The fact that a loving God cannot be so cruel as to condemn someone to this kind of existence, then expect them to love him unconditionally. When, it is made very clear that his love is quite conditional. I found that my faith was fruitless and often left me at odds with otherwise decent people. My faith seemed to stifle personal growth, left no room for questioning, felt far too authoritarian, rather than an interpersonal relationship with the creator.

The bible likens God's love for us to that of a parent, it specifically uses the example Father. Yet, I know my own father would never send me to a place like hell, no matter what I had done. For being an omniscient, all-loving creature, God sure does have a lot of less-favorable human qualities. What I found veen more amusing is that God sets up a double-standard, that only he has the right to vengance, wrath, et cetera. How can he be as forgiving and omnibenevolent as he's made out to be when, quite clearly, he is not always loving-- hateful at times, in fact.

If you believe in the mythos of Lucifer and the fallen, this inherently makes Christianity a polytheistic religion. While, you may not worship him as a god, his acknowledgment as a higher being sort of redefines the dynamic.

It seemed far too childish, really. The motivation for believing was so that you didn't "suffer eternally"-- what kind of mindset is that creating, really? It's creating a mindset of irrational fear, paranoia. Which leads to an easily controllable populace.

I blame this aspect of Christianity for all the rampant homophobia, and general dislike of any sort of counter-culture.

Christianity needs to get laid, to paraphrase Bill Maher.

Firstly, no, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. Seeing as Jehovah is a completely made up name, it would be odd. Secondly, the name Michael makes up the phrase "He who is equal to God." Most concordances render it "Who is like." Now, taking context into consideration, the Bible usually uses either Prince or Archangel in front of the name, though both titles both mean cheif prince in the Hebrew & Greek. From here, we can go to Daniel. In Daniel 12:1 Michael is reffered to as the great prince of Israel. Earlier, in Daniel 10, he was the only one that could keep Satan, called Prince of Persia (i.e. Babylon) at bay.
Some will use Jude 9 as a contradiction to this belief,citing the verse in which Michael says "Lord rebuke you." Jesus did the same thing when praying while he was alive, referring to God as if they were seperate entities, when in reality they were on in the same (OMG, potentially more drama!).
Revelation 7:8 is an allusion to Luke 10:18. Revelation 1:8 also leads us back to Daniel 10. Michael could not only hold Satan at bay, but overcome him completely.
In conlcusion, Prince Michael is a title. Loosely translated it would mean, the "Chief prince of Israel, Who is equal to God."

As for hell, well, it's really not given much attention in the Bible, other than to say you don't belong there, but in Heaven. Hell was made for rebellious "angels." But God loves us so much, that he allowed us to enter it if we choose. He allows us to choose our own lives, & even gave us a place to go if we don't follow His way. That's one way to look at it.

To be quite Frank, all this quasi angel worship, as well as the popular angel beliefs are pagan, not Christian. A little research will lead you to the same conclusion.

Sorry if I made this a Bible study, even if it was just a quickie.

I am not very religious at all. I don't go to church, I don't pray very often, and when I do it's usually for someone else's benefit. I do believe there is a god though, as a higher power. I don't believe he gets involved with daily life though. Looking at it logically, too many bad things happen to good people for me to believe that.

I do believe there is a heaven though. Why? I don't know. Probably something to help lessen the fear of death.

I would admit though, if somehow we found out that there was no god, it wouldn't really surprise me all that much. I don't believe in it all that strongly, but I do believe a god exists, and that there is afterlife.

Where?

What would you say Hell is? And why do you believe that?

If a parent tells a child that he has to go to bed at a certain time and the parent decides to stay up, is that a double standard? If a parent tells a child not a play outside without an adult present, does that mean the parent has to follow suit in order to avoid a double standard?

God has the right to anger, indignation, vengeance, etc. because he actually understands the situation. What makes these emotions evil for us is that when we express them, we are putting ourselves on God's level, unjustly. It's the same thing as pride. God has every right and every reason to be proud of himself, but when we're proud, we're only forgetting how small we really are.

"Quote Wars" ahead. :boxing:

Jehovah is one of the Hebrew names for God, and THE most often used term in the Old Testament.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
(Yes, I know, NewAdvent is a Catholic source, but they are very reliable and factual)
Nonetheless, it is most certainly NOT a made up name.

No, that is not true. It is in fact a querious name. It means "Who is like God?" Breaking it down, the Hebrew word is "Miyka'el," it is composed of 3 roots, Miy, which is an interrogative term (meaning that it specifically asks a question), Kiy, which is just a relational word, meaning something to the effect of "like," and el, which is a common suffix on words relating to God.

Most certainly Michael is not equal to God. If he were, then he would BE God, but this equating is not seen in the Bible.

Michael may be a "Prince" of Israel, but that still does not equate him with the King of Israel.
Nor does "Archangel" mean chief of princes. Angel, actually "mal'ak," means messenger, etc. From Strong's concordance:
"from an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher)"
Archangel pretty much means chief angel.

Btw, Revelations 7:8 says the following: "from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000."
Also, how the heck do you make the jump from Revelations 1:8 to Daniel 10?
It seems to me that you are very confused about the context.

A lot of the popular beliefs on angels are indeed pure fiction. However, so it seems also is your conclusion about equating Michael with Jesus.
It seems to fit, because there is nothing that directly contradicts that idea, but that doesn't mean that it is right.
Ultimately, your ideas are full of holes and unfounded assumptions, as well as a misunderstanding of Hebrew. You are making connections that appear to exist, but only in English translations.

What are we? Well, I believe that we existed before we were born, and that we will continue to exist after we die. Perhaps some among us played interesting and/or important roles in what went on before we were born, and perhaps some of us will have interesting and/or important things to do after we're all dead. Michael is someone who did some pretty dang important things before earth, and is likely slated to do some pretty dang important things afterwards as well.

Did you not read or understand my post? I don't even know how to respond to this. So I won't.

Yea no shit, that's what I said in my post:

My point was that you can't make a connection between this and "the Word" in John 1:1. John 1:1 isn't talking about Jesus, and it isn't talking about a messenger of God. You interpret poorly.

Are you kidding me? This is Christianity's main draw. Accept Jesus or your soul burns forever in Hell. That message runs all through the New Testament, it's the fundamental message/truth of Christianity. This isn't a case of just "being bad" for you, it's a case of your soul being eternally damned. Makes the coercion factor just a bit stronger, me thinks.

:tpg: :tpg: WTF

We're talking about major moral issues, not bed times. If a parent tells their child not to kill people, and then goes and murders hundreds of people out of anger, yes that's a double standard.

That's an interesting theory. That evil human emotions become good emotions when God uses them. However, I find this to be an irreconcilable hypocrisy on God's part. If I'm going to believe in a God, it's not going to be one that holds a double standard on morality and life.

No, it's not. Quit getting your theology from paintings and puritanical literature.

No, that's not what I'm saying. They're not inherently evil. Just like killing isn't inherently evil. When killing becomes murder, then it is evil. The idea of hypocrisy is completely moot when discussing God. Someone who is not on the same level as you with respect to authority can make rules for you that they are exempt from. Parents do this all the time. It's all part of the Father metaphor, which works well anyway you use it to describe God.

OK, it's Christianity's main draw according to Scripture. Many churches do skim over the going-to-hell part in hopes of getting new recruits from the moderate/liberal crowd, but scripture is plainly clear about it and gives plenty of warnings about how you'll be eternally damned if you don't accept Jesus as your resurrected personal savior.

So what if God murders someone? Is God acting in an evil way? You would say no, but this is where the line blurs. When God commands the Hebrews to murder a tribe, including the women and children it's considered OK because it's written in the Bible, and thus that means it was God's Will. What about cases that aren't included in the Bible? There have been plenty of murderers in the past that claim they were following orders from God, and considering God has used people to murder others in the past, what stops Him from doing it now?

You see the fundamental problem is that God lets people break big moral codes like murder as long as it's within His will. He allows deception and theft for your own gain (the birthright Isaac stole from Esau) and undeserved hatred (God hated Esau from birth without any provication).

So the double standard is God allowing His elite to break the rules and get away with it while everyone else is expected to suck it up or else. Also, because God has historically commanded others to murder, lie, steal, and cheat, how are we to uphold a value system? If the possibility exists that they were commanded by God to do these things, then it's impossible for us to have any kind of law system where we can judge people for their actions. Unless you know God's will.

First off, the Michael thing is a really, really touchy subject. I just wrote it down bare bones. There'a alot more to it. Though, either way you take it, it really doesn't matter. If Michael was just a malak, then there is no reason to ever bring him up unless qouting scripture. If the theory that I subscribe to is right, then we needn't ever bring up Michael, other than qouting scripture, because we now know the name of God as Jesus (Yeshua/Eyesus in the Aramiac & greek). If the latter theory is correct, then it would be fair to equate Michael to God, because Michael would just be a title for Jesus in the OT, & Jesus would be the image of God. Thus, it would make sense in that context. Also, the word for angel is never used in tandem with Michael, it is always great prince, or something to that effect.

As for Jehova, there is no original manuscript containing this name. It's a alternate form of YHWH. Yaweh coincidentally, is also a perversion of YHWH, which we have no idea how to pronounce. The translators added vowels to make it more readable, but the correct pronunciation is unknown.

Anyway, the hard thing about root words, especially in Hebrew, is that there are multiple meanings for a single word. So it makes things like root word studying, really, really tough sometimes.

And for that Daniel 10, Revelation connection, my 2 button spazed out. I meant 12:8. I really need a new keyboard :P

Also, to FallDragon. Hell is never said to be fire, or brimstone for that matter. It really isn't delved into that much. So your Burn in Hell argument is based off of pulpit learners, rather than people who actually study.

But Hell is cast into the lake of Fire, so your point is null. To list a few of the more prominent verses.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Can't make it much more obvious than that. If you don't believe in Christ you get sent to the lake of Fire to be tormented forever (and considering the language used, it seems pretty painful ;))

Matthew 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

40"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Also, your interpretation on Michael is based on half cocked assumptions and meshing random verses from random chapters together in hopes of forming a coherent theory. Your theory has no proof in scripture, you just twist scripture to fit your own purposes. Learn to interpret correctly or go away.

Well, lik I said, either way, the Michael thing is really moot. And as far as proof, Michael is never really gone into in any depth whatsoever. Michael is kinda like hell, in that it's referrenced, but never really explained in depth.

As far as the Fire & Brimstone verses, the burn part simply means they no longer exist. That's right, according to scripture, if you go to hell, at the judgement, you either become a saint, or you cease to exist. If it was any different, then all the talk about Jesus being the only way to eternal life would be moot & pointless. The Gospel in & of itself is of getting into heaven, not to escape hell, but to continue living.

Anyway, I'm pretty much finished posting in the thread about hell & angels & stuff.

First of all, give me some verses to back this up or I call bullshit. Secondly, this verse proves that it's eternal PAIN AND TORMENT, not just poofing out of existance.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

How can one be tormented day and night for ever and ever if they poof out of existance? That's illogical. No matter how you try to twist it, non-existance is NOT the same as eternal torment in a lake of Fire. If you say it is, back it up with scripture or else your argument is pointless.

I'd have to disagree. The Lake of Fire is eternal punishment, that much is made clear in scripture. You can't put your own spin on death when this verse clearly says that one can be eternally punished forever without needing to attain eternal life. You think it's moot and pointless because you want to prove your own theory on hell instead of looking at verses that blatently contradict you.

Well, one more go won't hurt anything. To back up the non existance:
Matthew 10:28 - Pretty much says that the "Hell" of the Lake of Fire is complete destruction.
Revelation 21:8 - Basically says that the Lake of Fire is the second death to the human souls that are in hell.

It should be noted that verse 10, it is only the devil & the false prophet & the beast that are condemned to torture forever more. Seeing as those 3 make up the fullness of Satan, it could be argued that he can't just be destoyed, & that God has to bind him. Though for regular old souls, the lake means ceasing to exist. If that isn't the way it is, like I said, the whole point of everlasting life is a contradiction. If it weren't this way, then you'd live forever regardless.

I could go on, but eh, you'll believe whatever you want no matter what I say. Though it's enough to argue against your point, seeing as you can only cite a few verses.

And with that, enough derailing the thread for me.

When does killing become murder, though?

Does it involve malice? What about pathological killers who do not kill with malice or remorse.

Are the wars we fight as nations considered simply killing or is it murder?

There is entirely too much grey area left by the scripture for me to really take any of it seriously. And, to further drive my point home, what is the purpose of our existence if God can suddenly change the moral dynamic as he should choose? It's obviously not for us to love him, because how would be able to in that condition?

Except for the part about love and forgiveness.

Well, I'm going to use "real world" logic with an answer. Killing is the act of, let's say someone broke into your house at night. You have a family & that person who broke in may hurt your family. You decide to take action to stop whatever may occur if you don't. You take this action, but it results in you killing him, which wasn't your intent, but for whatever reasons you did, wether it be him attacking you, or you knocking him a little to hard on the head or something like that. That's killing.

Muder, on the other hand is planning ahead, or killing for no reason other than to kill someone. Wether someone feels the emotion malice is beside the point. It's a malicious act, not one that is accidental, or done to prevent a murder in the heat of the act, like a cop with a armed perp that is about to kill a innocent victim. It's just pure & simple cold hearted killing, i.e. murder.

Also, all of that is backed up in scripture.The distinction between the two in there are rather fine lined.

You still get slapped with manslaughter charges in the case of the home invasion.

