Remarkably easy, yes. Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1: 13-14. If you did read the Bible, I suppose you've now forgotten everything.
No, because they aren't saved by the same means everyone else is. They die, and then God saves them. At the judgement.
That's not what wrong is. The word niggard is still proper English, but try using it in casual conversation, it will be misunderstood most every time. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm not fluent in Greek, but I possess a working knowledge of it.
An exegetive and has no true English equivelent. Even is just one example itself, you could also say "which is" or "of". Knowledge of how translations work will demonstrate these kind of situations occuring frequently, but since most Christians (ie Catholics, although buffered by many Protestants) believe in a baptismal regeneration anyway, there isn't a significant movement for correction.
Because they can't accept or reject him. It would hardly make sense to set up God's fairly complex and epic plan for salvation and then exempt billions of people from it for pretty much no reason at all.
It's not just because he feels like it, it's because they can't choose. The entire concept is hinged on choice. If you're exempt from choice, you're exempt from Hell. Makes sense to me.
It's also true that God is willing to remove anyone's sin, what stands in his way is rejection. If a baby has no attachment to sin, and cannot reject, they're not in the same position in that sense either.
You took the analogy too far. All that showed was how a baby could be a sinner without sinning.
We're in agreement. It isn't true. Saying they deserve hell is a theoretical statement since they don't go.
If we establish that he was sad before he died, his behavior after he died is clearly a contrast.
You're wrong though.
Do yourself a favor and get this idea out of your head because it will be extremely offensive to a lot of people. You're naive, which is ok, but it's not ok to be obstinant about your naivete. This has overtaken your description of the NASB as a liberal translation as the stupidest thing you've said.
No... for one thing, who is the Bible written for? Infants? Unless it was written for infants, there's no need to say "You must belief unless you can't." because if you couldn't, you couldn't read or understand that. The Bible contains information relevant to it's audience.
You do. If you don't have works, it demonstrates that you don't have faith. Try this one: You can claim to be good at basketball, but if you can't make free throws, that's evidence that you're not. Is making free throws required to be good at basketball? No, as many pros demonstrate. I trust you'll be able to expand this analogy without my explaining it further.
Ok, I'll phrase it this way... going by what Paul said, you will still have works, as an absolute. The people he was writing too didn't question that, they were having difficulty with the issue of whether they saved you. The people James was writing to thought that once saved you were allowed to do whatever you want, and he points out that if you are really saved, that wouldn't be where your heart and mind were at anyway. Different people, different points, same truth.
This would only be a problem if James were the only book we had, but it isn't, which is precisely why there are 27 books in the NT. Taken together, we can properly interpret what he means.
I pity the education received at such an institution. But, he was still a high school graduate because he still knew everything they taught him in high school.
The garden wouldn't have sustained itself anyway, as the entire world was cursed by sin. He could have left the stove off, but then we wouldn't have choice.
What? Most of the book is Job saying things that are wrong and God correcting him. Remember, sweetie, this is a different Job than the one in Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible.
What did I just say about Hell being an English word? Jesus said Gehenna, which was a dump, which was burning. So he could have meant thrown into the fire figuratively for being thrown away. Now you begin to see what I've said all along.
Yes we do. That's like saying when the KKK lynched somebody, they were really doing it to send them to heaven.
For starters, he didn't say he wouldn't kill them, he asked a rhetorical question. The point was that these 120000 were in a different class than the rest of the city, and what about them was different? They didn't know right from left, they didn't reject God because they didn't know any better. Regardless of whether he killed them later, that is still true. It's a statement about infants and stupid people in general because otherwise he only meant the ones in that city at them time specifically, which is ridiculous. It's a statement that he looks at them differently than regular sinners.
You keep dodging the issue but if you look it square, you'll see it's true.
No, because all you need is evidence that they're viewed differently, which you have. Anything else besides a verse explicitly saying God sent them to hell doesn't matter.
Good. You've contradicted this before.
Actually I saw zombies myself once, down in New Orleans. That's a fun story, remind me to tell it sometime.
This whole point is backwards, because the Bible's not history. It is, but not in the same way as other things. If God is real (God transcends history), then the Bible is true and God being in it doesn't negate it. If God is false, then his being there negates some of the history. In order for the Bible not to be evidence of God, it must be discredited. If you discredit it by saying God's presence negates it's history, this is obviously circular reasoning. Therefore, in order to discredit the Bible, you must not use the standard method of supernatural negation, because it presuppoes it's untruth to begin with.
No, a counterbalance would be a reason in the story to explain the presence of dragons and lack of evidence thereof.
Adfh dkdfkd dskjhdf jjh djjd siweh sjhdaj sakjsh skjhdkj?
It's not evidence against the civil war and it's not evidence against dragons! Fucking listen. The bible isn't evidence against God. It just isn't evidence FOR God. Anymore than the Illad is evidence of Greek Gods. Anymore than fossils of hobbit sized humans are evidence that Sauron, the deceiver has come back and is looking for his ring of power.
I think you've finally got it. Just because the Bible isn't evidence for God, doesn't mean it's evidence against God. Now that I've backed you into a corner, you might deny you implied it was, but rest assured, you did. Establishing this fact regarding relevancy of evidence has been a valuable watermark in the discussion.
You can't say that the Illiad isn't evidence of Greek Gods either, by the way. It obviously is. It's not compelling evidence, but evidence and proof are not the same thing. The only way it wouldn't be evidence was if we had already established (as is the case) that Greek Gods are not real. This shows the bias in your thinking.
I've given you fair forum and validly countered every point you've made. You could only make such a statement were this not true. What you have is, at best, a stalemate. Nothing else of comparison can accomplish this.
Space Goat is a god. I said it was evidence of a God, not which one. Establishing that there was one is rather important, however.
