Deos Timmy Go To Hell?

[Neutiquam Erro]

Hmmm, I'm long past the "age of accountability" and never been classified as mentally handicapped and I've still never been able to grasp the concept of "I've sinned, sin bad, Jesus saves". (Oh, I definitely get the "I've been bad part", it is the "Jesus saves" part I am incapable of grasping.) Do I qualify for a free ticket, or am I gonna have to cash in frequent fryer miles?

It's not generally regarded as a matter of "grasping the concept," so much as doing what you "know" is right, i.e. doing what your parents/preachers/Sunday school teachers taught you. Nothing so clearly shows the handiwork of the Devil as a desire to actually rationalize and understand these moral imperatives.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

In what way do you not grasp the concept?

And welcome.

What's a "Jesus" and what is meant by "saved" and how the two can be put together in a phrase that has any meaning.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Nothing so clearly shows the handiwork of the Devil as a desire to actually rationalize and understand these moral imperatives.

In other words, I can't even cash in the frequent fryer miles

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What's a "Jesus" and what is meant by "saved" and how the two can be put together in a phrase that has any meaning.

A Jesus is the son of God. Saved means excused from Hell. So, the phrase means "The son of God has the ability to excuse you from Hell."

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

A Jesus is the son of God. Saved means excused from Hell. So, the phrase means "The son of God has the ability to excuse you from Hell."

What's a "God" and what is meant by the "son of God"? What's "Hell" and how can this "son of God" excuse me from it? Does he give me a free "Get out of Hell" card so that no matter what I do I am excused from "Hell"?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What's a "God" and what is meant by the "son of God"? What's "Hell" and how can this "son of God" excuse me from it? Does he give me a free "Get out of Hell" card so that no matter what I do I am excused from "Hell"?

In this case, God is the Creator of the Universe, and judge of His Creation. "Son of God" is God's male offspring. Hell is a place of eternal torture where it is assumed you won't enjoy life, or unlife, as it were. How you are excused is, frankly, irrelevant to understanding the basic concept.

 

[AmateurScientist]

A Jesus is the son of God. Saved means excused from Hell. So, the phrase means "The son of God has the ability to excuse you from Hell."

Teach: "Class. Class! Class!! Time for Hell. Everyone line up in single file along the wall by the door."

Billy: (Reaching into his pocket and pulling out a note smeared in PB&J (strawberry, of course)) "But I've got a note excusing me from Hell today."

Teach: "Note? What note? I've never seen any note!"

Billy: "Sure, Ms. Applegate. It's from Jesus." (Hands note)

Teach: (Pulling glasses up from chin cord and putting on nose), "I'm not accepting this. It's not from your mother or your father."

Billy: "But, but, Jesus saved me."

Teach: "I don't care."

Billy: "But..."

Teach: "Billy, I'm not going to tell you again. Go to Hell."

AS

 

[BPSCG]

What's a "God" and what is meant by the "son of God"? What's "Hell" and how can this "son of God" excuse me from it? Does he give me a free "Get out of Hell" card so that no matter what I do I am excused from "Hell"?

You don't have to get it from Jesus. You can get it online.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

In this case, God is the Creator of the Universe, and judge of His Creation. "Son of God" is God's male offspring. Hell is a place of eternal torture where it is assumed you won't enjoy life, or unlife, as it were. How you are excused is, frankly, irrelevant to understanding the basic concept.

I thought being excused was the basis of "Jesus saves"? How can I understand the concept if I don't understand what it is supposed to represent?

So this "God" is some sort of creature? (He has a male offspring.) Then how did he create the universe if he is part of it? A place of eternal torture? Is it Endicott, NY?

This may sound trite, but no one has ever been able to give me a definition of what a "God" is (or any of the rest of it) that made any sort of rational sense, hence my "incapability of grasping the concept." I will warn you ahead of time if your explanations involve contradictions (such as supernatural beings that can influence the natural) then I probably won't be able to "grasp the concept".

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I thought being excused was the basis of "Jesus saves"? How can I understand the concept if I don't understand what it is supposed to represent?

Do you understand the concept that turning the ignition key starts the car? Is it necessary to your understanding of this concept to know every detail of how the turning causes the starting?

You are confusing "grasping the concept" with "complete knowledge." The idea of the age of accountability is not piddling about with complete knowledge. The concept is wretchedly simple: If you do X (pray to Jesus that he forgive you), Y (going to Hell) will not happen to you. That, and a basic definition of terms, is all you need. If you insist that you do not grasp this concept, I would wonder which concepts you are able to grasp, as I have my doubts you possess complete knowledge of anything.

ETA: that last was not intended as insult, btw. I doubt anyone, not just you in particular, has complete knowledge of anything.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

Do you understand the concept that turning the ignition key starts the car? Is it necessary to your understanding of this concept to know every detail of how the turning causes the starting?

Yes, and I understand how that both completes the ignition circuit and energizes the starter solenoid, etc.

While it is not necessary to me being able to start the car, I can, if I desire, learn more about it.

You are confusing "grasping the concept" with "complete knowledge."

I am only asking for enough knowledge to be able to understand the concept enough to grasp it.

If you are unable of explaining the concept rationally, just say so. I will be the judge of how much knowledge I need in order to grasp the concept. I only need enough so that it makes rational sense to me.

