[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by Phaethon)
The belief that everyone will be eventually be reconciled to God, rather than sent to hell forever.

No, that's not what I said at all. I said that everyone will glorify God, that doesn't mean everyone will be in heaven. Those in hell will be glorifying God because it shows God's power in that He can punish people completely justly.

Also when quoting me please can you fully quote me so it shows in my "Who Quoted Me" widget because otherwise I might miss something you've said

[elkana]

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
To glorify God. And everyone will do that in the end. Christians will because they will show God's mercy, love and faithfulness. Non-Christians will as they will show God's ultimate power and just nature.

BuT why does God want us to glorify him

[greeneyedgirl]

(Original post by elkana)
BuT why does God want us to glorify him

We can't understand God's thinking, but we know that He deserves to be glorified.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by elkana)
BuT why does God want us to glorify him

I imagine because it's good for us.

[Okashira]

(Original post by elkana)
BuT why does God want us to glorify him

Why does He want us to glorify Him? Look at this way, (if He exists) God created the universe and everything that is in it. People all over the world, scientists in particular, marvel at what they see. How big the universe is, how small atoms are, and everything in between. So to praise and glorify God is the natural thing to do. Giving credit where credit is due.

If I spent my heart and soul writing a song, I would feel kind of cheated if someone gave credit to someone else or didn't give me any praise if people enjoyed my song. Like I didn't exist, yet I'm the one who wrote the song.

[Phaethon]

(Original post by elkana)
BuT why does God want us to glorify him

"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." John Piper

To glorify God means rejoicing in His Love, and spreading it those who have lost hope.
It does not mean being a miserable puritan

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Phaethon)
"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." John Piper

To glorify God means rejoicing in His Love, and spreading it those who have lost hope.
It does not mean being a miserable puritan

I don't believe that was the question you were asked.

[Phaethon]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I don't believe that was the question you were asked.

The question was "why does god want us to glorify him". I answered that glorifying him means being fully satisfied in him, which implies that it is for our own good.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Phaethon)
The question was "why does god want us to glorify him". I answered that glorifying him means being fully satisfied in him, which implies that it is for our own good.

No.

Question: Why does god want us to glorify him?
Answer: Glorifying god doesn't meant being unhappy.

Not an answer. Even if it did imply it was for our own good, that isn't correct because you need to say either why it's for our own good, or why god wants us to glorify him for his own good. So you haven't answered the question "Why does god want us to glorify him?"

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
No.

Question: Why does god want us to glorify him?
Answer: Glorifying god doesn't meant being unhappy.

Not an answer. Even if it did imply it was for our own good, that isn't correct because you need to say either why it's for our own good, or why god wants us to glorify him for his own good. So you haven't answered the question "Why does god want us to glorify him?"

That doesn't make sense. If his answer is 'because it's good for us', then that's an answer to the question 'why does God want us to glorify Him?' Just because we might plausibly ask further questions about why it's good for us doesn't mean it's not an answer to the initial question.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
That doesn't make sense. If his answer is 'because it's good for us', then that's an answer to the question 'why does God want us to glorify Him?' Just because we might plausibly ask further questions about why it's good for us doesn't mean it's not an answer to the initial question.

He didn't reply that "it is good for us", he replied "Worshiping god doesn't mean you are unhappy." The good for us thing was an extension of the before, which he added later, and firstly it is not a logical continuation of his answer, and secondly probably not true, either.

As I said, the answer "Worshiping god is not the same as being unhappy" is not an answer to the question "Why does god want us to worship him."

[Okashira]

Who is considered to be the first official pope? (I know Peter is considered to be the first pope, but who was the first person officially to accept the title)

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
He didn't reply that "it is good for us", he replied "Worshiping god doesn't mean you are unhappy." The good for us thing was an extension of the before, which he added later, and firstly it is not a logical continuation of his answer, and secondly probably not true, either.

As I said, the answer "Worshiping god is not the same as being unhappy" is not an answer to the question "Why does god want us to worship him."

In that case I think you're misunderstanding his reply. The exchange went as follows:

E: 'Why does God want us to glorify Him?'
P: 'To glorify God means to be satisfied in Him, and to rejoice in His love.'
H: 'You havent't answered the question.'
P: 'I implied that God wants us to glorify Him because it means we're satisfied in Him, and rejoicing h=in His love. These are desirable states of affairs, that God wants to bring about; it's good for us.'

Seems like a pretty good answer to me. Now, if you want to dispute that glorifying God is good for us, then fine, do so. But don't start making increasingly convoluted arguments because you missed the implication P wanted to convey.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
In that case I think you're misunderstanding his reply. The exchange went as follows:

E: 'Why does God want us to glorify Him?'
QP: 'To glorify God means to be satisfied in Him, and to rejoice in His love.'
H: 'You havent't answered the question.'
P: 'I implied that God wants us to glorify Him because it means we're satisfied in Him, and rejoicing h=in His love. These are desirable states of affairs, that God wants to bring about; it's good for us.'

Seems like a pretty good answer to me. Now, if you want to dispute that glorifying God is good for us, then fine, do so. But don't start making increasingly convoluted arguments because you missed the implication P wanted to convey.

This is ridiculous, and not even answering the question we are asking. Did you read the exchange?

Question: "BuT why does God want us to glorify him"
Answer: ""God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." John Piper
To glorify God means rejoicing in His Love, and spreading it those who have lost hope. It does not mean being a miserable puritan "

This did not answer the question, it was trying to explain what glorifying god means. It's like someone asking "Why does electricity turn on a light bulb" and going on to define electrons, without mentioning light bulbs at all. It does not say anything about why we want god to be glorified in us, merely how we make god glorified in us.

Then about the answer, he claimed "I answered that glorifying him means being fully satisfied in him, which implies that it is for our own good."

Yes, he said glorifying god = being satisfied in god, but didn't say anything about it being for our good, merely tried to explain what glorifying god is. There was not a connection and it was NOT AN ANSWER.

In other words, he didn't answer the question, but instead spouted out some rubbish about "glorifying" meaning "being satisfied in". If that's the answer, you need to answer the next question "Why does god want us to be satisfied in him" and in no way does being satisfied imply directly that it's for our own good.

Now if you want to explain how you get from "God wants us to glorify him" to "God wants us to be satisfied in him" to "Glorifying God is for our own good", please go ahead, because that would be an answer to our question and we can stop your stupid argument about who asked what where and when.

[R.P.Everything.]

Do conservative and liberal Christians have differing views on the vicarious redemption of humanity by Jesus, or is that a philosophical belief that is similar throughout Christianity?

[Lilio Candidior]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Do conservative and liberal Christians have differing views on the vicarious redemption of humanity by Jesus, or is that a philosophical belief that is similar throughout Christianity?

I don't think that differences on soteriology (salvation) is best divided in liberal and conservative, but rather in different denominations. That Christ is our saviour and that without him we are not saved is pretty much agreed on, but if that salvation is objective, subjective, vicarous, mystical, substitutionary or governmental is more or less varying even within denominations. Why don't you look over this wikipedia page for an overview of varying doctrines of atonement.

[gltw]

(Original post by Okashira)
Who is considered to be the first official pope? (I know Peter is considered to be the first pope, but who was the first person officially to accept the title)

In ancient Rome the tile Pontifex Maxiumus was given to the high priest of the College of Pontiffs from around 700BC I think. This was passed down to the Roman Catholic Church through Constantine who Christianised the Roman religion. The title itself is not an official title of the pope but is included in many carvings on Catholic buildings referring to the pope. The first Pope was Constantine, he held the title Pontifex Maximus before handing this to Julius I and to every other thereafter.

[Elenchus]

I've got some Christian friends and I'd just like to have opinions on a point they made.

Basically anyone can become a Christian even if they've led an amoral life if they repent. This means that if a horrible murderer repents on his deathbed he'd still enter heaven. However if a person who is kind and good throughout his life is atheist or follows a different religion he won't be allowed into heaven as he rejects God. I think that is extremely unfair, especially if that means people who are completely unaware of Christianity (unlikely I know) will also be rejected from heaven.

Furthermore apparently all people are treated equally in heaven regardless of how they spent their lives. If that is true what incentive does a Christian have to spend his life justly?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[marsman13]

The only real way to find out is to get to heaven and see from first principals.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Elenchus)
I've got some Christian friends and I'd just like to have opinions on a point they made.

Basically anyone can become a Christian even if they've led an amoral life if they repent. This means that if a horrible murderer repents on his deathbed he'd still enter heaven. However if a person who is kind and good throughout his life is atheist or follows a different religion he won't be allowed into heaven as he rejects God. I think that is extremely unfair, especially if that means people who are completely unaware of Christianity (unlikely I know) will also be rejected from heaven.

Furthermore apparently all people are treated equally in heaven regardless of how they spent their lives. If that is true what incentive does a Christian have to spend his life justly?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

It's best to not form an opinion about heaven just yet.

In any case, yes, as Jesus said in the New Testament, you cannot enter heaven based on good works alone.

Doesn't matter how much good/bad you have done, if you believe in Jesus to wash away your sins, you will enter.

Now here's the thing, when we talk of sin, we aren't necessarily talking about good or bad in our terms. We are talking about metaphysical issues like the original sin. There is no extent or severity in that...sin is sin. Doesn't matter if you steal or if you murder. In our minds, murder is obviously worse than stealing but at the end of the day, in God's eyes, sin = sin, irrespective of the modality of the sin.

And the only way to receive forgiveness is through belief is Jesus Christ's death and resurrection to wash the sins away. Until that happens, one cannot be clean from sin no matter what.