The Problem of Miscommunication

I'm writing a chapter for a new book to be published by Prometheus Books. In this chapter I'm describing what I consider to be a very serious problem for Christianity that needs to be highlighted and emphasized around the internet. I call it the Problem of Miscommunication.

Christians argue how that Christianity helped abolish slavery. Big deal, even if this is true. Who are you trying to kid here? If God had condemned slavery from the very beginning there would be nothing to reform, no beatings, no killings, no institutional slavery justified from the Bible. If God had repeatedly said, "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution.

There are so many other examples. Did you know that 8 million Christians killed each other during the French Wars of Religion and during the Thirty Years War over the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and who was the legitimate authority to administer it? Again, 8 million Christians. All Jesus had to do was to say he was speaking "metaphorically" about his body and blood, if that's what he meant. And all Jesus had to do was to clear up whether Peter was the rock or his confession was the rock in Matt 16.

To say these Christians (both Catholics and Protestants) should've known better is sheer ignorance, for they still disagree about this today. Whenever there is miscommunication both parties are to blame, especially if there is an omniscient God who could've known in advance how his followers would misinterpret what he said. Do you understand this? All attempts at answering this particular problem utterly fail to take it seriously.

For Christians to claim atheism was the cause of many deaths in modern wars misses the point for three reasons: 1) Atheism per se was not the cause of the killings; 2) It's a red herring, since whether or not this was the case with atheism does nothing to solve the Christian Problem of Miscommunication; 3) If the Christians in that era had modern weapons of war, including nuclear weapons, then we would've seen many more deaths, possibly genocide.

198 comments:

eheffa said...

I agree John.

This is just another reason that Christianity does not meet the expectations of its claims. Surely Jesus as the all-knowing Lord of the Universe could have prevented so many of these misunderstandings by being a little more clear about what he meant. Better yet, why didn't he write down his thoughts & directives so that there would not have been this fourth hand and questionable documentation that we currently have in the Gospels. Even better, Jesus could speak unequivocally & clearly to all those who call to him in earnest requests for direction & understanding...

Instead we have this questionable record of the Gospels which to a critical eye look like nothing more than late first century / second century evangelistic tracts. We have no primary evidence that Jesus himself was even an historical entity remotely similar to the characters portrayed by the Gospels or the Cosmic Christ of the Pauline epistles.

A third rate Madison Avenue advertising intern could have done a better job of documenting & summarizing the essentials of the Christian faith. Instead we are left with this ambiguous collection of sayings & theological disputes that have caused the deaths of thousands of sincere followers.

I suppose he did come to bring a sword, but you raise an interesting point. Couldn't the precision-freak creator of the universe do a better job of communicating his thoughts to us?

The alternative would be to consider these writings as nothing more than pious first & second century fabrications with no godly involvement whatsoever...naahh couldn't be. God is just testing us to see whether we would be loyal to him even when it doesn't make sense

Rob said...

Oh, this is good stuff!

Looking forward to this new book. Fantastic to see genuinely novel arguments in favour of secularism and against Christianity.

UnBeguiled said...

Forget the Bible.

Since Christians have direct access to the Truth via the self-authenticating inner witness of the Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible for two real Christians to disagree about any important theological matter.

Right?

Anonymous said...

Hi John,
in my view
debunking christianity in a nutshell is hitting them on the
QUALITY
of the
KNOWLEDGE
they derive from the
QUALITY
of their
INFORMATION
and
QUALITY
of their
EVIDENCE.
Its incumbent on us to learn what the criteria for quality in information and evidence are.

We need to mount a sustained and unrelenting attack on their episteme which can be done using established business and data analysis methods.

Some of which I've already done to a small degree and will continue to do.

the standard rejoinder that we can't know anything for certain, is hogwash,
because if that were relevant, there would be no structure to anything.

A large degree of certainty goes a lot further than waiting for absolute certainty.

perfection is a goal not a reality.

edson said...

eheffa,

"God is just testing us to see whether we would be loyal to him even when it doesn't make sense"

I'd prefer to modify this statement. I'd say God is testing our priorities.

There is no problem of miscommunication here. The information we have, in a nutshell, is the existance of God as the author and destroyer of life and the hope of obtaining full life after we are dead through Jesus.

At these two things there is nothing equivocal. It just baffles God when people refuse to believe in the accounts of Gospels by calling them utopia stories to be believed by little kids. God is really suprised that what exactly do these people want? I promise them LIFE but they seemingly prefer DEATH. Just ask some good atheists (in case you are not a good one) if they they have any sense of a hope of life after they are dead.

See God is not demanding much from us. He want us at least to show some desire of loving eternal life. He would love to hear a skeptic whispers in His ears, "Jesus, if you are real and if the gospel narratives are true, that will be the most good news I have ever heard in my life".

One day I spoke with one Finnish girl about what does she think about an sweet eternal life in heaven. She spoke to me confidently "I dont believe there is such life, and if there is, that life will definitely be boring. I am only tired at these 30years, what will be it to live eternally!"

See, this girl shows no desire of loving God or even loving life. Most of atheistic tendecies do not derive from the difficulties of the bible or christianity, they spring from the lack of desire of loving God. When atheists accuse christians of formulating God in their minds, that is exactly what God needs. Creating God in your mind is the sign that you love God. And if you love God that is the sign that you love life.

So what exactly I want to say is that God is testing our priorities. He will keep invisible until we show the sign of needing him. If our priorities is to find God we'll certain get him. Even Paul was in the business of what he thought as "serving God" when he met Jesus at the Road to Damascus.

Anonymous said...

edson,
It just baffles God when people refuse to believe in the accounts of Gospels by calling them utopia stories to be believed by little kids.
It baffles God or it baffles you?
Lets not get the two confused.

is the existance of God as the author and destroyer of life and the hope of obtaining full life after we are dead through Jesus.
Which God?

Can you trace the origin of the sources for that "nutshell" you mentioned?

-Were any of them qualified to write what they wrote?
-In a position to know?
-How many interations did it go through before it got written down?
-How do you know it was not just made up incrementally over time then one day written down and distributed, and copied, and modified to suit the intended audience?
-How can we cross-check any of it for validity?
-How is that outsiders were and are considered more authoritative on the Jewish messiah than the Jews?
- Why should we believe the bible over any one elses folklore and religious writings?

And why doesn't God talk for himself instead of having you do it for him?

It sure would be much more efficient.

And Brad Haggard said he'd give me a hug and I didn't even have to ask nicely but God won't give me a hug now or when I was losing my faith.

Why is Brad more nurturing than God?

Unknown said...

Every time I hear a Christian or anybody blame Atheism for the death in wars I cringe. How many Atheists do they think our out there. Even if the seminary educated Joseph Stalin or Hitler for that matter were atheists, I doubt they lifted a finger to kill anybody personally. It was the people around them who did the killing and these people were most likely Christian. What does that say about Christians?

Jim Thompson said...

Ahhh, I get it!

Mr. Hyde said...

@unbeguiled
"Forget the Bible.

Since Christians have direct access to the Truth via the self-authenticating inner witness of the Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible for two real Christians to disagree about any important theological matter.

Right?"

The problem with your assumption is that Christians believe that they are falible and can go against and/or ignore the directive of the Holy Spirit. So, your argument wouldn't hold water to Christians.

@everyone else
I think that there is one thing we are forgetting when it comes to this "problem of miscommunication." I think it is more a problem of "forgetting to love." There may be some things that Christians will disagree about amongst themselves, but it should always be characterized by love. It is when this is missing that Christians begin to fight "holy wars" and killing each other over theological positions. As far as I know, Jesus did not say that we are to wage war against incorrect theology or doctrine.

Anonymous said...

So Mr. Hyde, what you say is that Christians should've know better. Okay, I guess. But what accounts for the fact that they didn't when God would've known that they wouldn't?

Chuck said...

John and Lee and all the DC authors I want to extend an enthusiastic thanks. I've been deconverting since the fall when confronted with ridiculous arguments by church members regarding President Obama; Intelligent Design; and history. I discovered your site when looking for some reason inside the hysterical superstitions I was encountering. I have found a necessary community to counter the unreasonable Christian community I leaned on for too long. Good stuff here and very helpful. Thanks.

ccubeman said...

John,

My initial impression is the authors of the bible communicated exactly what they wanted to say to their intended audience.

Given the number of times the bible has been translated, re-interpreted, the miscommunication may not have occured until many lifetimes after the initial authorship. The end result was actually misdirection - more specifically misdirected hostility. The generation of violence from implausible biblical stories is one of histories greatest misdirections.

Scott said...

Just ask some good atheists (in case you are not a good one) if they they have any sense of a hope of life after they are dead.Edison,

What I want and what I expect to happen are two different things.

For example, I'd like to retire early, however, I don't actuality believe people will pay my expenses just because it would make me happy.

You may say this is not the same as no one promised to pay my expenses and God promises eternal life. But here's the kicker. If I don't think that God exists, then he can't fulfill his promise, and we're back to square one.

Would you bet all your money on a horse you didn't think was going to win?

While I'm not counting on it, I'm not completely ruling out the possibility of life after death either. It just seems highly unlikely knowing what we now know.

- Death might not be the end, even without God.
- God might exist, but have no requirements for eternal life
- God might exist, but the idea that he will give us eternal life is merely wishful thinking on our part.
- God might have requirements on eternal life, but, out of all the different requirements of theistic religions, it seems clear that we have no reliable way of knowing which requirements he really expects us to meet.
- God might be testing us with a bunch of false requirements. None of the above might be the "right" answer.

You seem to have excluded the possibility which would be the most desirable. God might just give us all eternal life without any requirements.

Instead, you seem to "prefer" that people are eternally punished / separated from God based on choices they would make with incomplete information.

In other words, if we're talking about what we desire, out side of fact, then why desire the Christian God, who forced human beings to commit genocide, enjoys the smell of burnt offerings and demanded human sacrifice?

Brad Haggard said...

John, this is just a re-formulated version of the problem of evil. I really think molinism goes a long way to answering this.

And characterizing the religious wars as disputes over theology is way too simplistic. There were national, political, and economic concerns above the supposed religious motives. There are some powerful arguments detailing how religion doesn't initiate national conflicts, but it is used to increase the zeal of either side. Genetic fallacy here.

But I think you demonstrate the answer to this problem consistently here on this blog. It's really simple, whenever a commenter posts something that you don't think characterizes your position, who do you blame?

...

Anonymous said...

Brad, communication is a two-way street. If there's miscommunication then there is some fault lies with both parties. Besides, I'm not God. I cannot know in advance how someone could misinterpret what I say. That's one of the major differences.

penneyworth said...

To Brad Haggard:

The problem of evil refers to the fact that god might fix evil if he had the power to. This problem of miscommunication refers to different people with different beliefs that they both claim are derived from god's word. Please explain how the latter is a reconstruction of the former.

Molinism seems to be an attempt at a definition of god's knowledge and powers. How does this "go a long way to answer" the problem of two believers disagreeing on dogma? or the problem of evil?

If those religious wars were fought purely over disagreements on dogma, or if they were only intensified by disagreements on dogma as you say, the point stands just the same. In fact, I would say your comment about increasing zeal illuminated the example somewhat. Then you wrote "genetic fallacy here." That's very funny as you seem to be astutely describing your own comment.

So please explain Brad, how does John consistently answer this question on his blog? What are you talking about? And who is it that he blames when his positions are not upheld?

Brad Haggard said...

John, I know you don't expect yourself to qualify everything you say just so one person who is here to badger you won't have anything to say.

I don't expect you to, either. If I comment on something here out of complete ignorance, it's my fault, how are you going to say everything needed for background? I don't think you could even say anything at all.

"But God would know if there will be misinterpretations." Of course, but that doesn't change the nature of semantics. I would understand the Bible better if it were written in English, but that would have been gibberish in 1st century Palestine. I think it goes the same way with ideas. "Why didn't God describe creation scientifically? We would have understood it better." It's because that type of writing would have been unintelligible to that audience.

I guess I just think what you're asking for is a semantic impossibility.

Unknown said...

Hey John,
It's Stuart from John Brown.
I just wanted to say thanks for the phone conference this morning. It was very cool being able to discuss these things openly with you. I do think it would be awesome to have both you and Dr. Lambert coteach a class like this. I really enjoyed the book and feel more educated about topics that I myself have thought about or have had conflict with. I really hope to stay in touch with you and continue intelligent discussions!
Thanks again!
-Stuart

Anonymous said...

Thanks Stuart!

Brad said: I guess I just think what you're asking for is a semantic impossibility.

Then you'd also have to say with Cratylus in Plato's dialogues that communication is impossible and merely wiggle your finger when someone asks you a question.

As I say in this chapter communication is very difficult. But then who created us with our capabilities to communicate anyway? And if communication is this difficult then why does God demand that we believe certain doctrinal truths via his communication in the Bible? Seems to me like a poor medium if he wanted us to know certain truths.

But regardles, I'm suggesting how God could have commuicated better in these instances. Take slavery for instance. If instead of the command to keep the Sabbath day and then killing someone for picking up sticks on that day God elevated into it's vacant place the one about not buying or beating slaves, I think this would eliminate any possible justification by believers of institutional slavery.

ccubeman said...

John,

I'm guessing the stipulation is god actually wrote these biblical rules. Or was the bible crafted by human men under divine guidance. Or was it written by human men via their own imagination in an attempt to establish societal rules.

If the later, miscommunication seems more likely.

Brad Haggard said...

John, as Lee Randolph rightly pointed out in another thread, our thinking doesn't always have to be 100% or nothing.

I just think of your last post from the Anchor Bible dictionary. What could be clearer than someone addressing the letter as "Paul"? Now the article may or may not be right, I haven't read that issue enough to know, but the fact that an argument could be made that it wasn't Paul just shows how one person can turn around the plain-faced meaning of a sentence.

But that doesn't mean that a message can't be communicated optimally, allowing that optimal and 100% aren't the same things. That's why we keep talking, because one blog post doesn't solve everything.

God chose language because language calls us into relationship. You have never met some of the people on this blog, but you are ready to have lunch with them. Why? That is the nature of language. If you don't think God should have used language, then how exactly do you say He should have?

But returning to the slavery issue, there are lots of stipulations in the Torah about treatment of slaves, aliens, orphans, and widows. That is what God wanted to communicate to that people.

But in the NT, Philemon is as effective anti-slavery tract as I have seen. Those who supported slavery didn't misunderstand it, they just ignored it. It gets at the heart, not simply the legal issue. And this, once again, is the purpose of language, to call people into conversation and relationship.

Brad Haggard said...

just re-read the post, sorry for all the "buts".

I think you get my gist, though ;-)

Scott said...

Brad wrote: I would understand the Bible better if it were written in English, but that would have been gibberish in 1st century Palestine.

Brad, I'm curious. Do you take Genesis 11:1-9 literally?

If so, confusing everyone's language certainly didn't improve the situation.

Anonymous said...

If Jesus wanted to be clear, He would not have spoken in parables. The Bible was not intended to be clear.

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

You said: "Did you know that 8 million Christians killed each other during the French Wars of Religion and during the Thirty Years War over the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and who was the legitimate authority to administer it? Again, 8 million Christians."

Those were not Christians! Those were religious nut jobs! What exactly is your definition of a Christian? Is the Pope a Christian? Who and what is a Christian in your view?

Robert Ingle said...

edson said:

"See God is not demanding much from us. He want us at least to show some desire of loving eternal life. He would love to hear a skeptic whispers in His ears, "Jesus, if you are real and if the gospel narratives are true, that will be the most good news I have ever heard in my life"."

So edson, what about Jesus' repeated talk of hellfire, eternal punishment, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. etc.?

Is that stuff good news? Should we love that aspect of eternal life? Are those the words of a so-called "Prince of Peace"?

I'm told that God gave us free will and wants us to choose him freely, but this heaven and hell business seems to me to be stacking the deck just a bit.

IF God exists and IF he is good (debatable given some biblical descriptions of his behavior in the OT), then I would be happy to choose him regardless of any alleged reward or punishment in some alleged afterlife.

Robert Ingle said...

John said:

"Did you know that 8 million Christians killed each other during the French Wars of Religion and during the Thirty Years War over the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and who was the legitimate authority to administer it? Again, 8 million Christians. All Jesus had to do was to say he was speaking "metaphorically" about his body and blood, if that's what he meant."

These are the types of things that happen when church and state get together. Religion and government are both evil in my opinion, but when they get together, look out!

This topic of miscommunication reminds me of a game we played as children (at church of all places). Everybody sat in a circle and something was wispered from person to person. When it got to the other end, it was nothing like what it started out as.

It never occured to me then, but how much more would the story get corrupted if the telling were passed along over a number of years and the original people were dead by the time it finally was written down?

How in the world can we possibly not think that the texts in the Bible were not distorted and embellished along the way?

Anonymous said...

Another facet of the "Debunking Christianity" nutshell is that someone shouldn't be held accountable for something if they don't understand it.

simple, succinct, elegant.

Ken McDonagh said...

"Christians argue how that Christianity helped abolish slavery. Big deal, even if this is true. Who are you trying to kid here?"

So, you think ending slavery isn't a big deal? You're sick.

danielg said...

>> JASON: Every time I hear a Christian or anybody blame Atheism for the death in wars I cringe. How many Atheists do they think our out there.

Jason, all good questions, but I think I have better answers for you ;) First, one of the mistakes that Christians make in attacking atheism, and atheists make when listening to Christians attackign atheism, is to confuse the impact and moral rectitude of atheists with the impact of atheism itself.

I think it must be said that, in gereral, atheist are more self-examining and intellectually honest than most people of most other ideological stripes. This is usually due to disillusionment with religion, and imo, this breach of trust leads to very independent thinking from someone who was formerly a religious moralist, if not just a person who thinks for themself.

HOWEVER, I think the arguments showing that, in history, the scaling up of atheism, and its application beyond the individual to powerful governmental systems has been catastrophic and murderous, and not because of ABUSE of atheism, but because when you make it impersonal, it can more easily be taken to it's logical conclusions.

I think that atheists, like nice Islamists, act with kindness and compassion DESPITE the logical applications of their philosophies, not BECAUSE of them. Humanity forces atheists, for instance, to live AS IF humans have more value than animals, and AS IF objective morals exist, because heuristic evaluation of the world demands such things of a sane person even if their world view contradicts such things.

This is why most Muslims are not terrorists - not because their Koran fails to command them to murder unbelievers, but because the realization of such terrible things can not be followed by sane people.

So, like atheists, they IGNORE the implications of being logically consistent, and fail to live that way.

But when the personal experience of horror and injustice are removed from the indivdidual by scaling things up to government power, such barriers are easily removed.

THIS is the deception of atheism, and its condemnation is just, and repeatedly witnessed to by history.

>> JASON: Even if the seminary educated Joseph Stalin or Hitler for that matter were atheists, I doubt they lifted a finger to kill anybody personally. It was the people around them who did the killing and these people were most likely Christian. What does that say about Christians?

It says that the Christians of their day were:
- fearful of reprisals, wanting to just have a non-confrontational life
- weak and immature spiritual people in comparison to the Christians who did take a stand agaisnt Hitler, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who among other things, tried to assasinate Hitler
- nominal Christians, not true believers but cultural Christians

danielg said...

>> ANARCHO: These are the types of things that happen when church and state get together. Religion and government are both evil in my opinion, but when they get together, look out!

Necessary evils, I would contend ;)

>> ANARCHO: It never occured to me then, but how much more would the story get corrupted if the telling were passed along over a number of years and the original people were dead by the time it finally was written down?

Christian turned agnostic Bart Ehrman makes this same comparison to 'the telephone game' when discussing the NT transmission.

However, this simplistic analogy breaks down, or is perhaps not even a good one, and has been addressed by many Christian apologists. See, for example, Greer-Heard 08: Top scholars debate reliability of the New Testament at NOBTS forum:

"The copying of the New Testament manuscripts is hardly like this parlor game," Wallace said. "The message is passed on in writing, not orally. Rather than having one line of transmission, there are multiple lines or streams of transmission."

In the telephone game, once a person has passed along the message, that person is out of the game. That is not the case in copying manuscripts. Not only did the scribe want to preserve the message, Wallace believes that earlier copies of the text may also have been consulted during the copying of the manuscripts. He also mentioned that certain 'lines' of manuscripts, such as the one from Alexandria, Egypt, appear to have been carefully prepared.

danielg said...

>> ANARCHO: So edson, what about Jesus' repeated talk of hellfire, eternal punishment, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. etc.? Is that stuff good news? Should we love that aspect of eternal life? Are those the words of a so-called "Prince of Peace"?

Your simplistic use of "Prince of Peace" is really just taking one description of him, making a theological assumption about what this means, and then finding scriptures you think fail to match your one liner theology. Straw man. Jesus talk of peace has nothing to do with peace AMONG men, as he says here:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to �set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law� (Jesus in Matthew 10:34-35)

Rather, it has to do with peace between man and God - man, who has chosen rebellion and deserves punishment, and Jesus, who has come to reconcile man, and make peace by offering his own life for our guilt. Pretty damn good peacemaker.

>> ANARCHO: I'm told that God gave us free will and wants us to choose him freely, but this heaven and hell business seems to me to be stacking the deck just a bit.

Perhaps so. But such revealing of consequences are not meant as threat, but as dire information that you need to know. It's like warning teens about drunk driving - a little scare is necessary to wake them from their naivte and foolishness.

Admittedly, hell amounts to more than a 'little scare,' but the same principle applies. When we are too hardened to recieve wisdom, we need a scare, a smack with the rod of correction, and other things that fools need (read proverbs).

As it records in Psalm 111:10, 'The fear of the LORD is the *beginning* of wisdom.' It is not the end, but often, we need healthy fear to awaken us and get us serious about wisdom, b/c deep down are all pretty much just lazy, self-centered, pleasure-oriented fools.

>> ANARCHO: IF God exists and IF he is good (debatable given some biblical descriptions of his behavior in the OT), then I would be happy to choose him regardless of any alleged reward or punishment in some alleged afterlife.

And you may. In contrast with the idea that God is always threatening (and he must with hardened fools, as mentioned above), he is gracious and kind, and that should draw us to him. As it is said in Romans 2:4

Don�t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can�t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?

danielg said...

>> DENCOL: If Jesus wanted to be clear, He would not have spoken in parables. The Bible was not intended to be clear.

This fact about God's cunning is missed by many. It is meant to shut out the proud, fooling them with their own pride.

Parables make the truth blazingly clear to those who are truly seeking, but masks it from the proud. As you know, Jesus and Paul both taught this (Mark 4:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 1:18-31).

Also, the great theologian John Owen discusses why the bible is not written as a didactic book, but a book of stories - see my post Why are the scriptures not written more plainly?.

Anonymous said...

Brad Haggard, (Ted's brother?), said: Those who supported slavery didn't misunderstand it, they just ignored it.

Actually, I think the proslavery arguments were much stronger than the anti-slavery arguments. See the book of essays titled: Defending Slavery and see for yourself.

Anonymous said...

So DenCol, as much as I hate to engage you, are you saying that anyone who does wrong is not a Christian and since these people killed each other over the Bible they were not Christians?...that a Christian is someone who is a good person? Well, if so I'm a Christian then.

Woooo Hoooo!

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

Christianity is not about being a good person. Jesus said: "No one is good except God." The Bible says that OUR righteousness is as filthy rags. Paul said in Romans: There is no one who does good, no not one. Your statement shows me that your perception of Christianity is severely limited in scope.

Those people who kiiled each other were NOT born again lovers of Jesus Christ. They were just a bunch of religious fanatices who knew NOTHING about Christ. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. All religious nut jobs - not born again and Holy Spirit filled.

UnBeguiled said...

DenCol,

I have a question. Does a true Scotsman take his porridge with sugar?

Anonymous said...

No, that would be sacriligious for a true Scotsman. Scotsman are REAL men, and do not mess with pansy sweeteners.

Robert Ingle said...

danielg:

"Necessary evils, I would contend ;)"

Oh please, don't start with that worn out cliche. Evil is NEVER necessary. Educate yourself. For more information on this, please read "The Market For Liberty" by Morris & Linda Tannehill.

The evil of religion pales by comparison to the evil of government. Without the state, the church's damage to humanity would probably have been minimal.

Robert Ingle said...

danielg says:

"Perhaps so. But such revealing of consequences are not meant as threat, but as dire information that you need to know. It's like warning teens about drunk driving - a little scare is necessary to wake them from their naivte and foolishness.

"Admittedly, hell amounts to more than a 'little scare,' but the same principle applies. When we are too hardened to recieve wisdom, we need a scare, a smack with the rod of correction, and other things that fools need (read proverbs)."


Not meant as a threat? Oh really? Only dire information? It's like warning teens? A little scare? Good grief!!! Did you read that before you posted it?

Oh, and be careful about calling me a fool lest ye endanger theyself with hell fire.

Scott said...

DanielG wrote: I think that atheists, like nice Islamists, act with kindness and compassion DESPITE the logical applications of their philosophies, not BECAUSE of them.

Not sure where to begin here. Atheism is not a world view. It's not a positive claim.

Atheism is a lack in belief in God or Gods.

You don't need to be a Materialist to be an Atheist. Nor do you need to think death is the end of one's existence.

For example, while I think it's highly unlikely, it might be the case that we live on in some non-material form after death without God's assistance. This might just be a brute fact about existence, just like you assume God having always existed is a brute fact.

The position that God is the only mechanism that grant's life after death is your positive claim.

So, to say that Atheism, per-say, has the "logical implications" you're describing seems to be without warrant.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

FYI - Jesus NEVER spoke about HELL - not one single time! He spoke about GEHENNA! Gehenna was a valley used as a garbage dump where they threw the bodies of those who had been stoned, hanged, crucified etc. Jesus was warning of the death penalty and a nasty burial place where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out. They don't put fires out in the garbage dump and the worms have plenty yo eat! This is NOT about Hell nor is it a metaphor for Hell.

People were often stoned back in those days for various offenses. ALL of the Gehenna warnings are earthly warnings about the death penalty, not about any eternal torment in the afterlife. There is never any mention of Satan being in Gehenna. There is no mention of the gospel as the way of escaping Gehenna!

The rich man in Luke is is in HADES - not Gehenna. Why do you suppose that is? The Bible says that the church will prevail against the gates of Hades! So all will be saved out of Hades. Hades and death are both cast into the Lake of Fire in Revelation. So goodbye Hades! The LAKE (not prison or torture chamber) of fire is symbollic of the cleansing from all sin, evil, sickness etc.

Revelation 22:17 says - "The Spirit and the bride says COME". Who are they telling to COME??? Everyone else is in the Lake of Fire at this point!

Romans 8:21-22 says that the entire creation will be set free from it's bondage to corruption. The Bible also says there will be a new Heaven ad a new earth where righteousness dwells. So there will be no Hell and no annihilation. God will restore the entire creation back to a sinless state of perfection.

ccubeman said...

Dencol,

What's the dealio with Matthew 25:41-46? Unless there's some miscommunication, Jesus seems to be condemning folks to everlasting torment for not being charitable. I suppose we could mince some words and call it something other that hell.

What is the purpose in forcing individuals to be charitable by threatening them with punishment? Seems unnecessarily aggressive and cruel to me.

Is there a miscommunication here or is jesus really being aggressive? Were times so tough in those days the only way to get folks to help each other is under color of violence?

Anonymous said...

Hi ccubemen,

The Greek word in Matt 25:46 is KOLASIS - corrective discipline. TIMORIA is the Greek word for vindictive punishment, and that is not used here. These "GOATS" are still alive, so it cannot be talking about Hell! Jesus is speaking about corrective discipline just like we give our children.

ccubeman said...

Dencol,

In the King James version Matt 25:46 specifically says: 'everlasting punishment', and nothing about corrective discipline. If the King James translation is to be believed, there is no opportunity for corrective behavior, you are doomed to eternal punishment.

Why do subsequent interpretations of the original texts morph discipline into eternal condemnation?

Re-interpreting allegedly divine teachings from wrist slapping to tortuous punishment bolsters John's assertion of miscommunication.

Anonymous said...

ccubeman

Yes, and I agree with John about that. So it is imperative that we understand parables, metaphors, Greek grammar, etymology, semantics, linguistics, etc etc.

The KJV has many errors and wrong mistranslations. Gehenna, Hades and Sheol are NOT Hell and KOLASIS is not vindictive punishment.

Here is the Concordant Literal Bibles rendering of Matt 25:46 "And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

The root word that KOLASIS came from means to prune. The purpose is for better growth and improvement of life. You really need to study the Greek text and the Greek grammar, and not the KJV.

Robert Ingle said...

Dencol, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be a universalist, a position which actually has a lot of merit in my opinion. My wife is also a universalist. Any interpretation which removes the grotesque horror of eternal torture is a good thing in my opinion. Dencol, I hope you win out in the debate with the Christian sadists among your ranks.

danielg said...

Actually, I think the proslavery arguments were much stronger than the anti-slavery arguments.

I will check it out. However, I remark that the Apostle Paul, though he supported a type of ownership (indentured servitude?) in Philemon, also condemned kidnapping.

Scriptures also repudiate the superiority of races or certain casts, which slavery is often based upon.

danielg said...

>> ANARCHO: Oh, and be careful about calling me a fool lest ye endanger theyself with hell fire.

I was careful - I called us ALL fools ;).

>> CCUBEMAN: What's the dealio with Matthew 25:41-46? Unless there's some miscommunication, Jesus seems to be condemning folks to everlasting torment for not being charitable. I suppose we could mince some words and call it something other that hell.

He is using those as examples, not requirements. He is saying that those who profess faith but have no corresponding action will be rejected.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hi Anarco,

Yes, I am a Christian Universalist. That is good to hear that your wife is also. I hope she will get on here and post.

What is your take on Universalism?

Anonymous said...

Hi danielg,

You said: "He is saying that those who profess faith but have no corresponding action will be rejected."

Matthew 25:46 is about good works done to "THESE MY BRETHREN". This is a judgement of the NATIONS, not of individuals. There is nothing about faith, the gospel, accepting Christ, or any such thing in this parable.

No one will be rejected, God's mercy endures FOREVER, not just till the grave. Everyone wil be forgiven and restored to God and no one will be rejected. Hell is a false teaching.

ccubeman said...

danielg,

Per the kjv, does rejection mean everlasting torment?

dencol,

Regarding the original Greek version(which I admittedly have not seen), how did this translation evolve from benign discipline to a tortuous demise? Addtionally, are you asserting the KJV translation of the bible is invalid? This will definitely put you at odds with a bunch of folks, southern baptists in particular.

Is it fair to say the original biblical message is being misinterpreted by its readers? I've seen some figures that state 160+ references to hell in the kjv new testament. If these were originally references(Greek version perhaps?) to ordinary discipline, then we indeed have the biggest miscommunication of all time.

To keep my comment on point with John's original post i ask the following:
1. Is the assertion of miscommunication related to the different versions(greek vs kjv) of the bible and the messages therein?
2. Or is the miscommunication present from the start(original hebrew/greek versions)?
3. Language issues nothwithstanding; If the bible is divinely inspired, what's the purpose of versions? Directly translate the original text and be done with it. Then the issue of miscommunication could be examined without comparing versions. Considering the supernatural elements contained in the bible, different versions opens a big can of worms.

John,

Not being a biblical scholar or philosopher, I'm in over my head on biblical interpretation. I'll digress at this point. Nonetheless, my skepticism remains intact.

Anonymous said...

ccubeman,

There are over a dozen English translation odf the Bible that NEVER have the word Hell in them. Almost all literal Bibles do not. I have spent 1000's of hours studying this single topic.

Who wants to worship an eternal terrorist who is worse than Hitler? NOT ME! If there is eternal torment in Hell, then God's mercy does NOT endure forever! 1 Cor 13 says - "LOVE does not take into account a wrong suffered". So is God a hypocrit? Does God not turn the other cheek like He tells us to do?

eheffa said...

DenCol,

The fact that you have had to spend thousands of hours to address the "Hell" question when so many other Christian theologians have looked at the same question & come to a completely different conclusion, only proves John's point. The New Testament is a very ambiguous and internally contradictory guide to these important questions. This alone should cause you to seriously question whether these are inspired works.

It is scarcely tenable to assume that the God who wants us to be enlightened & informed about these issues could be so vague & contradictory...The more likely explanation is that he had nothing to do with the authorship of these collected works.

-evan

Anonymous said...

The problem is not with God, the problem is with stupid Christians who do not know that Gehenna was a valley used as a garbage dump! It was not Hell! The translators put that word in the Bible, not God! Did they have an agenda? Maybe so.

Robert Ingle said...

danielg said:

I was careful - I called us ALL fools ;).

Then you are guilty of about 6 billion +/- counts of fool calling, all punishable by "hell fire". Pretty serious business, so perhaps ";)" isn't applicable, unless you don't take those admonishments of your lord seriously.

sconnor said...

I'm curious dencol? -- Are the one and only true christians born-again, lovers of christ (the ones who are wallowing in the holy spirit) immune to killing or sinning?

How exactly do you gauge this?

I suspect you believe yourself to be a lover of christ and swathed in the holy spirit -- are you immune to killing someone or committing a sin?

When you delve more deeply into the logic of someone supposedly being a true christian (your definition: lover of christ; born-again, steeped in the holy spirit) then wouldn't that imply your innate human fallibility would have to be circumvented?

According to your assertion you would be incapable of killing under any circumstance?

Or will you rationalize that under certain circumstances -- you being a true christian -- you would have a right to kill someone?

Additionally, any person who claims to be a lover of christ, born-again, steeped in the holy spirit christian, who does kill someone -- I would assume you would claim he never was a true christian to begin with.

But you can only say that after the fact. How exactly do you know when someone is truly a born-again, steeped in the holy spirit, lover of christ?

I'm also pondering, if you believe everyone is saved and there is no eternal punishment -- what exactly is the purpose of christianity? You have rendered the principle doctrine of salvation (believed by the majority of christian denominations) obsolete.

I mean, what is the advantage of being a true christian if everyone is saved?

Furthermore if everyone is saved why do we need gods supposed all-important (ambiguous) messages in the bible?

--S.

Anonymous said...

sconner

I would not kill someone over a doctrinal issue like the Eucharist or any other doctine. If someone attacked my wife or children, then I might kill them. Do I ever sin? Only ever other second. It use to be every second, but now it is only half that. Pretty good, eh?

danielg said...

>> ANARCHO: Then you are guilty of about 6 billion +/- counts of fool calling, all punishable by "hell fire".

I guess you are more of a strict biblical literalist who fails to take other scriptures into account. Have fun at the fundy convention.

>> CCMAN: Per the kjv, does rejection mean everlasting torment?

Dencol is right, what is more important than what the sometimes erroneous KJV says is, what do the original manuscripts say? And also, not 'what does one verse say?', but 'what does the complete teaching of scripture say?'

I am not a Universalist, nor do I think that the scriptures teach universal salvation, but actually, election to salvation for some, and damnation for the rest.

There are two possible reasons why you might find this view unfair, or unjust.

First, some may find the election of a subset of humanity unfair, I, and orthodox theologians would say that what is actually fair, or 'just,' would be that all men are *punished* for their sins.

If some are spared that fate, it is not unfair to those who are not spared, they are getting what they earned and deserved. It is merciful to those who are spared, but not unjust to those who are not.

While that may not make sense to some, strictly speaking, I think such a position is logically defensible. It's only unjust if if you beleive that justice demands equal *mercy* for all. I do not think that it does.

Second, some may find eternal hell as an unjust punishment for temporal sins. I understand this perspective, and actually left xianity for a time because of this specific doctrine. However, having returned, I will tell you how I answer this. My reasons may not be sufficient for you, but I think that they are logical, and they ARE sufficient for me.

1. A better question than 'do I think it is fair' is 'is it true?'

2. Our ideas of what are morally important, pure, and just, are very contaminated by our own sinfulness and self-justifications. We often underestimate the evilness of sin, and think it not a big deal.

3. People who 'refuse' to be regenerated cannot come to God because their nature spurns him.

CS Lewis wrote an analogy about this: A bus took people from hell to heaven for a day, and they all got back on at the end of the day to return to hell because their unredeemed nature made heaven even less tolerable than hell, because the holiness of God repulsed them.

Even the 'holy' men of the Bible, like John the Apostle, who saw the limited glory of the Angels, fell on their faces 'as dead men' (i.e. literally scared to death) when confronted with God's purity, We may find that God is not only beautiful and great, but 'a consuming fire' that is too pure for our fallen nature to endure unless we are regenerated.

So an unregenerate (non born-again) person would (a) stay in hell by choice, and (b) continue to sin and curse God for his punishment, thereby *continually* sinning, driving himself further into continuous damnation. So in this view, he is not being punished for temporal sins, but for his own eternal sinning which began in his earthly life, rooted in his unregenerate nature.

4. There is a slight chance that Universal salvation is true, and of course, biblically speaking, but it is a weak one.

5. There is much we do not understand about God or the life to come, and God can do anything he wants. As we've seen with Jesus, the Jews entirely misunderstood what their own scriptures said about the Jewish Messiah, so they did not recieve him (Jesus) due to their lack of understanding.

It may be that we fail to understand the full extent of what happens at judgment, which might include Universal salvation. But I think that the scriptures pretty clearly deny that.

danielg said...

>> DENCOL: Matthew 25:46 is about good works done to "THESE MY BRETHREN". This is a judgement of the NATIONS, not of individuals. There is nothing about faith, the gospel, accepting Christ, or any such thing in this parable. No one will be rejected.

In the very paragraph, he says 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (v. 41).

I think you have to some serious linguistic gymnastics to twist this to fit Universalism. The straightforward and contextual interpretation is that this is part of the judgement of individuals for eternity.

I understand that there are at least two, if not three judgements at the end of time - at the very least, there is the separation of those who are in the book of life from those who are not.

There is also the judgement of everyone's works individually - differential rewards for those in the book of life, and differential punishment for those who are not.

Whether or not the 'judgment of the nations' to allow some into the Millenial kingdom is a separate event or not, I think that to construe 'everlasting fire' into Universalism is trying to impose a 'nicer' doctrine that pleases man's sense of what is just onto the scripture.

>> SCONNER: I'm also pondering, if you believe everyone is saved and there is no eternal punishment -- what exactly is the purpose of christianity?

I'm sure dencol has an response to that, but I agree, Universalism pretty much obviates the need for a savior.

>> EHEFFA: The fact that you have had to spend thousands of hours to address the "Hell" question when so many other Christian theologians have looked at the same question & come to a completely different conclusion, only proves John's point.

There are all kinds of fringe interpretations of the central doctrines of Christianity, just like there are in science. This does not mean that science is bogus, only that fringe interpretations exist.

Admittedly, some things in scripture are obscure. But those who want the mysteries of the spirit to be boiled down to a three step process are like children demanding to have things simplified for them. We can't even understand how the brain works, or quantum physics - why do we expect the spiritual world to be simpler?

And the central tenets of Christianity ARE simple, clear and easily understood, while the more esoteric and non-essential doctrines are perhaps less discernible, which is why we have the aphorism

In the essentials, unity
In the non-essentials, liberty
In all things, charity

The clarity of scripture, called perspicuity, is discussed in Why are the scriptures not written more plainly?

sconnor said...

I would not kill someone over a doctrinal issue like the Eucharist or any other doctine. If someone attacked my wife or children, then I might kill them. Do I ever sin? Only ever other second. It use to be every second, but now it is only half that. Pretty good, eh?

Hmmmm? Do you think any of the christians in ANY of the religious wars killed someone who was attacking their wife or child? Is it possible that the christians rationalized that by going to war they were protecting their families?

I find it suspect that you ignored the rest of my post and only addressed the broader argument without delving into the finer points of my arguments.

Could you address my specific points one by one?

--S.

Theological Discourse said...

Hilarious. Christianities validity is not dependent upon its followers or adherents anymore than anything else is. Christians did bad things, therefore Christianity is debunked, by that logic, atheists have done bad things, therefore atheism is debunked. Humans didn't get the message God gave them, therefore God is not smart? by that silly logic Dawkins or any other scientist is not smart since the general public doesn't get the message he tries to give them. Hilarious.

sconnor said...

theological discourse,

Humans didn't get the message God gave them, therefore God is not smart? by that silly logic Dawkins or any other scientist is not smart since the general public doesn't get the message he tries to give them. Hilarious.

What's even more hilarious is your infantile logic.

Consider your god-concept as opposed to the very human and fallible Dawkins: GOD; THE INFALLIBLE CREATOR OF THE INFINITE UNIVERSE -- who supposedly had his AWESOME MIND AND HAND in the creation of the bible fails miserably at getting his messages to everyone equally and unequivocally. Didn't your omniscient deity realize that his ALL-important messages would be up to interpretation -- where you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, which allows for the interpretation to be perverted or misinterpreted to push any agenda? Didn't he realize that there would be 34,000 separate christian groups in the world All with different understandings; ALL with differing interpretations -- bastardizing his message? Didn't he take into account that fallible human beings would have vast interpretations concerning how one is saved? Didn't he take into account that his ALL-important messages couldn't possibly get to the masses because of land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, technological barriers etc. -- relegating the majority of his earthly children to be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity?


The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation

God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus, so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. In fact when you consider all the christian groups who did not receive the one true message of salvation it is easy to see that only a tiny minority of his creation is supposedly saved.

Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the very ones (sinful, fallible humans) who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing. Christianity is nothing but an illusion, which gorges itself, on gullibility and ignorance.

--S.

Theological Discourse said...


GOD; THE INFALLIBLE CREATOR OF THE INFINITE UNIVERSE -- who supposedly had his AWESOME MIND AND HAND in the creation of the bible fails miserably at getting his messages to everyone equally and unequivocally.

Hilarious.
It is no different than Dawkins or any other scientist (save the infallible omniscient part). You give someone a message and they misunderstand it due to their own philosophical/intellectual short comings. Just about any message can get misinterpreted, due to language limits, the limits of the receiver etc. etc. furthermore what you and Loftus are engaging in is called supererogation. God could've done X God could've done Y, etc. etc., that kind of thinking does nothing but lead to infinite regress, of course I wouldn't expect anything more from the hilarious infantile logic team of sconner and loftus.

Chuck said...

danielg said, "There are all kinds of fringe interpretations of the central doctrines of Christianity, just like there are in science. This does not mean that science is bogus, only that fringe interpretations exist."

This thinking frightens me. I really would wish those serving religious superstition would stop claiming methodological equality with science. Science purports falsifiable propositions. Religion purports pre-suppositional absolutes beyond falsifiability.

The falsifiability of a proposition is the measure of its strength.

Robert Ingle said...

>> ANARCHO: Then you are guilty of about 6 billion +/- counts of fool calling, all punishable by "hell fire".

>>danielg:
I guess you are more of a strict biblical literalist who fails to take other scriptures into account. Have fun at the fundy convention.


Oh come on now. I thought you were the one who believed in "hell fire". I certainly don't. I was being facetious. If you want to pick and choose which parts to take as literal truth, why not just dicard it all as superstitious nonsense?

sconnor said...

theological discourse,

GOD; THE INFALLIBLE CREATOR OF THE INFINITE UNIVERSE -- who supposedly had his AWESOME MIND AND HAND in the creation of the bible fails miserably at getting his messages to everyone equally and unequivocally.

Hilarious.
It is no different than Dawkins or any other scientist (save the infallible omniscient part).


Thanks for supporting my argument. That's the whole point -- your supposed god-concept presumably put his all-important messages in a book, which as argued above, was morbidly ineffectual thereby rendering your infallible omniscient god-concept obsolete; which allows me to conclude an omniscient infallible god had nothing to do with the bible or a supposed plan for salvation.


You give someone a message and they misunderstand it due to their own philosophical/intellectual short comings.

Again, thanks for bolstering my point. Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings are more examples of human fallibility -- which plainly, if god was an infallible omniscient entity he should have known how grossly ineffectual his inept plan was and being omnipotent he should have been able to remedy the situation -- especially when it comes to someones supposed eternal destination. Again this allows me to conclude the bible was written by superstitious sand-dwellers who used god's supposed voice -- as their own -- to give it a bogus sense of credibility and false sense of authority.

Just about any message can get misinterpreted, due to language limits, the limits of the receiver etc. etc.

Excellent; again thank you for supporting my arguments. Too bad your all-knowing, all-powerful sky-daddy didn't take that into account (plus all the examples I supplied) and rectify the grave situation. If this deity exists then he is massively incompetent because his plan only saves a minority of his earthly children while the majority of his earthly children will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity.

furthermore what you and Loftus are engaging in is called supererogation.

I have done nothing of the sort. You and I both agree your god-concept is omniscient infallible and omnipotent. The parameters have all ready been defined. With these parameters (attributes) it obvious god -- THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE -- had nothing to do with initiating a plan and if he did it was grossly ineffectual and extremely negligent because only a minute select few will be saved while the majority of his creation will be severely tortured for an eternity.

Conversely, scientific theories like gravitational pull or quantum physics published by scientists have no bearing on ones eternal destination -- if you misunderstand math or the theory of relativity because the fallible scientist can't convey his findings, you will not be punished in the flames of hell for an eternity. Your human scientist to ALL-MIGHTY GOD correlation is asinine -- laughably ridiculous.

God could've done X God could've done Y, etc. etc., that kind of thinking does nothing but lead to infinite regress, of course I wouldn't expect anything more from the hilarious infantile logic team of sconner and loftus.

What is hilarious is you actually bolstered my major premise, while refusing to address all my finer arguments, specifically.

Notice how I copy and paste your entire post then address everything specifically.

I defy you to do that with this post and my first post to you.

Waiting............................

--S.

Theological Discourse said...


Thanks for supporting my argument. That's the whole point -- your supposed god-concept presumably put his all-important messages in a book, which as argued above, was morbidly ineffectual thereby rendering your infallible omniscient god-concept obsolete; which allows me to conclude an omniscient infallible god had nothing to do with the bible or a supposed plan for salvation.

Wow!!, gotta love atheist logic. Gods omniscience, infallibility has no bearing on how people interpret His message. Non sequitur 0/1


Excellent; again thank you for supporting my arguments. Too bad your all-knowing, all-powerful sky-daddy didn't take that into account (plus all the examples I supplied) and rectify the grave situation. If this deity exists then he is massively incompetent because his plan only saves a minority of his earthly children while the majority of his earthly children will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity.

Hilarious, once again, Gods omniscience is not dependent upon people understanding His message. Another non sequitur for you. Not to mention preventing 17th century slavery is not a requirement for God anymore than preventing the holocaust or preventing babylon for taking over Jerusalem is a requirement. 0/2 God doesn't do things the way you and Loftus don't think it should be done? that is not an argument, just a personal opinion 0/3


I have done nothing of the sort. You and I both agree your god-concept is omniscient infallible and omnipotent. The parameters have all ready been defined. With these parameters (attributes) it obvious god -- THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE -- had nothing to do with initiating a plan and if he did it was grossly ineffectual and extremely negligent because only a minute select few will be saved while the majority of his creation will be severely tortured for an eternity.

Your inability to understand simple logic is hilarious. Gods omniscience, infallibility and omnipotentcey are not dependent upon anything that you brought up here, you're doing nothing but throwing non sequiturs around. Neither are your "God should've done things this way to prevent torture for eternity" personal opinions even considered rational rebuttals.
Furthermore you seem to think that because SOME messages in the bible are misunderstood then ALL of them are misunderstood, or because Christians disagree that is evidence the salvation message is misunderstood. Completely incorrect and illogical. By your ridiculous logic, because evolutionists argue, then the entire theory of evolution is misunderstood. 0/4


Notice how I copy and paste your entire post then address everything specifically.

I defy you to do that with this post and my first post to you.

There is not nearly enough posting space to refute your infantile arguments. You have no point, not a shred of it.

1. Gods omniscience, ominpotency, and infallibility are not dependent upon how people grasp His message.
2. God not doing things the way "You think they should be done" is not an argument, it is a personal opinion.
3. Christians arguing about somethings (like slavery) is not evidence of every single thing being misunderstood in the bible (like salvation)
4. Gods plan for salvation was for reaching everyone in the world, the fact that some people choose to reject this plan failing or being wrong since it is mentioned quite a lot that people will in fact reject the plan. No inconsistencies, no contradiction, no errors.
5. scooner has no point.

Anonymous said...

TD opines: God doesn't do things the way you and Loftus don't think it should be done? that is not an argument, just a personal opinion

Me thinks you are not educated nor are you looking at this from the perspective of someone who wants to believe but can't, like many of us.

It's not that we want God to do things our way, it's that since he created us then why doesn't he reach us by means of the critical thinking facultices he created in us? We're asking legitimate questions. What we propose is that it doesn't seem likely that if God exists he would not reveal that, you see.

ccubeman said...

Theological Discourse -

I digressed earlier in this thread, but I have a few questions regarding the following:

1. Gods omniscience, ominpotency, and infallibility are not dependent upon how people grasp His message.


- What is the dependency?

2. God not doing things the way "You think they should be done" is not an argument, it is a personal opinion.

- Isn't the whole supernatural deity idea a personal opinion? Especially given the number of gods.

3. Christians arguing about somethings (like slavery) is not evidence of every single thing being misunderstood in the bible (like salvation)

- Agreed. But no more relevant than arguing about Dan Browns plot lines.

4. Gods plan for salvation was for reaching everyone in the world, the fact that some people choose to reject this plan failing or being wrong since it is mentioned quite a lot that people will in fact reject the plan. No inconsistencies, no contradiction, no errors.

- If an omniscient being plans something, then allows rejection of the plan, what's the point? What if someone doesnt get the message? I believe Richard Dawkins made the following point: How does an omniscient, omnipotent being make a plan that will require future correction? Perhaps your point is that the plan includes folks who will reject salvation - right from the start. In this case I assert whatever god this is seems to be a bit mean and no one I'd like to know.

5. scooner has no point.

- sconner has lots of points.

Theological Discourse said...


Me thinks you are not educated nor are you looking at this from the perspective of someone who wants to believe but can't, like many of us.

It's not that we want God to do things our way, it's that since he created us then why doesn't he reach us by means of the critical thinking facultices he created in us? We're asking legitimate questions. What we propose is that it doesn't seem likely that if God exists he would not reveal that, you see.

hilarious, loftus has the nerve to make an argument via personal then talk about critical thinking. Funny you mention my education, you have no idea what credentials I possess.
1. Just because you don't know the answer (or you aren't satisfied with the answer) doesn't mean God isn't using critical thinking to reach you, that is a silly illogical and an irrational assumption.

2. What is unlikely to one person is not unlikely to the next person, this is just another one of your personal "I don't like it arguments".

3. Your questions are not legitimate, they are illogical and irrational. God probably doesn't exist because he wasn't clear enough(not clear enough according to YOU and some other people, the other people that think He is clear Enough, they just don't matter) in His message? Ridiculous, since Gods existnce is not dependent upon the clarity of His message(or someones personal feeligs about the clarity of the message), any more than my existence is dependent upon the clarity of my own message. The only one that lacks critical thinking here is you and sconner.

Pasted from my iPhone!
http://pastebud.com

Anonymous said...

How do you sing to a deaf person?

How do you smile at a blind person?

How does a person without the Holy Spirit understand God? He cannot. Spiritual things are foolishness to those who lack the Holy Spirit. That is why atheists and agnostics cannot perceive the resurrected Christ, miracles, healings, prophecies etc etc. It is foolishness to the carnal man. His mind does not go there. He will just laugh and ridicule you in his unbelief and ignorance of the supernatural. They know of no such things. They want God to show them His existance with a natural manifestation, becuase that is all they understand.

Theological Discourse said...


What is the dependency?

There is no dependency. Gods omniscience, infallibility, etc. are not dependent upon mans ability to understand His message.


2. God not doing things the way "You think they should be done" is not an argument, it is a personal opinion.

Red herring. Is the "God is not doing things the way I think He should be doing things" a personal opinion or not? is it an argument(a valid argument at that) or not?


- If an omniscient being plans something, then allows rejection of the plan, what's the point? What if someone doesnt get the message? I believe Richard Dawkins made the following point: How does an omniscient, omnipotent being make a plan that will require future correction? Perhaps your point is that the plan includes folks who will reject salvation - right from the start. In this case I assert whatever god this is seems to be a bit mean and no one I'd like to know.

1. How do you know the 'correction' was a correction in the first place?
2. Gods existence is not dependent upon His 'meanness.' God being mean does not make Him cease to exist. Your opinion of God being mean is not only incorrect it is also not a valid argument.


- sconner has lots of points.

I was referring to the line of discussion between him and I. If there are any points(good points) he made, please refer me to them

ccubeman said...

Theological Discourse-

There is no dependency. Gods omniscience, infallibility, etc. are not dependent upon mans ability to understand His message.

- There's no dependency? Who's idea is it that there's actually a god who is omniscient and infallible? Yours? The human authors of the bible? If your response is God, show us some evidence.

Red herring. Is the "God is not doing things the way I think He should be doing things" a personal opinion or not? is it an argument(a valid argument at that) or not?

- Of course it's a red herring. The overall point to be made is; Why should I care what a god thinks. If you think a god is directing your life, and considering the number of gods you do not believe in, anything you believe a god affects is a personal opinion. Considering the number of biblical versions, i'd say there's a huge difference in behavior.

1. How do you know the 'correction' was a correction in the first place?
2. Gods existence is not dependent upon His 'meanness.' God being mean does not make Him cease to exist. Your opinion of God being mean is not only incorrect it is also not a valid argument.


- 1. The flood story. Unless god intended to wipe nearly human off the planet from the start, this is a huge correction.
2. The flood story. Wiping every human off the planet for what reason...? Because of annoyance? Seems pretty mean to me.

I wont repost all of sconners points, but the following is my favorite:

"I have done nothing of the sort. You and I both agree your god-concept is omniscient infallible and omnipotent. The parameters have all ready been defined. With these parameters (attributes) it obvious god -- THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE -- had nothing to do with initiating a plan and if he did it was grossly ineffectual and extremely negligent because only a minute select few will be saved while the majority of his creation will be severely tortured for an eternity."

One last question:

1. What evidence do you have the god you believe in actually communicates with humankind?

Anonymous said...

ccubeman asks:

"What evidence do you have the god you believe in actually communicates with humankind?"

God told me things about my future that came to pass.

UnBeguiled said...

"God told me things about my future that came to pass."

Care to put that to the test? Ask him what the Powerball numbers will be Saturday.

sconnor said...

theological discourse

There is not nearly enough posting space to refute your infantile arguments. You have no point, not a shred of it.

OK let's try a different approach.

Your refutation boils down to: god's infallibility, omniscience and omnipotence has nothing to do with my arguments.

I posit they are integral to my premise.

1. The argument is: the bible is ineffectual at getting god's supposed messages to everyone equally and unequivocally, which renders god's plan and god wholly incompetent.

2. How come god -- if he is omniscient -- didn't take into account fallible humans would not understand his messages?

3. How come god -- if he is omniscient -- didn't take into account that the majority of his creation through out history, couldn't possibly get his messages because of land barriers, culture barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, technological barriers etc.

4. If God, so loved his earthly children, then why would he relay his, all so important message (the Good News) in a book that could so easily be misinterpreted or interpreted so many different ways (especially his message of salvation)?

5. If it was so important for God to save his earthly children from the eternal flames of hell, then why did he put his message into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses (barriers)?

6. If the Bible is so important how come only 30% of the worlds population is Christian, while the other 70% of the worlds population is another, non-biblical, religion or the non-religious? And out of the 30% of Christians, there are thousands of separate sects and denominations that have varying and vast ideas about the Bible which reduces the ones who are supposedly saved to just a tiny minority. Why didn't god take this into consideration? This is a logical question about his omniscience and omnipotence.

7. If God is using the Bible to get his, all important, message across, you would think, an all- knowing, all-powerful God, could do a better job at delivering the crucial laws, commandments and especially the message of salvation to everyone, equally, and unequivocally but sadly and most certainly this is not the case -- why is that?

8. God being omniscient should have known his message of salvation couldn't get to the masses for these reasons:
1. land barriers
2. water barriers
3. culture barriers
4. language barriers
5. time barriers
6. technological barriers
7. Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings.
(Oh, but theological discourse was able to decipher the one true message of salvation -- he's one of the few who has got his ticket to paradise.)

9. God either did not know the bible would be ineffectual at getting to everyone equally and unequivocally or his powers to do so are impotent or both.

10. Why didn't your god-concept consider ALL these reasons before he put his message into a book that would be completely ineffectual -- only allowing a minority of his earthly children a place in heaven?

11. The bible is ineffective at getting god's message of salvation to everyone, which is evidence by the majority of his creation, throughout history -- at no fault of their own -- do not believe in the bible. Either they were born into another religion or they reasoned the bible was bullshit, or they NEVER got the message because of land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, culture barriers, language barriers or technological barriers, etc. God omniscience and omnipotence is logically in question here. Can you please address this?

sconnor said...

12. If your god-concept is all-powerful why hasn't he remedied the situation. Why didn't he find a stellar way of conveying his message of salvation?

13. Throughout history the majority of god's earthly children did NOT even hear of god message of salvation. (Water barrier land barrier language barrier, culture barrier etc.) Factually throughout history god's plan for salvation has NOT reached everyone in the world.

14. Then there are those who may have heard something but were born into another religion. Just like you won't consider islam a valid religion a muslim won't consider christianity a valid religion. Again god's omniscience and omnipotence is in question: why didn't he consider the Hindu, the american Indian, the muslim, the Jew, etc?

15. Then there are people who only have a rudimentary idea of how one is supposedly saved. but are complacent. Logically, god should have known that fallible people would take the time to concern themselves.

16. Then there are people who have reasoned the bible is not the word of god. Logically, god should have known people would have asked reasonable questions and then determine it was not valid. Why can't god deliver a message to the unbelievers that is unambiguous and is supported with objective evidence?

17. And in the ranks of christianity there are christian groups who have a wide array of interpretations on how one is supposedly saved. On this thread we have a poster who represents the universalists who thinks we are all saved. Logically god should have known this would have happened but did nothing to fix the problem.

18. And then there are christians who consider themselves born-again christians (which I suspect theological discourse would claim). The ONLY way you are saved is if you are born-again and you telepathically tell jesus you accept him. If this is the case then the majority of god's earthly children are destined for the flames of hell for an eternity -- simply because god did NOT take into account how is earthly children would interpret scripture and/or not get the message at all.

19. It leaves me with no other conclusion: The Bible was written by several differing men, who were trying to understand what god meant to them, in their own specific time frame, and own specific culture, from an array of varying perspectives. Men said and wrote, under the guise of god's supposed voice, to lend credibility, where there was none. Today, men do the same thing; they use the Bible with the supposed authority of God, to push varying agendas -- some polluted, or perverted or some seriously dangerous.

20. Again I defy you to go line by line and address ALL my points from ALL my posts made to you. Or will you continue to diverge and give excuses?

--S.

Theological Discourse said...


- There's no dependency? Who's idea is it that there's actually a god who is omniscient and infallible? Yours? The human authors of the bible? If your response is God, show us some evidence.

Another red herring, either God is infallible and omniscient or He is not.
What on earth do peoples idea of God have to do with God being omniscient and infallible? look here let me break it down.
1. God is omniscient or infallible.
1a. His omniscience and infallibility is not dependent on how humans interpret His message.
2. God is not omniscient or infallible.


#1 comes from the evidence we gather from the bible which describes the characteristics of the Christian God, there is no other source that describes the characteristics of the Christian God. Either way 1a is still true.


- Of course it's a red herring

Good, you admit your red herring, there is no point in digressing any further.



- 1. The flood story. Unless god intended to wipe nearly human off the planet from the start, this is a huge correction.
2. The flood story. Wiping every human off the planet for what reason...? Because of annoyance? Seems pretty mean to me.

1. This "correction" is not a "correction" at all, it is a response to mankind. It really isn't difficult.
1. God sets the rules.
2. Mankind breaks the rules.
3. Mankind suffers the consequences.
4. Gods omniscience has nothing to do with this since He cannot destroy people that have not yet broken the rules, nor can He destroy people that have not existed yet.
2. God didn't wipe everyone off the planet because of annoyance, it is because they were all evil.
2a. what is mean to you personally is not mean to everybody.


I wont repost all of sconners points, but the following is my favorite:

That is not a good point at all, it is an argument from outrage and extremely ignorant.

1. The plan was to provide sin forgiveness for everyone, that plan succeeded, as Christ is sin forgiveness for everyone. Everyone accepting the sacrifice is not part of the plan, never was, sconner is confusing 'providing' with 'everyone being saved'. It is grossly ignorant. To provide sin forgiveness is not the same as planning for every single person to get saved, if the plan was for EVERYONE to get saved, there probably wouldn't be any free will, the plan was simply to provide a way to get saved and whoever gets saved gets saved, whoever doesn't , doesn't. Sconner combination of confusion and ignorance is not a good point.


1. What evidence do you have the god you believe in actually communicates with humankind?

1.Historical evidence: OT and NT, apocrypha.
2.Eye witness evidence: included in #1 as well as various eye witnesses throughout history.
3. Testemonial evidence: included in #1 and #2
4. Personal experience.

sconnor said...

theological discourse

Funny you mention my education, you have no idea what credentials I possess.

Considering your feeble attempt at using terms like non-sequiutr as in this example -- yeah your education is supect:

Wow!!, gotta love atheist logic. Gods omniscience, infallibility has no bearing on how people interpret His message. Non sequitur 0/1

Non-sequitur? Oooooo -- children shouldn't play with concepts they don't comprehend.

And here:

Another non sequitur for you.

Ummm? No. Again you shouldn't play with difficult concepts.

My argument follows in a logical way. It is fact that people because of their real factual fallible traits will not believe the message of salvation or will not understand it or will not recognize its validity -- This is true.

How it logically follows is: god -- being god and all-knowing -- should have recognized that the majority of his earthly children would be immune (for ALL the reasons I outlined) to his message of salvation (ultimately to their demise) and knowing this he should have rectified his inept plan. Can you comprehend how god's omnipotence and omniscience is called into question? It is most certainly not a "non-sequitur".

Anyway, I would suspect you are in high school perhaps in the tenth grade. If not then based on your limited understanding of non-sequiturs and basic logic I'd have to say you have the intellect of a 16 year old. Regardless you did NOT obtain any knowledge of debate and logic from an accredited university of higher learning.

BTW I'm not an atheist.

There could be a god or some ultimate reality. It's just, so far, there has been no objective evidence presented to me for your personal christian god.

--S.

sconnor said...

theological discourse

1.Historical evidence: OT and NT, apocrypha.
2.Eye witness evidence: included in #1 as well as various eye witnesses throughout history.
3. Testemonial evidence: included in #1 and #2
4. Personal experience.


These are nothing but supposed subjective proofs.

1. Using your logic the qur'an being god's last testament is also proof.
2. Eyewitness proofs are inadmissible because you can not prove they were eyewitnesses as opposed to authors claiming eyewitness accounts to give it a false sense of authority and a bogus sense of credibility.
3. Testimonial evidence is also inadmissible for the same reasons I posited in number 2. Furthermore, according to your logic Muhammad first hand eyewitness account od the archangel Gabriel reciting god's last revelation for divine guidance and direction for mankind is also true.

Presumably you believe an angel visited mary as told in your holy book -- why is that story valid, while the story of Muhammad receiving the last revelation from the arch-angel Gabriel not valid?

4. According to your logic the muslim who personally experiences the all-mighty allah is also true. Or according to your logic the hindu who is healed by praying to Brahman has personally experienced a miracle.

You got NOTHING but subjective supposed evidences that you gorge on, that have no reference in reality.

sconnor said...

Furthermore, if you want to assert eyewitness testimony as credible evidence, then you must believe in people who have had NDEs.

From my research into the more profound NDEs: eyewitness accounts shows that everyone will be saved, and god doesn't deem any religion being the true religion.

Mellen-Thomas Benedict

I asked God: “What is the best religion on the planet? Which one is right?” And Godhead said, with great love: “I don’t care.”
AND
Then, like a trumpet blast with a shower of spiraling lights, the Great Light spoke, saying, “Remember this and never forget; you save, redeem and heal yourself. You always have. You always will. You were created with the power to do so from before the beginning of the world.” In that instant I realized even more. I realized that WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAVED, and we saved ourselves because we were designed to self-correct like the rest of God’s universe.
http://www.mellen-thomas.com/stories.htm

Howard Storm

Howard Storm's main focus of his message is primarily about the importance of love and peaceful unity among people, who he says are "all loved by God". He constantly reiterates the importance of caring for others and seeking spiritual truth. In his book he states that he was informed by these beings of light that the "correct religion" is that religion that "brings you closest to God", negating his attempt to force them to say that one specific religion or denomination was "the only correct one". He says that the spiritual beings have no interest in having any one person or exclusive group of persons "getting ahead of other people" (getting preferential treatment or exclusive assistance from God), they apparently want all of humanity to advance spiritually. He states that any use of the name of God and religion to perpetuate violence, or similar acts is seen as "utterly horrific" by spiritual beings. In addition, he states that these advanced beings have no intentions of control or dominance over humanity, but are guided by higher ethics of peace, service and unconditional love. He states that the deepest desire of these beings is only to serve "the One" (which humans refer to as "God"), and part of their acts of service include assisting humanity to "return to the One".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Storm

Nancy Clark

"His love does not depend upon our religious affiliation, our good works, our desires, or our love for him. He sets no conditions upon his love for us."
AND
"Shortly before the conclusion of my encounter with god, He communicated telepathically to me the words: With the gift you have now received, go forth and tell the masses that life after death exists; that you shall all experience my profound love!"
http://www.freewebs.com/nancy-clark/index.htm

Also check out, www.near-death.com
There you will find hundreds of testimonies about universal salvation.

These are first-hand eyewitness testimonials to the light of god -- the ultimate reality. How come you do NOT find their testimonies reliable -- hmmmmmm?

--S.

Theological Discourse said...


How it logically follows is: god -- being god and all-knowing -- should have recognized that the majority of his earthly children would be immune (for ALL the reasons I outlined) to his message of salvation (ultimately to their demise) and knowing this he should have rectified his inept plan. Can you comprehend how god's omnipotence and omniscience is called into question? It is most certainly not a "non-sequitur"

Whoopsie, atheist logic strikes again.
1. Where is the requirement that God must do something about the majority of his creation going to hell? God does not have to do anything about that.

Looks like your non sequitur remains.


Can you comprehend how god's omnipotence and omniscience is called into question? It is most certainly not a "non-sequitur".

Yes actually it is, it does not follow that God must rectify His plan, since you're completley ignorant of the plan in the first place. The plan was always to provide a way out of sin, which is Jesus, so the plan succeeded. The plan was never to save everyone that lived, that was always left up to us. God desires everyone to be saved, but as the bible tells us, God does not get everything He desires.

Theological Discourse said...


These are nothing but supposed subjective proofs.

Uh oh, atheist ignorance strikes again.

https://www.msu.edu/~marianaj/Evidence.htm


1. Using your logic the qur'an being god's last testament is also proof.
2. Eyewitness proofs are inadmissible because you can not prove they were eyewitnesses as opposed to authors claiming eyewitness accounts to give it a false sense of authority and a bogus sense of credibility.
3. Testimonial evidence is also inadmissible for the same reasons I posited in number 2. Furthermore, according to your logic Muhammad first hand eyewitness account od the archangel Gabriel reciting god's last revelation for divine guidance and direction for mankind is also true.

1. You obviously don't know the difference between a lot of evidence and a little bit of evidence. The Koran is evidence yes, the bible is also evidence, so it comes down to what has the most evidence supporting it. Like I said, you're ignorant of how evidence works.

2-3 You're completely ignorant. Eye witness and testimonial evidence is an acceptable form of evidence as it is used in court all the time, not to mention you display your glaring ignorance of how evidence differs and is supported. Two people see a murder, There is testimonial evidence from a drug addict, and testimonial evidence from a detective. Both are evidence, but one is more reliable than the other. So you're 0/2 sconner.


You got NOTHING but subjective supposed evidences that you gorge on, that have no reference in reality.

You've got nothing but your complete and utter ignorance of evidence and how it works. Obviously the muslim claim has less evidence supporting it than the Christian claim. Like I said, you're just taking 2 forms of the same type of evidence and ignorantly thinking that because both are testimonial evidence, they both hold the same weight, but since you're so unbelievably ignorant you can't grasp the fact that testimonial evidence A(or eye witness evidence or historical evidence etc) will be supported more than testimonial evidence B.

Theological Discourse said...


Furthermore, if you want to assert eyewitness testimony as credible evidence, then you must believe in people who have had NDEs.

Atheist ignorance strikes again. Obviously some forms of personal testimony are more supported than others, but since you're so incredibly ignorant of how evidence works you think that if you take 2 forms of testimonial evidence they're both equal. The court, police, and military actually distinguish between good/supported testimonial evidence, and bad/unsupported testimonial evidence. Unfortunately the ignorant atheists are the last to catch on.


These are first-hand eyewitness testimonials to the light of god -- the ultimate reality. How come you do NOT find their testimonies reliable -- hmmmmmm?

Where on earth did I say I didn't find their testimonies reliable? try not to put words in my mouth. We know people have NDE's ok that's great, I am not questioning that. Try gathering evidence of testimonies of those who had JUST HAD THE NDE opposed to the ones that had it days/weeks/years prior, once again there are good/supported testimonial evidence and bad/unsupported testimonial evidence. You're obviously too ignorant to see the difference. Unsurprising you being an atheist and all.

Scott said...

Theological Discourse wrote:

God doesn't do things the way you and Loftus don't think it should be done? that is not an argument, just a personal opinion.

So, John doesn't know how God does things, but you do know? How is your view not the personal opinion of the particular denomination you happen to be affiliated with? How is this a better argument?

1. God is omniscient or infallible.

#1 comes from the evidence we gather from the bible which describes the characteristics of the Christian God, there is no other source that describes the characteristics of the Christian God. Either way 1a is still true.

So, if I understand you correctly, whatever God does - regardless of how much it looks like a mistake - can't be a mistake merely because the Bible says God doesn't make mistakes? Clearly, this is circular logic.

You've also said...

Gods omniscience, infallibility has no bearing on how people interpret His message.

So, it appears that we both agree that people misinterpret God's message. How do you know the some (if not all) of people who wrote the Bible were not among this group of people who misinterpreted God's message?

In other words, how do you know that 1. [God is omniscient or infallible] isn't a one of these misinterpretations?

Surely, I could invent a race of aliens and define them as being so intelligent it would be impossible for them to make mistakes. But does this mean that, if aliens actually existed, one species would actually be infallible?

Just because something is defined as X doesn't mean that something is actually X in realty, should it actually exist at all.

Theological Discourse said...


So, John doesn't know how God does things, but you do know? How is your view not the personal opinion of the particular denomination you happen to be affiliated with? How is this a better argument?

Please show me where I said I know how God does things. Just because I tell Loftus "God doesn't do things the way you want Him to do them" doesn't mean or insinuate I know what God does.


So, it appears that we both agree that people misinterpret God's message. How do you know the some (if not all) of people who wrote the Bible were not among this group of people who misinterpreted God's message?

In other words, how do you know that 1. [God is omniscient or infallible] isn't a one of these misinterpretations?


I don't, in fact I happen to think that God has omniscience but chooses not to use it, of course you can apply this same logic to everything in history.


Surely, I could invent a race of aliens and define them as being so intelligent it would be impossible for them to make mistakes. But does this mean that, if aliens actually existed, one species would actually be infallible?

Of course you can invent a race of aliens and define them as being intelligent, however there is little to no evidence that supports God being made up.

Just because something is defined as X doesn't mean that something is actually X in realty, should it actually exist at all.

Agreed, but when it comes to the Christian God, there is a lot of evidence that supports Him having vasts amounts of intelligence. You seem to think that because people have misunderstood SOME of Gods message, that is evidence that ALL of His message can be misunderstood, which is fallacious.

Scott said...

Just because I tell Loftus "God doesn't do things the way you want Him to do them" doesn't mean or insinuate I know what God does.

Clearly, if he exists, God does things the way that God does things. This is obvious, as It could be no other way.

But for you to say John doesn't know how God does things requires you to have knowledge of the way God does do things. Otherwise, you could not exclude John's interpretation.

So, either you've only stated the obvious, or your knowledge is implied.

I don't, in fact I happen to think that God has omniscience but chooses not to use it, of course you can apply this same logic to everything in history.

This appears to be a contradiction in terms as it's unclear how God could choose not to know something. For example, how does God decide what he shouldn't know without first knowing it? Or does God go around randomly "turning off" his omniscience so he's aware of somethings but not others?

And if God exists out of time, then the very idea of God "using" omniscience seems impossible.

Instead, you seem to be saying God chooses to ignore specific things he knows through is omniscience, which clearly isn't the same things as not knowing.

however there is little to no evidence that supports God being made up.

There is little to no evidence that suggests God wasn't made up. Clearly, we have precedent in a multitude of past religions we now think are false and we have a wide range of motives for inventing God. Why shouldn't we think God is anything more than wishful thinking?

Agreed, but when it comes to the Christian God, there is a lot of evidence that supports Him having vasts amounts of intelligence.

I return to the part of my comment that you ignored.

I wrote:

So, if I understand you correctly, whatever God does - regardless of how much it looks like a mistake - can't be a mistake merely because the Bible says God doesn't make mistakes? Clearly, this is circular logic.

If you assume that God's actions are intelligent because the Bible says God is intelligent, then yes. You'll conclude that God is intelligent. If you assume that God created the universe, which would require a staggering amount of intelligence, because the Bible says so, then yes. You will conclude that God is intelligent.

However, this in no way means God's properties and actions are actually rational or that God is actually responsible for the universe existing.

As such, there doesn't seem to be nearly as much "evidence" as you claim.

Theological Discourse said...


Clearly, if he exists, God does things the way that God does things. This is obvious, as It could be no other way.

But for you to say John doesn't know how God does things requires you to have knowledge of the way God does do things. Otherwise, you could not exclude John's interpretation.

So, either you've only stated the obvious, or your knowledge is implied.

Incorrect, Here is what I said:

"God doesn't do things the way you and Loftus don't think it should be done? that is not an argument, just a personal opinion"

God doesn't do things the way Loftus thinks they should be done does not = "John doesn't know how God does things".


This appears to be a contradiction in terms as it's unclear how God could choose not to know something. For example, how does God decide what he shouldn't know without first knowing it? Or does God go around randomly "turning off" his omniscience so he's aware of somethings but not others?

And if God exists out of time, then the very idea of God "using" omniscience seems impossible.

Instead, you seem to be saying God chooses to ignore specific things he knows through is omniscience, which clearly isn't the same things as not knowing.

1. I suggest you look at the definition of omniscience, since there are multiple definitions, one being inherent omniscience and one being total omniscience, not to mention the Christian God posses numerous other qualities as well that would allow Him to posses omniscience but not utilize it. No contradiction here.

2. Seems? what seems impossible isn't always impossible.

3. As I said, there are multiple definitions and meanings of the word, not to mention Gods qualities allow Him to do such a thing. You're just using the word omniscience(concentrating on only one definition at that!) and completely forgetting every other quality God possess. It is quite a complex subject.


There is little to no evidence that suggests God wasn't made up. Clearly, we have precedent in a multitude of past religions we now think are false and we have a wide range of motives for inventing God. Why shouldn't we think God is anything more than wishful thinking?

Try and not change the subject, if you remember the original topic was about whether Gods omniscience is dependent upon how people interpret His message, and whether omniscience is a misinterpretation. What on earth does this have to do with the original line of discussion?


If you assume that God's actions are intelligent because the Bible says God is intelligent, then yes. You'll conclude that God is intelligent. If you assume that God created the universe, which would require a staggering amount of intelligence, because the Bible says so, then yes. You will conclude that God is intelligent.

However, this in no way means God's properties and actions are actually rational or that God is actually responsible for the universe existing.

As such, there doesn't seem to be nearly as much "evidence" as you claim.

Actually, like the other guy you seem to be confused as what constitutes evidence. The bible is evidence whether you think it is or it is not. Perhaps you can show me some other document that displays the characteristics of the Christian God? to believe that God is intelligent because the bible says so is really no different than believing Ghengis Khan was quality X because historian or document says so, of course it does not automatically mean that God is those things, no, but the same logic applies to every single thing in history. I believe God is intelligent and the creator of the universe the same way people believe that the roman coliseum was on fire, or ghengis khan a pagan, etc. etc.

Chuck said...

TD,

You said God was omnipotent but then you said, "God does not get everything He desires." How is that possible?

Wouldn't an omnipotent being get everything it desires.

It seems to logically follow from the meaning of the word omnipotent, "One having unlimited power or authority."

If God desires something but doesn't get his desire who or what is restraining His desire?

If God's desire is restrained then doesn't that make claims to omnipotence false?

Just curious. Oh and if this is fraudelent atheistic logic then please forgive me.

Frankly watching the debate between you and sconner makes me attracted to fraudelent atheistic logic.

The Christian logic seems a little hard to follow.

ccubeman said...

Theological Discourse-

You seem to use idioms such as red herring or non sequitur as a pejorative without understanding the overall context.

My intent when i said:

"- Of course it's a red herring. The overall point to be made is..."

Was to draw your attention away from blind faith and start questioning your belief in alleged divine intent. So... sure it's a red herring.
Your original question basically asked the definition of an argument.
I couldn't fathom that someones statement of an opposite position didn't count as an argument. My mistake.

So the story goes... God made man in his image, all was well. Man sinned, god kicked him and her out of some garden. Man sins further, god wipes everyone off the planet except for a few chosen folks. Fresh start.
What about this isn't a correction? Or is it just rotten communication by this alleged deity.

I'll stop using the word mean to describe the biblical god. I think genocidal maniac is better.

I'm guessing your infallible god idea precludes any mistakes or corrections by same. Everything that has happened was pre-planned,
pre-ordained by a god. If so, you worship a very nasty tempered deity. And I'd rather not embrace a god or religion that uses threats and death to keep its believers in line.

-Dencol, the following is for you as well:

Regarding evidence. Are you asserting the bible is evidence there is a god? That's been debunked many times over.
Most notably here: http://web.archive.org/web/20051224235205/www.hotcom.net/users/shagbark/faithatheist.html

Lets frame it this way...
All throughout the world millions of children fervently believe there is a portly toymaker who lives at the north pole. There are all kinds of stories, songs,
and poems about his guy going all the way back to the 4th century. He's very resourceful and apparently omniscient
since he can track the wishes and behavior of every child on the planet. Around December this man visits various places throughout the planet making personal appearances.
This means he is also omnipresent, at least to a kid. Children often tell this man what they want, or write it down and mail it off.
This man will, many times, tell the child if they were good their request will be fulfilled.
And the morning of Dec 25th, millions of children are delighted to discover their requests were indeed granted.

Millions of children have written evidence, eyewitnesses evidence,
testimonial evidence, and personal experience that a man, named Santa Claus, with magical powers exists.

But, Is Santa Claus real? As adults we know better. To a child however, Santa is very real. The excitement and joy a child feels
when they know Santa delivered exactly what they asked for is priceless.
It's only as they get older and their dualism shrinks does the reality become clear. Replace god with Santa, the tooth fairy, or any of the other 3400+ deities currently on the roster. Why is your god more likely to exist?

Theological Discourse said...


It seems to logically follow from the meaning of the word omnipotent, "One having unlimited power or authority."

Atheist logic strikes again. Having unlimited power and using it are 2 different things. I have the power to go kill hundreds of people, that certainly doesn't mean I am required to use that power, similarly God has unlimited power, that does not mean God is required to use that unlimited power all the time.



Frankly watching the debate between you and sconner makes me attracted to fraudelent atheistic logic.

perhaps instead of simply asserting baselessly you can back up what you say and either refute something I've said regarding that line of discussion or prove where I was wrong, or you can continue this line of reasoning, which is nothing but personal opinion. It seems to be quite a popular argument around these parts, forget evidence and logic, a personal opinion seems good enough.

Theological Discourse said...


You seem to use idioms such as red herring or non sequitur as a pejorative without understanding the overall context.

No, you see, you must be logical and rational. Red herrings and non sequiturs are not logical or rational at all. Your argument must be logical regardless of context, non sequiturs and red herrings are not logical at all.


So the story goes... God made man in his image, all was well. Man sinned, god kicked him and her out of some garden. Man sins further, god wipes everyone off the planet except for a few chosen folks. Fresh start.
What about this isn't a correction? Or is it just rotten communication by this alleged deity.

I'll stop using the word mean to describe the biblical god. I think genocidal maniac is better.

1. None of it is a correction. Please show me where there is a correction?

2. God is not a genocidal maniac.


3. If we were to assume God was a genocidal maniac, Gods existence is not dependent upon Him being a 'genocidal maniac'. By your logic Hitler did not exist because he was genocidal maniac.

4. What is considered 'genocidal maniac' to you isn't considered 'genocidal maniac' to everyone else.


I'm guessing your infallible god idea precludes any mistakes or corrections by same. Everything that has happened was pre-planned,
pre-ordained by a god. If so, you worship a very nasty tempered deity. And I'd rather not embrace a god or religion that uses threats and death to keep its believers in line.

Where is the mistake or correction?, you have yet to point any out, furthermore this is nothing but an argument from outrage. Try being logical, it would help. Your inability to embrace God or religion that uses death threats(assuming they are being used) has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Gods existence or the validity of the religion, so you're not doing too well here in the logic department.



Regarding evidence. Are you asserting the bible is evidence there is a god? That's been debunked many times over.

Atheist logic strikes again, you're confusing evidence for proof. They are 2 different things. Fossils are evidence for evolution and creationism, but only proof for one. So yes, the bible is evidence for God, it is not PROOF of God, but it is definitely evidence. I suggest you do some research on the difference between evidence and proof as you have the 2 confused.


It's only as they get older and their dualism shrinks does the reality become clear. Replace god with Santa, the tooth fairy, or any of the other 3400+ deities currently on the roster. Why is your god more likely to exist?

Except there is plenty of evidence and proof that santa, tooth fairy, etc. are fairy tales, now please show me evidence and that God was made up and is a fairy tale like santa and the tooth fairy. You'd be the first person in history to do that. You're as confused as the other atheist, Just because you take 2 instances of testimonial, historical, and eye witness evidence and put them together doesn't mean they're both equal. What you're completely ignoring in your little santa analogy is the evidence that proves santa clause, tooth fairy etc is a fairy tale, but there is no evidence that the Christian God is a fairy tale. So you should study the difference between evidence and proof, study how some forms of evidence are more supported than other forms, then you'll see how illogical and irrational(might I add hilarious) your arguments are.

feeno said...

Chuck
The reason "God does not get everything he desires" is because of something called freewill. He desires you to accept him, but we still have the right to refuse his desire.
Peace out, feeno

ccube
If there is no Santa, why am I still paying off credit cards from Dec.?
Late, feeno

ccubeman said...

Theological Discourse,

Why isn't a red herring a valid argument? Simple re-directing the flow of a premise doesn't invalidate the overall argument.

Unless someone starts talking about the weather in Albuquerque as a response, you might want to leave non-sequiturs out of the dialog

I'll define 'correction' so we're on the same page. Let's keep it simple.

Correction: To right a wrong.

A god made everything, and it was good. Somewhere along the way human kind, with the exception of Noah and kin, went pear-shaped. To resolve the issue, the population with a few exceptions was wiped out. Something was wrong with this gods creation and its state was changed for the alleged better. This is a correction.

Chuck said...

TD,

You didn't share my entire question and I don't feel satisfied that you answered it. I'm sure in the world of MMA an insult can be considered a conclusion but in the arena of ideas brute force doesn't often satisfy.

So here is the question again,

How can an omnipotent being be deprived of that which he desires? What is inhibiting his desire?

Feeno,

So I guess by your explanation then my free will is more potent than God's omnipotence? So am I more omnipotent than God and does that mean he only has penultimageomnipotence (I don't think that is a word)?

feeno said...

'Sup Chuck
I think the answer to your first question is yes? But then how do you make the leap that, that makes you more omnipotent than God? I mean I'm pretty conceded but I still rank the Trinity above me.

Shalomie homie, feeno

Chuck said...

Feeno,

It is not a leap. If my will can inhibit an omnipotent being's desire then that makes my will more potent than the omnipotent being thus making it omnipotent by definition. I know the free-will argument and it doesn't satisfy me. It seems to be an easy rationalization for reality.

ccubeman said...

Feeno,

I think John's post header explains your CC bill issues with Santa.

Miscommunication.

You thought he was paying, he thought you were paying. Vicious circle.

Better luck next year.

ccubeman said...

Might as well go lighthearted while I can,

- I'm not convinced there isn't a Santa.

As Carl Sagan once said: "Its ok to reserve judgment until the evidence is in"

Scott said...

TD,

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But it appears that your entire argument can be summed up a quote from my previous comment you continue to ignore.

whatever God does - regardless of how much it looks like a mistake - can't be a mistake merely because the Bible says God doesn't make mistakes.

Is this not your position? If not, please clarify how it is different.

You continue on to say...

not to mention the Christian God posses numerous other qualities as well that would allow Him to posses omniscience but not utilize it. No contradiction here.

Which is essentially the same thing. God can be omniscient, but not use it, because the Bible says God can be omniscient, but not use it. Therefore, it's not a contradiction. You can simply change the meaning of Omniscient to mean something different.

Again, If your metric of what is rational and reasonable for God is based on how God is depicted in Bible, then you will think God's properties and actions are reasonable and rational. This appears to be circular.

Just to be perfectly clear, we understand the Bible depicts God in a particular way. The question is, why should we think this depiction is actually true or non-contradictory for any other reason that the bible says it's not?

You can play around with word definitions all you like, but the problem here is that God claims to want X but then takes actions that obviously are insufficient to bring about X.

Take the following analogy. God creates a number of televisions and scatters them around the globe. God then says he wants all of these televisions to receive a particular video signal. Having created these televisions, God would know the exact frequency and signal strength required for each television set to receive a clear signal, but the signal he actually broadcasts only results in only 20% of the sets receiving the video with any reasonable clarity. Even in this 20%, the picture is fuzzy enough that a slightly different image appears among various groups of television sets.

Even if we assume there are external factors which block the signal, by placing God as the creator of everything, these factors would not come as a surprise.

Did bad weather block the signal? Were there mountains in the way? Were there solar flares that day which caused interference? Again, God not only created the television sets, but he created everything that could possibly block the signal. There are no unknown factors.

Left with only a 20% reception rate, either God really didn't want every television to receive the signal (because he would have known how to ensure it would be received) or he didn't know how to broadcast the right signal.

If you say God decided to ignore or block his knowledge of a large solar flair occurring that day, would this not be a conscious choice on his part or was he forced to ignore this fact? Could he have chosen otherwise? Even then, he'd be aware that such an flair might occur and could broadcast a stronger signal to compensate should such a flair occur that day without his knowledge.

Try and not change the subject, if you remember the original topic was about whether Gods omniscience is dependent upon how people interpret His message, and whether omniscience is a misinterpretation.

If God's properties are fictional, then claiming God's omniscience is not a problem because he has property X really doesn't get you anywhere. If there is no external collaboration or verification, you're simply parroting what the Bible says.

The bible is evidence whether you think it is or it is not

But what is it evidence of?

We have more well documented, direct eye-witness accounts of alien abductions than we do God's miracles. Is this proof that aliens exists or that people seem to interpret particular phenomenon in a similar way?

Theological Discourse said...


Why isn't a red herring a valid argument? Simple re-directing the flow of a premise doesn't invalidate the overall argument.

It isn't a valid argument regarding the subject at hand.


Unless someone starts talking about the weather in Albuquerque as a response, you might want to leave non-sequiturs out of the dialog

Hardly, the non sequiturs were directed at sconner fault logic, so why are you even bringing it up?


A god made everything, and it was good. Somewhere along the way human kind, with the exception of Noah and kin, went pear-shaped. To resolve the issue, the population with a few exceptions was wiped out. Something was wrong with this gods creation and its state was changed for the alleged better. This is a correction.

Where is the correction? Was everything messed up when God said creation was good? no it wasn't. So when God made everything it was good, then later it became bad, not due to anything God did, but because of mankind themselves. Nothing went wrong. You're confusing change with correction.

Theological Discourse said...


You didn't share my entire question and I don't feel satisfied that you answered it. I'm sure in the world of MMA an insult can be considered a conclusion but in the arena of ideas brute force doesn't often satisfy.

I am not going to quote your entire paragraph, your mma analogy was cute, but it hardly applies, as there was nothing 'brute force' about calling you ignorant or exposing your error confusing possessing unlimited power and being required to use said unlimited power.

So here is the question again,

How can an omnipotent being be deprived of that which he desires? What is inhibiting his desire?

Some desires are stronger and take precedence over other desires. Gods desire to not forcibly interefere with free will takes precedence over His desire to save everyone. It really isn't difficult, my desire to feed my family takes precedence over my desire to sit on the couch and be lazy all day everyday.

ccubeman said...

TD-

it isn't a valid argument regarding the subject at hand.

Sure it is. I'm allowed to switch gears to make a point.

Sorry, Didnt realize i couldn't comment on the weather in Albuquerque. - That's a non sequitur, btw. Faulty logic does not a non-sequitur make. Why is sconners logic faulty? I believe your original statement was scooner has no point. I should probably stop speaking for sconner, but simply because your collective points do not line up doesn't mean the opposing side has no points.

Where is the correction? Was everything messed up when God said creation was good? no it wasn't. So when God made everything it was good, then later it became bad, not due to anything God did, but because of mankind themselves. Nothing went wrong. You're confusing change with correction.

Ok, so lets call it change. - synonymous with correct according to http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/correct

So humankind changed. In turn, god changed humankind by killing them. Or, pre-flood humankind behavior was unacceptable to god, therefore god decided to make a change by flooding the earth.

If we can agree this deity changed his initial creation, then omniscience and infallibility is suspect. Something infallible doesn't make decisions requiring change or correction. Or do they?

Theological Discourse said...


Please correct me if I'm wrong. But it appears that your entire argument can be summed up a quote from my previous comment you continue to ignore.

uh oh, another atheist starts bawling because I don't quote every single paragraph, there is no need to do that.
1. That is not my position at all, you need to prove it is a mistake. It isn't my fault you're confusing change with correction.


Which is essentially the same thing. God can be omniscient, but not use it, because the Bible says God can be omniscient, but not use it. Therefore, it's not a contradiction. You can simply change the meaning of Omniscient to mean something different.

Again, If your metric of what is rational and reasonable for God is based on how God is depicted in Bible, then you will think God's properties and actions are reasonable and rational. This appears to be circular.

HILARIOUS. Athiest logic strikes again.

1. You assume I am using the bible as my only evidence that God can posses omniscience but not use it, Logic and everyday experience also proves that one can be omniscient but not use it, it is no different than being a skilled boxer, but not using boxing in a street fight. Possession of a quality does not require its use all the time.

2. HILARIOUS, my metric for what is rational and reasonable for God is no different than any other historical inquiry. God is X and Y because historical document Z or Historian W says so. Alexander the great did x and y because historical document z or historian W says so, of course Logic applies to each as well.

Theological Discourse said...

This is exactly why I don't quote every paragraph, because I have to cut and paste and make 2 posts.


Just to be perfectly clear, we understand the Bible depicts God in a particular way. The question is, why should we think this depiction is actually true or non-contradictory for any other reason that the bible says it's not?

HILARIOUS
The evidence supports the claim that the bible is true and non-contradictory. Please show me proof the bible is false and contradictory. All you're doing is hitting a straw man, assuming I am saying "The bible is true because the bible says it's true" then building an argument off of that. Atheist logic, man I tell ya. It's ok, I used to be that ignorant when I was an atheist, I didn't become an agnostic then Christian until I actually learned how to think properly.


Take the following analogy. God creates a number of televisions and scatters them around the globe.

Man, what kind of analogy is this? like I said, you're completely ignorant of the fact that some desires take precedence over other desires. How ironic that you accuse me of 'playing with definitions' when you have shown your complete ignorance of logic and the simple concept of desires taking different precedence. Perhaps God desire to not forcibly interefere with free will takes precedence over His desire to save everyone, that is completely logical.


If God's properties are fictional, then claiming God's omniscience is not a problem because he has property X really doesn't get you anywhere. If there is no external collaboration or verification, you're simply parroting what the Bible says.

Hilarious, where did I say Gods properties are fictional? what are you even talking about here? I never said the bible PROVES God has omniscience, I simply said it is evidence that He has omniscience. The lack of external collaboration or verification means nothing since there is nothing that contradicts the claim "God has omniscience" at all other than personal opinions and ignorant applications of omniscience (like the previous questions). There is nothing wrong with "parroting" the bible, it is no different than "parroting" a historical document or a historian that claims Alexander the Great did something. Your baised against the bible as a historical document is laughable and deeply ignorant.


But what is it evidence of?

We have more well documented, direct eye-witness accounts of alien abductions than we do God's miracles. Is this proof that aliens exists or that people seem to interpret particular phenomenon in a similar way?

It's evidence of everything that it says in there, you're just too ignorant to grasp the difference between evidence and proof. Eye witness accounts are evidence of alien abduction but not proof, like I said, you and the rest of the ignorant atheists in this thread need to go learn the difference between evidence and proof and high quality evidence and low quality evidence.

ccubeman said...

TD-

You might want to hop off the proof train. Proof is the sole realm of mathematics. It has no place in philosophical discourse.

No one can prove the supernatural elements of the bible are not true. Just as no one can prove Santa doesn't exist. Proof of anything is right out unless it's math.

I had a post were i addressed your earlier issues of proof vs. evidence, but it disappeared into the ether, so i'll stick with the above

ccubeman said...

TD-

One thing we can agree on; a quote button would be nice. That's blogger for you.

Theological Discourse said...



Sure it is. I'm allowed to switch gears to make a point.

Sure you can, as long as it has to do with the original topic and point, which in this case it doesn't.


Sorry, Didnt realize i couldn't comment on the weather in Albuquerque. - That's a non sequitur, btw. Faulty logic does not a non-sequitur make. Why is sconners logic faulty? I believe your original statement was scooner has no point. I should probably stop speaking for sconner, but simply because your collective points do not line up doesn't mean the opposing side has no points.

No, a non sequitur is when something does not follow, which is faulty logic. My original statement was sconner had no point, because I amply refuted them all, so you're completely incorrect, not only do my collective points add up, but sconner doesn't have any points as I refuted them all.


Ok, so lets call it change. - synonymous with correct according to http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/correct

1. Hilarious, not all change is a correction. 2+2=1, wait 2+2=3. I changed but I did not correct anything. So you're 0/1

2. You're engaging in equivocation, since not all change is correction, yet you are using the word as it is. 0/2



So humankind changed. In turn, god changed humankind by killing them. Or, pre-flood humankind behavior was unacceptable to god, therefore god decided to make a change by flooding the earth.

So where is the correction here?


If we can agree this deity changed his initial creation, then omniscience and infallibility is suspect. Something infallible doesn't make decisions requiring change or correction. Or do they?

1. Omniscience is not suspect, as God cannot punish people that have not done anything wrong, nor can He punish people that don't exist yet.
2. Gods infallibility is not suspect, since God says creation was good and at the time He said it, it was good.
3. God changed because man changed, the change was with man not with God.
3a. God says creation was good, at the time He said it, it was good.
3b. Man changed and made Gods creation not good, this was after God said His creation was good.
3c. God destroyed man because they were not good.
3d. 3-3c God was not wrong at all.
3e. Infallibility is not suspect.

Theological Discourse said...



You might want to hop off the proof train. Proof is the sole realm of mathematics. It has no place in philosophical discourse.

No one can prove the supernatural elements of the bible are not true. Just as no one can prove Santa doesn't exist. Proof of anything is right out unless it's math.

Then perhaps you should advise your fellow atheists to stop using it? I have not used the word proof unless it was in response to them using it first or showing people the difference between evidence and proof.

eheffa said...

TD said:
The evidence supports the claim that the bible is true and non-contradictory. Please show me proof the bible is false and contradictory.

I can't decide if you are full of bluster or simply unaware.

The Bible is full of falsehoods & contradictions. Its obvious flaws on those historical and naturalistic details that can be falsified make it as an unreliable source for information when the subject in question is of the metaphysical variety.

Science contradicts the Bible. Archeology contradicts the Bible. History contradicts the Bible. The Bible contradicts itself.

I could spend the next 5 hours listing these but I don't think you are open to the possibility that your Holy book might be terminally flawed.

If you want to explore this question with an open-mind, I'd be happy to provide you with a bibliography. (It may disappoint you but Lee Strobel & Josh McDowell won't be on the list)

-evan

ccubeman said...

TD-

No I'm using change as a synonym of correction. Use of synonyms does not mean equivocation. If something was wrong enough with gods creation that a change was required then it can also be said a correction was made.

You math example shows a wrong answer twice as an example of change which would eventually require correction. I'm not saying you dont know what 2+2 is, but in the course of discussing infallibility, it seems a little out of place.

3. God changed because man changed, the change was with man not with God.

Not sure I follow this. Please explain. Did god change or not?

Theological Discourse said...


The Bible is full of falsehoods & contradictions. Its obvious flaws on those historical and naturalistic details that can be falsified make it as an unreliable source for information when the subject in question is of the metaphysical variety.

Science contradicts the Bible. Archeology contradicts the Bible. History contradicts the Bible. The Bible contradicts itself.

I see a lot of assertions and no evidence backing them up. I can already tell what kind of atheist you are, one that doesn't know what a contradiction is, and one that believes all of the 'bible false hoods' he finds on fundyatheist websites.


I could spend the next 5 hours listing these but I don't think you are open to the possibility that your Holy book might be terminally flawed.

I can spend the next 5 hours refuting every single one on the list and probably showing you other places where the same tired arguments are posted on the internet. I've explored that concept exhaustively when I was an atheist and an agnostic, believe me, you have nothing new.

ccubeman said...

-TD

I never asked for proof in any of my threads. And I wouldn't. I also cant control what other folks say. One thing is for sure, you'll never find me asking for proof of anything, unless it's 2+2.

John, Sorry if this a too nitpicky. I think we all agree nothing non-math related can be definitively proved. I'll move along on this subject.

Theological Discourse said...


No I'm using change as a synonym of correction. Use of synonyms does not mean equivocation. If something was wrong enough with gods creation that a change was required then it can also be said a correction was made.

No, wrong, not all change is correction.

You math example shows a wrong answer twice as an example of change which would eventually require correction. I'm not saying you dont know what 2+2 is, but in the course of discussing infallibility, it seems a little out of place.

No, my example shows me changing between 2 wrong answers and neither of which is a correction. 'Eventually' requiring a correction does not mean every change is a correction.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correction

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change

As you can see, not all aspects of change = correction.


Not sure I follow this. Please explain. Did god change or not?

Sure He did, but the reason He changed did not affect his infallibility or omniscience or any of His qualities. I already know where you're going with this, you think you can 'get' me with the ol' "BUT TD THE BIBLE SAYS GOD DOESN'T CHANGE!!" sillyness. Can't wait.

ccubeman said...

-TD

here's something biblical for you to refute.

Is the New Zealand Kiwi bird a Turkish refugee?

The Turkish refugee bit is flood story reference.

Theological Discourse said...


-TD

here's something biblical for you to refute.

Is the New Zealand Kiwi bird a Turkish refugee?

The Turkish refugee bit is flood story reference.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

ccubeman said...

-TD

Ok, not all change equals correction.
But change is synonymous correction. I didnt say change always equals correction.

The question to ask regarding the flood story is, Was there a problem(man sinning?) that required resolution? Did a god have to do something to effect the resolution? Did the problem go away after the action? If there was a problem, action was taken, the problem subsequently disappeared then the problem was corrected. For example, if you have a pest problem, you spray insecticide killing the pests. The pest problem has been corrected.

Does the bible say god doesn't change? I'm not familiar with that bit.

ccubeman said...

-TD

Th flood story says the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat or in the Ararat mountains of Turkey.

This means the flightless Kiwi bird had to trek down a mountain range, make its way across thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain and open water to settle in New Zealand. No fossil record of the bird has been found anywhere but New Zealand.

Is this bird a Turkish refugee?

eheffa said...

TD...

It's so good of you to come to this site to educate all of us ignorant atheists about the Bible & its inspired veracity.

Do I understand that you regard the Bible to be utterly reliable with respect to its historical & scientific claims & that it has never been shown to be false or incorrect?

-evan

Chuck said...

TD,

Thanks for the answer. I think my faulty atheistic logic demands I ask for further clarification.

You said, I made an " . . . error confusing possessing unlimited power and being required to use said unlimited power."

So I assume God has unlimited power? Correct?

But then you illustrated this by using an analogy that seems to define the economics of choice. You said, "Some desires are stronger and take precedence over other desires. Gods desire to not forcibly interefere with free will takes precedence over His desire to save everyone. It really isn't difficult, my desire to feed my family takes precedence over my desire to sit on the couch and be lazy all day everyday." But isn't your choice predicated on the notion of scarcity? You can't have everything you want due to limitations of material resources and time. So you need to trade off incentives. Being lazy offers less value than feeding your family. Others might choose differently but your illustration isn't consistent with an illustration clarifying omnipotence or unlimited power. If God has unlimited power then he wouldn't need to make the same bargain you make. He could both feed his family and enjoy his desire to sit on the couch. Isn't that the meaning of unlimited power?

So I guess I will modify my question and ask it again, How can an omnipotent being WITH UNLIMITED POWER be deprived of that which he desires? What is inhibiting his desire?

Or maybe I am missing something and your use of yourself as analogy is your point.

You are God.

All praise TD!!!!

Harry H. McCall said...

TD:

Good to see you're back fighting as the Christian apologetic savior again!

Instead of some general contradictions, how about some flat out lies striaght from Jesus himself?

In John 8:44, Jesus makes a flat out lie.

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8: 44

A. Please prove from the Biblical text where Satan EVER killed or murdered anyone! (Not in Job 1-2 based on the Hebrew text!)

B. Please prove from the Biblical text where Satan EVER told a lie! (Not in Genesis 3 based on the Hebrew text!)

Plus more lies straight from Jesus himself:

Mark 13:2:
Lie: "Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down."

Fact: Jews pray daily at the Wailing Wall (The Western Wall), but Jesus said no stone would be left one upon another!, Yet the Wailing Wall is the very wall of the Temple in Jesus’ day…still standing one stone upon another!

Matt. 16: 28:
Lie: “Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."

Jesus NEVER came back and all are dead just as the Epistle of 2 Peter 3: 4 knows full well: “and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."


John 14: 13 -14:
Lie: “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

Jesus said he would grant anything asked in his name…good or bad (he did not qualify it!)


So why doesn't Jesus openly answer desperate requests in his name? Christian people (children, babies) die daily with both them or their parents crying out to God in the name of Jesus to heal them.

Now TD, are these lies from an all knowing God man or just the empty promises of a failed and dead religion?

ccubeman said...

I suspect I'm wearing on John's patience with all my posts, so I'll sum up my position and digress, again.

1. If there is an omniscient god and the bible is true, then this god must have known that it would flood the earth roundabout 2500BCE killing nearly everyone. And this was known to the deity right from the start. If death by drowning was preordained my skepticism is not dimmed.

2. If there is an omniscient god and the bible is true, then this god must have known that it would flood the earth roundabout 2500BCE killing nearly everyone. Unless the direction of humankind was goodness, thus they would be spared death. Problem here is; an omniscient god would already know the outcome of any scenario ahead of time. So no matter what humankind did, they were doomed.

3. This god is not omniscient but pretty powerful. It couldn't have known man would be so evil. Turns out this god was mistaken and took steps to correct the problem. This scenario requires lack of omniscience.

The outcome and determination of everything must be known ahead of time, otherwise there is no omniscience. This means nothing changes or requires correction, it's done correctly and to spec the first time.

In any scenario, a skeptic I will remain.

Theological Discourse said...


The question to ask regarding the flood story is, Was there a problem(man sinning?) that required resolution? Did a god have to do something to effect the resolution? Did the problem go away after the action? If there was a problem, action was taken, the problem subsequently disappeared then the problem was corrected. For example, if you have a pest problem, you spray insecticide killing the pests. The pest problem has been corrected.

You're trying to equate, spin and force these words to indicate a correction is necessary. It simply isn't. Man sinning does not = problem, nor does resolution = correction. I'll keep it simple.

for you to have a point you must:

1. Prove there was a mistake.
2. Prove there was a correction.
3. Prove #1 and #2 affects Gods infallibility or omniscience.

Theological Discourse said...


So I guess I will modify my question and ask it again, How can an omnipotent being WITH UNLIMITED POWER be deprived of that which he desires? What is inhibiting his desire?

Hilarious, I answered this already. Gods desire to not forcibly interfere with freewill takes precedence over His desire to save everyone.

sconnor said...

theological discourse

How it logically follows is: god -- being god and all-knowing -- should have recognized that the majority of his earthly children would be immune (for ALL the reasons I outlined) to his message of salvation (ultimately to their demise) and knowing this he should have rectified his inept plan. Can you comprehend how god's omnipotence and omniscience is called into question? It is most certainly not a "non-sequitur"

Whoopsie, atheist logic strikes again.
1. Where is the requirement that God must do something about the majority of his creation going to hell? God does not have to do anything about that.
Looks like your non sequitur remains


You have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's analyze this a little closer.

1. Your god-concept is omniscient -- agreed?

2. Your god-concept loves his creation so much so that he sent his son/himself to save humanity -- correct?.

3. Your god-concept had his awesome hand and mind in the creation of the bible -- yes?

4. Your god-concept uses the bible to deliver his special message of salvation so people can be saved -- agreed?

5. People being fallible, misinterpret the message.

6. people being fallible don't give the message any thought.

7. People being fallible hear the message but don't believe in it.

8. Is this factual?

~or~

9. People never received the message throughout history because of:

Land barriers.
water barriers.
cultural barriers.
Time barriers.
technological barriers.

10. Is this factual?

11. Now if god so loved the world that he sent his only son to save us (presumably ALL of us) from hellfire isn't reasonable to conclude that everyone would get a chance to hear the UNAMBIGUOUS message of salvation?

12. Isn't it clear that for the ways I outlined above the majority of his creation never received the message or never understood it, or they misinterpreted it or reasoned it wasn't valid?

13. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that god was responsible for delivering a clear and concise message that everyone could understand, agree upon and believe, if indeed he so loved the world that he sent his only son to save us?

14. Wouldn't your all-knowing god-concept know this?

15. If your all-loving, all knowing god knew this, wouldn't he take measures to make sure ALL his earthly children were convinced that his message was genuine and knew exactly what the criteria was for being saved from hellfire?

Please answer every question specifically and thoroughly.

--S.

Theological Discourse said...

Wow, a super ignorant atheist. Of course I am not going to sit here and refute 'bible errors' all day.


A. Please prove from the Biblical text where Satan EVER killed or murdered anyone! (Not in Job 1-2 based on the Hebrew text!)

B. Please prove from the Biblical text where Satan EVER told a lie! (Not in Genesis 3 based on the Hebrew text!)

There is no lie there, how on earth would you know it was a lie anyway? do you happen to know that Satan did not kill anyone? can you show me proof that satan did not murder anyone? because that would be needed to prove Jesus lied, is all of satans deeds recorded in the bible? man this is ignorance at its finest.


Mark 13:2:
Lie: "Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down."

wow, logical, historical, and common sense ignorance. Jesus was talking about the temple, the wailing wall is not part of the temple.


Matt. 16: 28:
Lie: “Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."

Hilarious, Jesus was talking about the transfiguration which took place on the next page.


Lie: “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

Argument from silence, just because He did not qualify it doesn't mean anything.


Now TD, are these lies from an all knowing God man or just the empty promises of a failed and dead religion?

Neither, just ignorant assertions from an uneducated logically inept atheist.

Theological Discourse said...


1. If there is an omniscient god and the bible is true, then this god must have known that it would flood the earth roundabout 2500BCE killing nearly everyone. And this was known to the deity right from the start. If death by drowning was preordained my skepticism is not dimmed.

Hilarious, You're skeptical of God because He killed people in the flood? by that silly logic you should be skeptical of everyones existence that has killed lots of people.


2. If there is an omniscient god and the bible is true, then this god must have known that it would flood the earth roundabout 2500BCE killing nearly everyone. Unless the direction of humankind was goodness, thus they would be spared death. Problem here is; an omniscient god would already know the outcome of any scenario ahead of time. So no matter what humankind did, they were doomed.

Even if this were true(it is not) this does not affect the validity of Gods existence at all.


3. This god is not omniscient but pretty powerful. It couldn't have known man would be so evil. Turns out this god was mistaken and took steps to correct the problem. This scenario requires lack of omniscience.

Equally incorrect as the last 2.

You have not debunked anything, nor have you proven a contradiction, error, mistake, need for correction or any of that. All you are doing is simply asserting things that have already been refuted, furthermore by your ridiculous logic you should be skeptical of anyone that has killed lots of people.

Theological Discourse said...


You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, YOU have no idea what you're talking about. I asked quite clearly where the requirement that God must do something about the majority of his creation going to hell?
you have not provided me the requirement, your non sequitur remains.

Regarding 1-8 you're being logically fallacious again. Like I said, just because humans have misinterpreted SOME of the message is not evidence they misinterpreted ALL of the message. Slavery was misinterpreted(which was the original topic), now where is your proof and evidence that the message of salvation is misinterpreted? ignorant sconner seems to be using the fact that slavery was misinterpreted as evidence that the message of salvation is misinterpreted too. Athiest logic strikes again, 0/1


11. Now if god so loved the world that he sent his only son to save us (presumably ALL of us) from hellfire isn't reasonable to conclude that everyone would get a chance to hear the UNAMBIGUOUS message of salvation?

Well I see you've hit your straw man, since you have not provided a shred of evidence that states the message of salvation is misinterpreted.

1. No it is not reasonable to conclude that everyone would get a chance to hear the message of salvation. People lived thousands of years before Jesus Rose from the dead, they did not hear the message of salvation, yet they are in heaven. So no, it is NOT reasonable to conclude that. 0/2


12. Isn't it clear that for the ways I outlined above the majority of his creation never received the message or never understood it, or they misinterpreted it or reasoned it wasn't valid?

Yup.


14. Wouldn't your all-knowing god-concept know this?

Yup


15. If your all-loving, all knowing god knew this, wouldn't he take measures to make sure ALL his earthly children were convinced that his message was genuine and knew exactly what the criteria was for being saved from hellfire?

No, why would He have to take measures to make sure all his earthy children were convinced? why would He have to do this? you have not answered that question at all, this is why your non sequitur remains, it does not follow that He would need to take measures to make sure all of His earthly children need to be convinced, where is the requirement? in fact God ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WONT BE CONVINCED SEVERAL TIMES. So your non sequitur still remains as does your evidence that the salvation message is misinterpreted.

Chuck said...

TD,

So I can take it by your answer that you are God.

Give me your address so I can come worship you.

Amen!!!

Scott said...

TD,

We could debate God's omniscience, but why?

It seems clear that, even with only the complete knowledge of what had already happened during the year 300BCE, God would have enough knowledge to reach a reasonably accurate conclusion of how people would respond to his message in the future. This would have allowed God to make far better choices than what we've observed.

In other words, if God is as intelligent as you claim he is, he wouldn't even need to be omniscient to do a better job of communicating his message then, now or next week. But he doesn't, even after observing us for hundreds of thousand of years.

As such, It seems clear that God either doesn't exist, or he doesn't care if we "get" the message.

Perhaps God desire to not forcibly interefere with free will takes precedence over His desire to save everyone, that is completely logical.

Here we have a true non-sequitur. Again, to use my analogy, just because the video presents the exact same "commercial" to everyone doesn't mean that everyone would be forced to buy the product. Even Satan supposedly rebelled against God despite having first hand knowledge that God existed and created him.

What we're referring is how the "signal" was obviously broadcast in such a way that the commercial doesn't always appear clear to everyone or isn't even visible at all. Surely, if God was omnipotent, he should at least be able to present a message that would be clear to an audience that he himself created, so they could make an informed choice. However, this doesn't appear to be the case.

Theological Discourse said...


As such, It seems clear that God either doesn't exist, or he doesn't care if we "get" the message.

Or He doesn't care if you don't "get" the message based off of your own free will.

Here we have a true non-sequitur. Again, to use my analogy, just because the video presents the exact same "commercial" to everyone doesn't mean that everyone would be forced to buy the product.

Hilarious, I can't stand it when I'm talking to one person and another person jumps in and takes my answer out of context, that was not a non sequitur at all, it was merely a refutation that proves sconners non sequitur.

1. You need evidence that the salvation message is misinterpreted.
2. You need evidence that the "commercial" being presented isn't just fine the way it is.
3. Your personal opinion that the commercial is not just fine is not evidence.
4. Your analogy is not good, the commercial is being presented the same way to everyone, "Jesus is the only way of salvation" is clear?
6. Where is the requirement that God must brodcast the same message?


What we're referring is how the "signal" was obviously broadcast in such a way that the commercial doesn't always appear clear to everyone or isn't even visible at all. Surely, if God was omnipotent, he should at least be able to present a message that would be clear to an audience that he himself created, so they could make an informed choice. However, this doesn't appear to be the case.

You're making the same mistake as the other guy, claiming because the message of slavery was misinterpreted, the message of salvation is misinterpreted as well. You're also assuming that the message we have right now does not allow people to make an informed choice, that is also incorrect.

eheffa said...

TD said:
I asked quite clearly where the requirement that God must do something about the majority of his creation going to hell?.

You are right God would not have to do anything about the majority of his creation going to hell if this was his nature to be unconcerned; but, according to your Bible, God is Love and desires that none would perish & all would be saved.

It sure doesn't look like you can maintain both ideas in the same person as they are mutually incompatible.

The whole Christian theology is ultimately nonsensical. That's why we have 5000+ sects & denominations all disagreeing with each other.

The Christian God is a very poor communicator. Perhaps it's because he isn't really there.

-evan

sconnor said...

theological discourse

I knew you couldn't answer to the specifics of my questions.

I asked quite clearly where the requirement that God must do something about the majority of his creation going to hell?

This is not my argument.

1. My position is: god's use of the bible (using an ancient book to tell people how they can be saved) is negligent because it is impossible to get his message of salvation to everyone which you agreed to in question 12. Correct?

2. Or are you admitting that god created the majority of his earthly children so he can torture them in the flames of hell forever?

ignorant sconner seems to be using the fact that slavery was misinterpreted as evidence that the message of salvation is misinterpreted too

3. Show me where I made any argument correlating slavery and salvation.

12. Isn't it clear that for the ways I outlined above the majority of his creation never received the message or never understood it, or they misinterpreted it or reasoned it wasn't valid?

Yup.

4. You seem confused. First you say I haven't provided a shred of evidence that people have misinterpreted the message of salvation and now you agree.

5. Additionally you are mistaken; I gave -- as -- one example -- the universalist poster, who has misinterpreted the message of salvation to mean: all are saved.

6. If you agree with number 12 then whose responsible for instituting the incompetent use of the bible where people couldn't receive the message, where people can't understand it, where people misinterpret it or where people reasoned it wasn't valid?

15. If your all-loving, all knowing god knew this, wouldn't he take measures to make sure ALL his earthly children were convinced that his message was genuine and knew exactly what the criteria was for being saved from hellfire?

No, why would He have to take measures to make sure all his earthy children were convinced? why would He have to do this? you have not answered that question at all, this is why your non sequitur remains, it does not follow that He would need to take measures to make sure all of His earthly children need to be convinced, where is the requirement? in fact God ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WONT BE CONVINCED SEVERAL TIMES. So your non sequitur still remains as does your evidence that the salvation message is misinterpreted.

7. So god did not love the world so much that he sent his one and only son to save ALL of us from hellfire?

8. Why would your god-concept even attempt to put his message of salvation and the criteria of how one is supposedly saved if he didn't want ALL of his earthly children to be convinced how one is to be saved?

9. Or is it your position, god created only a minority to be saved while the majority of his earthly children will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity?

--S.

Harry H. McCall said...

Part 1

TD: “Wow, a super ignorant atheist. Of course I am not going to sit here and refute 'bible errors' all day.”

RE: One of Holding cronies. “Of course I am not going to sit here and refute 'bible errors' all day.” You are going to have to if you want to save Jesus’ ass!

TD; "There is no lie there, how on earth would you know it was a lie anyway? do you happen to know that Satan did not kill anyone? can you show me proof that satan did not murder anyone? because that would be needed to prove Jesus lied, is all of satans deeds recorded in the bible? man this is ignorance at its finest."

RE: TD, how do you KNOW God as Yahweh ever existed or exists? ONLY by the Biblical text! There IS NO PROOF AT ALL that any Satan (as a proper noun in Hebrew) ever existed. Just another Biblical lie!

The proof is on Jesus as he is the one making the charge! This is standard legal procedure. ¾ of the burden of proof is on the claimant makeing the charge who is, in this case, Jesus.

Jesus is a liar simply by making statements with not proof texts.

TD, put your brain in gear before you keyboard.

Plus, your God murdered more people in the Hebrew Bible than any idea of some Satan every thought of!


Mark 13:2:
Lie: "Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down."

TD: "wow, logical, historical, and common sense ignorance. Jesus was talking about the temple, the wailing wall is not part of the temple."

RE: I see NOTHING to support your claim that the foundation wall of the Temple mount is not part of the Temple. Try telling that to the Jews in Israel!

Jesus: “There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down."

Is a clear statement. The Wailing Wall in part of the Temple complex built of stones. You have NO PROOF of where Jesus was standing when he made the statement. Hell, he might had been standing right next to the Wailing Wall.

Any way Jesus' absolute about no stone left upon another is false!


Matt. 16: 28:
Lie: “Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."

TD: "Hilarious, Jesus was talking about the transfiguration which took place on the next page."

RE: Tell that to Paul and 2 Peter 3: 4.

Wake up dumb head! “ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.” is about the Kingdom and NOT “καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν” of 17: 2. How you get that μετεμορφώθη (English: metamorphosis) is equal to βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ (one’s personal kingdom) is just plan baseless and dumb!

Harry H. McCall said...

Part 2

Lie: “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

TD: "Argument from silence, just because He did not qualify it doesn't mean anything."

RE; Again, TD, your logic is all over the place. Just why do most all public prayers end with: “We ask it in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen”.

Oh, I'm sure the dumb Christians just don’t know where they got that ending. Surely not form Jesus himself!

Now TD, are these lies from an all knowing God man or just the empty promises of a failed and dead religion?

TD; "Neither, just ignorant assertions from an uneducated logically inept atheist."

Only a Holdingite could screw up this bad.

With sconnor, you are arguing that the Bible is so very clear. It says exactly what it says about salvation clearly and then you turn to me and state that nothing Jesus said is really what Jesus meant. Come on man, you can’t have it both ways.

You place the burden of proof on us when its your Bible that makes these damn claims!

TD to sconnor:

1. You need evidence that ….
2. You need evidence that…
3. Your personal opinion … is not evidence.
4. Your analogy is not good…
6. Where is the requirement that …



Listen, your damn Bible makes one hell of a bunch of claims. And you want the world to follow your magical disappearing act of logical in which that what we read can only be correctly interpreted by you and Holding.


Man, we are not some ignorant Middle Age people who can’t read Latin and must have the Pope Holdie and his TD priest to tell us what it means.

Tell Holdie to put you in for a Platinum Screwball award. You sure earned one on this post!

Chuck said...

Yeah TD,

Can you provide us the overwhelming evidence of which you speak when calling us foolish atheists.

I'd like to see that. I of course would worship it because I know you to be god. Your ability to know the exact mind of god is evidence of that to me.

Anonymous said...

Harry,

Your hermeneutics and exegesis are deplorable! A personal kingdom???? There is no such thing! And the reference to the Temple is obvious, and the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

You quoted some Greek text. Do you know what the aorist imperative is without looking it up? I find that most people who quote the Greek do not even understand Greek grammar. Is that the case with you also?

And why do you say that Jesus lied instead of maybe the gospel writers got it wrong? The gospels were written long after the fact. So if anyone got it wrong, it was the writers, not Jesus.

sconnor said...

dencol

Your hermeneutics and exegesis are deplorable! A personal kingdom????

First the bible doesn't proclaim an eternal life in heaven. Jesus never even preached soul-saving, nor the idea of an eternal afterlife, in heaven. Ancient Jews didn't believe in an eternal soul; they believed the soul (NEPHESH) meant person-hood, character and self -- when you die, your soul dies. You have to put aside all your christian teachings, indoctrinations and propaganda, and actually read the bible for yourself. Jesus' agenda was not to get people to heaven, it was to renew the earth and bring god's kingdom to it.
If you were paying a little closer attention, at mass, you would realize you pray about this every Sunday. You should have suspected all along that the coming of god's domain, rather then saving souls for heaven was Jesus' main agenda, as in the first petition, of the lords prayer, it says, "Thy Kingdom come". Then the second petition reiterates and bolsters the first petition by saying, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
In fact, the bible believes the only people in heaven -- besides god -- were the people who ascended to heaven in their physical bodies, like Enoch, Elijah and Jesus. This is the only, possible way an ancient Jew would know, how a person would get to heaven -- as a miraculous event, where the whole person floated or is whisked away, up into the sky.
Luke 22:18 -- Jesus says, "... I certainly won't drink any of the fruit of thy vine from now until god's domain is established!"
John 3:13 -- And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he who hath descended out of heaven, even the son of man, who is in heaven.
Heaven was not an eternal destination for regular folk like you and I -- that's what Jesus thought, anyway.
So you got another dilemma, Is the bible the word of god? If it is, then how are you so sure about an eternal resting place, up in heaven, at the foot of your lord and king, when the bible contradicts it so plainly? You got nothing more than delusional bullshit. If your christian god is supposedly all-powerful, all-loving and all-merciful and he loves us so much and wants to "save" us, then how come he can't get his supposed message of salvation to everyone, equally? The other 70% of the world believes in other deities, religions, philosophies or are non-religious. That means out of the 6 billion of the children, your god created, the other 4 billion of his children will burn in hell, for an eternity. Those are just the ones in this moment in history. In reality there was and will be trillions and trillions, of his children, that he created, AND LOVED, that will be cast to hell forever. Your god is doing a shitty job of "saving" his children.

The gospels were written long after the fact. So if anyone got it wrong, it was the writers, not Jesus.

Yep -- just another reason why scripture is not trustworthy.

--S.

Chuck said...

DenCol,

"The gospels were written long after the fact. So if anyone got it wrong, it was the writers, not Jesus."

But aren't the Gospels the only documents for what Jesus "said" and therefore how do we know they aren't accurate? I am having trouble following your hypothesis. It seems illogical.

ccubeman said...

-TD,


I have a few suggestions.

When you're responding to a post...

Ask questions, make points, argue your points. Don't say something said is wrong and stop, tell us why it's wrong. And leave out the 'hilarious' references, the ignorant atheist statements, the 0 for x scoring and stick with establishing and arguing your position. It's disrespectful to emphasize your position with insults. Let your position stand on its own feet without the bolster of personal attacks. Probably the only one here that can ad hom attack is the moderator, John Loftus. Since it's his blog, he has free reign. On the guest commenter side, lets argue over these opinions in a dignified way.

So...

Why do you answer my questions of omniscience by stating existence or non-existence?

We're already stipulating a god exists for the purposes of John's post, "The problem of Miscommunication". If there's actually no god, discussion of miscommunication, infallibility, or omniscience is moot.

So, lets assume there is a god, we'll say it's the Judeo-Christian god. We'll also say this god is omniscient/infallible. This means this god knows everything with no exceptions and does not make mistakes.

Thus, from my last post:

1. An omniscient god knew ahead of time the planet would be flooded. Humankind is doomed from the start.
Since the biblical story is the planet was flooded and everyone but Noah and kin was killed, the majority of humankind had no chance directly from the start. Is this fair to say? If not, why not? Depending on the answer here, we can explore options 2 and 3 from my last post.

Also, I was pondering your math reference with regard to change vs correction.

. Hilarious, not all change is a correction. 2+2=1, wait 2+2=3. I changed but I did not correct anything. So you're 0/1

What is your intent with this example? Was it:
1. Simply to replace a couple of numbers at random?
2. Or did you mistakenly use one number instead of another?
If you replaced numbers at random with no intent, I concede the numbers were simply changed. If your original number set was incorrectly written in some way, replacing one number with another is a correction. The wrong number was used initially, the correct number was then substituted.
3. You very likely know what the sum of 2+2 is, but in your example you provide the wrong answer. Of course this was done to make your point, but lets take it further. Your point says replacing numbers is simple change, but the end result of the replacement still shows an example requiring a correction. If after replacing the numbers in your example, does the example still not require a correction to the sum?

As for my personal views on existence or non-existence. I don't believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural. This includes the judeo-christian god, santa, unicorns, thor, zeus, and so on. If this disqualifies me from arguing omniscience of the judeo-christian god, let me know, I can get off the omniscience, omnipotent, infallible trolley.

Scott said...

TD wrote;

1. You need evidence that the salvation message is misinterpreted.

Which salvation message? Do I need to be baptized before I'm saved? What of people who never hear God's word, are they saved by their works? If so, then might I be save by my works?

DelCol, thinks Hell was "invented" by those who compiled and translated the Bible to fit their theology. However, we can't identify the authors of the Bible and we can't collaborate their sources.

2. You need evidence that the "commercial" being presented isn't just fine the way it is.

It's obviously not being transmitted successfully. There are what appears to be forgeries in the Bible. Many people groups have not heard God's word. Much of the Bible conflicts with what we now know about science. Etc. Then there are people who think Allah is the true prophet. Are these people going to hell? Do they not believe they are worshipping the one true God?

3. Your personal opinion that the commercial is not just fine is not evidence.

Yet, you think the commercial is fine because the commercial says it's fine? How do you know you've received the commercial clearly?

4. Your analogy is not good, the commercial is being presented the same way to everyone, "Jesus is the only way of salvation" is clear?

It's obviously not clear. What happens to the souls of unborn children? Please see above.

6. Where is the requirement that God must brodcast the same message?

Does God want people to be saved? Then it would obviously be in his best interest to broadcast the same message so they can make an informed decision.

You're making the same mistake as the other guy, claiming because the message of slavery was misinterpreted, the message of salvation is misinterpreted as well.

TD,

Let's use another analogy. You have a story that you want conveyed. If you do not tell anyone the story, it's obvious that no one will hear it. You could tell your story to a drunk person or someone with a mental illness, but this would likely result in your story being misunderstood or forgotten the next day. You could write your story down on pieces of paper in a cryptic code, and leave on a park bench in hope that someone will decipher them. On the other end of the spectrum, you could have your book published in 30 languages and spend billions of dollars on promoting the book and delivering free copies to stores and remote villages.

In other words, when you decide you want your story to be heard, you must decide on and take specific actions or this will never occur. But in taking any specific action you knowingly and specifically influence the likelihood that your story will be heard the way you intended. You don't need to be omniscient to know this.

Here's only one may possible examples....

When Jesus was seen by over 512 people after his resurrection, was this just an accident or was intentional? When it was decided that Jesus would be seen by anyone, why pick just 512 people instead of 5,120 people or even 51,200 people across 51 different cities? Surely, you don't need to be omniscient to know that the more people who saw a resurrected Jesus, the more likely there would be collaborative reports from other cultures and other sources than the Bible. And this would translate into more people being saved, which God supposedly want's.

When performing miracles, was Jesus just trying to be helpful or did he do so with the intent to show that he was the Son of God? If it was intentional choice, then Jesus could have decided to perform miracles that left physical evidence. Again, it doesn't take an omniscient being to know what effect this would have on the development of Islam and Judaism, which again would have translated into more people being saved if Christianity is true.

Harry H. McCall said...

Decol: “Your hermeneutics and exegesis are deplorable! A personal kingdom???? There is no such thing! And the reference to the Temple is obvious, and the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.”

RE: You've got two topics here rolled into one.

First, you state: “A personal kingdom????”

Just how do you, Mr. Greek Grammar, translate the phase “ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ“ with the genitive pronoun? You might want to tell the RSV and NASB that they simply don’t know Hellenistic Greek either.

Secondly, there are 82 references to (NOW GET THIS) foundations in the New Testament and NOT buildings, but the critical structures they sit on in Paul letters and the Gospels.

A wall is part of the Temple. This wall was above ground(originally 62 feet , now 105 feet). The 62 feet is part of the Temple structure, period!

Since you have no proof of how complete any destruction was after Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, the Western Wall is proof than Jesus was totally wrong on any complete destruction.

Decol: “You quoted some Greek text. Do you know what the aorist imperative is without looking it up? I find that most people who quote the Greek do not even understand Greek grammar. Is that the case with you also?”

RE: I was a Greek tutor in college.

Let see what you know about Hellenistic Greek. I’ll continue in my next post with an attack on Jesus using Greek grammar. Let's see if you can save his ass using what you know of Greek.

My purpose here at DC is to plant strong doubt in any Christian who reads my posts.

So, Decol, get out your Greek grammars and lexicons and be the apologetic savior you claim to be.

Decol; “And why do you say that Jesus lied instead of maybe the gospel writers got it wrong? The gospels were written long after the fact. So if anyone got it wrong, it was the writers, not Jesus.”

Apart form Josephus (who talks about 21 jesus figures in his works and which I will post on again in the future), without the Gospels, we have no so-called “Historical Jesus”.

So, for me Jesus and the Gospels and one and the same or just like God in the Hebrew Bible.

This is why some fundamentalist churches worship the Bible (KJV). Jesus in infused within the Biblical text just as Christians claim he is in the Trinity.

sconnor said...

ccubeman

And leave out the 'hilarious' references, the ignorant atheist statements, the 0 for x scoring and stick with establishing and arguing your position. It's disrespectful to emphasize your position with insults. Let your position stand on its own feet without the bolster of personal attacks.

Absolutely!

It's like arguing with a teenager who gives his buddies high fives because he thinks he slammed you with a trite witticism -- it's juvenile.

--S.

Anonymous said...

Hi Harry,

“ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ“ is HIS Kingdom because HE is the King! This is NOT about any personal kingdom!

You were a Greek tutor? For 1st yr Greek? That tells me nothing about your level of knowledge, nothing whatsoever. So once again, can you give me a Biblical example of the Greek aorist imperitive and it's functions and limits? You may have tutored the alphabet for all I know.

One wall left standing is not complete destruction????? Give me a break!

ccubeman said...

-Dencol

I don't think i've ever met a christian who uses the Greek translation of the bible. Most seem to use the KJV.

Admittedly, I'm not a biblical scholar. So help us out with the differences between the Greek translation and the KJV.

For example, How does the translation between matt 25:30-46 differ. It can be argued in these writings that jesus is definitely referencing hell, or at least someplace hell like. If this kjv instance differs from the original greek translation, what are the differences? This of course is assuming that Matthew was originally written in Greek. I've read it may have been written, along with Luke, in Hebrew or Aramaic.

My motive here is to establish whether or not a massive miscommunication is occurring based on simple translation issues. After all, millions of folks believe the kjv bible to be infallible. For it to be different from the original in a meaningful way could present problems for those faithful to the kjv version.

eheffa said...

Scott said:
Surely, you don't need to be omniscient to know that the more people who saw a resurrected Jesus, the more likely there would be collaborative reports from other cultures and other sources than the Bible. And this would translate into more people being saved, which God supposedly want's.

I think that you are on to a very powerful argument here Scott.

It used to trouble me to no end as a Christian to wonder why if God wanted everyone know him & to be saved, that he did such a poor job of documenting his most important salvific act of history. Why wouldn't it serve God's purposes to be careful in documenting Jesus' words & deeds in a more accurate & unequivocal fashion? Then if Jesus were to have detractors, it would be on the basis of an objection to the content of his position not to whether he even had a particular position at all. Why wouldn't this famous miracle worker (according to the Gospels & the book of Acts) have attracted the attention of the historians of the day? Would this have thwarted God's purposes somehow? Why were their no first person witnesses called to testify of these events?

Craig & company love to wax on about how the resurrection of Jesus is such a well established historical fact. This is quite laughable really. We don't even have good data to support the existence of the person of Jesus let alone the physical resurrection of this same individual. Assertions in the Gospels (which may have been written as late as the second century CE) or second century interpolations into Paul's writings that there were 500 witnesses to the event do not constitute evidence. This isn't even evidence of hearsay - it may be nothing more than bald fiction.

We are supposed to accept the notion that these late writings, contradictory & ambiguous as they may be, are somehow acceptable documentation for the greatest most important event in history. We are also supposed to accept the assertion that God was responsible for inspiring and directing this documentation process. We have a choice. We can accept this unlikely assertion at face value or we can look for more likely, alternative explanations.

Could these writings be simply pious man-made fabrications; perhaps not even intended to be regarded as "scripture" by their earliest authors? Yes in some cases (gMark for a good example). Others like the Book of Acts are more clearly motivated with the intention to reconcile differing stories & to meet political religious objectives.

In any case, this supposedly God-directed enterprise falls far short of the mark if the objective was to clearly document the events of that time & avoid unnecessary ambiguity or conflict. (A high school senior would be ashamed of this level of documentation.)

If these documents were the residua of some esoteric mystery cult, then one could accept their obscurity & veiled meanings as part of the authors' attempt to cloak their intent; but these are supposedly inspired by the omniscient, all-powerful creator God who loves everyone, wanting all to know him & all to escape the fiery punishment awaiting those who fail to take heed. These are supposed to be the supreme result of a God anxious to save us all. Does it look like the God of the Universe was trying to achieve that with these documents?

Ah....nope.

Not likely.

Assertion fails.

This has all the hallmarks of man-made Bullshit. It's insulting to god to attribute any of it to him.

-evan

Harry H. McCall said...

Delcon,

“is HIS Kingdom because HE is the King! This is NOT about any personal kingdom!”

What the hell is this suppose to mean? Jesus has a kingdom, but it is really not his?!

So whose is it? All the sinners who are not allowed in? Maybe, no one goes to hell since it is their Kingdom.

He is the King of a Kingdom that is NOT really his personal kingdom! Talk about double talk and standards.

Come man! You want an example of the aorist imperative (it’s not spelled aorist “imperitive“ by the way) and you can’t under stand the genitive possessive personal pronoun αὐτοῦ!

What’s you point? So what if I pointed to Luke 18:8? Again, what’s your point?

Now do I need to ask you to locate a 2 Aorist Imperative 1st singular in the MI Conjugation? What’s that going to prove?

So, since your native language is English, can you please diagram for me the following sentence:
She said, that you said, that they said; he had it.

Is this supposed to prove you do or do not understand English grammar?

If it’s every one’s Kingdom, great, when I get to MY part of HIS KINGDOM, I’ll kick Jesus off his Bema Seat and take it over myself.

Decon: “One wall left standing is not complete destruction????? Give me a break!”

No break given. Your precious Jesus got caught with his lying pants down!

“λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῷ, ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ“ is NOT a fact at the Temple site as the Western Wall factually proves!

People can touch the Western Wall, but NO ONE can touch Jesus. Fact is, the Wall is here 2,000 years after Jesus went belly up.

As for as your name goes, you better stay with your Decon mouse traps and poisons!

Anonymous said...

My name is DenCol. Can't you get anything right? The Western Wall was a retaining wall! It was not even a part of the actual Temple! So if you are going to call someone a liar, it would be nice if you had your facts straight.

And no, no one is going to Hell! There is no such thing as Hell. Gehenna is not Hell and neither is Hades or Sheol.

And Luke 18:8 is not an aorist imperative! Are you for real??? And the genitive is not always possessive!

And while you are speaking of English grammar, UNDERSTAND is one word. So quit posing as an some sort of superior intellectual.

Harry H. McCall said...

My mistake. I quoted the wrong chapter of Luke.

Now, put 17:8 or Luke 12: 58 or 14: 23 or 19: 30 in your pipe and smoke it!

Ghenna is a Semitic word ONLY used in the Gospels.

Try your little "Sheol is not Hell" with the LXX and see how far your personal orthodox truth goes!

If you are as educated as you claim, get out your A Concordance to the Septuagint by Hatch and Redpath and look up Hades / Hell on p 24.

Now where is your Gehenna? Oh, I’m so sorry, your Greek education (if you've go one) stopped with the N.T. TOOOO BAADDD!

And as to your claim: “The Western Wall was a retaining wall! It was not even a part of the actual Temple!”

Tell that to the Jews who pray daily there. Hell, try telling that to the Jews here in the U.S!

Jesus lied and now you're covering for him.

Theological Discourse said...

I typed up a refutation here at my blog.

http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-way-or-highway.html

Anonymous said...

Hi Harry,

Sheol is not in the Septuagint one single time. Sheol is a Hebrew word! The LXX is the Greek translation of the OT! Come on now Harry. Sheol is NOT Hell! Never was and never will be. Hades is the Greek counterpart to Sheol. It NEVER means Hell! BEVER! I have done 1000's of hours of study on this single subject.

Gehenna is also used 1 time in the Book of James. It is not Semetic, it is a physical location near Jerusalem that is still there today. Gehenna was a valley that was used as a garbage dump where they threw the bodies of those who had been stoned, hanged, crucified etc. Jesus was warning of the death penalty and a nasty burial place where their worm does not die and the fire is not put out. People were often stoned back in those days for various offenses. ALL of the Gehenna warnings are earthly warnings, not about ant eternal torment in the afterlife. There is never any mention of Satan being in Gehenna. There is no mention of the gospel as the way of escaping Gehenna!

Jesus lied to no one. Your so called FACTS are totally bogus nonsense!

sconnor said...

dencol

Jesus lied to no one.

Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall...drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

I tell you what dencol, since you are a self-described believer of christ, why don't you and your christian ilk go to your nearest Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and heal all the innocent children, who are in anguish; suffering in unimaginable ways.

Your jesus-buddy says you can lay hands on them and they will recover -- what are you waiting for? You have this ability (so says your god) it would be morbidly negligent of you to withhold your healing powers. You have a responsibility to heal these children who are egregiously suffering. Jesus doesn't lie -- right, dencol? Chop, chop.

--S.

sconnor said...

I typed up a refutation here at my blog.

Nothing but a rehash of what you already vomited here.

Still can't address the specifics of my questions.

So finally after the many mental back-flips and bloated rationalizations, td, finally confirms what his christian doctrine has taught him: If you do not believe in god and if you don't accept christ as your lord and savior you will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity.

According to td's beliefs, this will include the Jews of the Holocaust, who suffered through unspeakable terrors -- there virtual hell on earth -- where families were torn apart, brutally beaten, burned alive, experimented on, starved and worked to death, unimaginable vile, long-term mass, suffering. And what awaits them after they die? According to td -- it's hell.

This hellish existence is also awaiting the Buddhists from the atomic blasts -- their virtual hell on earth -- where if you weren't vaporized, you were burned beyond recognition, charred to the bone and in some cases flower patterns from the fabric of furniture was seared into the skin or you lived the rest of your life rotting away and suffering from radiation poisoning -- epic, horrific destruction and human suffering on a mass scale. According to td they now reside in hell.

According to td -- everyone who does not ascribe to his idiosyncratic, line of delusional thinking (his interpretation of the message of salvation is infallible -- td HAS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH) and the christian doctrine that pollutes his mailable mind will be spending eternity in hell. The other 70% of the world -- all the other religions and non-believers -- who are not bible believing christians will posthumously reside in hell.

The reason these people will be tortured, for the rest of eternity, is because they were not born a bible believing christian like td and they were not persuaded to believe in the preposterous notion that all you have to do to be saved is to telepathically tell jesus you accept him -- an absurd idea believed by the most brain-dead christians.

sconnor said...

The absolute arrogance and insanity that is needed to believe in such nonsense -- "my god takes an interest in me, listens to me, answers my prayers, loves me, accepts me and will reward me for being a good little christian with the blissful pleasures of heaven, because I know what god is telling me in the bible, and I believe." Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

Yes, td wallows, in the bogus sense of superiority and arrogance, with the delusional knowledge god loves him and he'll be granted a one way ticket to paradise, because he understands god's message of salvation, while the rest of the non-christian world is damned.

God already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to be tortured for all of eternity in the flames of hell.

Why create them in the first place? The only answer I can come up with is god is a sadistic torturer of souls. What other reason could there be?

And td vomits up his free will argument. Free will? choice?
There is no free will or choice, in the matter, when your god holds a gun to your head and says believe in me or I'll torture you, in the flames, of hell for an eternity -- that's not a choice, that's an ultimatum, from a sick, sadistic monster. Your god is insanely insecure and morbidly petty, to send his earthly children to the flames of hell, simply, because they did not believe, in him (What's the matter -- were god's poor little feelings hurt?) or because they concluded there was no objective evidence for his existence. I don't know what's more pathetically horrendous, a god who will torture you just because you don't believe, in him or the ignorant christian drone, who believes and condones god's actions?

You are just another deluded christian in a long line of unbalanced christians I have conversed with. You truly believe that you have found the Holy Grail -- an invisible key to a shining paradise (THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH) that only you and your particular christian brethren can perceive and unlock; an insane concept constructed from your own myopic idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture, that provides you with a bogus sense of superiority and an illusion of eternal security and comfort. You have an idiotic ultra-twisted, notion of reality, based on foolish superstitions and willful ignorance, who has been brainwashed to the point of insanity.

The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll

--S.

Anonymous said...

Hi sconner,

Apparently you have not done much investigation into textual criticism. Mark 16 ends at verse 8 in the best manuscripts. Those verses you quoted were added at a later date and are not a part of the original text. If you are going to accuse Jesus of lying, then why don't you first find out what He ACTUALLY said.

The blame is not with Jesus, the blame is with scribal errors and additions. Put the blame where it belongs and go learn what the Bible REALLY says! CHOP CHOP!

Anonymous said...

Hi sconner,

You said: "God already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to be tortured for all of eternity in the flames of hell."

There is no Hell. Hell is a false translation and misunderstanding of Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, and the Lake of Fire. None of those in Hell. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the WORLD! All sin will be forever removed and everyone will be reconciled and restored to God.

1 Timothy 4:10 - "God who is the Savior of ALL MEN, especially those who believe"!!!!

Not "ONLY" those who believe!!!!

1 John 2:2 confirms - He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Romans 5:18 says - "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there RESULTED justification of life to all men."

