More Responses

“Then you admit he isn't omnipotent? That's the only way your way around it would make any sort of sense.” --> I admit I was a bit unnerved by this comment. “Of course, God is omnipotent,” I thought. “Why would I ever say anything to make him seem otherwise?” So I studied a bit, prayed a bit, and here’s my answer, which I hope will make some “sort of sense.” Yes, God is omnipotent. But he is also all-loving and all-wise. He knows that the way things are is the way they should be. I often fall short of God’s understanding, but I trust Him. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).



“No offense, but he did a ... poor job of it since FAR more people will supposedly be going to the fiery hell than to heaven. I urge you to look at my hell fire test blog post.” --> Although that is a commonly held belief in Christianity, I am certainly not alone in my belief that far fewer people will be going to “the fiery hell” than to heaven. Your hell fire test blog post was one of the first ones I ever read and was actually one of the original reasons I wanted to comment – because it was so far from my beliefs. I have mentioned this in a previous post less directly when I mentioned people without a knowledge of the gospel and their place in the afterlife. So, here is my own “Hell” blog post:

Hell is the English translation of Hebrew Sheol and corresponds to Greek Hades. In common speech, it denotes the place of the wicked’s torment, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep, narrow valley of Jerusalem into which were offered the children of the idolatrous Jews, as a sacrifice to Moloch (2 Chr. 28:3; 2 Chr. 33:6; Jer. 7:31; Jer. 19:2-6). It was later used as a place for burning the city’s waste (2 Kings 23:10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God.

Two current senses of the word hell are these: One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and the less righteous will abide there until the resurrection, at which time they will go to their assigned glory. In this sense the scriptures speak of spiritual death as hell. Hell, thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory. Statements about an everlasting hell must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of scripture which defines eternal and endless punishment only in that God is eternal and endless.

On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.

By the way, there was a conflict among the spirit children of God in the pre-mortal existence. It’s termed a “war in heaven” by Rev. 12:7 and was fought over how the plan of salvation would work for the forthcoming human family on earth. The issues included agency, how to gain salvation, and who would be Redeemer. The war erupted because a third of the spirits wouldn’t accept Jesus’ appointment as the Savior. Such refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan. It was evident that if given agency, some people would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted everyone who passed through mortality to gain automatic salvation, disregarding individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (Isa. 14:12-20; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4-13). The spirits who thus continued to rebel were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, and thus came the devil and his angels (Rev. 12:9).



“The Bible is chalk full of atrocities. If we don't need it for morals, and morals are natural, then the Bible is useless in this regard.” --> Morals are naturally understood, but not necessarily naturally taught or known. Back to Bobby --yes, if the note were not there and he touched the stove, he would get burned, and he would learn from his mistake. But he would also have a scar that would last for a long time, maybe even the rest of his life. The note on the counter, or the mother telling him, are his chance to prevent that scar.



“You keep forgetting that God is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent... Even so, you would probably agree with me that her kid should be taken away because she's neglectful - who leaves a small child at home with a note and a hot stove? ¶ God? ¶ According to Christian theology, He made everything. This negates any argument you could make on this subject unless you want to agree that God isn't all loving and perhaps he's either evil or like us - a mix of bad and good.” --> I have several thoughts on the matter. First, it does not really matter whether or not God created the stove in the scenario or not, just as it doesn’t matter whether of not the Mother was the one who made the stove hot or not. The point is that the child is warned, and he has the choice whether or not to obey.

Have you ever read the book Jumping Ship? If you haven’t, it doesn’t really matter. I haven’t actually read it either, but I know the basic idea. It’s a parenting book that describes what frequently happens to children from homes of overly strict or overly protective parents. Which is, they get out as fast as they can and turn their lifestyle completely upside down, going from one extreme to the other. The goal of the book is to keep parents from involving themselves too much in their children’s life, warning that if you control every aspect of children’s lives, they will hate you and their lifestyle. If you let them make more of their own choices, they tend to become more responsible and willing to come to you for advice. Basically, I think that is the type of parenting that God does. He gives commandments, tells truth, and then hopes very much that we will learn from our mistakes. That isn’t neglect; it’s wisdom. (And, interestingly enough, it certainly isn’t totalitarianism either.)



“Mom isn't God. God would know what would change my mind and be able to easily do so. Think if that mom could do something she knew would make sure her child was saved from an eternity of stove torment that she would do it? Why?because she loves him and doesn't want to see harm come to him.” --> Of course Mom would try her best to help her children, and God does too. But there is a point at which children have to take the consequences of their own choices. If they don’t, they are being hurt more than helped. I know a Mom right now, an amazing woman who has done her very best. Most of her children have turned out quite well – educated, honest, faithful. There is one, though, who, “jumped ship” once he was on his own. After getting a double full scholarship to college, he dropped out during his freshman year. He lost every job he got because he repeatedly would not show up to work. He lived in an apartment he couldn’t afford because every penny he got was spent on video games and fast food. Then the apartment threatened to kick him out for not paying rent. Eventually he was kicked out of the apartment, and he started getting letters from collection agencies for the rent he never paid and the thousands of debt dollars he had racked up on junk. He turned to his parents for help, promising he would change his life and go back to school and church. Can you guess what they did? If you were this kid’s father, what would you have done? Would you have paid off the thousands in debt in order to keep your kid from going to court or prison?



“There is far more proof of any of these things than there are for any God. Look up the science on smoking, look up statistics on missing school etc.” --> That was exactly my point! DESPITE all the evidence, it does not keep people from ignoring the warnings and making stupid decisions. Why would it be any different for God? If God were the head of the government, on TV everyday, warning us, very present and proven, do you think people would suddenly believe everything he said and always be righteous?

“We agree on something else it seems. However, he is being treated that way because of your religion and that of the other two in the big three.” --> You can blame religion if you want, but I think discrimination is just a natural a human trait. Go to an elementary or junior high school and observe the behavior of people who are yet without strong political or even religious opinions. Still there will be plenty of discrimination, because of friends, height, disabilities, clothing (even glasses), obesity, intelligence or lack thereof. There does not even need to be a reason behind discrimination. Frankly, even if I were atheist, I would be innately disgusted at the thought of homosexuality, and would still vote against it.

“You are stopping them by denying them their right to get married. Your also mixing your religion into politics, weakening the separation of church and state. I don't think you realize how dangerous and damaging this is.” --> Who said marriage was a “right?” If that were so, I could marry anyone I pleased. Government could not discriminate against me and my true love, even if he/she were a family member, or even if I already had multiple spouses. By the way, I think I am clearing up the line between separation of church and state, not blurring it. If marriage ever became the legal norm, can you imagine all the lawsuits that would follow? Any organization or church that prohibited homosexuality or failed to let in gay members would lose its tax deductible status. Any preacher who denied performing the marriage ceremony for a gay couple would be persecuted relentlessly. Not too long ago, I heard on the news the story of a couple who started a small business together. From what I remember: The only rule they had for their photography business was that they would not photograph anything that went against their beliefs. For example, they would not photograph certain clothing or poses. When a gay couple asked for their work, the couple refused their services. The gay couple sued, and the couple lost. They lost their license, their business, and, of course, a un sacco di soldi, i.e. a great deal of money.

On another note, homosexuality is very dangerous, and I’m not talking spiritually right now. It is literally more dangerous than smoking. Homosexuals represented 21% of hepatitis B cases in 1988, and 44% of HIV cases between 2000-2003. They contract syphilis at a rate 300-400% higher than nonhomosexuals. Anal intercourse causes hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, and retained foreign bodies, and creates high risk for anal cancer. Among male homosexuals engaging in oral-anal contact, an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infection exists. Homosexuality is also associated with higher mortality. A major Canadian medical center found the life expectancy at age 20 years for gays and bisexual men was 8-20 years less than that for all men. It’s further estimated that nearly 50% of today’s gay and bisexual 20-year-olds will not reach their 65th birthday.

On top of these personal health risks, anyone with whom these people have sex are at risk of some of these diseases. That shouldn’t matter, too much, right? As long as the sex is exclusive. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily so. Homosexual activity today is associated with reduced behavioral control. We all restrain some sex drives, but those practicing homosexuality have a much-reduced constraint. A 1978 study reported that 75% of male homosexuals had been with 100+ partners; 28%, the largest subcategory, reported 1000+ partners; 79% said that half their partners were strangers; and 79% said that more than half of those partners were men with whom they had sex only once.


[Other arguments, etc]... “I have to say that I'm very disappointed that you have used this line of reasoning that... has been debunked time and time again. I think even you know this deep down inside. That's why you were reluctant to mention it.” -- I’m also sorry my brief reasoning was not satisfactory to you. But frankly I didn’t think it would be. That is the reason why I was reluctant to mention it. It’s such a hot topic that once someone has made up his mind on it, it is virtually impossible to change it. I don’t particularly like to be controversial or argumentative, so I didn’t want to start in on a topic that would be next-to-impossible for us ever to agree on. So I hope we can agree to disagree and move on pretty soon.


“Semantics. It's the same thing.” --> Not at all! You’ve probably heard the saying, “Hate the sin; love the sinner.” That’s not semantics. That’s differentiation. I do not hate gay people, only the idea of what they do.

That's fine. It still doesn't mean your disgust at such behavior should have any bearing on the law. PickLots of things disgust me. I still don't deny them equal rights. --> But I bet most of those disgusting things don’t lower your or someone else’s life expectancy by 8-20 years.



“No it's also taught and reinforced.” --> The Bible definitely does not teach and reinforce stupid or bad behavior. As you say, it “teaches and reinforces moral behavior.”

“If we grew up worshipping the gun and we were supposedly told the gun Gods wanted such and such done, we'd have more of that.” --> But God does not ask for stupid behavior.

“The Bible teaches and reinforces moral behavior. Take those justifications away and people actually have to take responsibility for their own actions.” --> People have to take responsibility for their actions anyway, obviously. The Bible does not control anything, anymore than any idea does. The best example I can think of right now is Darwin. He had ideas that contributed to the belief that some races were inferior to others. That did not make Darwin or his books responsible for the actions of Hitler. Although they, the ideas, were the basis for some of the worst years of the century, they did not teach or reinforce those actions.

“Without the Bible for instance, I could cal you a bigot.” --> You can still call be a bigot. You’re as responsible for your actions as I am for mine.

“With the Bible you're supposedly justified because of your religion.” --> I’m really a bit confused. Justified for what?



“Don't covet someone else’s wife = thought crime. They didn't do it, they are thinking it.” --> You got me. Thoughts can be sinful, too. But what is the punishment of that type of sin? Only, as I said in my last post, the evil that can come from it. It doesn’t say God will cut off someone who thinks a sinful thought. But he can reward for good intentions. But “he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days” (Prov. 28:16).

Wow. That took forever to write, and I definitely don't have time to go back and check for errors. We should probably table some of these topics for a later date. I just wish we could have a one-on-one conversation? Then I wouldn't feel obliged to respond to every tangent, while adding in my own tangents. Haha! Well, it's late. Good night/morning.