Ask a Protestant Christian

[GhostWriter16]

If everyone deserves hell, then is it not unjust for God to not send you to Hell?

Jesus paid my price. So it would be immoral at this point. But not if he had chose never to die for me.

Why should that debt only be paid to believers?

I don't know. The whole point is EVERYONE deserves Hell. Therefore, God can put any standards he pleases on entry into Heaven.

You know, there's an awful lot in the recent posts with which to get irritated, but if you're a blatant homophobe, please just say so, as it will avoid you using codewords like "not corrupted by the current societies vices".

You know, this is "Ask a Protestant" not, "Tell the Protestants how much you hate their answers."

We've went over this many times. You are being wishy-washy and lukewarm, picking and choosing what you wish to believe. This is clearly condemned in the Bible. Read about the Church of Laodecia.

As for why Jehovah sent the Ten Plagues, as I recall the Bible, he kept hardening Pharaoh's heart every time so that Pharaoh would not consent to allow Moses to leave. That is the perfect example of dickery: refusing to allow someone to do something and then punishing them for not doing it.

Not really. I've heard two arguments to this.

One argument is the Calvinist argument. That argument is basically, ALL man does evil, by nature, so its only by God's grace that he can do good. Therefore, God "Hardening his heart" simply meant that God stopped "Making Pharoah do good", and so Pharoah got to choose what he truly wanted to do, evil.

The other argument is that Pharoah had rejected God already, and so God was simply making him continue to choose what he had already chosen.

This is a QUESTION for Plotinus, rather than a rant against us.

Such a hopeless romantic

"My dearest, I really want to bone someone, will you marry me?"

Can someone explain to me the moral reasons why someone needs to be married to have sex? Not just: it's in the Bible. But: it's immoral because ...

?

Well, it would be like using (And I stole this example from a book) using neurosurgical equiptment to remove a fish hook from the fish's mouth. Its a total waste. Sex is a beautiful thing created for marriage, not promiscuity.

So basically, it runs down to what you believe about sex and what it was made for.

Question: I accept that the bible condemns same sex marriage. However, in our current multi-faith and secular society, why should anyone else be bound by your conceptions of what constitutes 'marriage'? If you don't want to be in a same sex marriage because of your religion, fine. However, why deny the right to a civil agreement of marriage to others because your religious description of marriage differs?
There are two elements of marriage in today's society: the religous and civil aspect. Why should your commands in the religous aspect be seen as a compulsion to deny others the civil aspect?

I really think this is going beyond "Ask a Protestant," and this is more "Ask a Protestant about his political views" but I will answer the question. I will NOT discuss the issue further or debate it in this thread. If you wish to discuss it further, take it to VM, PM, or another thread.

That said, I don't want the government endorsing sinful conduct. This, note, is different than saying I don't want the government to ALLOW sinful conduct, which I do want them to allow. But I don't want them using my tax dollars to endorse a gay couple getting married.

Now, there are two logical directions you can take this argument. I am OK with either one. The first possibility is that, since EVERYONE can accept an opposite-sex marriage, there is no reason not to endorse them, so only they can be endorsed. Give more controversial marriages the title of "Civil Union." The other solution, which I would be more happy with, is to call ALL marriages Civil Unions legally. Let marriage be handled privately.

 

[Ajidica]

I really think this is going beyond "Ask a Protestant," and this is more "Ask a Protestant about his political views" but I will answer the question. I will NOT discuss the issue further or debate it in this thread. If you wish to discuss it further, take it to VM, PM, or another thread.

It is hardly my fault that fundies turn religion into politics.

That said, I don't want the government endorsing sinful conduct. This, note, is different than saying I don't want the government to ALLOW sinful conduct, which I do want them to allow. But I don't want them using my tax dollars to endorse a gay couple getting married.

What if a gay couple don't want their tax dollars going to endorse a straight marriage? Should we ban civil marriage for straight couples also?

 

[sanabas]

We've went over this many times. You are being wishy-washy and lukewarm, picking and choosing what you wish to believe. This is clearly condemned in the Bible. Read about the Church of Laodecia.

So you think there should be the death penalty for adultery, along with many other things?

That said, I don't want the government endorsing sinful conduct. This, note, is different than saying I don't want the government to ALLOW sinful conduct, which I do want them to allow. But I don't want them using my tax dollars to endorse a gay couple getting married.

