You don't hear preaching like this much anymore.

Church standards and methods change through time. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably still be going to church if had a a guy like that putting some fire to my ass earlier on in life.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Church standards and methods change through time. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably still be going to church if had a a guy like that putting some fire to my ass earlier on in life.

---

Even if it is not Biblical? It is such an easy, simplistic way of looking at the Gospel. If you have faith in Jesus you go to "heaven". If you don't you go to "hell". And that is supposedly the Gospel. Fire insurance. Go read the entire New Testament and tell me that is the main focus of the Gospel. Hogwash.

If that is the case, why are we here? Why did a loving God create us to live if our only purpose is to avoid "hell"? And if that is our only purpose, this should be preached over loud speakers 24/7. There should be no jobs, families, whatever. Life should be all about avoiding hell and going to heaven.

And I would love to ask this guy a ton of questions. What happens to those who never hear the Gospel? What happens to babies that die? The mentally challenged? Why did Jesus minister almost exclusively to only the Jews? Did he not care about the Gentiles that according to this pastor, are hell bound? Surely if the Gospel was merely about fire insurance, those things would be addressed.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Church standards and methods change through time. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably still be going to church if had a a guy like that putting some fire to my ass earlier on in life.

---

I suppose different people can respond differently to the same message - a guy like that would have had me packing my bags and leaving the church even earlier than I did. Fear is a powerful motivator. But, it wasn't ever my interpretation that fear was the primary tool of choice by Jesus in bringing people to God. Aside from a few comments here and there, the accounts of Jesus do not have him speaking to people in this manner with hysterical threats of eternal torture. It has always seemed to me that this form of theater serves the speaker more than it serves any God.

---

Agree completely. As the spiritual head of the household, I would have my family walk out of there after about one minute. I am not going to let some man falsely preach fear to my kids. And as you stated it is not Biblical.

The other thing is that if this guy or others truly believe this, they should not work or do anything but try to save people from ECT hell. But you don't see people who believe this garbage doing that. They don't really believe in it either. And I think that actually comes from the Holy Spirit giving them discernment. They read their Bibles. They know Jesus, Paul, and every other Biblical figure did not preach like this.

That is the bottom line. This is not Biblical. As a Christ follower, this angers me. There are children in the audience. Do you believe Jesus would talk like this to kids? Think about that if you sit through one of these sermons,

And there are some reading this who believe as the pastor that if I do not believe in ECT hell then I am going there. Well I am not.

Look, another Lawson to add to your "no fly zone."

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Church standards and methods change through time. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably still be going to church if had a a guy like that putting some fire to my ass earlier on in life.

---

I suppose different people can respond differently to the same message - a guy like that would have had me packing my bags and leaving the church even earlier than I did. Fear is a powerful motivator. But, it wasn't ever my interpretation that fear was the primary tool of choice by Jesus in bringing people to God. Aside from a few comments here and there, the accounts of Jesus do not have him speaking to people in this manner with hysterical threats of eternal torture. It has always seemed to me that this form of theater serves the speaker more than it serves any God.

---

I just meant that believing out of fear might be better than not believing at all.

Maybe both are equally bad?

Rocag said:

---

For all that Christians like to say we western atheists are just copying their moral teachings, here is an example where I for one certainly differ. Any deity who would ever create hell as described by many Christians as a place of eternal torment or that would allow such a place to exist is categorically unworthy of worship or praise.

---

Agree.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Church standards and methods change through time. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably still be going to church if had a a guy like that putting some fire to my ass earlier on in life.

---

I suppose different people can respond differently to the same message - a guy like that would have had me packing my bags and leaving the church even earlier than I did. Fear is a powerful motivator. But, it wasn't ever my interpretation that fear was the primary tool of choice by Jesus in bringing people to God. Aside from a few comments here and there, the accounts of Jesus do not have him speaking to people in this manner with hysterical threats of eternal torture. It has always seemed to me that this form of theater serves the speaker more than it serves any God.

---

I just meant that believing out of fear might be better than not believing at all.

Maybe both are equally bad?

---

I personally think it is unBiblical and harmful. Lots of mental illness, scrupulosity, and depression produced by this unBiblical teaching. It got me for a whole. I think it is especially harmful to children. Jesus never spoke like that to children.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Look, another Lawson to add to your "no fly zone."

---

Brother Lawson has been on my prayer list. Hope he has repented and his family is restored.

Is it heresy to preach non Biblical stuff? Because Scripture does not mention not believing in ECT hell sends you to hell. So are these guys heretics in your mind? Is this Sola Scriptura?

What do you the motive is here? Fear? Control? Mistaken belief? Inaccurate reading of Scripture?

