Deebs…few things to say. 🙂

1. 135
2. 4 or so with no response
3. 1 Sovereign Gracer who refuses to forgive though in my heart I have forgiven him for betrayal. Guess those 135 or so must be wrong!! :-p

Hmmm…on another blog a while back, I was accused of being a heretic (sigh) and told that if my 'conversion' did not come by having the Law preached at me, then it probably wasn't real. It is the same 'street evangelism' and 'Jack Chick' culture I grew up in….one that did not lead me toward God, as Wade said, and all but separated me from him – cowering in fear. I am still learning no to be afraid of (and expect) punishment. That verse "It is the goodness of God that leads to repentance."…..that is one that has contributed to the salvaging of my faith.

What about Nineveh?

Let me share an opinion from the atheist pew. No matter the approach or the theology, be it the screaming street preacher or Wade Burleson, if the end result is non-Christians burn in hell forever, then it is all the same. The end result is that most of the human race will spend eternity in hell/Lake of Fire.

I don’t want to debate this. I just want you to understand how these discussions look from the outside.

@ zooey111:

Well, I went to his blog and did a search for the word hell. He certainly believes there is a hell and that there is a clear line between saved and lost. Like many Evangelicals, he distances himself from the Miltonian view of hell, but his view is still just a nice version of the street preacher’s view.

I understand how and why he comes to the conclusions he does. My point was to make people aware of how these kind of discussions look to people on the outside.

Bruce Gerencser wrote:

but his view is still just a nice version of the street preacher’s view.

Jesus Christ spoke of a place of torment in the afterlife, but the place he depicted does not sound nice.

9 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 13)

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’(Matt 9)

@ Bruce Gerencser:

Jesus believed in hell. We can argue about what he meant. how such belief is to be applied, to whom is it significant, etc. We can argue about biblical vs cultural ideas. But the argument of how it looks is irrelevant. The only first and valid point of discussion is “is it true?” If no, then the discussion is over. If yes, the we can talk about what did Jesus mean when he said…whatever.

Garland wrote:

What about Nineveh?

Well, what about Ninevah? I am missing the point here.

I don't know about the rest of you, but fear of hell definitely impacted my decision for Christ. I believe we need both an understanding of God's goodness as well as God's wrath.

Leila wrote:

In a nutshell, it encompasses the idea that because God loves everyone, and wants everyone to be saved, all WILL be saved through Jesus Christ.

Saved from what?

I think hell would be an interesting topic for scholarly discussion here if the Deebs decide to dedicate a post to it. After I became churchless, I wandered far from the bible, although I developed an enormous honesty with God. When I finally reopened the book, I determined I would look to the holy spirit to teach me, and where I came across a problematic passage, I would, with all the brain power i could muster, explore the ancient Greek language.

I have been astounded. Regarding the hell issue alone, I was hoping to find hell to be a place of eternal sleep, and instead, as I explore, it is shaping up to be a place of reconciliation. Of course, I could be wrong; that is why I continue to study.

I will leave you with one point: Being like a Berean does NOT mean you read the study notes in your bible or take sermon notes. It means you search the scriptures using all the tools you have available. In this day and age, interlinears, lexicons, historical accounts, etc are all available online. As Wade and others have pointed out the errors in the authority and women passages introduced by translators and
propagated by “teachers,” I have come to the conclusion that my understanding of God’s word is ultimately up to me. I really want to know him for myself.

Leila wrote:

God wants all to be reconciled with him for all eternity, and thus because he wills it, all WILL be reconciled.

So you are saying that people are saved from the condition of not being reconciled with God. The preacher-before-last at my church believed that. He said that he had been a traditional orthodox conservative (choose a word) before he went to seminary. Then he went to seminary and while there he became a non-traditional, non-orthodox, liberal (pick a word) universalist. Then with years in the ministry he had landed somewhere in the middle. Mercy. Where did you go to school? Duke.

Anyhow, the fellow had some arguments for various sides of the question. I think he must have learned them all at Duke, which is a good thing to say for a school. But what he was saying, and what you seem to be saying is that there is indeed something to be saved from. And that the message would be “be ye reconciled to God.”

I am good with that, except it has some problems. It is seems to be calvinistic determinism except more inclusive. So why would anybody need to be offered reconciliation with God if in fact it was a foregone conclusion and the recipient of the offer had no way to turn it down? And if, in fact, failure to reconcile with God now would have no actual consequences, it would just be postponing the inevitable. This would be the concept of irresistible grace. So the only question would be to what extent does God enforce His will on people? If one says totally, eventually, then one would have to say that the concept of double predestination would not be inconceivable either. So the only issue would be to figure out the mind of God on the issue, leaving man totally out of the picture.

At this point one could say that there are arguments on either side of the question. Yes, there are. But it would be essential to know which arguments are correct, just in case this level of determinism is not what God is thinking. So the individual would have to, I guess, believe as if this is not true while hoping that it is true, in order to cover all the bases. Here again, I can see where that would work, I guess, unless people made a preliminary choice (to hold off on reconciliation and let God solve it in the end) and it turned out to the the wrong one. But in any case that is the issue.

Did not B16, in a pre-pope document called “…dominus iesus..” touch on this? I believe he ended by saying that we must base beliefs now on the currently available divine revelation, and that no further revelation is expected but that sometimes there is further understanding of the existing revelation. That seem like a good position to take. Decide and act on what you know. Hope for whatever, but understand that it is just hope.

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-workaholics/201203/understanding-the-dynamics-workaholism-narcissism

I’ve been reading about narcissism & workaholism and read the following this morning:

These bright and talented workaholics crave being the centre of attention. They easily monopolize conversations talking about themselves and their concerns, and mention others when they wish to name-drop and impress. If their one-way conversations are interrupted, these poor listeners quickly self-reference back to their particular interests or expertise. Without Feeling’s genuine other-directed focus, they rarely ask questions unless the forthcoming information might prove useful.

Guess is Dee disqualifies herself because shes too inquisitive, and cares about knowing and finding out what other people think as opposed to being oppressively preoccupied with her thoughts that lead her to not inquire of others!

@ Deb:

@ Paula:

What you are saying in paragraph seven is very like one of the characters/situations in “The Great Divorce” by C S Lewis. It was a former pastor who could not give up the search for truth even when given the opportunity to experience Truth itself.

@ dee:
Have you read CS Lewis The Great Divorce?

Now I’m asking you a question lol

@ Bruce Gerencser:

I know you used to be an IFB pastor, but you are missing something here by being too literal. What kind of fire does not consume? What kind of fire does not produce light so that it burns without consuming in outer darkness? At this point surely one must stop and try to understand what Jesus was saying in the first place. Descriptive metaphor? Trying to explain something for which we have no reference point and therefore cannot adequately grasp? Using the concepts of the day to trigger peripheral nuances which have been lost to us?

There is a choice here; to say this makes no sense to me therefore it must not be true, or to say this makes no sense to me therefore I need more information/insight/understanding.

In the book of Jonah, the preaching of impending judgment brought about a response of repentance. Perhaps saying that such preaching never works is too broad.

@ Paula:

Correct, I do not think the Bible is what Christians claim it is.

I am fine with debate, just not here. In a debate I would ask you for proof of your claim that there is a hell. Since I view the Bible no differently than a Harry Potter book, saying “the Bible says” would not be proof to me.

@ Nancy:

I stopped being an IFB pastor a decade before I stopped pastoring.

I don’t need more information. Sorry. After a lifetime in the Christian church, more information is not the problem. I know what the Bible says. I just reject it.

hell being metaphorical opens up an interpretive can of worms. I am fine with whatever someone wants to believe. My point in commenting was to share how these discussions are viewed from the outside.

There are some thinking traps which require caution. For example:

If God is good, and if God is all powerful, then God would of course do such and such. Since I do not see that happening then either there is no god, or else God is not good. The false assumption here is obvious; who am I to think that I know what ought to be done in any particular circumstance?

As to the matter of such and such, it makes no sense to me, therefore it makes no sense to anybody else because there is no sense to be made of it. Again: really? I am that smart? So why am I not rich and famous?

I do not like such and such idea, it makes me uncomfortable, I find it abhorrent therefore my only option is to reject the idea in toto. The false assumption here being that comfort is more important than truth.

I always heard, the way I learned in school, my favorite preacher whom I loved always said, so and so is recognized as an expert in this field, etc. The false assumption being that the speaker is correct because of one of the reasons stated combined with the idea that if someone is correct in one thing he would be correct in all things always. Obviously not. The issue and the arguments stand or fall on their own value, not on the reputation of the speaker.

If this one issue falls, then the whole construct on my belief system would crumble, and we know that the construct is correct so therefore this issue as understood must be correct. No so. The whole construct may need to crumble, might not crumble, but in either case to have a predetermined outcome does not say anything about the truth of the one issue. One does not believe one issue in order to produce a certain result but only if the issue itself is proven true.

@ Bruce Gerencser:
Where do like to debate, Bruce? In places where you can call the Bible names like “It’s no different than a Harry Potter book” and receive laughs?

dee wrote:

My conversion was not due to “the Bible says.”

Same here. Not only did I not own a Bible, but outside of a few “snippets” here and there, did not know what it really was about other than the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Mark wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you, but fear of hell definitely impacted my decision for Christ. I believe we need both an understanding of God's goodness as well as God's wrath.

I think that a decision for Christ is different from knowing Jesus Christ. It might get someone’s attention though.

Paula wrote:

Or do they just drop “their truth” on you, close themselves off, then leave without discussion or “debate”.

And check off your name on the “Witnessed To” list, because once Everyone in the World is Witnessed To(TM) and Makes Their Decision(TM), then The End will come.

Guess what, Heathen(TM)? You’re just another End Time Prophecy checklist item to trigger the End of the World.

(I am NOT making that up. One of my writing partners has told me about a Bible Translation/Missionary organization with just that motivation and goal. Once they translate the Bible into all these obscure tribal languages and the missionaries preach their altar calls in backwoods New Guinea or the Amazon, then Christ is cleared to come and end the world.)

Pastor Burleson ‘gets it’. If there were more like him, Protestantism wouldn’t be in the triage mode that it’s in at present.

Daisy wrote:

Many of the men pounding the pulpit on these topics (e.g., sexual sin, etc) are later found to either be adulterers or drug addicts themselves, or to be involved in some other picadillo or another.

Explanation’s simple. They’re self-treating and self-medicating without the danger of anyone finding out. A ManaGawd HAS to be a Perfect Spiritual Giant and present a perfect Godly Gospelly image. If he shows any flaw whatsoever, his congregation and colleagues could turn on him like a feral dog pack. (Especially if he’s taught them in an image that involves throwing Lukewarm and Apostates under the bus.) So if he has a problem, he has to self-treat in secret, without anyone that he can confide in or who could help him.

And you get recovering alcoholic Billy Sunday preaching Christless sermons against Demon Rum.

You get Rush Limbaugh, Number-one Fanboy of the War on Drugs while battling a secret Oxycontin addiction.

You get Ted Haggard, auditioning for the part of “more genteel Fred Phelps” until he got caught with a male prostitute.

And one day it all blows sky-high, probably with a lot of collateral damage.

dee wrote:

If God is as He is represented in the Bible, then there are many who want nothing to do with Him. How do you feel about a God who creates a place for those who want nothing to do with Him. In other words, He allows them to be separated from Him.
Perhaps hell has levels-one for the ones who just are not interested in God and other levels with punishment for evil men like Hitler. The Bible says there are varying rewards in heaven. Perhaps the same exists in hell?
Could hell, for some, be a place that God no longer interferes but allows those who are not interested to live out their immortality their way?
My thoughts on hell/annihilationism are in flux. Apparently so were John Stott’s since he became open to the idea of annihilationism at the end of his life. Since he was a great theologian, and I am not, and he couldn’t come to a firm conclusion, I do not feel bad for constantly revisiting the subject.

This is where I am. But my own pastor–and that pastor friend mentioned earlier–both assure me that their reading of Scripture is, that hell exists (in some form) but that it will be destroyed at Christ’s return. I therefore am pretty comfortable thinking that–as I horrified some friends [years ago] by saying– I don’t think that the monsters of history are sitting around in Heaven at a tea party with St Teresa of Avila, I don’t believe they are being tortured. They are just so far gone in their own darkness that they would HATE Heaven; it would, in fact, torture them to be there……
In fact, if I believed that God was sending people to some mountain of fire foreevr, I wouldn’t want anything to do with Him myslef. He’s not like that; if He were, Jesus wouldn’t have gone to the cross…..

This is, of course, just my own opinion…..

dee wrote:

Leila wrote:
There is an entire body of scriptural evidence that points to another point of view, one called Universal Reconciliation
I promise that I am not debating you. I find these ideas interesting.
Since it looks like you have done some reading in this area, could you describe how justice is served for men like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc.?
Also, how does this point of view deal with the angels who fell?

Dee, I wouldn’t say I’m debating this either. I’m not an apologist for the UR point of view. I’m just one who is exploring it and intrigued by it, because the more I consider it, the more it makes sense to me in terms of the character of God.

The “Hitler Question” is one that often crops up. Here’s how committed UR folks address that:

1) Many believe that unrepentant sinners/monsters like Hitler go through a purgatory stage (cleansing and/or punitive) that God uses to further draw them to Himself. This would most closely answer your question of justice.

2) Christ took the punishment for the sins of Hitler just as He did for you and me. It may take longer for Hitler to understand and accept that (see above point), but the mechanism is the same.

3) Some believe that once our minds/bodies are renewed we will clearly understand our sin, repent fully, and reconcile with God.

4) Some believe that while God will reconcile all humans, the same may not go for rebel angels.

Scripture says that God will make ALL things new, and He will defeat ALL evil. If Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., are in eternal conscious torment, evil is not defeated, it still exists, though in torment. What would bring greater glory to God: to torment Hitler forever, or to bring Hitler from the dark side into the light?

Daisy wrote:

(that is, I have tried to live out the Bible’s teachings on morality as consistently as I could)

I just wanted to say that I am thankful for your testimony. You have been an encouragement to me personally, and I am sure to many of our other digital friends as well.

Garland wrote:

What about Nineveh?

I am not sure a person can make a comparison with a culture that existed before Jesus in a very different dispensation (I’m not a dispensationalist, but that word is apropos here). And of course, we must recognize that (assuming Jonah is historical, and not a morality play) Ninevah was destroyed for its wickedness, so whatever happened in Jonah would have been temporary. I would go farther and suggest that a confusion of the Testaments might underly a lot of the poor teaching I have heard.

linda wrote:

It isn’t politically correct for me to say this, as I currently attend an SBC, but there is the scriptural possibility that hell is a place of final choice. Maybe the refining fire really does purify. Maybe it really does annihilate the unrepentant. And maybe we really do have the free will to choose. And maybe all will ultimately choose Christ.
I simply don’t know.
I can argue from scripture for hell, for annihilation, and must admit the Catholics may be on to something with purgatory. I can argue from scripture for universalism.
Again, I simply don’t know.
But I do know this: simple justice demands consequences for evil. I recognize the evil in me, and believe it is also in all people. (Not that we are totally evil, or that everyone does evil. Just that we are broken.)
I recognize how awful those consequences are. And I am eternally grateful that my Lord took those consequences in my place.
I love and serve Him in response to that great Love, even though it took fear to show me how great that Love is.
How can I not want to spend eternity with Someone who would suffer so for me?

Yes, yes, yes. Everything Linda said here!

linda wrote:

It isn’t politically correct for me to say this, as I currently attend an SBC, but there is the scriptural possibility that hell is a place of final choice. Maybe the refining fire really does purify. Maybe it really does annihilate the unrepentant. And maybe we really do have the free will to choose. And maybe all will ultimately choose Christ.

I simply don’t know.

I can argue from scripture for hell, for annihilation, and must admit the Catholics may be on to something with purgatory. I can argue from scripture for universalism.

Again, I simply don’t know.

But I do know this: simple justice demands consequences for evil. I recognize the evil in me, and believe it is also in all people. (Not that we are totally evil, or that everyone does evil. Just that we are broken.)

I recognize how awful those consequences are. And I am eternally grateful that my Lord took those consequences in my place.

I love and serve Him in response to that great Love, even though it took fear to show me how great that Love is.

How can I not want to spend eternity with Someone who would suffer so for me?

I’m going to hell, then. Because I can’t spend eternity with someone I know is frying the flesh off someone I love and care about, because they didn’t believe the right way or didn’t confess all their sins in just the right manner.

And nobody will answer my question as to why it’s absolutely, totally and completely wrong for dictators to have concentration camps and death camps, but it’s perfectly OK for God Almighty to do the same thing–forever. I don’t believe in divine command theory (i.e., if God does it, it’s automatically right). I’m supposed to forgive seventy times seven–why not God? I’m supposed to love my enemies–why not God? And don’t tell me that hellfire is love. That’s bogus.

If you (and not specifically referring to linda here, there are several people who might want to think about this) truly believe that if you don’t believe the right things, you’re going to hell, then *what are you doing about it?* It’s what I told that pastor back a quarter-century ago. If you’re wanting to get the reality of hell into people’s lives, then why aren’t you accosting every single person you meet with this reality? Well, beyond the fact that it would be insanely obnoxious, and we know how people generally feel about street preachers and persons shoving hellfire and damnation tracts in our faces, I would submit it’s because deep down, you really don’t believe it’s true yourself.

If I believed that people were going into hell right now because they weren’t getting the right gospel, I certainly wouldn’t be typing this on a blog. I’d be out “rescuing the perishing.” The fact is, I don’t believe this. I’m quite willing to stake my eternity on that, because I WILL NOT believe it and I have good reasons not to believe God is the cruel monster of hellfire and damnation.

I am also of the opinion that none of us has got it right about God and we’re dependent on God’s grace in the end.

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

And nobody will answer my question as to why it’s absolutely, totally and completely wrong for dictators to have concentration camps and death camps, but it’s perfectly OK for God Almighty to do the same thing–forever. I don’t believe in divine command theory (i.e., if God does it, it’s automatically right). I’m supposed to forgive seventy times seven–why not God? I’m supposed to love my enemies–why not God? And don’t tell me that hellfire is love. That’s bogus.

I’d like to know the answer to that question, too! I’m with you on this one 100%.

@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:

I wish you would do something for me. I read every word you write and I think you have a good mind and a good heart. That is not flattery-I really do. If you have not read it, please read “The Great Divorce” by C S Lewis and tell me what you think. It is very short. It is about heaven and “hell” understood a little differently with specific made up little character shots of some people who choose heaven and some who do not. It does not resemble anything you have just said in your comment, but it bears reading and discussing. Mostly because what he says in it represents the thinking of a lot of people on this issue.

I am thinking that what Lewis describes may well be close to the truth, and I am thinking that Jesus, knowing the alternatives may have viewed with horror what we may view only with a little sadness or perhaps some pity, but not the way He might have seen it. He might have described something like this quite differently than I would have. Obviously I do not know, but I would love to get your take on it. And this is not some challenge. I am not above issuing a challenge, but this is not that. This is curiosity. I would like to know how someone with your stated feelings would react to Lewis’ ideas on this subject.

Garland wrote:

What about Nineveh?

Sometimes the Bible is just an historical narrative about what and where way back then. Sometimes it has no application to the here and now at all, although there is no shortage of teachers & exegetes who can manufacture just about anything from the pages of Scripture.

@ Paula:

Paula,

I have no idea what your point is or why your knickers are in a knot. I left a simple comment, an observation from someone on the outside of the endless debates Christians have over who is right, who is wrong. My point was/is…it doesn’t matter to me. The street preacher can scream his truth and Wade Burleson can smile as he shares his truth…the end game is still the same. Someone like me is headed for hell. All the other beliefs and debates are just details.

I don’t debate period. Not my game.

As far as the Bible. I simply stated how I view the Bible. You do realize the Bible is an inanimate object? I doubt IT is going to object if I compare it to Harry Potter.

In the past my comments here have been appreciated. If they are not any longer appreciated then I won’t leave them. If you want to specifically talk about my children (for some reason you have mentioned them twice and brought them into this discussion) please come to my blog and I would be more than happy to talk to you.

I won’t comment further.

Bruce

@ Bruce Gerencser:

I appreciate your comments. Please hang around, share your thoughts.

@ Marsha:

+10.

@ Bruce Gerencser: It can look that way to insiders as well, Bruce.

I am an xtian universalist now, along the lines described by Robin Parry (aka Gregory McDonald). See http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com

@ Leila: Preach it, Leila!

“Judgment proclaimed always leads people to flee from God, never toward God.”

That’s why I could never understand picketers at our local abortion facility. The love from the pregnancy center and support for new moms seemed like a better way to reach a needy, hurting heart.

Marsha wrote:

Paula. I am not comfortable with your comments to Bruce. He doesn’t believe there is a God. He just doesn’t. He is entitled to his beliefs and can express them here according to the moderators. I don’t see any ‘seeds of hatred’ in his comments and I don’t see any reason for you to be challenging him about his relationship with his children.

Not to pile on, Paula, but I have to agree here.

@ Nancy: I do not see any indication that he meant people to suffer for all eternity.

If anything, like Dee, I think C.S. Lewis’ fictional treatment of the afterlife (in The Great Divorce) is likely *far* closer to the truth than the “burn in hellfire forever” stream of xtianity – that is fear mongering, at its worst in things like Jonathan Edwards’ ghastly “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” I don’t see Jesus attempting to scare people in that manner, and the Father he speaks of looks *nothing* like Edwards’ wrathful god (lowercase g is deliberate).

@ numo:

Yeah, we have been talking about The Great Divorce some here, and I have tried to get mirele to read it and comment. I like those ideas. Did you read my comment on that above? I don’t know that the fact that I like it means anything one way or the other, but there is a lot of food for thought there.

@ Nancy:
I think Lewis’ purpose was to provide food for thought, as well as to entertain.

And let me raise this issue. In medicine we use the threat or even certainty of negative consequences all the time to get people to change their behavior. Stop smoking, or else. Diabetics, stay on the diet and take the meds or else. Quit with the risky sexual behavior or here is what will happen. Stuff like that. I am not sure why people would be apt to change thinking or behavior regarding their bodies based on the threat of negative consequences and yet similar warning regarding spiritual issues would have the opposite effect. There are obviously variables here that I do not understand.

In final sentence of my comment above, I meant to say “doesn’t apply to himself.”

Bruce Gerencser wrote:

Let me share an opinion from the atheist pew. No matter the approach or the theology, be it the screaming street preacher or Wade Burleson, if the end result is non-Christians burn in hell forever, then it is all the same. The end result is that most of the human race will spend eternity in hell/Lake of Fire.
I don’t want to debate this. I just want you to understand how these discussions look from the outside.

Thanks so much for sharing your insights. I appreciate hearing your perspective.

@ Nancy:

“…
surely one must stop and try to understand what Jesus was saying in the first place. Descriptive metaphor? Trying to explain something for which we have no reference point and therefore cannot adequately grasp? Using the concepts of the day to trigger peripheral nuances which have been lost to us?

There is a choice here; to say this makes no sense to me therefore it must not be true, or to say this makes no sense to me therefore I need more information/insight/understanding.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

I choose the latter. But expect that information/insight/understanding can only be extremely partial (as in only in part). And to try to relax and be ok with that.

I love learning and knowing and understanding… but there comes a point where understanding into transcendent/spiritual/otherworldly things stops, and from there we can only stand at the edge & look off into the mists in wonderment. But not spend too much time doing that. It an be a real time waster. (not that I think our conversation has reached that!)

I even think Jesus at age 30-33 had limited knowledge and understanding into these things. More than any other human, but I think there were limitations.

And I for one do not believe that all who die without God will receive the same outcome. I do believe that those who have done great evil will pay a greater price of some sort for that evil and those who were good people but did not profess Christ will not receive horrid punishment. Because in that case, God would not be a god of justice.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
It wasn’t a challenge. Just asking for him to provide proof of himself. He’s asking for proof for God, or at least the existence of something mentioned in the Bible.

But Bruce exists, right. If he has children they exist right. I’m not asking if he mows his grass or trims his trees. I’m asking him to provide relational proof. Fair game as far as I’m concerned.

And don’t tell me that’s too personal. It gets personal when someone says the things he said.

It would be like if you had a beloved sister, for example. Someone you know without a doubt was the most caring, kind, compassionate person you’ve ever know. Their while life has been devoted to relieving the suffering caused by sin in this world, wherever and whenever they can. And she wrote a book, a best seller, that people have read the world over and because of it have been inspired to do good and love others,too.

But she had an enemy, who came here, and told everyone it was a lie she even existed and her book was crap. You might feel something. At least I hope you would.

@ Sara:
I’m not the arbiter of his belief system. That’s reading in to it. Of course he’s free to think as he chooses. I’m not afraid to challenge him though. I have a personal relationship with the One he’s talking about, too. This isn’t just academic for me. Are you suggesting this should be academic for me?

I’m also not always like this. It isn’t like I always take this approach. So, please don’t make too many assumptions here about me and my heart or my motives. He’s free to say what he wants right? Am I free not to pander to it?

Love the discussion here and the sense of community, even though I don’t post much.
But a few quick thoughts: it was the late Richard John Neuhaus’s wonderful little book, Death on a Friday Afternoon, that turned me into a “hopeful” or “quasi” universalist. After that I read von Balthasar’s Dare We Hope All Men Be Saved? which clinched the deal.
For the record, I can still say the entire Nicene Creed with no fingers crossed behind my back.

@ Paula:
I readily recognize that you and many other people find comfort, peace, and direction in religion. I have no objection to that. It is not for me. I spent 50 years in the Christian church, 25 years in the ministry. Been there, done that.

As far as my kids are concerned. I have six children and soon to be ten grandchildren. We love each other and would do anything for each other. I live where I do because all of my children and grandchildren are within 20 minutes of my home. I see all of them most every week. We are a close knit, tight family.

So, if you are asking me to compare my family to the Christian God, hands down my family wins. God and I got a divorce almost 7 years ago and I ain’t seen her since. My children? Married to God or divorced, they love me and help me and I do the same for them. God promises to never leave or forsake us, yet we have no evidence of this other than a “feeling”. My children have promised the same, as I have to them. I can reach out and touch them and know they are real. We love and respect each other regardless of our differences in belief. (atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Baptist, and none of the above)

So, I am not sure what you are looking for. I get it, you don’t like the fact that I dissed your favorite book. Sorry about that, but I think it is a bad book that has been used to hurt countless people.(and the belief in a literal hell is an abhorrent belief morally and theologically) Every day I get emails and blog comments from people who were harmed by men and women who hurt them with one hand while holding the Bible in their other hand. I have seen too much ugliness done in the name of God to think very highly of the Bible . Come over to my blog and read some of the comments left by your family members. Every one of them quotes the Bible before they start hating and bashing.

I said in my previous comment that I would not comment again. You made your demand clearer so I thought I would try to provide what you wanted. So, I have, end of discussion. My intent really was to just leave a simple comment and not get drawn into a discussion like this. Such is the nature of the internet.

I am not hard to find if you want to discuss or debate these things further. (publicly or privately)

@ Paula:

sigh…if your faith is so strong, then why do your comments seem overly aggressive. Your asking Bruce to be an upright citizen before you will engage his question.

