The Bible is literally true.

[Guest Brian]

I *heart* Jingus right now.

[Guest SP-1]

FLAW: Modern English translations do not work from latin but directly from the greek and hebrew manuscripts.

The King James may have been translated from the Latin. But it's fallen in most circles to the NASB, which is the most accurate English translation available.

 

That conflicts with my experiences in one weird little way. Over time, I've found that literal interpretationalists tend to be from the more conservative sects, let's say Southern Baptists just to name an example. However, a lot of the right-wing sects prefer the King James above all others, claiming that it is the most perfect translation, and sometimes going so far as to say it's the only one ordained by God. Why do they say that when it's been through an extra generation of linguistic metamorphosis? Just because it's the Bible that their daddies used?

 

And your point? They're uninformed. And, sadly, it's often exactly because it's the Bible their parents shoved down their throats. Your experience here doesn't really matter. The facts are the facts. It's a good translation, but hardly the best all things considered. I could care less about Hardcore Southern Baptists who have swallowed denominational legend about a favored translation. I do care about biblical scholars. I care when my school uses the NASB for it's Bible courses because it's the most literal and academically recognized English translation. If you're going to fault me for taking an educated view, then go right ahead. It just shows your inexperience in this specific arena.

 

Also: I didn't say it was translated perfectly over time. I said it was copied as perfectly as possible. Investigate Jewish scribes a little and you'll see that any "changes" were so minor that they have no impact. Bible translation also works from several original manuscripts of the same passages.

 

But one would assume that, to be Literal Infallible Truth, any Bible must be written with no changes from the original, divinely inspired documents. And, as I've said before, it's more or less impossible to fully and literally translate any language into another while retaining all the subtle meanings and implications that are written between the lines. How can you reconcile this logical impossibilty with the idea of literal truth?

 

Preservation does not equal translation. Jewish scribes were perfectionists. They copied the texts. Any "change" was a scant mark here or there that didn't change the meaning or the wording. It's what they did, it was their life.

 

As for true translation, truth is not imprisoned by specific words. The tone, meaning, and equivalency is what's important. In English, several words can mean the same thing, or the same concept in varying degrees. One must also note here that the Biblical scholar is usually versed in at least New Testament Greek, or at the very least is trained in Hermeneutical study with mechanical layout structures and word study training. Translation is breaking down the concept and meaning of the original texts's words and making it work as exactly as possible in the next language. The truth is not lost there. I'm curious as to your reasoning for that. Bible translators to tribal peoples convey the core truth of the message. The author's (God's) meaning is conveyed properly. Truth is preserved.

 

The JH and LDS, however, are not actually Christian organizations. Their very definitions of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit aren't the same. Without that base, they aren't Christian, but fall into the category of other religions or cults.

 

They claim the name of Christianity. They have some really weird ideas, but hey, so does Catholicism. What gives any man the right to decide that another is not a Christian?

 

I am Jingus. Everyone, identify me with Jingus from now on. Everything I do and say can now be blamed on Jingus. Because I've done this, he obviously shares my views exactly. Jingus and I are one and the same because I claim his name.

 

What?

 

Oh, I can't do that? Because I don't share the same views and ideas as Jingus?

 

Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses go beyond strange ideas. Their very definition of who God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are differs so greatly they they in no way harmonize with Catholocism or Christianity, the latter two sharing the same root. It's an entirely new belief system that merely rips off Christian words. That does not make it Christian. It makes it a sham and deceptive. Joseph Smith contradicted himself, made outrageous claims, and had to write a whole new nonsensical book that mysteriously changes every few years despite supposedly being on par with the Bible. Christians who know what the Bible teaches have every right to call BS when it shows up. Jesus Himself said there would be people that claimed to do things in His name, but who wouldn't actually know Him.

 

 

 

I study the Bible on an academic level every day, Jingus. I'm not a run of the mill Sunday Christian that spouts off legendary proverbs that don't even exist in the Bible. This is my life. It's who I am. My sister converted to Mormonism (from no real religious base previous), so I had to research it deeply to understand what she was getting herslef into. A friend of mine was once JW before really coming to know Jesus Christ personally. I was involved with the New Age activities with Spirit Guides before I knew Christ. I'm certainly not an uneducated Christian. The usual rhetoric isn't going to work on me.

[Jingus 0]

None of my post was simple "rhetoric". I wasn't ever making up contentious statements just to be an asshole or to try to trick you into making a mistake. Everything I said was something that I legitimately believe, and every question I asked was one that I legitimately wanted answered. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just trying to comprehend a system of beliefs which make very little sense to me.

[Guest SP-1]

None of my post was simple "rhetoric". I wasn't ever making up contentious statements just to be an asshole or to try to trick you into making a mistake. Everything I said was something that I legitimately believe, and every question I asked was one that I legitimately wanted answered. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just trying to comprehend a system of beliefs which make very little sense to me.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be a jerk with that. I was attempting to lay the groundwork credentials for future discussion. Both for you and for whomever else gets involved as the threads go on. My apologies if it sounded angry.

[Jingus 0]

I'm sorry I got so worked up in that last mega-post, it's been a while since I last debated religion and I got more worked up than I should've. I'll be back in a little while with some more responses and questions.

[Guest Nanks]

I have a problem with the phrase "know Christ personally". I shouldn't have to explain the inherent problems with that.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

I don't think it's meant in a literal sense, Nanks.

 

One's perception and understanding of Christ isn't given to one through divine intervention. Such things are shaped, heavily influenced and impacted upon by one's upbringing, social life, love life, family life, *EVERYTHING* - it constructs the scope in which you view and interpret the world, or your hermeneutical perspective. Therefore if one 'knowing Christ personally' involves a growing understanding and relationship that has been gradually constructed since the moment of birth, then it is entirely true that one DOES know Christ personally.

 

UYI

[Guest SP-1]

I have a problem with the phrase "know Christ personally". I shouldn't have to explain the inherent problems with that.

Not to discredit UYI's answer, but I mean it in a literal sense. Christ is eternal. After His ressurection, He ascended to Heaven. He died, and defeated death. Death itself no longer has power. With these events came the fulfilling of the Old Covenant, or agreement that God made with man (yes, with mankind, not just with the Jews since it's traced back to Genesis 3 which is before the establishment of the Jews as a distinct people and nation -- the Jews were the chosen means by which God played out His solution to sin, which is Christ), making way for the New Covenant. Under the new agreement, those who take God's solution and put their faith in Christ as the one and only atonement for their sins (making it a work of God, of Grace, not of ourselves since we can't solve the problem), receive the Holy Spirit, which is God, as a seal of being His. In this, we have fellowship with the risen, still living Christ.

 

I know Jesus Christ.

 

Personally.

 

When I pray, He responds in a manner so personal that it cannot be chance. Since I've become a Christian, there has definitely been an outside conscience or counselor (counselor being one way the Spirit was described by Christ, interestingly enough) that has moved me in head and heart both in my everyday decision making and in my ever continuing transformation from who I used to be into who I am as a new, redeemed entity by Christ's work. This is not rhetoric. This has happened. This is happening, even at this very moment. I write from experience, not from doctrine, or fear, or legalism.

 

Were Jesus just a Jewish carpenter who got himself into trouble, then yes, there'd be an inherent problem with knowing Him personally. But that wasn't who He was. It isn't who He is. He is God incarnate, who handled the problem of sin Himself because He loves us just that much. He made it easy for everyone, and still gave them the free will to take it or leave it, maintaining His integrity and defining sense of Justice.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I have a problem with the phrase "know Christ personally". I shouldn't have to explain the inherent problems with that.

I go out drinking with him all the time. I buy 1 beer, and I'm set for the night! It rocks.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I would like to interject for Jingus that I myself believe that everyone who ends up in Hell chooses to go. Not right now, as I'm sure whenever you do something considered "sin" you don't go "HEY, I THINK I'LL GO TO HELL!!!!" My belief is that when the time comes for us to meet God, those who've lived 'dark' lives will be so ashamed of it in comparison with God's light that they will refuse heaven.

 

But that's a bit complicated in itself.

[Nighthawk 0]

Ok, I'll respond to some of what's been said now.

[Nighthawk 0]

Out of curiousity IDRM do you actually believe the Bible to be Truth, and if you do do you try and live it out?

Wouldn't you like to know?

 

Even though I don't feel like going back and quoting it, this will respond to UYI post about using the Bible as my only form of evidence:

 

No. It was the last post of the night after a lot of posting, hence the brevity. However, Christianty is not something achieved through the course of academic study. It's not weighed and balanced. Those things are important, but they come later. If I study whether or not Jesus existed, I'm not thinking "Oh no,what if I find out he didn't? It will all be in vain!"

[Nighthawk 0]

You're arguing for literal interpretation, and you say you shouldn't put a direct interpretation on an "ambiguous" passage?  I'm sorry, but without faith the whole Bible could be seen as "ambiguous".  Also, I added that the part about the origin of the Nephilim is true if you believe the book of Enoch.

 

I use literal because it quickly familiarizes people with the predominant slant of the viewpoint, but I'm not so much arguing for a literal interpretation as a correct one. I didn't say you couldn't interpret it that way, many respectable people do, I just don't feel it warrants such a concrete stance in this particular instance. The question is largely moral. Man is capable of redemption while angels are not. What is God's view of the halfbreed offspring of the two? The situation is so grotesque that you could very well say it defies God's naturalistic laws. Or... you could interpret it the way you proposed.

 

Though I don't necessarily argue this, I would love to see you list them all.  I know many Christians who make this claim without knowing any prophecies other than the ones listed in the gospels.

 

Well, I'm not going to list them all. I'm really rather tired. Besides, this is the internet, I could just look them up if I hadn't known. Would it help if I mention that the book of Zechariah is full of them?

 

There are three different themes to the book, the events which occur stretch beyond the lifetime of one man, The language used varies, and so forth.  Give me your reasons why I'm wrong and I'll tell you what I think.

 

Actually I've more commonly heard the assertion that there are two authors, but the idea of three has made the rounds as well. The different themes isn't really of much consequence, as I don't think anyone will seriously argue that one man can't write in different themes. It's also worth noting that the individual sections don't stand alone well, each expands from and plays off of the previous, creating a unity which is really quite beautiful. Variance of language is hardly damning evidence, and it in fact contains indentifying linguistic similarities, such as the phrase "the Holy One of Israel". But probably the most important is that the events stretch beyond the lifetime of one man. They should, because it contains prophecy. This is one of the more common mistakes I see apologists make, along with trying to rationally explain miracles, trying to take prophecy out of the realm of the supernatural. Again though, authorship is tradition and not a hill to die on. I wouldn't be dogmatic except that each time the book of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament, from each of the sections of supposed differing authorship, Isaiah is named as author.

 

If you'll read my post, you'll see that I speak of polytheism existing BEFORE ISAIAH.  This isn't to say that there were other gods, but that YHWH didn't assert Himself before then.  You quote me Corinthians, which is hundreds of years after YHWH established Himself as the "one, true God."

 

That's fine then.

 

The Israelites worshipped YHWH as a golden calf

 

When and where? Most times I remember they worshipped the golden calf INSTEAD of YHWH.

 

Exodus 32, Mount Sinai. Most people interpret it as instead, and it may appear that way at first reading, but a careful study using the original language shows that the golden calf was meant as an image of YHWH. Aaron's assertion of the calf having brought them up out of Egypt is one factor, because the Israelites knew very well and didn't question who had brought them from Egypt. YHWH is used in reference to the calf in verse 5. What was happening here was not so much a rejection of God as a rejection of his means of worship (represented by Moses) which was indeed quite different from nearly all of their contemporaries, most significantly the Egyptians.

 

He was a carpenter who was called rabbi.

 

Or a rabbi who was called a carpenter.

 

Using this argument, though, you validate many Apocryphal books which the Jews at the time used to learn from, including the book of Enoch.

 

Regardless of the implication, you must use this argument, because if you don't, Jesus was wrong. If he was, you've undermined everything. Like the flood, you can't compromise when it's easy or you'll do more harm than good. Consider this; many people don't fully understand how the Bible as we know it today came to be. Yes, there was a vote, but it didn't occur in a vacuum, it was largely confirming what the church had accepted as Scripture since it was written. I use church with a little c to refer to the followers of Christ. You could conclude that the book of Enoch was rejected for canonization because the church rejected it because Christ rejected it. That particular chain is not as important as the principal it represents. Yes, there were some books that made it into the Bible by a narrow margin, and some that missed by a narrow margin, but the sovereignty of God dictates that the Bible we know is the Bible as intended, otherwise we are largely guideless.

[Nighthawk 0]

IDRM, this is very long, but if you have time, I'd like to know how you'd respond to this:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

 

Re: evolution, how did we get to where we are now? How set against it are you? My college bio book is spewing some b.s. but it's hard to dismiss much of it.

 

I'm still impressed with this thread.

I really don't have time now, but I'll try to give you a response over the weekend.

[Nighthawk 0]

That conflicts with my experiences in one weird little way.  Over time, I've found that literal interpretationalists tend to be from the more conservative sects, let's say Southern Baptists just to name an example.  However, a lot of the right-wing sects prefer the King James above all others, claiming that it is the most perfect translation, and sometimes going so far as to say it's the only one ordained by God.  Why do they say that when it's been through an extra generation of linguistic metamorphosis?  Just because it's the Bible that their daddies used?

 

No, they've got reasons, and trust me, they're insane. SP got this one, but since I've been quoting from the King James, I'll mention that I like it because I appreciate the poetic language, but it's not as good for study. Study is best done with a combination of translations with an eye on the original language, or entirely in the original language if you're able (which I'm not, by the way). New American Standard is pretty good, and so is the New King James.

 

They claim the name of Christianity.  They have some really weird ideas, but hey, so does Catholicism.  What gives any man the right to decide that another is not a Christian?

 

Hey, when I went to Burger King today, the guy who took my order was named Jesus. If I believe he died for my sins, will I go to heaven? You can see the principle here. By the way, I wouldn't call Catholics Christians either, in general.

 

Except for this passage, Genesis 2:18-19: "And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." 

 

Also, I don't know if it's come up in the discussion yet, but has anyone discussed the carbon-14 dating method yet?  That's always an interesting one for religious debates.

 

NASV puts that in the past tense, and a check of the Hebrew shows that it does so accurately.

 

As for carbon 14, yes it has been discussed, and it's not particularly interesting. Say nothing more if you do not wish to look uninformed.

 

And that right there is one of my main problems with Christianity, if not all religions.  "The Bible is true.  We know this to be true, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is infallibe.  We know that the Bible is infallible, because the Bible says so."  It's circular logic, the kind that is impossible to prove wrong, and thus almost certainly categorically untrue.

 

First off, it is important that the Bible claims to be infallible. If God is God, and he inspired the Bible, does he not have the right to make such a claim? Like when God made a covenant with Abraham, there was nothing higher for him to swear by, so he swore by himself. This stuff is more important if you come from the perspective of belief, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

 

A rationalist uses just as circular reasoning, only without acknowledging it. Evidentialism is circular because it starts with rationality without bothering to prove it, it's a presupposition. So by arguing rationality against the Bible, you demonstrate the bias that rationality is the ultimate criterion for truth. If I argue against you using the Bible as the ultimate criterion for truth, we're essentially at a stalemate for authority, as there is no ultimate truth to measure by (except the Bible... but you see the flaw in that). The point is, the discussion will occur without a measuring standard as any you use will be biased and circular. That's inescapable. Being the logical and mathematical person you are, you should be able to follow that.

 

 

Nothing in the Christian faith is unbelievable. The alternative is no God, which in an unbiased world would be scientifically laughable, or a different God, which can be proven false. I know you think you can prove this God false,but I've been down that road and I don't think you can.

 

 

My general thought about any omniscient, omnipotent being is that, if they've got a message for me, it's a helluva lot easier for an all-powerful God to write the message across the sky in mile-long letters above my house than it is for me to spend a lot of time and effort to peer through a long-ass book and try to divine the meanings myself.

 

Nobody said God's ultimate goal was to provide the easiest possible means of getting his message across.

 

That's my biggest problem with Christianity as a hole.  That one concept: Salvation. 

 

I am told by Christians that I am dirty and impure.  Some claim that this is because of my actions: that I have stained myself by doing things in this life which God doesn't approve of.  Others claim that I was BORN into sin, because some bitch ate a piece of fruit she wasn't supposed to.  (And let's not even get into predestination, because the whole concept royally pisses me off and generally makes me want to choke anyone espousing it.) 

 

That's good, because that is Christianity. If you're going to have a problem, strike at the root. So... are you saying that you are clean and pure? If you would like to be made well with God by being good enough, that's fine, God says you can. That's what the law of Moses was, God's standard of what's good enough. You do fall short, however, as everyone does.

Hey, I think I'll espouse predestination. It's not so much a concept as it is a requirement. I know what you don't like about predestination, and it comes from not understanding it.

 

The concept of Sin angers me.  The concept of Evil disagrees with me.  The concept of Satan sounds fishy at best to me.  And the concept of Hell enrages me so greatly that I literally have to make myself stop and think of something else, or else I'll start smashing things.  (And I don't smash shit for no reason.  EVER.  These matters affect me that deeply.) ... I can't imagine any sort of fair, just, merciful, loving Creator who would bury his own creations in dogshit like this one apparently has.  I don't understand Him, and I don't really want to. 

 

If this shithole is what God wants, then fuck God.

 

For one thing, you speak as if what you believe has any affect on truth. Either God is real, or he isn't, and what you believe doesn't change anything. So, if he's not, you're an idiot for getting worked up over nothing, and if he is, you're going to Hell whether you think it's fair or not. You probably don't like that, but you can't intelligently argue that it's not true. So we see that truth is not always what you want to hear.

You've also dismissed God on the basis of understanding him. You're not a stupid man, I'm sure, but compared to God your intellect is miniscule to the point of insignificance. For all intents and purposes, you're a five year old saying "The concept of naughty angers me. The concept of no no disagrees with me. The concept of vegetables sounds fishy at best to me. And the concept of timeout enrages me so greatly that I literally have to make myself stop and think of something else or else I'll throw a tantrum."

So if you were God you'd do it differently, eh? Well, God could have made us robots. The only other option is yes, sending some people to Hell. Because of the nature of God, there's no other way. If you don't like it, you are absolutely free to reject God and get sent there, as you were predestined from before the beginning of time. Yet at the same time, you could accept him and it wouldn't happen. If you don't, nobody says you have to. You can't understand God's sovereignty any more than you can his trinity.

Also, if I may wax evangelical for a moment. God was sending everybody to Hell, because they sinned. If you can't differentiate between sovereignty and cause, you'll understand when you're older. Now God didn't want them to go to Hell, so Jesus died for you. I know you've heard it before, but God died to keep you out of Hell. I'm sure you know how that was. You saw the movie. It was even worse than that. Isn't it obvious that rejection of that is worthy of Hell? Because that's the only thing that can send you there, eight grade concepts of omnipotence or no.

If any of this has made you feel angry, wait until I tell you about how babies go to Hell when they die. I don't believe that... but I could argue it convincingly enough.

[Nighthawk 0]

Ok, maybe I made fun of you a little bit in that answer. Sorry.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

The alternative is no God, which in an unbiased world would be scientifically laughable, or a different God, which can be proven false.

 

I'm interested to see how you would prove that there isn't a different God.

[Jingus 0]

Hey, when I went to Burger King today, the guy who took my order was named Jesus. If I believe he died for my sins, will I go to heaven? You can see the principle here. By the way, I wouldn't call Catholics Christians either, in general.

If Catholics aren't Christians, then are you saying that Christianity didn't really exist from Catholicism's rise to power until the time of Martin Luther? (And no, the Greek Orthodox doesn't count.) Also, I still don't see how one man has the right to tell another one what religion he does or doesn't belong to.

 

As for carbon 14, yes it has been discussed, and it's not particularly interesting. Say nothing more if you do not wish to look uninformed.

 

You're presuming that I don't know anything about quantum physics or prehistoric science in general. It's true, I don't know all that much, but you didn't know that before calling me "uninformed".

 

First off, it is important that the Bible claims to be infallible. If God is God, and he inspired the Bible, does he not have  the right to make such a claim? Like when God made a covenant with Abraham, there was nothing higher for him to swear by, so he swore by himself. This stuff is more important if you come from the perspective of belief, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

 

Certainly any true God and any true religious scripture would need to be infallible and could certainly call itself such, I'm not disputing that.

 

A rationalist uses just as circular reasoning, only without acknowledging it. Evidentialism is circular because it starts with rationality without bothering to prove it, it's a presupposition. So by arguing rationality against the Bible, you demonstrate the bias that rationality is the ultimate criterion for truth. If I argue against you using the Bible as the ultimate criterion for truth, we're essentially at a stalemate for authority, as there is no ultimate truth to measure by (except the Bible... but you see the flaw in that). The point is, the discussion will occur without a measuring standard as any you use will be biased and circular. That's inescapable. Being the logical and mathematical person you are, you should be able to follow that.

 

The basis of reasoning and logical proofs is rationality. Honestly, I think that mathematics are the only thing in the universe that are infallible; one plus one always equals two, and there's really nothing else in the universe which always has the exact same outcome every single time given the same opening circumstances.

 

How is rationality a bias, or circular reasoning? Aside from the possible argument that all humans are flawed and cannot possibly know or espouse real truth, I really don't see where you get this plot point.

 

Nothing in the Christian faith is unbelievable. The alternative is no God, which in an unbiased world would be scientifically laughable, or a different God, which can be proven false. I know you think you can prove this God false,but I've been down that road and I don't think you can.

 

How is the lack of God "scientifically laughable"? I'd say the exact opposite is true. If anything, the vast majority of scientific evidence strongly disagrees with the Bible's version of the world.

 

As to proving God false, no, I cannot. It's like telling you "There's an invisible flying pink unicorn in my room, prove it false!" The person making the supposition must first prove it true, and the debate moves on from there. (And I would very much enjoy reading a proof on how any other different god cannot exist.)

 

Nobody said God's ultimate goal was to provide the easiest possible means of getting his message across.

 

That's my problem: God has been, shall we say, less than clear with me about what his ultimate goals are.

 

That's good, because that is Christianity. If you're going to have a problem, strike at the root. So... are you saying that you are clean and pure? If you would like to be made well with God by being good enough, that's fine, God says you can. That's what the law of Moses was, God's standard of what's good enough. You do fall short, however, as everyone does.

 

Me? Clean and pure? Hardly. There's plenty of metaphorical (and in fact right now, literal) dirt under my fingernails. My point is, I don't think that I should be arbitrarily judged impure for a lot of the stuff that the Bible says I will be. Like whose holes I stick my dick into, for example. One would think that God has more important matters to attend to.

 

Hey, I think I'll espouse predestination. It's not so much a concept as it is a requirement. I know what you don't like about predestination, and it comes from not understanding it.

 

So explain to me what I don't understand about it. God knows who will be saved or not ahead of time, being omnipotent; he either does or does not take action one way or another to change a soul's destination. Thus, God decides whether a person is saved or damned long before they even exist. Is that not correct?

 

For one thing, you speak as if what you believe has any affect on truth. Either God is real, or he isn't, and what you believe doesn't change anything. So, if he's not, you're an idiot for getting worked up over nothing, and if he is, you're going to Hell whether you think it's fair or not. You probably don't like that, but you can't intelligently argue that it's not true. So we see that truth is not always what you want to hear.

 

Of course my anger won't change a damn thing. I'm not a fool, I am aware of how little any one person really amounts to in this universe. I know my condemnation of God doesn't affect him one bit; but I still condemn him. It still doesn't change my feelings on the matter. To say otherwise would be lying about my own feelings.

 

You've also dismissed God on the basis of understanding him. You're not a stupid man, I'm sure, but compared to God your intellect is miniscule to the point of insignificance. For all intents and purposes, you're a five year old saying "The concept of naughty angers me. The concept of no no disagrees with me. The concept of vegetables sounds fishy at best to me. And the concept of timeout enrages me so greatly that I literally have to make myself stop and think of something else or else I'll throw a tantrum."

 

All true to an extent. But to complete this picture, God would have to be a parent that I've never once seen or heard, except for little notes that are passed to me every once in a while by other people claiming they were from my parent, and the notes wouldn't make a helluva lot of sense.

 

So if you were God you'd do it differently, eh?

 

Yes.

 

Well, God could have made us robots.

 

Or he could've found a way to make humanity exist with choice but without suffering; with souls, but without misery. With happiness and without sorrow. A contradiction, yes, but I'm sure he could've managed. He's God, he can do anything, right?

 

The only other option is yes, sending some people to Hell. Because of the nature of God, there's no other way.

 

And I completely fail to see how there is no other way. There are infinite other ways. With an omnipotent being, the choices would never merely be A or B.

 

If you don't like it, you are absolutely free to reject God and get sent there, as you were predestined from before the beginning of time. Yet at the same time, you could accept him and it wouldn't happen. If you don't, nobody says you have to. You can't understand God's sovereignty any more than you can his trinity.

 

If I'm predestined to do something, then I'm hardly "free" to do anything, by the very nature of the concept. Also, where'd this "sovereignty" and "trinity" stuff come from? Why the descent into ten-dollar preacher words all of the sudden?

 

Also, if I may wax evangelical for a moment. God was sending everybody to Hell, because they sinned.

 

And what happens to all these souls damned before the miracle of Jesus? Does God just say, "Oops, I sent you to Earth too early, now BURN FOR IT!"?

 

If you can't differentiate between sovereignty and cause, you'll understand when you're older.

 

Firstly, definre what you mean by "sovereignty and cause" in this context.

 

Secondly, I'm older than you, booger-head.

 

Now God didn't want them to go to Hell, so Jesus died for you.

 

If God didn't want them to go to Hell, why didn't he just, y'know, NOT SEND THEM THERE? Once again: he can do anything he wants, he's God!

 

I know you've heard it before, but God died to keep you out of Hell. I'm sure you know how that was. You saw the movie. It was even worse than that. Isn't it obvious that rejection of that is worthy of Hell?

 

Now you're using the suffering of Christ as an example of the worst thing a person can go through? Jesus spent a few hours on a cross. A nasty way to die, yeah, but hardly the worst. Call me back when Jesus dies after spending decades paralyzed in bed from an agonizing brain tumor.

 

Because that's the only thing that can send you there, eight grade concepts of omnipotence or no.

 

It's about here that I'm glad you apologized after writing this.

 

If any of this has made you feel angry, wait until I tell you about how babies go to Hell when they die. I don't believe that... but I could argue it convincingly enough.

 

Me too. I hadn't gotten to it yet, but burning babies is actually one of the trademark points I make in these discussions.

[Guest Nanks]

I'm stunned we haven't had the trusty, "God works in mysterious ways and his intentions aren't for us to understand" argument trotted out yet.

[Jingus 0]

I'm stunned we haven't had the trusty, "God works in mysterious ways and his intentions aren't for us to understand" argument trotted out yet.

I usually respond to that one with something along the lines of, "God doesn't want to take the nonexistant amount of time and effort it'd take for him to instant message my brain and explain himself? Well, fuck 'im."

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm stunned we haven't had the trusty, "God works in mysterious ways and his intentions aren't for us to understand" argument trotted out yet.

It's good that this debate seems above that so far. People are arguing on philosophical, intellectual, and (when appropriate) theologic grounds. I don't think IDRM is sincere in his supposed beliefs at all, but the intellectual exercise has been interesting to watch, if nothing else.

[chaosrage 0]

Does anyone here believe every word of the Bible literally? If not, do you believe some, but compromise on some issues? Or perhaps find the whole thing to be trash?

 

After years of study, it seems I cannot deny it. It's absolutely inerrant. Try to present some arguments against it if you want, I can counter anything. I'm amazed at my conclusions.

The universe wasn't created in 6 days, it actually took 15 billion years to form.

 

We didn't start from two people, we actually evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor.

 

Plants couldn't have been here before the sun. Neither could sunlight.

 

The moon isn't a lesser light.

 

Serpants don't talk.

 

The sun and the moon are not set in the firmament.

 

There was no global flood. There's a billion reasons why it didn't happen. Everything from the mathematical reasons as to why you couldn't, for example, keep all those animals in a boat that size. To the flora that would all be dead since they can't survive submerged in water, nevermind that much for that amount of time. To the diseases that couldn't exist. To the fish that would have died. To the fact that there's no physical evidence for a global flood. To the fact that millions of animals can only survive in one place and only eat certain types of plants, and every single species wouldn't all be able to survive in one place at one time.

 

Earth is older than 6000 years. We have records that go back further than that.

 

The world is not flat with pillars holding the four corners, the sky is not a dome with little holes for the stars, the sun doesn't travel around the earth and demons don't cause sickness.

 

There's hundreds of contradictions.

 

The genesis of my Biblical study was evolutionary study. Evolution is unbelievably flawed. It's not even something you have to scratch very deep under the surface to discover, the most superficial examination will reveal what is confirmed by ardent study; that it's just blatantly false.

 

Oh my god. Please go here and educate yourself. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html Be sure to look at the link with the observed instances of speciation.

 

There are really only two explanations for the universe, God or chance.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-miscon...ons.html#chance

 

The dinosaurs were killed during the flood like everything else, and like everything else, must have went on the ark. The pairs that came off the ark must have died shortly thereafter, however, due to changes in climate and atmosphere.

 

Hey, I wonder which one of noah's buddies had to get two of these?

 

 

They can open doors and jump over fences!

 

Nothing in the Christian faith is unbelievable. The alternative is no God, which in an unbiased world would be scientifically laughable, or a different God, which can be proven false. I know you think you can prove this God false,but I've been down that road and I don't think you can.

 

The Christian God is supposed to be love. It isn't possible for something to be love and then create a hell where billions of people suffer forever. It isn't possible for God to be all-love and omnipotent and omniscient and then make a world full of evil, diseases, earthquakes, hurricanes, murderers, etc.. It's not just unlikely that he exists, it's impossible. There you go.

 

And one alternative is the Deistic God, who just created the universe and let it run on it's own, then went sleep somewhere. I'd love to see you try to prove that false. Another alternative is that we were created by a magic invincible goat from outer space. Prove that false. Or that the universe just always existed. Prove that false too.

 

So if you were God you'd do it differently, eh? Well, God could have made us robots. The only other option is yes, sending some people to Hell.

 

This is a gimmick, right? If God didn't send people to hell, we would be robots? Do you also think that if Hitler didn't gas jews, they would be robots?

 

Because of the nature of God, there's no other way.

 

There most certainly is another way. He can NOT send people to hell. Simple enough. He's God, he can do anything. He can create heaven for people that want to be him and then he could create a place like Earth for people that don't want to be with him. If that's too much to ask, then he could simply snap his fingers and just make us all disappear.

 

If you don't like it, you are absolutely free to reject God and get sent there, as you were predestined from before the beginning of time. Yet at the same time, you could accept him and it wouldn't happen.

 

Anyone cold-hearted enough to accept someone who tortures people for eternity for not believing in him gets zero respect from me. It's no different than nazis following Hitler knowing what he was doing. But for some people, as long as he's nice to you, everything he does is fine I guess.

 

Now God didn't want them to go to Hell, so Jesus died for you. I know you've heard it before, but God died to keep you out of Hell.

 

No, he didn't. He died for no reason at all. The only reason he had to sacrifice himself so our sins could be forgiven was because God wanted himself to be sacrificed. If he didn't, he could have just forgave sins without the sacrifice. Jesus didn't die for us. We weren't the ones that required a human sacrifice to fix sins. That was all God's idea. Just think about what you're saying. God sacrificed himself to himself in order to save humanity from himself. It's hard to get more nonsensical than that.

 

If any of this has made you feel angry, wait until I tell you about how babies go to Hell when they die. I don't believe that... but I could argue it convincingly enough.

 

You can do more than that, you can prove it. The bible says a belief in God is required, it doesn't make any exceptions. That doesn't make me angry though, because I don't believe in him and I think the bible is as literally true as Lord of the Rings. What makes me angry are the people that defend it, make excuses for it, call it love, and even go as far as blame the babies. Yeah, I've seen all those happen before.

[Guest SP-1]

The flaw with your reasoning about the character of God, chaos, is that you're applying your somewhat sappy understanding of "love" to God. It must be the other way around. God defines love. Love does not define God. You're also failing to take into account an overall view with the sin issue, demonstrating a lack of understanding of what sin is and what it does. But then that goes back to what I said above: You apply a flawed, human definition to concepts that God laid out.

[Jingus 0]

Hey, I wonder which one of noah's buddies had to get two of these?

 

 

They can open doors and jump over fences!

Now THAT'S funny.

 

(Side note: the story of the flood and the ark is one of those that I can't see how anyone could possibly believe is literally true, because there's about a googleplex of reasons why it couldn't have physically happened.)

[Guest T®ITEC]

It could have if God wanted it to. Physics do not define God!

[Guest Nanks]

I find it amusing that someone who claims to hear "God's" voice is considered pious, but if I claim to hear any other kind of voice in my head then I'm just insane.

 

For mine, there's no real evidence that this character "Jesus" was anything more than a nutbar who had a strong following. We've seen plenty of them in our time. Frankly, the accounts given by a few of his equally insane followers detailing "miracles" he performed don't drive me to believe any different.

[Guest SP-1]

I find it amusing that someone who claims to hear "God's" voice is considered pious, but if I claim to hear any other kind of voice in my head then I'm just insane.

 

For mine, there's no real evidence that this character "Jesus" was anything more than a nutbar who had a strong following. We've seen plenty of them in our time. Frankly, the accounts given by a few of his equally insane followers detailing "miracles" he performed don't drive me to believe any different.

Give me a psychological analysis for your conclusion that several men from different social and economic backgrounds all reported the same events in different historical documents written in seperate times and at seperate places were insane. Keep in mind that the disciples themselves were in no position to fight a war with the Jews over this, and stood to only lose from the persecution that was to follow. Why did they keep on after the Crucifiction? Why not just scatter and try to fade into obscurity?

 

Also, from the position that Jesus was just a guy who got himself killed, why would Paul, who was hunting Christians, suddenly do a 180 between where he left and his destination of Damascus, despite not having any apparent contact with Christ's followers and, given your view of Christ, could not have encountered Jesus at all. Mind you: Paul was giving up power, authority in the Jewish community, and everything he had spent his life building up for himself.

 

That doesn't make sense. So please explain your analysis of the psychological reactions involved.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

My knowledge on the early stages of Christianity is limited, as I am still very much a student like you SP. However, is it not likely or possible that 'Mark's' writings could have reached the areas of other scholars of the time, who then could have re-written their own replication (and I use that term very loosely) for their current audience?

 

Additionally, there is not a shred of physical, concrete evidence that even implies Christ ever existed. The Bible isn't concrete evidence, the Gospels are narrative stories that have little to no factual credibility in them whatsoever. The cruicifixtion actually taking place and the documented 'recount' of it are two completely different things, with one likely to never have even happend.

 

I won't go too deeply into this, as I'm not here to win Nank's debate. I just wanted to put a few points forward for you to clarify.

 

UYI

[Nighthawk 0]

The alternative is no God, which in an unbiased world would be scientifically laughable, or a different God, which can be proven false.

 

I'm interested to see how you would prove that there isn't a different God.

Give me a god and I will. I can't do them all at once.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

I'll rephrase:

 

Disproving the existance of one god does not prove the existance of another.