Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Who said God makes us worship him? The very fact that some people don't is proof of that. But to answer this, I will cite the first chapter of Romans:



First of all, like I said above, God doesn't MAKE anyone praise him. But as for whether we were created for that purpose (i.e., praising him), Jesus certainly seemed to think so:



God does want us to do these things:

But that's not ALL he wants us to do. Notice here. The FIRST and GREATEST command is to LOVE GOD. The SECOND (and also VERY IMPORTANT) is to love your neighbor. But Jesus does tell us that Loving God comes before Loving Your Neighbor. I don't suggest you argue with him on this.


I'm not sure what you meant by this phrase.


1. Who said they were innocent? Even the greatest of saints confessed sin in their lives, and I highly doubt that people that don't confess such sin are as innocent as they believe themselves to be.

2. I'm not threatening anyone. Hell is a reality; I am merely acknowledging it. In fact, I'm not even the one who started this topic. Ricksea did. You can ask him why he feels hell is so important if you like. But hell is a reality. If I tell you, "Don't step on that snake, or you're going to get bitten!" I'm not threatening you. My hope is you would see the snake and not step on it. The same with hell. I'm not threatening anyone with hell. But you can't just expect me to stand around and let people get bitten by the snake, can you?

And Jesus wasn't threatening anyone when he talked about hell, either. He was pointing to the reality: an eternity of separation from God for those who will not be reconciled to him. That's not a threat, but a reality.


Well, there are lions, hippos, and crocs in the world, and people do sometimes get eaten by them. That's a reality, too. But my trust is in the Lord Jesus who died and rose again from the dead. Even if a lion eats me, I have nothing to fear. On the last day, he will raise me up again.

Doom, do you remember the story of the Prodigal Son? In that story, a father's son tells the father, "I hate you. Give me my stuff so I can go live on my own." The father gave him his inheritance and let him leave. The boy then squandered his savings on parties and ended up living in a pig pen.

In this story, the father is like God. He wants what's best for his children, but the children themselves don't always know what's best for them until they find out the hard way. This is why the father let his son go. It was a risk; the son could have died poor, lost, and alone. That's what it means to die and go to hell; without reconciliation, there is no hope that you will return home.

But the story doesn't end. The son goes back to his father and asks to be allowed back home as a servant. The father not only takes him back, but throws a huge party for him and makes him a part of the family again. That's what it's like when a person repents of sin; God celebrates the return of one of his lost children and welcomes them home.

My advice to you, Doom, is to quit arguing like some lawyer and simply recognize that God is a loving father who is waiting for his children to return home. He doesn't force them to, but he grieves immensely when they do not.

_________________

What do you want me to say? Do you want me to ramble on about how there is no God? Because I can if you want me to.

That's not really what I was talking about. I mean...just the seemingly meaningless end of life that you predict...

I think we HAVE to be here for a reason. This all can't be an accident, and then you die, try harder next time.

The seemingly meaningless end of life? That's my belief. If you believe in a reason for life, go right ahead, but don't tell me my belief is uneventful.

for one I don't think you should use quotes form the bible because the bible was edited over and over to mostly please the people of the time it first was created and has been since.

I can prove that there is fiar reason to doubt first of all who first told you what religon you where? but I think everyone has doubts in there religon but you seem to be the next saint, have you ever tried turning water into wine?

I did know that parable very very well its a funny story i'll post it some time.

if this is proven and becomes scientific law "if you can go to hell just bacause your a different religon no matter what you do, you have to be chistian or burn and suffer" I'll bring up my freind Corry he is an athieist, if this happened then he would be doing everything he wanted because he is'nt exactly as moral, even I would become a satinist because god dosnt have as much morals as i do and alot of others would do thing like this.

I beg to differ. We have manuscripts of the Bible dating back to the early second century. And at the seminary where I was trained, we were taught to read Greek and Hebrew so we could understand it in its original language. Your claim has no foundation. What's more, the men who actually wrote the Bible were mostly killed for their beliefs; if their goal was to please people, it didn't work very well.


I could ask you the same, since you apparently expect me to believe your arguments over the words of Jesus and the teachings of the apostles. For all I know, you're just some kid who likes to argue. You might even be a troll. But I do know that you're not the Son of God.

