I've found myself getting angry about stuff in the past day or two. I don't like it when I find myself angry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to pick fights with any of the people around me or anything like that - the worst that usually happens is that I make sarcastic digs at people - or snub them, and not talk to them for a while. But that's bad enough - especially if the thing I'm angry about is not actually their fault.

And it's not always that easy to explain what's making me angry either. Perhaps I'm angry with myself more than anyone else, for being depressed, for sleeping late, for not fulfilling my own expectations of myself. I shouldn't punish myself for this, but on the other hand, I shouldn't punish anyone else either.

So I'd like us to pray that God will heal this anger, and pray that I learn to respect God's ability to work through the people around me and the relationships I have with them. I'd also like us to pray that my faith is made stronger, so that maybe frustrated hopes don't lead to anger in the first place. Above all, I'd like to give thanks God for providing all the good things in my life, despite my many sins.

But like I say - we're not qualified to pass judgement on people for these things. - Be careful using this statement, brother. If we cannot pass any sort of judgement then it would mean that we could not put them in jail either and as you have already indicated you are not for that.

Good point. I should clarify. In my opinion, there's judgment and there's moral judgement. When a doctor makes a decision to offer a particular kind of treatment to a patient that may have adverse side-effects, he makes that decision based on the results of diagnostic tests. He should never have to decide whether the patient is an inherently "good" or "bad" person - even in cases where the treatment is for drug dependency, or a sexually transmitted disease.

And I think about legal judgements in the same way. A judge or magistrate can administer the law, and sentence people to prison, community service or probation without deciding whether or not, in his opinion, the defendent is an inherently "good" or "bad" person - and if he does let the idea that the defendent might be inherently good or bad cloud his judgement, then he's not doing his job properly - just like the doctor who treats drug dependency or STD's.

I appreciate that this is not necessarily a reason for opposing capital punishment. For example, a judge could decide that a defendant should be sentenced to death, in the same way that a public health doctor could decide that a person with a highly infectious illness should be quarantined, at risk they might die from their illness, and perhaps even actively killed, in order to protect the health of the wider community. No-one would dream of suggesting that the person with the illness is inherently bad - but if killing them is the only way to protect the population at large from a cataclysmic epidemic - then so be it.

Fortunately - thanks to the advances in antibiotics that God has given us, the scenario where we have to kill someone to contain an infection arises only very infrequently. And I see the death sentence in much the same way. Convicted murderers, as a general rule, pose far less risk to the community than people with the most serious contagious diseases, in my opinion - but if we can't justify the routine killing of people will infectious illnesses, then how much less can we justify the killing of people convicted of serious crimes.

Yes it is Biblical. It is Biblical in the Old Testament and the New Testament. One must not mix raisins with watermelons in this discussion. If a mass murderer is sentenced to death and is executed, the death penalty was a "PHYSICAL DEATH PENALTY". ONLY GOD is able to judge for a SPIRITUAL DEATH PENALTY that is eternal punishment. Men don't even pretend to do that.

I absolutely completely agree with blackeyedpeas on that point. However, I still believe that the death penalty is an exception, to be used strictly in circumstances where it truly benefits the wider community only - and that those circumstances are very few and far between indeed. Even multiple murders aren't justification enough, provided we can safely house inmates for their natural lives. I don't even believe that Saddam Hussein or the Nazi war criminals have necessarily done enough to justify a death penalty, since neither of them pose a major risk to the wider community in their current state.

We are talking about the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. There are no riches in this world in comparison.

That's a very very good point indeed. Whether he was rich in a material sense or not basically makes no difference, in my opinion, because he was the King above all Kings. He was basically the big cheese - but he gave that up for us, to save us from our sins. Indeed - the fact that he became human in the first place is one of the things that arguably made him "poor". Anyone who doesn't understand that may have missed the point of the Gospel, in my opinion.

But if it helps for you to believe that he was rolling in bling during his life before giving it up, then that's fine, the Gospel absolutely does not exclude that belief, in my opinion. Perhaps that makes your faith stronger than mine, because you believe he gave up more than I think he gave up, despite the fact that maybe a few billion dollars doesn't really matter when you're the king of the universe - but on the other hand, perhaps your faith is like mine, that he never had to prove he had loads of money, power or influence in human terms in the first place, so as to make him more truly human like you or me, and the rest of the would-be trailer park trash who got lucky.

The fact that he was born in a stable suggests to me that he has more in common with you and me than he has with, say, Bill Gates - but if you want to believe he was secretly hoarding the gold before giving it up for us, then that's fine too. I honestly think it doesn't matter, it's not central to Christian faith, and either way, I encourage you to keep and strengthen your faith.

Frederic, all of these questions have answers in FAQ For Non-Christians.

I've had a look - but with respect, they're not all answered at all - and if they are, can anyone specifically say where? Thanks.

That said, it's good that there's debate in that thread, but a few important questions still go unresolved.

As far as I can see, there are places in the Bible which describe what Hell is, and which decribe some of the circumstances by which a person may be condemned to Hell. There are also places where this is described as "eternal punishment", which could be interpreted as meaning that the place of punishment itself will exist forever.

However, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that explicitly excludes the idea that a person may subsequently transfer from Hell to Heaven - unless anyone here knows better.

Even in Revelations, which is popularly known as the prophesy of "final judgment" - it doesn't actually use the word "final" or "last" or any related synonym to describe any judgement, thereby not excluding the possibility of a further judgement at a later date.

Forgive me for second-guessing a possible response to this - you might point out a verse like 2 Thessalonians 1:9 which says that people will be punished with "everlasting" destruction. To which I'd point out John 6:47 - he who believes will have "everlasting" life - and Matthew 6:54 - he who eats and drinks the body and blood will have "eternal" life. Which is fine - but what happens when a person stops believing, or ceases to eat and drink the body and blood? Do Christians believe that as long as someone has believed for a little while, they will be okay, and that it doesn't matter what they do afterwards? Not in my experience - and a good thing too, in my opinion.

So what does this mean? Will the everlasting or eternal life that was previously granted subsequently be withdrawn? Or was eternal and everlasting life never actually granted in the first place? It raises all sorts of semantics issues.

I would suggest that perhaps eternal or everlasting life were granted - but that perhaps we haven't interpreted the meaning of words like "eternal" or "everlasting" properly in this context. What do you think about this idea?

The only way I can see of ducking this question is to raise a question about whether a person "truly" believed, or "truly" ate the body and drank the blood. Some people might buy that, others might see it as semantic fudging. I would see it as a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

But lets say we go with the "no true Scotsman" line anyway - who judges whether a person truly believes or not? You could say that God decides - and only God decides - which is fair enough, and I personally believe that God is the only one who does any real judgement anyway.

Trouble is, if it is only God who decides, and if we have no way of second-guessing that decision, it would mean that the Gospel's teaching cannot be taken quite as literally as we might like. It would mean that believing in the Lord, and eating the body and drinking the blood, can not be said to lead directly to eternal life in a cause-and-effect way. Jesus would have had to have said "Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood will receive eternal life - except where God decides otherwise." But Jesus didn't actually say that, did he? Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or can anyone point to Bible verses that resolve this paradox?

So in my opinion, it boils down to how strong your faith is. It would require you to have a faith that's strong enough to override this apparently overly liberal usage of the word "eternal" in the Bible, where it isn't actually intended. Now that's not a problem for me (although I do apologise if I've shaken anyone else's faith by asking these questions, please be assured that's absolutely not my intention at all) - because although I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I also believe that the language it is rendered into is not infallible. We are trying to understand God's message by using human language, and our capacity to do this on our own is clearly limited. So we need to pray that God will guide us in improving our understanding. Asking questions (like I'm doing now) and talking with the people around us are part of the process, but it's no substitute for prayer.

The reason I ask this is not just to improve my apologetics skills, but also to strengthen my own faith in the process. So I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed so far to help me focus my thoughts on this one, and I look forward to any replies. I pray that everyone's faith may be strengthened by this discussion.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Hmm - now that poses something of a difficulty. You see, my local church does encourage us to evangelise - they also teach us that we might learn things about our own faith in the process, and that it's good to talk about these things within the church community.

Furthermore, it's awkward that I'm in two separate circles of friends. I would be absolutely delighted if my non-believing friends accepted the faith and started attending church - particularly if it's the same church that I attend, although I realise that's not practical for all of them, due to distance.

I have a very real experience of healing, so my faith in God is not in any doubt.

So what's the solution? Dump my non-believing friends? I don't want to do that. If I was dumped by my friends when I was a non-believer, then I would never have come to faith in the first place.

Sure, the people at church do concede that evangelising new-agers can be difficult, and even warn that you might get your fingers burnt in the process. But they still encourage us to evangelise the people around us. They tell us that the friendships and relationships we have, both within and beyond the local church, are gifts given by God. Are they wrong? I don't think so, because they seem to find Bible references to support it.

Like you suggest, though, perhaps I could put the outward evangelism on hold for a while. Many will agree that no-one's Bible study is ever complete, however, so how do you decide when you've got to the right level? Is there any such thing as "the right level"?

Still, that's not the biggest problem. The real issue is that - thanks to God - I have sparked curiosity in some people about Christianity, who never thought about it before.

There's one man in particular who I count as a friend - and no disrespect to him, but he holds some awfully crazy conspiracy theories. Not so crazy that he needs to be locked up, in my opinion, but I certainly believe he can be healed by a faith that he currently does not have. His ideas are generally new-agey, though unfortunately he holds a bit of a chip on his shoulder about a bad experience with a church community in the past.

So when he asks me questions about the faith - what do I say to him?

Now I could tell him to check out his local church, but unfortunately he won't do it, due to his traumatic experiences. However, he trusts me as a friend, and therefore I'm in a far better position to evangelise him than anyone else.

Do I pretend that I've changed my mind, I'm no longer Christian after all? I think not! I could tell him that I'm not really qualified to discuss it - but then, who is? He doesn't seem to trust anyone apart from me - yet - though give it time, there have been some positive signs about him approaching others for discussion lately. But point is, I don't want to push it, because we might lose him completely. The fact that he trusts me, at least, is a gift that I am able to offer to God.

So I must pray for God to give me guidance on this one. If anyone has any testimonies of evangelising new-agers, I'd be very grateful if you could share them, thanks.

I'd like to know what other Christians believe about judgement, Heaven and Hell.

In particular - do you believe that when you go to hell, you are eternally condemned - and if so, why? Or do you believe that being sent to hell is God's way of giving you another chance to repent? And if so, why? Also - what do you think about the idea of purgatory?

Also - do you believe that God is infinitely merciful? Or is He only merciful some of the time? Is God's mercy restricted somehow, and if so - under what conditions is mercy not available? And why do you believe these things?

The reason I ask these things is because this is one of the largest objections I've come up against recently, while trying to evangelise those who do not share our faith.

If you're able to answer only some of these questions, that's fine. I'd appreciate it if you can support your point with Biblical references, but please don't feel as though you have to - if you just want to say what you believe, that's cool too.

That said - I'd appreciate it if you don't quote more than a few sentences from other sources, so as not to discourage others from also sharing their ideas. By all means refer to other sources, but please avoid huge quotes. Apart from that, I'd like to hear everything!

Thanks.

Some good replies, thanks.

I forgot to mention this earlier - but the other reason I'm interested in this subject is because I have a friend who is a bit of a new-ager, I'd like to evangelise him, and I've been pleasantly surprised recently about how much curiosity he's been showing about Christianity. Thing is, sometimes I don't know how to answer - and I'm not quite able to hook him up with a church community yet - believe me I've tried!

So I think it might be helpful for me to find any Bible verses that speak of respect for nature, maybe pointing these out might swing the new-ager round a bit. Sure I've got some pretty good concordances but I'd appreciate any pointers from you good people too. Thanks.

Hmm, just checked the dates and noticed that leahcim hasn't posted since August - despite a couple of well meaning replies in October. Oh well - like Ecclesiastes says ... still, I hope we won't be too late for the next one.

Thanks to leahcim for posting. If God really has turned his back on you, then indeed you are going through a difficult time, and I would like to thank you for posting about it. You've been very brave - and I'd also like to thank God for giving you that bravery. (irony intended but please don't read too much into it)

I think I know what you're going through, because I've been there too. May I quote from Ecclesiastes 1:2-11, The Message?

Smoke, nothing but smoke. [That's what the Quester says.]
There's nothing to anything -- it's all smoke.

What's there to show for a lifetime of work,
a lifetime of working your fingers to the bone?

One generation goes its way, the next one arrives,
but nothing changes -- it's business as usual for old planet earth.

The sun comes up and the sun goes down,
then does it again, and again -- the same old round.

The wind blows south, the wind blows north.
Around and around and around it blows,
blowing this way, then that -- the whirling, erratic wind.

All the rivers flow into the sea,
but the sea never fills up.

The rivers keep flowing to the same old place,
and then start all over and do it again.

Everything's boring, utterly boring --
no one can find any meaning in it.

Boring to the eye,
boring to the ear.

What was will be again,
what happened will happen again.

There's nothing new on this earth.
Year after year it's the same old thing.

Does someone call out, "Hey, this is new"?
Don't get excited -- it's the same old story.

Nobody remembers what happened yesterday.
And the things that will happen tomorrow?

Nobody'll remember them either.
Don't count on being remembered.

I hope you're intrigued by this - and if you are, I suggest you look it up and read on. I won't spoil the ending for you by telling you what happens next. The Bible, and in particular the book of Ecclesiastes, has got some fascinating - and beautifully written - stuff for people who feel like everything is pointless.

And if you're feeling really brave, perhaps you can talk about what you've read with your local minister too. Hope that helps - and I hope you keep on posting here.

2Co 8:9  For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Why is it that whenever I hear that verse, I immediately think of the subject of welfare reform?

My humble opinion is that if someone disregards society's rules by comitting a heinous crime, that person no longer deserves to live in society and forfeits his right to live.

That may be, but I believe that humans are not qualified to make this judgement. Romans 3:9-20 is relevant here; just because we spread the Word of God doesn't give us the right to judge who has done right and who has done wrong - on the contrary, we have to face up to the fact that we're actually co-conspirators in the sin of the people we might condemn. The scriptures are addressed to us personally, and are not to be used as a yardstick for the judgement of the behaviour of other people. Paul is very clear on this point.

Does that mean we should abolish the entire criminal justice and penal system? Not necessarily - it just means, we need to remember that the sentences that are passed on criminals are human judgements, and not God's judgement. Sure, those judgements might be based on some laws and directives we've cooked up, and we might even like to convince ourselves that those laws are somehow based on the Ten Commandments - but they're still human judgements.

So it's quite permissible, in my opinion, to set up a system that seeks to restrain offenders for a while, provided that it serves the interest of the wider community. But actually killing people is probably taking it a little bit too far, in my opinion.

Is it akin to abortion?

I personally don't believe in moral relativism. Spreading nasty gossip about someone is every bit as much a sin as the massacre of six million people. But like I say - we're not qualified to pass judgement on people for these things. In the context of a human-administered justice system, it makes sense to give longer sentences for more serious crimes, in certain circumstances.

I am very much a beginner to Bible study but I'd like to recommend a few resources - admittedly I live in the UK, so the materials I suggest might not be so readily available in your local market.

The Bible from Scratch, by Simon Jenkins - it's got cartoons! And speech bubbles! And maps. Too many Bible study guides are written in a tone of lofty intellectualism - but this definitely isn't one of them. Thoroughly accessible.

The Word on the Street, by Rob Lacey - a modern Bible paraphrase using contemporary language. Sure, it misses bits of the Bible out, but Rob Lacey is an excellent storyteller, so this resource is useful for picking up plot lines that run through the Bible, both within books and from one book to another.

Collins Gem Bible A-Z - a pocket sized dictionary of Biblical people and places, but unlike a traditional Biblical dictionary, it includes many more general concepts such as food and depression - in this way, it also serves as a topical concordance. It also has an impressive number of cross-references for alternative names considering its size. I often use it as a first point of reference, but turn to other dictionaries when I want more detail.

Nelson's Compact Bible Dictionary - reasonably detailed and illustrated, I consult this a lot while reading the Bible to help me remember who's who and how they're related to each other.

Collins Thematic Thesaurus of the Bible - the most powerful concept-searching of the Bible I've found anywhere! Topics are arranged into the same 990 categories used by Roget's Thesaurus - so it's possible to use this resource in conjunction with a Rogets for even more powerful searching, on practically any imaginable concept. I would not recommend this as a first point of reference, because the results might only be loosely related to what you looked up in the first place. For your first point of reference, you'd be better off trying an ordinary Strong's or NIV concordance, and maybe a Bible dictionary too, particulary for people and places - but if that draws a blank, then turn here.


Can anyone recommend any other good resources? Thanks.

I appreciate Pastor Roger's advice on how to organise yourself into Bible study, but to be honest, I find that I can only study it when the curiosity takes me. If I force myself to study at any other time, I just end up frustrated. That said, I find there are ways of encouraging my curiosity.

Bible study should be fun. Fun is a great motivator.

I also think it's vital to be in a homegroup that studies the Bible. Group study isn't a substitute for studying on your own - indeed, I'd encourage everyone to consult the Bible at any time that curiosity takes them, wherever they are - to the extent that it's practical to lug a big library of concordances and dictionaries and various different translations around with you. And if you can't do this, then scribble your curiosity in a notebook, so that you remember to look it up later when you get to your home library.

However, group study introduces a social element to Bible study, which can encourage you to stay motivated. It also allows you to share your ideas with others around you, thereby minimising the risk of forming unchecked heretical interpretations by yourself.

I'm broadly wwith ZakDar, LittlePilgrim and blackeyedpeas on this one.

I haven't read DigitGen's post all the way through but here's a few of my ideas.

Once you accept "extra-Biblical messages" (those which are in addition to the Bible, but not necessarily contrary to the Bible) it will not be long before you will be accepting "anti-Biblical messages" as being valid (those which directly contradict Gods Word).

It will not be long? I can't see any evidence to support this supposition, either in the Bible or elsewhere.

In reality, all "extra-Biblical messages" are "anti-Biblical messages" because God's Word specifically warns against adding to the Scriptures.

Now that's where it starts getting a bit tricky. You could argue that anything which is written which is not part of the Bible is an addition to it - and that you therefore fall foul of that guidance by writing anything at all, including posting on forums like this one.

Another literal interpretation is that the only true scripture is the original Hebrew and Greek, and that any translation into any other language is also an "extra-Biblical message". Is it permissible to translate or paraphrase the Bible into modern vernacular, or is it encumbent on all of us to learn the original language? The fact that the Bible itself was not written in "tongues" as described in Acts chapter 2, and that we therefore have to learn a language before we can understand the Bible, has not escaped my attention. If there was only one true self-evident interpretation of every last point in the Bible, then there would be no need for anyone to learn any languages.

Besides - what exactly is wrong with having the plaques that are written in this book added to you anyway? If the Bible is such a good book, then being given the honor of carrying a stone engraving of some of its text around with you would surely be a good thing, no? (I had to look up this passage in The Message before I realised that the verse probably means that the bad stuff that happened in Revelations might happen to you too.)

Admittedly I haven't read any more, but I think it's good and proper that we should discuss such things, because it makes us think, it helps us to a better understanding of the Bible, and it also brings us together as a church in the process. So thanks to everyone for posting.

Yes I think Pastor Roger has explained that pretty well.

God does not believe in moral relativism. We're all sinners, and that backbiting about a deaf person is every bit as much a sin as murder. Therefore, if someone gets sick or dies at a young age, it absolutely does not mean that their sins are somehow less forgiveable than anyone elses, or that anyone else's sins are somehow less serious. Anyone who ever says "they got what they deserved" is indulging in self-righteousness - and Paul warns us about that in Romans 3:9-20. We're not qualified to pass judgement on other people - only God can do that. Whenever we try to judge people, we're behaving as though we think we're as good as God - and that's blasphemy.

Given that, it's amazing how lenient God can be. Everything good comes from God, including all food, all healing, your children: indeed, your very life, and the fact that you've reached whatever age you have.

You have raised some very good points, thanks for that. I'm very much in agreement with you, if you haven't made a practical decision to believe in the Lord and ask forgiveness for your sins, then no, you haven't been born again and you're not saved.

That said - if you think you made that decision a while ago, that doesn't mean you can think "oh well it's alright now, I don't need to bother asking for forgiveness any more for any new sins, because I've been born again once already." No! Because, without wishing to sound dramatic, that would make you an apostate.

Then again - it can be hard to maintain faith at all times, we go through low points, and God understands that.

And like you say - don't believe it just because I say it. Check it out in the Bible. Maybe I'm wrong.

Thing is, though, I think a lot of people still find the Bible somewhat inaccessible for whatever reason. So we must continue to study the Bible, and I don't believe you ever reach a stage where your Bible study is complete. Being able to memorise and quote verses from the KJV does not make you an authority on the Bible or its interpretation, and I personally don't believe that any one translation into any one language has any more authority than any other translation. I defy anyone who thinks that a particular translation is more authoritative to find something in the Bible that backs their view up.