Jesus didn’t speak of Hell, but rather, of Gehenna, as a potential punishing realm for those deemed unworthy. Gehenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna) was the name of the burning garbage pits outside of Jerusalem. Jesus was speaking in hyperbole in such instances – as a teaching tool to help some people be motivated to do right in this life; i.e., as a metaphorical stick. That said, he rarely spoke about “the stick” and spent far more time offering “the carrot” – describing the kingdom of God/Heaven and the merits and blessings of living in godly ways that demonstrate we’re living “kingdom lives” in God’s beloved community and realm.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogerwolsey/2015/03/to-hell-with-hell/

Sorry, but Matthew 25 clearly shows that hell is far more than a garbage pit. The word "gehenna" is not even used in that text. There are a number of Greek words that translate as "hell".

He rarely spoke about the "stick"? Well, I'll be happy to post my list of over 50 passages which refer to hell and judgment. It probably has about 200 verses in those 50+ passages, and the list is far from complete. You are simply not correct in that.


41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-24053e)]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Who's going to Hell?

Did you watch "Young Sheldon" last night?

Never heard of "Young Sheldon". We watch very little network TV.

Why ask me? Read Mt. 25 and take the words of Jesus to heart.

Sorry you missed that episode. It said so much!

Matthew 25 is too vague. Specifically, who is headed for Hell (or does it really exist?)?

Maybe a better question -- Who is NOT headed for Hell?

All answered in Mt. 25 in a very specific manner including who IS and who IS NOT. If you won't believe Jesus, then why would you ask me?

Jesus didn't write that. Certainly doesn't sound like Him.

Jesus didn't write any of the Gospels, but He is quoted extensively. This is plainly one of those places.

It's amazing that you consider yourself so familiar with how Jesus "sounds" that you can declare entire passages as not authentic.

And you know He will send many people to Hell. Who, for instance?

The ones he described in Mt. 25. Read it for yourself.

You're trying to turn this into an argument. I'm trying to get you to listen to Jesus and make your own views subservient to His. It's not about what I "know", but rather about what He said.

Jesus and I were happily chatting long before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye.

Did you read the link I posted at the beginning of this thread?

If you were "chatting" with Jesus, then you would accept what He said. I don't think He said, "WG, just pick and choose from my statements based upon your own preconceived ideas."

Nope. Jesus told me to love others and always look for the best in them, to help them as needed, to encourage them to also show love to others.

There actually are no Biblical references to hell as the word is understood today. The four words in the Bible that are translated as hell are Tartarus, Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna.

Tartarus was both a Greek deity and a place where the gods were punished.
Sheol from Hebrew meaning abode of the dead.
Hades – Greek translation of Sheol, and a Greek word for a mythological god.
Gehenna was a city dump outside Jerusalem.

None of these words referred to a place of eternal torment for sinners or unbelievers after death. By the 5th century, hell as eternal torture was defined by Augustine. It was a belief considered so immoral, it led to the gentler idea of purgatory taken from Persian and Egyptian mythology where the sinners would be purged from their sins before eventually entering heaven.

Earlier, church fathers were a mixed bag about hell. Athenagoras taught an eternal torture chamber for sinners. Origen taught the opposite – that sinners would eventually be restored to God including Satan. Iraneus taught the sinners would be destroyed, no eternal punishment.

Tertullian believed in a fiery torment for eternity for those who persecuted Christians. This is a good example of “revenge religion” - a psychological solution to the problem of Christian persecution that evolved into an article of faith.

Eastern Christianity has no notion of an eternal punishment in hell. Rather, it sees hell as separation from God – a purely spiritual state.

Convert Gary Amirault writes:

“A loving Father knows how to bring correction to His children without consigning them to an endless torture chamber. Tyrants and a few demented earthly parents may do such things to their children. But for Christians to ascribe such activity to the Creator of all mankind is simply terribly misguided thinking.”

And then, of course, there is the unmistakable meaning of Mt. 25, as well as chapters 5, 8, 13 (2 references), and 18. I am faith bound to follow the teachings of Christ as opposed to whoever Gary Amirault is. Why on earth would anyone listen to him?

Guys, you can save your breath. The meaning of many, many passages is crystal clear. As Martin Luther said, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils (and Gary Amirault JL), for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God."

Might add that any reasonably fair reading of the two primary Greek words used for hell (Gehanna and Hades) makes it clear that the words are not referring to garbage dumps or simply a location for the dead. To suggest that is the case is to go off into a fantasy world. Context will absolutely not allow it.

Perhaps the early Gospel authors, scribes, teachers used burning garbage dumps as a scare tactic ("This is where you'll end up if you don't....!!!") in order to keep readers on the straight and narrow.

If you want to believe that, then go for it. It's utter speculation.

Perhaps Jesus meant what He said and wants WG to believe it.

Jesus told me to love.

If you really love people, you will tell them about Mt. 25.

That has nothing to do with love. Love is 3D, not 2D.

Living in a fantasy world is not love. Telling people of a coming day of judgment is a great act of love. You are trying, it seems to me, to justify your unbelief. And I don't say that meanly. You don't accept the many dozens of places where the Bible clearly declares a coming day of judgment, so you see no need to mention it. You better hope you have it right. It's a fearful undertaking to try and edit the Bible.

Living in a fantasy world is not love.

Neither is a fantasy land of talking snakes.


You don't accept the many dozens of places where the Bible clearly declares a coming day of judgment

Here you go again - deflecting from the issue being discussed. The issue being discussed is HELL, not a day of judgment.


It's a fearful undertaking to try and edit the Bible.

It's a far more fearful undertaking to lead people away from the truth.

talking snakes.No one here believes that apparently but you,

You cannot separate hell from judgment. For instance, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" Note those are also the words of Jesus.

You are leading people to a truth invented by you. It's why you do not appeal to the Bible. You are instead reduced to talking about trash dumps, or instead making the incredible statement that only one person on the earth believes that Matthew wrote Matthew. And you continue to avoid talking about the universal testimony of the early church fathers who ALL attributed the book to Matthew. Wonder why? Care to explain that?

We are to lead people TO God's love, not away from judgment and Hell. To the Positive, not threatening them about the Negative.

Good morning, WG. I would just reply that you seem to be content with giving them half the message that Christ gave. Do you know more than Him?

Jesus' message is love.

Yes indeed. He loved us so much that He gave His own life so that those who follow Him in faith would be delivered from God's judgment. If you accept the Bible, then that is a clear, plain truth. You can start with John 3:16-18.

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-26137e)]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-26139f)]only begotten Son of God.

We love because He first loved us.

Yes. Just ignore the John passage. Have it your way.

Yep, John is correct -- Jesus' love for us and, in response, we offer that love to others.

Wondergirl
We are to lead people TO God's love, not away from judgment and Hell. To the Positive, not threatening them about the Negative.


Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh
Jude 22


We are to tailor the message to the person.

We are to tailor the message to the person.
In other words, preach hellfire and damnation so the listeners quake in their boots? That seems to be what JL suggests.

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
We are to tailor the message to the person.
In other words, preach hellfire and damnation so the listeners quake in their boots? That seems to be what JL suggests.
It worked for Jonathan Edwards and many others.
Again, if that's what the person needs to hear, yes. Tailor the message to the person's needs.

How do we know it worked? (Please define "worked".)

In other words, preach hellfire and damnation so the listeners quake in their boots? That seems to be what JL suggests.Never said that.

I understand that I could post a thousand passages, and the response would be cherry picking, I talked to Jesus when I was a child, just change the subject, and on it goes.

I think DW has a good point. I'm not really talking about what needs to be said to people as much as I'm talking about the fact that you cannot eliminate God's judgment from the Gospel message. It has nothing to do with creating fear. It has to do with preaching the full message of the Gospel, and drawing that message from scripture.

"You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

We don't "catch" anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job, and us being honest with the truth is very helpful there.

We don't "catch" anyone. That's the Holy Spirit's job, and us being honest with the truth is very helpful there.
"We" (Christians?) "catch" sinners all the time and read them the "truth" (and refuse to look in the mirror).

Then you should stop.

I was quoting your "we" and your preaching instructions.

I said, "We don't catch anyone." You wrote, ""We" (Christians?) "catch" sinners all the time..." And you call that a quote? You need a lesson on what a quote is. I think you need a good, long look in the mirror concerning your willingness to make it up as you go.

"It has to do with preaching the full message of the Gospel, and drawing that message from scripture."

And that entails what?

(Instead of asking me -- or anyone else here -- nicely what is meant, you throw out insults and nasty comments. Let's discuss this!)

Read the John passage. Learn.

Read the John passage. Learn.
What does it mean to YOU???

How do we know it worked? (Please define "worked".)

People came to Jesus. By the dozens. You know the history of America's Great Awakenings.

I have read that about 80% of the colonials heard Whitefield in person.

So believe in Jesus or you'll burn forever in hell?

Whitefield was a slaveowner.

Read the John 3 passage.

No, I want you take on the situation.

And that's the whole problem. You don't want to read the Bible and analyze your beliefs in light of what you read. I have no intention of doing it for you.

And that's the whole problem. You don't want to read the Bible and analyze your beliefs in light of what you read. I have no intention of doing it for you.
I probably know the Bible better than you do. The situation is approaching a nonbeliever, a pagan, and introducing Jesus and the alternative of hell to him.

I don't know if you know the Bible or not. I do know it certainly seems you don't believe much of it.

How to approach a sinner? Read the John 3 passage, for that is exactly what Jesus was doing. Once you do that, and you absorb, love, and accept it, then we can talk more.

I've read it many times. How would YOU approach a person who has no interest in religion/Christianity?

You say you've read it, but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more.

You say you've read it, but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more.
Stop playing judge. I hope that isn't how you approach the unchurched.

"You say you've read it, but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Accepted and loved and believed what?

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

I haven't read it?

Unlike you, Jesus has never threatened me or given me conditions to meet.

And then, of course, there is the unmistakable meaning of Mt. 25,

Not unmistakable just because you say so. Here is the well-documented position of explaining Mt.25.

The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”.

The Greek word aionios is used in this verse to signify everlasting and is also used in this verse to signify an age – a period of time. The correct reading is “And these will go away to an age (a period of time) of punishment, and the righteous to eternal life.” Also, and importantly, the Greek word kolasis used in this verse means “corrective punishment” - not eternal punishment. "Corrective" means the punishment will end when the sinner is corrected.

Why the two different uses of the same word? The word aionios has two meanings – eternal and an age (a limited period of time). The mistranslated verse first appears in the 5th century in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The mistranslation has been copied ever since in the KJV and other Bibles.

Also, and more importantly, there is the internal contradiction about the nature of an omniscient and all-loving God.


I am faith bound to follow the teachings of Christ

That assumes you know what the teachings of Christ are. You are always saying the words of Jesus are found in the Bible. Which words? Which Bible? When you say, “the Bible says,” what you are REALLY saying is, “My translation of certain Greek and Hebrew texts says"…

When you want to quote your favorite version of scriptures sacred to Christianity, you should say, “The New International Version of the Christian Scriptures,” or “The King James Version of the Christian Scriptures,” or whatever Bible you prefer of the innumerable translations in just about every language on earth, not to speak of the dozens of English versions, copies, edits, of centuries past and present.


whoever Gary Amirault is. Why on earth would anyone listen to him?

Because Gary is a wonderful Bible teacher. Why on earth do you condemn him without knowing him?


As Martin Luther said, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of (others)...

Note Luther's use of "plain reason". Can you honestly admit that factor into your understanding? Does belief in a talking snake contradict that factor?



Might add that any reasonably fair reading of the two primary Greek words used for hell (Gehanna and Hades) makes it clear that the words are not referring to garbage dumps or simply a location for the dead.

They are metaphors, figures of speech recalling Israel's history to his audience and emphasizing the point Jesus is making. That is obvious in a reasonably fair reading. They are certainly not referring to an eternal torture chamber. Gehenna referred to Israel's suffering under the Babylonians and Assyrians which his audience would have immediately recognized. Sin brought that judgment upon them.


To suggest that is the case is to go off into a fantasy world.

I'm sorry, Jl, but a cursory reading of Israel's history would have helped you understand the reference. Both words were mistranslated by Jerome as "hell" which carried the connotation of everlasting punishment. Neither term had anything to do with everlasting punishment.


Context will absolutely not allow it.

Context is always important. You didn't have the correct context.

So believe in Jesus or you'll burn forever in hell?

That's pretty much what Jesus said.


Whitefield was a slaveowner.

Irrelevant for the current discussion.

Not unmistakable just because you say so. Here is the well-documented position of explaining Mt.25.

The relevant portion is “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, the righteous to eternal life”.Rather conveniently left out this likewise "relevant" portion. "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels." And has been pointed out repeatedly, if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven, a position so ridiculous that no one supports it.

As to the "which words, which Bible" argument, it is, for this purpose, irrelevant. There is no major translation that gives a different view of the Matt. 25 passage. The NT text is marvelously reliable as DW has pointed out here before.


Because Gary is a wonderful Bible teacher. Why on earth do you condemn him without knowing him?Never heard of him, but fair enough.

This statement from GA is ridiculous. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that God uses hell, or the threat of hell, to correct his own. No one here has ever suggested such a thing.


“A loving Father knows how to bring correction to His children without consigning them to an endless torture chamber.


Note Luther's use of "plain reason". Can you honestly admit that factor into your understanding? Does belief in a talking snake contradict that factor?I don't really care, as I have said several times, whether a person believes the serpent spoke or not, but it is certainly within the bounds of reason that the supernatural power of God, as well as the limited power of Satan, could easily explain such a thing. If you believe in the resurrection, then the other miraculous events of the Bible become child's play in comparison.



They are metaphors, figures of speech recalling Israel's history to his audience and emphasizing the point Jesus is making. That is obvious in a reasonably fair reading. They are certainly not referring to an eternal torture chamber. Gehenna referred to Israel's suffering under the Babylonians and Assyrians which his audience would have immediately recognized. Sin brought that judgment upon them.

I'm sorry, Jl, but a cursory reading of Israel's history would have helped you understand the reference. Both words were mistranslated by Jerome as "hell" which carried the connotation of everlasting punishment. Neither term had anything to do with everlasting punishment.Many words do not make a good point. The Mt. 25 passage makes it clear that Jesus is not referring to something temporal. Rev. 25 makes it clear as do many other passages.

But even at that, you now seem to be acknowledging that there will be some type of punishment for those who have no Savior. If that is the case, what do you think it will be? Can you support your idea with any scripture at all?

Why will there be punishment for those who have no Savior? Many are mentally or physically ill, the products of poor parenting, survivors of bullying, of beatings, of shaming. And too many have pushed back and hurt or killed family members and others.

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.And again.

And again.
This thread is not an altar call. It's a discussion thread.

Not for you. For you it's an avoidance thread. I just don't like playing that game.


"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

Why will there be punishment for those who have no Savior? Many are mentally or physically ill, the products of poor parenting, survivors of bullying, of beatings, of shaming. And too many have pushed back and hurt or killed family members and others.

Romans 1-3 answered this a long time ago. People are judged on the amount of light they have and what they do with it.

Romans 1-3 answered this a long time ago. People are judged on the amount of light they have and what they do with it.
They didn't choose what "light" they have. If the "dark" overwhelms the "light", then what?

Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Romans 1-3 answered this a long time ago. People are judged on the amount of light they have and what they do with it.
They didn't choose what "light" they have. If the "dark" overwhelms the "light", then what?

I don't understand the question.

I don't understand the question.
Can we judge people who are in the dark -- mentally ill, have been badly parented, have anger issues, are severely depressed, etc? How do they find the light? And how does God judge them?

Rather conveniently left out this likewise "relevant" portion. "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels."

That added absolutely nothing to the meaning of what I quoted.


if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven,

That is not true. If you weren't so averse to researching the internet, you would find the truth about the Greek words and how they are used.


a position so ridiculous that no one supports it.

Sorry, but the "ridiculous" is your statement. Bible scholars support the translation, hardly "no one".


As to the "which words, which Bible" argument, it is, for this purpose, irrelevant. There is no major translation that gives a different view of the Matt. 25 passage.

"Major" translations are almost always based on Jerome's mistranslation. There are many other translations which are more modern than being wholly based on the Vulgate.


This statement from GA is ridiculous.

Others find it beautiful and a perfect description of the nature of a loving God. I'm sorry you can't see it and call it ridiculous.


Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that God uses hell, or the threat of hell, to correct his own.

Yes, it does. In fact, it's right in the Matthew being discussed. Read my post again re the Greek word for "corrective".


No one here has ever suggested such a thing.

Since you are the only one here discussing this, we're not surprised.


I don't really care, as I have said several times, whether a person believes the serpent spoke or not, but it is certainly within the bounds of reason that the supernatural power of God, as well as the limited power of Satan, could easily explain such a thing. If you believe in the resurrection, then the other miraculous events of the Bible become child's play in comparison.

Your position that God could make a snake talk because God is God and he can do anything is the worst kind of argument. That is the ultimate fallback position when you can't give an answer in a Bible discussion.

Talking about ridiculous, I must say that is the most ridiculous thing you've yet to utter on these pages.


Many words do not make a good point.

Words are the ONLY way to make a point in a discussion - whether good or bad.


The Mt. 25 passage makes it clear that Jesus is not referring to something temporal. Rev. 25 makes it clear as do many other passages.

Are they words of Jesus? Or are they the words of an unknown author written centuries after the fact and paraphrasing what he thought Jesus meant? The earliest complete copy of Matthew is from a time when the emerging religion was beset by differences and which would later be called heresies and punished, in many cases, by death.

You need to understand the Bible from this modern point of view. You are not a first century pagan whose head is filled with miraculous teachers and religions when along comes the new Christianity (and the wonderful Jesus) competing with all of them.


You now seem to be acknowledging that there will be some type of punishment for those who have no Savior.

You are doing it again. Attributing to me what I never said. I NEVER said there was no punishment for sin. What I DID say, and continue to say, is that there is no eternal torture chamber called hell.


If that is the case, what do you think it will be?

If by my "case", you mean is there punishment for not believing in Jesus as Savior, then I can say without the slightest equivocation, OF COURSE NOT!!! My position is the same as the great majority of Christians. Only the white evangelicals who identify as fundamentalists take your position.


Can you support your idea with any scripture at all?

Why should I need to support what I believe with your Scripture? Although I can. See the answer Jesus gave when he was asked what is the greatest commandment. Then think about his answer. Do you see that answer sending people to hell for all eternity?

JL said, "if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven," Athos replied, "That is not true. If you weren't so averse to researching the internet, you would find the truth about the Greek words and how they are used."

It's just the usual, "I have no real answer, so I'll just point you to the internet." I've already shown you that no major translation and no Greek lexicon agrees with the view of Robert Young on the meaning of aionios. At least he was willing to honestly apply his meaning so that the end of John 3:16 reads, "that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during." He rendered Mt. 25:46 as, "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during." He understood fully that if it means less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean less than eternal for heaven.



"Major" translations are almost always based on Jerome's mistranslation. There are many other translations which are more modern than being wholly based on the Vulgate.Major translations are based upon Greek manuscripts. You couldn't be any more wrong about that. Not even the KJV was based upon the Vulgate. Can you name any of those "many other translations" that support your view?


Are they words of Jesus? Or are they the words of an unknown author written centuries after the fact and paraphrasing what he thought Jesus meant? There is no reason whatsoever to believe that.

The statement from GA was ridiculous because it was completely unsupported by the text.


Why should I need to support what I believe with your Scripture? Although I can.Sure you can...except you don't, and that speaks volumes.


My position is the same as the great majority of Christians.1. You have no way of knowing that. 2. I will take the word of Jesus any day of the week over what any supposed majority of Christians believe. The fact that you don't also speaks volumes. 3. Catholic Bible (New Jerusalem Bible) rendering of Mt. 25:46. "And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life." So evidently the "great majority of Christians" you invented does not include the Catholics.

JL said, "if aionios means something less than eternal for hell, then it must also mean that for heaven," Athos replied, "That is not true. If you weren't so averse to researching the internet, you would find the truth about the Greek words and how they are used."

etc., etc., etc.

that you don't also speaks volumes. 3. Catholic Bible (New Jerusalem Bible) rendering of Mt. 25:46. "And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life." So evidently the "great majority of Christians" you invented does not include the Catholics.

All of the above has been answered, replied, denied, duplicated - in other words, done to death. I request that in the future you block or ignore me on this website. Further discussion seems useless. I should have known that. My bad.

You may have the last word. I've added a post you did not have a chance to reply to. Here's your chance to reply, but I'm sure you won't.


Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You don't accept the Bible. I understand that.


You have no idea what I accept or don't accept. You make accusations to fit your bias. Nothing new there.


The Bible makes no reference to "talking snakes"


Duh. Ever heard of Genesis? It's the first book in the Bible.


Even at that, to suggest it does violates your principle that all text is subjective

Oh God, this again? YOU-DO-NOT-UNDERSTAND-THE-WORD-"SUBJECTIVE"-AS-USED. Keep knocking your head against the wall. Ok by me.


After all, "talking snakes" could be a reference to a puppet show, telephone wires, dancing earthworms, and so forth.


Come on, you know exactly what the reference is. You're on record as believing that God allowed the snake to talk. Stop playing the fool. If you have now changed your mind, just say so.


You claimed I am the only person who accepts Matthew as the author of the Gospel


I stand by that "claim". Hyperbole. Other fundies are included in that.


It is a completely stupid claim as I demonstrated in my answer.


You demonstrated nothing. Nada. Except your use of insulting language in this reply.


It contradicts the universal testimony of the early church.


We're not discussing the "universal testimony of the early church". We're discussing MODERN Bible scholars who are not pressured to toe the party line (some still are, but the best ones are not).


And still you have failed to mention a single legitimate reason why any thinking person would take your suggestion seriously.


Look again. I said they study the Bible in schools, and they study the languages involved, and they study the ancient cultures, and they study the ancient histories. What more could be said?


Again, it is sad that you get so angry and frustrated in your comments.


My model is Jesus in the Temple with the money-changers. You also peddle a false currency.


In my experience, it's what people do when they realize they have no answers


Not always. Sometimes they are mean and nasty like you. Sometimes, unlike you and like Jesus, they have answers and righteous anger.


which, perhaps, explains why you still refuse to address this. "Perhaps we could start here. Does the New Testament actually have any objective meaning? You contended a long time back that the Greek word translated as eternal (aionios) does not mean everlasting but rather something more limited, possibly "ages-long" or something to that effect.I answered that extensively previously. I'm sure you can find it. If not, just google the terms for a scholarly answer which, of course, you won't do.


But if everything is subjective, then we can't really apply a set meaning to any particular word, nor can we draw any settled, established meaning from any sentence or paragraph. So how do you reconcile what seems to me to be a genuine conflict? Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning," or perhaps you worded it carelessly.I worded it just fine. It was an opportunity for you to learn how a word can be nuanced (with a proper explanation if necessary). You couldn't understand, didn't understand, or refused to understand. Take your pick.

Speaking of answering, go back over my posts and see what points I made that you failed to reply to. That tells us something about you.

Uhm...you are replying to a post from many days back on a different thread. You are, in fact, reposting a post made by you from a thread that the site admin closed. So it will be interesting to see if CB corrects you for that. I doubt he will, but he certainly should.


All of the above has been answered, replied, denied, duplicated - in other words, done to death. I request that in the future you block or ignore me on this website.Actually, it has all been, "replied, denied, duplicated...done to death," but not answered and certainly not supported. In other words, to assert is not the same as to support.

Thankfully, you don't get to decide who I block. Responding to you is so easy that I look forward to doing it.

At any rate, you have made several statements which are completely unsupported and nonsensical. They include:

1. Matthew 25 was somehow tampered with "centuries" after it was written to include references to judgment. There is no reason at all to believe such a thing.
2. The greek word "ainiosis" should not be translated as "eternal". There is no support for that, either, other than for the one instance of Robert Young's views from more than 150 years ago. All major translations and every Greek lexicon I have looked at all support the translation of "eternal".
3. Major translations are "wholly based on the Vulgate." That is completely untrue.
4. Your continued insistence that the Bible speaks of "talking snakes". That is untrue.
5. You insisted that all text, including the Bible, is subjective in nature. That's an impossible situation.

You referred to Origen several days ago and spoke of how he did not believe in hell. Here are a few other beliefs of Origen, none of which can be supported by Scripture.



Origen believed that man was divine.
He believed in the pre-existence of souls
He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.
He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit.
He believed in baptismal regeneration.
He believed in purgatory.
He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.
He believed Christ was created.
He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into another body).
He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a "myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."
He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.
He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.


I will assume that you have managed to restrain from castrating yourself, despite the fact that you seem to place great stock in the teachings of Origen.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I don't understand the question.
Can we judge people who are in the dark -- mentally ill, have been badly parented, have anger issues, are severely depressed, etc? How do they find the light? And how does God judge them?

"We" can't, obviously. I assume God knows what he's doing. If he explained it to us, our heads would explode. Finite minds can't comprehend infinite ideas. How does God judge them? I don't know, that's not my department.

Matthew 11 sheds some light on this topic.

​20 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-20.htm)Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-21.htm)“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-22.htm)But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-23.htm)And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. e (https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/11.htm#footnotes) For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-24.htm)But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

How does God judge them? I don't know, that's not my department.
Then why is JL judging them and sending them to hell?

Not reading carefully these days, are you?


"We" can't, obviously. I assume God knows what he's doing.Quote from DW. It was in response to your comment, "Can we judge people..."

But you do judge.

So do you. In fact you did so in making that comment. We all do. It’s a legit part of living.

So do you. In fact you did so in making that comment. We all do. It’s a legit part of living.
No, I'm not judging, but am collecting data and reporting.

What do you mean by judging?

What do you mean by judging?
Not loving.

That’s not what judging means. It generally means to develop an opinion or reach a conclusion. But if you want to use unloving, then that’s fine. When have I been unloving?

That’s not what judging means. It generally means to develop an opinion or reach a conclusion.
A positive or negative opinion or conclusion.

Are you really trying to say you have never reached a positive or negative conclusion???

That has nothing to do with this discussion.

We were searching for a definition of the word judgment.

No, you said that the word "judging" meant, "a positive or negative opinion or conclusion." So going on YOUR definition, you have judged as much as anyone here. And as I said earlier, to judge is necessary for living.


We were searching for a definition of the word judgment.No, we were not working on "judgement". YOU were looking for a definition of "judging". I already knew what it meant. You first said, "Not loving", and then you said what I quoted above. You are quite confused.


That has nothing to do with this discussion.A perfect example of judging.

Responding to you is so easy that I look forward to doing it.

What you think of as easy is just your being manipulated by child psychology. It's very effective with you.


1. Matthew 25 was somehow tampered with "centuries" after it was written to include references to judgment. There is no reason at all to believe such a thing.
2. The greek word "ainiosis" should not be translated as "eternal". There is no support for that, either, other than for the one instance of Robert Young's views from more than 150 years ago. All major translations and every Greek lexicon I have looked at all support the translation of "eternal". ................the Vulgate...........talking snakes......... "subjective".....

Your demand that "Scripture" is required to prove or support any Biblical analysis puts you at the level of a fifth or sixth grader. That level is fine for children who need to grow into a mature approach as part of achieving adulthood. That is the primary reason you are unable to recognize the accuracy of the points above that you so anxiously disapprove of.

I know you've been unnerved in these conversations. That's obvious in many of your replies. I'm truly sorry about that. Growth is never easy. But a small crack in that wall you've constructed around yourself is a good thing. Growth begins with baby steps.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
How does God judge them? I don't know, that's not my department.
Then why is JL judging them and sending them to hell?

I have yet to see him do so.

What you think of as easy is just your being manipulated by child psychology. It's very effective with you.

Your demand that "Scripture" is required to prove or support any Biblical analysis puts you at the level of a fifth or sixth grader. That level is fine for children who need to grow into a mature approach as part of achieving adulthood. That is the primary reason you are unable to recognize the accuracy of the points above that you so anxiously disapprove of.

I know you've been unnerved in these conversations. That's obvious in many of your replies. I'm truly sorry about that. Growth is never easy. But a small crack in that wall you've constructed around yourself is a good thing. Growth begins with baby steps.Most people would have tried to at least make one compelling argument in answer to my statements. It just demonstrates that you don't seem to have any. And yeah, any discussion of the Bible does require...the Bible.

Then why is JL judging them and sending them to hell?I've been looking back over my calendar to see when the last time was I sent someone to hell. I don't seem to have any notes about that event, but I'll look more tomorrow!

I've been looking back over my calendar to see when the last time was I sent someone to hell. I don't seem to have any notes about that event, but I'll look more tomorrow!
Will Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists go to heaven?

See what Ephesians 2 says. Acts 4:12. 1 Timothy 2:5. John 14:6. John 8:24. Rom. 10:9. John 20:31. Acts 2:38. Rom. 3:21,22. Mt. 7:21-23. Heb. 5:9. Gal. 2:16. Acts 10:43.

I keep adding them lest you fall back on the silly plea of "cherry-picking".

John 17:3. John 12:36. John 3:16. Mt. 7:13. John 1:12.

See what Ephesians 2 says. Acts 4:12. 1 Timothy 2:5. John 14:6.
More loving people I have never met! Jesus says, "Love one another," and they do!

Amazing how you just blissfully ignore such a tidal wave of scripture. Not even Jesus speaking can change your stubborn mind. "No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." If you don't tell them what Jesus said, then you have no love for them.

Jesus said to love, and my experience with many of them is that they do. Wonderful coworkers and friends! And many have made an effort to stay in touch with me.

"No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." If you don't tell them what Jesus said, then you have no love for them.

You must come to grips with the words of Jesus. Reject them, and you reject Him.

Jesus said to love, and my experience with many of them is that they do. Wonderful coworkers and friends! And many have made an effort to stay in touch with me.

He said considerably more than that. JL has given you a good amount of it.

He said considerably more than that. JL has given you a good amount of it.
Heaven will definitely offer some surprises! I so much look forward to it!

