toldailytopic: Are some people born predestined to go to hell?

Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Krsto said:
I don't think a terrorist can gain everlasting life. If he gets born again he won't be a terrorist any longer. For him to gain heaven along with an unrepentant terrorist does not seem fair but for him to gain heaven while an innocent child who never heard the Gospel simply ends his life in the grave does seem fair to me. A whole lot more fair than just plain life that God allows where good people die early and bad people live long enough to make it miserable for others.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that an almighty loving God can't bring everyone back into the fold even if it's longer for some than others? Do you think such negates justice, penalty and consequence overall? I would find the notion of a terrorist having the ability to find redemption on this plane whilst the bomb he set off which killed 40 children where they can't execrable, so I've no idea where your idea of 'fairness' comes from in regards to anything whether eternal or otherwise....

If you think children are innocent then why are they denied and why do you even think that's fair in itself?

:plain:
 
beloved57

beloved57

Well-known member
rainee said:
Actually, beloved, and you know I do hold you as loved and be-loved even though we are on the internet and not in each others neighborhood or something -

but actually the whole thing is starting off with What IF. Never, never would I think he wanted us to be children in our thinking when he is writing us.

What IF. This calls for (I think) a very careful approach. imho.

I think he is requiring us to have an ability to look at something in a way we were not previously accustomed to looking - BUT - it really is a thinking exercise, isn't it?
Click to expand...

You are just in denial of the Truth..
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Bible says no, but sometimes people on TOL make me think otherwise with their posts. They have seen the truth, and reject it. Makes me wonder....then I remember vanity and pride.
 
L

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hi,

It is doubtful that the children of the goats of Mat.ch 25 are going to be passed over to the sheep and their children, seeing as the children of the wicked have always been destroyed with their wicked parents in the past.

Unless of course some children of the wicked have made a decision or two which sees them with the sheep on account of it.

LA.
 
Krsto

Krsto

Well-known member
Arthur Brain said:
What makes you think that an almighty loving God can't bring everyone back into the fold even if it's longer for some than others? Do you think such negates justice, penalty and consequence overall? I would find the notion of a terrorist having the ability to find redemption on this plane whilst the bomb he set off which killed 40 children where they can't execrable, so I've no idea where your idea of 'fairness' comes from in regards to anything whether eternal or otherwise....

If you think children are innocent then why are they denied and why do you even think that's fair in itself?

:plain:
Click to expand...

Grace negates justice, penalty, and consequence overall so I couldn't argue that God couldn't bring all into the fold. If I take the Calvinist line of logic then I would say God has his reasons for not doing that and we can't question God any more than a pot can question a potter. But you know what, that principle makes sense when the stakes aren't so high, such as when Paul applied that principle to God blinding the eyes of the Israelites so they would not believe, which I believe led them to death, not eternal suffering as Calvinists believe. In your way of thinking I wouldn't be able to use that line of thinking at all since I might want to justify God not saving all men eventually.

What I see here are two extremes. Calvinists are at one end thinking God condemns who he wants to everlasting punishment without even giving them a chance for anything else. At the other end you believe God will do what leads to a joyful end for all people regardless and I suppose you believe if they reject God in this life they will in another post-mortem state be reconciled to God in a way they couldn't resist no matter what. The reason I think that is a humanistic approach is because it makes what man wants most to be God's motive. You use a parent who has lost his child as an example of how God would do what would provide the most comfort to them and I would say your good news is more attractive than my message.

Calvinism makes what God wants with no regard for what man might want to be God's only motive. In other words, he doesn't really give a damn or if he does he doesn't act on it because what he has planned for everybody is the only thing that matters and what he is going to act on. Everybody else be damned. And try not to think about it or you might get mad at God.

I occupy the middle ground. God has his reasons for giving a great gift to some and annihilating the rest. It's not necessarily the way I would have done it but it is consistant with life itself which God has seen fit that we live in for a few decades. In fact, it's more fair than life itself and I can still hold to this position and object to the unfairness of Calvinism.