Me, I'm a Christian minister with 5 years of Bible college, 3 years of seminary, and 2 years of ministry experience (1 in parish, 1 in chaplaincy). I know I'm not equal to Christ, but I do know his word, which apparently you do not.


You are right there. And I am no exception. But there is a big difference between an honest struggle of faith and simple disbelief. What you are talking about is not mere doubt, but rejection of Jesus' own words.

As for my religious background, I was raised Baptist, became an agnostic and later an atheist. Then I went back to the Baptist church, went to a Church of Christ college, and then became Lutheran. So do you have any more questions about my religious upbringing?


Do you still presume to pass judgment on God? Who the crap do you think you are? Who gave you the right to pass judgment on God? Talk about arrogance. And ignorance.

If you truly cared about your atheist friend, you would better serve him by praying for him than by trying to argue me (or God, for that matter) into thinking he deserves heaven.

What do you want me to do, Doom? I pose the same question to you that I posed to Ricksea earlier. Do you honestly expect me to change my beliefs to suit you? Do you honestly think I should hold your ideas higher than Jesus' own words? What do you want me to do for you, Doom?

_________________

So now you're mixing religions? Atheism is not the same as Satanism.

Oh I dunno. I bet he's killed less children than God. That's gotta count for something, right?

Death happens. It's a part of our fallen, limited, imperfect nature. Sad, but true (and I'm speaking from experience. I had a cousin whose child miscarried. She was devastated by it). My point is, here's this kid who actually think that he can intimidate God by threatening to become a satanist. That's like threatening to kill George W. Bush with a Nerf gun.

But do you think that God might know what it means to lose a child himself? Absolutely. He loses children all the time. And I feel like he grieves over each and every one of them. Not only that, but he lost his only begotten Son on the cross. Do you think he felt sorrow on Good Friday? I'll bet he did.

_________________

Tell that to the firstborn of Egypt, chief

Yes. You're right. And the Egyptians deserved it for the way they imprisoned and oppressed the Hebrew people for 400 years. And it wasn't like God didn't warn them, either. He sent nine other plagues first, but Pharaoh refused to let them go. That was their final chance, and they missed it. Blame the Egyptians for the death of their children.

_________________

1 - there is no excuse for the murder of children

2 - Exodus 4:21-23

So it's okay if the Egyptians murder children and oppress people, but it's not okay if God does something to stop it? Is that what you're trying to tell me? You seem to forget that the Egyptians were constantly murdering the children of the Israelites.

Ex 8:15

_________________

Sorry, did you read the bible passage I just referred you to?

Did you read the one I posted?

And exactly how does that give Doom (or you) the moral high ground? God does an act of justice (by punishing the Egyptians for their murder and oppression), and you say he's wrong for doing so? Are you actually suggesting that we should side with the oppressors and murderers because God actually did something harsh to stop their oppression and murder?

_________________

Yes. How does this change the fact that God specifically made the Pharoah refuse to let the Hebrews go?

I'm saying this:

In Ex. 4:21-23 God specifically states that he will harden Pharoah's heart, and that because of this, he will not let the Hebrew people go no matter what Moses does, until such time as God slaughters the firstborn of Egypt. Since God could harden Pharoah's heart, it stands to reason he could also have softened it, does it not? But he did not. He chose the path which would lead to a massacre, and a massacre of children at that. Why is this justified?

The text does not say that God SPECIFICALLY or DIRECTLY hardened Pharaoh's heart. That is to say, he didn't zap Pharaoh with a lightning bolt and control his mind. If you read the whole plague narrative, you'd discover that God hardened Pharaoh's heart through the punishments themselves. Pharaoh did not at all like the idea that God was more powerful than he was; the warnings only made him more stubborn. In the end, it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, himself, under his own power.

And why exactly are you saying that God doesn't have the right to punish them according to their own sins? Again, I ask you, do you want us to side with the oppressors and murderers who enslaved the Hebrews?

_________________

so how is one to read the following:

Exodus 10:1-2

Is this a direct statement from God that he has hardened the Pharoah's heart in order to make a display, or not?


What were the sins of the firstborn children?


Straw man. I'm not saying we should side with the Egyptians, I'm saying that this was a massacre, and that it was wrong. Are you saying that God could find no other way?