What if Bruce was divorced and estranged from his children, ho would that make his question any less valid?

Are only good married folks worthy of your attention?

I very much doubt you intended to come across this way, but you might want to ask yourself if you would feel like engaging someone on an agnostic/atheist site who demanded proof of your relational status with family before they would answer your question. How would that make you feel?

Just my two cents from the agnostic pew of the TWW….

It has been my experience that a lot of supposed Christian leaders can teach repentance but not practice it themselves. Examples include C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, Bob Weiner (Maranatha Ministries), Bill Gothard, etc.

A shame many don’t practice what they preach.

@ raswhiting: I think you might want to check into the actual words that are customarily translated as “hell” in English. See my comment a bit upthread on this.

And… I might get flak for this, but here goes.

I wonder why so many folks are so passionate about eternal hell – I mean, ???

I think there is SO much more that’s worth focusing on than that.

And… I also think a lot of people view heaven as a celestial gated community, where Those People (whoever they happen to be) will be kept forever outside the walls while We get to have our cake and eat it too. You know, kinda like an eternal Jim Crow system.

I do not, cannot and will not put any stock in the kind of god who would endorse such an Us-Them dichotomy, and do not believe for one second that Jesus and his Father are like that. But us -well, we’ve all got our own prejudices, our own version of Those People. Me, too. And that is just flat-out wrong. It’s so easy to makes others into scapegoats for our own flaws, weaknesses and wrongs against others, isn’t it?

Nancy wrote:

So why would anybody need to be offered reconciliation with God if in fact it was a foregone conclusion and the recipient of the offer had no way to turn it down? And if, in fact, failure to reconcile with God now would have no actual consequences, it would just be postponing the inevitable.

Are there only two alternatives: consequences/no consequences? Or do we all (including those who are presently in relationship with God) experience consequences for every moment that we resist Him? After all, Scripture says He “chastens His sons” (sorry, not going to look up the reference for an exact quote). I’m getting to where I see this NOT as a “punishment” type of consequences, but as the natural outflow of stepping out of relationship with Him (e.g. what you sow, you reap). And the longer we continue to resist Him (even beyond this life?), the more extreme the consequences may be – without being infinite/eternal, and with His goal being to lead us to repentance/reconciliation at some point?

One more comment. Whatever the actual state of the (presently) unredeemed after death, the picture of a fiery hell where people suffer eternally in immortal bodies comes from Greek mythology – not Scripture. The preexistent immortal soul is a pagan Greek idea. Just wanted to throw that out there.

I should have been more clear. I wasn’t bringing up Nineveh to respond to the message in general, but to this statement:
“The message of God’s judgment toward sinners never leads sinners toward God. It just doesn’t happen. It’s impossible, according to Scripture.”
I’m certainly not trying to endorse corner preachers or others focusing inordinately on God’s wrath and judgment. I’m not even disagreeing with what Wade is saying, just how he supported it. I think that, when one makes a statement claiming scripture as its authority, it really should address scripture in depth rather than just quoting a single verse out of context. Prooftexting like that makes a strong argument weaker and, in my opinion, has a negative effect on dialogue in general.

@ numo: sorry, I neglected to mention Tartarus, which the Greeks believed was a place w/in Hades (the underworld) where *some* demigods and people were punished.

The word is used a couple of times in the NT, but again, the meaning isn’t the same as the common evangelical understanding of hell.

@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:

Funny you should say that…I read the whole Koran in college and a couple times after 9/11. I remember having the distinct feeling that I could’ve read most of the passages to a Calvinist and there would have been no contradiction between the two.

You may be right about Calvin (though I’ve no sure idea) much of the late middle ages were influenced by contact with the Muslim world via the crusades. The Muslim scholars were more advanced in math and had kept copies of the ancient Greek philosophers. I believe Thomas Aquinas was indebted to many of the ancient work preserved by Muslim scholars.

Hmm….first, on the whole ‘method-of-conversion’ thing……Growing up in the Pentecostal world, not having a ‘conversion date’ with accompanying story was kind of worrisome for me – as a child, especially, what with all the other nonsense going on….but the truth is, I can’t remember when Jesus was not an active part of my life. And I remember back to 18 month old. What with the various abuses that dogged my childhood, things got pretty twisty, but he was never not there….my pentecostal family/friends never knew what to do with that….were suspicious. A few years ago, I became friends with someone who was raised LCMS and we talked about it and she said that was pretty normal in her neck of the woods…she doesn’t have a ‘date,’ either.

As to hell….hmmm…..I grew up with a Jack Chick overly to the pentecostalism and hell was very real to me as child…had nightmares about going there….the abuse having damned me, you see….but now…..I’ve wrestled with this and am not done wrestling…and my current resting place closely resembles CS Lewis’ Great Divorce senario….perhaps, in the end, we choose how near…or far…from God we wish to be….and, since he is light, the further we choose to be from him, the darker it gets….but, I am not settled on this and probably won’t be in this lifetime.

THC wrote:

So, the point of the post is, don’t be a street evangelist?

Well, obviously, that wasn’t the point of the post. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that. And although Wade clearly hopes that we will forsake our infatuation with Law and judgment, I don’t know where the idea of “our infatuation with sin” comes from – Law and judgment are not the same as sin, and Wade explicitly hopes for preaching that does turn people from sin.

Statements like I encourage Wade to do a study on [the topic he writes briefly about here], or I encourage THC to read Wade Burleson’s work [before being pretty sure what Wade believes] can only come across as somewhat patronising and belittling. I put the second one in, not because I think it’s clever, but because it clearly isn’t. It is possible for two or more people, who disagree on important matters, to discuss those matters in a way that leaves everyone the richer for it, but I’ve yet to be convinced that’s it.

It seems to me that the point of the post is that repentance is turning towards God, more than away from sin. Most people focused on “turning from sin” just end up turning on the spot.

In other news: the men’s semis have just begun, so I’d better weigh in quick with my predictions.

Djoko to win in 4; Rafa to win in 3, one of them a tie-break and one of the others a 6-1 (or a “breadstick”, as they’re apparently known – one down from a “bagel”).

I hope this is helpful.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Full disclosure: At the time of writing the previous, Gulbis was 1-0 up on serve in the opening set. As I write this one, Djoko has just held for 2-2. The last game went to deuce, but otherwise no drama yet.

Patrice wrote:

I am so sorry about a split appearing on the horizon in your church.

Thanks. Me too.

Nancy wrote:

That is where I am in thinking right now on this subject, which is too rigid for some people and too wishy-washy for others. On, well.

I am curious about this framing. What do you see as wishy-washy and what as rigid?

Leila wrote:

4) Some believe that while God will reconcile all humans, the same may not go for rebel angels.

Leila, thanks for sharing your thoughts here, as they are helping me sort out my own messy head. I relate very much to what Dee said about constantly returning to these questions.

I’ve often wondered about Lucifer’s plight, along with other demons. What does the judgement of Lucifer/Satan reveal about the character of God? Why is there no apparent redemption available, at least not that I have ever heard about? And, if indeed, Satan is to be forever punished, why are humans given a different future?

Apologies to Wade for this tangent! I also loved his thoughts, and can relate to being captivated by God’s love so much that I simply wanted to be closer. I realized that my sinful lifestyle came between my fullest experience of His presence, so I have progressively chosen what is so much more rewarding. A recent saying I heard from Brian Zahnd is that “God is more willing to die for His enemies than to punish them.” That’s the love that drew me in.

Patrice wrote:

I am curious about this framing. What do you see as wishy-washy and what as rigid?

First, I did not say actually that I see it that way but rather that “some people” see it that way. In some folks’ understanding of how one ought (note the imperative) to think, everything must be specific, perhaps even quantifiable were possible and not subject to nuance, maybe not subject even to discussion. I have has some unfortunate prior experience with baptist fundamentalism and they are like that.

On the other hand, there seems to be the opinion among some people that to have some specific idea or belief, even if it is up for analysis or discussion, is too much dogmatism. The idea being that one must have multiple competing ideas about everything and one must not have any position at all about anything. That seems to represent open mindedness is some circles.

What I like to do is think about something, research it as much as seems reasonable or indicated, form an initial impression, then throw it out there and see what happens. Does it work? What do other people think? How does this do in the wider world of people. Having the initial impression in the first place is too much for those addicted to rigidity, and being in the process of fine tuning said idea is too wishy-washy for others.

Frankly, that is going to have to be their problem.

Lot’s of good conversation on this topic.

I guess I’m still trying to figure out what this thing called “Real Repentance” is and who decides when someone has attained it . . .

To me the phrase is another one of those religious phrases that is used to pummel folks.

Finally the doctrine of limited atonement has sunk in! I never could figure out why is was so crucial to Calvinism. If Jesus really did die for the sins of the whole world then the unsaved would not have to bear the cost of their sins for eternity. One thing that has troubled me is that if even one person burns forever
then eventually he will have paid a greater cost (infinite) than Christ paid on the cross for the sins of the world (which is finite).

My tennis-related comment has landed in mod… that has to be some kind of record!

@ Nancy:
Thanks, Nancy. That is also how I see it.

@ Janet Varin:

“One thing that has troubled me is that if even one person burns forever
then eventually he will have paid a greater cost (infinite) than Christ paid on the cross for the sins of the world (which is finite).”
++++++++++++++

yes — this has troubled me, too. I’ve never settled down enough to articulate my thoughts, but that’s exactly it.

Paula wrote:

And there was no proof to be found in Bruces claim that his family is better than God’s, hands down. That his love for his six children is stronger, better and more secure than God’s love for me and the rest of his children. It’s merely something he claimed without proof.

Bruce has his beliefs that you think is wrong, you have yours that he thinks is wrong. Each can do “proofing” til the cows come home and still not change the other’s mind because the bases are different. Since he doesn’t believe in God, there is no way for him to even enter into your proposal that he trump your idea of God’s family-love.

The question becomes, “How can we best treat those who hold views contradictory to ours?”

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

I’m going to hell, then. Because I can’t spend eternity with someone I know is frying the flesh off someone I love and care about, because they didn’t believe the right way or didn’t confess all their sins in just the right manner.

I haven’t read all the comments here, so apologies if someone has already said this.

Hell as I understand it, is the consequence of sin, law-breaking, moral evil. It is not for believing the wrong way, but not believing at all, neither in actual wrong done nor in God’s justice in sentencing us for this. We don’t think it unjust or unloving for a judge in a human court to sentence someone for wrongs committed, why thing this of God? He is going to judge us on what we have actually done wrong, with perfect knowledge of the circumstances and our motives.

I think the frying flesh/Dante inferno picture of hell is a result of taking NT metaphors too literally. Hell is also pictured as an eternal grave and darkness. The point of this is to get us to take it seriously.

Would it be just of God simply to let us all off the unloving things we have all done? Ignore the harm we have done others, and if not done it, thought it? That is hardly loving!

If God universally allowed everyone into the new heaven and earth, those who love self and hate their neighbour would wreck it, it would be a continuation of the fallen world we know at present.

At some point all wrongs and injustices are going to put right, and good and evil permanently separated.

Since God has given an undeserved way for us to escape hell by repentance and faith in Christ, there is no need for anyone to go there unless they simply don’t want to meet the conditions required to avoid it, that is, they choose to love their personal autonomy and sin rather than the righteousness of God. What do you do with a thief who won’t stop stealing?

God is kind, and forgivenness is available, but if you don’t want it …

@ Ken:
How do you reconcile this with Jesus’ statement that when lifted up, he will draw all human beings to himself? It’s one of a number of passages that runs counter to what you’re proposing.

TENNIS SPOILER ALERT
TENNIS SPOILER ALERT
TENNIS SPOILER ALERT

If you intend watching the highlights later on, skip the rest of this post.
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
Well, both my predictions were spot on with one exception: there was no tie-break (or, indeed, a remotely close set) between Rafa and Muzza. But overall, hurrah for me.
…
…
…
…

END OF TENNIS SPOILER ALERT
END OF TENNIS SPOILER ALERT
END OF TENNIS SPOILER ALERT

Paula wrote:

I wish I had stronger writing skills to explain my thoughts!

First of all, to me God is the perfect parent and I’m comfortable with both He and She to refer to God because God transcends gender and I think the point is that we see God in terms of the Perfect Community of Oneness. In the relationship between the Father, Son & Holy Spirit there is never any infighting; no discord, distrust or disunity. In Him we discover what we long for – a relationship of peace in which we’ve been freed of our sin, where we’re totally accepted, where there’s no condemnation, and where we’re loved with an everlasting love. (Bruce says these truths are nothing more than “feelings.”)

In God we discover the perfection of love, not amongst ourselves. He pours His love into our hearts and then we are able to truly love one another, but we are still flawed. All of us are. So in our families we’re not going to find perfection because none of us is God, and certainly not all members of our families are either. In no way do I see myself or my family as perfect, and I certainly don’t choose to relate only to those who “are good married folks worthy of my attention.” That would be crazy since I’m divorced. Plus, as you can see I don’t say things in ways that always inspire angelic visions and make people desire to serve & follow me. That’s not my goal, obviously. I add my voice here and there to the conversation for whatever it’s worth.
And I’ll be honest. I don’t know Bruce but there’s something about him that touched off something in me. I felt a sense of anger. Each time he mentioned God or the Bible it was offensive. Not sure if he follows the blog, but I’ve never seen him weight in when we’ve been talking about important issues about protecting children, etc. His pet peeve is God, who he divorced, and hasn’t seen since. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, I doubt he ever “saw” God to begin with. Just because he was a Pastor didn’t make him a man of God. Anyone reading this blog becomes aware of that. You cannot lead someone to true and lasting faith if you don’t possess it yourself. Is my faith in God strong? It’s terribly flawed. But I believe and pray that God would help me with my unbelief.

I do believe that God is love, and that he demonstrated love in what he did to redeem us and reconcile us to him. My point was to draw attention to God and the story of redemption. Yes, it’s something we read about in an inspired book, but it’s made alive in us. Regardless of my failings, my union with God has been secured by his sacrifice. Even my times of fear can’t separate me from His love. I’m glad my salvation doesn’t rest within my own insufficient efforts.

So, I asked the man to provide proof from his own life in comparison to the proof God provided us of his love. I asked about what he’s done in demonstration of his love in the lives of his children. He says he doesn’t believe God exists, and focuses on the “proofs” people share with him through email and on his blog, and those which emanate from his own imagination. He doesn’t find enough “evidence” in the Bible, that horrible book, to believe what God has revealed to us about himself to back up the Bible’s claim that God is love.

And there was no proof to be found in Bruces claim that his family is better than God’s, hands down. That his love for his six children is stronger, better and more secure than God’s love for me and the rest of his children. It’s merely something he claimed without proof. He wants me to take him at his word, like I should believe him. Why should I when his own claim is void of any proofs? Surely a man such as himself who demands supernatural proofs understands things in the natural are verifiable. He won’t take God at his Word. Yet he wants us to take him at his? I doubt he tells the truth. Hope that doesn’t offend you or anyone, just like you should be offended when he says the Bible is a fairy tale.

Paula, I don’t understand what you are thinking here. What does Bruce’s relationship with his children prove about anything? If we take him at his word that he has a good relationship with his family (and I do) what would that prove about whether God does or doesn’t exist? He isn’t saying ‘God does not exist and the proof of it is that I am a good family man’ so why is this so important to you? He didn’t even want to debate beliefs with you let alone discuss his family. He only gave in and wrote about his family because it seems so important to you. But you were never going to believe him and I am sure he knew that. I certainly did. You pushed him into commenting and then announced that he wasn’t telling the truth.

I have read other comments here and elsewhere from Bruce and I have read some of his blog articles. I like him. I think he is a good man. I don’t find him in any way offensive. I do find your comments about him offensive because he has said nothing to deserve them.

Is it your position that atheists and agnostics cannot be good parents or have you just taken a dislike to this particular individual?

I have already defended Bruce once because I felt bad for him. Now I am doing it because I feel bad for you. I think something about the whole discussion is giving you a lot of pain and I wish you were feeling better.

OK, I think it’s time to step in here.

I have my views, and they are right. Everybody else is well-meaning.

I hope this is helpful.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

OK, I think it’s time to step in here.
I have my views, and they are right. Everybody else is well-meaning.
I hope this is helpful.

I will step in here also. I have my views too, if I could just remember where I put them.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

OK, I think it’s time to step in here.
I have my views, and they are right. Everybody else is well-meaning.
I hope this is helpful.

You have made me smile, and a bit of a chortle.

Patrice wrote:

The question becomes, “How can we best treat those who hold views contradictory to ours?”

By treating the ‘other’ the way we would want to be treated? We all laugh the same laughs, cry the same tears, and bleed the same blood. When we unite on this shared and common humanity, it makes it harder to vilify the ‘other’ based on beliefs which have little to do with peace and harmony in the here and now.

I have a reading recommendation that I like and some of you might want to check out. Confessions of a Funeral Director. calebwilde dot com

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

There’s also been some suggestion (but, as I’m not a scholar of Dante, I can’t comment on proof or not) Dante got a lot of his ideas about hell from Muslim writings. It’s for certain that the Koran is a lot more explicit than the Bible about people being burned for eternity and that it’s all God’s doing. *Which brings us right back around to good old Calvinism.*
Now I’m wondering how much influence Muslim writings had on John Calvin, off to see if I can scare anything up in Google.

I bet you have found the missing link! 🙂 numo reminded me that it wasn’t Greek mythology, but (I think – please correct me if I’m mixing it up still) a Greek philosophy known as Manichean dualism that originated the “fiery hell” for unbelievers (AND a system of unconditional election!). Augustine was a Manichean before converting to Christianity, and imported those ideas into Christian theology; Calvin was then influenced by Augustine. So the link from Islam to Calvin may be more indirect than direct (e.g. Islam, esp. medieval Islam, imported the same ideas from Greek philosophy at the same time as Dante).

Or is there a common point of origin in ancient Persian Zoroastrianism, which I think features fiery torment for sinners as well as dualism in the form of an Ahura Mazda-devil eternal tango?

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

Janet Varin wrote:
Finally the doctrine of limited atonement has sunk in! I never could figure out why is was so crucial to Calvinism. If Jesus really did die for the sins of the whole world then the unsaved would not have to bear the cost of their sins for eternity. One thing that has troubled me is that if even one person burns forever then eventually he will have paid a greater cost (infinite) than Christ paid on the cross for the sins of the world (which is finite).
Wow, o wow! Now I understand it too! I still think it’s repulsive, but now I understand the thinking.

Yes, this! I remember hearing in a class on Jonathan Edwards (the one who preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) that “an infinite offense against infinite holiness [sin] deserves an infinite punishment [hell].” Nope. (Otherwise, Jesus would have to “take our penalty” by suffering in hell for eternity so we could enjoy heaven, right?)

I walked out of class knowing EXACTLY why I would never, in this life or the next, be a Calvinist. (No offense to any Calvinists on the board.)

Muff Potter wrote:

By treating the ‘other’ the way we would want to be treated?

Yep, and you are one I was thinking about when I mentioned sometimes being careless about people because of particular ideologies I’m stuck on; in your case, evolutionary theory — yes or no. I am sorry about that, Muff. It is of little account compared to your person. I’ve always enjoyed your comments and the surprising ways you put things together. You help keep us open and that is a valuable position.

@ elastigirl:

Got, get it, agree!!

@ texaswildflower: Manicheanism originated in the Middle East and is considerably later than classical Greek philosophy and literature – late Hellenistic period
Keep in mind that the region was pretty cosmopolitan;,fwiw, Mani was the founder of Manichesnism

Am typing on phone. More whenever

@ texaswildflower: I think the reality of intertwining strands of Greek thought plus early xtiamity is far more complex than the sources youre reading are making it out to be.

Also, most of the folks making these claims have only read parts of Augustines works and are, IMO, proof texting him. (I’m not a fangirl, nor am I a Calvinist, feiw.)

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

All threats of judgment do is make me reach for my anti-anxiety medications.

Oh, my, well that would not work for you then. For some reason I don’t have a problem with anxiety, per se. That is using the clinical descriptors for anxiety. But somebody in my family does, and it can be a real torment for her sometimes.

What I tend to do–alright, actually do–with potentially anxiety causing situations is with the speed of light or so I hurl myself into some poorly thought out solution for whatever it is. Then by the time that it is clear that my solution is just nuts, time has passed and the threat has diminished or gone (or I just got used to it) and life goes back to normal. So what I have is a pretty extensive mental file folder of worthless ideas from which to draw as an instantaneous possible solution for almost everything imaginable.

Once I thought about raising earthworms as a potential food source in case of famine, for example. So now I have an earthworm file in my head (OK, also in my expandable plastic emergency folder) for use at any time. But no earthworms.

Once I became concerned about the possibility of total economic collapse and hit upon the idea to grow certain poisonous plants in the yard to sell or barter in the collapsed economy, since I had read an article that there would be a need for this to manage the packs of wild dogs that would be about. Of course, I did not do it. Especially after I realized it could be put to bad purposes. But even then I toyed with the idea. So just think, do I not need somebody or something to remind me that there are boundaries which must not be crossed “lest He, returning, chide.” First prize to the first person to tell me who said that without google.

And sometimes it is not so radical. I thought I might dig out my old violin and play on the street corner dressed to look as pitiful as possible. I figure they would pay me to stop playing.

Sometimes the ideas are not so bad. I have taught the grandchildren basic crochet stitches, and this summer I am going to teach them basic sewing skills for survival, push comes to shove. However, not one of them is willing to let me teach them how to sew up flesh (from the meat market of course) but one of them will cave and do it. And this tale just goes on and on and on.

So at this point the thing that worries me most is dying before I get it all done. It has got to be brain chemicals or something. I know a few other things to call it, but that would put me moderation until Thanksgiving .

Marsha wrote:

What does Bruce’s relationship with his children prove about anything?

I’ve tried to explain that I was focusing on what the bible says about God, and what he did to demonstrate love. The demonstration of His love was focused on His children. The greatest thing is love, right? God is love. The greatness of God and the outworking of His love is what the bible is about – and it all moves His plan for our redemption being fulfilled in Christ. Through his work we have been redeemed, brought back, and reconciled. This fact overshadows everything else in the Bible, right? It started in the Old Testament when God called Abraham, and promised him that he would be the father of many nations, and that his descendants would be more than the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.

We see the plan of redemption moving concurrently alongside the effects of the fall, as God used a nation to be his Ambassadors to represent Him to the nations of the world, and in them show that he is a God who keeps covenant with his people. And the whole time, everything was moving toward the fulfillment of His plan of redemption which was revealed in Christ. In Christ we see God’s love in full display as he laid down his life to fully redeem us. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It was sin that separated us from God in the first place. Christ provided the remedy and became sin for us, so that through faith in Him we can be wonderfully recondiled and united with God forever and throughout eternity, along with many many others….as many as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. God is love, and God is good.

I’m just saying “Beat that, Bruce.” Can he?

He says not only can he, but he has.

So, good for him. I wasn’t asking to embarrass him or to suggest I’m a better parent. I was pointing out the fact that God is an amazing parent, that none of us can beat. That’s what the life of God is all about which is available for all to read in the Good News of the Bible.

I asked Bruce about the relationship he enjoys with his children and more specifically, what he has done in an effort to ever repair the breach if ever any has occurred within his own family. In Bruce’s family there’s never been a breach, apparently. He paints a picture of unity and harmony despite their divergent views. They support one another and their love and acceptance of one another is secure. That’s great. And you can believe him. That’s fine. Maybe it’s true, I don’t know. I have my doubts. I don’t know the man, so that should be fine, too. In a debate with him he points out that you can’t use the bible because he doesn’t believe its claims. Seems ok then to me that it’s ok not to believe his claims, simply on the basis of his word. He can say his family hunky-dory all he wants, but the interesting thing to me is that he wishes us to believe his family lives in peace and harmony – which are attributes of God.

He might as well say we fight all the time and I’ve got one kid that doesn’t speak to me. I’ve never made any effort to go after that one child and repair the breach because that’s the kind of stuff we read about in the Bible. That’s what Jesus said he did, left the 99 to go after the 1. He could say that since he rejects the bible as a bad book containing accounts that poorly influence us, that taking the initiative, out of love, to restore his relationship with his child would be totally foolish because that’s a story from a fairy book that he rejects and wont follow.

But no, he describes his family in godly terms – and moreover – they’re better.

Are you still confused? Hope I helped clear things up for you.

If we take him at his word that he has a good relationship with his family (and I do) what would that prove about whether God does or doesn’t exist? He isn’t saying ‘God does not exist and the proof of it is that I am a good family man’ so why is this so important to you? He didn’t even want to debate beliefs with you let alone discuss his family. He only gave in and wrote about his family because it seems so important to you. But you were never going to believe him and I am sure he knew that. I certainly did. You pushed him into commenting and then announced that he wasn’t telling the truth.

I have read other comments here and elsewhere from Bruce and I have read some of his blog articles. I like him. I think he is a good man. I don’t find him in any way offensive. I do find your comments about him offensive because he has said nothing to deserve them.

Is it your position that atheists and agnostics cannot be good parents or have you just taken a dislike to this particular individual?

I have already defended Bruce once because I felt bad for him. Now I am doing it because I feel bad for you. I think something about the whole discussion is giving you a lot of pain and I wish you were feeling better.

@ Bruce Gerencser:

I understand you are an atheist. I fall somewhere between Christian and agnostic myself currently.

Your post seemed to convey that preachers are not preaching about Hell nice enough, or that the concept of Hell itself is not nice, and one thing I was pointing out is that Jesus Christ, when speaking about Hell, depicted a place that sounds the opposite of nice.

I guess a preacher does not have to yell, scream, and raise his voice when discussing Hell with people, but I don’t know of a way a Christian could dress Hell up to make it sound cozy, fun, and a great place to spend some time.

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

Sorry, folks. I guess I’ll be in hell with Bruce. Not because I’m an atheist, but because I won’t worship a deity who has an eternal death camp for the ones he doesn’t like or don’t do the right repentance routine or believe the exact right things. I have standards, and one of those standards is that if it’s wrong for human beings, it better also be wrong for a deity.

I’m actually pretty cool with Hell. I like the idea that Hitlers, people who molest kids, and elderly and animal abusers get some payback in the afterlife, assuming there is an afterlife.

If someone like Hitler repents and turns to God, and God forgives that person and permits him to go to Heaven when he dies, that’s between him and God.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Paula wrote:
Or do they just drop “their truth” on you, close themselves off, then leave without discussion or “debate”.
And check off your name on the “Witnessed To” list, because once Everyone in the World is Witnessed To(TM) and Makes Their Decision(TM), then The End will come.
Guess what, Heathen(TM)? You’re just another End Time Prophecy checklist item to trigger the End of the World.
(I am NOT making that up. One of my writing partners has told me about a Bible Translation/Missionary organization with just that motivation and goal. Once they translate the Bible into all these obscure tribal languages and the missionaries preach their altar calls in backwoods New Guinea or the Amazon, then Christ is cleared to come and end the world.)

I remember hearing about this group (or one like it) as a little kid, and it scared the crap out of me. I used to lie awake at night, hoping that the missionaries would fail. Then I would lie awake praying that I wouldn’t go to hell for hoping that missionaries would fail.

Bruce Gerencser wrote:

My point in commenting was to share how these discussions are viewed from the outside.

I do get the part that you don’t want to debate per se, but you keep mentioning this.

I’m still not quite understanding how the topic of Hell from the Christian view comes across to you as an atheist.

What I got so far, from one of your earliest posts, is that Hell doesn’t sound nice to you. Or maybe I misunderstood?

Jesus Christ spoke about a place of eternal punishment in the New Testament. I would take it either you think Jesus was mistaken about it, was lying about it, or someone somewhere along the way put a bunch of words in his mouth (ie, corrupted Bible translations / copies)?

In other news… only in Scotland:

Man in boxer shorts causes long delays on M8 motorway

I suspect the “head injury” for which the chap in question was hospitalised was caused when the driver of the white car got out and punched him in the head.

@ Eagle:

I don’t know, but you might like this guy:
Reasonable Faith – William Lane Craig

Leila wrote:

3) Some believe that once our minds/bodies are renewed we will clearly understand our sin, repent fully, and reconcile with God.

My understanding of the Bible’s position is that you get one shot at this, and one only, while you are here on earth.

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27)

@ Nancy:

Correction: it goes: “Blessed art thou Lord our God, King of the universe, who has such as this in his creation”

Sorry.

“the incredible good news that God has an eternal love for sinners”

Why would an unbeliever think this was particularly good news if he doesn’t think he himself is a sinner?

The problem with the “nice” approach to evangelism is that it really doesn’t give much of a reason to love God to people who think they are normal, good, folk with no big problems they would need God’s help with.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

P.S. I may have forgotten to tell you before, but I have totally dug your screen name ever since I first saw it. 😆 I usually smile when I see it.

Daisy wrote:

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
P.S. I may have forgotten to tell you before, but I have totally dug your screen name ever since I first saw it. I usually smile when I see it.

Meeeee too. 🙂

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

I got saved watching Star Trek too. No, wait, that was just the tingly man crush feeling I got for Picard. Belay my last.

Lyrics from a Weird Al song:

Only question I, ever thought was hard
Was do I like Kirk or do I like Picard?

From:
White And Nerdy

In the video, I like how the guy in the convertible -with the top and windows down – locks his car door on Weird Al. 😆
Donny Osmond is also awesome in that video.

One of the most freeing moments of my life was when I realized, then a full fledged member of an SBC church, that even Baptists had not always agreed on all of this stuff.

Some–gasp, shock–were not fans of penal substitution atonement. Some were more Christus Victor. Not all were either Calvinist or Dispensational. Some were actually postmillenialists.

And then I got shocked to find famous evangelical Max Lucado seems to be a hopeful universalist.

I agree with Daisy that scripture indeed teaches you die and then the judgment. What it doesn’t say is anything about an interval between those two things. Maybe there isn’t an interval, maybe there is.

I do know as a parent that with small children you tend, distract, physically remove from misbehavior, and if necessary finally punish. Perhaps natural consequences for our actions during this life reflect that stage.

As they grow into teens you more teach, back away, and if needed inflict some consequences so they learn to make their own right decisions.

And when they are adults, you are like the prodigal’s father. You wait and watch, but you don’t pad the pigpen. You let them experience what they choose to experience, always ready to accept them back if they turn back to you.

Perhaps this life is our childhood, or even borders on the teen years and a sort of purgatorial process. We truly don’t know what happens during the dying process.

It is possible we get to choose still to love or reject Christ, with the attendant consequences. It is quite possible that as the dross burns off of us we will be left with nothing if we still rebel against God, hence a fiery end of annihilation.

But then, I DO know God’s word tells me He desires none to be lost. It also tells me every knee will bow and every tongue confess He is Lord.

Perhaps, when we see Him in all His beauty, we won’t reject Him.

Perhaps just as eternal life begins the instant we accept Him, hell exists for us until we do. Perhaps He tarries so every last person will willingly seek Him.

So I tell as many as I can, doing all I can to aid in the freeing of Satan’s prisoners as it sure appears to me they already experience hell.

And my far more hopeful reading of Revelation encourages me to know that somehow, someway, my God will NEVER be defeated. Not once. All Jesus died to accomplish will happen, because He will see the travail of His soul and be satisfied. In that sense I am Reformed.

But not Calvinist. Saying when He is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself appears to end the limited atonement discussion before it starts. Since non believers perish (Bible words), since we don’t get to decide if we participate in Adam’s death dealing, why would the new Adam’s act be any less sweeping?

Mind you, I would not suggest anyone wait and see. I suggest beginning your great adventure with Jesus as soon as possible.

But I believe the gospel really is GOOD NEWS, not “good for a few but for the rest the sentence of doom.”

Just the musing of a grandma (again) in the pew.

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

(1) And nobody will answer my question as to why it’s absolutely, totally and completely wrong for dictators to have concentration camps and death camps, but it’s perfectly OK for God Almighty to do the same thing–forever. I don’t believe in divine command theory (i.e., if God does it, it’s automatically right).

(2)I’m supposed to forgive seventy times seven–why not God? I’m supposed to love my enemies–why not God?

As to 1, isn’t there a different in motive?

A guy like Adolph wanted power and/or hated Jews, so he talked his country men into scapegoating them to consolidate power.

(2) I am not sure point 2 is completely applicable. God does forgive sinners, if they repent and ask him for forgiveness.

God says over and over in the Bible he’s willing to accept a sinner who approaches him.

God provided his son to take on the sins of the world and be punished in humanity’s place – God provided the escape hatch from hell, but you have to choose to use it.

Nancy wrote:

So at this point the thing that worries me most is dying before I get it all done.

With each new cycle of the constellations and the star patterns swept out by the tail of the big bear, I can see my end approaching. You’re not alone on that one. When I was young I was invincible, no end in sight. But now the old Kansas song Dust in the Wind has taken on more than just a cursory meaning. I think it’s fantastic that you want to impart some good practical know-how to your grandkids, I try to do the same for mine. And who knows? If just one of yours learns to suture up a bad wound with make-do materials at hand, he or she she just might save a life, and save a whole world from destruction (according to an old Rabbinic saying) in the process.

Sara wrote:

You may not have intended your comments to come across this way, but I read them to be that you believe that you are the arbiter of his belief system. You aren’t. None of us are.

I see what you are saying, but if I understand Paula correctly, she is saying that is true of Bruce as well.

Janet Varin wrote:

Hey Bruce. Welcome. I’m anti all the same things you are. And that god you don’t believe in? I don’t believe in him either. He’s waaaaaaay better than I was taught, and far better than I taught others about him.

That is an interesting way of looking at things… that there is a God, but some people reject a false idea or caricature they have of God that they learned from their church, denomination, or from pain they experienced in life. So they think they don’t believe in God at all, but in reality, they have rejected a false view of God.

@ Daisy: yes. many don’t move past rejecting false views of god, but still – there it is.

numo wrote:

And… I might get flak for this, but here goes.
I wonder why so many folks are so passionate about eternal hell – I mean, ???
I think there is SO much more that’s worth focusing on than that.
And… I also think a lot of people view heaven as a celestial gated community, where Those People (whoever they happen to be) will be kept forever outside the walls while We get to have our cake and eat it too. You know, kinda like an eternal Jim Crow system.
I do not, cannot and will not put any stock in the kind of god who would endorse such an Us-Them dichotomy, and do not believe for one second that Jesus and his Father are like that. But us -well, we’ve all got our own prejudices, our own version of Those People. Me, too. And that is just flat-out wrong. It’s so easy to makes others into scapegoats for our own flaws, weaknesses and wrongs against others, isn’t it?

As I said in a comment above, if there is a God and afterlife, I am fine with Hell.

I don’t like the idea of a God who lets serial killers and animal abusers free of any consequences of their evil in this life.

If God did not hold evil accountable and gave everyone a free pass, that would make me morally superior to God, since I get outraged over stories like ones I hear in the news of grown adults who rape small children and feel these guys should get the electric chair.

(Again, though, if such a person wants to make amends for his ways, agree that what he did was evil, and repent, and God wants to accept that person into the fold, that’s God’s business.)

But I have seen televised murder trials where the accused killer sits there with a smirk on his face as the lawyers discuss how he tortured someone for days or hours.

I don’t feel too terribly sorry for folks who hurt others and feel no remorse over it, and some even take delight in their perverted deeds.

Janet Varin wrote:

Finally the doctrine of limited atonement has sunk in! I never could figure out why is was so crucial to Calvinism. If Jesus really did die for the sins of the whole world then the unsaved would not have to bear the cost of their sins for eternity

Jesus dying for all of humanity’s sin does not necessarily mean the benefits are applicable to all.

You still have to accept the free gift that has been offered.

Just because I went to J. C. Penny’s and bought a sweater for you, to give you free of charge for your birthday, means nothing if I hold the sweater out to you and you refuse to grab it and wear it.

numo wrote:

How do you reconcile this with Jesus’ statement that when lifted up, he will draw all human beings to himself?

There are some examples in the Bible of God drawing to Himself, but some refuse to go to God.

I can’t remember every passage off the top of my head with examples of this, but you can find them by looking up pages that refute Calvinist beliefs (regarding irresistible grace).

Luke 13
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

Acts 7:51 “[You] stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers [did], so [do] you.
52 “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,
53 “who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept [it].”

@ Marsha:

I think I kind of understand her parenting analogy and why she brought it up, but I’m not sure how to explain it. I think she’s saying one form of proof of God’s existence or goodness is that she has a personal relationship with God herself, and/or that the Father sent his Son to die for her sins. I don’t know how to explain it, but I kinda understand her point.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

In other news… only in Scotland:
Man in boxer shorts causes long delays on M8 motorway

I thought men in Scotland wear kilts?

Even Scottish Bat Man wears kilts!!
(nekkid comic Bat Man rear end shown in drawing on this page):
Scottish Bat Man

@ Nancy:

I don’t buy that.

I don’t care how crummy and abusive your childhood was, that does not give you free reign to bully and harass others, or commit evil against them.

My mother was abused as a child by a parent and an older sibling or two, but she did not grow up to be an abuser. She knew it was wrong. She did not allow her abusive past to be an excuse to treat other people horribly.

I have, my whole life, been a shy, quiet type who was a doormat. I have taken verbal abuse and harassment off of others.

When I have bothered to confront these folks personally or gone to an authority figure (eg to a school teacher when I was a kid), I was asked to take their behavior in silence because I should feel sorry for them because their dad was an alcoholic or their dear grandma died two weeks ago…

I’ve been through some very painful ordeals in my life too, but I don’t run around taking my pain and anger out on other people.

@ Daisy:
Yes, I am aware of the references, but am also aware that other conclusions can be reached.

No offense, but I’m not certain that reiterating the things I said very far upthread is going to advance this discussion any.

Also, I agree w/Nancy regarding our understanding being limited.

@ Daisy:

There are no funny cats.

In other news, it is 23:30 in Scotland (though still light enough to read a newspaper outside, it being June), and therefore time for beddy-byes. But I think it in order to provide one piece of advance notice before I retire for the evening.

In 6 days’ time a minor fitba’ tournament will begin in the South American nation of Brazil. The English national team will be tangentially involved (for three of the 64 matches), but there will be nothing of interest that needs commenting on here.

@ Muff Potter:

Well, there you go then. All that I can pass on is what I know, and that is seriously limited. But one thing I am happy with just right now. I think you need to teach kids to think. Reading, math, get along with people, all that is essential, but so many people seem to be bogged down with not being comfortable with thinking. But one of them, the oldest, seems to be catching on. The fifth grade just had a logic puzzle contest and she took first place. It is just a start, but it is a start. Good luck with your grandkids. I suspect that you are a really great granddad. At least, you sound like it.

numo wrote:

I think the reality of intertwining strands of Greek thought plus early xtiamity is far more complex than the sources youre reading are making it out to be.

You may be right. It’s been a long time since I read about this. At this point I’m reduced to carrying around keywords in my brain – “Manichean,” “Calvin,” “election,” and so on. 🙂

@ Nancy: There is a *big* problem with the words Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus all being translated into English as “hell,” though.

Hades (like the OT Sheol) is the abode of the dead. Period. It’s not a place of everlasting torment.

I seriously question the belief that many hold re. eternal conscious torment, though neither am I an annihilationist, as I do not see that view as being consistent with the love, mercy and grace of God as shown in Jeus Christ and the rest of the NT.

I think evangelicalism is wrapped up in what is sometimes referred to as “wretched urgency” (see recent posts on internetmonk.com for more on that), and that this view has little or nothing to do with the Gospel as presented by Jesus himself.

I think you’re right.

My phone typed “most” for some reason Zooey because it apparently likes me, weird. But I’m sure you discerned with laser-accurate intelligence that I meant to say “if you read what I have said about God you can tell I am not a wonderful person in comparison.”

But thank you again and I’ve upped my game and am now awarding you a Cerulean Ribbon with Sparkles.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

@ Daisy:

There are no funny cats.

Hah!! You have never met mine. Each one of them is funnier than the other.

  __

“What Is The ‘Gospel’, Anyway?”

hmmm…

  According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter Elwell, “the gospel is the joyous proclamation of God’s redemptive activity in Christ Jesus on behalf of man enslaved by sin.”

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life”~Jesus

“that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time…” ~ Paul, the Apostle

Because Jesus came, suffered, died, and rose from the tomb, we all can have hope of eternal life, and the possibility of living in God’s big house, when this life is over.

Whew!

Because of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, we can all have hope of eternal life. 

Yep!

The gospel is everything Jesus did for us,the perfect life, the atoning death, and His resurrection as well, all this the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes, all satisfying God’s Mercy and His Justice!

Something we simply could not do…He did!

YeHaaaaaaaaa!

“While being baptized, responding in obedience, being faithful to the church, or caring for the downtrodden, etc. are important—these are not the gospel…

What?

>>—> The gospel is the good news that Christ lived a perfect life, died on the cross, and rose from the dead to satisfy God’s wrathful judgment on the world. Because of Jesus’ payment in full for our debt, it is now possible for anyone to receive salvation through a living faith in Christ.” [1]

Interested?

Please let God know, huh?

He’s still listening.  🙂

ATB

Sopy
__
Inspirational relief: Holly Starr- “I Believe”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md3cqOHPX0U

Bonus:Holly Starr – “I’ll Watch You Dance”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-gbhfA9vY

[1] http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel

;~)

—

Probably already mentioned here, but if you really want to understand the church’s teachings on the afterlife, watch Hellbound (I think it is on Netflix right now). I went to a panel discussion with the movie’s creator, several scholars and a Eastern Orthodox Archbishop (? think that was his title?). Anyways, I think every Christian should watch it, even if they don’t agree – it gives and excellent summary of the early church’s view of the afterlife, raises serious questions about our current views of Hell and points out scripture is pretty evenly split on Hell (eternal or not eternal conscious torment), Annihilation-ism, and Universalism. It also shows how the Catholic church came to the views of Hades and Paradise. Very interesting, very informative and even if you remain committed to a Hell afterwards, it will certainly clear up biblically and historically why others don’t come to that conclusion in equally good conscious.

@ Val:
Val – thanks for the recommendation. I went and watched it. When it began by having MD and De Young, et al, speaking I was wondering what I had gotten into…but as I continued to watch, I liked the discussion. Not sure what my thoughts are – but leaning toward hopeful universalism ala Origen. 😉

Nancy wrote:

elastigirl wrote:

I love learning and knowing and understanding… but there comes a point where understanding into transcendent/spiritual/otherworldly things stops, and from there we can only stand at the edge & look off into the mists in wonderment.

Me too, me too, me too….the idea of mystery. If we say, this is as far as I can go and beyond that is mystery, then we have recognized that there seems to be something more. If we say, here is the answer so memorize it and then you will know all you need to know (or even all there is to know) then we build a wall between ourselves and the possibility of mystery.

As usual I’m days behind on a great discussion. Had to add me too, too on these above. Mystery. Yes. And not to be confused with blind acceptance – but rather the awe of how truth pierces, loves and transforms.

Though I’d be unmoved at the screamers about hell (stare blankly like Dee mentioned) and it was profound love and forgiveness that changed me to a believer, my opened mind also acknowledges that sometimes the hardest truths spoken have helped me more in life than soft sympathy. As others have commented, it depends on the person, soul and moment.

I think there were many seeds planted in me before I had my conversion moment. So many, that I can never say what is more valuable than others. I think that’s why, our only goal should be to stay in constant communion with God- rather than having an ambitious agenda of converting souls. That’s Gods business.

Bruce- I get it totally. It sounds that way to me as well. I always wish that energy was put towards the message of -come as you are- and come is you are weary and burdened. I think it would resonate with a lot more people.

And Paula, I bet your passion and devotion just made you miss that Bruce wasn’t asking for anything(proof)- but was just sharing an observation. It’s hard to avoid the temptation to fight for your truth. Remember the Holy Spirit isn’t on vaca. It’s all good.

So there’s my input- days after the party, confetti on the floor. 🙂

@ Patrice:

Patrice I love your patient thoughtful balanced kindness without giving up. (And everyone else, for that matter). Great issue (how we relate to those with different views, abridged) -very relevant regarding this blog since it’s a complex yet gorgeous mix of beliefs. I am convicted of laziness… My desire for a nap often outweighs my struggle to communicate. 🙂

I’ve been chewing on this all weekend, trying to get my mind around all this. I think it comes down to the following. Evangelicalism always needs an enemy. It always needs someone to wage war, attack, demonize, etc… Parts of evangelicalism is profound for its intensity and its hate. And when you back it up with scripture I think I now understand why events like the Crusades occurred.

But evangelicalism will always need an enemy. In its history which has evolved and changed the following have been an enemy at one point. Some of these are ongoing, by the way. Meaning once marked, always marked.

1. The Federal Government
2. Women
3. Academia
4. Science & Scientists
5. The Porn Industry
6. Planned Parenthood
7. Gays
8. Atheists and agnostics
9. Communists
10. School Boards and Education System
11. Moderate Christians
12. Mainline Protestants
13. Catholics
14. Modern Culture
15. Alcohol
16. Dancing and Music
17. Theater

The 18th point now appears to be transgenderism.