And I think this line of incorrect theology is pretty common in the infernalist camp.
This should be directed to the entire forum. Didn't mean to single you out.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Look, another Lawson to add to your "no fly zone."

---

What do you the motive is here? Fear? Control? Mistaken belief? Inaccurate reading of Scripture?

---

I haven't watched this particular video and don't necessarily want to spend the time just to be honest. Hard enough to keep up with everything I am studying already!

BrazosDog02 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Church standards and methods change through time. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably still be going to church if had a a guy like that putting some fire to my ass earlier on in life.

---

I suppose different people can respond differently to the same message - a guy like that would have had me packing my bags and leaving the church even earlier than I did. Fear is a powerful motivator. But, it wasn't ever my interpretation that fear was the primary tool of choice by Jesus in bringing people to God. Aside from a few comments here and there, the accounts of Jesus do not have him speaking to people in this manner with hysterical threats of eternal torture. It has always seemed to me that this form of theater serves the speaker more than it serves any God.

---

I just meant that believing out of fear might be better than not believing at all.

Maybe both are equally bad?

---

I don't want to judge anyone for why they believe what they believe. For me personally, the threat of Hell is not something that sits well. Carrots and Sticks are often used to manipulate - to coerce action (belief) through hope of reward or threat of pain. To me, its perfectly reasonable to attach skepticism to a potential belief that is presented with either this type of unverifiable carrot or stick.

Also, maybe take my position with a grain of salt. In the context of Gods and religion, I am highly skeptical (maybe cynical) about the use of belief and faith to begin with. What people believe is a function of evidence and it is a function of when and where we are born, our culture, our experiences, and a whole host of factors that we do not get to choose.

If when we die, God 'claps his hand' and we are instantly given the full range of knowledge, emotional experience, spiritual experience, and all other relevant experiences . . . and then asked to choose to follow, then this feels mostly fair. But, this is not faith. This is not believing without seeing. The idea that we are to be judged based on what we do with bad information, flawed brains, and a miniscule sample of human experience (most of which is outside our control) feels wildly flawed.

Rocag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Rocag said:

---

For all that Christians like to say we western atheists are just copying their moral teachings, here is an example where I for one certainly differ. Any deity who would ever create hell as described by many Christians as a place of eternal torment or that would allow such a place to exist is categorically unworthy of worship or praise.

---

Let's pull on this thread. What are you using as criteria for worthiness of worship?

---

Like I alluded to in the first sentence of the post, it is judgement based on my own standard of morality. You may think a god that delights in torturing people forever is perfect and ought to be praised. Good for you, I guess. But that's not me.

Now certainly there are versions of Christianity who reject descriptions of hell that are like that, but I was raised Southern Baptist enough to know the verses they point to which back up their concept of hell enough to say that I think they have a reasonable interpretation of the text.

---

So what is 'bad' about this, other than you don't like it? And why don't you like it? What's 'wrong' with this scenario?

Rocag said:

---

If God is omnipotent and omniscient then it is inescapable that if hell exists and people are sent there it is because he created the system and it exists in exactly the way he intends and wants. He has the power to change it but not the desire.

If I were a dictator and created a law that everyone guilty of jaywalking gets drawn and quartered I don't get to then act upset that people are being drawn and quartered. I did that. I chose that.

---

So Boethius discusses will and power. What does he say about omniscience?

Are you actually asking for my opinion or are you trying to draw this discussion into yet another objective versus subjective morality debate?

Zobel said:

---

Rocag said:

---

For all that Christians like to say we western atheists are just copying their moral teachings, here is an example where I for one certainly differ. Any deity who would ever create hell as described by many Christians as a place of eternal torment or that would allow such a place to exist is categorically unworthy of worship or praise.

---

Let's pull on this thread. What are you using as criteria for worthiness of worship?

---

From a Christian perspective, are you to use our own criteria? My understanding is that Christians say we are called to choose God and that we are not asked to do so blindly.

To evaluate God as worthy of being chosen based on God's own criteria would be meaningless / tautological. Its like if I asked you to evaluate the best kind of pizza using only the input of "Pepperoni pizza is best". Any response that does not state pepperoni as the best is non-sensical. Similarly, if there is a God that imposes Himself as objectively good and the definition of worthy of worship, then any personal evaluation of God or personal decision to choose God is non-sensical. We are simply meant to obey without question.

If I don't get to decide that God is worthy of worship, is the implication that the worthiness of God has been predetermined to me and that I am not permitted individuality?

I'm not claiming that my own subjective judgement is some immutable cosmic truth, just that it is my firm moral belief. I'd think that questions regarding how I came to develop my moral perspective are certainly valid and we can go down that road if you're interested, but I have no interest in yet another thread focused on subjective versus objective morality.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Rocag said:

---

For all that Christians like to say we western atheists are just copying their moral teachings, here is an example where I for one certainly differ. Any deity who would ever create hell as described by many Christians as a place of eternal torment or that would allow such a place to exist is categorically unworthy of worship or praise.

---

Let's pull on this thread. What are you using as criteria for worthiness of worship?

---

Since I agreed I will explain. The concept of ECT hell coupled with double predestination would make me not want to worship a God who pre ordains people he created to hell.

You may consider Him still worthy of worship as He is God but I use my free will to reject that characterization of God as I believe it is false.

The God I know is worthy of constant worship.

---

Respectfully, this is more of a "you" problem, it seems. Essentially, it sounds like you're dismissing something because you yourself deem it to be evil or outside of the character of the God you've formulated. We can both quote-mine the Bible and the Church Fathers for different purposes, but the viewpoint of Hell being eternal is the drawn out, orthodox position.

Now, if you construct your position to be along the lines of hoping that everyone will be saved, that's one thing. But if it's more in-line with Origen's view, then this has been fleshed out in great extent for almost 20 centuries, and the popular consensus remains the same.

---

Quite a few noted theologians agree with me. David Bentley Hart probably is the most notable but he is Orthodox. Not the majority and not the magisterium.

I can handle what I believe to be the Catholic view. All people get the chance to choose Jesus or reject him via their free will. And that to me keeps the right character of God as per all of Scripture.

I can not understand the concept of TULIP where God creates people who are pre ordained to ECT hell. And you are right, maybe it is me and I am not of the elect and can't understand TULIP.

And I believe Origen was called a heretic for his views on the pre existence of souls. St. Gregory of Nyssa was well respected and was a universal reconciliation proponent.

dermdoc said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Rocag said:

---

For all that Christians like to say we western atheists are just copying their moral teachings, here is an example where I for one certainly differ. Any deity who would ever create hell as described by many Christians as a place of eternal torment or that would allow such a place to exist is categorically unworthy of worship or praise.

---

Let's pull on this thread. What are you using as criteria for worthiness of worship?

---

Since I agreed I will explain. The concept of ECT hell coupled with double predestination would make me not want to worship a God who pre ordains people he created to hell.

You may consider Him still worthy of worship as He is God but I use my free will to reject that characterization of God as I believe it is false.

The God I know is worthy of constant worship.

---

Respectfully, this is more of a "you" problem, it seems. Essentially, it sounds like you're dismissing something because you yourself deem it to be evil or outside of the character of the God you've formulated. We can both quote-mine the Bible and the Church Fathers for different purposes, but the viewpoint of Hell being eternal is the drawn out, orthodox position.

Now, if you construct your position to be along the lines of hoping that everyone will be saved, that's one thing. But if it's more in-line with Origen's view, then this has been fleshed out in great extent for almost 20 centuries, and the popular consensus remains the same.

---

maybe it is me and I am not of the elect and can't understand TULIP.

---

I can confidently say you are in Christ and of the elect. Doesn't matter if you don't believe in the doctrine of election as taught by reformed faith. You are elect whether you like it or not.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Maybe not applicable on this thread, but I would be interested in knowing how you (and anyone) would balance or juxtapose God's mercy against his justice. Both are true and God is perfect in both capacities.

---

I do not think it is just to create people pre ordained to ECT hell.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Rocag said:

---

For all that Christians like to say we western atheists are just copying their moral teachings, here is an example where I for one certainly differ. Any deity who would ever create hell as described by many Christians as a place of eternal torment or that would allow such a place to exist is categorically unworthy of worship or praise.

---

Let's pull on this thread. What are you using as criteria for worthiness of worship?

---

Since I agreed I will explain. The concept of ECT hell coupled with double predestination would make me not want to worship a God who pre ordains people he created to hell.

You may consider Him still worthy of worship as He is God but I use my free will to reject that characterization of God as I believe it is false.

The God I know is worthy of constant worship.

---

Respectfully, this is more of a "you" problem, it seems. Essentially, it sounds like you're dismissing something because you yourself deem it to be evil or outside of the character of the God you've formulated. We can both quote-mine the Bible and the Church Fathers for different purposes, but the viewpoint of Hell being eternal is the drawn out, orthodox position.

Now, if you construct your position to be along the lines of hoping that everyone will be saved, that's one thing. But if it's more in-line with Origen's view, then this has been fleshed out in great extent for almost 20 centuries, and the popular consensus remains the same.

---

maybe it is me and I am not of the elect and can't understand TULIP.

---

I can confidently say you are in Christ and of the elect. Doesn't matter if you don't believe in the doctrine of election as taught by reformed faith. You are elect whether you like it or not.

---

That made me laugh. Thanks my friend. How is your skin? And if that is too personal, sue me. Or actually email me.

LOL. My left ear and nose are starting to get a bit red!