View Full Version : How could a loving god send people to Hell?
total relism
01-05-2013, 11:28
I will be doing a series of threads on common objections to the christian faith/bible. Around 15 in total of the most common objections I have seen on many forums through many years I have been involved on forums. I am looking to use these as references in future so I will only be dealing with discussion on the topic of each thread. So topic number one is...
How could god send those he loves to hell? Those he loved so much as to send his son to die for them.
God sends no one to hell, people chose by free will separation from him 2 Thessalonians 1.9. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels not for humans Matthew 25.4. Haven was prepared for man Matthew 25.34. There are also various degrees of punishment in hell Matt 11 22-24 Romans 2.6.
“Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that it is really mean of God to punish people for rebellion and unbelief. For the sake of argument, let’s say that everyone does go to Heaven, regardless of their status in the Book of Life. Wouldn’t it be horribly unfair for God to condemn people who hate Him to an eternity in His presence, whether they like it or not? Heaven wouldn’t be pleasant for those who hate God, because Heaven is the place where we will fully experience God’s presence. Those who love God look forward to Heaven with longing, but Heaven would be nearly as bad as Hell for the unbeliever, because the unregenerate heart hates God."
So in a sense, Hell is God finally giving the unbeliever what he wanted all along. But the absence of God means the absence of everything good, since everything good comes from Him. As C.S. Lewis has written:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it."
When unbelieving critics talk about Hell, they sometimes speak like it will be full of innocent people (like themselves!). However, the Bible doesn’t indicate that innocent people will spend a single moment in Hell. Rather, Hell is God’s answer to the fundamental injustice of this life. There are many murderers, rapists, and other people who wreak havoc in the lives of others, who never experience judgment in this life. Everyone knows that it is wrong that these people never be brought to account for what they’ve done; something in the human heart demands justice. And Hell is God’s answer.
Randy Alcorn writes:
“Without Hell, justice would never overtake the unrepentant tyrants responsible for murdering millions. Perpetrators of evil throughout the ages would get away with murder—and rape, and torture, and every evil. Even if we may acknowledge Hell as a necessary and just punishment for evildoers, however, we rarely see ourselves as worthy of Hell.”
“There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”
Romans 3:10–12
It’s hard to accept that we deserve punishment. But most people have grievances against others—if someone stole from you, or hurt your children, or if you were a victim of something fundamentally unjust, you would want justice; your sense of what is right would demand that the person at fault pay a penalty for wronging you. Every time we break God’s law, that’s an affront to God, and He demands justice, just as we do imperfectly on a smaller scale. If you’ve ever said in your heart, “That person should pay for what he did!” then you fundamentally agree with the idea of Hell, because the doctrine of Hell says somebody is going to pay for every sin, eventually. But the person who goes to Hell must reject Christ, who died so that anyone who repents can be saved. So God is not to be blamed when an unrepentant, rebellious creature chooses a destructive path that leads to Hell.
“I have even heard it said that God created hell as an act of love. God gave us free will and therefore must accommodate those who do not want anything to do with Him. God's love for His followers is eternity in His presence, but those who reject Him must spend eternity separated from Him. So eternal punishment is not for those God hates, but those who hate Him.”
http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/does-god-hate-sinners
It is not god's fault that many will reject him, his offer is still fair and loving as hell was never meant for man.Man chooses to go there and that choice has nothing to do with gods love or fairness, but mans free will. What of the people who do accept him? Should he not have made them because of those that chose life without god?
“The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness.”
-C.S Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 124
Is hell literal fire?
Hell was prepared for devil and his angels Matthew 25.41, they are spiritual beings unaffected by physical fire. Hell is described as dark with flames Matthew 8.12, fire if literal would cancel each other out. Fire is a picture of judgment, in Deuteronomy 9 and other places, it says God goes before Israel as a consuming fire, it means judgment. He judges Canaan, yet never burns them or cause fire. The fire of his judgment was not literal fire, but his judgment.
Eternity?
We live in time, time itself is a created thing, so in eternity its not like time passes by forever. we will be outside of time in eternity, something very hard to understand and grasp.
Why did God not create a world were all would be saved?
I think a part of a William lane Craig's debate might help.
“Suppose that God could create a world in which everyone is freely saved, but there is only one problem: all such worlds have only one person in them! Does God's being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell? I don't think so. God's being all-loving implies that in any world He creates He desires and strives for the salvation of every person in that world. But people who would freely reject God's every effort to save them shouldn't be allowed to have some sort of veto power over what worlds God is free to create. Why should the joy and the blessedness of those who would freely accept God's salvation be precluded because of those who would stubbornly and freely reject it? It seems to me that God's being all-loving would at the very most require Him to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost, a world where as many as possible freely accept salvation and as few as possible freely reject it.”
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-a...#ixzz2HNKHOzoD
But to add onto that, god allows things to happen even though he knows the future. So for example, god punishes certain people for there crimes, yet he waits until the crime is committed. He could punish right off [a murderer] and not allow it to happen. Yet he first allows it and than gives consequence. Same with salvation, he tries to draw near to people who he knows will reject him, Jesus dies for all sinners not just those that would receive him etc.
What was the purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Some say that a lot of trouble could have been avoided if God had just left the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil out of the Garden. But this misunderstands the vital function of the Tree. The other commands God gave Adam and Eve were fairly self-explanatory and had pleasant outcomes for them, but what was the purpose of the command not to eat from the Tree? It may seem surprising, but God had a loving purpose in putting the Tree in the Garden.God created human beings to be in a relationship with Him. But a true loving relationship has to be freely given or chosen—one could program a robot to think it loves its programmer, but that would be meaningless because the robot didn’t have a choice. God wanted human beings to love Him freely, for who He is, not just for what He had given and provided for them. But that required the chance to not love Him, to rebel. The function of the Tree was to give Adam a chance to obey or rebel, and Adam chose to eat the fruit and to rebel against God.There were two pivotal times in history when God freely gave and made a way that mankind could choose to have a relationship with Him, the Creation and the Incarnation. This also highlights why the battle of Creation is so important. The Fall from grace in the original Creation should help us understand our plight in this sin cursed world, and make it that much easier to recognize what God has done through Jesus.
http://creation.com/hell
There is a lot of discussion within the protestant church, thesis that they got it wrong and there is no such thing as hell
What about predestination?
total relism
01-05-2013, 12:09
There is a lot of discussion within the protestant church, thesis that they got it wrong and there is no such thing as hell
I disagree fully, JW say no hell, but the bible very much does teach a hell. Some say annihilation but very unlikely I think.
What about predestination?
my opnions
Predestination/free will
Both are true,God knows peoples heart before they are born, he predestines them to be saved. Those that live by faith god foreknow them by faith, he predestined them to be saved.
If predestination is true than no need to evangelize.
Gen 2.19 Ezekiel 18.2-32 luke 13.34 matt 18.14 mark 8.34 Deuteronomy 5.29
It's no issue to I'm not religious, they think it's some sort of translation-error
total relism
01-05-2013, 12:59
It's no issue to I'm not religious, they think it's some sort of translation-error
Just for your info I believe their whoever they are claims are completely baseless.
Just for your info I believe their whoever they are claims are completely baseless.
It's no claim but a discussion, I never read the bible, only about it, I wouldn't know. All I know is that the discussion exists.
Edit, I made a mistake, within the catholic church, not the protestant
total relism
01-05-2013, 14:03
It's no claim but a discussion, I never read the bible, only about it, I wouldn't know. All I know is that the discussion exists.
Edit, I made a mistake, within the catholic church, not the protestant
Ok no problem
The Bible needs very detailed and careful explanation because it's ancient nonsense wrapped round a few basic truths.
What was the figurative bit re. Lot offering up his incestuous daughters for gang rape?
The whole thing is figurative because common sense says so. It's been re-translated, edited, misrepresented, and in the end is the product of man. So it is inherently flawed. The concepts may well be fundamental religious truths, but all the specifics are suspect.
Now, that is not mutually exclusive with faith. If the Bible is divinely inspired, so too is your brain. Using it to live a godly life in accordance with a figurative text is just being a good Christian.
Now, all that said, why come into a thread obviously designed to talk about theological differences just to take snarky shots at religion?
This is a thread on a general discussion board where a prothletising christian is trying to convince us of the rightness of his beliefs. He is specifically wanting to debunk common challenges to those beliefs. These aren't snarky shots. He is quoting scripture as the rules and explanation to our existence. Referencing that scripture is entirely appropriate.
PanzerJaeger
01-06-2013, 01:15
I will be doing a series of threads on common objections to the christian faith/bible. Around 15 in total of the most common objections I have seen on many forums through many years I have been involved on forums.
Must you?
As I slogged through the OP, I could only think of how unfortunate it is that so many intelligent people waste the short time they have on this stuff.
total relism
01-06-2013, 01:26
The whole thing is figurative because common sense says so. It's been re-translated, edited, misrepresented, and in the end is the product of man. So it is inherently flawed. The concepts may well be fundamental religious truths, but all the specifics are suspect.
Now, that is not mutually exclusive with faith. If the Bible is divinely inspired, so too is your brain. Using it to live a godly life in accordance with a figurative text is just being a good Christian.
Now, all that said, why come into a thread obviously designed to talk about theological differences just to take snarky shots at religion?
this is topic of one of my threads coming soon so stay around.
The standard run-of-the-mill homohpobic church that I'm forced to go said that Jesus is my husband, the church is his love shack and wants to shag with me.
I guess he just wants people to be gay with him.
~Jirisys ()
Papewaio
01-06-2013, 23:00
So an unbelieving agnostic and/or atheist goes to hell?
A heretic goes to hell?
A repentant rapist and/or murderer and/or pedophile who fully sees the errors of his ways and repents is embraced by God and goes to heaven?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-07-2013, 02:45
So an unbelieving agnostic and/or atheist goes to hell?
A heretic goes to hell?
A repentant rapist and/or murderer and/or pedophile who fully sees the errors of his ways and repents is embraced by God and goes to heaven?
That would be one interpretation.
The key point being - the rapist/murderer recognises the magnitude of his crimes and his utter lack of justification before God. The Atheist claims that, if there were a God, he would deserve to go to heaven.
No Christian believes he deserves to go to heaven - believing you deserve something is anathema to Christianity at its most basic level.
It's also worth pointing out that the atheist doesn't want to be with God - so he can't exactly complain when he dies and is separated from God. Saint Augustine said that all men are sick in their souls, a Christian is merely someone who realises he is ill and seeks treatment. For Augustine that realisation was an autonomous act which all humans were capable of.
Crazed Rabbit
01-07-2013, 05:45
I will be doing a series of threads on common objections to the christian faith/bible. Around 15 in total of the most common objections I have seen on many forums through many years I have been involved on forums. I am looking to use these as references in future so I will only be dealing with discussion on the topic of each thread. So topic number one is...
Can't you just update this thread? New posts for arguments made by other people on other forums isn't necessary.
However, the Bible doesn’t indicate that innocent people will spend a single moment in Hell.
...
God responds,#“There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”#(Romans 3:10–12
it’s hard to understand that we deserve punishment, too.
Aren't you saying that 1) There are no innocent people, since we are all sinners, and thus, seeing as we all deserve punishment since we have all turned away at least partly from God, we should all go to Hell?
CR
I think it is hubris for men to pretend to know the specifics of who goes to hell and who doesn't. If someone embraces Christianity then they know the path to the afterlife for themselves, if they really believe it.
So you are saying that on top of the confusing and contradictory advice given in the Bible, even if we do figure out some reasoned approach based on scriptures, we still might be wrong as it's all, ultimately unknowable and beyond us?
Why bother with it then? If it's effectively random?
That would be one interpretation.
The key point being - the rapist/murderer recognises the magnitude of his crimes and his utter lack of justification before God. The Atheist claims that, if there were a God, he would deserve to go to heaven.
No Christian believes he deserves to go to heaven - believing you deserve something is anathema to Christianity at its most basic level.
It's also worth pointing out that the atheist doesn't want to be with God - so he can't exactly complain when he dies and is separated from God. Saint Augustine said that all men are sick in their souls, a Christian is merely someone who realises he is ill and seeks treatment. For Augustine that realisation was an autonomous act which all humans were capable of.
The atheist doesn't want to be without god, just that with the brain god has given, and the evidence god has laid out, it seems unlikely to the atheist that Christianity holds more than general life guidance with a lot of hocum thrown in.
rory_20_uk
01-07-2013, 12:31
The whole exercise feels like the poor communication officer on the podium "clarifying" something that his boss just said. Intially he was fine as each time a question was asked he pulled out a pistol and shot the person. Increasingly, after runing out of bullets tying himself in knots "interpreting" this.
~:smoking:
spankythehippo
01-07-2013, 12:32
Generally, most faiths reward good behaviour and punish misdeeds.
Going to heaven should be like a point system. Positive points for good, negative points for bad.
"You walked an old lady across the street? Here, have 5 points."
OH YEAH!
"But you murdered a nun... I'm taking away 200 points."
Goddamn it.
...
Come Judgment Day...
"Let's see now. You're in the positive numbers, so that's good. Still not high enough to be with Jesus. You can stay in the working-class district of Heaven."
See how much more effective this would be with a Divine Leaderboard? People would be competing to get more points, but of course, there would be trolls who would try to get the lowest score as humanly possible.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it does have a few flaws. Well God, if you're out there, feel free to implement my point system in this world. I sure could use a laugh.
Generally, most faiths reward good behaviour and punish misdeeds.
Going to heaven should be like a point system. Positive points for good, negative points for bad.
"You walked an old lady across the street? Here, have 5 points."
OH YEAH!
"But you murdered a nun... I'm taking away 200 points."
Goddamn it.
...
Come Judgment Day...
"Let's see now. You're in the positive numbers, so that's good. Still not high enough to be with Jesus. You can stay in the working-class district of Heaven."
See how much more effective this would be with a Divine Leaderboard? People would be competing to get more points, but of course, there would be trolls who would try to get the lowest score as humanly possible.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it does have a few flaws. Well God, if you're out there, feel free to implement my point system in this world. I sure could use a laugh.
...(condensed)
That's the thing... According to Christianity Jesus paid for all sins ever committed against God. Every sin is paid for in full -God's justice is satisfied.
I heard this analogy by an american associate: It's like you having 100 parking tickets in California. The Justice system demands that you either pay them or serve time. But you don't have the money... When you show up in court, all tickets are paid for by this guy down the street. Justice is served as the tickets are paid - and you are free to go... Thanks unknown guy!! whaddayamean I need to believe it happened OR ELSE... ???
Predestination/free will
Both are true,God knows peoples heart before they are born, he predestines them to be saved. Those that live by faith god foreknow them by faith, he predestined them to be saved.
If predestination is true than no need to evangelize.
Gen 2.19 Ezekiel 18.2-32 luke 13.34 matt 18.14 mark 8.34 Deuteronomy 5.29
The co-existence of free will and predestination answer is not satisfactory.
If he predestines someone to salvation, wouldn't he predestine someone to damnation also? Hence back to your original question. Why populate hell with his own offspring? Let me hear the angle of oppositions must exist.
total relism
01-07-2013, 14:50
So an unbelieving agnostic and/or atheist goes to hell?
A heretic goes to hell?
A repentant rapist and/or murderer and/or pedophile who fully sees the errors of his ways and repents is embraced by God and goes to heaven?
everyone goes to hell, unless you have never sinned before. If that is the case than you can freeley go to haven. But god and haven are perfect/sinless place and god cant dwell with sin. So we cannot go there assuming you have sinned. But because god loves us, he sent jesus to die for us pay the penalty and by his grace and love for us, we are saved, not because we have earned or worked off so that he must pay us. he pays us even though we cant fully do the work, so he did so himself.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Isiah 53 5-6
god wants not even the sinner to die or be separated from him.
"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).
Can't you just update this thread? New posts for arguments made by other people on other forums isn't necessary.
Aren't you saying that 1) There are no innocent people, since we are all sinners, and thus, seeing as we all deserve punishment since we have all turned away at least partly from God, we should all go to Hell?
CR
No because I want to use each thread as reference in future on this forum. Each topic is unique and deserves its own thread I believe.
Yes to second part, what I was saying in bolded part is simply no innocent person will ever be sent to hell. But we are all guilty.
The atheist doesn't want to be without god, just that with the brain god has given, and the evidence god has laid out, it seems unlikely to the atheist that Christianity holds more than general life guidance with a lot of hocum thrown in.
Dont we wish this was true, I offer to debate you personally in a 1v1 debate at twcenter forums, or here if we can. I will show this is not the case at all. But it is your worldview that is determined by your hearts wants that controls how you decide truth and inteprite evidence.
Generally, most faiths reward good behaviour and punish misdeeds.
Going to heaven should be like a point system. Positive points for good, negative points for bad.
"You walked an old lady across the street? Here, have 5 points."
OH YEAH!
"But you murdered a nun... I'm taking away 200 points."
Goddamn it.
...
Come Judgment Day...
"Let's see now. You're in the positive numbers, so that's good. Still not high enough to be with Jesus. You can stay in the working-class district of Heaven."
See how much more effective this would be with a Divine Leaderboard? People would be competing to get more points, but of course, there would be trolls who would try to get the lowest score as humanly possible.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it does have a few flaws. Well God, if you're out there, feel free to implement my point system in this world. I sure could use a laugh.
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Galatians 2:21
I think it comes down to gods perfect holiness and judgment. He cant allow even a few sins go unpunished or he is unjust. I recommend a debate on this topic if your interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPWle3mIFBk
.
The co-existence of free will and predestination answer is not satisfactory.
If he predestines someone to salvation, wouldn't he predestine someone to damnation also? Hence back to your original question. Why populate hell with his own offspring? Let me hear the angle of oppositions must exist.
I dont see why its a problem. He does not want any to go to hell.
"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).
"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).
"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).
But he predestined those that would live by faith to be saved. Both the ones in havan and hell both chose there own paths, yet god foreknow who would chose each way.
The co-existence of free will and predestination answer is not satisfactory.
If he predestines someone to salvation, wouldn't he predestine someone to damnation also? Hence back to your original question. Why populate hell with his own offspring? Let me hear the angle of oppositions must exist.
and even if God gave man free will, he still has them living under the threat of hell.
choices made under that kind of intimidation are not exactly free.
total relism
01-07-2013, 15:35
and even if God gave man free will, he still has them living under the threat of hell.
choices made under that kind of intimidation are not exactly free.
Please read op,god/the bible see it very differently. Would would you suggest to do with a eternal,guilty, person who rejects god?.
Please read op,god/the bible see it very differently. Would would you suggest to do with a eternal,guilty, person who rejects god?.
That problem is a corollary of the ideas that man is "eternal" and "guilty"
So I leave that imaginary problem to the people that made it up....I just pointed out the problem exists.
Kralizec
01-07-2013, 16:54
Reading the Old Testament gives you the distinct impression that the supernatural was a lot nearer. When God ruined Job’s life as part of a bet, Job is told by his wife that he should curse God for what has been done to him. Read: not deny his existence, which is what most of us would do but which didnt even enter their minds, but curse him. The moral of the story was that God can do whatever he pleases, and piety and respect to God may or may not be rewarded. If not, then the reasons for why not are none of your business and you should shut up. But I digress.
“Rejecting God” is a loaded term that implies that the person is not an atheist at all, but is perfectly aware that God exists, yet refuses to honor him. Since Hell is traditionally said to be extremely unpleasant it’s really quite ridiculous for someone with knowledge of God to refuse to honor him.
If we postulate that God exists, the reason why people like me go to hell would be that we don’t see any compelling reason to think God exists, him having not appeared physically in the last thousends of years despite supposedly appearing several times to the ancient Israelites. “Free will” my arse. I guess they never heard of the term informed choice in those days.
From Blackadder:
Edmund: Well, well, let's take Hell: You know, Hell isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be.
Graveney: What?
Edmund: No, no, no, no. No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants...
Graveney: Ew...
Edmund: Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other sorts of things: [with relish] adultery, pillage, torture — those... areas.
Graveney: Really?
Edmund: Mm! Give your lands to the Crown, and once you're dead, you'll have the time of your life!
Graveney: Adultery? Pillage? Through all eternity?
Edmund: Yep!
King: (handing over a quill) Lord Graveney, your decision...
Graveney: Very well. (signs) I leave my lands to the Crown, and my soul in the hands of the Lord. May He treat me like the piece of refuse that I am (rubs his hands together, grinning) and send me to Hell.
How old are you and where are you from Total Relism?
Papewaio
01-07-2013, 20:51
Well this version of god sounds more like a odorous burecratic bully then a loving father.
You have free will but if you don't worship me (according to which religion, sect or denomination? Which iteration or edition) I will send you to hell. I'll send your children, your wife and even on a bet with the highest representative of evil will make your life as intolerable as possible.
I will knock up a young lady and get another man to raise my child. This child will make the ultimate sacrifice for ALL mankinds sins, but just as bullying and burecratic and unethical as me is the priesthood so they will make a bunch of caveats and exceptions for this ultimate all encompassing sacrifice that requires tithes and subjugation through the priest hood. So instead of a direct relationship and forgiveness for everything which one would think would include stupidity, hubris, ignorance and lack of understanding... One has to confess to a priesthood, pay an extortion fee for entry we tithe, pray at the correct pew/church/denomination/sect/religion to the correct entity be it priest/saint/son of god or god direct.
Then another set of caveats allow the priesthood to tell each other of their misdeeds and now not have to render unto Caesar his due. Priesthood is above the law of the land as long as they tell each other they have sinned and they feel weally weally sowwy. Higher ups are allowed to cover up misdeeds from traffic tickets to human trafficking as long as the right lip service or money changes hands.
As a parent and an employee I think god fails as a parent and he fails as the head of the company. I'm not impressed by many or any of his franchise priesthoods. I think I'll take my philosophy and moral guidance from a better source. Maybe one that isn't based on Bronze Age fairies at the bottom of the garden. Till he comes out, apologizes to Jesus for not being a hands on dad and really gets over his jealous anger issues ill chalk up his followers to the same category as bronies.
Sarmatian
01-07-2013, 22:29
How old are you and where are you from Total Relism?
He said he is originally from one of the former Yugoslavian countries. After all we've done to convince the rest of the world we're crazy, there are still ways to further reinforce that opinion.
Ohh, God... Sorry, was that blasphemous?
Because faith is important to some? Blind dogma never helped anyone, but nobody is so obtuse as to totally deny their metaphysical suspicions. Christianity at its best is a reasoned way of living good, with the hope of a better afterlife. Only the most privileged generations and societies have been care-free enough to not care.
Faith is fine. Just don't quote the Bible at me and expect me not to point out that it's nonsense.
I would say to all of that, "its not my place to judge or give you guidelines." For me Christianity is a personal choice, not a sales pitch or whatever.
And yet organised Christianity makes pronouncements and judgements all the time. Indeed it flexes it's political muscles and pushes it's judgements on the world. Then christians have the gall to claim that they are some oppressed minority.
total relism
01-08-2013, 07:27
That problem is a corollary of the ideas that man is "eternal" and "guilty"
So I leave that imaginary problem to the people that made it up....I just pointed out the problem exists.
I just pointed out it is only problem if you ignore op/bible.
Reading the Old Testament gives you the distinct impression that the supernatural was a lot nearer. When God ruined Job’s life as part of a bet, Job is told by his wife that he should curse God for what has been done to him. Read: not deny his existence, which is what most of us would do but which didnt even enter their minds, but curse him. The moral of the story was that God can do whatever he pleases, and piety and respect to God may or may not be rewarded. If not, then the reasons for why not are none of your business and you should shut up. But I digress.
“Rejecting God” is a loaded term that implies that the person is not an atheist at all, but is perfectly aware that God exists, yet refuses to honor him. Since Hell is traditionally said to be extremely unpleasant it’s really quite ridiculous for someone with knowledge of God to refuse to honor him.
If we postulate that God exists, the reason why people like me go to hell would be that we don’t see any compelling reason to think God exists, him having not appeared physically in the last thousends of years despite supposedly appearing several times to the ancient Israelites. “Free will” my arse. I guess they never heard of the term informed choice in those days.
I agree with first part, not until I would say the last 150 were there very many atheist at all. I see good reason for this as well [future thread]. I disagree fully on job and your intpritation of bible/god and what it says.
Second part I disagree fully as does the bible. In fact op points that out from biblical theology.
are you not the one that posted this before? I offered debate to show this is not true at all and I can prove it. It is your worldview governed by your hearts wants that controls what you believe and how you inteprit evidence.
How old are you and where are you from Total Relism?
pm me
Well this version of god sounds more like a odorous burecratic bully then a loving father.
You have free will but if you don't worship me (according to which religion, sect or denomination? Which iteration or edition) I will send you to hell. I'll send your children, your wife and even on a bet with the highest representative of evil will make your life as intolerable as possible.
I will knock up a young lady and get another man to raise my child. This child will make the ultimate sacrifice for ALL mankinds sins, but just as bullying and burecratic and unethical as me is the priesthood so they will make a bunch of caveats and exceptions for this ultimate all encompassing sacrifice that requires tithes and subjugation through the priest hood. So instead of a direct relationship and forgiveness for everything which one would think would include stupidity, hubris, ignorance and lack of understanding... One has to confess to a priesthood, pay an extortion fee for entry we tithe, pray at the correct pew/church/denomination/sect/religion to the correct entity be it priest/saint/son of god or god direct.
Then another set of caveats allow the priesthood to tell each other of their misdeeds and now not have to render unto Caesar his due. Priesthood is above the law of the land as long as they tell each other they have sinned and they feel weally weally sowwy. Higher ups are allowed to cover up misdeeds from traffic tickets to human trafficking as long as the right lip service or money changes hands.
As a parent and an employee I think god fails as a parent and he fails as the head of the company. I'm not impressed by many or any of his franchise priesthoods. I think I'll take my philosophy and moral guidance from a better source. Maybe one that isn't based on Bronze Age fairies at the bottom of the garden. Till he comes out, apologizes to Jesus for not being a hands on dad and really gets over his jealous anger issues ill chalk up his followers to the same category as bronies.
I disagree based on the bible. God is perfectly holy just and cannot dwell with sin. We are sinners that cant be in his presence. He gives us because he loves us free entry and forgiveness to spend eternity in paradise with him as we were originally created to do. We can chose to accept or deny because our free will. He allows both.
I suggest reading bible before claiming things
false claims
you believe god had sex with marry?
god abandon and had no relationship with jesus
jesus was not divine
assuming some "priesthood" matters at all to bible/god,topic.
thinking mans actions have anything to do with topic/bible/god.
thanks for pointing out problems with catholic doctrine, though I could defend this to you but no need to as i am not catholic and off topic.
You object as sated to a priesthood not god, but falsely apply there deeds to god. I suggest reading Malachi.
Do you have any objection to topic title?.
Faith is fine. Just don't quote the Bible at me and expect me not to point out that it's nonsense.
The same people that claim bible is clearly false and they can prove it, are the same I find in many threads/years of debating atheist, the ones that refuse to debate 1v1. i have asked you 3-4 times since on these forums you never accept. They have been so far indoctrinated that they hear a argument they like and accept its truth without questioning, therefore when challenged by someone with knowledge they cannot respond. They also are completely unaware of the illogical nature of there own beliefs. So I offer you another debate idaho 4th time. Topic what is nonsense bible/or atheism, not on this thread but a 1v1.There you can bring up anything you like [those passages you posted earlier etc].
And yet organised Christianity makes pronouncements and judgements all the time. Indeed it flexes it's political muscles and pushes it's judgements on the world. Then christians have the gall to claim that they are some oppressed minority.
I would love this topic to debate you on as well, who is oppressed atheist or christians? that would be fun topic.
a completely inoffensive name
01-08-2013, 07:54
Here is the problem I have with the bible being figurative, if you have already admitted that the majority or the entire thing has been revised/edited multiple times by man, how can you really trust the damn thing in the first place? It is one thing you have faith that there is a God, but with Christianity, you have to have faith that the Bible itself is still or less intact in its ability to uncover God's word. From a practical stand point you might as well become Islamic instead, the ambiguity of the Koran in the Islamic language doesn't seem to compare to the Bible in Christianity and you are worshiping the same God anyway.
total relism
01-08-2013, 08:15
Here is the problem I have with the bible being figurative, if you have already admitted that the majority or the entire thing has been revised/edited multiple times by man, how can you really trust the damn thing in the first place? It is one thing you have faith that there is a God, but with Christianity, you have to have faith that the Bible itself is still or less intact in its ability to uncover God's word. From a practical stand point you might as well become Islamic instead, the ambiguity of the Koran in the Islamic language doesn't seem to compare to the Bible in Christianity and you are worshiping the same God anyway.
I never said bible was figurative, neither did I say it has been edited/revised. Were did you get this. I believe the bible is history and we have the very bible originally written down. This is a future topic on translation of the bible i will be doing. Nether do islam/bible worship the same god, no offence but do you read anything before posting?.
islam vs chirtianity
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142771-Is-Islam-true
a completely inoffensive name
01-08-2013, 08:55
no offence but do you read anything before posting?.
Never got into the habit. Just ask Panzer how I was pro-Romney just like him in 2010 and then hated Romney in 2012. I didn't even read my own posts!
total relism
01-08-2013, 09:16
Theologically speaking, they are all worshipping the same God. The muslims consider Jesus a prophet, but not the son of God--so that alone creates a huge divergence when you're talking about man's role on earth in the two* teachings.
*Obviously great variations exist within all major faiths too, of course.
Not at all, "god" or Allah of koran is very different than the "god" of bible. Anyone willing to watch debates read my other threads or read koran/bible will soon find this out.
Never got into the habit. Just ask Panzer how I was pro-Romney just like him in 2010 and then hated Romney in 2012. I didn't even read my own posts!
I like you for this post,very honest and funny as h#ll. Thank you.
I dont see why its a problem. He does not want any to go to hell.
"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).
"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).
"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).
But he predestined those that would live by faith to be saved. Both the ones in havan and hell both chose there own paths, yet god foreknow who would chose each way.
You say that he does not want to condemn anyone to hell.. Predestination according to Calvin contradicts this. If God "knows" your fate before you are born, then he has condemned you before he created you.
In the same breath that you propose a predestined salvation, you also propose a predestined damnation. You say God know who will be saved. Well then, you also say God knows who will not be saved - which is synonym with damned. Even before God sends you to your parents he knows you will end up in hell... why send you at all? It would be better if he only sent those who would obtain salvation. Hence a perfect creation with a successful outcome.
Either you forgo Calvinistic predestination and embrace true free will or stick to a fixed game where God "chooses" which go to hell and which do not.
total relism
01-08-2013, 10:39
You say that he does not want to condemn anyone to hell.. Predestination according to Calvin contradicts this. If God "knows" your fate before you are born, then he has condemned you before he created you.
In the same breath that you propose a predestined salvation, you also propose a predestined damnation. You say God know who will be saved. Well then, you also say God knows who will not be saved - which is synonym with damned. Even before God sends you to your parents he knows you will end up in hell... why send you at all? It would be better if he only sent those who would obtain salvation. Hence a perfect creation with a successful outcome.
Either you forgo Calvinistic predestination and embrace true free will or stick to a fixed game where God "chooses" which go to hell and which do not.
first I am not hard line predestination as many think of it I reject that idea as i clearly posted earlier on my first response to you.
Predestination/free will
Both are true,God knows peoples heart before they are born, he predestines them to be saved. Those that live by faith god foreknow them by faith, he predestined them to be saved.
If predestination is true than no need to evangelize.
Gen 2.19 Ezekiel 18.2-32 luke 13.34 matt 18.14 mark 8.34 Deuteronomy 5.29
I dont care what calvin says, I care what bible says. I agree that god created a world knowing many would reject him. But he also created as stated with free will. He does not want any to deny him but knows they will. You also assume falsely god can control who will reject him. He cannot, some will some wont.
I think a part of a william lane craig debate might help.
Suppose that God could create a world in which everyone is freely saved, but there is only one problem: all such worlds have only one person in them! Does God's being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell? I don't think so. God's being all-loving implies that in any world He creates He desires and strives for the salvation of every person in that world. But people who would freely reject God's every effort to save them shouldn't be allowed to have some sort of veto power over what worlds God is free to create. Why should the joy and the blessedness of those who would freely accept God's salvation be precluded because of those who would stubbornly and freely reject it? It seems to me that God's being all-loving would at the very most require Him to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost, a world where as many as possible freely accept salvation and as few as possible freely reject it.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-a-loving-god-send-people-to-hell-the-craig-bradley-debate#ixzz2HNKHOzoD
But to add onto that, god allows things to happen even though he knows the future. So for example, god punishes certain people for there crimes, yet he waits untill the crime is committed. He could punish right off [a murderer] and not allow it to happen. Yet he first allows than gives consequence. Same with salvation, he tries to draw near to people who he knows will reject him, jesus dies for all sinners not just those that would receive him etc.
and as I said in OP
It is not gods fault that many will reject him, his offer is still fair and loving as hell was never meant for man.
Man chooses to go there witch has nothing to do with gods love or fairness but mans free will.
What of the people who do accept him? Should he not have made them because of those that chose life without god?
spankythehippo
01-08-2013, 11:41
I think it comes down to gods perfect holiness and judgment.
So God's judgment is perfect? Any evidence for this, or is this just one of the many taken-to-be-true-without-question "facts" purported in holy texts? If you do have evidence for God's perfect judgment, I'd love to hear them.
And please don't refer me to the OP. That seems to be the focal point of your argument.
first I am not hard line predestination as many think of it I reject that idea as i clearly posted earlier on my first response to you.
Predestination/free will
Both are true,God knows peoples heart before they are born, he predestines them to be saved. Those that live by faith god foreknow them by faith, he predestined them to be saved.
If predestination is true than no need to evangelize.
Gen 2.19 Ezekiel 18.2-32 luke 13.34 matt 18.14 mark 8.34 Deuteronomy 5.29
I read the above and first you say they are both true... I think that they are mutually exclusive. You need to choose either.
The second highlight favours complete free will... nothing is set in stone, no predestination is committed. Which is more sound.
I dont care what calvin says, I care what bible says. I agree that god created a world knowing many would reject him. But he also created as stated with free will. He does not want any to deny him but knows they will. You also assume falsely god can control who will reject him. He cannot, some will some wont.
Let's agree that predestination IS the doctrine proposed by Calvinism and nothing else... you should move away from the word and use something else if you want to incorporate free will and the foreknowledge of God.
But to add onto that, god allows things to happen even though he knows the future. So for example, god punishes certain people for there crimes, yet he waits untill the crime is committed. He could punish right off [a murderer] and not allow it to happen. Yet he first allows than gives consequence. Same with salvation, he tries to draw near to people who he knows will reject him, jesus dies for all sinners not just those that would receive him etc.
and as I said in OP
It is not gods fault that many will reject him, his offer is still fair and loving as hell was never meant for man.
Man chooses to go there witch has nothing to do with gods love or fairness but mans free will.
What of the people who do accept him? Should he not have made them because of those that chose life without god?
This is more in line with free will... Man is free to choose evil and God will not intervene in those choices... but will hand out the consequences, either temporal (Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's wife) and/or eternal (damnation). Man's destiny is not set in stone and he/she will be able to choose salvation in this lifetime by repentance.
I gave you a handle in my second post --- I would like to hear your opinion of it.
You could finish this sentence: Opposition in all things exists because ...
TR - You keep talking about a 1v1 debate being some ultimate contest. I said before that I was happy to debate with you but that we need some arbiter and rules about not allowing cut and paste oddessys.
Also we need to recognise that we won't change anyone's mind.
total relism
01-08-2013, 13:49
So God's judgment is perfect? Any evidence for this, or is this just one of the many taken-to-be-true-without-question "facts" purported in holy texts? If you do have evidence for God's perfect judgment, I'd love to hear them.
And please don't refer me to the OP. That seems to be the focal point of your argument.
Theologically speaking, gods perfect justice as in he cant allow sin to go unpunished. The evidence is based on the bible and what it says about sin etc That is the evidence for the character of god when we discuss the bible. I would think that would be rather clear on this thread my bad.
I read the above and first you say they are both true... I think that they are mutually exclusive. You need to choose either.
The second highlight favours complete free will... nothing is set in stone, no predestination is committed. Which is more sound.
Let's agree that predestination IS the doctrine proposed by Calvinism and nothing else... you should move away from the word and use something else if you want to incorporate free will and the foreknowledge of God.
This is more in line with free will... Man is free to choose evil and God will not intervene in those choices... but will hand out the consequences, either temporal (Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's wife) and/or eternal (damnation). Man's destiny is not set in stone and he/she will be able to choose salvation in this lifetime by repentance.
I gave you a handle in my second post --- I would like to hear your opinion of it.
You could finish this sentence: Opposition in all things exists because ...
They are both true with a lower case letter as they say. I exspalined how they are both true many times, let me try again. I explained how they both are not exclusive.
Predestination/free will
Both are true,God knows peoples heart before they are born, he predestines them to be saved. Those that live by faith god foreknow them by faith, he predestined them to be saved.
If predestination is true than no need to evangelize.
Gen 2.19 Ezekiel 18.2-32 luke 13.34 matt 18.14 mark 8.34 Deuteronomy 5.29
The bolded part refers to what many think of as predestination, with a capital letter.As in god chose some people randomly and predestined them to be saved regardless of there will etc.
I agree I think we have mix up of meanings. By free will i mean people have 100% choice in there salvation.
I have affirmed free will since the beginning.
I dont know how you feel I have not responded, know that you know I have affirmed free will from beginning.
TR - You keep talking about a 1v1 debate being some ultimate contest. I said before that I was happy to debate with you but that we need some arbiter and rules about not allowing cut and paste oddessys.
Also we need to recognise that we won't change anyone's mind.
proving one of the topic i asked to debate you on that evidence does not matter but your worldview. I am 100% ok with rules for a 1v1 debate.
I dont know how you feel I have not responded, know that you know I have affirmed free will from beginning.
It is the mixing of predestination and free will that I make a complaint towards. Predestination with or without the capital letter has a very specific meaning and contradicts free will.
That's all.
You should use preordained as a synonym for your version of free will.
Now to my question of why does God create/allow evil? Why does he need evil in his creation?
It is missing in your discussion.
Theologically speaking, gods perfect justice as in he cant allow sin to go unpunished. The evidence is based on the bible and what it says about sin etc That is the evidence for the character of god when we discuss the bible. I would think that would be rather clear on this thread my bad.
They are both true with a lower case letter as they say. I exspalined how they are both true many times, let me try again. I explained how they both are not exclusive.
Predestination/free will
Both are true,God knows peoples heart before they are born, he predestines them to be saved. Those that live by faith god foreknow them by faith, he predestined them to be saved.
If predestination is true than no need to evangelize.
Gen 2.19 Ezekiel 18.2-32 luke 13.34 matt 18.14 mark 8.34 Deuteronomy 5.29
The bolded part refers to what many think of as predestination, with a capital letter.As in god chose some people randomly and predestined them to be saved regardless of there will etc.
I agree I think we have mix up of meanings. By free will i mean people have 100% choice in there salvation.
I have affirmed free will since the beginning.
I dont know how you feel I have not responded, know that you know I have affirmed free will from beginning.
proving one of the topic i asked to debate you on that evidence does not matter but your worldview. I am 100% ok with rules for a 1v1 debate.
Ok. Find an arbiter, a location and a panel of jurors who we can do a before and after poll with.
total relism
01-08-2013, 15:58
It is the mixing of predestination and free will that I make a complaint towards. Predestination with or without the capital letter has a very specific meaning and contradicts free will.
That's all.
You should use preordained as a synonym for your version of free will.
Now to my question of why does God create/allow evil? Why does he need evil in his creation?
It is missing in your discussion.
First thanks for the good discussions.
I disagree that they contradict, only when they are thought of as they normally are. I think the bible says diffident on both subjects. I will try to exspalin better what i mean.
free will- The bible teaches 100% that people have free will. This does not in anyway contradict,that god predestined those that would live by faith, to be saved.
Ok. Find an arbiter, a location and a panel of jurors who we can do a before and after poll with.
I will take that as back down.
I don't think you will find the word predestined or predestination in the Bible. Predestination as per definition belongs to the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject.
Will you deal with my question as posted previously?
total relism
01-08-2013, 16:36
I don't think you will find the word predestined or predestination in the Bible. Predestination as per definition belongs to the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject.
Will you deal with my question as posted previously?
could you please tell me what it is? I dont know what your referring to, I thought I had responded to all. I think it comes down to how to understand what is meant by predestination vs free will, so I will refer you to post 54 that seems as easily said as possible on why they dont contradict.
could you please tell me what it is? I dont know what your referring to, I thought I had responded to all. I think it comes down to how to understand what is meant by predestination vs free will, so I will refer you to post 54 that seems as easily said as possible on why they dont contradict.
let me quote myself:
Now to my question of why does God create/allow evil? Why does he need evil in his creation?
It is missing in your discussion.
total relism
01-08-2013, 16:47
let me quote myself:
Oh sorry thought i did respond. This is my next topic, or slavery in bible. I dont see how this would have to do with this thread at all. but this is great question and i look forward to it and hope you will be there. I will 80% likely do it before the slavery thread. If you ask nicely I will promise you I will do it next [I like yah].
I will take that as back down.
It's not meant to be. Did anyone else read it as a back down?
Sarmatian
01-08-2013, 18:48
Ok. Find an arbiter, a location and a panel of jurors who we can do a before and after poll with.
I will take that as back down.
No, no, no and no.
I'll be an arbiter and/or a juror. I'm pretty sure you'll find some equally bored orgahs to fill the rest of the juror positions. You just need to agree to a concrete subject and we're off.
Although, later on I'll want to argue that John Wayne's movies are the best western movies and I hope you'll return the favour.
HoreTore
01-08-2013, 19:09
The Trinity-series is by far the best westerns ever made.
Please stop spewing your blasphemous filth, Sarmatian, you're hurting my religious feelings.
No, no, no and no.
I'll be an arbiter and/or a juror. I'm pretty sure you'll find some equally bored orgahs to fill the rest of the juror positions. You just need to agree to a concrete subject and we're off.
Although, later on I'll want to argue that John Wayne's movies are the best western movies and I hope you'll return the favour.
Clint Eastwood > John Wayne
total relism
01-08-2013, 21:23
It's not meant to be. Did anyone else read it as a back down?
No, no, no and no.
I'll be an arbiter and/or a juror. I'm pretty sure you'll find some equally bored orgahs to fill the rest of the juror positions. You just need to agree to a concrete subject and we're off.
Although, later on I'll want to argue that John Wayne's movies are the best western movies and I hope you'll return the favour.
Ok i am game, but find a place were that is Incorporated? that will be hard, idaho lets just debate. You make it to complicated.
What motion are you proposing?
Papewaio
01-08-2013, 22:30
BTW which bible TR are you referring to and which language and edition?
spankythehippo
01-09-2013, 05:10
Theologically speaking, gods perfect justice as in he cant allow sin to go unpunished. The evidence is based on the bible and what it says about sin etc That is the evidence for the character of god when we discuss the bible. I would think that would be rather clear on this thread my bad.
The evidence is in the Bible? Has anyone confirmed this with first-hand experience? Without confirmation, or at least a valid theory, it becomes difficult to accept as truth.
a completely inoffensive name
01-09-2013, 09:12
The evidence is in the Bible? Has anyone confirmed this with first-hand experience?
Confirmation is impossible right now, every person who has claimed to have read the Bible has been accused of not reading it correctly.
HoreTore
01-09-2013, 09:29
The need to punish sins would be something I would regard as evil though, so the god TR speaks about is imperfect and evil IMO.
C.S. Lewis is a hack, stop quoting him. He made two horrible movies about people coming out of the closet. There wasn't even any homosexuality involved at all!
Unless you're into incest.
~Jirisys ()
spankythehippo
01-09-2013, 09:50
Confirmation is impossible right now, every person who has claimed to have read the Bible has been accused of not reading it correctly.
That's exactly my point. If confirmation is impossible, I don't believe it.
The need to punish sins would be something I would regard as evil though...
Hippie!!
Kralizec
01-09-2013, 10:40
I agree with first part, not until I would say the last 150 were there very many atheist at all. I see good reason for this as well [future thread].
There have always been irreligious people. The “ good reason” why that was not apparent was that most societies persecuted them when they made themselves known.
Second part I disagree fully as does the bible. In fact op points that out from biblical theology.
There is nothing to disagree about. The meaning of the words is obvious. “Rejecting God” is a phrase that places the blame of the seperation between God and an individual on the latter. And in your opening post of this thread, you justify the existance of hell (and all its suffering) with the warped that atheists want it.
are you not the one that posted this before? I offered debate to show this is not true at all and I can prove it. It is your worldview governed by your hearts wants that controls what you believe and how you inteprit evidence.
No, I’ve responded to your posts before but not on this particular subject.
I’ve been raised irreligiously but when I was 18-19 I did chose to read the bible voluntarily. I was open to the idea of believing, but it failed to convince me.
Here’s a to-the-point question for you: going by the bible, we know that God (the Father) appeared before the Israelites several times. Later on, Jesus performed various miracles, like curing a bunch of lepers leading to one to drop on his knees and praise god.
God hasn’t appeared in any recognisable way to humanity for 2,000 years now, and in fact all proof we have that he ever did in the first place is the writings of men. Why is it that of our generation a bigger “leap of faith” is expected than the Israelites? Isn’t that tremendously unfair?
As we become more technologically skilled and more detailed in our knowledge of history we inevitably reexamine the bible and religion with the same tools we use to build cars, mobile phones and particle accelerators. We see that human religion has set patterns throughout history. Even the stories get recycled.
The recycled stories of the Bible are seen in a context impossible to those even 200 years ago. It's interesting that fundamentalist christians dissaprove of detailed theological study and the few people I know who have undertaken such study started as christians and ended up not being christians.
total relism
01-09-2013, 16:08
BTW which bible TR are you referring to and which language and edition?
I use different ones, what passage are you concerned with? I usually use nkjv or niv.
The evidence is in the Bible? Has anyone confirmed this with first-hand experience? Without confirmation, or at least a valid theory, it becomes difficult to accept as truth.
Written by first hand observers, but you will no dout reject them. So I say we should reject Abraham Lincoln, I dont think he was real person as we can only go by what people said about him, there is no proof. Just as I dont think you have a brain or are a real person. You cannot provide me with evidence i can see, so therefore you have no brain and are probably a robot typing. But if it confirming evidence/evidence constant with bible, well that happens to be my specialty and is a topic coming in this series.
Also in regards to topic and biblical theology, the evidence come from bible on what it says god is, as that is the authority on the god of bible.
The need to punish sins would be something I would regard as evil though, so the god TR speaks about is imperfect and evil IMO.
I would say it would be a non-loving god to allow sin to happen. I think what america/england etc did in ww2 was loving, they did not believe in letting sin go unanswered. Think on this quote
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).
I think the differences in opinion between you and god is, he is holy sinless and hates sin, you prabley don't, so don't see any problem with sin and judgment as sin is not really wrong to you. Think of if i were to steal from you something you liked alot, or even beat you up and rob you. Than you go to police and they say well we just dont care that much so we will do nothing. Or a murderer kills your child, same thing judge says well we are to moral for not forgiving this sin/wrong so we just wont punish as we are to moral for that and should just forgive.
I think the lack of justice is a moral problem for those such as Muslims in the Koranic god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=741gF4A_k3A
what your rally saying is sin is ok, or some sin is ok. But than who decides what sin is ok and what is not? also if god is not sinless and haven without sin, than your asking god to dwell with sin and allow sin in haven. I dont think this is what people picture/hope for in a haven, one with sin.
That's exactly my point. If confirmation is impossible, I don't believe it.
I just want to say I disagree fully with this and hope you stay around for future threads.
There have always been irreligious people. The “ good reason” why that was not apparent was that most societies persecuted them when they made themselves known.
There is nothing to disagree about. The meaning of the words is obvious. “Rejecting God” is a phrase that places the blame of the seperation between God and an individual on the latter. And in your opening post of this thread, you justify the existance of hell (and all its suffering) with the warped that atheists want it.
No, I’ve responded to your posts before but not on this particular subject.
I’ve been raised irreligiously but when I was 18-19 I did chose to read the bible voluntarily. I was open to the idea of believing, but it failed to convince me.
Here’s a to-the-point question for you: going by the bible, we know that God (the Father) appeared before the Israelites several times. Later on, Jesus performed various miracles, like curing a bunch of lepers leading to one to drop on his knees and praise god.
God hasn’t appeared in any recognisable way to humanity for 2,000 years now, and in fact all proof we have that he ever did in the first place is the writings of men. Why is it that of our generation a bigger “leap of faith” is expected than the Israelites? Isn’t that tremendously unfair?
Never said there was not, i said there has never been many. Could you provide documentation for claim please.
I disagree, if I chose as the bible says to reject god all my life, why than would I want him later?
ok my bad.
question, I disagree, miracles prophecy etc was done through time until the bible was finished being written as a stamp by god for his authority. There is a reason god does not appear to man today [future topic of the 15]. god know currenentley dwells within believers us called the holy spirit. I myself have thought same thing, god just appear to me so I will know and live my life for you fully without dout etc the rest of my life. Than I learned more from bible on why this does not happen [future thread]. But jesus did say when people asked for miracles/signs he said that if they dont believe the scripture [bible] they wont believe because of any miracles. I have had miracles in my life, than within months I start saying well maybe it was this or that etc because of the worldview.
As we become more technologically skilled and more detailed in our knowledge of history we inevitably reexamine the bible and religion with the same tools we use to build cars, mobile phones and particle accelerators. We see that human religion has set patterns throughout history. Even the stories get recycled.
The recycled stories of the Bible are seen in a context impossible to those even 200 years ago. It's interesting that fundamentalist christians dissaprove of detailed theological study and the few people I know who have undertaken such study started as christians and ended up not being christians.
These are the type of claims i would love to debate you 1v1 on, but we both now you cannot back up any of your claims. As i sated before i will debate you on any of your claims you have made on any of my post, you can chose the topic.
I can choose the topic? How about :
Favourite contradictions in the Bible.
HoreTore
01-09-2013, 19:24
I would say it would be a non-loving god to allow sin to happen. I think what america/england etc did in ww2 was loving, they did not believe in letting sin go unanswered. Think on this quote
I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).
I think the differences in opinion between you and god is, he is holy sinless and hates sin, you prabley don't, so don't see any problem with sin and judgment as sin is not really wrong to you. Think of if i were to steal from you something you liked alot, or even beat you up and rob you. Than you go to police and they say well we just dont care that much so we will do nothing. Or a murderer kills your child, same thing judge says well we are to moral for not forgiving this sin/wrong so we just wont punish as we are to moral for that and should just forgive.
I think the lack of justice is a moral problem for those such as Muslims in the Koranic god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=741gF4A_k3A
what your rally saying is sin is ok, or some sin is ok. But than who decides what sin is ok and what is not? also if god is not sinless and haven without sin, than your asking god to dwell with sin and allow sin in haven. I dont think this is what people picture/hope for in a haven, one with sin.
lol, no, I don't consider "sin" to be good. I just don't see punishment as a proper and effective way of preventing it or changing human behaviour. For example, if I had chosen to punish my students every time they didn't pay attention, talked to each other etc, I would end up with a classroom where nobody paid any attention. It is precisely because I don't punish them for bad behaviour that I have almost no bad behaviour in my class.
My goal for society is to reduce bad behaviour, of course, and I see focusing on punishment as utterly useless. Demanding punishment is the barbarian way. Civilization has found much better ways to deal with counter-productive behaviour.
And of course, you god and I operate with two different defitions of what is bad and what is good. Most obvious when it comes to sex outside marriage, of course.
In fact, I would consider the need to punish sins to be a sin.
Written by first hand observers..
Really? Which first hand observers were they? And which bits did they write?
InsaneApache
01-09-2013, 20:45
Really? Which first hand observers were they? And which bits did they write?
Oh come on, you know that the Bible is the word of God, no matter what they did in Nicea. Foolish boy. :whip:
I like this subject, right here, but when taking about religious text you have to qualify everything with a little bit of faith, because worldly proof is likely not forthcoming.
If the Bible is figurative, and the product of man, but also divinely inspired, then it falls on the individual Christian or group of Christians to recognize that they are studying the divine word through the corrupt and self-serving lens of man. If your faith is as strong as your mind, you will learn the correct lessons.
This is circular. The righteous are righteous due to their righteousness.
Papewaio
01-09-2013, 22:52
The bible is a group of books. Some of these taken from Judasim some from favourite authors as selected by the Nicea editors.
In modern terms it is much like the early Japanese manga that came out west. They were dubbed 'translated', key elements were changed, and disparate stories melded to make a story arc even if the orginal stories weren't related.
The same thing can be seen with Star Wars. You have the films which are considered core with devout fans debating if I, II and III are still core, is Clone Wars considered canon or not. Whilst particular books written by approved authors is considered part of the extended universe. On top of that is all the fan fiction and fan clubs. Some of which such as the 501st got folded into the core films.
Add in Disney's takeover, fifty years and lot of new authors. Then do a best of anthology and you will have something that approaches the eclectic assemblage that we refer to as the bible.
The bible is a story "inspired by someone", "written about by others" and edited by yet others who weren't even there.
It's a best of collection done by cover bands.
HoreTore
01-10-2013, 00:44
Like i said, you have to qualify it with faith. The fact that it is a circular argument just reflects the fact that this entire experience we call "life" is a pointless and circular experience, unless you look for something more.
What on earth is pointless about football, sex, booze, mastering new skills, boobies and music....?
spankythehippo
01-10-2013, 01:34
I just want to say I disagree fully with this and hope you stay around for future threads.
I believe in concrete evidence. What's your reason for not believing in evidence?
HoreTore
01-10-2013, 03:42
Silly Hore Tore, I'm not here to convert you, that's for other people who believe (unlike myself) that evangelism is more important than contemplation. But if you are asking for my opinion, i would tell you that it is pointless because it must end. Put it off as long as you want, but sooner or later worldly pleasures will lose their fun. That said, we are flawed creatures, and those flaws extend to our ability to appreciate the world around us. There is a lot to love about life, but I approach the entire thing as a test of my moral fortitude. Do i always pass? No, no, not at all. But i try, and that's all a flawed creature can do.
:shrug:
Humanity is fundamentally good-natured, gc ~;)
Death is the end, yes. That means we will have to have our fun before it comes. Any eventual life after death shouldn't be your focus, you should concentrate on life before death.
And of course I'm after your opinions, not attempts to convert me(pigs will fly, hell will freeze, etc, before that happens) ~;)
a completely inoffensive name
01-10-2013, 07:04
Humanity is fundamentally good-natured, gc ~;)
Humanity isn't fundamentally anything but horny, sleepy and hungry. Violence was extremely common in years pasts and acts of brutality and barbarism were more or less accepted (many terrible passages in Bible go into detail on such occasions), but nowadays people are more peaceful and prosperous than at any time in human history. So which time period show humans in their true element? Neither, it simply shows the lengths humans will go to to survive in a harsh world and the passivity they show each other in a plentiful world.
The bible is a group of books. Some of these taken from Judasim some from favourite authors as selected by the Nicea editors.
We should lose the Nicea connection with the compilation of the Bible permanently. I am sorry to say that those who still make this connection are snoozing in class.
And it is not as bleak as we make it. The translations over all is pretty much quality work - but the history behind the meddling with and the purposeful editing, removing, adding, reinstating etc.. makes it simply untrustworthy as a canon of THE TRUTH.
Maybe some believe as GC states that the divine will get through despite all this, but I have to counter with the fact that there are over 35 000 self proclaimed Christian denominations out there ALL claiming to have the truth as explained by the canon of scripture. ALL claiming that their interpretation is the ONLY correct one. A logic which collapse on itself on the first disagreement of a doctrine... i.e Baptism - necessary or not. The Holy Ghost confirmed for one group that it is necessary for salvation and it also confirmed for the other group that it is not necessary. It doesn't take a very intelligent man to point out the paradox there.
Like i said, you have to qualify it with faith. The fact that it is a circular argument just reflects the fact that this entire experience we call "life" is a pointless and circular experience, unless you look for something more.
It's not a pointless existence. It's an existence filled with friends and family. Humanity and all its flaws and wonders. I don't think of myself as an atheist, I think of myself as a humanist.
Violence was extremely common in years pasts and acts of brutality and barbarism were more or less accepted
I'd say that in many cases, violence, acts of brutality, and barbarism are still commonly accepted by a large part of Earth's population, it just depends on the people affected by it.
total relism
01-10-2013, 15:53
Really? Which first hand observers were they? And which bits did they write?
I think i will make translation of bible next thread instead of slavery or why is there death and suffering as this seems to be the biggest claim against bible on this thread.
Oh come on, you know that the Bible is the word of God, no matter what they did in Nicea. Foolish boy. :whip:
I think i will make translation of bible next thread instead of slavery or why is there death and suffering as this seems to be the biggest claim against bible on this thread. I will say people on this forum need to watch a debate and actually learn for themselves and stop watching the da vinci code code. I am truly amazed how well the media has done its job in indoctrination.
I like this subject, right here, but when taking about religious text you have to qualify everything with a little bit of faith, because worldly proof is likely not forthcoming.
If the Bible is figurative, and the product of man, but also divinely inspired, then it falls on the individual Christian or group of Christians to recognize that they are studying the divine word through the corrupt and self-serving lens of man. If your faith is as strong as your mind, you will learn the correct lessons.
"wordly proof" I think you mean evidence for based on observation. This will be great topic when I do it so stay around [future thread].
The bible is a group of books. Some of these taken from Judasim some from favourite authors as selected by the Nicea editors.
In modern terms it is much like the early Japanese manga that came out west. They were dubbed 'translated', key elements were changed, and disparate stories melded to make a story arc even if the orginal stories weren't related.
The same thing can be seen with Star Wars. You have the films which are considered core with devout fans debating if I, II and III are still core, is Clone Wars considered canon or not. Whilst particular books written by approved authors is considered part of the extended universe. On top of that is all the fan fiction and fan clubs. Some of which such as the 501st got folded into the core films.
Add in Disney's takeover, fifty years and lot of new authors. Then do a best of anthology and you will have something that approaches the eclectic assemblage that we refer to as the bible.
The bible is a story "inspired by someone", "written about by others" and edited by yet others who weren't even there.
It's a best of collection done by cover bands.
I will be saving these quotes about the claims people are making, lets see if these same people claim the same on my translation of the bible thread when facts are presented.
I believe in concrete evidence. What's your reason for not believing in evidence?
This assumes i dont believe in "evidence" i would say the reason I cant be atheist and the reason I am christian is because of the evidence [future thread]. Also in that thread if you stay around I will show it is you [assuming your atheist] who must reject alot of concrete evidence.
We should lose the Nicea connection with the compilation of the Bible permanently. I am sorry to say that those who still make this connection are snoozing in class.
And it is not as bleak as we make it. The translations over all is pretty much quality work - but the history behind the meddling with and the purposeful editing, removing, adding, reinstating etc.. makes it simply untrustworthy as a canon of THE TRUTH.
Maybe some believe as GC states that the divine will get through despite all this, but I have to counter with the fact that there are over 35 000 self proclaimed Christian denominations out there ALL claiming to have the truth as explained by the canon of scripture. ALL claiming that their interpretation is the ONLY correct one. A logic which collapse on itself on the first disagreement of a doctrine... i.e Baptism - necessary or not. The Holy Ghost confirmed for one group that it is necessary for salvation and it also confirmed for the other group that it is not necessary. It doesn't take a very intelligent man to point out the paradox there.
I think i will make translation of bible next thread instead of slavery or why is there death and suffering as this seems to be the biggest claim against bible on this thread. I will say people on this forum need to watch a debate and actually learn for themselves and stop watching the da vinci code code. I am truly amazed how well the media has done its job in indoctrination.
total relism
01-10-2013, 16:26
lol, no, I don't consider "sin" to be good. I just don't see punishment as a proper and effective way of preventing it or changing human behaviour. For example, if I had chosen to punish my students every time they didn't pay attention, talked to each other etc, I would end up with a classroom where nobody paid any attention. It is precisely because I don't punish them for bad behaviour that I have almost no bad behaviour in my class.
My goal for society is to reduce bad behaviour, of course, and I see focusing on punishment as utterly useless. Demanding punishment is the barbarian way. Civilization has found much better ways to deal with counter-productive behaviour.
And of course, you god and I operate with two different defitions of what is bad and what is good. Most obvious when it comes to sex outside marriage, of course.
In fact, I would consider the need to punish sins to be a sin.
I do disagree fully with your opinion on not punishing, I think without punishment or law, you get the books of judges in bible, or you get anywhere in world today were anarchy rules and millions get slaughtered africa parts of Afghanistan etc etc. I believe you are extremely sheltered oviusley 100% politically correct westerner,now mister hitler, please be a good boy, dont hurt those jews, just lets all play nice. This denies human sin and thinks that if people are in right environment etc they will be good etc. This does not follow reality. I myself [as does the bible] sees allowing sin to go unpunished and to hate justice a sin itself. i think its a sin to allow things like what happened in 1940's Europe to go unpunished, i would say so do the jews of the day and others that were killed in the ovens. Or the christian today being killed [often by beheading] in africa/middle east by Muslims for being christian a injustice deserving of punishment. As would those that suffer such a fate were entire families are murdered. I also cant help but think if your family was slaughtered in your own home wife raped/daughter raped beaten to death, you may in fact feel a moral wrong has been done and ask for justice. God is a god of justice and does indeed see things people do as a moral wrong.
8 Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, 9 “Thus says the LORD of hosts:
Execute true justice,
######Show mercy and compassion
######Everyone to his brother.
###### 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
######The alien or the poor.
######Let none of you plan evil in his heart
######Against his brother.’
Zechariah 7 8-10
But it is not surprising a sinner would reject god standard,as we rebel against him and love sin often [sex outside marriage].
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1.18
I ask you what would you do with sinners if your a holy god that hates sin and cant be around it? In fact one of the most common objections to a god is if there is a god, why does he allow death/suffering, why does he not stop it. Why allow hitler to do what he did, why not kill him as baby etc.
But you also miss the entire point of the bible
We love because he first loved us.
1 john 4.19
God loved us while we were sinners
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
romans 5.8
that is some positive reinforcement, but some reject. So lets say in your class you have one kid who wont listen to you and keeps doing bad, hitting,stealing from other kids etc you would be worse teacher and would be allowing not stopping/minimising bad behavior as you said, you would be prmoting/allowing it. So what do you do than
Sorry tr but this stuff is getting a bit boring now. Having someone fill the back room with Scripture lessons is lowering the tone.
Can you just put it all in one thread?
Sarmatian
01-10-2013, 17:45
Sorry tr but this stuff is getting a bit boring now. Having someone fill the back room with Scripture lessons is lowering the tone.
Can you just put it all in one thread?
I agree, especially as the two of us will have quite an important discussion soon re your Clint Eastwood nonsense.
I agree, especially as the two of us will have quite an important discussion soon re your Clint Eastwood nonsense.
My egotistical right wing yank is better than your egotistical right wing yank :furious3:
Papewaio
01-10-2013, 23:53
One of those yanks collected dolls, the other talks to chairs.
I'm sure they would be great for a tea party...
spankythehippo
01-11-2013, 02:40
This assumes i dont believe in "evidence" i would say the reason I cant be atheist and the reason I am christian is because of the evidence [future thread]. Also in that thread if you stay around I will show it is you [assuming your atheist] who must reject alot of concrete evidence.
So a guy gets crucified and dies. Then a few days later he comes back to life? Sorry, that is not a believable story. To be considered evidence or truth, it must be able to be repeated. If I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. I can drop millions of apples, and they will all drop to the ground. Hence, the theory of gravity still holds true.
Has anyone else come back from the dead? Has anyone else fed 5000 people with 2 fish (or whatever the story says)? Has anyone else been able to change water into wine?
If one were to call these feats of Jesus "experiments", these "experiments" cannot be recreated, so they are not reliable, hence they are rejected. Reliability lies in the ability to perform the same experiment multiple times to achieve the same results. There is only so much a fairy tale can educated others on.
Now, if one says that some stories in the Bible are exaggerations, what does that say about the rest of the Bible? If you read a textbook and find a huge number of mistakes, it is not a valid textbook. Same thing with the Bible. It loses it's credibility.
total relism
01-11-2013, 10:12
Sorry tr but this stuff is getting a bit boring now. Having someone fill the back room with Scripture lessons is lowering the tone.
Can you just put it all in one thread?
I am thinking of doing the other 13 over two threads, I think you guys are right that would be better.
So a guy gets crucified and dies. Then a few days later he comes back to life? Sorry, that is not a believable story. To be considered evidence or truth, it must be able to be repeated. If I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. I can drop millions of apples, and they will all drop to the ground. Hence, the theory of gravity still holds true.
Has anyone else come back from the dead? Has anyone else fed 5000 people with 2 fish (or whatever the story says)? Has anyone else been able to change water into wine?
If one were to call these feats of Jesus "experiments", these "experiments" cannot be recreated, so they are not reliable, hence they are rejected. Reliability lies in the ability to perform the same experiment multiple times to achieve the same results. There is only so much a fairy tale can educated others on.
Now, if one says that some stories in the Bible are exaggerations, what does that say about the rest of the Bible? If you read a textbook and find a huge number of mistakes, it is not a valid textbook. Same thing with the Bible. It loses it's credibility.
Evidence for the Resurrection is future thread, many atheist have become christian on this alone. There is aplenty wrong with your logic and i will be glad to show you on that future thread.
spankythehippo
01-11-2013, 11:31
Evidence for the Resurrection is future thread, many atheist have become christian on this alone. There is aplenty wrong with your logic and i will be glad to show you on that future thread.
My logic is used in science. The computer you are typing on is a product of science. This site is hosted on the internet, also a product of science. I assume you live in a building, a product of engineering, which is, inherently, science. I believe your signature says "Test all things; hold fast what is good". Isn't that what I've been saying? Test theories, if they work, utilise them. If they don't, scrap them.
It pays to be concise in your argument. So tell me what's wrong in a clear format without the use of long and meaningless Biblical quotes that hardly reflect your argument or your point. Also, just a tip, use better sentence structure, punctuation and grammar. I don't even bother reading those massive walls of unorganised text.
InsaneApache
01-11-2013, 12:21
many atheist have become christian
What about christians that become athiest?
total relism
01-11-2013, 16:36
My logic is used in science. The computer you are typing on is a product of science. This site is hosted on the internet, also a product of science. I assume you live in a building, a product of engineering, which is, inherently, science. I believe your signature says "Test all things; hold fast what is good". Isn't that what I've been saying? Test theories, if they work, utilise them. If they don't, scrap them.
It pays to be concise in your argument. So tell me what's wrong in a clear format without the use of long and meaningless Biblical quotes that hardly reflect your argument or your point. Also, just a tip, use better sentence structure, punctuation and grammar. I don't even bother reading those massive walls of unorganised text.
As far as science I agree 100%, if your faith contradicts science your faith is wrong. This is future thread the one i do most. But you have mistaken what I was saying on the post. The rest we shall wait for other thread on the topic.
What about christians that become athiest?
Not saying they haven't, I just said many atheist have become christian because of the evidence for the resurrection of jesus, can you point to any christian who became atheist because of the historical inaccuracy of the resurrection?. Actually if you can, please save for that thread.
InsaneApache
01-11-2013, 19:05
can you point to any christian who became atheist because of the historical inaccuracy of the resurrection?.
Me.
total relism
01-12-2013, 14:10
Me.
than I look forward to our discussion. I hope you back it up with evidence.
I just said many atheist have become christian because of the evidence for the resurrection of jesus
What evidence? That never popped up during my time during a 'Holy Land' tour of Israel, even the site of the tomb is unknown and narrowed down to 4 different 'official' possible locations.
Pannonian
01-12-2013, 16:25
than I look forward to our discussion. I hope you back it up with evidence.
Generally living creatures do not get resurrected. There are nigh infinite examples of living creatures, and more specifically human beings, that do not get resurrected. If you claim an exception to the overwhelming norm, the onus is on you to prove the exception.
InsaneApache
01-12-2013, 18:42
than I look forward to our discussion. I hope you back it up with evidence.
I don't need evidence. You do. Because of a lack of evidence I took the view it was all made up by bronze age people with severe psychiatric problems.
total relism
01-13-2013, 16:25
This will be my last response to resurrection [it is future thread] please wait for it.
What evidence? That never popped up during my time during a 'Holy Land' tour of Israel, even the site of the tomb is unknown and
narrowed down to 4 different 'official' possible locations.
wait for thread please
Generally living creatures do not get resurrected. There are nigh infinite examples of living creatures, and more specifically human beings, that do not get resurrected. If you claim an exception to the overwhelming norm, the onus is on you to prove the exception.
I agree 100%, wait for thread please.
I don't need evidence. You do. Because of a lack of evidence I took the view it was all made up by bronze age people with severe psychiatric problems.
ok np.
spankythehippo
01-14-2013, 04:36
Why do we need to wait for the thread? Why do we always have to go to the OP? Why don't you just answer our question, plain and simple?
Why do we need to wait for the thread? Why do we always have to go to the OP? Why don't you just answer our question, plain and simple?
Propter Deus Vult.
~Jirisys ()
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.