Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Mars Man]

Well put there Revenant chan, if I may say so myself ! That fits right in with the purpose of the 'Biblical Texts' thread's being understood (at least in my mind) as running parallel to this one, as well as with the intent in that thread as pointed out in the second and third paragraphs on the first post of that thread.

In agreeing--and I do agree--that the overall, general message in the synoptics (not the work entitled to John though) is not really altered by these misquotes and misremembered events, I would not wish it to be misconstrued that I agree the message has to be totally true. A number of other points yet untouched on, come in to play there. But you have put it well here, Revenant. Has 'cool' changed?

 

[Pararousia]

Good Morning

Yes, Sabro, you are right, I do view the world through a God-filter as you do, my brother!

Then I am a fool and will remain so. I can just as easily argue that all the universe reveals that Fact there is no God. It is no good debating the fact whether or not it exists with two very opposing views. I see no evidence what so ever to back the fact there is any God, Gods or Goddesses. Meanwhile you see everything to prove the fact there is a god. Your view is just a valid as mine. The only time we will definetly find out if one is right and the other is wrong is when we die. Only the dead know the truth, and they aren't saying much

I agree with the jist of what you are saying there, Mycernius. I would argue that the Bible and Creation itself proves God exists, but as you say, we'll find out who is right when we die! For me either way will work out fine, for you, I'm sorry to say, it may not.

Tsuyoiko, don't expect me to apologise for what the Bible says is true. I've been called worse in this forum for my opinion and views.

Then, essentially you're saying every one of us non-believers is a fool. & in how far would such a stance open anyone's mind up to ideas of Christianity, in your opinion?

Bossel, The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'." (Ps 14:1) I would not interpret that to mean all non-believers because we all start out as non-believers. I think the verse is specifically speaking to atheists. The passage goes on to say "all have turned aside, they have altogether become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Because we cannot achieve our own righteousness, we need a God to provide a Way to Himself--this was done through Jesus Christ's vicarious and atoning death on the cross and resurrection.

Now, Mars Man, as Mycernius tactfully implied, we will have to agree to disagree. What you hold as "fact" -- I do not! I have been a Christian for 36+ years--I've seen too many God-things, I've experienced too much of God's grace to be so foolish as to think He is not Who He says He is. As I have repeatedly said before, I see the power of God in how the scripture was penned through His servants and preserved the past 5000+ years.

So, Pararousia, I would like to talk about it and discuss it in a reasonable, honest, truthful, and fair manner; open-mindedly. Of course I know how you reason and believe, for the most part, but I have ample evidence that says that you are in error. Would you not be willing and eager to carry on discussion so as to precisely clarify just how it is that the greater portion of facts underlying this topic most reasonably, honestly, and fairly uphold your position? This is what I am offering you, the chance to 'bring me back to Christ', if in fact, you are actually of that mind, and wish to do it correctly--no magical one-sentence claims with a 'and that's that' summary, however--you have to provide the evidence, the arguments, completely. (by 'completely' I mean that if there is error in the facts and arguments made, those will firstly have to be cleared)

So, how is it that we could discuss ANY issue when we can't agree on a basic issue--is the Bible true or not? My arguments will come from what the Bible says; your arguments will consist of trying to persuade me that the Bible isn't true. Where will that get us? No where. I stated my position about the inspiration and authority of the Scripture in several posts here and in the other thread(s); I still hold that the Bible is the God-breathed Word to man.

And *laughing* I am not so delusional as to think I can "bring you back to Christ". First of all, it's God's job to save people, and 2ndly, in my opinion, you fall squarely into Hebrews 10:29. Please don't try and "bait" me.

*waves*

 

[Doc]

While some of Mars Man's posts are a bit beyond me, given some of the obvious points of contention between the gospels concerning the very same events, there would obviously have to be a few historical errors, as both narratives simply can't be correct, although the contradictions that I see do not take away from the overall message of the gospels.

I think it just goes to show that not everything in the Old Testament was or is set in stone. Take the ten plauges from the Exodus for example. Originally there were only seven beause seven is considered a holy number. Then there was eight as one plauge was added in by the Elohist. Finally we come to ten plauges where the last two that were added in are nothing but doublets. Yet even that does not prove that it was set in stone. If you go through the book of Pslams you see passage after passage of different accounts and concepts of the plauges from the Exodus. Each writer had a different point of view and reasoning when writing the passages. However, that does not mean that the Old Testament is not historically accurate. There are some instances where it is and then others where it is not. The reasoning for this is because each writer was trying to explain the occurances and situations during their time period. Due to this, there are many things that are inaccurate, but others that are. You just have to remember that not all the writers were on the same page so to speak because they all came at different time periods.

