CenterBHSFan;744864 wrote:Perhaps the same reason the monarchs of old (and current monarchs) always referred to themselves as "us and we" when giving speeches, writing letters, dictating laws?
I don't know, but conjecturing is fun!

Ah, the royal plurality (aka the "royal we")! I tend to lean this way.

Bigred1995;744873 wrote:What are your views about the idea that Asherah was the wife of the Christian God and that she was worshiped along side of him?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42154769/ns/technology_and_science-science/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sw-NFvueK8

The notion of a deity's female counterpart in ancient cultures was much more common than strict monotheism, and that probably played into the writings, as well as the practices of some Jews (as documented in many ancient Hebrew writings, the Jews appeared to be very open to syncretism at times). I know the Akkadians referenced her (or at least, I think they do) as a benevolent divine presence.

However, I don't know of any any ancient Hebrew Scriptural texts which paint Asherah as anything but an idol (I know she's condemned in the same breath as Ba'al, but really, that's it).

I'm a bit tied up working or I'd do a little more digging, but might you be a little more clear as to where or how she is specifically mentioned as God's "wife" or even a benevolent female deity in ancient Hebrew writing? My focus in university was admittedly ancient Hebrew literature between 600 BCE and about 100 CE (particularly the non-biblical writings as a part of the Pseudepigrapha), so my focus was a little later than we're talking, which was more around the time of Mesopotamia's power, I'd imagine.

O-Trap;744880 wrote:The notion of a deity's female counterpart in ancient cultures was much more common than strict monotheism, and that probably played into the writings, as well as the practices of some Jews (as documented in many ancient Hebrew writings, the Jews appeared to be very open to syncretism at times). I know the Akkadians referenced her (or at least, I think they do) as a benevolent divine presence.

However, I don't know of any any ancient Hebrew Scriptural texts which paint Asherah as anything but an idol (I know she's condemned in the same breath as Ba'al, but really, that's it).

I'm a bit tied up working or I'd do a little more digging, but might you be a little more clear as to where or how she is specifically mentioned as God's "wife" or even a benevolent female deity in ancient Hebrew writing? My focus in university was admittedly ancient Hebrew literature between 600 BCE and about 100 CE (particularly the non-biblical writings as a part of the Pseudepigrapha), so my focus was a little later than we're talking, which was more around the time of Mesopotamia's power, I'd imagine.

Honestly, I've only briefly heard about it and saw the links I posted; so, I'm not up to date on the entire story yet. I figured if anyone knew more about it, you would.

Bigred1995;744887 wrote:Honestly, I've only briefly heard about it and saw the links I posted; so, I'm not up to date on the entire story yet. I figured if anyone knew more about it, you would.

I did take a few classes in college that discussed ancient religions that might have had culteral influences on the Hebrew people (the curious monotheists of the time). In any literature I've seen, I haven't read that name in a positive light.

Contrarily, there are many bits that emphasize that Yehvah was the "one-and-only" real god (see 1 Kings 8, somewhere late in the chapter).

But I don't at all suggest that there may have been some syncretistic Hebrew people that worshipped her. Hell, all throughout the Prophet genre, the Hebrew people get ripped a new one for continually worshipping other gods and idols, so it wouldn't be a surprise.

Heretic;744828 wrote:I thought the best part of S&G was how Lot's idea on how to solve the problem of dudes wanting to hump angels was to try pimping his daughters off on them. And he was the good guy worth saving. "Man, this guy is so determined to protect god's angels that he just signed his girls up for a 24-hour bukkake-o-rama in an attempt to distract everyone! HIS FAMILY LIVES!!!!"

The Old Testament's awesome.

I Wear Pants;744849 wrote:"No no no, don't rape those angels. Rape my daughters instead."

O-Trap;744858 wrote:Maybe he thought that since the men were all up for some good ol'-fashioned guy-on-guy action, that they would refuse the daughters?

Hell, I don't know. Either way, it was not one of Lot's brighter moments.

Lot wasn't a good guy by any means- he was spared for Abraham's sake, as Gen. 19:29 suggests: "God remembered Abraham" by sparing pretty much his only surviving relative at the time. Lot seemed to like the surroundings of Sodom & Gomorrah, since he basically had to be dragged out of the cities before they were wiped out.

jhay78;744917 wrote:Lot wasn't a good guy by any means- he was spared for Abraham's sake, as Gen. 19:29 suggests: "God remembered Abraham" by sparing pretty much his only surviving relative at the time. Lot seemed to like the surroundings of Sodom & Gomorrah, since he basically had to be dragged out of the cities before they were wiped out.

His wife seemed to share that sentiment.



#LMFAOPILLAROFSALTFAIL!!!1!!11!

O-Trap;744117 wrote:The words I highlighted are words of volition. They are choices. Atheists, by definition, do not reject God/god/Vishnu/etc. by choice. They are simply convinced he isn't real. If they came to realize he was, that changes things.

I Wear Pants;744651 wrote: It's not that they somehow don't want to believe in God, it's that they don't. Much like you didn't wake up one day and say "I want to believe in God". Because if you did that with matters of faith you'd only be lying to yourself.

Atheists don't deny God, they don't believe in him/aren't convinced by the people who tell them about him.

It's a group of people that say "wait a minute, I don't think what you said adds up". Not a group of people that said "God, heaven? No, screw that".

I didn't mean to use "reject" in the sense that you stated, "God, heaven? No, screw that."

I meant reject as in that sense AND/OR that they aren't convinced. To me, if you aren't convinced, it's still "rejecting" God. There are atheist who straight up reject God, but there are others who are so staunchly against any "proof" someone may have that it's still a "rejection."

O-Trap;744822 wrote:I think the contention is the word "spite."......... I think the issue was "spite."

Smite... Spite.... Dead IS dead..

[video=youtube;bar3GOzDNzg][/video]

OSH;744986 wrote:I didn't mean to use "reject" in the sense that you stated, "God, heaven? No, screw that."

I meant reject as in that sense AND/OR that they aren't convinced. To me, if you aren't convinced, it's still "rejecting" God. There are atheist who straight up reject God, but there are others who are so staunchly against any "proof" someone may have that it's still a "rejection."

Do you "reject" the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And what "proof" do you have? Wouldn't "proof" negate the requirement faith?

OSH;744986 wrote:I didn't mean to use "reject" in the sense that you stated, "God, heaven? No, screw that."

I meant reject as in that sense AND/OR that they aren't convinced. To me, if you aren't convinced, it's still "rejecting" God. There are atheist who straight up reject God, but there are others who are so staunchly against any "proof" someone may have that it's still a "rejection."

If I "reject" something, it is a choice. It is a volitional action I make. I may reject the notion that God exists based on the fact that I think it's untrue. But my thinking it is untrue isn't a rejection.

If I disbelieve, but in the end I find out I'm wrong, I may very well still want to take part. Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I don't want to. Conversely, just because I do believe in something doesn't mean I do want to.

So it's conceivable to imagine that someone that doesn't believe would still want to take part if they came to find they were wrong.

O-Trap;744852 wrote:Here's a fun one for discussion:

The writer of Genesis penned that God said (during creation):
"Let us make man in our image ..."

Does this refer to any sort of multi-faceted element of God, such as the Trinity doctrine? If so, then why did the writer and the people of God not believe or even consider any such idea about God? There is no reference to, or evidence of, the Hebrew people knowing of any kind of trinitarian view, but they penned, studied, and debated over the Septuagint for hundreds of years.

CenterBHSFan;744864 wrote:Perhaps the same reason the monarchs of old (and current monarchs) always referred to themselves as "us and we" when giving speeches, writing letters, dictating laws?

I've got to leave for a while, but just a short note saying that there's reasons that the practice of "we" has been and is used.

To me, it's simple usage of traditional grammar rules. The term for god/gods is "elohim" (אֱלהִי&#1501. They often used "elohim" to just mean God. There were several other terms that were used, but not as much, such as "el" (אֱ&#1500.

