The Bible is literally true.

[Guest SP-1]

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.

I think Catholocism has Purgatory which is sort of like that. I just can't tell you the biblical basis for such a belief. I think it became a political/money thing.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Yes, Catholicism does have Purgatory. It's for souls which aren't wicked enough for hell, and are not good enough for heaven. Those souls spend time in Purgatory -- the amount of time varies, depending on how "impure" the soul is, and once that time is up, they are then allowed to enter heaven.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I was talking to a teacher about Purgatory, and apparently not only does no one go straight to Heaven, but very few are even lucky enough to make it to Purgatory. He feels that regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, the purity of your soul and character dictate whether you even get a chance in purgatory, but no one goes straight to Heaven. It's a scary thought for me personally, that even if I am a Christian, I might still wind up in Hell.

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

The expectation to have the utmost respect for a divine ruler who is petty and cruel enough to torture countless souls for eternity just because they don't like him is positively hilarious.

[Nighthawk 0]

Fine, see ya in Hell.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

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.

But who are you to explicate God's plan? God is distinct and definitive but he's also beyond your comprehension. You even just said we do not define him. Therefore you cannot tell Nanks he's going to hell. As far as I'm concerned, he's one God no matter what name is used. It's more important how you live... your actions. If we all go hardcore conservative in our belief systems, then everyone's going to hell. You're going to hell because you've rejected the mystery of faith in Transubstantiation, as well as the Viccar of Christ from apostolic succession guided by the Holy Spirit. I'm going to hell because I worship graven images and false gods and I practice heresy; and I forgot to use a capital "h" in my 2nd and 3rd sentences. We're all screwed.

 

I was talking to a teacher about Purgatory, and apparently not only does no one go straight to Heaven, but very few are even lucky enough to make it to Purgatory. He feels that regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, the purity of your soul and character dictate whether you even get a chance in purgatory, but no one goes straight to Heaven. It's a scary thought for me personally, that even if I am a Christian, I might still wind up in Hell.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic priest at USC doesn't even believe in hell.

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

Fine, see ya in Hell.

It can't possibly be soon enough, IDRM. It just can't be.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I think the/a major flaw in Spiders argument/position is this:

 

"God is personal."

[Nighthawk 0]

So anyway, first you need to get rid of the concept of too bad for heaven or too good for Hell. Nobody is good. Heaven is not something you attain through good works or any other way, it's a free gift and that's it. So the idea of limbo or purgatory is false in that by extrapolation, they suggest you can earn God's favor which is beyond your capability. Purgatory was mainly a tool for extortion, by the way. The church would sell indulgences for exorbitant sums of money which were supposed to shave years off your purgatorial stay.

 

The idea of losing your salvation, or perhaps never having really had it, as seems to be the case under recent discussion, is another tool of manipulation by the Catholic church, although it's very widespread as well. Lutherans even believe that. It's Biblically unsound, however, even blasphemous because it supposes to undercut the power of God. This is again insinuating an earning of salvation through the so called "purity" of a soul, God's gift will not be taken back on the basis of shortcoming, God's word is better than that.

 

We covered this territory before, but the idea of God tormenting someone being petty and cruel comes from a lack of understanding of who he is. People tend to think of him as basically a man with more power (Mormans even teach it dogmatically) but nothing could be further from the truth. Sovereign's post also demonstrated a common and frankly ridiculous attitude among the skeptical, that is, that God's exitance or position as God is somehow dependant on your agreeing with or ability to make sense of what he says, or by extension, that his existance is predicated on your belief in him. Which is, in essence, having yourself as God.

 

SP or anyone can explicate God's plan, and tell Nanks he's going to Hell because God has revealed himself and his plan to us. The idea that all gods lead to the same end may be appealing in it's tolerance and ease, but as much as you may like to believe it, Jesus said they don't. If the importance lies in your actions, what is good enough? Who are you to judge what's good enough? In fact, God has given you the standard of what's good enough, the Mosaic law. Try to obey it, you can't. Nobody can be good enough, that's why you don't have to be. Salvation is offered for nothing, all you have to do is take it. A better plan than anything you can come up with. Nobody is going to Hell for worshipping graven images or for not buying into that Catholic bullshit. We're going to Hell because we're sinners. This doesn't mean we committed sin, it defines who we are. If we want to not go, all we must do is accept God's way out, it has nothing to do with doctrinal differences. Those can be argued later (and believe me, I could tear them apart), but using a denominational rift to essentially say "We all know nothing! As long as you feel good with how you're doing, you're fine." is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

God is personal, by the way. It makes no sense for God to hide and render himself unknowable. That's why he wrote a book.

[Guest SP-1]

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.

But who are you to explicate God's plan? God is distinct and definitive but he's also beyond your comprehension. You even just said we do not define him. Therefore you cannot tell Nanks he's going to hell. As far as I'm concerned, he's one God no matter what name is used. It's more important how you live... your actions. If we all go hardcore conservative in our belief systems, then everyone's going to hell. You're going to hell because you've rejected the mystery of faith in Transubstantiation, as well as the Viccar of Christ from apostolic succession guided by the Holy Spirit. I'm going to hell because I worship graven images and false gods and I practice heresy; and I forgot to use a capital "h" in my 2nd and 3rd sentences. We're all screwed.

 

I was talking to a teacher about Purgatory, and apparently not only does no one go straight to Heaven, but very few are even lucky enough to make it to Purgatory. He feels that regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, the purity of your soul and character dictate whether you even get a chance in purgatory, but no one goes straight to Heaven. It's a scary thought for me personally, that even if I am a Christian, I might still wind up in Hell.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic priest at USC doesn't even believe in hell.

You say this, yet disregard that He's been kind enough to reveal Himself to us through Israel, through His Word, in the person of Christ, and through the Holy Spirit, which resides within and fellowships with Christians. I can tell Nanks that because that's what God's told us will happen. I find it interesting that you make your statement and then fall right back into the comfort zone of pluralism by trying to define God on your own terms again.

 

The expectation to have the utmost respect for a divine ruler who is petty and cruel enough to torture countless souls for eternity just because they don't like him is positively hilarious.

 

Had God forced Adam and Eve to sin, you might have a point. They seperated mankind from God. He didn't. Because of their actions, we are seperated from Him and default to death, both spiritually and physically. He's hardly petty and cruel when He didn't wipe us out on the spot and instead implemented a plan to reconcile humanity to Himself by doing all the work Himself and then offering the reward freely for those who will choose it. But yeah, I guess that somehow makes Him petty and cruel.

 

I think the/a major flaw in Spiders argument/position is this:

 

"God is personal."

 

If that's the best you've got, Rudo, just read the thread and don't post. Comments like that with no evidence to support your case or real reasoning other than, "Well I think this," just slow the discussion down and add no real value. Bring substance if you're going to say something. The rest of us are.

 

 

On the subject of purgatory: it's moot because there's no solid biblical evidence to support it. In fact, it flies in the face of everything else the Bible teaches.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Yeah, but when I bring something substantive* to the conversation they tend to get ignored. Like this one.

 

You said God is Personal. Well, guess what? People are different. Personal experiences are different. The Jain tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant illustrates the relativity of truth. In it, several men are asked to describe an elephant. Each touches a different part of the elephant's body, and thus each describes the animal in a different way. To one man, the elephant is like a stone wall because he has touched the side; to another, the elephant is like a rope because he has touched the tail; and to another, the elephant is like a fan because he has touched the ear. Each man has truthfully described the animal; but because each had contacted it from a different point, the descriptions varied tremendously.

 

Your view of God is probably different from the Popes view of God. Your view of God is different from IDRM's view of God. Your view of God is different from Paragons view of God. There is no standard view, because everyone is different. So if we're all different, and God is personal, then God is different.

 

To extend that, what about an Athiests view of God? What about an Agnostics view of God? What if God hasn't been personal to them at all. Is it their fault? Is it their fault they read the bible and it did nothing for them? Is it their fault that they havent' felt the holy spirit? Is it their fault they never personally exprienced God? Maybe God just doesn't want them to feel it. And since you have said that man is flawed, the why wouldn't their personal experiences with God be flawed? Since it's personal, and the person is flawed.

 

And I don't appreciate your attitude.

 

(*"Free will and fate are independant of each other."

 

Free Will is dictated to us by our present and our past, aka our circumstances. God created our circumstances.

 

And for Prayer and Church, I'll throw out Mathew 6:5 for discussion)

[Nighthawk 0]

I don't think that's what he meant by personal. If he did, I wouldn't agree with him either. Come to think of it, it does tend to get misused that way. One of the things I disagree with (one among many) in the modern church is the "personal Jesus" concept. That's a good song though. Anyway, it grew out of a personal savior, someone who didn't die for the whole world in some grandiose way, but for you individually.

A personal savior then became something of a... spiritual tamagotchi, if you remember those things. God became homogenized, divided and sold off piece by piece as key rings and bumper stickers. The church is in a terrible state, but that's a whole other discussion.

Anyway, the true idea of a personal God is not that he is changed by your view of him, it's that he relates to you on a personal level. There's some truth to the variance of perception, but you can see an analogy with any person. If you and I met for coffee and crumpets, you would come away with an idea of what kind of person I was based on your experience, and it may be a somewhat different idea than someone else who knows me. Of course, this doesn't change who I am.

 

Regarding Matthew 6:5, keep in mind who he was speaking to and about whom. The Pharisees would make a loud show of prayer, without their heart anywhere near the right place (a principle played out in many things they did), their only motivation to show observers how righteous they were. Jesus' point is about motivation, and the heart, as opposed to the letter of the law, a point he made several times. For example, saying that the command was "thous shalt not kill" but that if you were angry you have already committed murder in your heart.

[chaosrage 0]

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.

How could they choose evil if they didn't know the difference between good and evil?

[chaosrage 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.

I already know I won. The first time you replied to something saying I'm ignorant or "everyone knows that isn't true" without any backup was when you were finished. The more you post, the more the more convinced I get.

 

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?

 

If there's no before for God, then I guess he doesn't know it. For example, 10 minutes BEFORE you "choose" between Fruit Loops and Frosted Flakes. He either knows what you're going to pick or he doesn't. If he does know, then you can't make a choice because your choice was already made. You would have the illusion of a choice, not an actual choice. Everyone else doesn't understand it. SP, croweater, and you think that you can have a choice, Jingus, Brian, Rudo, and me are saying that you can't.

 

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?

 

That's not the fucking verse. The verse doesn't say "What he does, he can." It says "With God, nothing is impossible or too difficult." However, according to you, making 2 + 2 = 5 would be too difficult. There's no way to talk your way out of this one. You admitted that the bible is wrong.

 

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

 

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

 

I gave you the link so you could check for yourself. The word means omnipotent or al-mighty, both words meaning that he can do everything. Thanks for playing.

 

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.

 

The fact that they didn't believe should tell you something, but it probably won't. If God wanted me and everyone else to believe, he would know exactly what it would take to get us to believe. If he came down and did it, that would solve a lot of problems. How does someone rejecting him damn well deserve eternal torment? That makes God sound like an evil king or something. If your kids say they don't want anything to do with you, will you hire people to throw them in a dungeon and torture them for as long as they live? Remember, we're presupposing the hell with fire. Although even if we didn't, you still admit that it is eternal torment. Apparently, he's not that nice after all.

 

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

 

Either it didn't happen, or God can do the impossible.

 

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.

 

So your answer is God just made it look like the universe is 15 billion years old. Ok, give me your evidence for this.

 

"Dinosaurs didn't exist because God could've made fossils to trick you!

 

P.S. The bible is true because I believe in it."

 

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

 

And I explained why you were wrong. Then as usual, you dropped it.

 

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.

 

Well before I did that, I'd have to know how the hell you thought I did. They believed in a solid sky, so their word for sky meant solid sky. The same word used to describe the sky in the bible.

 

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

 

Nope, I like religion debates. Honestly, I hope this thread never ends. It would be more fun if you gave me some actual arguments or something to work with, but that might be too much to ask.

 

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.

 

"It went over my head again." would have sufficed. If you can't prove something wrong, does that make it true? If it does, then you have to concede that I am God because I said I was.

 

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."

 

If the bible had said flat out that the sun revolves around the Earth, the sky isn't solid, and the earth isn't flat, when no one at the time thought these things, then it would be very powerful evidence that maybe there IS something to the book. But instead, God just goes along with what the people of the time believed. Which is exactly what you'd expect to see if they made it all up.

 

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.

 

And you haven't done it. Do you think it's an equally valid viewpoint to think that there are little mud people living in the center of the earth controlling your thoughts as to think that there aren't because you can't prove that they're not there?

 

So I can be as smart as you?

 

That'd be a start.

 

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.

 

First, you told me to do research, but I don't have to, I already read it and know that it doesn't have any. Second, the line from Adam to Abraham, which is what we were talking about is all in Genesis, without any gaps. Third, the fact that you still can't come up with any gaps or any problem with the 6,000 year timeline shows that you don't have a clue and you just want it not to be true.

 

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.

 

The basis for thinking it's literal is because there's no reason to think it isn't. Also it's what the people believed at the time, and most christians up until way after Galileo believed it to be literal. Catholics probably still take it to be literal today. Hell, it wasn't until about 10 years ago that they forgave Galileo for saying the Sun was the center of the universe. And no, just answer the question.

 

Who gives a shit about Popes?

 

Most christians.

 

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.

 

That's exactly what it means. righteous It's not semantics, it's a contradiction because he told his people not to kill but told another group to go around slaughtering people and committing genocides.

 

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.

 

Unless you were born in another country, you probably had christian parents, christian brothers, sisters, or other family members, and christian friends. You saw and talked to christians every day, you watched christians on TV, read things they wrote, etc.. If you grew up here, you grew up with the fairy tale and people believing in it.

 

I never said there weren't christians in India. But if you lived in India, you would most likely be Hindu since it's the main religion over there. People are products of their cultural programming, and nobody has a choice of what that programming will be, including you. Even if omnipotence didn't exist, you still aren't making a choice to believe.

 

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.

 

Yes they do, they just didn't say it. Like your great explanation for the water in the flood story.

 

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

 

But he does send you to hell for that, so he is an asshole.

[chaosrage 0]

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.

Yeah, there is a requirement of baptism and a requirement of belief. If you already know the verses I'll quote, good, then I don't have to bother looking them up again. I already posted them in the last page or the page before that. Show me that babies go to heaven.

 

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

 

The servants told him that his son died, so he stopped fasting and he went eat. They asked him why, and he said he was hoping that God would show some mercy, but he didn't because he's an asshole. So now there's no way to bring him back. He'll go see him, but he won't come back. How does that not make sense? And how in the fuck did you pull "he will see him when he died" from that?

 

No intelligent person would make a statement such as this.

 

Prove it wrong. You won't because you can't.

[chaosrage 0]

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.

Is it an eternal flame? Or a lake of fire? What about being able to destroy both body and soul?

 

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

 

I didn't say anything about eternal torment. Those people who don't want to be with God should be happy since they got what they wanted, they shouldn't be wailing and gnashing their teeth.

 

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.

 

Lazarus wasn't there (you're right, I mixed that up), the rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus. And it does unless you can show how it isn't. If rich, greedy, evil don't go to a place where they get tormented in flame, then that was a pretty pointless parable.

 

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.

 

Because he described it as another realm. You even believe in another realm for people who don't believe in God, you also believe in eternal torment, so why don't you believe they're tormented in flame? That's what Jesus said they would be tormented in. If the other realm isn't really a lake of fire, then what the hell is it? Where are these people separated from God going to?

[chaosrage 0]

You blindly accept evolution because you've been told it's the 'smart' thing to do.

Uhh... That, or we can see it taking place every day.

 

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

 

Read the title of this thread and maybe you'll be laughing as hard as I am right now.

 

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.

 

No crime deserves eternal torture. Maybe I would send them there for 100 years and then make him disappear, but I don't even know if I could do that. How am I nicer than God? Anyway if you believe in the bible, these are the kind of sickos that go to heaven, as long as they have faith. While if any one of those kids he tortured was an atheist, they would've went straight to hell after he killed them.

 

back to Romans there, valuable passage

 

The bible says there's no excuse so there must not be!

 

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.

 

Then I don't have anything to worry about.

 

Heaven is not something you attain through good works or any other way, it's a free gift and that's it.

 

Buy yourself a dictionary. "Free" means nothing is required in return. Yet belief is required for salvation, so please stop claiming this is a "free" gift.

 

We covered this territory before, but the idea of God tormenting someone being petty and cruel comes from a lack of understanding of who he is.

 

Webster's says cruel is to cause pain and suffering. Is there pain and suffering in the world he created or in hell? Is torturing babies to punish their parents causing pain and suffering? Yep. So it's not an opinion that he's cruel. It's just what he is. You can't take the deliberately designed pain and torture and say it isn't cruel just because you don't want him to be cruel. Things don't work that way. How can you be so wrong on every single sentence you type?

[chaosrage 0]

And the thing most people, sadly, don't think about is that it's eternal.  There isn't a parole hearing. 

Why not? Wouldn't a loving God want to give people a second chance to fix their mistakes? Wouldn't he give them as many chances as it took?

 

He could have made it where people are just tortured for awhile until they learn their lesson or atone for their sins, or he could have set it up so everyone keeps going through life until they get it right, so everyone goes to heaven, it just takes some a little longer than others. But no, your god chose eternal torture. Since they can't get out of it and nothing can be learned or changed it's pure cruelty and nothing else.

 

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.

 

Which brings up the absurdity of Hitler going to heaven while all the Jews he tortured and murdered went to hell. It amazes me that anyone could see this as a good thing. But if you're a christian you have to.

 

But once this life is over . . . you've made your choice. The parole hearing is over.

 

This is dumb Spider. I can't MAKE myself believe in something there is no evidence for, anymore than I can make myself believe in unicorns or the Tooth Fairy.

 

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.

 

And your God is responsible for this and you worship him and call him love. Personally, I can't think of anything sicker.

[Guest SP-1]

Your use of the word personal is backwards. That's not the way I used it. God is personal in that he personally digs in and is at your side in life. He is personal in that He is a distinct being all His own.

 

The elephant theory has one tragic flaw: All the men are describing but a fraction of the elephant. It does not change who or what the elephant is overall. God is distinct and all his own, and has His own personality, which is multi-faceted like our own. One side of Him is the rough warrior we see march out before Israel in the Old Testament, and yet we also see the tender and merciful side at other times. Yet in whatever circumstance, God is still who He is and holding to an overall integrity and an overall, distinct purpose. Sometimes I am angry, I am a warrior. Sometimes I am tender and I am a lover. Sometimes I am the caretaker and sometimes I am the peacemaker. I act in a certain way towards certain situations, yet who I am as a distinct being, overall, does not change. I do not split into several different people. Myself, a singular being, multitasks.

 

The men were not describing the elephant overall. They were truthfully describing, factually and accurately, the specific section they were experiencing. Not the elephant as a whole being. It's a flawed argument against truth. Truth is not subjective. The elephant is what it is overall, not any one part of its body.

[Guest SP-1]

He did give you the chance, Chaos. He's giving you the chance every moment you're still alive on this Earth. He made a way for you. If you want to spit in His face for that, it's entirely your call. I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore because beyond this it will just become circular. You will just continue to ignore that God did exactly what you're claiming He should do because you don't like the way He did it.

[chaosrage 0]

Answer this. How can I MAKE myself believe in something that I think doesn't make sense? Can you make yourself believe in the Tooth Fairy or little mud people living underneath the Earth?

 

Even if I wanted to believe in a God, I wouldn't know which one to pick. There's thousands and they all pretty much have the same amount of evidence.

[Nighthawk 0]

I already know I won.  The first time you replied to something saying I'm ignorant or "everyone knows that isn't true" without any backup was when you were finished.  The more you post, the more the more convinced I get.

 

Let's ask everyone else whose argumentation they respect more.

 

 

If there's no before for God, then I guess he doesn't know it.  For example, 10 minutes BEFORE you "choose" between Fruit Loops and Frosted Flakes.  He either knows what you're going to pick or he doesn't.  If he does know, then you can't make a choice because your choice was already made.  You would have the illusion of a choice, not an actual choice.  Everyone else doesn't understand it.  SP, croweater, and you think that you can have a choice, Jingus, Brian, Rudo, and me are saying that you can't.

 

The point was that before is the same as after when you're outside time. Jingus Brian and Rudo may disagree with this concept, but they understand it. Your question about what happens 10 minutes before you pick the cereal shows that you still don't.

 

That's not the fucking verse.  The verse doesn't say "What he does, he can."  It says "With God, nothing is impossible or too difficult."  However, according to you, making 2 + 2 = 5 would be too difficult.  There's no way to talk your way out of this one.  You admitted that the bible is wrong.

 

Ok, try this analogy. Suppose someone said they'd pay you a million dollars to murder your grandmother. You would, I hope, not be able to do that, even though I'm sure you'd like a million dollars. So, you would say that you can't murder your grandmother, but we all know that you're physically capable of pulling the trigger of a gun. You still can't do it because it's not in your nature to do. For another thing, making 2 + 2 5 is an abstract concept. To think outside the box, God could take the word five and make it mean IIII this many. Then he has made 2 + 2 5. It's all relative to perception. For another, the verse doesn't even have to be read as speaking about God. It says with God, so you could say it's talking about with God's help, a Christian can do anything. And people say words like anything, impossible, and so forth all the time without meaning them literally. The Bible being perfect does not make it magic, it still speaks in the same way people do, and requires interpretation.

 

I gave you the link so you could check for yourself.  The word means omnipotent or al-mighty, both words meaning that he can do everything.  Thanks for playing.

 

The very first definition on the page you linked contradicts this. If you're trying to argue a point, I'd hope you at least find a website that doesn't shoot it in the foot...

 

The fact that they didn't believe should tell you something, but it probably won't.  If God wanted me and everyone else to believe, he would know exactly what it would take to get us to believe.  If he came down and did it, that would solve a lot of problems.  How does someone rejecting him damn well deserve eternal torment?  That makes God sound like an evil king or something.  If your kids say they don't want anything to do with you, will you hire people to throw them in a dungeon and torture them for as long as they live?  Remember, we're presupposing the hell with fire.  Although even if we didn't, you still admit that it is eternal torment.  Apparently, he's not that nice after all.

 

What do you imply I should be told by a voice from Heaven saying in a loud voice "I AM GOD! DO WHAT I SAY!"* resulting in unbelief? God doesn't want to make you believe, if he used his Godly knowledge to do exactly what will result in belief, thereby rendering you unable to not believe, you would be... a robot. And sure, you could be a robot and it there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. Except from your perspective. Your analogy about my kids is flawed in that I, an imperfect human, am far short of God, who, being infinitely deserving of praise, is justified in infinitely judging.

 

Either it didn't happen, or God can do the impossible.

 

God can do the impossible. It depends on whose perspective you say impossible from. In this case it's obviously your own. If you define impossible as "things God can't do" then obviously he can't do the impossible.

 

So your answer is God just made it look like the universe is 15 billion years old.  Ok, give me your evidence for this.

 

"Dinosaurs didn't exist because God could've made fossils to trick you!

 

P.S. The bible is true because I believe in it."

 

This is an important development: if the Earth was not created in six days, or the flood didn't really happen, it wouldn't make the Bible untrue. It would mean I interpretted it wrong. Yeah, that's circular and impossible to argue. However, this is why you must accept the Bible at face value or not at all. It can otherwise be made to say just about anything. I think you'd agree. If there were an indication in the Bible that the creation and flood stories (no doubt the sharpest sticking point of the skeptics) were not to be taken literally, fine. Actually there is, and that's another discussion. However, judging the two viewpoints, literal becomes the most apparent choice, in my estimation.

There are many stances one could take on the apparent age of the universe. One is that, as I said, it has created maturity. Adam was created as a grown man. Considering the distance of some stars, and how long it would take their light to reach us and so forth, the age of maturity of the universe at large, in relation to Earth, could be 15 billion years.

Or some have said that Adam lived in the Garden of Eden for 15 billion years before he sinned. This is fairly flawed, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

And I explained why you were wrong.  Then as usual, you dropped it.

 

Why aren't your homies backin you up? See, the very definition of light you quoted would include the moon, you even mentioned terms like moonlight specifically. If we have the term moonlight, that would be light from the moon, thereby rendering the moon a source (if not the original source) of light. Again, the Bible is not a magicaly worded book that isn't allowed to use figure and common phrase.

 

Well before I did that, I'd have to know how the hell you thought I did.  They believed in a solid sky, so their word for sky meant solid sky.  The same word used to describe the sky in the bible.

 

So you wanted the Bible to invent a new word? Aside from anything else, if that's the only word they had, the Bible is at no fault for using it. We park on driveways and drive on parkways. That's wrong. But that's the words we have.

 

Nope, I like religion debates.  Honestly, I hope this thread never ends.  It would be more fun if you gave me some actual arguments or something to work with, but that might be too much to ask.

 

Good. Seeing you from that perspective I'm not so offended by your ignorance, because I could argue from your viewpoint just as well. Your repeated page long dissections of my posts may betray the invalidty of your complaint.

 

"It went over my head again." would have sufficed.  If you can't prove something wrong, does that make it true?  If it does, then you have to concede that I am God because I said I was.

 

It went over your head again. I'm not trying to prove the Bible is true, I'm trying to say that you can't prove it false, and you also can't prove atheism true or false, thereby making them equally valid viewpoints. I take objection to the atheistic stance of "We're the smart ones and you're the dumb ones." As well as, for the record, the religious stance of "We're the good ones and you're the bad ones (but I'll pray for you)"

 

If the bible had said flat out that the sun revolves around the Earth, the sky isn't solid, and the earth isn't flat, when no one at the time thought these things, then it would be very powerful evidence that maybe there IS something to the book.  But instead, God just goes along with what the people of the time believed.  Which is exactly what you'd expect to see if they made it all up.

 

Then he would be writing the Bible for us and not for them. If a supposed divinely inspired book came out today which said that the world was built by aliens and the final scene of Men in Black was true, we'd have nothing to do with it. If that later came to be true, that generation might acknowledge the value of such a book. To us, it would be useless. There is some indication of a spherical Earth, unsolid sky and things of that nature, but they're no more hard evidence than what you've presented against it, so I won't belabor the point.

 

And you haven't done it.  Do you think it's an equally valid viewpoint to think that there are little mud people living in the center of the earth controlling your thoughts as to think that there aren't because you can't prove that they're not there?

 

You keep coming up with ridiculous scenarios and placing them on the same level as the Bible. Do you really think there is absolutely no evidence in support of the Bible, that there is nothing in it that can be verified or is of any use at all? Can you honestly say that with a straight face?

 

First, you told me to do research, but I don't have to, I already read it and know that it doesn't have any.  Second, the line from Adam to Abraham, which is what we were talking about is all in Genesis, without any gaps.  Third, the fact that you still can't come up with any gaps or any problem with the 6,000 year timeline shows that you don't have a clue and you just want it not to be true.

 

If you read other Biblical geneaologies, the gaps are very apparent and allow to view the line we're discussing with more clarity, but on second thought, much of the idea is rooted in Hebrew, so I shouldn't have expected you to come up with it on your own. For one thing, the word used for father can mean grandfather or even ancestor. I realize that's convenient, but that's just the way it is. Look it up for yourself. Hebrew just cannot be read the way we read English. The words translated in to English say this: “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z.” Someone reading the same passage in Hebrew would see a second possibility: “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of a family line that included or culminated in Z.” Now, in spite of this, there's certainly not some immense span of time glossed over, and in truth I really don't care if the Earth was 6000 years old. Gaps don't prove it to be billions of years old, they just provide a little appropriate breathing room. 6000 years is not something to be held to dogmatically.

 

The basis for thinking it's literal is because there's no reason to think it isn't.  Also it's what the people believed at the time, and most christians up until way after Galileo believed it to be literal.  Catholics probably still take it to be literal today.  Hell, it wasn't until about 10 years ago that they forgave Galileo for saying the Sun was the center of the universe.   And no, just answer the question.

 

Isaiah realy has nothing to do with this discussion, I just think it's an interesting book you might have enjoyed. Psalms and Job are books of poetry, even classified in most Bibles as such, and as a result are full of that type of language. Poetic statement can be contained in non poetic books, but the fact that all your examples came from poetic books shows how weak an argument it is. You know another poetic book, Song of Solomon. Read that one and try to say there's no reason it shouldn't be literal besides my not wanting it to be. Psalms and Job are exactly the same way, only covering a much broader course and thus less obvious to the casual observer.

 

Most christians.

 

Catholics aren't christians. I could argue against the Catholic church better than you.

 

That's exactly what it means.  righteous It's not semantics, it's a contradiction because he told his people not to kill but told another group to go around slaughtering people and committing genocides. 

 

I meant semantics between kill and murder, not righteous. The fact that he told them not to kill and to slaughter people negates the argument. The ten commandments were rules to live your life by, a specific command to kill a person or group of people overrides that, and is fulfilled when the person is dead. Beyond this, God even punished people for not killing when he told them to. And of course in times of war, there's a whole other dynamic. Keep in mind that Israel was a theocracy, God was not only their God, but their king and government as well.

 

Unless you were born in another country, you probably had christian parents, christian brothers, sisters, or other family members, and christian friends.  You saw and talked to christians every day, you watched christians on TV, read things they wrote, etc..  If you grew up here, you grew up with the fairy tale and people believing in it. 

 

Not really, no. I had heard the name Jesus, I'm sure, but it meant less to me than Santa Claus. I think you may underestimate how dechristianized this country has become. My early childhood was 100% absent of any sort of religion. In my teen years I worshipped the devil. Not the kind where you don't really believe in a devil either, I was killing cats in a cemetary. So I knew the skeletal version of Christianity then, but from a far different viewpoint. When I did eventually approach the Bible, it was from a purely intellectual standpoint.

 

People are products of their cultural programming, and nobody has a choice of what that programming will be, including you.  Even if omnipotence didn't exist, you still aren't making a choice to believe. 

 

You're naive. Not so much in what you said, which I agree with to a point, but in your view of christianity as inescapable cultural programming.

 

Yes they do, they just didn't say it.  Like your great explanation for the water in the flood story.

 

Except once you've been told, it doesn't apply anymore. So if Zeus is the real god it's news to me, so I'm safe. But hey, Jesus died for you! Oh, now you're gonna burn.

 

But he does send you to hell for that, so he is an asshole.

 

Hey, you like Depeche Mode?

 

I'll get to the rest later...

 

*paraphrase

[Guest croweater]

SP-1, Why would God send people to hell when he created them.

 

For him to do this you are admitting that he doesn't have a universal plan for everyone.

 

God is going to punish us for doing exactly what he wants us to do? Because whatever we are doing it is because God wants us to do it, regardless of whether you believe it is our choice or not. It is a part of God's plan for the world for me to type this, as it will be for you to reply. To say that it isn't is saying that God doesn't have a plan nor control, and to say that it is admits that we are all inevitably doing God's will. Whether it is being a right wing conservative christian, or an athiest, or someone who doesn't care aren't we doing exactly what God want's us to do?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

They seperated mankind from God. He didn't. Because of their actions, we are seperated from Him and default to death, both spiritually and physically.

Yeah, that's justice. Two people I've never met separated me from God? You realize of course that allowing two individuals to determine the nature of billions of people raises them to a level of divinity... there's no way around it.

 

You say this, yet disregard that He's been kind enough to reveal Himself to us through Israel, through His Word, in the person of Christ, and through the Holy Spirit, which resides within and fellowships with Christians.

How can you say this after saying we do not define God?

 

Jesus' point is about motivation, and the heart, as opposed to the letter of the law, a point he made several times.

Ah, but that validates carrying interpretations beyond a Biblical basis.

 

Catholics aren't christians. I could argue against the Catholic church better than you.

Using what, the Bible they put together for you?

[Guest croweater]

I thought whether you were considered a christian or not was based upon whether you believed Jesus was the Son of God. Nothing more nor less.

[Nighthawk 0]

Jesus' point is about motivation, and the heart, as opposed to the letter of the law, a point he made several times.

Ah, but that validates carrying interpretations beyond a Biblical basis.

 

Moreso interpretations of the Biblical basis. In any case, that's beside the point. None of that applies to salvation. The point was that the Pharisees would do some ridiculous thing like memorize the entire old testament and then, by the letter of the law, never sin, whereas Jesus pointed out that they were missing the point.

 

Catholics aren't christians. I could argue against the Catholic church better than you.

Using what, the Bible they put together for you?

 

The Catholic church then was vastly different than it is today. And they weren't so much putting it together as affirming what was already accepted. I mentioned that a while back. In any case, the Bible they picked out does invalidate them anyway. Scripture is actually self-validating, meaning it internally references itself enough so as to create a clear enough picture of the intended word.

[Nighthawk 0]

I thought whether you were considered a christian or not was based upon whether you believed Jesus was the Son of God. Nothing more nor less.

Ok, but what does that mean?

[Nighthawk 0]

Yeah, there is a requirement of baptism and a requirement of belief.  If you already know the verses I'll quote, good, then I don't have to bother looking them up again.  I already posted them in the last page or the page before that.  Show me that babies go to heaven.

 

I wanted you to tell me what you think baptism is, because you probably don't know. It means immersion, and the salvational baptism is by the Holy Spirit (self explanitory) and by fire, symbolizing a purification. The water baptism most think of is a symbol of rebirth and is one of two rites Jesus placed on his followers, the other being communion. It's purpose is a public announcement of conversion and symbol of the spiritual immersion of salvation, not the conversion itself. It's a matter of obedience, and should actually be the first act of obedience. But it's not required for salvation, that would place the credit for salvation on an act, the falsity of which is spread all through the Bible. Keep in mind that people were being baptized before Jesus died, and in fact Jesus himself was baptized, and he certainly didn't need salvation.

 

 

The servants told him that his son died, so he stopped fasting and he went eat.  They asked him why, and he said he was hoping that God would show some mercy, but he didn't because he's an asshole.  So now there's no way to bring him back.  He'll go see him, but he won't come back.  How does that not make sense?

 

Because he didn't say "he won't come back", and saying "I will go to him" makes little sense outside of the afterlife. He saw him while he was alive, there's no need to point out the significance of going to a dead body. If he had said "I will go to him" alone, you might have a point, but the "he will not come to me" indicates a less than typical implication. It was a baby, he couldn't "come to him" anyway. It's a stretch to interpret "come to me" as coming back from the dead, especially when you try to use "go to him" in the same breath to mean physically viewing the body. Also, many times in the Old Testament, tending to the dead body is referenced, but never with similar terminology, and the phrases for such things do tend to be used commonly. Also, David had other sons die as adults, and he grieved for them immensely after they were dead. No, it's not an airtight belief, but it's believable.

 

No intelligent person would make a statement such as this.

 

Prove it wrong. You won't because you can't.

 

Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible. It's a real city. Therefore, God is above the level of hobbits. Consider yourself proven wrong.

[MrRant 0]

When did hobbits show up in the Bible?

[Nighthawk 0]

Is it an eternal flame?  Or a lake of fire?  What about being able to destroy both body and soul?

 

Actually yes, in same sense that JFK's grave has an eternal flame. And now that you mention it, if the flames of Hell destroyed both body and soul, it wouldn't really be eternal, would it?

 

I didn't say anything about eternal torment.  Those people who don't want to be with God should be happy since they got what they wanted, they shouldn't be wailing and gnashing their teeth.

 

What they thought they wanted was not all it was cracked up to be. I'm saying that when God is absent, there can only be pain and sorrow, it's a condition of his absence. Happiness comes from the presence of God.

 

Lazarus wasn't there (you're right, I mixed that up), the rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus.  And it does unless you can show how it isn't.  If rich, greedy, evil don't go to a place where they get tormented in flame, then that was a pretty pointless parable.

 

Lazarus and Abraham were together, and could be seen by the rich man. It was the same place, although clearly different sections of this place (Hades, for the record, is the word used in this instance). The point of the parable is that we should help the poor, by the way. And when they were dead, Abraham told him he had his chance to do right while he was alive, but it was too late. So the point is about the poor and about seizing the moment to do right because it will run out eventually.

 

Because he described it as another realm.  You even believe in another realm for people who don't believe in God, you also believe in eternal torment, so why don't you believe they're tormented in flame?  That's what Jesus said they would be tormented in.  If the other realm isn't really a lake of fire, then what the hell is it?  Where are these people separated from God going to?

 

Well, one of your major points is that God is evil for tormenting people (wrong, for one), and I'm saying it's not even necesarily true. Maybe God just leaves them alone and does nothing to them, and they're tormented simply by being separated from him.