You must also keep in mind that anything before the Jahwist and Court Chrnoiclor game into play anything to do with the Old Testament was nothing but oral tradition (which was apocolyptic, arcahic, and superstitious), and even that did not stop during the time of the other writers as well. Jesus spoke in parables because they were easy to remember, and trying to write it down was expensive and hard to come by with people. So certain stories naturally change with each telling as the Old Testament and New Testament show us. However, that does not exclude the fact that The Bible is dateble. As a matter of fact it is the only religious text that is datable and has some historical significance to it as well. The only advice I have for people is to read between the lines when studying The Bible because you have a better understanding of what the writers' messages were during their respective time periods.

Doc :wave:

 

[Mars Man]

A big hello to all on this rather warm for an end-of-November Monday morning here on the 'roof of Japan' !!

Pararousia, thanks for your response; it was well written.

Please allow me to highlight, in the event that you missed it as you read over my #273 post, that I am interested in communicating with you again on the details of this subject. Again, 'the details of the Bible'. It is for that reason, that your recent statement, as follows, is flawed:

"So, how is it that we could discuss ANY issue when we can't agree on a basic issue--is the Bible true or not? My arguments will come from what the Bible says;..."

It is what the Bible itself says, that we are discussing, is it not? My arguments have come from what the Bible says, have they not? Are you in a position to accuse me of being untruthful here, on this point? You see, Pararousia san, it is for this reason that your statement is flawed. And I am thankful that you are likely willing to discuss the matter of whether what the Bible says (and I'm of course taking this in the absolute for now) is true or not, since your arguments come from what the Bible says.

Now, I will admit that I've not yet looked over at the 'Origins of Grace' thread yet, but will do so fairly soon. For now, however, I'd like to seek your explanation on a different matter--one related to what the Bible says.

In your #274 post, you said, and I quote from within that context, "And, yes, I believe the. . .Old and New Testaments, are the God-breathed word revealed to man in the original autographs. . . without historic error and very few manuscript errors, none of which affect our doctrine." In the statement above, and correct me if I am wrong, you are logically including the implied statement that one tenent of doctrine, namely that the Bible is without historical error, is not affected by the some 30,000 different readings (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, by M.M.Parvis; Vol 4, pp594-595) nor, by extension, the generally deduced recensions we today have, right? And you are claiming to know that the NT, for now, for example, is without historical error, correct? In answer to that I present the following:

If there is no historical error contained in what the Bible says, then how can one explain how it was that on the morning of Nisan 14 (the Jewish day was from sundown to sundown) in the year 30~33 CE, Jeshua was both hanging impaled on a stake AND standing in judgement before Pilate at Gabbatha, at around noon of that day? (Lk 23:44 [cf Mt & Mk] .vs. Jn 19:13,14)

How can one explain Peter's both denying Jeshua a third time before a rooster crowed for the first time on that day, and after a rooster had crowed for the first time on that day? (Lk 22:34 [cf Mt & Jn] .vs.Mk 14:30,72)

How can one explain Jeshua's foretelling of the supposed event, a surely memoriable matter that would hardly be repeated twice within such a short time frame, in both the upper room, AND on the way to Gethsemane? (Mt 26:30 [cf Mk] .vs. Lk 22:31-34, 39 [cf Jn]) And just what were the circumstances of that conversation, and the words spoken? (Mt 26:20~30, 31~35 [cf Mk 14: 17~26, 27~31 Lk 22:14~31~34 and cross-compare Jn 13:2~30, 31~35, 36~38)

How can one explain Mary Magdalene's going to Jeshua's tomb while it was still dark, and finding the stone rolled away at that time, AND going back again after the sun had risen with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, and talking about who would roll away the stone for them, as if Mary Magdalene didn't know that it had alread been rolled away? (Jn 20:1 .vs. Mk 16:1~3 [cf Lk] And there are many more questions to come after we have discussed these !

Pararousia, this is what the Bible says, and we are discussing what the Bible says here. Also, it is without a doubt that these are renderings of what was to have happened which makes them claims of historical knowledge--eg knowing what had happened, and reporting it as such, history. And, Pararousia, I just can't see how these are not historical errors !