Doom:

You could learn a thing or two from DJ Soul Camel about how to make a point.

DJSC:

I have thought about some alternatives, just as you suggested. Here's a couple that come to mind:

1. Leave the Hebrews at the mercy of the Egyptians, so the Egyptians could continue to oppress them and slaughter their children.

2. Kill the Egyptians themselves. But then, wouldn't that still leave the children to starve?

3. Rescue the Hebrews in such a way that no one knew it was him doing it.

Here's part of the problem: the main point of the Exodus is not God reaching out to all people, but him selecting for himself a certain people, in this case a people oppressed by another nation. But the goal of all his work in this was to reveal himself as the one true God. This meant that all other competing gods had to be humiliated in both the eyes of the Hebrews and the Egyptians. Each of the Ten Plagues was meant to demonstrate God's power over and above all the gods of Egypt.

This included Pharaoh. Pharaoh, whose title was "First Born of the Gods," also needed to be humiliated. Pharaoh himself and the people of Egypt needed to see that Pharaoh was no god at all. It seems that Pharaoh's heart was hardened both by God and by himself, so I'm not so sure things would have turned out differently, even if Pharaoh had complete free will.

But as to that. The Egyptians had already been guilty of oppressing the Hebrews for 400 years. Whether God hardened Pharaoh's heart or not, they deserved the Plagues by their brutal treatment of the Hebrew people.

Now why the children? Keep in mind, no age range is given in this narrative. Some might have been babies. Others might have been as old as 30 (though I doubt much older than that, though you never know). Why the firstborn son? Because in the ancient world, the firstborn was the heir and represented to the family a continuation of the family line. Not only that, but Pharaoh claimed to be Firstborn of the Gods. The Plague of Death was meant to prove that Pharaoh had no power over life or death, that even the so-called Firstborn was powerless. (Curious - I wonder why Pharaoh himself didn't die? Maybe the Plague only struck those firstborn whose fathers still lived?)

Had the Egyptians themselves been struck, they would have indeed been paid back for their oppression, but they wouldn't have seen it. They would have been dead, and their family lines continued in the heirs that survived. But by striking the firstborn, the pain of what they had inflicted on the Hebrews (in killing their children) was made real to them.

Now the children themselves? Their lives were over. Whether they went to heaven or hell is not addressed here, and since we do not know their fate in that regard, I cannot comment on it. But they were spared being raised by racist parents and being taught to oppress.

But here's part of the problem, too. And, no, this isn't part of some grand theodicy, but a simple recognition of the way things are. God, as the Lord of Life, is the one with power over life and death. I believe that because, on more than one occasion, he raised the dead. What does this mean? Like it or not, God is the one who causes all death. Now don't get me wrong. Death exists because mankind failed and continues to fail. But everyone dies. The times and places are set by God. And death is death. When a person dies, it does not matter whether it is at 1 day or 100 years, their life is over. Period.

So when my cousins premature daughter died, God was the one who set that in place. Now do I tell her, "God killed your child," no. Does she feel that way? I know she does. For almost a year, she wasn't able to go to the church where her child was buried. But since it was the Lord who gave her life, it was also the Lord who took that life.

I know that sounds horrible. But the Bible does say that God appoints the times. It also says that, when we die, it is because he requires our soul from us. So in a very real sense, the God of Life is also the God of Death. Life is a precious gift from God, but it is not ours to keep; we all must one day give it back.

So why death? Why death at all? Why do we have to watch as our loved ones suffer from old age? Or from cancer? Or just die suddenly? Why aren't human beings built to last? Why must we endure loss and separation?

For the Hebrews and the Egyptians, it was to reveal himself by choosing for himself a people, and to show that he is willing and more than able to fight for them. This is part of the difficulty with this thread: what we Lutherans call "the scandal of particularity," i.e., that God actually chooses a certain people, and not all people, to be entrusted with his Word. In those ancient days, it was the Hebrews. Today, it is those of us who follow the faith of Abraham, who trusted God and was justified by his faith. Why the Hebrews and not the Visigoths? Why Christians and not Hindus? The scandal of particularity: Narrow is the way and few find it.

