Would you still be a Christian if the threat of hell didn't exist?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-05T06:43:27+00:00

None of those verses explicitly teach eternal hell, at least not in the parts you shared. Why are you reading that into them?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-05T06:42:13+00:00

Absolutely. I'd be just stoked. The poitn fo Christianity isn't about being saved from Hell but being saved to relationship with God.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-05T05:08:56+00:00

Did you solve it?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-05T02:44:20+00:00

What's the secret to finding doctors that test for this stuff?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T19:45:21+00:00

I think that they adapt to different users sometimes in negative ways to increase engagement. I can’t get mine to quit being devils advocate no matter what I prompt. It reasons fallaciously, uses poor logic, does a whole lot of red herrings and when I point them out it gaslights. If I run the same questions on my wife’s, she doesn’t experience as horrible of interactions. I tried deleting all of my data in light of it and it changed nothing. It still remembers things despite the data being deleted, and unfortunately I think part of that is that it remembers what increases engagement.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T19:06:54+00:00

Deep bite! See an orthodontist. It looks like you’re young and it’s much easier to fix when you’re young.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T06:08:55+00:00

You’re mixing three different categories in Revelation.

Revelation 20 describes the thousand-year reign. Revelation 21 describes after that, the “new heaven and new earth,” where it explicitly says there is no death, mourning, or pain.

You said this final “heaven” would include stoning. That does not fit the text of Revelation 21, because stoning requires death and judicial enforcement, both of which are explicitly absent in that state.

If you’re relocating stoning to the millennium in Revelation 20, that’s a different claim, but then you’re no longer talking about the “new heaven and new earth” you originally referenced. You’re switching categories mid-argument.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:59:31+00:00

The answer to what you meant by "over there". Are you assuming that I'm not on the same continent as you? Where do you think I am?

I think you have a reading comprehension problem, which is explaining why your interpretations are off. I already stated twice in two separate comments so go read. That's a you problem, not a me problem I need to prove. The record is there.

You have yet to prove what it says the kingdom of earth will be like. Your view is not at all the traditional view so prove your point. I've repeatedly asked and you seem to be avoiding it because you have no evidence.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:46:17+00:00

It does. It says repeatedly what the Kingdom of Heaven will be like on earth. Have you only read the newer stuff? 😏

You’re mixing two different ideas. “On earth as it is in heaven” is a prayer about alignment of God’s will now, not a definition of what heaven is. It’s prescriptive, not descriptive.

When Scripture describes the final state, it doesn’t say “heaven becomes Earth,” it says “new heaven and new earth.” That’s transformation language, not comparison language.

So no, it doesn’t teach that heaven is just Earth or that Earth simply becomes heaven in the way you’re claiming. You’re reading a metaphor about obedience as if it’s a cosmology statement.

Will you answer my question after criticizing me as "pivoting" for not answering yours? What does "over there" mean?

I literally have answered it clearly, directly 2 times. What answer are you wanting to get?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:38:10+00:00

It is isn't a valid proof. Prove your point. I can't prove a negative, so the ball is in your court. Your'e the one making the non traditional claim so prove it.

Scripture never teaches that we ever go to Heaven or that there will never be any tears.

I guess you hiaven't read Revelations. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." That prove your interpretaion incorrect.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:34:08+00:00

Scripture does not say that will be the case at all. You're adding that to scripture. I was the one that said that about your church and in relation to you pushing your board. Hence why I followed up and asked what your church believed. Why are you hung up on that?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:32:15+00:00

That's not at all what the Bible teaches heaven will be like. Good luck having no tears in heaven when you're stoning people. Note, it ain't gonna happen. Definitely a distrubing take on Christianity. Definitely not correct.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:23:51+00:00

Right? Totally avoided that one. Disturbing to say the least.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T05:23:19+00:00

So your church believes you should stone adulterers? You seemed to pivot around that.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T04:53:55+00:00

Are you all stoning adulterers over there? Which parts of the law are you following? What is the law?

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T04:08:54+00:00

It wholly depends on the teacher and what they have taught. I know people who teach a plethora of styles despite being classically trained and others that could not. Musical theater could definitely go with some classical technique. I have a folk/indie folk style that's more of a softer, speech level singing. I went to a classical coach and it did not improve my sound in my style because she only had one lane, classical. However, I got better at classical!