So, what does the scripture say about war? I don't see how you can dismiss the idea of war as not being "real-world" enough for you, considering that every epoch in human history has pretty much been DEFINED by one war or another. Does it say that Christians are free to reign death upon anyone who isn't a Christian? Because that seems to be what's been happening throughout the history of this fine, upstanding religion. Of course, this isn't limited to Christians, either, it is especially apparent in Islam and to a lesser extent in modern Judaism.

Also, you completely ignore the example of the pathological killer. These people are born this way, it's in their brain chemistry. I do believe that the Bible does say that nothing happens outside of God's will, that we're created exactly the way we're supposed to be. So, God intentionally creates humans that are adept at killing other humans, essentially setting them up for a life of suffering? What about people with other pathologies? Chronic depression also caused by imbalance in the brain? Really, if you look around at the world, taking the rose-colored glasses off, there's not much to be thankful for in this life.

If God does exist, he's a sadistic bastard who created us solely for the purpose of revelling in our suffering.

Edited: I'd answer, but I'm tired of this point/counter point. It'll be an endless stream of it's this way, no this way. Like a said in a previous post, I'm not going to continue derailing the thread. We have free will, believe what you want.

That's a good verse for your argument. For those who don't look up shit, it says God is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.

However, I have a different interpretation. This verse is merely reflecting the power of God, and not necessarily describing the attributes/purpose of Hell. This verse is saying God has the ability to destroy you in hell. This doesn't mean He will or that He does.


You do realize that you just said God can't destroy Satan? This in itself is a rediculous assumption to make, and using it to justify his eternal torment isn't a legitimate argument. The simplist explanation is that God created the lake of Fire for this eternal pain and torment, and threw everyone in there who was bad. Occam's razor. You have to do too much fancy elaborating, which isn't supported in scripture, to say otherwise, which shows that you're interpreting with an agenda instead of simply looking at verses in context.

Then I'll post a few more scriptures to make it more interesting.

Matthew 25:46 And these [the wicked] shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Seems pretty clear to me that everyone in this lake of fire is tormented forever.

a_priori - The BreakDown of the Word Micha'EL and all names in Hebrew Ending in (EL). I had a interesting site i used to read about this, and it also gave names of books to read - and of people who had worked on translating old Hebrew language and other semetic languages. If i recall the main Theme of it was this. That the El was tooken from the EL'OHIM word. If i recall the Translation of Micha'el's name was more in the line of POWERFULL GOD. And some of the books that i had read outlined references and similarities in the Hebrew old testament - to Semetic religions of the region. Ill have to look up the names of the books and sites, as i read alot of this stuff when i was in highschool.

Double Post:
And i do kinda of agree wth Minion about the hipocrasy thing. If god exists he obviously is not on our level so his Understanding of everything would be perfect. So God can be angry and it would be perfect anger. But this is one thing when i was young that made me want to leave the Church, I would always ask - How can one apply human emotions to something perfect. For the bible to state we are created in his image - and to also give god human characteristics makes him seem somewhat flawed, seem somewhat human.

I don't know how they could possibly interpret the name Michael to mean "powerful god." Look that stuff up, but I am sure they will be easily refutable.
The syllble "El" is indeed derived from Elohim.
Elohim, however, only means "heavenly beings." It's a generic suffix that refers to any being of heavenly origin, I guess. Not just referring to God alone.

I dont know if they would be easily refutable, I think they broke the word up but some of our syllables dont exist in Ancient Hebrew. They where trying to prove that the hebrews conisdered them selves a nation of gods or beings of heaven. I dont know about all this but i thought the research into Ancient Hebrew was interesting. I mean there are millions of interpretations of the bible, all seem interesting to me anyways. I mean there is the House of David A Black Hebrew group that has a unique interpretation into the bible. Also Sufism, and kabalh schools are very interesting. and also alot of the Black oriented groups that came into being The Nation Of Islam - The 5% nation of Gods and Earths, all present some interesting ideas, although some may be wacky they force people to research and think in different ways. Kinda like Menvies, Theory about ZHang Ye discovering america And Mapping out the World in 1421 in his navy of Junk ships. I personally like that idea, i never believed Columbus discovered America.

I have not heard of a single Hebrew scholar who says that ancient Hebrew is of any significance different from modern Hebrew.
This does not mean I am saying that they do not exist... but it does make your statements suspect.

Weird. i will look for the Article - If i can find. Either way the interpretation of Elohim is what should be considered. And how it was used at that time in other languages in the Region also. And it doesnt make any sense to me that Ancient hebrew would not differ in anyway from modern. Look at English how it has changed and how long it has been alive. Do Jews know a secret about preserving language in its exact form for thousands of years we dont?

Yes.
Regard their religious texts as holy, making it sacreligious to change any, as well as making their religious texts the primary source for learning the language.