The idea of the age of accountability is not piddling about with complete knowledge.

As I said, I am way past the age of accountability. But I am still incapable of grasping the concept, just as I am incapable of making heads or tails from James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake."

The concept is wretchedly simple: If you do X (pray to Jesus that he forgive you), Y (going to Hell) will not happen to you. That, and a basic definition of terms, is all you need.

I fully understand that this is all you need. Alas, I need much more before I am able to make any sense of it.

If you insist that you do not grasp this concept, I would wonder which concepts you are able to grasp, as I have my doubts you possess complete knowledge of anything.

You keep bringing up this "complete knowledge" strawman.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yes, and I understand how that both completes the ignition circuit and energizes the starter solenoid, etc.

While it is not necessary to me being able to start the car, I can, if I desire, learn more about it.

Surely, but that is, again, irrelevant.

I am only asking for enough knowledge to be able to understand the concept enough to grasp it.

If you are unable of explaining the concept rationally, just say so.

I cannot explain the concept completely. Rationally is easy, and I have already done so. Please indicate which of the following statements you lack the ability to comprehend:

1. You have engaged in activity X.
2. As a result of (1), you will receive punishment Y.
3. Agent Z can forgive you for (1), prevnting (2).

I will be the judge of how much knowledge I need in order to grasp the concept. I only need enough so that it makes rational sense to me.

Why must a concept be rational for you to understand it? Note that we are not discussing assent, merely comprehension.

As I said, I am way past the age of accountability. But I am still incapable of grasping the concept, just as I am incapable of making heads or tails from James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake."

As the age of accountability was always defined to me as the age at which one grasped the concept, you are not past the age, by definition.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

I cannot explain the concept completely. Rationally is easy, and I have already done so.

I missed that part.

Please indicate which of the following statements you lack the ability to comprehend:

1. You have engaged in activity X.
2. As a result of (1), you will receive punishment Y.
3. Agent Z can forgive you for (1), prevnting (2).

As I indicated initially, I am incapable of grasping the concept you put forward as punishment Y, what this agent Z is, and why Z can prevent Y. For instance, if you told me that if I said "boo" that I would be flootzed but that Steve could prevent me from being flootzed, I would need to know what flootzing is, why I would be flootzed for saying "boo" and why he was able to prevent me from being flootzed before it made any sense to me.

To use your example above, before I could understand the concept that turning the key in the ignition starts the car, I would need to know what a "key" was, what "the ignition" refers to, what a "car" is, what it means to "start" a car, and why I would want to start a car in the first place.

Since we already share an understanding of those concepts ("key", "car", etc.) we don't need to reach an agreement on those first to discuss the concept of starting a car.

Why must a concept be rational for you to understand it? Note that we are not discussing assent, merely comprehension.

I guess I am one of those unusual individuals who has difficulties understanding irrational concepts (also known as nonsense).

As the age of accountability was always defined to me as the age at which one grasped the concept, you are not past the age, by definition.

Seems to me that age is not really the issue then.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Seems to me that age is not really the issue then.

I'm with you, GrnMtSkeptic (man, you have a hard name). I think it's like trying to make sense of the concept of the Trinity. In short, it doesn't.

AS

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

I'm with you, GrnMtSkeptic (man, you have a hard name). I think it's like trying to make sense of the concept of the Trinity. In short, it doesn't.

AS

Sorry! I wasn't sure GreenMountainSkeptic would fit. You can just call me "Bob" for short. (No, not that Bob, or that Bob either)

 

[BPSCG]

Sorry! I wasn't sure GreenMountainSkeptic would fit. You can just call me "Bob" for short. (No, not that Bob, or that Bob either)

How 'bout "Green"?

Some people around here call me "Beeps."

Other people call me other things that I won't repeat here.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

How 'bout "Green"?

Some people around here call me "Beeps."

Other people call me other things that I won't repeat here.

"Green" works for me. Others have also used gms.

Please to meet you, Beeps and AS

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

As I indicated initially, I am incapable of grasping the concept you put forward as punishment Y, what this agent Z is, and why Z can prevent Y. For instance, if you told me that if I said "boo" that I would be flootzed but that Steve could prevent me from being flootzed, I would need to know what flootzing is, why I would be flootzed for saying "boo" and why he was able to prevent me from being flootzed before it made any sense to me.

I think we're just operating under two different interpretations of what it means to grasp the concept. As far as my use of the phrase goes, having a basic definition of "flootzing" (and we do have, at least, a basic definition of Hell--several contradictory ones, in fact) would be all I required to have the concept grasped.

The lack of satisfactory answers for the deeper questions raised by the salvation concept (who's this God bugger anyway? How can someone suffer eternally? etc.) stand as excellent reasons to dismiss the idea as horsest, but the idea itself is, I think, understandable.

 

[Richard G]

No one is without excuse, unless they are mentaly incapable.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:16 - 25

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

And perhaps I'm being too pedantic (though having grown up in an area largely populated with Southern Baptists I tended to get that way toward their doctrines) but if the test had been if one understands the concepts of punishment and forgiveness I wouldn't have spoken up. The part I've never really understood is the whole "Hell" and "Jesus saves" rigamarole.