So if I used a term that was plural already, I wouldn't put a singular pronoun with it.

O-Trap;744897 wrote:Contrarily, there are many bits that emphasize that Yehvah was the "one-and-only" real god (see 1 Kings 8, somewhere late in the chapter).

I am going to pick you you a little here O-Trap. Mainly because I have a little bit of a Hebrew background and I got annoyed by a lot of the same stuff as my Hebrew professor(s) did -- only once I learned stuff.

The bolded and underlined term is VERY bastardized. The "Tetragrammaton" (yod hey vav hey -- put in spelling so that we know how to properly pronounce it) is the most holy word in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew people would often not read the term, it was seen as God's personal name and they were not holy enough to call Him by His name. So whenever they would come across YHWH in the people would read "adonai" (אֲדֹנָי or "lord") instead.

The original text didn't incorporate vowel points either. So when the scribes went back through to incorporate vowel points, they incorporated the vowel points from "adonai" into the Tetragrammaton -- they did this because it was still holy and they wrote it as it was supposed to be spoken. This caused a big bastardization in Christianity -- Jehovah, and any other number of misspellings/faiths. As it was written, it would be "Yehowah." So people started pronouncing it "Jehovah." I hate it. And many other Hebrew-language people dislike it too -- it was never meant to be that.

Sorry about my rant, but I saw you posted it a couple of times...I thought maybe it was a misspelling the first time or something. But I just wanted to share my annoyance a little with the term. I always use YHWH, or Yahweh (which is what Hebrew people think was the original term with the correct vowel points). This whole bastardization caused the Jehovah's Witnesses to sort of come into being and cause a big conflict in faiths with Christians.

Thread Bomber;744988 wrote:Smite... Spite.... Dead IS dead..

I concur.

OSH;745013 wrote:To me, it's simple usage of traditional grammar rules. The term for god/gods is "elohim" (אֱלהִי&#1501. They often used "elohim" to just mean God. There were several other terms that were used, but not as much, such as "el" (אֱ&#1500.

My Hebrew is rusty (though I took several semesters, and my first lizard pet was named "Melek" ), but isn't singular for god "elohai?" (sp?)

OSH;745013 wrote:I am going to pick you you a little here O-Trap. Mainly because I have a little bit of a Hebrew background and I got annoyed by a lot of the same stuff as my Hebrew professor(s) did -- only once I learned stuff.

The bolded and underlined term is VERY bastardized. The "Tetragrammaton" (yod hey vav hey -- put in spelling so that we know how to properly pronounce it) is the most holy word in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew people would often not read the term, it was seen as God's personal name and they were not holy enough to call Him by His name. So whenever they would come across YHWH in the people would read "adonai" (אֲדֹנָי or "lord") instead.

Call it laziness or an appeal to the vulgar, I suppose. I am aware of the tradition surrounding the word, though.

OSH;745013 wrote:The original text didn't incorporate vowel points either. So when the scribes went back through to incorporate vowel points, they incorporated the vowel points from "adonai" into the Tetragrammaton -- they did this because it was still holy and they wrote it as it was supposed to be spoken. This caused a big bastardization in Christianity -- Jehovah, and any other number of misspellings/faiths. As it was written, it would be "Yehowah." So people started pronouncing it "Jehovah." I hate it. And many other Hebrew-language people dislike it too -- it was never meant to be that.

It irks me too to see "Jehovah." It's just easier to put in the sheva and qamets, I suppose.

For what it's worth, I think I learned about the lack of vowels in the original text in the first class of first-level Hebrew. Later in the year, we had to do a paper on a potential mistranslation because of it. I chose "yam suph" vv. "yam soph."

OSH;745013 wrote:Sorry about my rant, but I saw you posted it a couple of times...I thought maybe it was a misspelling the first time or something. But I just wanted to share my annoyance a little with the term. I always use YHWH, or Yahweh (which is what Hebrew people think was the original term with the correct vowel points). This whole bastardization caused the Jehovah's Witnesses to sort of come into being and cause a big conflict in faiths with Christians.

