To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8997
8996  |  8998
Subject: 
Re: Why not Both?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:54:29 GMT
Viewed: 
415 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
Biblically - no human has any rights.
Just like the laptop that doesn't work (sin), God's righteousness (no sin)
demands that we pay for our sin. The only sufficient payment is death.
Where that "leaves us" - is destined for eternal separation from God -
punishment (hell)- if we choose it.

But therin lies the fascinating thing about God - while He is perfectly
righteous, He's also perfectly loving.

He's solved our sin problem - and paid the price for our sins Himself, when we
couldn't.

That's the basic Biblical interpretation.

And really, here's where we get to the problem as I personally regard it.
Why? Because for me, in order for me to have faith in a universalist
religious system, things like morality (sins, etc) must be dealt with
fairly. For me. I think I went into this in another thread. Basically, I
have the right to be treated the same as others, when equal. Or at least to
say that I have the same rights as others with respect to our similaritites.
I.E. God/morality/whatever, MUST be 'fair', mainly because that is the
nature of a universalist religious belief.

I think the example I used last time is getting into heaven-- or really,
God's judgement of a person. If Joe and Bob are twins, they have the same
faith, same beliefs, same everything, can God judge one to be evil and one
to be good? Can He condemn one of them to heaven and the other to hell? Is
He allowed to do that? Certainly, if we had NO rights, God would be able to
do that. And you're perfectly welcome to say that God could. But I honestly
can't say that I'd respect a God that DID, and further, I couldn't respect a
God that COULD.

DaveE



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) In effect what you are doing here is inventing you're own God. Because the God of the Bible DOESN'T fit what you'd like him to be, you decide that you cannot believe in that God. From whence did you get any rights you may have? I believe in (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) Biblically - no human has any rights. Just like the laptop that doesn't work (sin), God's righteousness (no sin) demands that we pay for our sin. The only sufficient payment is death. Where that "leaves us" - is destined for eternal separation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

88 Messages in This Thread:




























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR