The Bible is literally true.

[Nighthawk 0]

Am I to presume you've been engaging in this thread without even having read the book? I don't feel so bad about making you look bad then.

 

Well, Revelation is a book of prophecy regarding the end of the world, sometimes called an Apocalypse. It was written around AD 90 by the Apostle John, at least that's the traditional view, there has been some debate as to it's true authorship. Basically many bad things happen. Most of the population of the Earth is killed, those who remain have to hide in caves and so forth. The seas become blood, the sun turns black, you get the idea. There's a war, Armageddon, with all of the armies converging on Israel, at the valley of Megiddo (a real place, Napoleon said it was the greatest place to fight a battle he'd seen). A third of the population is killed and blood fills the streets. Lots of other stuff which doesn't necesarily relate to your question. Anyway, the wars and destruction as described were largely beyond the means of reality at the time it was written, but with modern nuclear weapons and so forth it becomes all too real. At the height of this terror, it says Jesus will return to Earth and rule for 1000 years, after which he will unleash Satan for one last battle. Satan is defeated and God uncreates the universe. That's the gist of it.

[Guest Nanks]

Interesting.

 

Yeah, I haven't sat down and read The Bible. I'm not a religious person. I think of myself as agnostic. Much of what I've contributed to this thread hasn't been so much about proving your stance wrong, I've been learning. I like to learn. Obviously there are portions throughout the thread where it's been a bit beyond my belief, mostly our Flood/evolution debate. Arguing or debating a point is the best way to get them to fully flesh out their position, I've found, so that's what I'm actually doing when I seem argumentative or close-minded or whatever else. But largely I've just found it interesting. For example, this question wasn't meant as a way of "disproving" anything, I was simply interested in the religious/biblical position on Armageddon brought on by man.

 

However, I still stand by my belief that on the whole The Bible is not intended as a history book but as a field manual for Christianity, if you will.

[Guest SP-1]

Interesting.

 

Yeah, I haven't sat down and read The Bible. I'm not a religious person. I think of myself as agnostic. Much of what I've contributed to this thread hasn't been so much about proving your stance wrong, I've been learning. I like to learn. Obviously there are portions throughout the thread where it's been a bit beyond my belief, mostly our Flood/evolution debate. Arguing or debating a point is the best way to get them to fully flesh out their position, I've found, so that's what I'm actually doing when I seem argumentative or close-minded or whatever else. But largely I've just found it interesting. For example, this question wasn't meant as a way of "disproving" anything, I was simply interested in the religious/biblical position on Armageddon brought on by man.

 

However, I still stand by my belief that on the whole The Bible is not intended as a history book but as a field manual for Christianity, if you will.

Yet it was intended as a history book as well as a book of religious doctrine for an entire race of people for quite some time.

 

The Old Testament still is to some of that race of people.

 

I'm curious as to why you won't read it. Just because you dont believe it? So, then, do you not read any fiction at all because you know you don't believe it? But then still presume to want to learn about it from outside sources so you can eventually claim a disproving knowledge of it?

 

Illogical.

 

If you want to prove or disprove a work, read it first and then go to outside argument sources. No matter what anyone says here, your knowledge about the Bible will always be inherently flawed unless you know what the book itself says.

[Guest Nanks]

I'm curious as to why you won't read it. Just because you dont believe it? So, then, do you not read any fiction at all because you know you don't believe it?

 

I won't read it because I'm not religious, and that's what it is, a religious text. Comparing reading fiction to reading The Bible is fairly ridiculous, fictional books to purport to be factual, there's a major difference.

 

But then still presume to want to learn about it from outside sources so you can eventually claim a disproving knowledge of it?

 

You made up that bit, I never claimed to want a disproving knowledge of it. I have been reading all of this information with interest. I'm never going to do any deeper study into The Bible, it's nowhere near that interesting to me. However, this has been a simple method by which to gather some extra knowledge.

[Guest SP-1]

Fair enough. Thank you for cleaing up your intentions. Few things are more aggravating than those who would seek to discredit a text using only outside sources without ever reading it.

 

I would encourage you to consider that the Bible began as a historical work. And it still largely is. While one could disregard the other Gospels a little more easily, Luke is an excellent account of events which is well researched for the time. As is Acts, which is a companion to Luke. If one is interested in history, those books are at least a good account of church history from an "insider's" (Luke's) point of view.

[Guest SP-1]

I'm contemplating posting my Hermeneutics mid-term project inthe Get Your Learn On! folder. Would anyone be interested in that?

Edited October 12, 2004 by SP-1

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

IDRM, obviously the Eucharist is the biggie here. And I can see how one might consider the Catholic practice to be idol worship. However, if Christ is actually present in the host as Catholics believe, it follows logically that they are not worshipping an idol but actually God himself.

 

Also, how much of Revelations do you believe is literal?

[Nighthawk 0]

Perhaps, but I'm utterly convinced that Christ is not present in the host. The very fact that this is a recognized pagan custom, which predated Christ and existed in the Americas for probably thousands of years without Christian influence, attests to such a fact. Everything said scripturally regarding the communion indicates symbolism. The fact that the idea of transubstantiation didn't exist in Christianity for hundreds of years after Christ's death. The fact that God forbid idolatry even when the idol represented him leads me to believe he would not present himself physically in a wafer.

This is black and white to me, but there's grey areas of Catholicism also. Like, the whole church is peppered with the idea of earning God's love. It's one thing to say that if you sin, you lose your salvation, which I would disagree with, but for Catholics to go hardline and give you a laundry list of things to do to gain and keep salvation, and then when you die have to work off more sin, it flies in the face of the entire biblical model of grace. Even if the Catholic church were a true church, the works system would poison it to the point of impotency.

For example, the Anglican Church. Truly christian, probably, but absolutely dead and ineffectual. Southern Baptists, probably true Christians, but doing more harm to the work of Jesus than good in my opinion. Pentacostal, true Christians for the most part, but a feeble and even confused church. At best, Catholicism belongs with ones such as these.

 

As for Revelation, I really have no way of knowing. Much of fulfilled Biblical prophecy was quite abstract, and some was ridiculously literal. Until it happens, there's not really a way to know what the balance is.

 

By the way, Sp, I'd take a look at that if you posted it.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

some denominations, such as Lutherans, believe in transubstantiation, which I would vehemently disagree with, but I would still think of them as Christians.

 

I thought that Lutherans didn't believe that the wafer actually physically becomes the body of Christ (As Catholics do) but did it only as a symbollic gesture.

 

Am I getting my religons mixed up?

[Nighthawk 0]

Not religions, just denominations. Lutherans are Protestant, of course, being named after the one doing the protesting, but pretty mainline. They do believe in a corporal presence. Transubstantiation is something you'll find in some protestant denominations and not others.

[chaosrage 0]

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

People here like you more than me so your argument must be better.

 

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.

 

You're the one that doesn't understand it. For God, he might be outside of time and there might not be a before, but for you there is. If something you do can be known before you do it, then you have no control over it. Since God is outside of time, and he can look at all points at the same time, every point in time must be already written down, and you're destined to make the "choice" that God sees. Therefore you can't choose to do differently. You might think you have a choice but you really don't. You're just a character moving along on a script. If that script says you're going to eat frosted flakes or dog shit for breakfast, that's what you're going to eat it and you can't choose not to.

 

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.

 

Correct, I would be emotionally incapable of doing it. I couldn't be able to do it. So I wouldn't say "Murdering my grandmother is possible or not very difficult". It actually isn't possible for me to do it and it would be difficult. If you're limited by your nature, then for you, not everything is possible.

 

By the way, if you can understand how it can be out of our nature to do something, why can't you understand how it could be not in our nature to believe in God. I can't make a choice in that anymore than I could killing my grandmother.

 

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.

 

If he takes five and makes it four, then it's no longer five. It's four just being called five. I could do the same thing. And the NT writers took it literally when they described him as omnipotent.

 

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...

 

It says "The one who holds sway over all things." "2 + 2 = 5" is a thing, a concept. So is a squared circle. Does God over sway over these things?

 

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.

 

Why the hell wouldn't he want to make us believe? Belief is different from acceptence. It's possible that if he showed up, I still wouldn't accept him. If I show you proof that I exist, would you become a robot? Were the Egyptians turned into robots when God proved to them that he existed in the bible?

 

None of the people in the bible had to use faith. They had miracles and disasters. And rods turning into snakes. And guys running around healing everyone and rising from the dead. Explain to me how they were robots.

 

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.

 

Why would you want to praise someone who would kill and torture your kids? I'm sure you wouldn't be groveling all over his feet in heaven if your atheist kids were being burned in hell at the same time. Well I'm not sure but I hope you wouldn't. How are you able to make the decision that he's justified in judging everything? Just because he's powerful or because he created you?

 

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.

 

The bible defines it as things we can't do, but with God there's no things that he can't do.

 

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.

 

Anything in the bible or any other work of fiction can be made to say anything, whether you take it at face value or not. This is why you should not accept things without evidence. Every single piece of evidence suggests that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands. The only thing you have suggesting that it's thousands is no evidence at all, a book written a couple thousands of years ago by people that didn't know shit about how the world worked. Then if for some inexplicable reason you believe in what that book says, you have to ask yourself why would God create the universe with maturity. There's no way to know. So let's guess. Maybe the reason God purposely made the universe look like it was 15 billion years old when it really isn't, as well as made it look like there wasn't a flood when there really was, as well as made it look like we evolved when we didn't was because he wanted to create atheists. He wanted people to use the minds that he gave him and not just be zombies believing whatever he said, so the atheists are the saved ones and the christians are the ones really going to hell. There's no evidence of that, but since you can't prove it wrong, you have to admit that it's equally just as likely to be possible. So even if God exists, the odds of you going to hell and me going to hell are the same. Isn't making shit up fun?

 

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.

 

The moon can't be a source of light because it doesn't produce light. If I throw a rock and it bounces off of a wall and hits you in the head, is the wall a source of the rock? No, I am, the rock just bounced off. Why isn't anyone backing you up. Maybe because no cares or no one is reading. Maybe because it's a stupid irrelevant argument since you'll only make up something in the end anyway. If it's proved that the moon isn't a light, you would just say it used to be a light because you can't prove it wrong. Sorta like a kid going up to a teacher and saying he shouldn't get a F on a test because those aren't the answers he wrote, a monster came when he turned his back and changed them all. "OMG PROFESSOR CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T? IF YOU CANT DEN U CANT SAY IM WRONG ON THIS TEST! AHAHA"

 

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.

 

Yeah, why not? He should've told them that their word was wrong, and that from then on they should call it sky. Driveways and parkways aren't wrong words either, it's just wrong what they're called. I wouldn't call a driveway a parkway if the word driveway didn't exist. That would be stupid. I wouldn't even use a word, I'd just say it's the place where you park your car.

 

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)"

 

Well you were, just look at the title of the thread. But okay, I'll let it slide and just pretend you said the bible is an equally valid viewpoint from the beginning. You can't prove the Illad false. Or Lord of the Rings, or The Stand, or Batman. Are you amazed by that? Does that mean it's an equally valid viewpoint to say that Batman exists? I don't think we're the smart ones and they're the dumb ones. Fear of death can make smart people believe in stupid things.

 

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.

 

Sure, they believed a God who would murder thousands of people and send plagues down on him if they didn't believe was love, but the sun going around the Earth was just way too far fetched. If I believed in a God and he told me that the final scene of Men and Black was true, I would believe it. Why wouldn't they believe it if he said it? They believe he existed, didn't they? If Moses came down and said "Guess what, guys? God said the sun revolves around the Earth and the sky isn't solid!" and they disbelieved, Moses would do just what he did, ask whoever was on his side to come over to him, then they would kill everyone that didn't beleive. Nothing would change.

 

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?

 

Places can be verified...not any of the major events or any of the main characters. Places can be verified with The Stand and Gone with the Wind too. So what? There's absolutely no evidence in support of the bible. Same as any other religious text.

 

Besides that, you dodged the question. Your main argument is that because we can't prove the bible wrong it's an equally valid viewpoint. You just said it again a little while ago. BUT you can't prove that little mud people don't live in the center of the earth and aren't controlling your thoughts either. Do you think that's an equally valid viewpoint?

 

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.

 

It doesn't say "When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z". It says "X begat Z when X was Y years old". So it doesn't matter if X is the father, or great great grandfather or whatever, X was still Y yeards old when Z was born. It's irrelevant what X is. All that matters is how old he was when Z came along. If you knew the genealogy can't cover billions of years, why are we even arguing about it?

 

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.

 

Anyone who writes a poem that says "My will is as immovable as the Earth", is a huge dumbass. Plus all my examples doesn't come from the poetic books. Unless Joshua is a book of poetry.

 

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

 

If catholics aren't christians, then no one is a christian. That believe that the bible is the word of God, they believe that Christ is the son of God, came and died for their sins, they're christians.

 

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.

 

Jesus christ, how long is this post?

The fact that he told them not to kill and then gave them a specific command to kill is a contradiction. Does he want people to kill or doesn't he? Why does he let his righteous people go around killing when he's not commanding them to? Like I said, if he didn't approve of them he would've done something like kill their sons and daughters or send plagues on them.

 

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.

 

See? Just by saying you worshipping the Christian devil, it shows that Christianity had a big influence on your life. I'm not saying you didn't approach it from an intellectual standpoint, I'm saying that you had a soft spot for it because you grew up with it. I mean, out of 1000 different religions, you chose the one that had the biggest impact on you. Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you? Have you studied 1000 different religions? Why should you be blamed if one of those unknown tribal religions was the right one and you chose incorrectly?

 

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.

 

Funny you should say that. It just so happens that I am another one of Zeus's sons. There, I'm telling you he's the real God. Now you've been told. No more excuses!

 

Hey, you like Depeche Mode?

 

Hell no.

[chaosrage 0]

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.

Hmm.. My bible says "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Sounds to me like they are talking about water baptism.

 

You left out the part about belief. The bible flat out says belief and baptism are both required, no exceptions for anyone. Jesus did a lot of things that he didn't need to do, such as sacrificing himself to save us from himself. He obviously just liked doing pointless things.

 

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.

 

It's not. What's a stretch is thinking that he'll go see his son in heaven when it doesn't say anything about heaven or David being dead. The line is David telling his servants why he's not fasting. Because it won't bring him back. His son is dead, he'll go see him, but nothing he does will make him return. Makes perfect sense. He doesn't say "I shall go to him when I die" so there's no reason to assume he means that other than your wanting it to mean that. Just stick to the bible the way it is and stop making things up, okay?

 

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

 

But I didn't ask you to prove that Jerusalem isn't on the same level as hobbits. I asked you to prove that God isn't on the same level.

 

BTW, tomorrow my penis will grow 4000 miles long and impregnate Elisha Cuthbert, and I live in the United States. That's a real country, so what I'm saying has to be true.

[chaosrage 0]

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?

It's a slow process, it lasts for eternity.

 

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.

 

That would only be the case if he wanted to be. And what's the difference between that and the condition of absence from God being suffering in fire? Does that make it any better? No. It's still eternal torment and God is responsible for it.

 

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 rich man in hell looked and saw Lazarus and Abraham in heaven, with an uncrossable gulf between them. There's no indication that Lazarus is in hell. If he would be in hell, the parable makes even less sense.

 

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.

 

Why would the greedy rich man care about doing right if nothing will happen to him? He's greedy. Why would he give a shit if it's too late? He prays to Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brethren, not to tell them to do right because time will run out, but to tell them to do right lest they come to the "place of torment". The parable is pointless if men who are rich and greedy don't get sent to a place of torment.

 

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.

 

Except, he is doing something, he's leaving them alone. If your one year old says that he hates you and hopes you die, are you not doing anything wrong to him by throwing him outside and letting him starve?

[chaosrage 0]

Quick, what evolution did you see today? Answer or everything you say is a fairy tale.

I saw two different kinds of dogs cross breeding.

 

I really don't care, in fact I wish you well. Cause I'll be laughing my head off when you're burning in hell.

 

There is no hell.

 

Not if they were kids, no. Saying no crime deserves eternal torture is merely ignorance of the immensity of God.

 

Yep, even if they were kids, that's no excuse. And that's not ignorant of anything except maybe the evilness of God. God can't be evil, you say? Right, that's why as I've shown countless times, he can't exist. You didn't answer the question. I wouldn't be able to torture someone for eternity. How is it possible that I'm nicer and more forgiving than God? Let me help you out. The answer is real simple. It's not possible. He doesn't exist.

 

Unless you, you know, reject it. I could show that Hell will be worse for you than most, but you probably don't want to hear it.

 

Then.... I don't have anything to worry about. I won't reject it if it's offered to me, no one would. Of course I still won't believe, but only a complete idiot would think not believing is the same as rejecting something.

 

This ranks up there with the stupidest things I've ever heard. So someone giving you a present isn't a "free" gift because it requires the energy to reach out your hands and take it.

 

Problem with that is God isn't offering it to anyone who would take it, he's ONLY offering it to people who believe in him. A TRUE gift would mean everyone is saved, no purchase necessary.

 

Why are you so slow? We do not have the authority to decide who is deserving of pain and suffering, but God does.

 

We do and here's an example. An infant cannot act in a way which would be deserving of torture. The idea itself that it could be is cruel. The thought that someone would worship something that thinks it could be deserving is seriously revolting and scary at the same time.

 

It is wrong to kill a man, but a judge can sentence someone to death because they have that authority.

 

A judge that sentences someone to torture is a cruel judge.

 

It is an opinion that he's cruel, because in order for it not to be, you have to say that you have the authority to say that rejecting God is not worthy of punishment,

 

I have that authority and so do you.

 

and if it was, it is for you to decide what level of punishment is earned.

 

That's like saying you can't say that a murder is wrong because you're not the murderer.

 

I can take the deliberately designed pain and torture and say it isn't cruel because I understand what cruel is. Earlier in this thread you yourself said that torture can be good in some cases, and now you attempt to define cruelty as the infliction of pain and suffering regardless of the circumstance or the parties involved. That would be bending the facts to fit your opinion.

 

No, that would be knowing what words mean. In some cases, torture may be a good thing, such as if you're torturing someone to get information that you know for a fact he has and it could save thousands of lives. Is it still cruel? Of course it is. I never said it wasn't. However, unlike God, they're not doing it solely for the purpose of pain and suffering. Torture for no purpose at all, such as a hell where a person can't ever escape or learn anything from it, just torture for torture's sake, can only be the act of a cruel monster. Let's look at the facts. Fact: God sentences people to hell for the crime of using their own logic and reason that HE gave them to not believe in him while people like Hitler go to heaven. Fact: God had the power to create any reality he wanted and chose to create one where creatures suffer and he doesn't do anything to fix it or to stop it. Fact: He knows from the beginning of time which people won't believe in him, which people are destined for eternal torment, and he creates them anyway. The facts clearly show that God is cruel. If you come up with anything other than that, you're bending the facts to fit your opinion of what you want him to be.

[Guest Sylvan Grenier]

I'm contemplating posting my Hermeneutics mid-term project inthe Get Your Learn On! folder. Would anyone be interested in that?

So. You think you're infallible?

 

Word life! This is basic hermaneutics.

(this, ba-ba-basic hermaneutics)

Word life. (*record scratch*)

I'm infallible but I'm forcin' you to doubt me

[Nighthawk 0]

I didn't think it was possible, but there was a wrestling reference I didn't hate.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

I'm contemplating posting my Hermeneutics mid-term project inthe Get Your Learn On! folder. Would anyone be interested in that?

I'd be very interested.

[Nighthawk 0]

I'm responding to this first because it's the quickest and my time is limited, lest someone think I'm skipping something. I'll get to it all.

 

It's a slow process, it lasts for eternity.

 

Destruction in it's essence implies a state of totality being achieved. Fast and slow almost cease to have meaning in the realm of eternity. Even if it took a million billion zillion eons to destroy body and soul, once they're destroyed, they're destroyed. And you'd be no closer to the end of eternity than you were the first day.

 

That would only be the case if he wanted to be.  And what's the difference between that and the condition of absence from God being suffering in fire?  Does that make it any better?  No.  It's still eternal torment and God is responsible for it.

 

Not really. God created the universe but he didn't create himself. He simply exists, he has a nature, that being, unable to tolerate sin. He's, metaphorically speaking, polarized with it. If happiness is an extension of the presence of God, he cannot create a place where happiness exists, and then leave it. If you are attached to your sin and refuse to let go of it, God must, by his nature, put you away from him. And, as I just pointed out, he can't let you be happy without him, even if he wanted to, because happiness is a direct result of him.

 

The rich man in hell looked and saw Lazarus and Abraham in heaven, with an uncrossable gulf between them.  There's no indication that Lazarus is in hell.  If he would be in hell, the parable makes even less sense. 

 

I used Lazarus being to there to say it wasn't hell. As I said, the word was hades, which, biblically and otherwise, is a place of the dead where everyone goes good or bad. They wait there for the final judgement where they will be admitted to heaven or condemned to hell. This final judgement is sometimes called the Great White Throne judgement and will occur after the end of the world. Remember that, because I'll refer to it when I discuss babies again. Another reason this is not Hell, is because if Abraham and Lazarus were in Heaven, Heaven is in the presence of God, Hell is, by definition, not. If the rich man is able to converse with Abraham, and Abraham is with God, he is by proxy in the presence of God.

 

Why would the greedy rich man care about doing right if nothing will happen to him?  He's greedy.  Why would he give a shit if it's too late?  He prays to Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brethren, not to tell them to do right because time will run out, but to tell them to do right lest they come to the "place of torment".  The parable is pointless if men who are rich and greedy don't get sent to a place of torment.

 

I never said you get smiles and sunshine when you die if you've lived an evil life. That doesn't affect whether or not the parable has a point. He was telling this story to Jews, they knew very well about eternal judgement.

 

Except, he is doing something, he's leaving them alone.  If your one year old says that he hates you and hopes you die, are you not doing anything wrong to him by throwing him outside and letting him starve?

 

Remember, it's not as if God likes condemning people. He's diametrically opposed to sin. He wants you to be forgiven so you can be reunited with him, but if you love your sin too much, he can't just tolerate it. To use your analogy, and I realize this is a bit simplistic, but I think you'll get the gist of it, suppose you live in one of those John Travolta plastic bubbles, and your son comes in smoking a cigarette. You love him, and you want to be with him, but you can't just tolerate the smoke. Another parable applies here, the Prodigal Son.

[Nighthawk 0]

People here like you more than me so your argument must be better.

 

It is. Your argument is a much easier one to make because we're culturally biased. Now you're starting to get more into the philosophy, which is good.

 

You're the one that doesn't understand it.  For God, he might be outside of time and there might not be a before, but for you there is.  ...  If that script says you're going to eat frosted flakes or dog shit for breakfast, that's what you're going to eat it and you can't choose not to.

 

Well, can you argue this: I make a choice to eat frosted flakes, so God knows before that I will. I had free will to choose something else, and if I had, God would have known that instead. Your concept of free will and foreknowledge is working backwards. If I had *chosen* to eat something else, God would have known that instead. I still made the choice. In fact, you could say that because I have the ability to make a choice, God does not ultimately have free will. He can only foreknow what choice I will make.

Now, on the other hand, this is a very loose argument to begin with. The idea that nothing exists besides what is tangible is materialism, and that's a debate in itself, with or without God.

 

Correct, I would be emotionally incapable of doing it.  I couldn't be able to do it.  So I wouldn't say "Murdering my grandmother is possible or not very difficult".  It actually isn't possible for me to do it and it would be difficult.  If you're limited by your nature, then for you, not everything is possible.

 

Ah ha, so you are emotionally incapable, yet you are physically capable. So it is possible for something to be both within and without the realm of capability for you. Yes, one supercedes the other, so we can say with certainty "He will not murder his grandmother." even though in another sense it would be possible. Now project this onto God. When I say God can't do something, I'm not talking about a limit of his power, I'm talking about a limit of his nature. So he would still, technically, be omnipotent. I'll say some more when I get to the 2 + 2 issue.

 

By the way, if you can understand how it can be out of our nature to do something, why can't you understand how it could be not in our nature to believe in God.  I can't make a choice in that anymore than I could killing my grandmother.

 

I can understand it. It's an interesting notion. I was reading some Calvin the other day and considering the very thing. I have more thought left to do.

 

If he takes five and makes it four, then it's no longer five.  It's four just being called five.  I could do the same thing.  And the NT writers took it literally when they described him as omnipotent.

 

Unless he changes your mind about that. Or every time two twos are added, he creates another among them. It's just an example to say that God can't make what is not, so. God can't make himself not God, as another example. Math is a concept, saying he can't change it is like saying he can't make good into evil. That's not really a limit on power, because these concepts are part of what defines power, and God himself for that matter.

 

It says "The one who holds sway over all things."  "2 + 2 = 5" is a thing, a concept.  So is a squared circle.  Does God over sway over these things?

 

Well, is a concept really a thing? A squared circle is an idea, but it doesn't exist. It can't. We can contemplate things which are not, self contradictory ideas, which by definition cannot exist. These do not fall under God's power because if they did exist, everything we know would fall apart, theoretically, as they define what we know.

 

Why the hell wouldn't he want to make us believe?  Belief is different from acceptence.  It's possible that if he showed up, I still wouldn't accept him.  If I show you proof that I exist, would you become a robot?  Were the Egyptians turned into robots when God proved to them that he existed in the bible?

 

You would be a robot if he induced acceptance. I think that in this day and age, since we have become so despiritualized, incontrovertable evidence of God's existance would probably induce belief, because we no longer have any options. They didn't have atheism in the Bible. The issue was which god somebody followed. As time went on, we finally developed a way to explain the nonexistance of God (evolution). Now that that has become our natural belief system, God's appearance would in itself overthrow our natural line of thought. It wouldn't be an equal playing field.

 

None of the people in the bible had to use faith. They had miracles and disasters.  And rods turning into snakes. And guys running around healing everyone and rising from the dead.  Explain to me how they were robots. 

 

I think I just did. Well, not that they were robots, but why it's not the same thing. Also, Jesus said (speaking to Thomas) "Because you have seen me, you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I think that applies here.

 

Why would you want to praise someone who would kill and torture your kids?  I'm sure you wouldn't be groveling all over his feet in heaven if your atheist kids were being burned in hell at the same time.  Well I'm not sure but I hope you wouldn't.  How are you able to make the decision that he's justified in judging everything?  Just because he's powerful or because he created you?

 

Well, it is true that if God created everything, he does have authority to do whatever he wants with it, including people. If God is infinitely holy, and infinitely worthy of devotion, then rejection is worthy of being punished infinitely. It is challenging to think of how you'll react in heaven if you have children in hell, and there are several people in the Bible in that situation. I would think that when we are in Heaven, we, fully realizing the nature of God, will see things as he sees them, and understand what we can't now.

 

The bible defines it as things we can't do, but with God there's no things that he can't do.

 

True. This discussion has actually clarified my ideas on the issue.

 

Then if for some inexplicable reason you believe in what that book says, you have to ask yourself why would God create the universe with maturity.  There's no way to know.  So let's guess.  Maybe the reason God purposely made the universe look like it was 15 billion years old when it really isn't, as well as made it look like there wasn't a flood when there really was, as well as made it look like we evolved when we didn't was because he wanted to create atheists.  He wanted people to use the minds that he gave him and not just be zombies believing whatever he said, so the atheists are the saved ones and the christians are the ones really going to hell.  There's no evidence of that, but since you can't prove it wrong, you have to admit that it's equally just as likely to be possible.  So even if God exists, the odds of you going to hell and me going to hell are the same.  Isn't making shit up fun?

 

Well, I can think of a reason he would create the universe in maturity. If he didn't, it would have to to be here for billions of years. If his objective with creation was man, why waste billions of years waiting around for him to evolve? Or maybe God also made aliens. Maybe there are other populated planets in the universe with their own plans of salvation, alien races which we will meet in heaven. Yes, making shit up is fun.

Or, suppose you're God. You're lonely because you just exist alone with no equal. You make some angels, but they know you made them and are infinitely powerful, so they're no help, some of them even try to overthrow you. So you make man. But they won't be like the angels, they can choose to love you, you can have real fellowship with them. But if you just shove your Godliness in their face, that's hardly any better. So you make it to where it's not so easy to come to you. You make it a challenge. Then you know the ones who end up with you really want to be with you. That's a pretty good idea.

 

I think you do like Depeche Mode.

 

The moon can't be a source of light because it doesn't produce light.  If I throw a rock and it bounces off of a wall and hits you in the head, is the wall a source of the rock?  No, I am, the rock just bounced off.

 

The song Buffalo Gal proves you wrong. If we have the light of the moon, which we do, the moon becomes a de facto source of light. This is like saying a lightbulb isn't a source of light, the fillament is. But wait, the fillament isn't either, it's the heat running through it. But no, all that is is atoms moving at a high rate of speed. If you go outside and night and can see you hand in front of your face, look around and see no light save the moon, the moon is a light. The end.

 

Why isn't anyone backing you up.  Maybe because no cares or no one is reading.

 

I agree. You were the one who brought up your pals Jingus Brian and Rudo.

 

Sorta like a kid going up to a teacher and saying he shouldn't get a F on a test because those aren't the answers he wrote, a monster came when he turned his back and changed them all.  "OMG PROFESSOR CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T?  IF YOU CANT DEN U CANT SAY IM WRONG ON THIS TEST! AHAHA"

 

Nah. A lot of people think they can prove the Bible wrong. Philosophically, at least. In your example the kid would then have to produce the correct answers. The Bible is not fantasy (not entirely, regardless of your perspective), much in it is verified. I suppose this will come up later.

 

Yeah, why not?  He should've told them that their word was wrong, and that from then on they should call it sky.

 

It does mean expanse. Or heaven.

 

Well you were, just look at the title of the thread.  But okay, I'll let it slide and just pretend you said the bible is an equally valid viewpoint from the beginning.  You can't prove the Illad false.  Or Lord of the Rings, or The Stand, or Batman.  Are you amazed by that?  Does that mean it's an equally valid viewpoint to say that Batman exists?  I don't think we're the smart ones and they're the dumb ones.  Fear of death can make smart people believe in stupid things.

 

I have to come out strong. There's more evidence for the Bible than for those other things, pretending there isn't doesn't help your argument. I do appreciate your last sentence, then.

 

Sure, they believed a God who would murder thousands of people and send plagues down on him if they didn't believe was love, but the sun going around the Earth was just way too far fetched.  If I believed in a God and he told me that the final scene of Men and Black was true, I would believe it.  Why wouldn't they believe it if he said it?  They believe he existed, didn't they?  If Moses came down and said "Guess what, guys?  God said the sun revolves around the Earth and the sky isn't solid!" and they disbelieved, Moses would do just what he did, ask whoever was on his side to come over to him, then they would kill everyone that didn't beleive.  Nothing would change.

 

That's actually a good point (part of it, anyway... look again at what people were murdered and plauged for in the Old Testament). The fact that it doesn't say outright that the sky is solid or the sun revolved around the Earth either says that it wasn't important either way.

 

Besides that, you dodged the question.  Your main argument is that because we can't prove the bible wrong it's an equally valid viewpoint.  You just said it again a little while ago.  BUT you can't prove that little mud people don't live in the center of the earth and aren't controlling your thoughts either.  Do you think that's an equally valid viewpoint?

 

What is it with you and little mud people? There's more to the Bible than inability to be proven wrong. See below.

 

Places can be verified...not any of the major events or any of the main characters.  Places can be verified with The Stand and Gone with the Wind too.  So what?  There's absolutely no evidence in support of the bible.  Same as any other religious text.

 

Ok, this is where you hurt your credibility. Nobody informed would ever say there's absolutely no evidence in support of the Bible. It's absurd. We have much more evidence more the Bible than for a lot of other ancient writings scholars have no trouble accepting. There's not a lot of reason to doubt the general slant of the gospels anyway, but Jesus is confirmed by Jospehus and Tacitus. Jewish writings called him a sorcerer who led Israel astray, confirming that he had powers, although denying their source. We can date Christian writings to within a generation of Jesus' death, something nearly unheard of in ancient biography.

And what about the times when the Bible has been in disagreement with generally held opinion only to be proven right, such as with Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon. Speaking of which, Nebuchadnezzar was a main character in the Bible, is there no evidence of him either? The Babylonian captivity, the Medo-Persian takeover and eventual return to Israel was the most important thing happening in half of the old testament. This is history, not fantasy. Many things in the book of Acts are paralleled in secular records of the period. Josephus talks about John the Baptist... the list goes on and on. I mean, damn, man.

 

It doesn't say "When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z".  It says "X begat Z when X was Y years old".  So it doesn't matter if X is the father, or great great grandfather or whatever, X was still Y yeards old when Z was born.  It's irrelevant what X is.  All that matters is how old he was when Z came along.  If you knew the genealogy can't cover billions of years, why are we even arguing about it?

 

In the King James it says that. The correct vision of the text is as I described. The age would be X's age when their first child (or actually, first son) was born, thus the birth of the family line which resulted in Z. So, that age would be their age when they spawned that line. We're arguing because you said we have records that go back further than 6000 years. I don't know offhand what they would be, but assuming that's the case, this explains it.

 

Anyone who writes a poem that says "My will is as immovable as the Earth", is a huge dumbass.  Plus all my examples doesn't come from the poetic books.  Unless Joshua is a book of poetry.

 

Go talk to John Milton. In Joshua, are you refering to the sun standing still? Because that's clearly accurate from Earth's perspective. That falls under my initial sunrise rebuttal.

 

If catholics aren't christians, then no one is a christian.  That believe that the bible is the word of God, they believe that Christ is the son of God, came and died for their sins, they're christians.

 

Yes, they believe that Christ is the son of God and died for their sins. The same Christ that appears to them in cookie form, and whose mother is a co-redemptress (look it up in the catechism if you don't believe me), and requires them to do a bunch of crap he didn't bother to write down when he was inspiring the Bible. That's not the Jesus of the Bible. That's a Jesus they made up.

 

Jesus christ, how long is this post? 

The fact that he told them not to kill and then gave them a specific command to kill is a contradiction.  Does he want people to kill or doesn't he?  Why does he let his righteous people go around killing when he's not commanding them to?  Like I said, if he didn't approve of them he would've done something like kill their sons and daughters or send plagues on them.

 

It is rather long, I've noticed.

He wants them to kill in certain situations. He said "I want this person to be killed, kill them." It's no different (morally or theologically) than an executioner, or a soldier, which was actually what was happening a lot of the time. Joshue was fighting a conquest of the land of Canaan, which God had commanded the Israelites to conquer and take for their own. There are instances in the Old Testament, by the way, of God allowing his people to sin to a point without overtly punishing them. It's the same as parent child relationships. If you tell a kid not to play in the rain because he'll catch a cold, and he does it anyway, sometimes you just let him catch the cold. If he's running into the street, however, you stop him.

 

See?  Just by saying you worshipping the Christian devil, it shows that Christianity had a big influence on your life.  I'm not saying you didn't approach it from an intellectual standpoint, I'm saying that you had a soft spot for it because you grew up with it.  I mean, out of 1000 different religions, you chose the one that had the biggest impact on you.  Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you?  Have you studied 1000 different religions?  Why should you be blamed if one of those unknown tribal religions was the right one and you chose incorrectly?

 

I know. But I was like 15 by then, and by that time I was studying all religions. You said again that I grew up with it, but if anything, I grew up hating it, and again, I was 15. I have studied all the major religions by the way. For a religion to be true, it should be known. If God created man, he created him for a reason, a reason not accomplished by hiding from him. The fact that Christianity is so pervasive shows that there's something to it. There's something to Islam and Hinduism and the rest too. Christianity makes more sense than those, however.

[Nighthawk 0]

Hmm.. My bible says "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."  Sounds to me like they are talking about water baptism. 

 

Why, because it uses the word water? Baptism isn't mentioned. But no, that is the context. The Greek 'and' here (kai) is used in an exegetic sense, thus making it "Born of water, even the Spirit". Water, or Living Water is used metaphorically to speak of the Spirit several times, lending the symbolic baptism it's symbolism. A confusing translation in this instance perhaps, but we can discern this because salvation without baptism is seen in Acts 10:46. Peter says "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." He was speaking of Gentiles, by the way, and he subsequently allowed them to be baptized. But you can see that they have already received the Holy Spirit, and are therefore already saved. In fact, this is Peter's criterion for baptizing them.

 

You left out the part about belief.  The bible flat out says belief and baptism are both required, no exceptions for anyone.  Jesus did a lot of things that he didn't need to do, such as sacrificing himself to save us from himself.  He obviously just liked doing pointless things.

 

You keep saying that, it's not getting any truer.

 

It's not.  What's a stretch is thinking that he'll go see his son in heaven when it doesn't say anything about heaven or David being dead.  The line is David telling his servants why he's not fasting.  Because it won't bring him back.  His son is dead, he'll go see him, but nothing he does will make him return.  Makes perfect sense.

 

How do you maintain this with David's reaction to his son Absalom's death? With the baby, he stops grieving when he dies, with Absalom, he starts grieving when he dies. What's the difference?

 

He doesn't say "I shall go to him when I die" so there's no reason to assume he means that other than your wanting it to mean that.

 

Except the other biblical indications that babies go to heaven. Now, in Revelation it says that books are opened and the damned are judged according to their deeds. Now if we look at Jeremiah 19:4, it says "Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents". God is speaking of infant sacrifice here. He has proclaimed the sacrificed infants innocent, and condemned the spilling of their blood. Since God has proclaimed them innocent, they will be judged as innocent.

 

In Job 3, Job says "Why did I not die at birth, Come forth from the womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, And why the breasts, that I should suck?

For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest," Job here wishes to have been stillborn, because he would have been at rest. What is he refering to? Hell? If there's one thing hell doesn't have, it's rest.

 

In the book of Jonah, God commands Jonah to preach to the Assyrian city of Nineveh. Jonah is unwilling because he despises Gentiles in general and Ninevites specifically. Anyway, after the fish part, God and Jonah are arguing, and God says in 4:11 ""Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" Who is God refering to here? Nineveh's population was significantly larger than 120,000. He's talking about the children, who aren't accountable for his judgement because they don't even know right and left, and the animals as well confirms this, as animals are under no burden of judgement. God refuses to obliterate them even though that's what Jonah wanted.

 

There's more. But take these things alone, the Bible does seem to indicate infant salvation.

 

But I didn't ask you to prove that Jerusalem isn't on the same level as hobbits.  I asked you to prove that God isn't on the same level. 

 

BTW, tomorrow my penis will grow 4000 miles long and impregnate Elisha Cuthbert, and I live in the United States.  That's a real country, so what I'm saying has to be true. 

 

I talked about the historical veracity of the Bible, and that's his book. There you go.

[Guest Nanks]

The point about the moon being a light sticks with me. You can't scientificall justify calling it a light. The sun and other stars are sources of light, the moon is a satellite which reflects the sun's light. Using the word "moonlight" or "moonlit" is not a proof, I refer you back to your own point about parkways and driveways. Some words are contradictory.

[Guest SP-1]

What passage about the moon are you guys attempting to read far more into than needs to be?

[Guest Nanks]

I'm not even sure, I just saw that and felt I had to respond.

 

My answer to "witnessing evolution" (which was subsequently stolen by chaosrage) hasn't been addressed either.

 

My friend owns a labradoodledor

[Guest SP-1]

I'm not even sure, I just saw that and felt I had to respond.

 

My answer to "witnessing evolution" (which was subsequently stolen by chaosrage) hasn't been addressed either.

 

My friend owns a labradoodledor

At best that's micro-evolution. Not the huge advances in species change that Darwin theorized about. At the end of the day, it's still a dog. It hasn't grown a fifth leg or gained some new physical ability that other dogs didn't have before.

 

Someone name the passage. Chances are the entire discussion is retarded.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I seriously think the only thing that has prevented "christian scientists" from attacking quantum mechanics is that almost none of them understand it. On the other hand, they purport to understand evolution (despite being totally oblivious to the fact that evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin) and think that the "you can prove this, so my alternative must be true" approach has some sort of merit.

 

Oh, and I can square a circle. That's not at all difficult.

[Guest SP-1]

I seriously think the only thing that has prevented "christian scientists" from attacking quantum mechanics is that almost none of them understand it. On the other hand, they purport to understand evolution (despite being totally oblivious to the fact that evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin) and think that the "you can prove this, so my alternative must be true" approach has some sort of merit.

 

Oh, and I can square a circle. That's not at all difficult.

Were you planning to contribute anything beneath that thinly disguised attack?

[Guest SP-1]

I seriously think the only thing that has prevented "christian scientists" from attacking quantum mechanics is that almost none of them understand it. On the other hand, they purport to understand evolution (despite being totally oblivious to the fact that evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin) and think that the "you can prove this, so my alternative must be true" approach has some sort of merit.

 

Oh, and I can square a circle. That's not at all difficult.

Were you planning to contribute anything beneath that thinly disguised attack?

[MrRant 0]

It hurt so bad SP quoted it twice.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I seriously think the only thing that has prevented "christian scientists" from attacking quantum mechanics is that almost none of them understand it. On the other hand, they purport to understand evolution (despite being totally oblivious to the fact that evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin) and think that the "you can prove this, so my alternative must be true" approach has some sort of merit.

 

Oh, and I can square a circle. That's not at all difficult.

Were you planning to contribute anything beneath that thinly disguised attack?

What exactly should be contributed to arguments against a scientific theory by people who are 1. unqualified to make scientific judgements and 2. are oblivious to modern advances? Once again, all the bible thumpers can say is DARWIN DARWIN DARWIN as the work of modern evolutionary biologists such as Mayr and Gould flies right over their heads.

[Nighthawk 0]

I saw two different kinds of dogs cross breeding.

 

I don't think you did, I think that's just something you theoretically could have seen. Besides, that's not evolution, that's evidence for the flood.

 

Yep, even if they were kids, that's no excuse.  And that's not ignorant of anything except maybe the evilness of God.  God can't be evil, you say?  Right, that's why as I've shown countless times, he can't exist.

 

Seriously, read that no excuse passage again, you've abused that more than a blind foster child. This is a ridiculous argument you're using, by the way. God cant exist because he can't be evil, but you're the one who gets to decide what evil is? So you decide whether God exists purely on your own whim? Evil is what God is not, by definition. If God tortures babies (he doesn't) then it's not evil to torture babies because God is the only standard for what's evil. Also, I've been arguing against your perception of cruel because it bucks against God's justice, but it's true, God's wrath is something you don't even want to see. It's not "evil", but God annihilating someone and tormenting them for eternity doesn't prove he doesn't exist. If you don't like that and think it means he doesn't exist, that's ok. That's why he gave you free will. If you think that's evil however, you're wrong. Think of how stupid saying that is. He's GOD. He created everything and has power over eveything and everyone. But you think he's mean, so of course you've learned better in your 20 or whatever years. Nobody deserves eternal torment? Why the hell not?

 

You didn't answer the question.  I wouldn't be able to torture someone for eternity.  How is it possible that I'm nicer and more forgiving than God?  Let me help you out.  The answer is real simple.  It's not possible.  He doesn't exist.

 

Why stop there? How about you deliver your kids to that child killing molester. Wouldn't that be even nicer? I don't know where you got this sappy idea of God, but he will fuck somebody up if he wants to. God's wrath is a terrible, cruel and fightening thing. Anything besides that wrath is infinitely more forgiving than you could dream of being.

 

Then.... I don't have anything to worry about.  I won't reject it if it's offered to me, no one would.  Of course I still won't believe, but only a complete idiot would think not believing is the same as rejecting something.

 

Not believing is the same as rejecting. I debate atheists for fun all the time, and not once has anyone presented a sillier argument. Honestly.

 

Problem with that is God isn't offering it to anyone who would take it, he's ONLY offering it to people who believe in him.  A TRUE gift would mean everyone is saved, no purchase necessary. 

 

So it's not a TRUE gift then. It's only a gift to people who know what words mean.

 

We do and here's an example.  An infant cannot act in a way which would be deserving of torture.  The idea itself that it could be is cruel.  The thought that someone would worship something that thinks it could be deserving is seriously revolting and scary at the same time. 

 

I told you a bunch of times he doesn't torture infants. You can't just pretend he does because it helps your argument. This is how you continually violate your own admonitions. Some people are revolted and scared that we would eat an animal. That doesn't make it so.

 

A judge that sentences someone to torture is a cruel judge.

 

Unless they deserve it.

 

I have that authority and so do you. 

 

No you don't. Say that fellow being tortured so we can save 1000s of lives says "This is wrong, you CAN'T torture me because I have the authority to decide whether I deserve it or not. You are cruel, therefore you don't exist. I'll be going now."

 

and if it was, it is for you to decide what level of punishment is earned.

 

That's like saying you can't say that a murder is wrong because you're not the murderer.

 

I don't follow. It sounds like you think I said the opposite of what I said.

 

No, that would be knowing what words mean.  In some cases, torture may be a good thing, such as if you're torturing someone to get information that you know for a fact he has and it could save thousands of lives.  Is it still cruel?  Of course it is.  I never said it wasn't.  However, unlike God, they're not doing it solely for the purpose of pain and suffering.  Torture for no purpose at all, such as a hell where a person can't ever escape or learn anything from it, just torture for torture's sake, can only be the act of a cruel monster.

 

Let's point out first there's not even hardline reasons to believe this is the case. Now, let me scale my analogy down a bit. If you shoplift and they give you community service, is that cruel? No. Your disagreement with God's standard of punishment is irrelevant. Your point really isn't, because it's only authority is your own opinion. You're basically a 13 year old slitting your wrists because your boyfriend broke up with you. Sure, you believe your life is over, you know with conviction that it's not worth living anymore. What affect does that have on reality? Absolutely none.

Let me say also, Jesus died and paid the penalty for all sins ever, in the most torturous experience imaginable, and nobody deserved it less. Now, it doesn't matter if you think that's true or understand it, because one doctrine is predicated on another, and you if one is true, they both are. Assume it's true. So Christ, who had done nothing wrong, was tormented and killed for you, who are deserve nothing. You take this and essetially spit in his face and say you're too good for him, even refuse to acknowledge that he did it. This isn't your slugging your dad cause he took your car keys, this is the God of the universe. You don't even understand the implications of this. I'll quote a verse:"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" And again, "The Lord will judge his people" It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

 

Let's look at the facts.  Fact: God sentences people to hell for the crime of using their own logic and reason that HE gave them to not believe in him while people like Hitler go to heaven.  Fact:  God had the power to create any reality he wanted and chose to create one where creatures suffer and he doesn't do anything to fix it or to stop it.  Fact: He knows from the beginning of time which people won't believe in him, which people are destined for eternal torment, and he creates them anyway.  The facts clearly show that God is cruel.  If you come up with anything other than that, you're bending the facts to fit your opinion of what you want him to be.

 

"I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;" - Proverbs 1:26