 

[No-name]

I read each of those passages and I don't see a problem. It will take some time to respond, and I don't think I am the right person to do it, but there really does not seem to be discrepancies where you indicated. It is just too bad I can't hoodwink one of my pastor friends to respond for me- as the explanations for each would take up quite a bit of time and space.

 

[Mars Man]

Good evening there sabro san !! It's always good to hear from you, and see that you are thinking about these matters.

May I offer the suggestion that we look at these together, with all those interested, one by one, on the 'Biblical Texts' thread, then do the 'summary-like discussion here on this one (or there, even). The concept is to simple keep the catagories fitting--I think you know what I mean.

I have already put the first one in post #138, on page six of that thread--the first one being that one about the sixth hour and where the various reports claim Jeshua was to have been at that point in time on that day.

I look forward to discussing it with you, and others. I hope you, Pararousia san, also check it out and having thought about it very carefully, open yourself for discussion on it if you have any other realistic angle.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Our basic premise of God will continue to provide us with truth to fill in those gaps, to answer the unanswered questions, to meet the needs of a hungry homosapien mind.

A healthy approach, IMO. I admit I have gaps - they get slowly filled with new stuff I learn. I don't mind the gaps, you like something to put in them, we're both happy!

Then, essentially you're saying every one of us non-believers is a fool. & in how far would such a stance open anyone's mind up to ideas of Christianity, in your opinion

You have a point there Bossel. My friend Grace's approach is to talk about the happiness she derives from her faith - an effective and non-jugmental means of conveying its value, IMO

First of all, it's God's job to save people, and 2ndly, in my opinion, you fall squarely into Hebrews 10:29.

That's one of the great difficulties for me - the idea of punishment. An atheist might be a 'fool' in your eyes, but he is unlikely to think that a good person is going to suffer punishment just because he doesn't believe. If someone lives a life in service of others, if he loves his family and friends, and is kind and tolerant towards strangers, yet he does not believe in god, Hebrews 10:29 says he will suffer punishment. IMO, living a good life should be an end in itself, not a means to eternal life.

My arguments will come from what the Bible says; your arguments will consist of trying to persuade me that the Bible isn't true

Mars Man's opinions, Mycernius' and mine, have come in part from our studies of the Bible. Speaking for myself, I have studied the Bible, I have studied other religions, history, science. My conclusions come from all these studies. I think Sabro's outlook is admirable - he is a believer, but his open-mindedness to other studies has given him a tolerant attitude towards non-believers. I'm interested to know what you have learnt from your studies outside the Bible.

And as it says in Luke, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"

 

[No-name]

I listen, I read, I watch... and I am well aware of my bias. Exploration of ideas is a true joy in life.

 

[Pararousia]

Greetings in the Name of Jesus Christ of Narareth!

First in reply to Marsy:

It is what the Bible itself says, that we are discussing, is it not? My arguments have come from what the Bible says, have they not? Are you in a position to accuse me of being untruthful here, on this point?

From my point of view, you are untruthful or in error in claiming that the Bible is a work of man, not of God. Every thing you say after that is of no consequence to me.

And you are claiming to know that the NT, for now, for example, is without historical error, correct?

Yes. I?fm glad you are reading what I type now.

...] And there are many more questions to come after we have discussed these !

Again, we have a very different filter on our eyes and mind. All of the above I understand perfectly in context of the different cultures, calendars and individuals who penned the words. I will not argue with you. I have to be mindful of Matthew 7:6 because you have rejected the claims of Christ in your life and you are attempting to treat that which is precious as cheap and worthless. (And, Sabro, I would encourage you to be mindful of the same.)

And, Pararousia, I just can't see how these are not historical errors !

And we both know why that is.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
And now Miss Tsuyoiko...

That's one of the great difficulties for me - the idea of punishment. An atheist might be a 'fool' in your eyes, but he is unlikely to think that a good person is going to suffer punishment just because he doesn't believe.

Tsuyoiko, please don?ft confuse me with God. God has said that a person is a fool who says there is no God. Tsuyoiko, do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I will wait for you to reply. It is the one sin that will send someone to eternal punishment even if they lead a perfect life of service for others, loves his family and friends, and is kind and tolerant towards strangers. Again, God says this, not me. Why is it that God Who is perfectly righteous cannot mete out judgement, but, I assume, you see no problem with humans meting out judgements (ie, court judges, parents, etc.)