I've been looking back over my calendar to see when the last time was I sent someone to hell. I don't seem to have any notes about that event, but I'll look more tomorrow!

You know what WG meant. When you look, see how often you have supported hell.


I have yet to see him do so.


Since he arrived here, Jl has supported the notion of an eternal hell for sinners and unbelievers. He obviously has not personally done the judging and sending, but his support is the next best thing. I trust your remark takes that into consideration.


any discussion of the Bible does require...the Bible.

Typically, you have misconstrued my words. Of course, any discussion of the Bible requires...the Bible. My point (obvious) is that discussion is not limited to a literal reading of the Bible, as has been done here more times than I can count. Modern tools of examining and understanding the Bible cannot be ignored, as you have consistently done. That leads you to talking snakes, et al.


Will Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists go to heaven?

Waiting for Jl's answer in plain language. He will probably do his Bible thing instead with misleading quotes.


See what Ephesians 2 says. Acts 4:12. 1 Timothy 2:5. John 14:6. John 8:24. Rom. 10:9. John 20:31. Acts 2:38. Rom. 3:21,22. Mt. 7:21-23. Heb. 5:9. Gal. 2:16. Acts 10:43.

I keep adding them lest you fall back on the silly plea of "cherry-picking".

John 17:3. John 12:36. John 3:16. Mt. 7:13. John 1:12.

Instead of all your quotes massed together, why not explain each one showing how they supported hell. I randomly looked at a few and not one supported the idea of hell.


Amazing how you just blissfully ignore such a tidal wave of scripture. Not even Jesus speaking can change your stubborn mind. "No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." If you don't tell them what Jesus said, then you have no love for them.

Amazing how you can blissfully ignore that your quote has nothing to do with the topic - the existence of an eternal torture chamber.


"No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." If you don't tell them what Jesus said, then you have no love for them.

You must come to grips with the words of Jesus. Reject them, and you reject Him.

More threats from a loving Christian.


JL has given you a good amount of it.

None of it supporting his contention re the topic of hell.


How's this for a Bible quote - it's from John 25 and shows Jesus saying, "Though I have been speaking figuratively..." Blows much of what Jesus has said right out of the literal water.

Since he arrived here, Jl has supported the notion of an eternal hell for sinners and unbelievers. He obviously has not personally done the judging and sending, but his support is the next best thing. I trust your remark takes that into consideration.I have consistently pointed out the teaching of the Bible. To say I've "supported" it is foolishness. God does not need my support.

"Modern tools"? That one made me laugh. It's what people say when, like you, they have nothing in scripture to support their unbelief.

As to scriptures about judgment and hell, I posted fifty of them one time, and you rejected them all since they don't support your preconceived ideas.


"Though I have been speaking figuratively..."Won't work. He was speaking of a particular narrative he was using in John 16. He was not speaking of everything he had said up to that time. Is this an example of your "modern tools"? So to say His statement, for instance, in John 8 is not to be taken literally is nonsense. "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” So the real question is, have you placed your faith in Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is "he"?

As to WG and her good, loving Sikh, etc. friends, you need to read the first three chapters of Romans. No one is accepted by God on the basis of his/her good works or supposed goodness. Mt. 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’(In other words, they had many good works JL)23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ You have basically accepted the idea of loving others since that appeals to you, and yet you completely ignore virtually everything else, and then have imagined that a day is coming when Jesus will say, "Oh well, you ignored most of what I said because you didn't like it, but come on in anyway."

What do you think he meant by saying, "Away from me?"

I have consistently pointed out the teaching of the Bible. To say I've "supported" it is foolishness. God does not need my support.

You support your own literal interpretation of the Bible. How else explain your belief in a talking snake? Yes, yes, God can do anything. That's about lame a reason as possible.


"Modern tools"? That one made me laugh. It's what people say when, like you, they have nothing in scripture to support their unbelief.

No, it's what people use when they attempt to understand a 2,000 year old document. The tools are many and you should be aware of them if you wish to credibly discuss the Bible.


As to scriptures about judgment and hell, I posted fifty of them one time, and you rejected them all since they don't support your preconceived ideas.

Every single one you posted was based on a faulty reading which I took pains to point out to you. I cannot be held responsible for your limitations. My ideas are never preconceived. They are the result of discovering the pertinent facts.


Won't work. He was speaking of a particular narrative he was using in John 16. He was not speaking of everything he had said up to that time.

Of course, it works. John has Jesus saying the very thing that I have been telling you for two years - that the Bible contains figures of speech. Here in this passage, Jesus himself says the same thing. He does not mean EVERYTHING in the Bible. But it is fairly easy to discover when he speaks figuratively.


Is this an example of your "modern tools"?

No, it is an example of reading the words as written. Couldn't be simpler.


So to say His statement, for instance, in John 8 is not to be taken literally is nonsense. "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

You're up to your old tricks again - deflecting. NOWHERE in your quote does Jesus refer to an eternal punishment in hell.


So the real question is, have you placed your faith in Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is "he"?

Wrong again. The real question is, have you placed your faith in the literal Bible instead of Jesus? You get a resounding YES.


As to WG and her good, loving Sikh, etc. friends, you need to read the first three chapters of Romans.

As I predicted, you couldn't answer WG's question in plain language in your own words. You had to quote the Bible. Answering whether Sikhs and Buddhists, etc., etc. go to hell is too fearful a question even for you.

At one level, you're revolted by the answer as any normal human would be. So you put the onus on the Bible.

On another level, you are experiencing a deep schadenfreude that you are probably not proud of, but luxuriate in it anyway.

On the Last Day, Jesus will say to Jews and Sikhs and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists, "You've loved others unconditionally just as I have. You have been kind and giving without expecting anything in return. Come into my heaven and let's enjoy eternity together!"

On the Last Day, Jesus will say to Jews and Sikhs and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists, "You've loved others unconditionally just as I have. You have been kind and giving without expecting anything in return. Come into my heaven and let's enjoy eternity together!"

Chapter and verse, please.

Chapter and verse, please.
Be loving now. It all boils down to that

Plan to be there! Look me up -- I'll be in the celestial kitchen!

DW asked, "Chapter and verse, please." Instead, he just got more opinion.

As I predicted, you couldn't answer WG's question in plain language in your own words. You had to quote the Bible.I just have this funny idea that telling someone what the Bible says is a far better answer than just giving my opinion. You should try it.


Of course, it works. John has Jesus saying the very thing that I have been telling you for two years - that the Bible contains figures of speech. No one has argued that the Bible does not contain figures of speech.


Here in this passage, Jesus himself says the same thing. He does not mean EVERYTHING in the Bible. But it is fairly easy to discover when he speaks figuratively.Exactly as I said, he is not referring to all parts of the Bible. The problem is that you use a very slippery method of determining what is literal/figurative. Any clear, plain statement that does not agree with your preconceived ideas just has to be figurative.


No, it is an example of reading the words as written. Couldn't be simpler.We finally agree on something. So when you read these words as written, how do they read to you?

"No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins."

Why didn't you answer this question? "So the real question is, have you placed your faith in Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is 'he'?"

You should try it.

The famous psychologist Albert Ellis warned, "Don't should on yourself!"

Should is a judgment. And as such that word holds us back in our lives.

So you're saying I should follow your counsel and the advice of Ellis?

So you're saying I should follow your counsel and the advice of Ellis?
Only if you want to stop shoulding on yourself and others.

fm WG
On the Last Day, Jesus will say to Jews and Sikhs and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists, "You've loved others unconditionally just as I have. You have been kind and giving without expecting anything in return. Come into my heaven and let's enjoy eternity together!"

Fm DW
Chapter and verse, please.

Do you really believe Sikhs and Buddhists etc., will not go to heaven because it's not wrtten in the Bible?

Say it ain't so, DW!

I don't, so I'll just ignore it, especially considering that you are violating your own advice.

I don't, so I'll just ignore it, especially considering that you are violating your own advice.
So in heaven there will be only 683 or so Christian white males -- plus a bunch of Hebrew guys who were in the Bible.

I just have this funny idea that telling someone what the Bible says is a far better answer than just giving my opinion.

Your idea is indeed a funny one - even an uninformed one. You have a brain given you by God, use it.


No one has argued that the Bible does not contain figures of speech.

You have consistently argued that Biblical figures of speech are literal. See Genesis.


The problem is that you use a very slippery method of determining what is literal/figurative.

Define that "very slippery method". If you can.


Any clear, plain statement that does not agree with your preconceived ideas just has to be figurative.

Wrong. Again. I have no preconceived ideas. My ideas come from my God-given brain - just like yours. The difference is mine come from reflection and much thought. Yours are knee-jerk exhibiting an absence of thought.


when you read these words as written, how do they read to you?"No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins."

Read my lips. THERE IS NO MENTION OF AN ETERNAL HELL IN THOSE WORDS!!!


Why didn't you answer this question? "So the real question is, have you placed your faith in Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is 'he'?"

Your question has nothing to do with the topic of hell. I improved on it anyway by asking you, have you placed your faith in the literal Bible instead of Jesus? You get a resounding YES.

Before you crucify me for not answering your question as you always do, recall that I told you more than once that your questions are designed to find what you consider positions that you disagree with so that you can swoop down and throw your typical condemnatory spear at the person. We know you too well here, Jl.

So in heaven there will be only 683 or so Christian white males -- plus a bunch of Hebrew guys who were in the Bible.So says you, WG?


You have consistently argued that Biblical figures of speech are literal. See Genesis.Some yes, and some no.

Why are you running from answering this question?
when you read these words as written, how do they read to you?"No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins."

Why are you running from answering this question?


Why didn't you answer this question? "So the real question is, have you placed your faith in Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is 'he'?"

So says you, WG?

Nope. That's the message I've been getting from your posts.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Chapter and verse, please.
Be loving now. It all boils down to that

Plan to be there! Look me up -- I'll be in the celestial kitchen!


Still waiting.


fm WG
On the Last Day, Jesus will say to Jews and Sikhs and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists, "You've loved others unconditionally just as I have. You have been kind and giving without expecting anything in return. Come into my heaven and let's enjoy eternity together!"

Fm DW
Chapter and verse, please.
Do you really believe Sikhs and Buddhists etc., will not go to heaven because it's not wrtten in the Bible?

Say it ain't so, DW!

I'm not saying anything. I'm mainly asking questions.


Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
I don't, so I'll just ignore it, especially considering that you are violating your own advice.
So in heaven there will be only 683 or so Christian white males -- plus a bunch of Hebrew guys who were in the Bible.

I have no idea where this number came from.

I'm not saying anything. I'm mainly asking questions.

Time to speak up, DW.

That makes two of us.

Still waiting.
Here are two, cherry-picked 'specially for you!:

1 John 4:8 - Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Peter 4:8 - Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

Why are you running from answering this question?

when you read these words as written, how do they read to you?"No man comes to the Father but by me." "I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins."I answered it. Go back and look. Your reading tonight is worse than usual.


Why are you running from answering this question?

"So the real question is, have you placed your faith in Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is 'he'?"

My answer was so good, it deserves repeating.

"Before you crucify me for not answering your question as you always do, recall that I told you more than once that your questions are designed to find what you consider positions that you disagree with so that you can swoop down and throw your typical condemnatory spear at the person. We know you too well here, Jl."

Here are two, cherry-picked 'specially for you!:

1 John 4:8 - Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Peter 4:8 - Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

Hard to believe in a discussion among Christians, one side promotes love, another side promotes hell, and a third side waits in the wings.

I vote for love.

Rambling evasions are not answers.

Here are two, cherry-picked 'specially for you!:

1 John 4:8 - Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 Peter 4:8 - Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

To whom are they writing?

To whom are they writing?
They are writing to all who read the Bible. To us.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I'm not saying anything. I'm mainly asking questions.
Time to speak up, DW.


Depends on what they know and don't know. I don't pretend to know how much light any other person has. I leave it to God, and pray that they come to know the incredible life that comes with Jesus. Everybody wants to make things either/or; either Jesus is about heaven and pie in the sky or he's about being loving here and caring for each other. Let me be as clear as I can: BOTH.

I find it fascinating that we want to talk about modern day Buddhists, Muslims etc. etc. but nobody wants to ask about the Mesoamericans who practiced human sacrifice, the Moabites who did the same, The Philistines who worshipped a fish, did all those nice guys go to heaven?


Wondergirl
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
To whom are they writing?
They are writing to all who read the Bible. To us.

Who is "us"?

Depends on what they know and don't know. I don't pretend to know how much light any other person has. I leave it to God, and pray that they come to know the incredible life that comes with Jesus.
And that incredible life is based on, surrounded by, immersed in LOVE -- loving the other more than oneself.

Everybody wants to make things either/or; either Jesus is about heaven and pie in the sky or he's about being loving here and caring for each other. Let me be as clear as I can: BOTH.
I don't care about the pie (well, maybe if it's pumpkin pie). Spending eternity in heaven would be an indescribable joy, but my Savior has richly gifted me here on earth, has helped me through a number of personal trials and losses. Yes, heaven would be a gift.

I find it fascinating that we want to talk about modern day Buddhists, Muslims etc. etc. but nobody wants to ask about the Mesoamericans who practiced human sacrifice, the Moabites who did the same, The Philistines who worshipped a fish, did all those nice guys go to heaven?
I didn't want to spend the time and bandwidth to list EVERY tribe and nationality that has ever existed. God will sort us out.

Who is "us"?
Everyone who has ever existed.

The "us" earlier was everyone who has read the Bible.

I find it fascinating that we want to talk about modern day Buddhists, Muslims etc. etc. but nobody wants to ask about the Mesoamericans who practiced human sacrifice, the Moabites who did the same, The Philistines who worshipped a fish, did all those nice guys go to heaven?

I find it fascinating that you compare the Buddhists and Muslims with the other peoples mentioned and suggest these others were not nice people because they had human sacrifice. You even criticize fish-worshipers and ask whether "all those nice guys go to heaven".

Here's your answer: Of course, they do. Anyone who leads a good life as described by WG goes to heaven. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters how they behave, and that the behavior is informed by a good conscience.

suggest these others were not nice people because they had human sacrifice.Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Evidently you can conduct human sacrifices and still be "nice people". I guess there will be a particular corner in heaven where the human sacrifice folks go to revel in the good ole days!!

The ideas expressed by Athos and WG are far closer to the theology of Islam than to Christianity.

Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Evidently you can conduct human sacrifices and still be "nice people". I guess there will be a particular corner in heaven where the human sacrifice folks go to revel in the good ole days!!
Where would YOU put them?

Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Evidently you can conduct human sacrifices and still be "nice people". I guess there will be a particular corner in heaven where the human sacrifice folks go to revel in the good ole days!!

The ideas expressed by Athos and WG are far closer to the theology of Islam than to Christianity.

I see you've taken my name in vain again. ok.

Your OT God sure approved of nice people doing human sacrifice. He even personally ordered one of his chosen people to do just that.

And.............what cat is out of what bag?

He even personally ordered one of his chosen people to do just that.Chapter and verse please.

Wasn't Jesus a human sacrifice?

Who is "us"?
Everyone who has ever existed.

The "us" earlier was everyone who has read the Bible.


That is bad exegesis. Both letters were written to believers, those who have already received Jesus and are part of His church. 1 Peter was written to a collection of churches, 1 John was written to the church of Ephesus to correct some gnostic heresies. The "us" is believers. The church. If you rip those verses out of those contexts, you do violence to the text.


Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I find it fascinating that we want to talk about modern day Buddhists, Muslims etc. etc. but nobody wants to ask about the Mesoamericans who practiced human sacrifice, the Moabites who did the same, The Philistines who worshipped a fish, did all those nice guys go to heaven?
I find it fascinating that you compare the Buddhists and Muslims with the other peoples mentioned and suggest these others were not nice people because they had human sacrifice. You even criticize fish-worshipers and ask whether "all those nice guys go to heaven".

Here's your answer: Of course, they do. Anyone who leads a good life as described by WG goes to heaven. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters how they behave, and that the behavior is informed by a good conscience.

That's where we differ.


Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Depends on what they know and don't know. I don't pretend to know how much light any other person has. I leave it to God, and pray that they come to know the incredible life that comes with Jesus.
And that incredible life is based on, surrounded by, immersed in LOVE -- loving the other more than oneself.

Hardly. That incredible life is based on the presence of Jesus in my life and the joy that comes with said presence. We talk all day long, I chatter at him like a trained monkey sometimes and he doesn't mind. Love for others grows out of that. We love, because he first loved us. Anyone who hasn't experienced that love has no idea what they're missing.

from Me (Athos)
Here's your answer: Of course, they do. Anyone who leads a good life as described by WG goes to heaven. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters how they behave, and that the behavior is informed by a good conscience.


drom DW
That's where we differ.


Kindly please explain the difference. I don't want to assume something that isn't true.

That is bad exegesis. Both letters were written to believers, those who have already received Jesus and are part of His church. 1 Peter was written to a collection of churches, 1 John was written to the church of Ephesus to correct some gnostic heresies. The "us" is believers. The church. If you rip those verses out of those contexts, you do violence to the text.
You definitely misunderstood my two different uses of "us".

Wasn't Jesus a human sacrifice? Different situation. Jesus voluntarily sacrificed his own life. It hardly justifies a statement to the effect that nice people can engage in human sacrifice.

Different situation. Jesus voluntarily sacrificed his own life. It hardly justifies a statement to the effect that nice people can engage in human sacrifice.
Not suicide?

And again.

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

A botanist discovers a beautiful new variety of orchid on an uninhabited island. She writes a lengthy desctiption of the flower with its many varied colors. She sends it to a friend who responds with how beautiful the blue flower must be. "How can you consider the flower to be blue?" the botanist writes back. "Didn't you read my description of the many colors?" "It's simple," replied her friend. "I love blue, so I just ignore your many statements describing the other colors."

Reminds me of the approach to the Bible employed by some here.

Reminds me of the approach to the Bible employed by some here.
If you only knew...

If you only knew...I think unfortunately for you, I do. It's why you are so resistant to responding to simple, straightforward requests like these.

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.
My mind has been made up since I was three days old.


I think unfortunately for you, I do. It's why you are so resistant to responding to simple, straightforward requests like these.
Resistant to your gotcha requests?

My mind has been made up since I was three days old.So confident that you are afraid to express it here. Sad.

So confident that you are afraid to express it here. Sad.
That makes absolutely no sense. Express what?

"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

I was born again when I received the gift of Holy Baptism at the age of three days, was raised by my parents in the Christian faith, have been richly blessed and embraced by God, and will spend eternity with my Savior, Jesus Christ. God and I have an ongoing conversation with my wonderful younger son popping in with encouragements for me. Want me to recite the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed?

I don't think you will like those creeds. They're too similar to the Bible.


Nicene Creed. "He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead."

Apostle's Creed. "From thence he shall come to judge the quick (living) and the dead."

Athanasian Creed. "Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ."

"from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

And you know the origins and purposes of those creeds?

You mean of the creeds you don't believe?

You mean of the creeds you don't believe?
Only God can judge, according to those creeds.

They are clear that Jesus will judge. But at least you now agree that judgment will happen. Progress!!

...according to those creeds, she said again, a bit louder.

Read...the...text...more...slowly.

I will quote much of the Athanasian Creed for your benefit. The subject, as in all three passages I posted for you, is clearly Jesus.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Give it up, JL. You knoweth not what you do.

I knoweth how to read. You should try it. It is much better than playing fast and loose with the truth as you are doing now.

And then, of course, there is still this.


"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

And then, of course, there is still this.


"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.
Good grief!!! You are obsessed -- or possessed!

No matter what I say, you find fault with it.

The problem does not lie with what you've said in response to that inquiry. The problem is with your non-response, a fearful withholding of a decision. Why is that?

Fearful????

Like tomder says, stick to the topic of the thread.

Of course you're fearful. It's as I've said many times, when you feel a little pressured, you just avoid the question. You view it as dangerous to your position, as well you should. Of course you can always prove me wrong.


"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

I suspect you unknowingly helped the cause of truth by bring up the three creeds, all of which support a coming day of judgment.

from Me (Athos)
Here's your answer: Of course, they do. Anyone who leads a good life as described by WG goes to heaven. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters how they behave, and that the behavior is informed by a good conscience.


drom DW
That's where we differ.