Have you ever thought it was unfair that you were not born to Bill and Melinda Gates and haven't gotten the opportunity to live in that really cool house on the shores of Lake Washington? If not, why not?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Krsto said:
Grace negates justice, penalty, and consequence overall so I couldn't argue that God couldn't bring all into the fold. If I take the Calvinist line of logic then I would say God has his reasons for not doing that and we can't question God any more than a pot can question a potter. But you know what, that principle makes sense when the stakes aren't so high, such as when Paul applied that principle to God blinding the eyes of the Israelites so they would not believe, which I believe led them to death, not eternal suffering as Calvinists believe. In your way of thinking I wouldn't be able to use that line of thinking at all since I might want to justify God not saving all men eventually.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you could see it as temporal rather than eternal, after all, what was stopping you from being one of the 'blinded ones' apart from sheer good fortune and timeline? What was stopping you from being a baby who dies in or outside the womb etc by the same token? Yet you're quite happy to reap the benefits of adulthood and the subsequent reasoning you're capable of, and seem pretty much ok with even children rotting in the grave with no chance of any further existence. Are you surprised that this is somewhat contemptible to me? Or many others? Comparing something worse to your own proposition doesn't actually make your own less sickening in itself Krsto.

What I see here are two extremes. Calvinists are at one end thinking God condemns who he wants to everlasting punishment without even giving them a chance for anything else. At the other end you believe God will do what leads to a joyful end for all people regardless and I suppose you believe if they reject God in this life they will in another post-mortem state be reconciled to God in a way they couldn't resist no matter what. The reason I think that is a humanistic approach is because it makes what man wants most to be God's motive. You use a parent who has lost his child as an example of how God would do what would provide the most comfort to them and I would say your good news is more attractive than my message.
Click to expand...

Well how do you define 'rejecting'? A child can't reject anything of any magnitude dude, and I've already made no bones as to how sickening the idea of child death and such annihilation means IMO, not only in terms of the child but the nauseating idea that the parents of such are bereft of any hope unless the kid is "sanctified" by their belief....:plain:

You've made arguments as to how the doctrine of eternal suffering alienates people yet shy away from your own in regards to kids Krsto and even directly involving grieving parents.

You talk about 'extremes' as if I lay claim to a black and white world with no shades of grey. I don't. You do when you present such.

:plain:

Calvinism makes what God wants with no regard for what man might want to be God's only motive. In other words, he doesn't really give a damn or if he does he doesn't act on it because what he has planned for everybody is the only thing that matters and what he is going to act on. Everybody else be damned. And try not to think about it or you might get mad at God.
Click to expand...

Under Calvinism my nieces are either bound to eternal suffering or part of the elect. Under yours they're at the whim of fortune to even get to make a decision one way or the other. Is it any big surprise that I can't stand either of your positions even if yours might be "preferable" if it came to it? Like the lesser of two evils....:plain:

I occupy the middle ground. God has his reasons for giving a great gift to some and annihilating the rest. It's not necessarily the way I would have done it but it is consistant with life itself which God has seen fit that we live in for a few decades. In fact, it's more fair than life itself and I can still hold to this position and object to the unfairness of Calvinism.
Click to expand...

No you don't occupy the middle ground Krsto. You're as dogmatic as any Calvinist if you can't see valid objections to children being snuffed out and simply 'resting' on the notion that it's part of 'God's plan' for them never to see any further life if such challenges your belief. Aren't you lucky to even 'hold' to a position of unfairness?

:plain:

Have you ever thought it was unfair that you were not born to Bill and Melinda Gates and haven't gotten the opportunity to live in that really cool house on the shores of Lake Washington? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough no as material wealth isn't the be all and end all for me, so a poor example dude. Do I really need to go into more detail as to why there's stuff that counts for so much more?

Am I grateful I'm not starving and have clean water to drink at the turn of a tap? Yup....hardly what we're arguing about though is it?

:plain:
 
Krsto

Krsto

Well-known member
Arthur Brain said:
Or maybe you could see it as temporal rather than eternal, after all, what was stopping you from being one of the 'blinded ones' apart from sheer good fortune and timeline? What was stopping you from being a baby who dies in or outside the womb etc by the same token? Yet you're quite happy to reap the benefits of adulthood and the subsequent reasoning you're capable of, and seem pretty much ok with even children rotting in the grave with no chance of any further existence. Are you surprised that this is somewhat contemptible to me? Or many others? Comparing something worse to your own proposition doesn't actually make your own less sickening in itself Krsto.



Well how do you define 'rejecting'? A child can't reject anything of any magnitude dude, and I've already made no bones as to how sickening the idea of child death and such annihilation means IMO, not only in terms of the child but the nauseating idea that the parents of such are bereft of any hope unless the kid is "sanctified" by their belief....:plain:

You've made arguments as to how the doctrine of eternal suffering alienates people yet shy away from your own in regards to kids Krsto and even directly involving grieving parents.

You talk about 'extremes' as if I lay claim to a black and white world with no shades of grey. I don't. You do when you present such.

:plain:



Under Calvinism my nieces are either bound to eternal suffering or part of the elect. Under yours they're at the whim of fortune to even get to make a decision one way or the other. Is it any big surprise that I can't stand either of your positions even if yours might be "preferable" if it came to it? Like the lesser of two evils....:plain:



No you don't occupy the middle ground Krsto. You're as dogmatic as any Calvinist if you can't see valid objections to children being snuffed out and simply 'resting' on the notion that it's part of 'God's plan' for them never to see any further life if such challenges your belief. Aren't you lucky to even 'hold' to a position of unfairness?

:plain:



Funnily enough no as material wealth isn't the be all and end all for me, so a poor example dude. Do I really need to go into more detail as to why there's stuff that counts for so much more?

Am I grateful I'm not starving and have clean water to drink at the turn of a tap? Yup....hardly what we're arguing about though is it?

:plain:
Click to expand...

It's what I'm talking about AB because it's a good analogy. You are using the same line of reasoning atheists use to say there is no God of love because of all the suffering of little children. Yet we believe God exists so must believe the suffering of little children either falls into God's definition of fairness or it doesn't fall into his def. of fairness but he allows it anyway. You recognize God allows millions to be born into a world without clean water while others like yourself get the privileges of being born in a wealthy nation. You are glad for that, sorry for the starving Africans, but don't consider your own theology reprehensible that admits God allows such unfairness while my belief that God has an end of suffering for the starving Africans and even has a joyous end for some, in fact they are more likely to have faith than people in the rich countries, is what you call "sickening." That does surprise me.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Krsto said:
It's what I'm talking about AB because it's a good analogy. You are using the same line of reasoning atheists use to say there is no God of love because of all the suffering of little children. Yet we believe God exists so must believe the suffering of little children either falls into God's definition of fairness or it doesn't fall into his def. of fairness but he allows it anyway. You recognize God allows millions to be born into a world without clean water while others like yourself get the privileges of being born in a wealthy nation. You are glad for that, sorry for the starving Africans, but don't consider your own theology reprehensible that admits God allows such unfairness while my belief that God has an end of suffering for the starving Africans and even has a joyous end for some, in fact they are more likely to have faith than people in the rich countries, is what you call "sickening." That does surprise me.
Click to expand...

Those 'others like myself' would include you presumably, unless you've a lack of clean water and food at this point? :rolleyes:

I'm not the one arguing that the above have a life of misery and are then just snuffed out dude, and that such should be ok and acceptable in the 'greater scheme' of things to fit a dogma.

Of course 'a joyous end for some' makes the entire difference doesn't it? :cloud9:

Please get this Krsto. I am neither proud to be British or to have a convenience store at literally the end of my street. They simply happen to be...

If you get the point of the above you'll understand why I find your position contemptible. If not....

:e4e:
 
beloved57

beloved57

Well-known member
Thats one of the ways that God manifests His Saving Grace, by predestinating some to hell[vessels of wrath] and some to Glory[vessels of mercy] !
 
Krsto

Krsto

Well-known member
Arthur Brain said:
Those 'others like myself' would include you presumably, unless you've a lack of clean water and food at this point? :rolleyes:

I'm not the one arguing that the above have a life of misery and are then just snuffed out dude, and that such should be ok and acceptable in the 'greater scheme' of things to fit a dogma.