. I'm interested to know what you have learnt from your studies outside the Bible.

Could you be more specific? Maybe limit that question to a much smaller area? I was taught how to spell my name in first grade and that 1+1=2, and knowledge has grown exponentially since then.

And as it says in Luke, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"

I always kinda chuckle when people quip that verse out because the Bible teaches that we Christians are to judge. We are to judge ourselves first that we are not self-righteous, then we are to judge the things around us to discern whether they are in keeping with God?fs righteous precepts, then we are to exhort other Christians in humility when we see our brothers walking about with sin in their lives. You quoted Luke 6:37, please read that whole passage in context and you will understand this better. Luke 6:44 says, ?gby their fruit you shall know them?h. And verse 46 says, ?gwhy do you call Me, ?eLord, Lord,?f and do not do what I say??h So Tsuyoiko, why do you read the Bible but you do not do what Christ commands?

:wave:

 

[Revenant]

Tsuyoiko, please don?ft confuse me with God. God has said that a person is a fool who says there is no God. Tsuyoiko, do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I will wait for you to reply. It is the one sin that will send someone to eternal punishment even if they lead a perfect life of service for others, loves his family and friends, and is kind and tolerant towards strangers. Again, God says this, not me. Why is it that God Who is perfectly righteous cannot mete out judgement, but, I assume, you see no problem with humans meting out judgements (ie, court judges, parents, etc.)

This is something that I couldn't figure out in the time I considered myself a Christian, and something that I still can't grasp.

What is love? Is it to consistently and truly hope for and actively work towards another person's happiness? That is how I would define it.

Compassion is to empathize with someone's suffering, with the end goal being to end that person's suffering. Compassion is part of love as a whole as I reason it.

What is justice? It is to be fair. Fair in trying to balance all people's right to the search for happiness. It is to protect the conditions under which happiness can flourish.

Punishment for those we love is a conditioner. I punish my son for lying, so that he will not get in the habit of lying. Lying would not be a habit that would bring my son much happiness, and most likely a lot of suffering. I punish him with the hopes that he will get in the habits that will lead to higher likelihood of happiness.

So how does a God of love eternally torment or eternally end people follow the definitions of love, compassion, and justice? It all seems to go against the very basic defintion of love.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Revenant has said it all, IMO.

 

[Mars Man]

First in reply to Marsy:

From my point of view, you are untruthful or in error in claiming that the Bible is a work of man, not of God. Every thing you say after that is of no consequence to me.

:

Pararousia, you did not answer the question, but rather ingnored it. Why? Again, the question is, in a re-worded form, can you rightfully accuse me of being untruthful in saying that what we had been discussing from the beginning, and the arguments I have mostly presented since then, have been based on what the Bible says?

Please take the time and make the conscious effort to read with understanding !

 

[No-name]

Like I said before, the premise that Paraousia starts with, like me, precludes a real discussion of the matter at hand in the way you would like. Every argument has its starting points- the basic premises and delimiters that determine a person's reality.

If you were starting from the position that God does exist and He does actually participate in our affairs (in some circles He predetermines them) than inspriring, producing and protecting this book is child's play. Any minor "discrepancies" you find are in Paraousia's words "of no consequence." We study the bible in depth and with the same intensity, but with a focus quite different than you are showing.

It is like going over Shakespeare's plays to find errors and trying to explain them to a devout Royal Shakeperian Actor. The fact that real witches never say, "double double boil and trouble..." makes absolutely no difference in the enjoyment of the play.

 

[Mars Man]

I appreciate, sabro, the thoughtfulness and kindness in your intercession on Pararousia's behalf, yet firmly point out that what I had laid out on the table, in the form of that original question, was incorrectly dealt with, and in a rather inconsistant manner at that. That's all I'm presenting in the request for a proper answer in the above post; nothing more, at the moment.

 

[No-name]

Mars, it is like coming into a wine-tasting room filled with affecianados with a budweiser and saying that beer is better, and then listing your reasons. They may be rather good reasons, but to that particular crowd, they are irrelavent.

 

[Pararousia]

Ditto to what Sabro said. Mars, I can rightfully accuse you of not understanding what the Bible says and twisting it to fit your cause.