And yet this was to reveal himself, both to the Hebrews and the Egyptians. God's highest purpose for people is that they should come to know him. Good works (i.e., loving your neighbor) is second, but it is the first that is most important. The first three Commandments (or four, depending on your preferred numbering system) is God telling us, "I made you so that you could know me." That's another key point in this thread: that God wants people to know him. Yes, he wants us to be good and decent folk, too. But his primary concern is that we come to know him.

So in the Exodus, what did the Hebrews need? They needed a God who would fight for them when they were unable to fight for themselves. What did the Egyptians need? To see that they were not the godlike people they thought they were, that in relation to the True God, they were as powerless as the Hebrews were in their hands.

Do I like that God caused the death of children (I am of course operating under the same assumption, that at least SOME of those firstborn were small children)? The answer is, no. Are there other things that God has done that I don't like? Absolutely. I haven't shared this with anyone on this thread before (except a very few trusted ones), but I almost didn't become a minister. I almost failed seminary. At the time, I felt like God had abandoned me, even though, in my mind anyway, I kept confessing that he had not. What I discovered, though, was that I was angry at God. And in fact, the only way I was able to overcome that anger was to rage at him. So, there I was, as my ministry supervisor watched, and I hurled a Kleenex box at the cross on the wall. I picked it up again and again, and hurled it again and again at the very image of my dying Savior, cursing him in my heart. At the end, I looked with sorrow at the cross, and it was as if I heard God tell me, "Tom, I know you're angry. I'd rather you have the guts to tell me." And then later, as I wept outside of the Chapel of St. Timothy and St. Titus, he said to me, "I took whips, chains, thorns, nails, and a spear for you. I took the pains of hell for you. I can take a Kleenex box easily."

God put his finger on my life that day, and he answered my prayer. He healed me of many deep wounds I had in my life. Not painlessly, mind you, and some of them still hurt, but at least they are beginning to mend. What I learned was the same lesson Pharaoh had to learn: that I am not in control here. That's yet a third issue that I've identified in this thread: we so often want to think we're in control when we're not.

I remember the story of Job. The man lost his family, his life's savings, his home, his wife, and his health. Why? Because the devil challenged God to a bet. The friends of Job tried to comfort him with their belief that God couldn't possibly do such a thing to a righteous man, so Job must have done something awful to deserve it. In the depths of his anguish, Job challenged God himself to a fight. Then God showed up. He promptly reminded Job, "I'm the Creator. You're the creature. I'm in charge here, not you." But then, oddly, God commends Job for his faith and rebukes Job's friends for their faulty theology!

I confess to you, Camel, that I have played the part of Job's friend in this thread, trying to justify God with theodicy, when really all I needed to do was simply let him be who he is. You have been more like Job than I have; at least you were willing to challenge him for the wrong he committed. I commend you for that, but I'd also challenge you to take it up with him. Challenge him, just as you've challenged me. Don't worry, you won't get hit with any lightning bolts (at least I didn't back then). But I think he prefers that people have the guts to challenge him openly.

What's more, as I stated in a previous post, God knows that pain of losing a child himself. He loses a child every time someone denies him and turns away from him. He loses a child every time someone rationalizes him away. What's more, he lost his own Firstborn on the cross. So while the pain the Egyptians had to endure was so immense, God has felt that pain himself.

Now was there some ultimate good to come from that horrible tragedy? Yes. The Hebrews became God's people, and they in turn revealed him to all the nations. Just as God told Abraham when he first chose him, "You will be a blessing to all nations." What's more, from the Israelites came the Messiah, the one who would ultimately reconcile the whole world to God, which (at least I like to think) includes those children who died in the Plague. Death, while still present, no longer has ultimate power; it has been conquered by the cross and the empty tomb.

So, to sum up, I have identified a few key themes in this thread:

1. The Scandal of Particularity - that God is an exclusivist. He actually does choose certain people to enjoy his benefits (at least initially - his goal in doing so is that these people in turn will share those benefits with others).

2. God's chief purpose for mankind is that people come to know him. Good works are important, but they are secondary to knowing him. Unless we come to know him, we cannot fulfill our purpose in this life.

3. The human condition of powerlessness before God. Ramrod uses the term, "basically evil," but I prefer the term "powerless" because I think it better sums up the problem. Whether what we suffer in this life is our fault or not, the main point is we have no control to change the consequences. We can either trust God and let him, or we can continue to resist him to our detriment.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I've been really busy lately.

_________________

Didymus, I finally understand the Christian point of all we've been talking about. I still have two issues.

Death cannot be part of fallen, limited, imperfect nature; supposing that we continually reproduced and didn't die, the world would be overcrowded to a point of despeirchi (hell on Earth). What are perfect humans anyway, supposing they reproduced?

Instead of relativistic and sensical I'll say that everything in the universe is "scientific" and "can be duely-interpreted". Do you agree with that?

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

You raise an interesting question. Nevertheless, death itself is a demonstration of the fact that humanity is limited and imperfect. A perfect humanity would be immortal. Now I do not fully understand how this would have played out in an unfallen creation. Perhaps people would have only reproduced occasionally, and not at the rate at which we reproduce today. Or perhaps God would have simply taken people from the earth without death in much the same way he took Elijah and Enoch. I do not know. We are not told what would have happened.

Now we are told that, post-resurrection, humans will no longer reproduce; in that life there will be no more expansion of population.


Okay. I'm still not entirely sure how that would address the possibility of hell, though.

_________________

That's one of the reasons why I don't believe in hell.

See, I don't think of hell so much as a place as a condition. It's an eternity without God (I like the biblical imagery of The Outer Darkness). As science so far has been ill-equipped to address the possibility of an afterlife (barring parapsychology, which I'm not so sure is a real science anyway), or, for that matter, the existence of God, I do not believe that science can adequately address the possibility of the existence of hell.

_________________

if you can say that you dont believe in the existance of hell due to it being illogical, non-scientific, etc. Then how can you explain other things such as evolution? (I just opened up a rats nest ) If i flipped a coin 9,999 times and i claimed that every one of them was heads you would say that i was a fool. Yet, there are trillions of "coins" that had to be "flipped", all heads, in order to make the Earth an inhabittable place in evolution. This chance is impossible. Therefore, there had to be a grand artist behind it all, making everything to direct specifications so that we dont burn up, freeze, or have a day long life span. If this is true, then it is possibole for there to be a supernatural realm(hell, heaven) that directly effects the scientific realm, on a second-by-second basis, that can be duely-interpreted and such.

_________________

Credit for this avy-turned-sig goes to a friend from another forum named "Unknown" (no joke)

I disagree. Yeah, I know, it's a bit lazy of me to just link to a rebuttal, but oh well.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

The mere fact that the site is called "infedels" says a lot, but whatev. Anyway I stand by my claim that infinate improbibility means that it didn't happen. It's just logical.

_________________

Credit for this avy-turned-sig goes to a friend from another forum named "Unknown" (no joke)

While your arguement is technically logical, the possibility of there not being a designer is also possible. It's also possible to flip trillions of coins and have them all be heads. It's unlikely, but it's possible. To say that intelligent design is the only possible way it could have happened is just arrogant. To say that it's what you BELIEVE happened is fine.

_________________

Gah, can of worms indeed. The scientific response, summed up, would be this: Those coins flip tails all the time, it's just that only the ones which flip heads survive. This is not an argument either way for the existence or otherwise of God, so let's not go there

The thing is that Christians aren't swayed by political correctness. Didn't mean to offend. I will rebutt you coin statement along with DJ Soul Camel. Also the coins aren't flipped at all with intelligent design.


That is an interesting point, but I was refering to the natural properties of the Earth and the universe, and I beleive you are refering to the whole "monkey to human" thing. First natural properties, if one coin is tails, which there will be, then one of the many important things that not only keeps us and our monkey friends alive, but makes human beings the most powerfull living thing on the planet, will not happen. Next thing you know, the Earth is 1000 miles closer to the sun. No ice caps. 1000 miles away, all ice caps. See what I mean?
As for monkeys to humans, first the beginner point, then the inside info. point. If the monkeys evolved into human's then where are they? (I know what you're going to say in response) Second, in the case of rat to bat. The animal in-between would have died within a few weeks of existing. No kidding.

_________________

Credit for this avy-turned-sig goes to a friend from another forum named "Unknown" (no joke)