tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4468266557970939656..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Amateur Hour at TriablogueUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40814386974345462972010-08-04T12:51:09.796-04:002010-08-04T12:51:09.796-04:00Cole,
When it comes to God and salvation, as an a...Cole,<br /><br />When it comes to God and salvation, as an atheist, it’s all out war on both God and the Bible.<br /><br />I honor the saying of the British Military between God and myself: <b> No quarters offered. No Quarters given.</b>Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34806265527155745292010-08-04T06:37:33.810-04:002010-08-04T06:37:33.810-04:00From Cole's blog:
God is never obligated to s...From Cole's blog:<br /><br /><i>God is never obligated to save sinners. Grace is unmerited favor and God is therefore never obligated to show mercy to those who have rejected Him. So, if God reveals Christ to just one person and saves just that one person then He does nothing wrong by doing so. He's under no compulsion or obligation to be gracious. I don't know why God doesn't reveal Christ to everybody and save everybody. But I know He does nothing wrong by not doing so. The question isn't "Why does God save some and not others?" The question is "Why does God save anybody at all?" </i><br /><br />Yeah, your God's a real sweetheart, Cole. There's nothing about him, as you Christians generally present him, that would make me <i>want</i> to know him.<br /><br />Right, I know - we're all simply too deeply mired in sin to understand. I have a better suggestion; God is a projection of your personality - and it ain't pretty.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81241656575319282602010-08-03T22:53:36.775-04:002010-08-03T22:53:36.775-04:00Cole said,
"...If nonexistence were in view ...Cole said,<br /><br />"...If nonexistence were in view then it would be strange that they were awakened from the dust only to be then annihilated again."<br /><br />How about it makes the MOST sense if, when we die, that's it.<br /><br />Finis.<br /><br />No more.<br /><br />The religious notion that we're going to suffer some "judgement" after we die is utter nonsense. And I don't say this because I have some crazy, immoral habits that I'm afraid some Peeping Tom deity might have seen. It just simply makes NO SENSE.<br /><br />(Here come the St. Paul quotes to "prove" that what the bible says is true...)<br /><br />Christians!<br /><br />Find some evidence from outside the cathedral that supports life beyond the grave! Otherwise:<br /><br />I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35478876793571353272010-08-03T18:45:27.905-04:002010-08-03T18:45:27.905-04:00Paul D.,
The Old Testament does mention hell:
An...Paul D.,<br /><br />The Old Testament does mention hell:<br /><br />And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.<br /><br />Daniel 12:2<br /><br />In the context here there is a division into joy or misery after death and resurrection. As the life after death is everlasting so the contempt is everlasting.<br /><br />The word used to describe the plight of the lost implies an ongoing existence in which this "abhorrence" continues to fall on them. If nonexistence were in view then it would be strange that they were awakened from the dust only to be then annihilated again.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342042981695750691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82196790697329257852010-08-02T15:40:29.059-04:002010-08-02T15:40:29.059-04:00Hi Paul D.,
The Bible of the early church was the...Hi Paul D.,<br /><br />The Bible of the early church was the Septuagint (LXX) and not the Hebrew Bible (or what Christians call the Old Testament). All quotes, be they by Jesus (in the Gospels) or from the Epistles are from the LXX. As such, the general translation for Sheol, the pit and the underworld in Hebrew is translated in the LXX by the Hellenistic term Hades / Hell (The King James Version is a good example of this fact). <br /><br />Facts prove that no one talked about Hell more in the New Testament than did Jesus, especially in reference to those who fail to do the right works (Contra Paul’s salvation via faith alone).<br /><br />There are two comforting issues Christians want to hear about Heaven: <br /><br /> A. Babies and Children who die go immediately into Heaven. <br /><br /> B. Families are reunited with their loved ones after death. <br /> <br /><b>Sadly for all Bible believing Christians, neither is directly (nor indirectly) supported by any Biblical texts, but are only supported with the humanistic philosophy we call <i>theology</i>.</b>Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54588439727490767802010-08-02T11:24:43.524-04:002010-08-02T11:24:43.524-04:00As far as I can tell, the strange doctrine of the ...As far as I can tell, the strange doctrine of the heaven and hell dichotomy is a later innovation not found in the beliefs of the early church or the Bible itself. Hell in particular seems to be a place made-up by organized religion as a tool of fear and had to rely on metaphors from Greek mythology since the Old Testament didn't mention the place. As such, arguing about which place dead babies go to seems absurd.Paul D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13483419817200339955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84651543460433756112010-08-01T18:21:10.825-04:002010-08-01T18:21:10.825-04:00Right, and that's my point. You always have to...Right, and that's my point. You always have to be careful with Josephus, and as far as the rabbis of the Talmud are concerned - they saw themselves as the heirs to the Pharisees, so , obviously, that's where their sympathies lay.<br /><br />I don't think we have any way of knowing for certain what the Sadducees really believed - insofar as they had a unified set of beliefs to begin with.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19694008106802560572010-08-01T15:51:00.257-04:002010-08-01T15:51:00.257-04:00Hi Cipher and thanks for responding.
As has been ...Hi Cipher and thanks for responding.<br /><br />As has been noted by a number of scholars, the Sadducees (unlike the Pharisees and the Essences) left us no written texts. What little we do have in writing about them comes from the New Testament’s <i>Acts of the Apostles</i> 23: 8 (For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.), the Talmud and mainly Josephus.<br /><br />Some parallels have been drawn between the Sadducees and the current Jewish sect known as the Karaites in that the oral Torah (Talmud) is rejected. As such, the Sadducees seem to have ignored the growing popular extra-canonical religious doctrines based on texts we now label the “Old Testament Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphia” whose dogmas and new developing religious after life ideas did much to influence Jesus, the New Testament and its child: Christianity.<br /><br />The fact that Josephus tells us in <i>THE JEWISH WAR </i>11:164f that “<i>The Sadducees …do away with Fate altogether, and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight of evil. They maintain that man has the free choice of good or evil… <b>As for the persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them.</b></i>” has caused some to label them as practical atheists (Ant. XIII: 173).Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56544593823194468162010-08-01T06:28:34.662-04:002010-08-01T06:28:34.662-04:00I agree with Harry, but I wanted to address a mino...I agree with Harry, but I wanted to address a minor point -<br /><br /><i>Sadducees (who based their facts on the Hebrew Bible and did not believe in spirits and the afterlife)</i><br /><br />This gets said a lot, but I've never been convinced of it. No Sadducee writing has survived (that we know of); all we know of them comes from the NT, Josephus and rabbinic texts. They seem originally to have been a political party, not a religious sect, and, insofar as they did have any agreed-upon, group-specific beliefs concerning the afterlife, they seem to have been against the idea of physical resurrection (in opposition to the Pharisees). I don't know that they had no believe in the afterlife at all. As they existed for perhaps as long as several centuries, and as they were exposed to numerous religions that did espouse such a belief, I'd be surprised if they didn't assimilate it in some form.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5683231337305111512010-07-31T21:56:25.182-04:002010-07-31T21:56:25.182-04:00Part 2
In the New Testament
In the New Testament,...<b>Part 2<br />In the New Testament</b><br /><br />In the New Testament, there is plainly no direct nor indirect references to either babies or children going to Heaven. The best that can be gleamed is what Hector quoted from the conservative evangelical reference above by Talbot. <br /><br />However, the problem with Mark 10:14 is that Jesus is using children as only in a symbolic way in that one must totally and mentally shallow what Jesus is teaching about The Kingdom of Heaven without any questions: “Hook, line and sinker”. <br /><br />The above example is drawn from the fact that Jesus has continually run into textual problems from the First Testament posed by the scribes, Sadducees (who based their facts on the Hebrew Bible and did not believe in spirits and the afterlife) and Pharisees (Who did believe in spirits and the afterlife), and knew that Jesus was more wrong than right on these matters and told him so.<br /><br />So how did Jesus back himself up on this? He created his own proof text: <i>Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: <b>if it were not so, I would have told you.</b></i> (John 14: 1)<br /><br />Another problem of Talbot using Mark 10:14 is the fact that Jesus avoided the gentiles and warn his apostles to do the same: (<i>These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:</i> Matt. 10: 5). <br /><br />Thus, we can be assured that this illustration involved an earthly kingdom with ONLY Jewish children lived and is especially re-enforced textually when we consider Jesus’ sarcastic and derogatory remake to the Canaanite / Gentile woman in Matt. 15:26 by calling her dying sick daughter a dog!<br /><br />Conclusion: The noted Jewish scholar Alan Segal once remarked that he did not know when nor how the righteous dead moved from the underworld (Sheol) to the a place (Heaven) in the sky. <br /><br />Facts prove The Kingdom of Heaven (τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν) is to be located here on earth in a future state as taught by Jesus in the so-called “Lord’s Prayer”: <i>Thy Kingdom come (ἐλθέτω). (then) Thy will be done (ενηθήτω), on earth just as it is in Heaven</i> (Carried out by the angels and even Satan at times).<br /><br />The final picture of this future Kingdom of Heaven is again to be located here on earth and inhabited only by adults who know enough about life (and its sins) to enjoy its wealth and riches (Revelation 21 - 22).<br /><br />Finally, I totally agree with the excellent articles by Ken Pulliam listed at his blog (as noted in his above comment). Those who feel God’s love will allow babies and children to pass, after their deaths, straight to some sky Heaven will do well to read Ken’s blog.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77082760609161484162010-07-31T21:48:30.538-04:002010-07-31T21:48:30.538-04:00Part 1
In the Hebrew Bible (and LXX)
The problem ...<b>Part 1<br />In the Hebrew Bible (and LXX)</b><br /><br />The problem with the references by P.Coyle in the Hebrew Bible regarding children’s rights in Israel is that we are comparing apples and oranges or projecting this present temporal life on to an eternal place of dread called Sheol, the grave, the pit (translated as Hell in the LXX). <br /><br />Sheol is an eternal state of separation from God (<i>For in death there is no memory of you. In Sheol, who shall give you thanks. </i>Psalm 6:5) where one exists below the earth in the shadows and shades. An eternal place where all go, both good and bad (<i>The wicked shall be turned back to Sheol, even all the nations that forget God. </i>Psalm 9:17).<br /><br />In Israel, babies and children were property of their fathers often used as human sacrifice to the Hebrew god EL /Yahweh; a personal property which was never considered in the afterlife (note especially the first born male child).<br /><br />Likewise, we find stories of the neighboring gods living in the unseen world only as adults. Thus, even the younger Ugaritic god Ba’al is a sexually mature man when compared with the aging ’l.<br /><br />Conclusion: In the Hebrew Bible Sheol is the underworld where all lead a dreaded eternal existence away from Yahweh and it is definitely not the Heavenly of bliss in the New Testament Jesus would have one believe.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55815978246873063792010-07-29T08:19:59.947-04:002010-07-29T08:19:59.947-04:00Talbot cites Mark 10:14 as his prooftext: "Bu...<i>Talbot cites Mark 10:14 as his prooftext: "But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God."</i><br /><br />The verse would be equally suited to prooftexting a biblical defense of abortion or infanticide.Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40123336177731332782010-07-29T08:19:11.969-04:002010-07-29T08:19:11.969-04:00BTW, R. C. Sproul chided Billy Graham for saying a...<i>BTW, R. C. Sproul chided Billy Graham for saying at the memorial service for the OKC bombing that children who died went to heaven.</i><br /><br />Right, because we can't ease a parent's suffering at the expense of doctrine, can we?<br /><br />The sooner these people have exited the stage of history, the better off humanity will be.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35511700147306974962010-07-29T07:55:14.389-04:002010-07-29T07:55:14.389-04:00BTW, R. C. Sproulchided Billy Graham for saying at...BTW, <a href="http://www.highlandsministriesonline.org/articles/comfortYeMyPeople.php" rel="nofollow">R. C. Sproul</a>chided Billy Graham for saying at the memorial service for the OKC bombing that children who died went to heaven. Sproul rightly says this contradicts the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. He called Graham's teaching: "justification by youth."Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78261203729011277082010-07-28T23:39:14.102-04:002010-07-28T23:39:14.102-04:00Thanks for the responses.
The theology of baby ...Thanks for the responses. <br /> <br />The theology of baby or childhood salvation is, to say the least; highly problematic based on Biblical texts (Canonical / New Testament) and non-Canonical Jewish texts. I’ll want to (and will respond) as I review some Biblical texts and Ken’s two articles. (My time tonight has been consumed on ETV’s programs on Egyptology.) <br /><br />(Sorry about the spelling “pasted” (glued). This word was quoted several times from my above post. My mind was somewhere between <i>past</i> and <i>passed</i> type as “pasted”.)Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85824450462772936932010-07-28T16:00:47.966-04:002010-07-28T16:00:47.966-04:00Harry McCall said: If there is an Original Sin pas...Harry McCall said: <i>If there is an Original Sin pasted down (according to Paul) from Adam, then babies will fry like bacon in Hell too.</i>. He is right that according to that theology, babies ought to go to hell but contemporary Evangelicals are much too concerned about the bad PR such a doctrine would bring. Thus, they have attempted to find a way out of it but in doing so they violate the basic tenets of their own theology. I did a <a href="http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/search/label/infant%20salvation" rel="nofollow">two part series</a> on this subject.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76690686166351561542010-07-28T13:36:11.539-04:002010-07-28T13:36:11.539-04:00Have you noticed that the "age of accountabil...Have you noticed that the "age of accountability" always seems to coincide with puberty?Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1708062177030803822010-07-28T13:33:08.418-04:002010-07-28T13:33:08.418-04:00Louis Talbot, In Bible Questions Explained (Grand ...Louis Talbot, In Bible Questions Explained (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1934; p. 244) says: "All infants, including stillborn babies, and young children who have not reached the age of accountability at death, go immediately into the presence of God." <br /><br />Talbot cites Mark 10:14 as his prooftext: "But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God." (RSV here).Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3459252303797415612010-07-28T09:12:01.219-04:002010-07-28T09:12:01.219-04:00Pardon the pun, but where the hell does the Bible ...<i>Pardon the pun, but where the hell does the Bible say babies / children (under the age of some type of accountability) get a free pass to Heaven?! (Could a Christian provide me with chapter and verse on this?)</i><br /><br />I'm not a Christian, so perhaps this doesn't count. However, in a similar discussion in another blog, a Christian cited the following passages:<br /><br />Deuteronomy 1:39. This doesn't pertain directly to whether babies get a free pass into heaven, however.<br /><br />Isaiah 7:16. Again, this doesn't pertain to whether babies get a free pass into heaven. Indeed, it is part of an oft-cited supposed prophecy of the coming of Jesus. The specific verse says, "But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." If we were to accept the entire passage as a prophecy of Jesus, then the "boy" referred to would have been Jesus, and the meaning of the verse would be that as a young child Jesus would not have "known enough to reject the wrong and choose the right."<br /><br />2 Samuel 12:12-23. My Christian source commented, "King David being told by God that he will be with his baby boy in Heaven." To that one might respond, "Where the hell did you get <i>that</i> interpretation"? In the passage described, David is told that God has taken away his sin, and he will not die. However, his son will die. There is nothing about David being with his son in heaven.<br /><br />Luke 10:16; John 12:48; Romans 1-2 Thessalonians 4:8; Romans 1 and 2. The Christian's comment about this group of verses: "Condemnation not based upon original state but upon rejection of God."<br /><br />1 Corinthians 4:5; Hebrews 4:12-13; Ecclesiastes 12:14; Romans 2:15-16. The Christian's comment about this group of verses: "God will judge righteously and justly" (which rather seems to beg the question).<br /><br />Not one verse cited stated that babies get a free pass to get into heaven.Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47958654514898404212010-07-28T05:54:07.082-04:002010-07-28T05:54:07.082-04:00If there is an Original Sin pasted down (according...<i>If there is an Original Sin pasted down (according to Paul) from Adam, then babies will fry like bacon in Hell too.</i><br /><br />Indeed, I'm pretty certain that's what Augustine thought.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43457082996995088012010-07-27T22:30:52.331-04:002010-07-27T22:30:52.331-04:00Pardon the pun, but where the hell does the Bible ...Pardon the pun, but where the hell does the Bible say babies / children (under the age of some type of accountability) get a free pass to Heaven?! (Could a Christian provide me with chapter and verse on this?) <br /><br />If there is an <i>Original Sin</i> pasted down (according to Paul) from Adam, <b>then babies will fry like bacon in Hell too.</b><br /><br />This is one more reason Christianity is fueled with wishful thinking not found in the Biblical text!Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22596338691813582242010-07-27T15:58:20.539-04:002010-07-27T15:58:20.539-04:00In fact, there are some apologists who state outri...In fact, there are some apologists who state outright (and, I think, a lot more who harbor the opinion) that God ordered the execution of thousands of infants in order to prevent them from growing up, becoming idolaters and going to hell.<br /><br />Oh, wait, I forgot - it's different when he does it.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44337101372493053092010-07-27T15:07:44.345-04:002010-07-27T15:07:44.345-04:00"Someone is responsible for aborting each fet..."Someone is responsible for aborting each fetus. Those parties will be judged in a way that it would be much better had they not aborted."<br /><br />Why? Because it denies to the fetus a full and fair opportunity to be born, to reach the age of reason, and to end up believing the wrong things (or not believing the right things) and thus go to hell?<br /><br />If one believes that aborted fetuses have a free pass to get into heaven, then it would be reasonable to believe, not only that abortion is not morally objectionable, but that any woman who <i>refuses</i> to have an abortion is guilty of a form of child abuse, since she places the eternal salvation of her "unborn child" at risk.<br /><br />This is even more true if one takes seriously the argument that infanticide ordered by Yahweh himself is to be defended on the grounds that it was in the best interests of the infants, and was thus an act of divine love. Didn't Jesus say "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"? If even infanticide is a revealed form of divine perfection, why quibble about abortion?<br /><br />If, on the other hand, one believes what you just said ("Those parties will be judged in a way that it would be much better had they not aborted"), then Jesus got it wrong when he said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." He should have said, "Greater love has no woman than this, that she lay down her soul for the soul of her child."Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62766133661711384322010-07-27T14:32:18.024-04:002010-07-27T14:32:18.024-04:00Hi Luis,
My response was to the question “is kill...Hi Luis,<br /><br />My response was to the question “is killing infants ALWAYS wrong”.<br /><br />I can’t surmise what this may or may not encompass. To do so would suddenly open the question to individual interpretation. What do you call an infant? Why not ask the same question about killing people of ANY age?<br /><br />Does it include the infants who died at Hiroshima? Does it include infants whose mothers claim the “right” to do with their own body as they wish? Who draws the objective line between infants of one species and another – Richard Dawkins? For that matter, who draws the objective line between HUMANS of one type and another – Adolph Hitler?<br /><br />If there is some reason why the death of infants amounts to collateral damage or lesser of two evils, who OTHER than an all powerful, all knowing, Higher Being would you prefer to decide on this question? <br /><br />Lion (IRC)Lion IRChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08842257471566129154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46766038817541967242010-07-27T14:05:50.395-04:002010-07-27T14:05:50.395-04:00Doesn't matter. The babies still go to heaven....Doesn't matter. The babies still go to heaven. They beat the odds. The people who abort or perform the abortions are risking their own salvation to ensure the salvation of others - throwing themselves on the salvific grenade. Sounds Christ-like to me.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.com