Revenant, I appreciate that sincere question. I want to give it some thought and answer you later if that is ok with you. Take care.

 

[Void]

i`ve lost the discussion somewhere in the middle of the thread. I just got question. I`ve heard about Tibetian gospel today and read some fragments, pretty much reminds Apocrypha.
First question to experts
1) this tibetian document is a fake?
second (suspect it was already asked)
2) if Bible was not written by men, why it doesn`t includ all apocryphal stories in NT. Or those other authors were less inspired by God? (and who was to consider the degree of inspiration?)
3) some apocryphs simply lead to another idea, which might ruin the basis of current techings, maybe, that`s why they were not included?

 

[Mars Man]

Ditto to what Sabro said. Mars, I can rightfully accuse you of not understanding what the Bible says and twisting it to fit your cause.

I simply do not see how that can be true at all, Pararousia, what you are most obviously misconstruing in the above statement is the difference between 'what is or may have been written' over and against how one can interpret that. And, if you so strongly feel that you can do as you say you can, then why are you not doing it? Why have you even refused to answer to your insintuated claim that I am not talking about what is written in the Bible? Please do adhere to proper argumentation, Pararousia san !!

Above and beyond that, since we are looking at the entire array of documents and works that relate to those documents, I would suggest care in insinuating that one firstly knows the detail of such things before ever having taken a deep, serious look into them. I once thought I knew them enough, and then feeling I wanted to know them better, later realized that the overall context, linguistical communication and logical deduction from that same--in light of cultural, historical, and knowledge gained through the passage of time by humanity--very clearly leads to a different understanding. So far, we have only primarily looked at the Gospel Narratives, but this whole matter neither stops there, nor is completely seen there.

Sabro san, although analogies do have their time and place, just making any analgy at any time of seemingly convenience may not do the justice one wishes to do. First of all there are facts to look at. Second of all it is neccessary to reason on them. Third of all, participation in this process would be required to the development of, and the refinement of understanding.

Now if I am wrong here do tell me, sabro, if I am correct, please do admit to that correctness in no uncertain terms.

Pararousia wrote: "you [that is me] are untruthful or in error in claiming that the Bible is a work of man, not of God..."

The above statement is written in concealment or denial of the fact that humans wrote (in the sense of using a writing instrument and writing down words of a human language) the documents contained in the book which we today call the Bible. As you had insinuated--although be it in loose construction where by meaning can be held in abeyance--that 'the Bible comes through the hands and minds of men, tanslated, transcripted and copied', would it not be true that Pararousia's statement is notrepresentative of the full fact?

Pararousia, why do you not want to be more realistic and truthful with your statements? Again, I quote you, "God has said that person is a fool who says there is no God." That song had been composed by a person, more likely King David, and handed to the director to be put in the song book. Why do you say that "God" wrote it? How can you claim to have gotten the information by which to make such a claim? And now you have another question to answer directly and without any beating around the bushes.

I'm counting on you Pararousia, to maintain a proper debating stance !:wave:

 

[No-name]

I think the hang up in trying to get around the authorship issue is understanding the concept of inspiration- It is not like some muse type inspiration, nor what we think in modern society- nor is it a pure mechanical- God-as-puppet master inspiration. It is more along the line of God as author and finisher of my faith- the intercept of what we percieve of as our creativity and free will with his perfect pre-destination. Thus the view that is is authored by God, through the hands of man- would be accurate but limited. Parousia may still have it entirely correct.

My goal with the analogies was to try to explain why from the Christian point of view, primarily Parousia, your "facts" are readily dismissed as irrelevant. It is not to be insulting or anti intellectual- hence the analogies. It is difficult to explain without sounding dismissive or arrogant.

 

[Pararousia]

Revenant, here's my promised reply.

God judges Christians in the same way parents "judge" children, but He does not judge non-believers as a parent would. With non-believers, He is the righteous Judge (not parent), as in a courtroom scenario where sometimes the guilty are condemned to death.

Somewhere in this forum I posted about the character of God and this is what you have to remember: God's character is both all-loving and all-righteous. One characteristic cannot be altered or sacrificed for the other.

That simple verse we learn as children says it all: "For God so loved the world (general population) that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever (specific individual) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." God has made the way--if we individually do not choose to accept it, then He must judge our sin of unbelief. He loved us enough to make the supreme sacrifice--in return He asks for our willing obedience.