Of course 'a joyous end for some' makes the entire difference doesn't it? :cloud9:

Please get this Krsto. I am neither proud to be British or to have a convenience store at literally the end of my street. They simply happen to be...

If you get the point of the above you'll understand why I find your position contemptible. If not....

:e4e:
Click to expand...

I've worn out AB! :devil:

"They simply happen to be" is how I take the end for the unsaved. We've been talking this whole time about God actively "snuffing out" but to be more accurate I don't see God as doing anything. I don't believe he made us to be immortal beings that he has to do "something" with when we die. When the lights go out so does existance, for that soul. God doesn't have to do anything. Of course that's all by his design in the first place but it's odd you have such a strong aversion to it. Most people on this planet, like my parents, who are not theists or Hindu, just think when they die, that's it, and they are just fine with that because they accept it as "it simply happens to be," just like you accept the fact you are Brit and others are Somalis, and you didn't get to be Bill Gates' kid. But for me to suggest the same to one of them who has lost a child somehow has gotten blown out of proportion and become reprehensible. Just because God has seen fit to extend a continously joyous end to some while still allowing the inevitable cessation of life for others?

I can't say for sure what happens to the truly innocent, such as the infant or the retarded who dies, but I'm inclined to think they just end, while the guilty are actively and purposefully raised after death contrary to the natural order of things to face judgement and then once judged whatever God is doing to make that soul exist he stops doing and the soul stops existing since it has no biology to maintian it. This is portrayed in the scriptures as death and hell being cast into the lake of fire. But as we know symbols aren't the easiest to nail down what their meaning is.
 
L

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
In our time many people will not enter eternity because of other persons sins which they also follow in the paths of.

God would not have raised up Pharoah if Israel had not fallen away.

Take it for what is worth but the enemies of Christ develop among the believers hearts and minds and become real people.

LA.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Krsto said:
I've worn out AB! :devil:
Click to expand...

Au contraire sir...:plain:

"They simply happen to be" is how I take the end for the unsaved. We've been talking this whole time about God actively "snuffing out" but to be more accurate I don't see God as doing anything. I don't believe he made us to be immortal beings that he has to do "something" with when we die. When the lights go out so does existance, for that soul. God doesn't have to do anything. Of course that's all by his design in the first place but it's odd you have such a strong aversion to it. Most people on this planet, like my parents, who are not theists or Hindu, just think when they die, that's it, and they are just fine with that because they accept it as "it simply happens to be," just like you accept the fact you are Brit and others are Somalis, and you didn't get to be Bill Gates' kid. But for me to suggest the same to one of them who has lost a child somehow has gotten blown out of proportion and become reprehensible. Just because God has seen fit to extend a continously joyous end to some while still allowing the inevitable cessation of life for others?
Click to expand...

It becomes 'reprehensible' because a parents loss of a child is devastating. We're designed to not only exist but experience intense emotional bonds as well as the pain and loss when such are severed. Why do you suppose people hold out hope for those dead? A hope to be reconciled on the 'next plain', to see them again? Obviously everybody doesn't believe in such but frankly what others believe in terms of atheism or agnosticism isn't that relevant. What you describe is rather an impervious God who creates life with such capacity and then just lets the dice fall where they may in an arbitrary fashion. If you're lucky you'll live long enough to make a 'choice', if not well tough....that doesn't strike me as any sort of almighty or loving deity dude.

I can't say for sure what happens to the truly innocent, such as the infant or the retarded who dies, but I'm inclined to think they just end, while the guilty are actively and purposefully raised after death contrary to the natural order of things to face judgement and then once judged whatever God is doing to make that soul exist he stops doing and the soul stops existing since it has no biology to maintian it. This is portrayed in the scriptures as death and hell being cast into the lake of fire. But as we know symbols aren't the easiest to nail down what their meaning is.
Click to expand...

Well I'm inclined to think a loving God would actually care about those he creates which what you describe frankly doesn't. Life may as well be a game of Russian Roulette....

:e4e:
 
Quincy

Quincy

New member
I wish! I had never heard such a mélange of noise in my life :chuckle: . Words cannot express how terrible they were live. It was hell and I never saw it coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top