Jesus speaks of hell and Satan. Good enough for me.

 

 

"No one comes to the Father except Thru me". Why would he say we have to "go to the Father"? What are the other choices if we rufuse to Come to the Father where Jesus says "I have prepared many rooms".

 

 

Why is there judgement that Jesus talks about? Why Judge? Everyone goes to the same place.

 

What happen to Cain, David, Sampson, Solomon, Job, Uza, The Flood, Sodom/Gomorrah, Countries who fought against the chosen people, Egypt, etc. They all experinced the Wrath of God.

 

 

You need to reread Job Larry. Job isn't being punished or experiencing the wrath of God in that story. In fact both God and the Narrator say, "Job was a righteous man" on more than one occasion. :thumb:

http://www.ibcfrankfort.com/columns.htm

 

The June columns are pretty much an argument against the notion of a literal hades.

 

Just curious about comments. Hatz, I have a little better understanding of your hermenuetical (sp) background so I am curious to hear what you say, but I am really curious to see if anyone else, besides me can see any legitimacy in these propositions.

 

I haven't had time to look at it but will in the next week. :thumb:

On the subject:

 

I recall Dr. Bill Hendricks at Southern challenging me to think about something concerning Hell.

 

He asked if God was present in Hell.

 

His argument: Hell is the ulcer in God's stomach. God is omniscient and omnipresent. Therefore God must be present in Hell or God is not God or those attributes we ascribe to God. God would have to be limited to everywhere but Hell.

 

Think about what punishment is worse. A place of torment for eternity with no contact with the one you have spurned, or a place of torment where you are constantly reminded of the God you rejected. God who continues to see you but a God you can no longer have a relationship with.

 

Which was worse as a child: 1) To be banished to your room with a scolding or 2) To have to remain in the presence of the parent you had so disappointed and whose relationship you rejected by your actions.

 

 

BTW, I've heard everything under the sun about Hell and where it is. I even recall hearing a Baptist pastor in KY say once that it has to be located in the ground of the earth (ala cartoon) because the scripture says, "Where the worm dieth not." The rationale was that worms live in the earth and so that's where it has to be.

OK, everyone, thanks once again for reinforcing my feelings of intellectual inadequacies.

 

If anyone wants me, I'll be in my room watching cartoons.

I thought it was convenient that he chose to completely ignore the Book of Revelation.

Just our of curiosity do you know what the actual Greek says. Is it a reference to Gehenna where they took out the trash and burned it? To destroy it??

 

liðmnh (Transliterated word = Limne) - a lake

 

It literally means "a lake" and is always translated as such in our Bibles (at least the KJV and NAS).

 

 

pu=r (Transliterated word = Pur) - fire

 

It literally means "fire". Of 74 occurences in the KJV, it is translated as "fire" 73 times and "fiery" one time. Of 73 occurences in the NAS, it is translated as "fire" 69 times, "fiery" twice and "burning" twice.

No, No you misunderstand. What I am saying it that people distort the word of God, as you call it, for profit all the time. Just look at a lot of the Health and Wealth Christian Self Help books.

 

My believing has no affect on my observation...

 

We should be praying for those poor, rich folks, instead of chastising them on message boards.

No, No you misunderstand. What I am saying it that people distort the word of God, as you call it, for profit all the time. Just look at a lot of the Health and Wealth Christian Self Help books.

My believing has no affect on my observation...

 

I actually agree with you here. (That's scary).

In your first paragraph, you claim that I slander Queen's "intellect," but then later claim that what he was saying was not meant to be scholarly or intellectual. I guess I just don't get it.

 

You, in your first post, ask for comment about the posted sermons, and then criticize and dismiss my response, which I thought was pretty fair, but saying "you just don't know who we are or know pastor Queen." If you wanted response from only people who know pastor Queen, why didn't you just say so and spare the wear and tear on my fingers?

 

I am not impressed by the makeup of your congregation, more so than by any other. Lawyers, doctors, and day treatment workers can be as misled as any other. "Intellect" is not impressive when not used.

 

I made several textual critiques in my post which you did not bother to address.

 

My point was that in your post you make some assumptions that you cannot make from reading the columns. You cannot assume that his congregation is being led around and just believing something because he says it. How did you reach that conclusion?

 

You also did attack his intellect without understanding that the works were not written for a scholarly audience.

 

You assume that he cannot or does not know what he is talking about and then that all the people who hear him just lie prostrate at his feet.

 

I did not mean to try to impress with the make up of the congregation but to provided you with a little understanding of who we are. Actually, I am a little disappointed that we are not more diverse than what we, be we are certainly working on that.

 

'fatuos drivel' is more of an attack than a comment for discussion

 

I guess believing that his parishioners will accept it carte blanche with drool running down their faces

 

sermons are nothing more than fatuous drivel spouted as something to pass the time after the passing of the plate. Unfortunately, it appears that many will simply sit there, glassy-eyed, vigorously nodding their heads with the occasional "Amen."

 

These are not comments on the articles, but editorials on the people who hear them and they are without a modicum of truth.

 

i am okay with the textual critiques. They give me something to think about. Much of the other was just an unwarranted attack.

My point was that in your post you make some assumptions that you cannot make from reading the columns. You cannot assume that his congregation is being led around and just believing something because he says it. How did you reach that conclusion?

 

You also did attack his intellect without understanding that the works were not written for a scholarly audience.

 

You assume that he cannot or does not know what he is talking about and then that all the people who hear him just lie prostrate at his feet.

 

I did not mean to try to impress with the make up of the congregation but to provided you with a little understanding of who we are. Actually, I am a little disappointed that we are not more diverse than what we, be we are certainly working on that.

 

'fatuos drivel' is more of an attack than a comment for discussion

 

I guess believing that his parishioners will accept it carte blanche with drool running down their faces

 

sermons are nothing more than fatuous drivel spouted as something to pass the time after the passing of the plate. Unfortunately, it appears that many will simply sit there, glassy-eyed, vigorously nodding their heads with the occasional "Amen."

 

These are not comments on the articles, but editorials on the people who hear them and they are without a modicum of truth.

 

i am okay with the textual critiques. They give me something to think about. Much of the other was just an unwarranted attack.

 

Fair enough.

 

But I think you are smart enough to recognize that if Queen is not attempting to pass off those sermons as "scholarly," then he should not be citing in them to historical scholarship he says are a consenus when he knows they are not. You call that an attack on his intellect; I call it an assault of his intellectual honesty.

Fair enough.

 

But I think you are smart enough to recognize that if Queen is not attempting to pass off those sermons as "scholarly," then he should not be citing in them to historical scholarship he says are a consenus when he knows they are not. You call that an attack on his intellect; I call it an assault of his intellectual honesty.

 

His theological training for his "flock" is much more in depth than what he presents in his sermon.s He is very open about the fact that this is simply his journey and where he is now and that he could be wrong. But this is where he has been led to this point. He wants us to think about our faith and to question his premises. As a result we have great discussions and often disagree.

 

But please remember, we are not biblical scholars so he does ask us to read other theologians and we have moved away from Charles Stanley (I know he is just a preacher). Markus Bjorg, Mountmon (I don't even know how to spell it) - Diana Butler Bass and even some that were trained at SBC. If he gets too scholarly in his sermon we will go to sleep:D

His theological training for his "flock" is much more in depth than what he presents in his sermon.s He is very open about the fact that this is simply his journey and where he is now and that he could be wrong. But this is where he has been led to this point. He wants us to think about our faith and to question his premises. As a result we have great discussions and often disagree.

 

But please remember, we are not biblical scholars so he does ask us to read other theologians and we have moved away from Charles Stanley (I know he is just a preacher). Markus Bjorg, Mountmon (I don't even know how to spell it) - Diana Butler Bass and even some that were trained at SBC. If he gets too scholarly in his sermon we will go to sleep:D

 

Jurgen Moltmann. Wonderful theologian whose writings meant a lot to me. His most noted works was "The Crucified God." :thumb:

His theological training for his "flock" is much more in depth than what he presents in his sermon.s He is very open about the fact that this is simply his journey and where he is now and that he could be wrong. But this is where he has been led to this point. He wants us to think about our faith and to question his premises. As a result we have great discussions and often disagree.

 

But please remember, we are not biblical scholars so he does ask us to read other theologians and we have moved away from Charles Stanley (I know he is just a preacher). Markus Bjorg, Mountmon (I don't even know how to spell it) - Diana Butler Bass and even some that were trained at SBC. If he gets too scholarly in his sermon we will go to sleep:D

 

Was there a specific reason or reasons for moving away from Charles Stanley? Or was it just a matter of switching to something different to change things up?

 

Just curious.