Your ideas are based on human wisdom and reflect the errors mankind has accumulated in our thinking over the centuries, in our self-centered world system. Mankind's human 'reason' is flawed, part of the defect in man since the fall.

Perhaps you believe the highest ideal one can attain in life is happiness. Your definition of "love" is bound up in happiness. Even the stated definition of justice is all about "balancing all people's right to the search for happiness. It is to protect the conditions under which happiness can flourish."

So, it's all about happiness?

Our founding fathers wrote in the constitution "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Even 225 years ago, they realized happiness could never be "found," only "pursued," and possibly attained for fleeting moments.

Modern Americans feel "happiness" is the goal of everything in life, and usually define it in terms of leisure activities. That men and women were created by God to do no more sublime thing than football, hiking, eating, drinking, or having orgasms seems to give no one today a problem of logic. Meeting Tom Cruise or Oprah is seen as a worthy goal worth mentioning to all one's friends, for the rest of one's life.

Happiness is not God's goal for us. Knowing Him is.

The reason people are in hell is because God's justice is perfect, like every other aspect of His being. But His love and compassion have placed His unique and only Son on earth to die in our place, because quite simply, God wants us to be with Him. Jesus said "The Son of man has come not to be served (like a kingly messiah), but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." What does the word "ransom" mean? It means--take me and let them go.

When men and women reject the love and atoning sacrifice of Jesus, they are exactly like someone dying of some disease at the same time they are being offered a known cure. They reject the cure, and simultaneously accuse the one offering it of having no compassion.

Because God has arranged for our tremendous debt of sin to be completely paid for, He can allow us to be with Him after death without compromising His perfect standard. As Paul put it, at the death of Christ God "became both the just one and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." (Romans) He became both the judge and the person standing condemned. He says to us, the condemned, "Go your way and sin no more. I have paid your debt to the court." One man asked Jesus in John 5 "What must I do to do the works that please God? Jesus answered him 'This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom God has sent.'"

Now, are we really "sinners?" Why do we need someone to "die for us"? Modern mankind thinks he is not so bad that he should be "sent to hell." It's well known that everyone has a sliding mental scale of justice, and we always compare ourselves to those worse than ourselves. The professional hit man who's killed 27 says "it's only a job, nothing personal." The murderer considers himself better than the child molester. So who's qualified to say, really? (implication nobody, so we're all fine, why can't God be compassionate and just let us in?)

However, it should be pointed out that everyone in the old and new testament who saw a vision or likeness of God all had the same reaction. Complete self-loathing. Experiencing the presence of His emanating love and holiness creates such a contrast that one feels overwhelmingly unworthy. Moses saw only part of God's likeness, and felt totally ashamed for complaining. Instantly filled with overpowering regret. Isaiah the prophet probably thought the coolest thing in life might be to see God, until one day he had a vision. He saw God and could only cry 'woe is me,' and his entire body became like rubber. He cried out that he was not only unclean himself, but he hung around an entire race of people who were unclean (nasty) and not deserving of God's attention or presence. He felt everything was ruined, this story could have no happy ending. But an angel in the vision touched his mouth and allowed him to stand and listen and respond for the purpose of taking a message back to the people. Even the 'most righteous' among us are in reality, totally corrupt and prone to thoughts of evil, if not outright acts. "For all have sinned..." Romans 3:23

So God has done the following for us:
(1) He demonstrated that He wants us to be with
Him, (2) paid sin's debt for us, (3) proved Christ
died for our sins by vindicating His prior words through
raising Him from the dead, (4) protected the
integrity of His perfect standard (coming up with a plan
that makes eternal life possible for sinful mankind
while keeping sin from His presence).

If, after knowing all this, a person still thinks God is lacking compassion by "sending someone to hell," then Matthew 25:41 offers an interesting insight into the planning and motives of God. Jesus states that hell was "created for the devil and his angels." If men and women go there, it is by default, not by plan. We have to choose to ignore the one way God has provided, believing on His one and only Son, and His atoning death for us.

The Bible is real information from God. It is His perspective, from front to back, and offers mankind real information that corresponds to the reality we see. We cannot understand our world without knowing it. The best place to start is the gospel of John in the new testament.

Life is not all about me and my happiness. Paul said, everywhere he went, "that we must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." Pursuit of God brings His spirit within us, deep internal peace, and the joy of knowing Him who went through such suffering only because He wants us to be with Him.