Worshiping some other god instead of the single correct one is a sin, in fact one of the worst sins available according to the bible. Yet various religions that are wrong and therefore sinful get some of your tax dollars, or get the benefit of not paying taxes, or get the endorsement of the government to allow them to build their centres for sinful worship. Should all those things be outlawed, since it is the government endorsing sinful conduct?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What if a gay couple don't want their tax dollars going to endorse a straight marriage? Should we ban civil marriage for straight couples also?

I explained my views as much as I have to in this thread. This thread is for asking questions, not debate. If you ask me somewhere else, I'll answer it.

So you think there should be the death penalty for adultery, along with many other things?

Yes, in Old Testament Israel, under the Old Covenant. Christ made a new covenant.

Worshiping some other god instead of the single correct one is a sin, in fact one of the worst sins available according to the bible. Yet various religions that are wrong and therefore sinful get some of your tax dollars, or get the benefit of not paying taxes, or get the endorsement of the government to allow them to build their centres for sinful worship. Should all those things be outlawed, since it is the government endorsing sinful conduct?

No.

 

[sanabas]

Yes, in Old Testament Israel, under the Old Covenant. Christ made a new covenant.

So the old testament can be ignored completely, and nothing in it can be used as evidence for how something should be today?

No.

Why not? Is it not a sin to worship a false god? Is having tax dollars and tax exemptions going to false religions not an endorsement of their sinful behaviour?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So the old testament can be ignored completely, and nothing in it can be used as evidence for how something should be today?

Untrue. We have to differenate between laws as they were supposed to exist, specifically in Israel (Some of which were designed to be pictures or foreshadowings of future events) and how the law is supposed to be today. Namely, I don't think the Bible tells us how the lawbook should be anywhere, except Ancient Israel as it was described in the Mosaic Law. Other than that, the only thing we really have mandated is Capital Punishment for murderers...

 

[sanabas]

Actually, man goes to Hell because he sins, which everyone does. If God sent someone to Hell simply for not believing, that would be unjust, but he doesn't. He sends people to Hell for their sin. Only by the blood of Christ can that debt be paid.

So God's default position is to send everyone to hell for sinning, but those who believe may receive an exemption and go to heaven instead? Does that mean everyone who has ever lived without learning about God, without getting the opportunity to believe, is hellbound/already there?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So God's default position is to send everyone to hell for sinning, but those who believe may receive an exemption and go to heaven instead? Does that mean everyone who has ever lived without learning about God, without getting the opportunity to believe, is hellbound/already there?

Well, the Bible says "He who does not believe is condemned already." Since not believing is inherently a choice, I don't think its clear what happens to those who have never heard the gospel. I don't know the answer.

 

[sanabas]

Untrue. We have to differenate between laws as they were supposed to exist, specifically in Israel (Some of which were designed to be pictures or foreshadowings of future events) and how the law is supposed to be today. Namely, I don't think the Bible tells us how the lawbook should be anywhere, except Ancient Israel as it was described in the Mosaic Law. Other than that, the only thing we really have mandated is Capital Punishment for murderers...

So the new covenant you talked about makes no claims about what laws should be, about what today's morals should be? Weren't you just saying that homosexual marriage is a sin, and the law shouldn't endorse sin? How do you reach that conclusion if the Bible says nothing about how laws should be?

And just to be clear, the 10 commandments as given to Moses are of zero relevance to today's world, because they were nullified by Jesus' appearance?

Also, are you ignoring

Why not? Is it not a sin to worship a false god? Is having tax dollars and tax exemptions going to false religions not an endorsement of their sinful behaviour?

or will you be answering it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So the new covenant you talked about makes no claims about what laws should be, about what today's morals should be? Weren't you just saying that homosexual marriage is a sin, and the law shouldn't endorse sin? How do you reach that conclusion if the Bible says nothing about how laws should be?

First of all, that's my opinion on what the law should be, and while a lot of Christians share this view, the Bible doesn't command it.

As for it being a Sin, the Bible is clear on that. The Bible is not clear on how modern governments should handle it.

And just to be clear, the 10 commandments as given to Moses are of zero relevance to today's world, because they were nullified by Jesus' appearance?

The 4th commandment was nullified by Paul.

http://biblebrowser.com/romans/14-5.htm

The rest were never nullfiied, and are still valid.

But I think you are missing the point. The point isn't that the Old Testament is no longer valid, but that the legal system was designed for Israel, the Chosen Nation, in the Old Testament. In the modern day, we are no longer called to enforce this legal system. The reason is this: The Jews SAW GOD DO MIRACLES! They were all following God. Its not like that anymore. However, Christians are still called to live morally.

or will you be answering it?

I believe in freedom of Religion.