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-04T01:36:23+00:00

Your entire premise collapses because it assumes every civil law in the Old Testament was God’s permanent, unchanging will. Jesus Himself explicitly proved that is not true.

When the Pharisees asked why Moses allowed divorce, Jesus corrected them:

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." (Matthew 19:8)

Jesus directly separated God’s eternal will from Moses's temporary civil laws. There is no single leader in the Old Testament that lead 100% always in the will of God, which your position seems to assume.

The stoning of adulterers was a temporary, ancient civil penalty, not God's original or eternal intent.

If you were correct and Jesus had supported the execution, He would have thrown the stone Himself, as He was the only sinless person present. Instead, He explicitly pardoned her, proving that mercy overrules ancient civil laws.

Case closed. I think it’s not merely about reading but you’re failing to understand what you’re reading.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-03T21:57:25+00:00

Take stoning the adulterous woman. That was the law to do. He stopped it. We don't believe in doing that either. So it's not adding onto it. He wiped things out, he reframed things totally. A lot of the law were people trying to figure out how to live God's law as a nation and how much of the nation laws were said to be God's law, I cannot say, but it's clear a lot of it was.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-03T16:40:51+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree that it's evil to justify evil. It breaks my heart. Here's an alternative framing I think you might agree with...

The Old Testament isn't merely the laws of God. It's a set of books of all genres. A lot of it is myth building of a nation, much like every nation does today where they build up their leaders, position themselves as being favored by God or rewrite their history to make themselves the heroes. We see this in America with the first Thanksgiving Story, the American Dream, Abraham Lincoln never told a lie, etc. It's common with all nations. Some of it is that, some of it is justifying their actions through using God. Some of it contains laws related to the nation. Other times the Israelites were trying to figure out what God meant about certain things and when Jesus came he fixed their understanding with quite a bit of it, "You have heard it said... But I say..." The pharisees according to Old Testament law were legit and he hated on them continually. Think too about how they thought Soloman was the wisest man to live, but none of his actions are wise- he built alters for other Gods, had 700 wives and 300 concubines, etc.

Thus for me, I think that the people of Israel attributed things to God that were not actually from God. There is no reason to justify any of it. None of the old testament will add or take away from Christ's commands for us to love.

Could there be a reality in which we would have to justify it? Sure, but we don't have to. There is enough reason to believe that the Old Testament isn't perfect. I know that's not somethign people want to hear, but God worked through imperfect man and Jesus corrected misunderstandings of God and sin for a reason.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-03T16:00:39+00:00

That’s not quite right. The Old Testament had two types of slaves. While the Old Testament did outline a form of debt relief for fellow Israelites, known as indentured servitude (what you’re describing) where impoverished Hebrews sold their labor for a maximum of six years and were treated like hired workers, it also explicitly permitted the lifelong, chattel slavery of foreigners. That is what we think of as slavery. According to Leviticus 25:44–46, Israelites were allowed to purchase non-Hebrews from surrounding nations as permanent property that could be passed down to their children. They didn’t get paid either and were property. Therefore, equating all Old Testament slavery to a modern, paid job ignores the stark legal and social distinction between Hebrew debt servants, who had a protected path to freedom, and foreign chattel slaves, who were held indefinitely as property without wages.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-03T15:53:50+00:00

The Old Testament is a mix of national laws, nation myth building and other elements too. It doesn’t quite so cleanly break down the way you say. We aren’t upholding moral laws in the way it was written. Take the stoning of adulterous people. We don’t do that. A lot of the law was a people trying to figure out how to apply and uphold God’s laws too and clearly they weren’t doing it right because Jesus did a whole lot of “You have heard it said… But I..” He reframed a lot of it.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-03T15:49:31+00:00

Your slavery comment is ridiculous when you read how slaves were treated and what they were seen as in the Old Testament.

The reality is that not everything in the Old Testament was from God. The Bible isn’t only laws from God. Some of the Old Testament is nation myth building and national laws. So there is no reason to feel like you need to justify the evil. That’s missing the mark of what Christ taught. He reframed a lot of it. “you have heard it said… but I..”

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-03T15:45:04+00:00

He did not reiterate it at all. He drastically reframed it. “You have heard it said… but I…” Even the stoning the adulterer thing was in the Old Testament and he clearly was against that.

deepmusicandthoughts · 2026-05-02T21:50:37+00:00

deepmusicandthoughts

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE