The Bible is literally true.

[Guest SP-1]

Isn't there also a verse in the New Testament that says not to forsake the gathering of believers? If not, I'm going to have to kill my mom for quoting it to me so much.

Yes. Don't ask me where because I don't know it numerically. Possibly one of the Corinthian letters. But yes, it's in there.

[Nighthawk 0]

Hebrews 10:25.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Hebrew was going to be the name of my microbrewery until that interest passed.

[Guest SP-1]

IDRM, if you wanted to tackle some of those supposed "contradictions" Jingy brought up earlier, feel free. I'm working on a film project and buried in school work so I don't know when I'll get to.

[Nighthawk 0]

Yeah, I'm playing Mario Brothers and listening to Elton John, so I've got my hands full as well.

Jingus is gone for a while, so I'll wait until he gets back, unless somebody else finds them pressingly urgent.

[Guest Nanks]

Hebrew was going to be the name of my microbrewery until that interest passed.

Nice. That's quite clever.

[chaosrage 0]

Chaosrage, you are talking about free will and fate as if it is either one or the other. They are two mutually exclusive things, you can have both.

It's a common mistake to make, but just because things are fated to us doesn't mean we don't have a choice.

Bullshit. If things are fated to us then we HAVE to do it. We don't have a choice in it unless that fate can be wrong. The only way you can have free will is if the future isn't written already, meaning no one can know about it because you haven't made your choices yet.

 

God knows which decision we will make, it still doesn't make it any less our choice.

 

If god knows what we will choose before we make the "choice", then there was only one option we could have chosen.

 

You took the Buffy example far to literally, but the point remains, He doesn't decide which breakfast cereal we choose, we decide, he just knows us so perfectly that he knows our choice. He knows OUR CHOICE.  It's like watching Buffy but without the writters having written it. A better example would be reality television. If I watch a survivor episode for the second time does that mean I'm taking away the choice of who people will vote for? No, it's their choice. I just know their fate.

 

It doesn't, because it it already happened. They already chose. But according to omniscience, God doesn't only know AFTER something happens, he also knows BEFORE it happens. It's like watching survivor for the first time and knowing what they will do. If we're like a tape to God, then we can't change what is on his tape. All of our choices we will make is set in stone on the tape. So no free will.

 

Then clearly it was your choice to wear those. You're confusing free will and fate.

 

No, you're confusing omniscience with omnipotence. The argument isn't that god makes us choose one way over another. The argument is that since god knew we would make a certain choice, "our choice" was an illusion since we only had one choice as an option.

 

God is not wrong, to be so would mean He's not God, you contradicted yourself.

 

Then he can't be wrong and you can't choose fruit loops. Or he doesn't exist.

 

Because to go to heaven you have to believe in God.

I mean..... can you believe in heaven without believing in God? No, you can't.

So therefore if you are in heaven surely you'd believe in God, and if you're not in heaven than you wouldn't believe in God.

 

Who said anything about heaven? We were talking about hell. Why would an omnipotent God be forced to send people to hell? Do you really think he doesn't have the power to make another place where people who don't believe in him don't get tortured forever?

 

You completely missed my point again. You tried to negate my point by agreeing with it .... twice now...... so I'll spell it out for you.

 

The thing is I'm not agreeing with it. I think we can make a judgment about him. Love is a human concept, and torturing babies to punish their parents isn't part of that concept. And I don't think it's pointless either. If we can't come to a conclusion about him, then we can't come to a conclusion about anybody or anything. Every single criminal may have hidden motives. Hitler may have had good motives behind what he did that we just don't know about. But who gives a fuck, really?

 

You should be able to slowly figure it out and make assesments about it such as in a book. Why am I here? and questions of the like is the same asking "Who is the Killer?" after reading the first page of a crime novel.

 

No, it's the same as reading the entire novel and saying the killer didn't do it because the killer didn't think he did.

 

Different aspects of life, ideas, with no detail being too small, need to be thought about to figure out the question. My point was it's extremely vague and it's all well and good to say "Why is there so much suffering in the world? If there is a God there wouldn't be any suffering?" but that's making a judgement on the whole world based on a sweeping generalisation without discussion of motives ect.

 

The question is "If there is a loving God, wouldn't there not be any suffering?" Motives aren't even important when we're discussing omnipotent beings. God doesn't have to choose between two bad choices. He's God. He can do everything. Bad things only happen because he wants them to happen. He only does bad things because he wants to do them.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

"If there is a loving God, wouldn't there not be any suffering?"

 

As lame as this is gonna sound, if there was no suffering, we'd already be in Heaven.

 

I think that's part of the reason that bad things happen - without bad things, we couldn't appreciate good things, because then they'd just be things.

[chaosrage 0]

He knew I was going to pick frosted flakes after I picked them' date=' or while I was currently picking them, or before. The point is that there is no before, unless you're bound by time, which God is not.[/quote']

There is no before but God knew before? Which is it? If he knows before, then you can't pick fruit loops because you have to pick what God knows will happen. Your choices are ALREADY set before you were born. If he doesn't know before, then he isn't omniscient.

 

No, there is a difference. He can't do anything. Impossible means he can do anything. Too difficult means, if he tries to do something, he does it.

 

Hahaha, do you ever listen to yourself? You just said if he tried to make 2 + 2 = 5, he couldn't do it. So according to you, that verse is wrong. This thread is over with.

 

Now tell me what the Greek is...

 

Pantokrator meaning almighty or omnipotent.

 

Because he created Hell for Satan (supposedly), who is ultimately deserving of Hell because he knew te full extent of God's glory and rejected him. That same passage in Romans I refered means that we are in the same position.

 

Satan saw God and talked to him, I never even met the guy. We aren't in the same position. If he wanted me to believe, all he'd have to do is come down and show himself. That would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it? For that matter, why is he forced to make Satan burn in fire forever and why would he be forced to do the same thing to us? And how would that make us robots if he didn't?

 

Ha ha. You're Ralph Wiggum. No, the verse doesn't say God can do the impossible. Genesis does say that God made light without the sun, therefore, it is not impossible.

 

Making light from nothing is impossible.

 

Sure, why not?

 

Because we have ways of measuring sunlight and how fast stars are moving, and we calculated the universe to be about 15 billion years old, not 6 days.

 

You're wrong and you're not fooling anyone with this attempt to cover it up. Being wrong about one thing doesn't negate your entire argument, don't worry.

 

Feel free to demonstrate how I'm wrong at any time.

 

No it didn't. By your wooden interpretation, Genesis says that the firmament was a solid wall beginning at sealevel. They didn't believe that.

 

It's not an interpretation that says they believed the sky was solid. It's just what they believed.

 

Yep, sure is.

 

Also, impossible.

 

He used a flood as a thematic counterbalance to the fire he would use later. That's not the wizard did it route either, by the way. That's me being bored.

 

Then stop replying if you're bored.

 

The water was magicked away. This doesn't present a problem until you find a verse that says the water went away by natural means. Or, there were no oceans before then. Or Noah drank it. This is flawed reasoning again. It doesn't say how the water went away, something you could theoretically prove wrong, you are saying that because you don't know how it could, it didn't happen.

 

I'm saying there's no evidence of it happening, so it didn't happen. You're saying "A wizard did it probably, so it happened." My response to that and obviously it went way over your head was that if you make shit up and assume things happened that the book doesn't say, there's nothing you could prove it wrong on. Even if there was a verse that says the water went away by natural means, you would just say he changed his mind. Or aliens came down and took it or something. I could make a book that says I'm God, and by the same argument, whatever I wrote would be literally true and some idiots would believe it.

 

There is a geological record of it.

 

You need to do some reading up on Geology, take a class in it or read the flood faqs at the site I linked you to.

 

You betray that you are a parrot and have done no research for yourself. This is flatly false and you are ignorant. Study further.

 

First, I've read the entire bible. Second, I skimmed through Genesis the other night just to make sure there weren't any gaps. There aren't. Third, if you knew what gaps it had you would have thrown it in my face by now. So stop trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about.

 

So you have no point.

 

No, just because most of the recorded history is wrong doesn't mean it all is.

 

I've explained to you what literal is not. You know Martin Luther King believed that freedom produced an audible ringing tone? What an idiot. And JFK thought he was from Berlin? Now that guy was deluded. You don't know anything about the books of Job, or Psalms. Do you even own a Bible or are you just getting this online?

 

Just like the church for 2000 years got it online..... I've already explained to you that you that you don't have any basis for saying it's not literal. The only reason you don't think it's literal is because you don't want it to be literal.

 

The Bible's been used for lots of evil things. Does Charlie Manson prove the White Album wrong? Should the Beatles be put on trial?

 

Popes are supposed to have been ordained by God. For this analogy to make any sense, Charlie Manson would've had to have been appointed by the Beatles to be their messenger.

 

It's still against the law to kill today, and we still do it as a government. If you can't distinguish between an individual acting as an agent of government and a civillian, go back to third grade. God can make individual commands, pertinent to a specific situation which supercede his general law. Also, he doesn't endorse every action made by someone in the Bible.

 

Nice try. It isn't against the law to kill today, it's against the law to murder. If an agent of government went around murdering people like Moses and Joshua did in the Old Testament, they would be fried in the electric chair.

 

Labeling someone as righteous is definitely a stamp of approval. If he didn't endorse an action, they would've found out about it. Like how David found out.

 

You know, I think we've said enough about free will for the moment. Yeah, I might be defending it, but I'd be wrong. I'm defending the fulfillment of the Israelites Bible now, as an American. Think about that one for a minute.

 

You're a christian in a christian society. Do you want me to throw you a party or something? In India, where Hindu is the main religion, you would be a Hindu. You would be wrong, yeah, just as much as you're wrong now. But you're a christian because that's the story you grew up with. Now if the Hindu god or Zeus is the right one, would it be fair to blame you for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

God didn't do a shitty job, and you've shifted the focus. God doesn't have to earn your praise.

 

He doesn't have to, but if he wasn't an asshole, he should want to.

[chaosrage 0]

Right. If you had never heard of Christ and salvation required a belief in him, that would be an excuse. It's not because the standard is different.

What it does say and what you want it to say are two different things. Maybe it's the baby's fault for not staying alive long enough to believe in Jesus. Maybe it's the parents fault for not making sure the baby could stay alive until they could believe in Jesus. "OMG God wouldn't punish the babies for something they couldn't control!" We know that's false. Nowhere does it say that babies automatically go to heaven or about the standard being different.

 

But it DOES specifically say that without baptism and belief, you can't go to heaven. Oh and that there's no excuse. It's a tough break.

 

If David goes to the baby when he dies, that means he and the baby went to the same place after death. The other two verses establish that David himself went to heaven. I meant 1 Samuel 13:14, sorry.

 

It doesn't say he'll go to him when he dies, it just says he'll go to him. Maybe he'll go to his dead body. Again you're assuming things that aren't there.

 

I am.

 

I haven't been shown him and neither have you. The only evidence for god is that some people wrote a story about him, putting him on the same level as elves, trolls, and hobbits.

 

He doesn't exist because Jesus said he doesn't.

 

But the Magic Goat told me there was no Jesus, so he couldn't have said that, obviously.

[chaosrage 0]

Now if someone is spoken of as being thrown into Gehenna, which was the Judeans knew as a dump, it's not hard to see the connotation as being that they were thrown away, or discarded. The fact that Gehenna was on fire allows for much of the flame talk.

 

Except that these are flames are eternal flames and the fire is a lake of fire that people get thrown in.

 

Now, there would indeed be great sorrow and suffering in Hell, although you could say it comes from the absence of God. You might even say that God is saying "You don't want me? Ok, I will leave you to yourself."

 

And the difference between that and now is?

 

Jesus parable about the rich man and Lazarus was just that. A parable. He told many which weren't to be believed literally.

 

Parables illistrate their point by using real things. Just because the story didn't really happen doesn't mean that hell isn't a real place. There is no reason for any christian to claim the hell described isn't real.

[chaosrage 0]

"If there is a loving God, wouldn't there not be any suffering?"

 

As lame as this is gonna sound, if there was no suffering, we'd already be in Heaven.

And what's wrong with that?

 

I think that's part of the reason that bad things happen - without bad things, we couldn't appreciate good things, because then they'd just be things.

 

Will we be able to appreciate good things in heaven or will they just be things?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

They'll probably just be things - but they'll be things that people earned.

 

After all, why bother to be a nice person if your only reward is gonna be a hole in the ground? Better to be an ass and enjoy life.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

"If there is a loving God, wouldn't there not be any suffering?"

 

As lame as this is gonna sound, if there was no suffering, we'd already be in Heaven.

 

I think that's part of the reason that bad things happen - without bad things, we couldn't appreciate good things, because then they'd just be things.

Wrong.

 

Good is fulfillment of being, to be completely good is to be a complete being, like God.

 

Evil is a lack of being, when we commit evil acts we take away from our own being. We strive to be like God, so when we do good acts we complete our being, to be like Him.

 

That's the rough of it anyway. I can't remember how to properly put it, and if anyone is interested I could link up an explanation.

 

The main problem I see with the "without suffering you wouldn't have compassion" explanation or whatever it is, is that what about in Heaven where there's no suffering? Does that mean that there is no joy too? What about those that die young, or those who never experience happiness. Do they not realize what joy feels like for eternity?

 

EDIT: I realize that I didn't quite explain how the evil acts could co-exist with the idea of God. So I will point out that God created us whole, but we rejected him through the story of Adam and Eve due to our tendency to sin, so we chose evil and chose to deplete ourselves of his Goodness. So really, He is the Ultimate Good, and we choose to be evil thanks to our free will, and have slowly created a mess for ourselves through our evil choices, creating a void in ourselves. If we didn't fall from His Hand we would not be in this situation, so God can exist while there is evil in this world. His Grace is what helps us overcome our selfish tendency to sin and do the right thing, to put it simply.It's not about creating suffering to co-exist with joy so we know the effects of both.

[Guest SP-1]

Paragon, I haven't forgotten about our PM's. School is killing me right now, but I will get to it. UYI: this for you as well.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Paragon, I haven't forgotten about our PM's. School is killing me right now, but I will get to it. UYI: this for you as well.

Heh, don't worry about it, I'm just worried if you have forgotten what it was we were talking about, it's been months since the discussion.

[Guest SP-1]

Paragon, I haven't forgotten about our PM's.  School is killing me right now, but I will get to it.  UYI:  this for you as well.

Heh, don't worry about it, I'm just worried if you have forgotten what it was we were talking about, it's been months since the discussion.

Nope.

 

I just have a Hermeneutics project due every other day. And a 20 hour Hermeneutics project due next week.

 

On top of all my other classes.

 

It's a rough semester.

[Nighthawk 0]

 

 

God, chaosrage is stupid. This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever been in, but I'll keep responding because if I stop he'll think he won.

 

There is no before but God knew before?  Which is it?

 

There is no before. The rest of your argument is false anyway. Even if you had no choice by your definition, you would have had a choice. Everyone else understands this, why can't you?

 

Hahaha, do you ever listen to yourself?  You just said if he tried to make 2 + 2 = 5, he couldn't do it.  So according to you, that verse is wrong.  This thread is over with.

 

Look dummy, if God can't do something, he doesn't try to do it. What he does, he can. Do I have to make it simpler?

 

Pantokrator meaning almighty or omnipotent.

 

Now tell me where else it was used in the Bible...

 

(I'm tired of doing all your research for you)

 

Satan saw God and talked to him, I never even met the guy.  We aren't in the same position.  If he wanted me to believe, all he'd have to do is come down and show himself.  That would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it?  For that matter, why is he forced to make Satan burn in fire forever and why would he be forced to do the same thing to us?  And how would that make us robots if he didn't? 

 

And you claim to be intelligent? God did come down and show himself, and they didn't believe. I'm not only talking about Jesus either, though that's an excellent example. He would be forced to do that because he's God and if you reject him you damn well deserve it. Any other opinion is ignorance of the nature of God. Anything less than eternal torment is incomprehendable mercy, but that's just ow nice he is.

 

Making light from nothing is impossible.

 

No it isn't. The fact that it happened demonstrates that it isn't.

 

Because we have ways of measuring sunlight and how fast stars are moving, and we calculated the universe to be about 15 billion years old, not 6 days. 

 

Oh, you personally did this? I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you a wizard did it. Then again, God created Adam as a grown man, and plants of fruit bearing age. It's created maturity. What you said is BUTT ignorant by the way, but you can dig your own hole.

 

Feel free to demonstrate how I'm wrong at any time. 

 

I did several times. Anyone wanting to jump to your defense may feel free.

 

 

It's not an interpretation that says they believed the sky was solid.  It's just what they believed.

 

Dumbest statement of the thread. You've just negated your solid sky argument. I'm getting a headache thinking of how you'll try to say you didn't, so please let it go.

 

Also, impossible.

 

Sure thing, chief.

 

Then stop replying if you're bored.

 

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

 

I'm saying there's no evidence of it happening, so it didn't happen.  You're saying "A wizard did it probably, so it happened." My response to that and obviously it went way over your head was that if you make shit up and assume things happened that the book doesn't say, there's nothing you could prove it wrong on.  Even if there was a verse that says the water went away by natural means, you would just say he changed his mind.  Or aliens came down and took it or something.  I could make a book that says I'm God, and by the same argument, whatever I wrote would be literally true and some idiots would believe it. 

 

The day anything you say goes over my head will be the day I die. Your argument here went over your own head. You've just admitted that you can't prove the Bible wrong, because it's rules supercede the laws of naturality, a point I've been trying to pound into your head for a while now. That's not where the burden of proof is. As you yourself alluded to, God himself came down from Heaven and said "Follow me." and people still didn't. Do you think that by meticulously seeing how every nuance of the Bible plays out logically, in the end you'll say "Well, I guess it is right. I'm yours, Lord." Everthing in the universe is not hanging in the balance of a textbook. I have aimed to demonstrate

that the Bible is no less a valid viewpoint than the atheistic alternative and a more valid viewpoint than other religions. I guarantee that you won't understand that.

 

You need to do some reading up on Geology, take a class in it or read the flood faqs at the site I linked you to.

 

So I can be as smart as you?

 

First, I've read the entire bible.  Second, I skimmed through Genesis the other night just to make sure there weren't any gaps.  There aren't.  Third, if you knew what gaps it had you would have thrown it in my face by now.  So stop trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about.

 

First, so what? If you're having a conversation about it that's the absolute least I'd expect. Second, there are. You need to read more than Genesis to see them. Third, I'm not your mom. I promote thought, not lecture. The fact that you're still arguing this is making you look very very stupid to people who actuallly know what they're talking about.

 

No, just because most of the recorded history is wrong doesn't mean it all is.

 

WHOOSH!

 

Just like the church for 2000 years got it online.....  I've already explained to you that you that you don't have any basis for saying it's not literal.  The only reason you don't think it's literal is because you don't want it to be literal. 

 

And your basis for thinking it's literal is because you want it to be literal. But you're wrong, and if you had comprehended the Bible when you read it, you would understand why. First, read the entire book of Psalms, then the entire book of Job. Ponder. Then read the entire book of Isaiah. Ponder. Then tell me what you think.

 

Popes are supposed to have been ordained by God.  For this analogy to make any sense, Charlie Manson would've had to have been appointed by the Beatles to be their messenger. 

 

Who gives a shit about Popes? Charlie Manson thought he was appointed by the Beatles. That doesn't mean he was anymore than the Popes were by God.

 

Nice try.  It isn't against the law to kill today, it's against the law to murder.  If an agent of government went around murdering people like Moses and Joshua did in the Old Testament, they would be fried in the electric chair.

 

Labeling someone as righteous is definitely a stamp of approval.  If he didn't endorse an action, they would've found out about it.  Like how David found out.

 

You're arguing semantics with English. Why do I even bother? Way to ignore the rest of what I said, by the way. Your second statement is foolish. By this logic, labeling someone as righteous is labeling them as sinless.

 

You're a christian in a christian society. Do you want me to throw you a party or something?  In India, where Hindu is the main religion, you would be a Hindu.  You would be wrong, yeah, just as much as you're wrong now.  But you're a christian because that's the story you grew up with.  Now if the Hindu god or Zeus is the right one, would it be fair to blame you for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time? 

 

Number one, this isn't a Christian society. Number two, I'm widely believed to not be a Christian. Number three, there's Christians in India just like there's Hindus here. Number four, you've validated that I would be wrong. Good. Number five, your assesment of my upbringing is false. Number six, the Hindu god and Zeus do not have merciful provisions forsuch an occurence like the Christian God does as in the passage in Romans about there being no excuse. So they are flawed gods.

 

God didn't do a shitty job, and you've shifted the focus. God doesn't have to earn your praise.

 

He doesn't have to, but if he wasn't an asshole, he should want to.

 

He'd be justified in killing you and sending you to Hell for that... but he doesn't, cause he's not an asshole.

[Nighthawk 0]

What it does say and what you want it to say are two different things.  Maybe it's the baby's fault for not staying alive long enough to believe in Jesus.  Maybe it's the parents fault for not making sure the baby could stay alive until they could believe in Jesus.  "OMG God wouldn't punish the babies for something they couldn't control!"  We know that's false.  Nowhere does it say that babies automatically go to heaven or about the standard being different.

 

Maybe. We won't know until we're dead, and then we'll understand so it won't matter.

 

But it DOES specifically say that without baptism and belief, you can't go to heaven.  Oh and that there's no excuse.  It's a tough break.

 

Right there shows the invalidity of this argument. There's no baptismal requirement for salvation. I know all the verses you'll quote. Think please, if nothing else, I've demonstrated that I know the Bible well, do not operate under the assumption that I don't know these verses. First, tell me what baptism is and quote the verses you feel state it as a requirement for salvation. It does imply that babies go to heaven as I will show, and they do not believe. This demonstrates a differing standard. Context is everything, and in this case, the context is all of the Bible.

 

It doesn't say he'll go to him when he dies, it just says he'll go to him.  Maybe he'll go to his dead body.  Again you're assuming things that aren't there. 

 

This is a willfully ignorant approach. Nothing besides going to him when he dies makes much sense in the context of the chapter.

 

I haven't been shown him and neither have you.  The only evidence for god is that some people wrote a story about him, putting him on the same level as elves, trolls, and hobbits.

 

No intelligent person would make a statement such as this.

[Nighthawk 0]

Except that these are flames are eternal flames and the fire is a lake of fire that people get thrown in.

 

I said I wouldn't discuss Revelation because there's lots of things in it that won't make sense until later. The flame never went out in Gehenna either.

 

And the difference between that and now is?

 

How should I know? That's what you said God should do instead of Hell.

 

Parables illistrate their point by using real things.  Just because the story didn't really happen doesn't mean that hell isn't a real place.  There is no reason for any christian to claim the hell described isn't real.

 

Well, for one it's not talking about Hell. Lazarus was there (you mixed up the story before, so I'll point out that Lazarus was the good one), able to converse with the rich man and theoretically touch his tongue with his finger, so it couldn't have been Hell. Also, the story not really happening doesn't mean Hell is a real place either.

 

There is a reason to call into question the nature of Hell. The word is Gehenna which as I've said was the dump outside Jerusalem. Jesus used this word, to a Jewish audience who knew Gehenna as a dump and only a dump, where the fire never goes out. Now why would they see any reason to interpret it as another realm when they knew very well the place mentioned? It can't mean for us today what it never meant for them then.

[Guest SP-1]

To be fair, IDRM, Jesus used figurative language often. He was pointing to some kind of outside realm and used that as an illustration. You can't just dump the concept of an outside realm because Jesus used something else as a reference point for an analogy.

[Nighthawk 0]

I'm not. I'm saying it's worth looking into.

[Jingus 0]

Wow, surprised this thread is still going strong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...actually no I'm not.

 

A question to both IDRM and SP: what do you believe Hell really is? And as an addendum, why God would force people to spend all eternity there instead of coming up with some sort of parole system?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Shit, IRDM probably believes that the value of Pi is 3.

 

And does anyone ever find it funny that when creationists argue about evolution they always go right back to Darwin, as if Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctured equilibrium simply doesn't exist?

[Nighthawk 0]

No, but I do find it funny that you said creationists always go right back to Darwin when nobody here has done that. I also find it funny when "evolutionists" trot out carbon dating as some supposed disproof of creation when it has absolutely no bearing on the subject. I also find it funny that for all the bluster and pomp you sheep have thrown around, you've done nothing to demonstrate your theory's superiority over mine. If it's really so obvious, I've made you look like fools to an extreme degree by holding and winning this debate.

 

The most offensive thing about atheism, or more generally, humanism, and one of the things I wished to expose with this thread, if the veneer of intellectualism, falsely so called. An atheist pretends to be intellectually superior to a theist, a champion of reason and logic, when the opposite is closer to the truth. This isn't really about God, it's about people, because most religious folk are the same way, with slightly altered smoke and mirrors.

There are some atheists with admirable insight and intellect, who are genuine thinkers, just as there are some theists in the same category. The majority, and what we've seen here from a few individuals, is a lot of rhetoric without much substance. Reading a book does not make you intelligent. It may make you knowledgable, but to feel as if you have accomplished something by absorbing what someone else has presented you is a security blanket at best, a monkey with a shotgun at worst.

You blindly accept evolution because you've been told it's the 'smart' thing to do. Even if it was a viable theory to someone at sometime, your belief is so strong and so sure because it's what you wanted to hear at the right time. It saddens me because future generations will look back on the past 100 years or so as painfully and hilariously ignorant.

You tear down the Bible possesing absolutely no knowledge of it at all. It is so deep, I can scarecly believe it when it gets playfully cast aside as worthless fairy tale. You could spend years delving into the smallest parts of it. It's complexity is unknowable.This alone is more evidence of it's divine inspiration than it has leveled against it.

If I could have you remember one things, it's this: True intelligence begins with realizing how much you don't know.

The very fact that I told you this should present you with convincing evidence that your viewpoint needs to be evaluated, because I'm significantly smarter than you.

[Nighthawk 0]

A question to both IDRM and SP: what do you believe Hell really is? And as an addendum, why God would force people to spend all eternity there instead of coming up with some sort of parole system?

I couldn't say with certainty. There's much left to evaluate. I know it's a place where God is not, and a horrible realm of sorrow. As I've been saying, this may be a result of God's absence and only that, or it may be inflicted by God, but another reason to doubt this which I didn't mention is the very fact of his absense. It seems perhaps... an awkward arrangement for God to have a hand in the maintenace and operation of a place specifically desiged to be seperate from him. Keep in mind that as of now, there is nowhere that God is not. Hell is unique in that regard. There is much more that I've considered along the line of Hell, but I don't know if now if the time to delve into it.

 

As far as a parole system, I could say a few things. Using the analogy, there are some crimes which have no parole, and some I'm sure you'd agree where it's not warranted. I don't know if you have children, but if you did, suppose somebody kidnapped them... kept them locked in a basement and molested them every day for a few years and eventually tortured them to death. I don't think you'd want them to ever be paroled, you'd probably think any punishment was too good for them, and if there was a Hell you'd probably want them to stay there forever. So, the punishment fits the crime and some crimes are worse than others. The worst of crime, however, if you apply the correct perspective, is rejection of God. To know God and all he has done, which though some may claim not to, but are without excuse (back to Romans there, valuable passage), places a person under such an unpayable debt that Hell is the only appropriate penalty. On the other hand, God has something better than parole, a complete pardon. Not only do you not go to Hell, you get paradise and you have to do nothing to get it. It's free and all you have to do is accept. You have your whole life to do it. Turning such an unimaginably merciful and generous offer down is part of the ultimate evil of rejection.

Now, as far as sin goes, because you've alluded to it before, sin is not an act, it's more of a state of being. Things like whose holes you stick your dick into, God is not sentencing you to Hell for that, you're going anyway. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, and what sends you to Hell is rejecting it. That's the only thing that sends you to Hell. The other things, like hole sticking and so forth, are things God tells you for your own good. Again, 1 Corinthians 6 is good for this. Verse one says "All things are lawful but not all things are beneficial." This means that if you accept the gift of salvation, you can do anything you want. Yes, you can lead any kind of life you like, and you'll still go to heaven. But it's not beneficial even though they're not unsaving you. The things God tells you not to do will leave you worse off in the long run. He tells you for your own good, to help you.

[Guest SP-1]

Wow, surprised this thread is still going strong. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...actually no I'm not. 

 

A question to both IDRM and SP: what do you believe Hell really is?  And as an addendum, why God would force people to spend all eternity there instead of coming up with some sort of parole system?

Good question.

 

My take is an odd one. I believe Jesus alluded to it's fiery properties for a reason. It's definitely not going to be a cakewalk. And the thing most people, sadly, don't think about is that it's eternal. There isn't a parole hearing. Human life is parole, in a way. You're allowed a span of time on Earth to choose the way out of judgement that God Himself freely gave in Jesus Christ, or to choose to continue on in sin and to reject Him. Like a parole hearing where you're handed the opportunity to get out. But once this life is over . . . you've made your choice. The parole hearing is over. You either took the chance for freedom that was freely provided for you, you didn't have to earn, or you take the consequences of the sinful life you chose.

 

I believe in Hell. I'll look it up and edit the scripture into the post later, but a scene is described about the End when everyone is faced with God. The writer takes note to include the people "under the earth", which isn't meant literally. Even we today, culturally, tend to think of Hell as a place beneath our feet and Heaven as just above the clouds. I think that, the physical conditions aside (which I believe will indeed be hotter than we can imagine), Hell will be made all the worse because those in it will still come face to face with God in all of his Majesty, face to face with what they rejected, face to face with what they could have had without cost, and then they'll realize that all they'll have is a glimpse. They'll see the beauty and the freedom and the purest love that was available to them and they rejected . . . but they won't be connected to it.

 

And it will be that way for eternity.

 

It will be the darkest, saddest, most maddening realization ever. And it will never end.

 

That, I believe, is Hell. That is the consequence of what happened in the Garden. Our first parents seperated us from God. Those in Hell will feel that seperation at the deepest, darkest level and it will never end for them. And worse . . . they'll know He made a way to reconnect with Himself through Christ and they rejected it.

 

I, personally, can think of nothing worse.

Edited October 8, 2004 by SP-1

[Guest Nanks]

Does God look upon Agnostics as "rejecting him"?? I don't pray or do any of the religious stuff and really don't give any thought on a day-to-day basis about the existance of a Deity or Higher Power or whatever else you want to call it, but I don't actively "reject" the possibility of the presence of such a thing.

 

In short, am I going to Hell??

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Don't some branches of Christianity believe in Limbo? I've heard it described as the place for people too good for Hell, yet too bad for Heaven; the difference being, though, that you can get "paroled" from Limbo and eventually sent to Heaven.

[Guest SP-1]

Does God look upon Agnostics as "rejecting him"?? I don't pray or do any of the religious stuff and really don't give any thought on a day-to-day basis about the existance of a Deity or Higher Power or whatever else you want to call it, but I don't actively "reject" the possibility of the presence of such a thing.

 

In short, am I going to Hell??

Now, I'd like to take the opportunity here to point something out about Christian social interaction. When I say what I'm about to say, I say it because I believe it to be a responsive fact to the Fall. Not because I personally judge you. It's equivalent to me saying, "Yes, I believe that car is crushed. Because I saw the piano fall onto it." I have nothing against the car or the piano, I'm simply stating a fact derived from the sequence of events and their effects.

 

Yes. I believe you will wind up in Hell if you continue on your present course. Here is why:

 

God is personal. He is not a thing. He is distinct and definitive. In a sense, you are rejecting Him and His plan in favor of a watered down, vague idea of who you want Him to be, and what you want Him to do instead. It doesn't work that way. Essentially, you are saying, "I don't want to believe in an apple. Instead, I want to believe in this nebulous fruit-thing that I don't really want anything to do with, but which I want and expect the benefts of an apple from." We do not define who God is. He is who He is and He's given us His way. He defines everything else. Considering He's, y'know, God, and has a much better view of the situation than we do, His plan might be worth giving some thought to.

 

To continue, even if you fully acknowledge the existence of God, the work of Christ on the Cross, etc., unless you choose it and ask for the forgiveness offered in Christ, you're still actively rejecting the plan. I can fully acknowledge that I-26 is the highway for me to go home to Charleston. But if I continue on I-20 and never take the exit onto I-26, I will not go to Charleston. Knowing and doing are two different things.