You won't ever see me use "Jehovah," I assure you. I recognize that using any vowels at all is not textually accurate, but it's easier thn sddnly tpng lk ths.

OSH;744986 wrote:I didn't mean to use "reject" in the sense that you stated, "God, heaven? No, screw that."

I meant reject as in that sense AND/OR that they aren't convinced. To me, if you aren't convinced, it's still "rejecting" God. There are atheist who straight up reject God, but there are others who are so staunchly against any "proof" someone may have that it's still a "rejection."

I don't get this.

Do you "reject" other faiths or do you just not believe in them? I mean, if when you die you came to find that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real and was benevolent and gave you the same things in heaven would you not want to take part simply because you didn't believe in it? And should you be punished for not believing in it?

On a light note, here's Melek and I :

I guess I use one of these other definitions for "reject."

To me, it is completely feasible to use: "to discard as useless or unsatisfactory" which is the 4th definition in the linked dictionary. Atheists may seem that the Christian definition of God is "unsatisfactory" so they completely discard the notion of Him.

Why wouldn't it be completely reasonable to say, I didn't believe in it now...why should I be granted eternity when I come "face-to-face" with God? If I believe Him to be untrue, why would I be lucky enough to be in Heaven for my afterlife?

I don't view it as a punishment. I view it as a choice. I choose to believe in God. I choose to live my life accordingly. In the end, I choose Heaven. OR, I choose not to believe in God (for whatever reason). I choose to live my life as such, whatever that life may be. In the end, I choose to not go to Heaven where the God that I chose not to believe in, is.

Because you were a good damned person. What about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? Would they all go to hell simply because they don't believe in one specific man-written book? How is that just?

If God is supposed to be just then how can he damn eternally a person who lived a good life but was not convinced by other men that God/the Bible is true? You don't choose to believe in matters of faith, I mean that's like saying you choose to believe/not believe in the boogeyman, Santa, etc. When you're a child you don't really choose to believe in those things you just do. And once you see evidence/start to believe otherwise it can be quite difficult to reverse that course. Now it's not a perfect parallel because we know for a fact that those two examples don't exist but the point remains.

True belief or disbelief isn't a choice.

And that's not what most Atheists do. They just don't believe, it's not like they necessarily dislike the notion or idea of God, they are just not convinced based on what they've been told/their own analysis.

I Wear Pants;745138 wrote:Because you were a good damned person. What about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? Would they all go to hell simply because they don't believe in one specific man-written book? How is that just?

I think you're confusing equality with justice, which can lead to some confusion. People can be treated inequitably without being treated unfairly. E.g., imagine a situation where I punch someone, and then you also punch someone. The judge decides to punish me with 60 hours of community service, while he simply scolds you. We're not being treated equally--I'm being treated more harshly--but can I really say that the judge is being unjust toward me? I'm getting exactly the punishment that I deserve. The mere fact that someone else who is also guilty is shown mercy doesn't somehow negate my guilt or make it incumbent upon the judge to show mercy to me, too. I get exactly what I deserve.

That's the general underpinning here. It absolutely appears to be the case that God treats people inequitably when some go to heaven and others don't. It does not follow that God isn't being unfair; we all deserve hell, and if he shows mercy toward some of us, that doesn't mean he's being unjust toward the others. Make sense?

Yes and know. I understand what you said, I just think that anyone/thing/whatever you want to call a God that would do that would be an asshole. I don't think God is an asshole ergo I think being a good person and living a good life is far more important to getting into heaven than which Church you do/don't go to.

I Wear Pants;745138 wrote:Because you were a good damned person.

Whose definition of "good" are we using, and how "good" is "good enough?"

The idea of heaven is that perfection exists throughout, meaning not only is it a perfect place, but you essentially have to be perfect to exist there.

The problem: No human is perfect, and imperfection ultimately deserves distruction/death/an existence completely devoid of any level of good, even to minutia ... the other destination in the dichotomy.

The solution: God provided a circumstance in which the perfect endured the punishment deserved by the imperfect, so that the imperfect could have the end deserved only by the perfect ... "substitutionary" in a very literal sense.

Perfect deserves perfect. Imperfect deserves imperfect (which, in a dichotomy, is the complete opposite of perfection). The perfect took on what the imperfect deserves so that the imperfect could take on what the perfect deserves. Provided a way to "trade lines." As such, all you have to do is accept that option (which, for what it is worth, is more than simply believing it to be true).

I Wear Pants;745138 wrote:What about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc? Would they all go to hell simply because they don't believe in one specific man-written book? How is that just?

In all actuality, the imperfect receiving perfection would be unjust, technically. The fact that we get what we deserve isn't unjust. The fact that some of us accept the mercy allowing us to defy justice, while maybe unjust, is unjust in a merciful way.

Hell (Hades/Sheol/the antithesis of anything good and pure) is the payment for the debt incurred by living an imperfect life. The provision God has made doesn't erase the debt. It pays it on our behalf. As such, the debt incurred is always paid, which is the epitomy of justice. The mercy comes when consideration has been given to allow us to accept someone else's offer to pay the debt. However, someone else not believing that debt exists or not believing that someone hasn't provided an alternative doesn't cancel the debt or make it go away. The debt is still there, and while it sucks that many might not believe they owe this debt, that doesn't make it any less just that they have to pay it.

I Wear Pants;745138 wrote:If God is supposed to be just then how can he damn eternally a person who lived a good life but was not convinced by other men that God/the Bible is true?

Because he doesn't erase what is owed. What a man owes is always paid, which again is fundamental to the concept of "justice." If all men went to hell, simply because they deserved it, God would be fully just in doing so. It is because God is also merciful that he has allowed for an alternative to paying that debt and has made it accessible to everyone, regardless of whether or not someone finds it acceptable to believe.

I Wear Pants;745138 wrote:You don't choose to believe in matters of faith, I mean that's like saying you choose to believe/not believe in the boogeyman, Santa, etc. When you're a child you don't really choose to believe in those things you just do. And once you see evidence/start to believe otherwise it can be quite difficult to reverse that course. Now it's not a perfect parallel because we know for a fact that those two examples don't exist but the point remains.

True belief or disbelief isn't a choice.

Agreed. As I said before, if I offered to pay you a million dollars even (before I said a hundred) to believe I had a fully-grown, purple elephant living in my back pocket, you could want, try, and claim to believe me ... but you wouldn't actually believe it.

If I chose to try not to believe that the weight-supporting beam in my basement wasn't at all secure, but there was an earthquake while I was down there, I'd probably grab onto it expecting it to hold me.

I can tell you what I profess, but my actions will show you what I believe.

I Wear Pants;745138 wrote:And that's not what most Atheists do. They just don't believe, it's not like they necessarily dislike the notion or idea of God, they are just not convinced based on what they've been told/their own analysis.

Correct. The same is the case for most worldviews.

I Wear Pants;745151 wrote:Yes and know. I understand what you said, I just think that anyone/thing/whatever you want to call a God that would do that would be an asshole. I don't think God is an asshole ergo I think being a good person and living a good life is far more important to getting into heaven than which Church you do/don't go to.

Basing it on "good" assumes basing it on a spectrum. However, absoute perfection doesn't have degrees.

Very good points. I just don't like the idea that people who are good (using a general term for not stealing, killing, being a nice person, helping people, etc) are forever damned. I think that the dichotomy between "you need to be perfect or believe what we tell you to or else you'll burn forever" is a little bit too convenient for the purposes of the Church for it to be true.

Plus I don't like that a lot of people's explanations of who does and doesn't get into heaven/hell do so in a way that makes is sound like "those are the rules, God didn't make them, he just follows them".

I Wear Pants;745177 wrote:Very good points. I just don't like the idea that people who are good (using a general term for not stealing, killing, being a nice person, helping people, etc) are forever damned.

I have yet to meet a Christian who doesn't share this sentiment very strongly. It actually makes me angry sometimes. Not at God. Not necessarily at humanity, either, as at this point, there's no sense in it. Just at the situation. I hate it, and I know most others share that.

I Wear Pants;745177 wrote:I think that the dichotomy between "you need to be perfect or believe what we tell you to or else you'll burn forever" is a little bit too convenient for the purposes of the Church for it to be true.

Trust me, I don't see it as convenient at all. I hate it, honestly. To most, it's like an evil reality. It sucks. We hate it. But if the world is created by a perfect God to be a perfect place, it doesn't seem that difficult to fathom the notion that even the smallest imperfection (more than just ethical, too) turned what was intended to be pure perfection no longer was.

I Wear Pants;745177 wrote:Plus I don't like that a lot of people's explanations of who does and doesn't get into heaven/hell do so in a way that makes is sound like "those are the rules, God didn't make them, he just follows them".

I don't like it, either, and that kind of mentality is somewhat ignorant, I think.

What I mean is that I think the dichotomy was made up for the purposes of the Church. I'm not one that scoffs at people who are devout or anything like that. But I think there's an incredible amount of pure bullshit involved with religion that makes it hard for me to truly feel what I think could be true. Hard to cut through the fog to see the light if you will.

I Wear Pants;745202 wrote:What I mean is that I think the dichotomy was made up for the purposes of the Church.

Actually, that was LONG before any semblance of a "church" (by long, I mean several hundred years at minimum ... depending on when you believe a "church" was organized). It's really not that difficult to see, though, when going to even Old Testament works, which FAR pre-dated any church, and was written by a people who didn't generally use it in salvific terms. Salvation was more ethnic than anything, but they still recognized a dichotomy between the perfection of YHVH (for you, OSH ) and the imperfection of all people, themselves included ... see any one of the writings from the Prophets genre for examples.

In reality, the notion of a sliding scale of morality determining salvation didn't even really arrive until late in the Second Temple period, and even then, the ethnic origin was still factored in. I often wonder if it was done to allow people to simply be comfortable with their lives, but I don't know. It was probably an evolutionary process, as most elements of a worldview tend to be.

I Wear Pants;745202 wrote:I'm not one that scoffs at people who are devout or anything like that. But I think there's an incredible amount of pure bullshit involved with religion that makes it hard for me to truly feel what I think could be true. Hard to cut through the fog to see the light if you will.

I do agree that there is a lot about the modern Christian worldview that inhibits belief. I can sympathize, as they kept me from seeing it as a reality for quite some time, so I won't at all disagree with you.

Below sums up the original question about as simply as one could put it.

How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Dr. J. Vernon McGee
The Bible doesn't say that a loving God sends anyone to hell, and yet they do go to hell. But they don't go there because God sends them; it's the only place for those who have rejected Jesus Christ and have no capacity for God whatsoever.

When you say that He's a loving God, you've only described one part of God. God also is righteous and just and holy. And if you think that you can violate all the different attributes of God and then depend on His love to save you, you're entirely wrong. You cannot insult and blaspheme God. He's told us that we're sinners and cannot come into His presence, if we are not seeking after God, we are alienating ourselves from Him.

Do you think He's going to bring you into His presence when you have ignored Him and turned your back upon Him? No, He is a holy God. He had to give His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and if you're going to reject the only way He could work out your salvation then you must understand that this is the place for you.

Don't say that a loving God sends people to hell. Say that there is a holy God, and when you do not meet His standard you cannot go into His heaven where He is. That ought to be very obvious to you. In your home I'm sure that you have a standard and there are certain people that you would not let come in. God does the same thing. You have to meet His standard if you're going to heaven.

There's only one place for the lost who have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and that's with the devil and his demons. Don't say that a loving God is going to send you to hell - He's not. The thing that's going to send you to hell is that you're a sinner and you don't want to admit it. That's the problem with the human family. It's a self will, a desire to want to go their way. Yet God has provided a way for you to come. And any time you want to make the turn, a loving God will save you.