 

[sanabas]

Well, the Bible says "He who does not believe is condemned already." Since not believing is inherently a choice, I don't think its clear what happens to those who have never heard the gospel. I don't know the answer.

Doesn't that imply that he who is condemned is done so specifically for not believing? Especially since the rest of the quote says he is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.. Or is that not meant to be taken literally?

How do you decide which version of the bible is correct anyway? Some versions start that quote with he who believes is not judged, some start with he who believes is not condemned. Which seem like very different things to me. How do you choose which is the inerrant truth?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Doesn't that imply that he who is condemned is done so specifically for not believing? Especially since the rest of the quote says he is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.. Or is that not meant to be taken literally?

How do you decide which version of the bible is correct anyway? Some versions start that quote with he who believes is not judged, some start with he who believes is not condemned. Which seem like very different things to me. How do you choose which is the inerrant truth?

Only the original manuscript is inerrant, the rest are subject to error, but they were copied carefully, so the errors are minimal.

As for being condemned for not believing, de facto, but not de jure. Its like saying to a group of people who have cancer "Whoever takes this cure will not die, but whoever refuses to take the cure is already doomed to die." Now, are you dying for not taking the cure? Not really. You are dying because you have cancer. The cure is a way out.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Since not believing is inherently a choice

One of the biggest qualms we non-religious have with faiths such as yours. If God was apparent as you claim, choosing to not believe in God would be as difficult in choosing to not believe in one's own existence. Belief can't be chosen, one way or the other. Delusion might be a choice, but true belief isn't. Belief is an instinctive reaction to what is known or not know. For the sake of argument, hypothetically, could someone that believes in God wake up one morning and choose not to? Unless his/her perspective or psychology is fundamentally influenced by something else, I don't see how that choice can be made.

I'm not saying beliefs are static and cannot change. Only that reducing it down to a simple choice is a little weird to me. "What's your favorite flavor? Vanilla? Now choose chocolate to be your favorite!" Can't see it happening, lol.

So try an experiment. As you read this, choose not to believe. Don't worry about Hell, you can simply choose to resume belief in a moment. But just try to choose non-belief, see if it is possible.

 

[GhostWriter16]

One of the biggest qualms we non-religious have with faiths such as yours. If God was apparent as you claim, choosing to not believe in God would be as difficult in choosing to not believe in one's own existence. Belief can't be chosen, one way or the other. Delusion might be a choice, but true belief isn't. Belief is an instinctive reaction to what is known or not know. For the sake of argument, hypothetically, could someone that believes in God wake up one morning and choose not to? Unless his/her perspective or psychology is fundamentally influenced by something else, I don't see how that choice can be made.

I'm not saying beliefs are static and cannot change. Only that reducing it down to a simple choice is a little weird to me. "What's your favorite flavor? Vanilla? Now choose chocolate to be your favorite!" Can't see it happening, lol.

So try an experiment. As you read this, choose not to believe. Don't worry about Hell, you can simply choose to resume belief in a moment. But just try to choose non-belief, see if it is possible.

It doesn't work like that. I can't choose unbelief because I am sealed by the Spirit.

I get that some people have intellecutually convinced themselves that the gospel is false, but I believe ultimately, by exammining its claims, you can realize that it makes sense and is true.

And if you have enough faith or facts to actually BELIEVE Christianity, even if you can't KNOW it, pray continually and ask God for the rest.

Or heck, just pray and ask God to reveal himself to you. I think if you pray sincerely enough, he'll reveal himself to you.

 

[sanabas]

The rest were never nullfiied, and are still valid.

Which verse of the Bible nullifies the death penalty for adultery?

But I think you are missing the point. The point isn't that the Old Testament is no longer valid, but that the legal system was designed for Israel, the Chosen Nation, in the Old Testament. In the modern day, we are no longer called to enforce this legal system. The reason is this: The Jews SAW GOD DO MIRACLES! They were all following God. Its not like that anymore. However, Christians are still called to live morally.

Why does seeing god do miracles mean that god's laws need to be different, or are no longer valid?

I believe in freedom of Religion.

Is worshiping the wrong God a sin? You told me all but the 4th commandment are still valid, so I have to assume yes. You also said you object to your tax dollars being used to endorse sin. So why are you ok with your tax dollars being used to endorse the sin of worshiping the wrong God, but completely against your tax dollars being used to endorse other sins, like homosexual marriage? Doesn't the Bible explicitly say that worshiping the wrong God is worse than all the other sins? Why is it wrong for the government to endorse a minor sin, but ok for them to endorse a much bigger sin?

