How long will Christians wait for Jesus?

[Neo-Scholastic]

But threats and scare tactics have kept people in the church for centuries. To say it another way, avoiding Hell is not the goal being preached, avoiding Hell is one of the benefits from doing the right thing (choosing God and living as proscribed)...If a church or a person uses Hell as a threat or scare tactic, then that is on them and not the intent of NT Christianity. 

It seems to me that people do not accept Our Lord and Savior as fire insurance. They want deliverance in the here and now. They want to be free from the bondage of sin - alcoholism, porn addiction, worry, depression, empty materialism, anger, self-conceit - and a deep seated longing to find redemption by helping others.

[SteveII]

Except you are grossly mischaracterizing Christianity's doctrine on humans to make your point (straw man). The correct view is that God sees humans of infinite worth and so warranted the ultimate sacrifice of death on a cross to redeem them. Not exactly teaching that we are "worthless sinners" is it? So the disrespect you are feeling is of your own making and of course is not causing "harm".

I think we both know that's bullshit Steve, Christianity's doctrine relies on people viewing themselves and others as being in someway sinful or unworthy, otherwise we wouldn't have needed the scapegoat sacrifice to save our souls.

Starting by describing my response as "bullshit" -- you haven't gotten the hang of a respectful conversation yet I see. 

Before it was to characterize us all as "worthless sinners". Now you have modified to "sinful or unworthy". The former speaks to value and the latter speaks to a current condition. You are heading in the right direction. Two things:

1. Presuming you are a naturalist, my worldview teaches that humans have more value than yours does. 
2. My worldview believes in a Holy God and therefore, by comparison, the human condition is sinful and unworthy. 

So I restate: the disrespect you are feeling is of your own making and of course is not causing "harm".

[The Grand Nudger]

....there you go again.  

[Nihilist Virus]

So you don't believe in the rapture?

Yes I do, but what does that have to do with it? Jesus was not talking about the rapture. To give you an idea about "The Kingdom of God" in the NT: https://www.openbible.info/topics/kingdom_of_god

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Nothing to do with the destruction of the temple. That's the second coming. He failed. You can move on with your life.

[SteveII]

Ah, another one who is here to mock and dialog in disrespect. What does it say about a person who has that as an actual goal?

And what would be the proper response to someone gloating about their belief that anyone that disagrees with them will be tortured?

Gloating seems particularly un-Christlike and would therefore be sinful.

---

Yes I do, but what does that have to do with it? Jesus was not talking about the rapture. To give you an idea about "The Kingdom of God" in the NT: https://www.openbible.info/topics/kingdom_of_god

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Nothing to do with the destruction of the temple. That's the second coming. He failed.  You can move on with your life.

Is repeating your assertion supposed to make it better the second time. Did you read through the link where Jesus/Paul used the phrase over and over NOT referring to the second coming? Don't tell me what the Bible means when you can't be bothered to research or even to try your argument from a different direction.

[HairyCyclist]

Starting by describing my response as "bullshit" -- you haven't gotten the hang of a respectful conversation yet I see. 

Before it was to characterize us all as "worthless sinners". Now you have modified to "sinful or unworthy". The former speaks to value and the latter speaks to a current condition. You are heading in the right direction. Two things:

1. Presuming you are a naturalist, my worldview teaches that humans have more value than yours does. 
2. My worldview believes in a Holy God and therefore, by comparison, the human condition is sinful and unworthy. 

So I restate: the disrespect you are feeling is of your own making and of course is not causing "harm".

Sorry, I will try harder.

1.Please explain how.
2.My worldview has no room for any God, so I view humanity with more affection than you.

So the disrespect towards humanity shown by Christians ( your point number 2) doesn't sit well with me.

[brewer]

Except you are grossly mischaracterizing Christianity's doctrine on humans to make your point (straw man). The correct view is that God sees humans of infinite worth and so warranted the ultimate sacrifice of death on a cross to redeem them. Not exactly teaching that we are "worthless sinners" is it? So the disrespect you are feeling is of your own making and of course is not causing "harm".

So if you redeem infinite worth what do you get? Infinite infinite worth? 

If humans are of infinite worth why would they need redemption? So the infinite worth won't be thrown into the incinerator by your god?

---

It seems to me that people do not accept Our Lord and Savior as fire insurance. They want deliverance in the here and now. They want to be free from the bondage of sin - alcoholism, porn addiction, worry, depression, empty materialism, anger, self-conceit - and a deep seated longing to find redemption by helping others.

And why do humans need a god to change? What if they are already free from your ideas of bondage?

Wait, I know. Everybody is flawed and needs correcting, the correction that only a god can provide.

[SteveII]

Starting by describing my response as "bullshit" -- you haven't gotten the hang of a respectful conversation yet I see. 