Kindly please explain the difference. I don't want to assume something that isn't true.


I accept Jesus' statements that he's the only way, and belief - a terrible word for it in today's American English, "trust" would be much better - in him is crucial to reconciliation with God.


Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
That is bad exegesis. Both letters were written to believers, those who have already received Jesus and are part of His church. 1 Peter was written to a collection of churches, 1 John was written to the church of Ephesus to correct some gnostic heresies. The "us" is believers. The church. If you rip those verses out of those contexts, you do violence to the text.
You definitely misunderstood my two different uses of "us".

No, I understood. But it's still poor exegesis. Again, both letters are addressed to believers, not to the wider world. Believers are to show their trust in Jesus by their actions, and if the actions aren't there, something is very wrong. Neither has any application to non-believers.

Of course you're fearful. It's as I've said many times, when you feel a little pressured, you just avoid the question. You view it as dangerous to your position, as well you should. Of course you can always prove me wrong.
The last thing I am is "fearful". I've read your nastiness and guile and deception when responding to me and others on this site. No matter what response I give you, it's wrong, according to you, because it's coming from me. No, thanks!

I suspect you unknowingly helped the cause of truth by bring up the three creeds, all of which support a coming day of judgment.
My point was I had memorized two of them before I could read. They're a sequel to baptism.

Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
You mean of the creeds you don't believe?
Only God can judge, according to those creeds.

We read two different creeds, then. They give the BASIS on which God will judge, which I believe is what JL wants to talk about. Someone's dodging.

We read two different creeds, then. They give the BASIS on which God will judge, which I believe is what JL wants to talk about. Someone's dodging.Good posts, DW. I really don't WANT to talk about judging. I'd much rather talk about Jesus, but the idea that there is no judgment and everyone, regardless of belief, will be saved is simply not based on the Bible.

Your comment on "trust" vs. "belief" was a good one.


I've read your nastiness and guile and deception when responding to me and others on this site. You are most welcome to correct me for, "nastiness and guile and deception" at any time you see it, but just a general post like that is actually just nastiness itself. You are doing what you accuse me of doing. I do wish you would engage and answer questions, but I know you well enough by now that I don't expect it to happen. Too bad. Surprise me!!

Good posts, DW. I really don't WANT to talk about judging.
That's ALL you've been talking about!

I'd much rather talk about Jesus, but the idea that there is no judgment and everyone, regardless of belief, will be saved is simply not based on the Bible.
Jesus = love. And no one has said everyone will be saved.

You are most welcome to correct me for, "nastiness and guile and deception" at any time you see it, but just a general post like that is actually just nastiness itself. You are doing what you accuse me of doing.
See!!! There ya go again! Antiphrasis!!!

I do wish you would engage and answer questions, but I know you well enough by now that I don't expect it to happen. Too bad. Surprise me!!
Ask me a reasonable question without a gotcha hidden in it.

Ask me a reasonable question without a gotcha hidden in it.Have done so many times. You see a "gotcha" behind every bush. I don't see questions as "gotcha". I believe that if I cannot defend my position by answering penetrating questions, then I need to change my position. That's why I answer your questions. It's also why, I think, you don't answer mine. DW sees this in you as well. "Someone's dodging."


See!!! There ya go again!That one made me laugh. Being nasty is OK for you but not for anyone else. My, my, my.

Have done so many times. You see a "gotcha" behind every bush. I don't see questions as "gotcha". I believe that if I cannot defend my position by answering penetrating questions, then I need to change my position. That's why I answer you questions. It's also why, I think, you don't answer mine.
No matter what answer I give, according to you, it's wrong.

That one made me laugh. Being nasty is OK for you but not for anyone else. My, my, my.
I added Antiphrasis to my answer. You must have been typing and missed it.

I accept Jesus' statements that he's the only way, and belief - a terrible word for it in today's American English, "trust" would be much better - in him is crucial to reconciliation with God.

Thank you for replying.

A follow-up question: How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?

I'm sure you've heard this before and I anticipate your answer.

Another thought is: If they go to hell for not accepting Jesus/God, why did Jesus/God create them in the first place, knowing they would spend eternity in terrible suffering? Being omniscient, Jesus/God must have foreseen that they would be sinners or non-believers, but he created them anyway.

No matter what answer I give, according to you, it's wrong.What do you expect when, for instance, you read clear statements in the three creeds you referred to plainly saying that Jesus will return in judgment, and you simply refuse to accept it because, I guess, it clashes with your preconceived ideas?


I added Antiphrasis to my answer.I copied and pasted and so missed nothing, so it would certainly seem you added it AFTER reading my response. But even at that, it makes no difference. You made a nasty post and now you're trying to distance yourself from it. I would suggest you try and set a good example.

The man who won't answer even the simplest question just posted at least five for someone else. Go figure.

What do you expect when, for instance, you read clear statements in the three creeds you referred to plainly saying that Jesus will return in judgment, and you simply refuse to accept it because, I guess, it clashes with your preconceived ideas?
I haven't refused to accept that. You really want those non-white non-Christians to burn in hell, don't you!

I would suggest you try and set a good example.
You first.

I haven't refused to accept that. No. You just stay in your "safe space" of being noncommittal. But as I've said many times, show me to be wrong! State your belief about Jesus and Him coming to judge.

You really want those non-white non-Christians to burn in hell, don't you!Thank goodness you don't make stupid, hateful statements.

No. You just stay in your "safe space" of being noncommittal. But as I've said many times, show me to be wrong! State your belief about Jesus and Him coming to judge.
Judging doesn't mean condemning. Judging, like at the county fair, means assessing. It says nothing about reward or punishment.

Thank goodness you don't make stupid, hateful statements.
Wow! You can be so nice at times!

Wow! You can be so nice at times!Call someone a racist and you can expect a little blowback. You had it coming. It was a dumb, thoughtless statement for which there is not a scrap of evidence.

Judging at the county fair? Really? This is from the Athanasian Creed you made reference to and claim to believe. Sound like a county fair to you?

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
Who wrote that? Using what agenda?

Thus, a schizophrenic man who murdered his wife and three children will go to hell? Especially if he's a Muslim?

It was your reference that you now reject. Talk about weird. You are trying to make excuses for the very creed you brought up yourself. Why? Because, as always, it does not agree with your preconceived ideas.

It was your reference that you now reject. Talk about weird. You are trying to make excuses for the very creed you brought up yourself. Why? Because, as always, it does not agree with your preconceived ideas.
You have absolutely no idea what I believe.

Read the next paragraph in my post before this one.

You have absolutely no idea what I believe.Of course I do. You have opened up enough to state a few things.

Your paragraph was a desperate effort to change the subject since you are doing so poorly here. I'm done with this lunacy. You appeal to three creeds, and when you find out that they all speak of a coming day of judgement, then you try to back off and change the subject. You can have the last comment. It won't help you. Any fair minded person reading this knows what you are doing.

Thus, you believe a schizophrenic man who murdered his wife and three children will go to hell? Especially if he's Muslim or Hindu or Jewish?

What's God's standard, His rating system, on the Last Day?

And He'll have over 117,000,000,000 people to judge, don't forget.

A follow-up question: How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?

I'm sure you've heard this before and I anticipate your answer.

Another thought is: If they go to hell for not accepting Jesus/God, why did Jesus/God create them in the first place, knowing they would spend eternity in terrible suffering? Being omniscient, Jesus/God must have foreseen that they would be sinners or non-believers, but he created them anyway.
Excellent points! I eagerly await comments and explanations.

Me too, but based on past experience, I don't think any will be forthcoming. I hope I'm wrong.

The people who are too fearful to answer even the most basic questions claim to want answers from DW. It's just too pathetic to describe.

The people who are too fearful to answer even the most basic questions claim to want answers from DW. It's just too pathetic to describe.
Ask me one basic question. Here. Now.

Happily, but I know you won't answer it. You'll dance around and parry, but you will not answer it. It's been put before you many times, and avoided many times. I'll reword it a bit to make it easier, but I have also included the original form that has been reposted (and run from) perhaps a dozen times, and completely avoided on every single occasion.



"You say you've read it (the John 3 passage), but you have not accepted and loved and believed it. Do that first, and then we can talk more."

Or you can choose to reject it, but you need to make up your mind before we can continue.

Reworded. Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help.

16 “For h (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote1)God so loved i (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote2)the world,9 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote3) j (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote4)that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not k (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote5)perish but have eternal life. 17 For l (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote6)God did not send his Son into the world m (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote7)to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 n (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote8)Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not o (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote9)believed in the name of the only Son of God.

The people who are too fearful to answer even the most basic questions....
No lecture please. Ask me one basic question. (Subject. Predicate. Prepostional phrase. Subordinate clause. An adjective or two. One adverb is permitted.) Here. Now.

Yawn. For the second time in fifteen minutes.
Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help.

You know that's not what I'm asking for.

Please ask in plain English.

I rest my case. It went exactly as I said it would. Never fails.

I will help you with my simple request by reviewing third-grade language arts with you, in particular, "What is a question?" and how to properly write one.

i will help you with my simple request by reviewing third-grade language arts with you, in particular, "what is a question?" and how to properly write one.

Lololol.

Evasion, thy name is "Wondergirl". I can put it no better than I did earlier. You always hold true to form.


I know you won't answer it. You'll dance around and parry, but you will not answer it. It's been put before you many times, and avoided many times. I'll reword it a bit to make it easier, but I have also included the original form that has been reposted (and run from) perhaps a dozen times, and completely avoided on every single occasion.

My my. You get nasty when you get exposed, don't you? "I will help you with my simple request by reviewing third-grade language arts with you, in particular, "What is a question?" and how to properly write one."

Strangely, I taught a number of third graders who could have understood that question.

The more I think about this, the more funny it becomes. You said, "Ask me one basic question. Here. Now," trying to appear big and bad. So I ask a question that most middle schoolers could have understood. But, as it turns out, it wasn't simple enough, and so the complaining started. "Oh! Oh! That question is not 'basic' enough! It is too complex, too complicated. I cannot understand such complex issues."

