooses, not Pharisee doctrine and not Christ, only God...intercessors relate messages....yet if that intercessor watches its followers bashing others with condemnations and said follow my word to the letter are they his followers? think not.

 

[lunamoth]

Well, what we have here is a failure to communicate (my apologies to Cool Hand Luke)... and it's really not about hermeneutics.

And I'm certainly not about judging anybody, for any reason. That's not my place.

Make no mistake lunamoth, I do believe Jesus Christ is God's love incarnate. I should know... I have done nothing to deserve salvation, nor can I ever, nor can anyone. I live on grace alone, and know that if I can be saved, his mercy is boundless.

That being said, I see no reason to white-wash, sanitize or mischaracterize the unflinching authority of Christ's words or his earthly ministry, or the meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection. His ministry began with John the Baptist calling for repentance to open the way. Some of what Jesus preached was quite harsh and direct. But to the sheep who know his voice, it is all good. I think of it this way: "thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me".

The cross was for all of us too and that fact remains, which means as a Savior and as the son of God He is an offense to many. More likely, the cross is an offense...

Hi Moonwoman, That's cool, and I appreciate your reply above. I think I understand now where you are coming from.

Maybe some, like Pilate just see a nice man they don't wish to crucify, and so just wash their hands of him.

Perhaps. Certainly there is a lesson there about Pilate...although I doubt Pilate really thought of Jesus as a nice man. Pilate may not have thought much about him at all, except perhaps as yet another of the rabble, maybe a little amused at how stirred up Jesus' fellow Jews were over Him. Who knows...really not that much is said.

But others see more than just a kind and gentle man, and the deeper truth of his authority and his divinity is exactly what offends.

For example I haven't much witnessed anyone having a normal discussion about the savior with unbelievers present, without discomfort, squirming, and somebody whispering or even saying out loud it's "offensive" or inappropriate and changing the subject. I'm talking about an everyday conversation, you know like we all have, at school, work, a party or whatever. It's verboten. It just isn't done in polite society. It's an offense... that is unless it is a comedy routine or some kind of blasphemous parody which is of course perfectly acceptable. Or a negative hyperintellectual dissection, usually of the dismissive type.

Well, we live in a pluralistic society...I'm sure that if a Muslim were at one of those dinner parties and started talking about how God is One and the Trinity is an offense to God, the same kind of muttering, or worse, would happen. But I see your point about His authority being offensive.

Yet, if Christians wish to spread the Gospel of Christ, the good news, it seems to me that the effective way to do this is through compassion and love. You know, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. It seems to me the best thing to do is follow the advice of St. Francis: preach the Gospel always, if necessary use words. Who's going to be invited back to dinner...the person who preached hellfire during dessert, or the one who may not have said much but helped the elderly guest at the table and pitched in to serve and wash the dishes. Who connects more with others: the one who speaks more or the one who listens more?

In my part of the world Christians are in a vast majority, and public prayer, saying grace in restaurants etc. is considered normal, and among believers our savior is an okay topic of discussion in the lunch room as well as in church.

But that's not the case in the rest of the country. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But in mixed society it sure SEEMS like Jesus Christ is an unpopular or even an offensive topic of discussion.

No apologies needed, and in fact I'm sure you are correct about this. Sometimes it may be the manner in which someone is talking about Christ, in other cases it may be the light shining on the contrast between the way of Christ vs. the way of the world (and I think that we agree on that). In fact, how many Christians themselves get really uncomfortable with the teachings of Jesus? For example, the story about the rich man asking how to achieve eternal life. How many of us want to make it about following all the laws, things we can try to control, rather than about giving up all of our attachment to the world and following Christ?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

First, why would you, like that flavor of Christian who takes the Bible as if it were written as a book of new laws by the hand of God Himself, rather than as a record of human experience of God and the formation of the early Church, decide to focus your attention on one of about three passages, all by Paul, as somehow equal to the most important message in the Bible? You might want to read some of Angellous' threads on homosexuality in the NT. Do you think that Christians should take these three passages (the others are Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Timothy 1-10) and use them to say that Christianity should exclude gay people?

You realise that many Christians do so, right? And that these words are in the very same Bible as Jesus' words are?

The context of the 1 Corinthians passage starts in chapter five regarding a case of heterosexual immorality: "For a man is living with his father's wife." Paul is in the mode of community building, an apostle but a human being living with the cultural morals and knowledge of his time. The violation of morality in chapter five sets him to the task of describing behavior in the new community. You must know that the word homosexual does not appear in the any Bible until 1946. Paul is speaking not about homosexual relationships of the kind we recognize today...but of passions out of control, of avarice, of the stronger subduing the weaker, of lust and exploitation. Of pederasty and prostitution. From The Good Book by Peter Gomes:

Again, I appreciate your kinder and gentler interpretation of this passage, as this world would be better if more people followed it.

Unfortunately, not all Christians share this spirit of gentleness.

And as for the rest of the Corinthians list, can you tell me exactly where Jesus said we should exclude sinners from anything? Certainly you've reflected upon your own username:

10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Hosea 6:6 has this funny habit of popping up, eh?