Before it was to characterize us all as "worthless sinners". Now you have modified to "sinful or unworthy". The former speaks to value and the latter speaks to a current condition. You are heading in the right direction. Two things:

1. Presuming you are a naturalist, my worldview teaches that humans have more value than yours does. 
2. My worldview believes in a Holy God and therefore, by comparison, the human condition is sinful and unworthy. 

So I restate: the disrespect you are feeling is of your own making and of course is not causing "harm".

Sorry, I will try harder.

1.Please explain how.
2.My worldview has no room for any God, so I view humanity with more affection than you.

So the disrespect towards humanity shown by Christians ( your point number 2) doesn't sit well with me.

1. Khem and I are going back and forth in another thread on this. I intend to reply to him tonight, but in general Naturalism teaches that we are the product of time and chance (evolution). That process cannot endow us with intrinsic (defined as belonging naturally, essential) value any more than anything else that evolved. I am not saying that we don't have value, but rather that the value comes from things we can do and not simply because we exist. 

If God exists, he created us for a purpose and gives us intrinsic (defined as belonging naturally, essential) value/meaning/purpose. For example, take a block of wood. It has the properties of wood (fiberous, organic, brown, hard, etc.). If a craftsman take the block of wood and transforms it into a chair, it now has the new properties and purpose of being a chair. If it had grown into something that looks like a chair, we could not call it a chair and it would not have those properties and purpose of being a chair. 

2. No, you view humanity as fine the way it is. I believe a relationship with God is needed and can make it better. Christians believe that humans were made in the image of God. How much more respect do you need?

---

Except you are grossly mischaracterizing Christianity's doctrine on humans to make your point (straw man). The correct view is that God sees humans of infinite worth and so warranted the ultimate sacrifice of death on a cross to redeem them. Not exactly teaching that we are "worthless sinners" is it? So the disrespect you are feeling is of your own making and of course is not causing "harm".

So if you redeem infinite worth what do you get? Infinite infinite worth? 

If humans are of infinite worth why would they need redemption? So the infinite worth won't be thrown into the incinerator by your god?

If you redeem a valuable from a pawn shop, does it change the value? I don't think Christianity teaches that our eternal soul changes in value upon redemption or eternal separation from God (Hell).

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Khem and I are going back and forth in another thread on this. I intend to reply to him tonight, but in general Naturalism teaches that we are the product of time and chance (evolution). That process cannot endow us with intrinsic (defined as belonging naturally, essential) value any more than anything else that evolved. I am not saying that we don't have value, but rather that the value comes from things we can do and not simply because we exist. 

One wonders why intrinsic meaning is endowed, in your estimation.  If our meaning comes from the things we can do..is there something that believers can do that non-believers can't?  OFC not.  How, then, would your beliefs afford you greater meaning?  They wouldn't.  Are the things we can do not a product of evolution? Then clearly it can endow us with intrinsic value, as expressed, by you.

If God exists, he created us for a purpose and gives us intrinsic (defined as belonging naturally, essential) value/meaning/purpose.

-not defined as being given or granted, or endowed...you rail against such endowed meaning as "subjective".  So what value or purpose could they have in reference to your claims of the relative value placed upon you in your belief system compared to a naturalist framework?  I do think it's ironic, btw, that your definition of endowment explicitly references what belongs naturally. As a final comment, on how loaded just this one excerpt was, nothing that you stated after "if god exists" -actually- follows from the statement "if god exists".....so, perhaps you should be questioning the ability of a god when it comes to intrinsic meaning or purpose? The way you describe the thing you seek naturalism provides almost by fiat, while your affirmation of faith, here, does no such thing.

For example, take a block of wood. It has the properties of wood (fiberous, organic, brown, hard, etc.). If a craftsman take the block of wood and transforms it into a chair, it now has the new properties and purpose of being a chair. If it had grown into something that looks like a chair, we could not call it a chair and it would not have those properties and purpose of being a chair. 

It would have had the properties and purpose of whatever part of the tree it was cut from.  Different properties and purpose does not mean -no- properties and purpose.  If it makes sense to say it has a purpose as a chair it makes just as much sense to say it has purpose as a tree trunk.

Meanwhile.....

(that pic fucks with me so hard...it's like a dispatch from some future wherein I'm balding, lol)

[brewer]

---

So if you redeem infinite worth what do you get? Infinite infinite worth? 

If humans are of infinite worth why would they need redemption? So the infinite worth won't be thrown into the incinerator by your god?

If you redeem a valuable from a pawn shop, does it change the value? I don't think Christianity teaches that our eternal soul changes in value upon redemption or eternal separation from God (Hell).

Really, a pawn shop analogy? OK, god turned in a human to a pawn shop, in return it got some type of loan which was apparently of greater value than the human at the time, and then went and picked up the human before it got away. 

Does not sound like god set a value of infinite worth on humans. Sounds like it's only worthy when in it's possession and is still up for trade.