 

[PeteAtoms]

It doesn't work like that. I can't choose unbelief because I am sealed by the Spirit.

I get that some people have intellecutually convinced themselves that the gospel is false, but I believe ultimately, by exammining its claims, you can realize that it makes sense and is true.

And if you have enough faith or facts to actually BELIEVE Christianity, even if you can't KNOW it, pray continually and ask God for the rest.

Or heck, just pray and ask God to reveal himself to you. I think if you pray sincerely enough, he'll reveal himself to you.

Someone who doesn't believe in God can't pray to a being that s/he doesn't believe and also be sincere.

And you're right. Non-belief can't be chosen. It just is. Study and reflection may nudge you one way or the other, but it isn't something you choose. There are lots of biased and influential forces that factor into the way someone reacts to religion. Boiling it down to a choice is a little provocative when you couple it with the idea of eternal Hell.

That being said, you can't choose to simply not believe, but you can certainly be scared into believing by threats of pain and sorrow.

 

[sanabas]

Only the original manuscript is inerrant, the rest are subject to error, but they were copied carefully, so the errors are minimal.

So how do you know which version is correct? In John 3:18, should it be condemned or judged? How do I work out which one it should be?

As for being condemned for not believing, de facto, but not de jure. Its like saying to a group of people who have cancer "Whoever takes this cure will not die, but whoever refuses to take the cure is already doomed to die." Now, are you dying for not taking the cure? Not really. You are dying because you have cancer. The cure is a way out.

Whoever takes the cure will eventually die too. Whoever takes this cure will not die from cancer, but might die soon from something else. Whoever does not take this cure will die within the year.

The verse doesn't say whoever believes in me will be judged on their other stuff, and condemned or saved depending on how it goes. The verse explicitly states that he who believes in me will not be condemned/judged. Seems very literal, very straightforward to me. Believe and be saved, or be condemned for not believing. There's no believe and still get condemned option there.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Which verse of the Bible nullifies the death penalty for adultery?

None. But the Civil Law of Israel no longer applies.

Why does seeing god do miracles mean that god's laws need to be different, or are no longer valid?

The thing was, everyone saw 100% evidence to convince them of belief. Therefore, for anyone to sin so blatantly would be shocking.

Is worshiping the wrong God a sin? You told me all but the 4th commandment are still valid, so I have to assume yes.

Correct.

You also said you object to your tax dollars being used to endorse sin. So why are you ok with your tax dollars being used to endorse the sin of worshiping the wrong God, but completely against your tax dollars being used to endorse other sins, like homosexual marriage? Doesn't the Bible explicitly say that worshiping the wrong God is worse than all the other sins? Why is it wrong for the government to endorse a minor sin, but ok for them to endorse a much bigger sin?

Because in religion, the government is saying "Its a religion so they get tax breaks." As long as this is done for all religions, fine. It IS a religion. In gay marriage, the government is saying "Its a marriage, so we'll give them tax breaks." The problem is, no it isn't a marriage, the government saying it is is favoring them over me. They can still get the tax breaks, but call it something other than marriage.

Someone who doesn't believe in God can't pray to a being that s/he doesn't believe and also be sincere.

If you are totally convinced he doesn't exist, probably true.

If you think he might exist, but you don't know, you can pray sincerely that God, whoever he is, if he's there, he will reveal himself to you.

And you're right. Non-belief can't be chosen. It just is. Study and reflection may nudge you one way or the other, but it isn't something you choose. There are lots of biased and influential forces that factor into the way someone reacts to religion. Boiling it down to a choice is a little provocative when you couple it with the idea of eternal Hell.

I didn't set it up.

That being said, you can't choose to simply not believe, but you can certainly be scared into believing by threats of pain and sorrow.

I believe because I want to. I have no fear.

So how do you know which version is correct? In John 3:18, should it be condemned or judged? How do I work out which one it should be?

No idea.

Whoever takes the cure will eventually die too. Whoever takes this cure will not die from cancer, but might die soon from something else. Whoever does not take this cure will die within the year.

Its called an analogy.

The verse doesn't say whoever believes in me will be judged on their other stuff, and condemned or saved depending on how it goes. The verse explicitly states that he who believes in me will not be condemned/judged. Seems very literal, very straightforward to me. Believe and be saved, or be condemned for not believing. There's no believe and still get condemned option there.

You totally missed the point.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, thanks for answering. The sex only while married rule has no moral base and is completely arbitrary. Didn't expect that level of honesty

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ok, thanks for answering. The sex only while married rule has no moral base and is completely arbitrary. Didn't expect that level of honesty

Not so. I answered the question.