I will give you this, as far as I can tell, Jesus himself did indeed preach a gospel of love and tolerance. But, that doesn't answer the question of (1) why he mentioned hell so often, in a spirit of condoning its existence, and (2) why all other books in the Bible than the four gospels aren't always as inclusive. Keep in mind that he was the one who gave the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and he was the one who mentioned the "unpardonable sin."

 

[lunamoth]

You realise that many Christians do so, right? And that these words are in the very same Bible as Jesus' words are?

Of course I realize this. Am I somehow less Christian than they?

Again, I appreciate your kinder and gentler interpretation of this passage, as this world would be better if more people followed it.

Unfortunately, not all Christians share this spirit of gentleness.

Perhaps more than you realize...gentleness tends to be quiet.

I will give you this, as far as I can tell, Jesus himself did indeed preach a gospel of love and tolerance. But, that doesn't answer the question of (1) why he mentioned hell so often, in a spirit of condoning its existence,

I disagree that He was condoning/approving it's existence, although He was acknowledging it. What do you get when you turn your back on love and tolerance?

and (2) why all other books in the Bible than the four gospels aren't always as inclusive.

In the NT many of the other books are Paul and the Apostles (or their followers) describing the spread of the gospel and the formation of the early Christian community. They were following the mores of their time and they were themselves under persecution and exclusion from the Jewish community. Like the Israelites before them it was important for them to build and maintain distinctive communities. These books are all sacred and they are our history, and they should inform and help us in our Christian lives today, but they should not be viewed as some kind of new book of laws dictated by God. Most of all, I think they should be read always with the command to love each other foremost in mind.

[quote Keep in mind that he was the one who gave the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and he was the one who mentioned the "unpardonable sin."[/quote]

I think I address the one about the unpardonable sin in my long post to moonwoman. The parable of Lazarus is a lot like the one about the sheep and goats. It's not proscriptive...it's not God throwing us into a physical fire to be tormented for eternity. It is descriptive...when we fail to love each other (and by love I mean action, such as if Lazarus had chosen to help the beggar), we have turned away from God, separated ourselves from Him (which is hell), and often created hell here on earth as well.

2c

 

[blaxshep]

Ok lets look at it this way.

In the beginning God creates man and gives him a free will. Man sins against God so now God not only hold man accountable, but pins the blame on every man & woman that will ever exist. Even if you live a sin free life you are still a sinner. Wouldn't a loving God just forgive the poor, newly born children he just created and loves so much? NO! God loved the world so much he floods it all killing everything but Noah and the whole boatload of animals and such. After killing newborns in Egypt he Kills himself (Son) only he is not dead. He defeats the Devil and takes the keys of death, but then leaves Satan in charge of the Earth and leaves man for himself until all is at the brink of destruction. The Anti-christ could be among us now we are in the "End days" - so you better not sin.

- Nope nothing dark about that story

 

[lunamoth]

Ok lets look at it this way.

In the beginning God creates man and gives him a free will. Man sins against God so now God not only hold man accountable, but pins the blame on every man & woman that will ever exist. Even if you live a sin free life you are still a sinner. Wouldn't a loving God just forgive the poor, newly born children he just created and loves so much? NO! God loved the world so much he floods it all killing everything but Noah and the whole boatload of animals and such. After killing newborns in Egypt he Kills himself (Son) only he is not dead. He defeats the Devil and takes the keys of death, but then leaves Satan in charge of the Earth and leaves man for himself until all is at the brink of destruction. The Anti-christ could be among us now we are in the "End days" - so you better not sin.

- Nope nothing dark about that story

Yeah, that is negative. Glad I don't believe that!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Of course I realize this. Am I somehow less Christian than they?

Hey, easy there, I would never imply this. I just mean that different Christians have different standards of what counts for what.

Perhaps more than you realize...gentleness tends to be quiet.

Oh yeah.

I disagree that He was condoning/approving it's existence, although He was acknowledging it. What do you get when you turn your back on love and tolerance?

But this is where it gets sticky. Is the punishment for hatred, more hatred?

In the NT many of the other books are Paul and the Apostles (or their followers) describing the spread of the gospel and the formation of the early Christian community. They were following the mores of their time and they were themselves under persecution and exclusion from the Jewish community. Like the Israelites before them it was important for them to build and maintain distinctive communities. These books are all sacred and they are our history, and they should inform and help us in our Christian lives today, but they should not be viewed as some kind of new book of laws dictated by God. Most of all, I think they should be read always with the command to love each other foremost in mind.

The part about Acts, I would agree. Paul's Epistles, however, contain advice for living that, frankly, is mixed at best. "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man..." puh-lease. :sarcastic

I think I address the one about the unpardonable sin in my long post to moonwoman. The parable of Lazarus is a lot like the one about the sheep and goats. It's not proscriptive...it's not God throwing us into a physical fire to be tormented for eternity. It is descriptive...when we fail to love each other (and by love I mean action, such as if Lazarus had chosen to help the beggar), we have turned away from God, separated ourselves from Him (which is hell), and often created hell here on earth as well.