Please. I'm really not trying to be ugly, but I've never met anyone like the two of you who are so fearful of answering even the most basic, fundamental questions. It is truly mystifying to me. If I was that uncertain of my beliefs, I wouldn't post. I'd just read.

I've never met anyone like the two of you who are so fearful of answering even the most basic, fundamental questions.

The TWO of you?! How did I get in the middle of this brouhaha?

It ain't fear, Charley. You want to be in charge. All I'm asking for is that your question be asked more simply, more straightforwardly. No ruffles, twists, turns, subordinate clauses.

Examples:
How old is this planet we live on?
Do you believe in angels? Why or why not?

It ain't fear, Charley. You want to be in charge. All I'm asking for is that your question be asked more simply, more straightforwardly. No ruffles, twists, turns, subordinate clauses.You don't even believe that. It's just a dodge. End of story.

Reworded. Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help.
This is clearer:
Do you agree with the content of the John 3 passage, especially the portion that is underlined?

Here's another question:
Does a person born as a Muslim in the Middle East have the same opportunity for salvation as a person born in America?

Just to illustrate the siliness that goes on here, look at this comparison.

This is WG's "improved" version. "Do you agree with the content of the John 3 passage, especially the portion that is underlined?"

This is the relevant portion from my version. "...do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined?"

Hmmm. At any rate, note that the question remains unanswered.

I shortened your convoluted and excessively verbose question. Have you calmed down enough yet to read my answer?

The reader should note what has gone on so far in what is, I assure you, a vain attempt to answer a very simple, straightforward question. It makes a root canal quite simple in comparison. If you are laughing, then we can laugh together. It is about the only humor to be found on this board.

(He doesn't seem to be calmed down enough yet. I will wait patiently -- while sipping from a mug of hot chocolate.)

Don't wait too long, lest the laughter turn into howling.

Oh well. We can just forget it. It's not worth all this.

18 n (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote8)Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not o (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/john/3/16-18#footnote9)believed in the name of the only Son of God.I believe, and have believed since my Baptism when I was an infant.

Does a person born as a Muslim in the Middle East have the same opportunity for salvation as a person born in America?

Thank you for answering a question no one asked. And it's complete nonsense to say you believed as an infant. Totally ridiculous.

Thank you for answering a question no one asked. And it's complete nonsense to say you believed as an infant. Totally ridiculous.
At Baptism, God worked faith in my heart, and my parents obeyed His command to bring me up in the knowledge of Him and in His love.

Baptism is a sacrament, a visible means of an invisible grace.

Total nonsense supported nowhere in the Bible. As you often do, you are simply making it up as you go along.

The question remains unanswered, and we all know why. You cannot say "yes" since that would be agreeing that God does judge people, and yet you can't say "no" since it would be an open admission to what is plainly evident, that you don't agree with what Jesus said, so you just duck and dodge.

Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help.

I believe God judges us on the Last Day.


Total nonsense supported nowhere in the Bible. As you often do, you are simply making it up as you go along.
That's Protestant theology.

The question remains unanswered, and we all know why. You cannot say "yes" since that would be agreeing that God does judge people, and yet you can't say "no" since it would be an open admission to what is plainly evident, that you don't agree with what Jesus said, so you just duck and dodge.
I answered the question.

That's Protestant theology.Absolutely not.


I answered the question.
Nowhere have you answered the question. But to be fair, I'll repost the question, and you can simply cut and paste your answer. "Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help."

Absolutely not.
Yes, that's Protestant theology. I'm guessing you are a Pentecostal.

The content of John 3 has to do with Nicodemus. The context is regeneration.

That is Lutheran theology, but not for the rest of Protestant denominations.


The content of John 3 has to do with Nicodemus. The context is regeneration.

And again, an answer to a question not asked.

I rest my case. Other readers will note that you could not copy/paste any relevant answer you have given. It's a perfect example of what I have been saying.

That is Lutheran theology, but not for the rest of Protestant denominations.
Yes, Protestant.

And again, an answer to a question not asked.
I answered your question. Post #210. You are saying, "No comprendo"?

Nope. Not Protestants in general. Only Lutherans.

This is what passed for your "answer". You plainly did not even come close. The last two comments certainly are not answers. The first one did not answer the question.

"I believe God judges us on the Last Day.
That's Protestant theology.
I answered the question."

Nice try, but no cigar. I'll give you the last desperate comment. I'm done. You've demonstrated what I said all along. You are fearful of answering questions.

The still unanswered question. "... do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined?"

The Catholic Church and many mainline Protestant churches, such as the Episcopal, Reformed, Methodist, and Lutheran churches, practice infant baptism. Babies as young as a few days old are baptized, and godparents make the baptismal promises for the baby.

I had said: The content of John 3 has to do with Nicodemus. The context is regeneration.

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I accept Jesus' statements that he's the only way, and belief - a terrible word for it in today's American English, "trust" would be much better - in him is crucial to reconciliation with God.
Thank you for replying.

A follow-up question: How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?



En masse? No. God deals with individual hearts. Paul addressed this in Acts 17:

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Obviously they can't repent toward something they haven't heard, so every person who looked at their culture's idol deity and said "I don't want to worship a rock. I want to know who made the rock" God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.



I'm sure you've heard this before and I anticipate your answer.

Another thought is: If they go to hell for not accepting Jesus/God, why did Jesus/God create them in the first place, knowing they would spend eternity in terrible suffering? Being omniscient, Jesus/God must have foreseen that they would be sinners or non-believers, but he created them anyway.


Foreknowledge need not be causation. But to address your question directly, after decades of study I have come to a definitive conclusion:

I don't know.

I figure any God worthy of the title is going to be as far above my comprehension as Kiergegaardian philosophy is above my cat's. There's no way the finite mind can comprehend the infinite, and I suspect that if he/she/it did explain it to us, our heads would explode. Maybe literally.

The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.

God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.Your thinking on this is interesting. I'm not wild about the Acts passage. I would prefer the parable Jesus told of the Pharisee and Publican who went to prayer. The publican prayed, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." His plea for mercy, said Jesus, resulted in him going away "justified". Now it's a parable, but it does seem to me to open the door perhaps a bit for those who haven't heard the Gospel and yet still appeal to a God of mercy. And then there is Abraham, the example of justification by faith used by Paul, and yet unaware of the name of Christ. It seems to me he was looking towards the one he knew was there and yet, to him, unnamed.

I can't agree with the idea of our "best". Man's best is never even close to being good enough to please God. Romans 3 closes that door pretty emphatically. Mercy is our major plea.

Thanks for the post. It is thought provoking. The whole foreknowledge argument is a tough one. Like you, I suspect the answer is perhaps beyond our ability to understand.

fm Athos
How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?

fm dwashbur
Obviously they can't repent toward something they haven't heard, so every person who looked at their culture's idol deity and said "I don't want to worship a rock. I want to know who made the rock" God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.

I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.


Foreknowledge need not be causation.

When foreknowledge is combined with the power of creation, it definitely IS causation.


But to address your question directly, after decades of study I have come to a definitive conclusion:

I don't know.

Fair enough. My position is that God is not self-contradictory. Therefore, there is no hell as it is commonly thought of today - a place of eternal torture as punishment for sin or non-belief.


The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.

I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.


Good reply. Thank you.

. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.So the "not self-contradictory" God is now OK with the worship of other idolatrous gods? That would certainly toss the first two commandments out the window.

This is just a rehashing of the "good conscience" idea, that whatever we do, if it is done in good conscience, is acceptable to God. So human sacrifice, for instance, can pass muster as long as it is done in a genuine practice of sincere worship by "good people".

I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.


I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.
For some reason I'm reminded of a scene in a TV miniseries I saw some time in the late 60's or early 70's, I can't remember for sure and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. It was called Moses the Lawgiver. Pharaoh is standing in front of one of his idols, couldn't tell you which one, holding his dead firstborn in his arms. He looks up at the idol and gives what I considered one of the great classic lines in all of cinema: "What do I do now?" I laughed so hard at that line I almost missed the next one: "You can't do anything, you have the head of a chicken." Best we can tell, people such as the Canaanites and Egyptians genuinely believed these statues were the deities. Were there individuals for whom a chunk of rock wasn't good enough and their hearts reached for something higher? You bet! Those are the ones that I believe received mercy.

I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God. Being completely separated from the Ultimate Source Of Life. My view looks more like what Randy Alcorn described in his book Deadline. I won't give any spoilers.

So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.

But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them? Give them what they want. They don't realize it'll be about as pleasant as being in a lake of fire.

That's my total take on Hell.

The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.



That's why we need both people like you and people like me. Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.

I'll try to limit my reply to your good comments, just touching on the important stuff. (The father of a girlfriend of mine once referred to me as a flannel-mouthed Irishman - 'tho I'm Irish-American, not a real Irishman. I couldn't tell if that was a compliment or an insult.)



fm Athos
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.

fm dwashbur
I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.


John Henry Newman said something very similar, "...conscience is 'the primordial word of God' written in human hearts". However, he later seems to backtrack by saying (to Catholics) "...if one is a Catholic, on must USE the teachings of the Magisterium to inform one's conscience."


I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God.

Absence of God is becoming more mainstream among Christians regardless of denomination. Even literal fundamentalists are beginning to support it. Wikipedia has a very good article on "Annihilationism".


So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.

I have to thank you for addressing the idea so clearly. Better than what I have been saying for two years here that Jesus spoke figuratively and that the Bible - especially Genesis - is filled with allegories. In John's Gospel, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that very thing about his speaking figuratively. He does not mean every word out of his mouth obviously, but it's fairly clear when he does mean it. Those who are mired in "that old time religion" need to see Jesus' figurative way of expression for a deeper appreciation of their faith.


But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them?

I find that personally difficult to comprehend - that some, having knowledge of God - reject him. That would seem to put evil on a par with the good. Just my way of thinking.


fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.

fm Athos
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.

fm dwashbur
That's why we need both people like you and people like me.

Yes, each way has value. When the exchange is civil like this one, each can learn from the other. Here's a link that illustrates some of what we have been discussing.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=849683&p=3884258&highlight=fishermen#post3884258

The last line of the link is a nice summary.


Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.

Gotcha. Kermit - haha.

Thought this would be shorter. Once a flannel-mouth.....

So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.Except that Jesus never spoke of it that way. It just seems to be a large measure of speculation that has to begin with an assumption that all the talk of, "the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" was just so much pretense. That's quite a stretch. But in saying, "They are attempting to describe the indescribable," you might have a good point. And yet it would be wise to note that whatever the "indescribable" is, it is terrifying, and that still makes hell a very bad place, thus leaving the "anit-hellers" at about the same place they were to begin with.

So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
Except that Jesus never spoke of it that way. It just seems to be a large measure of speculation that has to begin with an assumption that all the talk of, "the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" was just so much pretense. That's quite a stretch. But in saying, "They are attempting to describe the indescribable," you might have a good point. And yet it would be wise to note that whatever the "indescribable" is, it is terrifying, and that still makes hell a very bad place, thus leaving the "anit-hellers" at about the same place they were to begin with.


What Alcorn described is more terrifying to me than any fire you could show me.

That could very well be true, and your point is well taken, but the issue is that I'm not trying to show you anything. I'm just referring to the text.

Athos

I'll try to limit my reply to your good comments, just touching on the important stuff. (The father of a girlfriend of mine once referred to me as a flannel-mouthed Irishman - 'tho I'm Irish-American, not a real Irishman. I couldn't tell if that was a compliment or an insult.)
When my sister named her son Kevin my dad threw a fit because "That's a flannel-mouthed Irishman's name". I never knew what that meant, especially since my mom was almost pure Irish.



fm Athos
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.

fm dwashbur
I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.

John Henry Newman said something very similar, "...conscience is 'the primordial word of God' written in human hearts". However, he later seems to backtrack by saying (to Catholics) "...if one is a Catholic, on must USE the teachings of the Magisterium to inform one's conscience."


I'd like to see the context of that, but from a Catholic perspective I understand why he said it. It reminds me of the seven Noachic laws vs. the 613 Mitzvot in Judaism. I don't think I'd like a God with double standards, but that's just me.




I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God.
[Athos]
Absence of God is becoming more mainstream among Christians regardless of denomination. Even literal fundamentalists are beginning to support it. Wikipedia has a very good article on "Annihilationism".

Absence of God as I understand it isn't the same as annihilationism. One exists, but totally alone. Annihilationism as taught by, e.g. the 7th Day Adventists, is just what it says: complete cessation of existence. Unless I've misunderstood you, which is always possible.



So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
[Athos]
I have to thank you for addressing the idea so clearly. Better than what I have been saying for two years here that Jesus spoke figuratively and that the Bible - especially Genesis - is filled with allegories. In John's Gospel, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that very thing about his speaking figuratively. He does not mean every word out of his mouth obviously, but it's fairly clear when he does mean it. Those who are mired in "that old time religion" need to see Jesus' figurative way of expression for a deeper appreciation of their faith.

Quite so. Even when he mentioned the fire prepared for the devil and his angels as JL cited, we're talking about fire that doesn't oxidize fuel so the individuals are burned forever. But if the fire doesn't oxidize, how does it create pain or torment? Reading it literally creates more problems than it solves. And if we realize that Jesus is describing something that is so indescribably much worse even than the imagery he uses, it can give one pause and cause one to ask "How do I cancel my reservation?"



But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them?
I find that personally difficult to comprehend - that some, having knowledge of God - reject him. That would seem to put evil on a par with the good. Just my way of thinking.


I wish it were otherwise, but I've met a few.



fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.

[Quote]
fm Athos
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.

fm dwashbur
That's why we need both people like you and people like me.
Yes, each way has value. When the exchange is civil like this one, each can learn from the other. Here's a link that illustrates some of what we have been discussing.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...en#post3884258

The last line of the link is a nice summary.


Very well said. As far as I'm concerned, legalizing Christianity way back when was a mistake. It gave theologians and church leaders too much time to sit around and think things up that had nothing to do with actual worship of Jesus, and create an impossibly complicated religion that builds on uncertainty and fear to make and keep converts. What Jesus brought was so simple, people like Cornelius and his household didn't even have to say a word and He accepted them. C.S. Lewis has no idea when he became a Christian. He said he was on a trip from point A to point B. When he started out, he wasn't, and by the time he reached his destination, he was.

WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me. But I don't believe it's what they said it is. Mark 16 says if you're not baptized you're condemned, but Jesus didn't say that. Somebody else threw that stuff in when they discovered their copies of Mark didn't have the actual resurrection account. It's not authoritative in any way. But this is what professional theology has given us: two different methods of salvation. And they can't even bring them to us in English, they have to use the Latin phrase Ordo salutis, which sounds like the scientific name of some kind of insect. To me it's more of the pigeon-holing I mentioned. I don't care how it happens. Jesus is merciful. All I have to do is cry out "God, be merciful to me" like the tax collector, or listen and understand the message like Cornelius, or be practical and say "Well, here's some water, let's do this" like the Ethiopian with Philip. We see it happen a dozen or so different ways, so as far as I'm concerned the theologian can keep their idle speculations and go get a real job.



Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.
[Athos]
Gotcha. Kermit - haha.

Thought this would be shorter. Once a flannel-mouth.....

I've eaten some foods that tasted like flannel, but I don't think it's the same thing <biggrin>

WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me.
You shudda called me. Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.

Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.That I can agree with. It is largely symbolic with no real impact on the infant.

WG

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me.
You shudda called me. Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.

These were ELCA, I don't know if that makes a difference. One told me baptism "places you into the family of God." I asked what that meant and he couldn't really come up with an explanation. RC says it removes original sin. I don't buy it, but at least Father Tim was able to give me a definitive answer.

I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.

I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.




I think that's fair. I would only add that baptism is a public declaration of what might have occurred in private. In my case, I became a Christian while kneeling by my bed at night, but I was baptized in the light of day in a swimming pool at Bible college with about thirty others.

I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.
My dad was a LCMS pastor and believed that infant baptism was a public acknowledgement that the baby would be raised as a Christian and thus was a way to begin to work faith in the child. And that "work" would mainly be done by supportive baptismal sponsors and the baby's family -- plus congregation members.

I think your dad made a really good statement. It's actually more of a dedication service. It would have nothing to do with the infant repenting, believing, or being born again at that point of baptism. Perhaps we have come to one of our rare moments of agreement.

Confirmation classes begin in 8th grade and are a review of Christian (and specific Lutheran) beliefs. The culmination of confirmation classes is a special ceremony, an affirmation of baptism, a public reaffirmation of faith.

a public reaffirmation of faith.Unless, of course, the individual had never placed his/her faith in Christ to begin with.

Unless, of course, the individual had never placed his/her faith in Christ to begin with.
If the individual hasn't, he will privately express that to the pastor and/or refuse to participate in the confirmation ceremony. (Remember, the individual is around 13 years old and has yet to experience many challenges to his/her beliefs.)

If the individual hasn't, he will privately express that to the pastor and/or refuse to participate in the confirmation ceremony.I have no doubt that the woods are full of former Lutherans who went through the classes you mentioned without ever making a genuine decision to follow Jesus.

Confirmation classes begin in 8th grade and are a review of Christian (and specific Lutheran) beliefs. The culmination of confirmation classes is a special ceremony, an affirmation of baptism, a public reaffirmation of faith.

We were confirmed in the 8th grade in the big church with the Bishop lightly slapping us as we gave him our confirmation name on a piece of paper. He told us we were now Soldiers of Christ so we went out and beat up a bunch of Protestants!!

JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that's fair. I would only add that baptism is a public declaration of what might have occurred in private. In my case, I became a Christian while kneeling by my bed at night, but I was baptized in the light of day in a swimming pool at Bible college with about thirty others.

I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't. A little weird, but there it is. When I was 7 I was talking with my mom about believing in Jesus and all the rest and she explained to me what baptism was. Our pastor baptized me the following Sunday night, after which my oldest sister planted a huge glob of orange lipstick on my cheek. It was all I could do not to scream. Even so, I knew I had done something important, and my shirt had a long sleeve so I could wipe the goop away. Good enough.
The things you remember...


My dad was a LCMS pastor and believed that infant baptism was a public acknowledgement that the baby would be raised as a Christian and thus was a way to begin to work faith in the child. And that "work" would mainly be done by supportive baptismal sponsors and the baby's family -- plus congregation members.


See, THAT makes sense. What Pastors Ken and Eunice told me didn't. Thanks!

I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't.I have no doubt that's true, but I think we would agree that you were not born a Christian, nor became a Christian at 6 months. There is an issue of volition involved here that infants are not capable of. I tell the guys at the rehab that it's somewhat like agreeing to heart surgery. The surgeon does the work, but I have to recognize my need and get on the table.

jlisenbe
I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't.
I have no doubt that's true, but I think we would agree that you were not born a Christian, nor became a Christian at 6 months. There is an issue of volition involved here that infants are not capable of. I tell the guys at the rehab that it's somewhat like agreeing to heart surgery. The surgeon does the work, but I have to recognize my need and get on the table.

I don't remember getting on the table. Last thing I remember was being on a gurney.

- Sir Nitpick

Sorry, I can't always control him.

I agree. I made a decision somewhere along the way. I was just so young I don't remember it. I get a vague flicker of something now and then, but to me it really doesn't matter. I know the result, that's good enough for me.

God isn't capable of beginning the work of faith in a young child, even in an infant?

I get a vague flicker of something now and then,I'm afraid that happens to me a great deal more than when I was younger.

God isn't capable of beginning the work of faith in a young child, even in an infant?That's not really the question. The question more concerns how God works, and there is nothing in the Bible to indicate God works at all in that way. To suggest otherwise would be to think contrary to what you yourself said earlier. " Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul."

Does God begin the work of faith in a young child, even in an infant?

The Bible does not seem to indicate that, or at least not that I know of. At least not in the sense that you seem to be thinking of it.

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:14–15 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%2010.14%E2%80%9315))

That says nothing about an act of faith beginning. It simply says that the children (not infants) should be allowed to come to Christ, and that the Kingdom belongs to those with child-like faith.

with child-like faith...the act of faith has begun!

But not in an infant. Infants do not have faith, child-like or otherwise.