2c

But that gets into the whole discussion of whether (1) a sane person would *really* choose to go to Hell if he or she knew that that was the option currenly taken, and (2) whether a loving God would choose not to forgive someone for a particular sin.

I just don't know, luna; I do appreciate it when Christians such as yourselves focus on the loving characteristics of God and consciously avoid beating others over the head about it. Unfortunately, that doesn't conceal the darker side, not just of what other Christians have done, but what the Bible claims that God himself has done--particularly in the Old Testament.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Mercy, Thank you for your post.

Hey, easy there, I would never imply this. I just mean that different Christians have different standards of what counts for what.

Yes, I see what you mean here. I agree that all these different flavors have different standards for what is important and what is not, and that is in fact the source of all the division and sometimes also of persecution, oppression, and even hate.

But this is where it gets sticky. Is the punishment for hatred, more hatred?

I think the hatred creates the punishment. I don't think that God creates a punishment, nor do I believe that there is a being/fallen angel/devil who is allowed to create such punishment. It's not so much a punishment as it is an outcome or cosequence of our actions which we create ourselves.

The part about Acts, I would agree. Paul's Epistles, however, contain advice for living that, frankly, is mixed at best. "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man..." puh-lease. :sarcastic

But that too is Paul's response to a particular situation, not a new law for everyone, everywhere, and at all times. Jesus only brought one new command, and that is to love each other as God loves us. This is the one clear principle of Jesus' teachings, (and I think also the implicit significan in the resurrection, but that's a whole other topic.) Each of these other teaching that Paul brought to the growing chuch should be examined in the light of this one clear principle.

But that gets into the whole discussion of whether (1) a sane person would *really* choose to go to Hell if he or she knew that that was the option currenly taken, and (2) whether a loving God would choose not to forgive someone for a particular sin.

I agree, which is why I have my strong universalist leanings. Each of those points is worthy of a long and gentle conversation among Christians. 'Only God is good;' all of our ideas of justice are going to fall short, in fact, all of our attempts at justice are bound to ultimately fail although we still need to do our best to get along in loving relationships with each other.

I just don't know, luna; I do appreciate it when Christians such as yourselves focus on the loving characteristics of God and consciously avoid beating others over the head about it. Unfortunately, that doesn't conceal the darker side, not just of what other Christians have done, but what the Bible claims that God himself has done--particularly in the Old Testament.

We should not conceal the darker side, which is why I started this thread. People have been hurt by this darker side, and listening to their pain is the first step in healing.

 

[wizanda]

After the way of today where people proclaiming war at me all day in the name of Christ....then he just set all up, he said don't follow Pharisee, Christianity entirely follow Pharisees
John, Paul Simon are all Pharisee so if they are all saying it is right to kill another man, again that is very wrong.

So is it negative 100% as the word Christianity doesn’t have anything to do with Christ ever, it never did, it follows Sacrifice and that is the biggest snare i have ever seen and written throughout the Bible.
so when crazy people go around saying follow a book, they could not have even read it them self’s, why i said crazy, as those who do study .i.e. top theologian etc , notice almost immediately Paul is fake, it is clear as day.
John none have, yet really none have looked then and just except a book tampered with, rearranged, manipulated etc and say it is a holy book....
yet when the holy book in so many places says, don't do these things has anyone on here ever read it?
Please as honest i can not understand how this is still going on?
Then the Simon bit, does it really take someone like me to come back from heaven to show people, peter is not a name it means stone...Zechariah said a stone is laid before Y/Joshua feet....

This is complete and utter madness on the part of allot of the world, fair enough we all got brainwashed yet the Bible say this; it says be warned, be warned and yet, no one reads it...???
Then it says don't listen to drunk preachers or Pharisees, so we accept what they say and don't read it?....

Sorry having a really hard time dealing with peoples, who still haven't read the Bible as to me they are all clear, and keep posting these prophecies and it all would be finished if even one intelligent person read what all of this is about....
yet so try and help and post it on my site, i don't get anyone joining my site as it has the word Christianity on it.
so now no one talks to me, i try and talk to the people whom say they follow Christ, no they don't want to talk to me...as I ask them to read???
so is it negative it is destroys life’s, and today has broken my heart on here repeating "we don't want war"....seriously considering the religious hate crime issue and pressing charges on someone...as to continuously demand war even on a public forum, when someone is showing clearly why not, is with serious new law breaking points with all the trouble we are having globally, things like this shouldn't be allowed.

Then for the people like it, they need locking away from the rest of society.
Where they are busy telling everyone how good they are, yet on the other hand demanding wars, saying it right to kill another man to cover crimes…and within all our countries this is aiding and abetting a crime.

 

[may]

No, I'm not Christian. I was from the age of 9 until around 15. It was both the teachings and the people that made me leave. I could not reconcile the teachings of hell for all non-Christians and predestination with a just, loving God. quote] its good to see that you were not led along to believe those things, because they are not true bible teachings anyway. if you mean hellfire in a litral way that is not a true bible teaching,
and the bible teaches that Jehovah God has predetermined a set number that will be going to heaven , that NUMBER is predetermined ,but the individuals are not pretestined, they might be chosen but they may decide to not endure and fall away . predestination is not a bible teaching .