Romans 11:32 - "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

2 Corinthians 5:19 - "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them."

Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men."

John 1:29 - "Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world"!

The sin issue, including the sin of rejecting Christ, was TAKEN AWAY at the cross! Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"! Everyone will restored to God in the end. That is the REAL Good News. Forget what the churches are teaching and find out what the Bible teaches!

Harry H. McCall said...

Reply to DenCol Part 1

“Sheol is not in the Septuagint one single time. Sheol is a Hebrew word! The LXX is the Greek translation of the OT! Come on now Harry. Sheol is NOT Hell! Never was and never will be. Hades is the Greek counterpart to Sheol. It NEVER means Hell! BEVER! I have done 1000's of hours of study on this single subject.”

DenCol, my point being is that the only translation of the O.T. cited in the N.T. is the LXX. The Jews of Alexandria understood the equilibrant of both the Pit and Sheol as Hell thus translating it as such.

Likewise, the use of Heaven in the N.T. as a place where the righteous dead go is a creation of the first century mind drawn from the pile of Intertestamental literature.

The Hebrew text states that the depart dead, both evil and righteous, go to a world of shades in the earth away from God who lives in the heavens (“For in death there is no memory of you. In Sheol, who shall give you thanks?” Psalm 6:5; “Do you work wonders for the dead, do the shades rise to praise you?” Psalm 88:11; “The dead do not live, the shades do not rise; Therefore Thou punished and destroyed them, And Thou hast wiped out all remembrance of them.” Isaiah 26: 14). Death is a place where no one wanted to go and can be later equated as a place for the wicked: “Let death come suddenly on them. Let them go down alive into Sheol. For wickedness is in their dwelling, in the midst of them.” Psalm 55:15.

In general, the existence in Sheol is much the same as the Semitic neighbors of the Israelites from whom they copied, that is, the abode of the dead is describe with negative imagery as a place of dust and silence where the dead are imprisoned and is often called the pit (They shall go down to the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust. Job 16: 17).

A close reading here shows that Sheol / the pit is the personification of the grave, often a common cave or pit where dead families were place together (“When Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the spirit, and was gathered to his people.” Genesis 49: 33; “David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.” 1 Kings 2: 10). This Semitic (Hebrew) concept has given Christians hope of seeing their family members in Heaven, but this is putting a limited ancient Near Eastern gloomy after life in a Greek context.

Harry H. McCall said...

Reply Part 2

So exactly how did a massive subterranean holding place where all the dead went in the
ancient Near East become a place where ONLY the evil dead went? Plus, just how did this cold and dark subterranean world become a place just the opposite in the New Testament as thattof Heaven?

Fact is, the Intertestamental world was full of vision and wild tells of the after life.

Denco, it is at this junction ones finds the Christian impact of a place of eternal rewards called Heaven created.

So how did the view of Sheol as a subterranean place become a place located 180 degrees upward in the sky where the people went to live with Jesus and walk on Streets of Gold?

שאב (shakab) is used 38 times in the Deuteronoistic History and in the Chronicler to reference sleep with death, but in the context of an Israelite being gathered to his family. This Hebrew word carrying both meanings for sleep and death is always used in a context of an Israelites death, mostly a in the case of a king.

On the other hand, Hebrew has a word מֹות (moth) used 160 times in the Hebrew text for the end of life or used as we understand the English term death today. This Hebrew term is derived from the Canaanite god for death in the Ugaritic text: Mot.

To cut a long study short, Hell was developed out of both the Pit and Sheol which the LXX translates as Hell.

The N.T. simply continues this paraphrase tradition with Gehenna or a word which has no reference in the Hebrew Bible.

Fact is, both Heaven (as expressed in the N.T.) and Hell are products of the creative Christian imagination.

In short, both are bogus!

sconnor said...

decon

The blame is not with Jesus, the blame is with scribal errors and additions. Put the blame where it belongs and go learn what the Bible REALLY says!

And how do you know that the original manuscripts weren't embellished?

How do you know that the original oral stories weren't embellished?

Can't you see how -- by your admission -- you have cast doubt as to the reliability of scripture?


Additionally here are some more passages you have to rationalize away.


Proverbs 16:3 Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.



The bible is clear -- believers can get what they want. I guess you just want to let little children suffer in egregious, unimaginable agony.



Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Can't you ask Jesus to let you heal all the terminally ill and suffering children?)



Matthew 17:20 I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. (NOTHING is impossible. See you don't even have to be full of the spirit -- you have at least enough faith that equals a minuscule mustard seed --right?).



Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Come on! At least start at your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and ease ALL those innocent children from their massive suffering -- HEAL THEM!)



Matthew 18:19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. (I'm sure you have plenty of deluded christian friends and relatives who believe the way you do -- you just need one more. Think of ALL the babies and children you can heal).



Matthew 21:21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. (You believe -- right, decon? There are countless children in your area who are suffering in horrible reprehensible ways -- all you have to do is pray -- you know if you are a believer (mustard seed of faith) and you believe ALL this bullshit in the bible).



John 14:12-14 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.



ANYTHING, decon. How about healing a new-born who has an inoperable brain tumor or a horribly deformed baby or a child who has terminal cancer, or a child who just had ALL of his arms and legs amputated? Either you CAN (like Jesus says) pray and save the suffering, sick children or you are an uncompassionate, obscenely apathetic, morbidly negligent monster who is withholding the healing power Jesus gave to you.

--S.

sconnor said...

dencol

There is no Hell. Hell is a false translation and misunderstanding of Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, and the Lake of Fire. None of those in Hell.

Ummmm -- I don't believe in hell.

You issue is with theological discourse.

--S.

Anonymous said...

Hi Harry,

The LXX never uses the word HELL. In fact, the KJV is the only major English version that translates Sheol and Hades as Hell. There are over 12 English translations that NEVER have the word Hell in them. Not one single time. I agree with you that Hell is a totally bogus understanding of Hades, Sheol, and Gehenna. There is no Hell and there is no eternal torment. All sin will be forgiven and removed and everyone will be reconciled and restored to God.

eheffa said...

DenCol,

Hades, Sheol, and Gehenna are all as real as the Pillars of the Earth & the Firmament above. (with the exception of the local Jerusalem dump...)

This is angels on the head of a pin stuff - it's all a fantasy world.

-evan

Anonymous said...

And some today are claiming that the Holocost never happened! Anthing can be written off as myth! BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL!

Anonymous said...

Hades and Sheol are the grave? Do you deny the grave exists???

Anonymous said...

To sconner,

Why are you quoting Scriptures about the future reign of Christ during the "millenial" Kingdom???? No wonder you are so confused! You need to study a little dispensational theology at the least. Your hermeneutics are deplorable!

Anonymous said...

DenCol said...You need to study a little dispensational theology at the least. Your hermeneutics are deplorable!

And you are a fucking idiot if you think you have the truth about this and other Christians don't. Why the hell are you chiding sconner when Christians cannot get it together. As far as I can tell Christians who have a different eschatology would say the same damn things about your ignorant theology as you do to sconner.

Tell you what, start a Blog titled, "I know the truth about eschatology," and invite all Christians there. Battle it out among yourselves and see if you can come to a consensus. Then and only then come back here to share that consensus and you can chid sconner. Until then adopt a little humility asshole.

The nerve of you telling us we're ignorant when Christians will say the same things about each other.

Dip shit. I'm getting tired of your arrogance. You see it's one thing to have conclusions, it'se another thing entirely to act like someone is ignorant when they disagree, which is what you do.

Harry H. McCall said...

DenCol:

My point is that just as שְׁאֹול does not equal the Greek ἤδη; so to does הַשָּׁמַיִם not equal the New Testament’s οὐρανὸς.

Both Jesus, Paul and the Christian Tradition or part of the grow of theology.

Now, if you chose to claim that God lead this growth of theology as part of some Dispensational Revelations, then the “Catch 22" becomes exactly when did God control this process and when did simple human imagination control these dogmatic growths?

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

Great to hear back from you again. How are you today? May God richly bless you and your family.

BTW, isn't this blog about you atheists having the truth and us Christians as being deluded? How many denominations are there today? Over 5000 at lat count I believe! Why do you think that is? Because Christians all agree on what the Bible teaches? Of course not!

You want to debate the existance of God, so here I am!

Anonymous said...

Hi Harry,

The LXX disagrees with your assesments. Sheol is Hades, but not Gehenna and ouranos is Heaven or heavens.

Harry H. McCall said...

DenCol:

You might want to take on JP Holding on this subject here:

Harry

Anonymous said...

DenCol, I guess we both can let out a blue streak sometimes, can't we? Watch out drunken sailors, here we come!

I apologize, but then your ignorance astounds me.

DenCol said...BTW, isn't this blog about you atheists having the truth and us Christians as being deluded?

Listen up dunce. Let's say there are, oh, 45,000 particular answers to a problem, like there is when it comes to religious faiths.

Given this scenario I can be completely confident that one of those answers is wrong and deluded, like I think yours is. But YOU on the other hand are completely confident that your particular answer is the correct one. Do you see the difference here? It's a huge one.

There is a huge difference in denying one answer and affirming one answer given the number of answers available and the number of rational people who defend them. I can say it this way, it's easier to smell a rotten egg than it is to lay a good one. It's easier to criticize a builder or a cook than it is to be a builder or a cook. Why is this easier? It's because it's easier to spot the problems of a particular answer than it is to construct a good case for one particular answer. And it's easier to say a meal tastes bad, or a house is built wrong, than it is to cook a better one or build a better one.

Sheesh.

Will I need to explain this more? I hope not.

sconnor said...

dencol

Why are you quoting Scriptures about the future reign of Christ during the "millenial" Kingdom???? No wonder you are so confused! You need to study a little dispensational theology at the least. Your hermeneutics are deplorable!

It's not enough to make a broad sweeping generalization without substantiating it -- please provide scriptural evidence that ALL the verses I supplied were really supposed to be for christ's future reign.

Furthermore I'm still waiting for you to address the logic of these questions, below:

1. And how do you know that the original manuscripts weren't embellished?

2. How do you know that the original oral stories weren't embellished?

3. Can't you see how -- by your admission -- you have cast doubt as to the reliability of scripture?

--S.

Anonymous said...

So there are too many cooks in the kitchen! And most of them get the boot just like in Hell's Kitchen! There is a proverb that says that "Every man is right in his own estimation."

And yes, I am a legend in my own mind! Of course I think I am right. Why else hold a position? I speak from experience, not just religious churchianity.

Anonymous said...

But DenCol, you simply cannot have the level of assuredness that you are right given the number of rationally coherent answers that are defended by the number of rational people who think otherwise.

It's merely wishful thinking on your part to think as you do. You have not seriously considered the many other options nor the evidence against what you believe.

I think you need to consider that proverb. Again it reads: There is a proverb that says that "Every man is right in his own estimation." You think it applies to everyone else but you. What do you think Solomon would say to you when you do so. The proverb must be taken internally or you are not seriously considering it, which, I think Solomon would scoff at you for this as I do.

sconnor said...

dencol

BTW, isn't this blog about you atheists having the truth and us Christians as being deluded?

I want to expand on what John said.

You are the one making the extraordinary claims.

You are the one claiming truth.

The onus is upon you to supply objective evidence to substantiate your extraordinary claims.

We are not claiming truth either way. A god or an ultimate reality may very well exist, but so far objective evidence for the existence of this ultimate reality (god) has not presented itself.

The default position of a non-theist is simply unbelief or no belief because objective evidence for your extraordinary claims have not been supplied or substantiated.

If I make the extraordinary statement: an invisible flying dog is living in my garage and it grants me wishes -- the responsibilities lie with me to present evidence of this supposed entity -- otherwise I'm just an insane person ranting and raving. Can you comprehend how ridiculous it would be for me to claim an invisible flying dog lives in my garage and grants me wishes and I tell you that you can't prove the invisible, flying dog, that grants me wishes, doesn't exist? NOOOOO -- you would think me insane.

Now this unusual dog may or may not exist -- just because you don't believe that this dog doesn't exist (because there is NO objective evidence) is not a positive assertion of truth -- comprende?

This is exactly the way you defend your position. You make the extraordinary claim, god intervenes on our behalf and then you make the faulty assertion we have to prove god doesn't exist and doesn't do the things you claim he does.

And because we don't believe in your extraordinary claims, you fallaciously argue our unbelief is a positive assertion of truth when it is just no belief. Please understand this part.

We are not claiming truth. Again some sort of deity may very well exist -- objective evidence for this deity is non-existent.

--S.

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

I was applying that proverb to myself! That is why I also said that I was a legend in my own mind.

My relationship with Jesus is not about answering questions or solving problems. If those things happen iin the course of our relationship, then fine.

I am reading a book that Ed Babinsky mentions in his profile called "Beyond Born Aagin". This book exposes much of the religious nonsense that takes place in Christian churches and organizations like Bill Gothard, Campus Crusades etc. I agree with most of what I have read so far. It is no wonder that people give up on Christianity. What a zoo!

I think most Christians have experienced spiritual abuse. There are many books and web sites discussing this problem. To be blunt, chuch sucks, and sucks BIG! I hate church with a passion. It is a bunch of man made religious hype and nonsense.

You can cuss me out and tell me off whenever you wish. I probably deserve it. If I am wrong in my understanding of the Scriptures, then I want to know the truth.

Anonymous said...

sconner,

What evidence is there that love exists? It is all in your head, is it not? Can we see it, touch it, or examine it in a lab? What scientific evidence is there for love? Is it a decision or an emotion or both? What is the difference between strongly liking someone, and loving someone? Is it a figment of our imagination? How do we prove that we love someone?

So maybe love does not really exist after all.

Anonymous said...

DenCol, every single religious believer holding to mutually contradictory beliefs could've said what you just did. They cannot all be right. In fact almost all of them would have to be wrong if you are right.

You just don't get it that your arguments do not lead you to believe as you do. Nor do your experiences. You are duped, just like the believers of the "House of Yahweh" are that's being discussed on Dr. Phil show right now.

Anonymous said...

Hi John,

As I mentioned before, there are 1000's of Christian Universalists who agree with much,if not all of what I am saying. Check out some of these audio teaching by a Christian teacher who hates church and does not believe in Hell, tithing, CEO Senior Pastors, denominations, church buildings, etc etc! He even cusses from time to time. Great and very funny stuff! Check it out. You need to hit the play button twice for some reason.

http://www.martinzender.com/ZenderTalk/zt1.htm

sconnor said...

dencol

My relationship with Jesus is not about answering questions or solving problems.

Uttering words such as these (my relationship with Jesus) are breathtakingly delusional.

You have simply fabricated an insanely and fantastic, massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the superstitious, spurious words of scripture and by erroneously attributing emotions to your Jesus-character. You are pretending to have a relationship with a fictional character out of a book -- that's crazy.

It would be exactly like if an insane person claimed he had a relationship with another god-man -- Hercules. This person also makes his extraordinary claim, by obsessively, immersing himself in the writings about Hercules and convinces himself that the emotions of power and divine ecstasy he feels came directly from the POWER OF HERCULES, when in reality he just erroneously attributed feeling to a supposed higher power. In this illustration this person would be considered mentally ill, which is exactly the way I perceive a devout Christian who extols a "personal relationship" with God/Jesus – a character out of a book. You're a certifiable.

--S.

sconnor said...

dencol

What evidence is there that love exists? It is all in your head, is it not? Can we see it, touch it, or examine it in a lab? What scientific evidence is there for love? Is it a decision or an emotion or both? What is the difference between strongly liking someone, and loving someone? Is it a figment of our imagination? How do we prove that we love someone?

So maybe love does not really exist after all.


Oh, come on!

This line of deluded reasoning can also be used to prove allah exists and the 330,000 deities in the Hindu religion, exist.

You can't see love therefore Krishna, Allah, and Zeus exist.

Why stop there? -- invisible fairies, invisible gremlins, Thor, Seven Headed Hydra, Griffin, Golem, Zeus, werewolves exist because love exists but we can't see it.

It's an evil fairy that keeps taking the coins out of the money jar. We just can't see the evil fairy. We can't see love ----- right? Love exists ----- right? Therefore invisible fairies exist.

Ridiculous.

Can you see how your overblown rationalizations don't prove a thing -- they're nothing but subjective meanderings from a deluded christian who can not substantiate any of his extraordinary claims with objective evidence.

Now kindly address my comments, which you ignore:

1. It's not enough to make a broad sweeping generalization without substantiating it -- please provide scriptural evidence that ALL the verses I supplied were really supposed to be for christ's future reign.

2. And how do you know that the original manuscripts weren't embellished?

3. How do you know that the original oral stories weren't embellished?

4. Can't you see how -- by your admission -- you have cast doubt as to the reliability of scripture?

5. If you believe everyone is saved and there is no eternal punishment -- what exactly is the purpose of christianity? You have rendered the principle doctrine of salvation (believed by the majority of christian denominations) obsolete.

6. I mean, what is the advantage of being a true christian if everyone is saved?

7. Furthermore if everyone is saved why do we need gods supposed all-important (ambiguous) messages in the bible?

Numbered for your convenience.

--S.

Harry H. McCall said...

DenCol,

You’ve stating that an ancient Near Eastern Semitic word "Sheol" is the same as the Classical Greek "Hades" in Homer?

According to my 5 volume Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon published by EJ Brill and my Oxford Classical Greek Lexicon they are NOT the same.

In Classical Greek, Hades is both the name for the underworld and its god, while Sheol is no known god nor is it a personification of any god. (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible; Hades, pp382-383 and Sheol, pp.768 - 770.)


The very fact that Hades is used to paraphrase Sheol gave raise to the concept of Satan being the ruler of Hades just as the Greeks claimed Hades was both an under world region and also a god.

As I pointed out, Sheol is not Hades even if the LXX paraphrases it this way. Sheol is used only 65 times in the MT text while Hades is used 111 times in the LXX.

This is the same as when the LXX paraphrases Elohim (Hebrew, masculine plural) as Theos /God (Greek, masculine singular) and calls the them same, which they are not.

It is a well established fact that the LXX is a running commentary on the MT text.

John W. Wevers in his 5 volumes: Notes on the Greek texts of Genesis, Exodus, Lev., Numbers and Deut. makes this clear.

I would strongly recommend reading the article on Hades in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 ed.

Your approach to the Bible is too ridged. You have different texts written at different times by different authors over several thousand years.

If one compares the Samaritan Pentateuch with the MT text with the known version established by Fields form Origen’s Hexapla, it clearly shows that we can have only and educated guess at the text of the Hebrew Bible.

For you to claim that “ Sheol is Hades” only accepts the paraphrasing and totally ignores the etymological history of both words.

I would suggest you read a paper at the American Academy of Religion or the Society of Biblical Literature on the Southeastern level to show where your assumptions are flawed.

I rest my case on this subject.

Regards,
Harry

Anonymous said...

Hi Harry,

The fact remains that neither Sheol nor Hades was every a place of everlasting torment. So their slight semantic differences is really of very little concern. The etymology would never lead us to a sound conclusion of either word meaning "Hell". None of the modern translations have Sheol as Hell.

I am not concerned with what Homer or classical Greek definitions are. The Koine Greek is my only concern. There is never any mention of Satan or demons being in Hades. So just becuause a word like "gay" takes on a new meaning in the last 50 years has no relevance to it's original meaning.

D A Carson wrote some very intersting points about this in his book "Exegetical Fallacies". You should read that sometime.

Anonymous said...

To sconner,

Most of the bloggers on here were former Christians according to their own testimonies. So they were ALL deluded like I am deluded. And there are some that still believe in a higher power, but not necessarily the God of the Bible. So you are putting them down as well in your character assasinations.

When we all get to Heaven, I will look over at you and wink. Then we will see who was delusional. Until then, I will enjoy my fairy tale relationship with Jesus which is far superior to the life I had before my delusion.

sconnor said...

dencol

So you are putting them down as well in your character assasinations.

No I'm not. They were able to pull themselves out of the muck and mire and overcome the mind-virus of christianity, where they made the realization having a "relationship with Jesus" was a bullsh*t proposition of their own making where they could define this Jesus character any way they wanted to push any of their polluted agendas or support any of their deluded ideas.

It is not a character assassination to call you deluded because you are friends with a character (which you idiosyncratically define) out of a book -- it's a point of fact.

I see you still refuse to address my comments -- this speaks VOLUMES.

Can you or can you not address my points? Or will you spew lame excuses as to why you can't address them?

Waiting...................

1. It's not enough to make a broad sweeping generalization without substantiating it -- please provide scriptural evidence that ALL the verses I supplied were really supposed to be for christ's future reign.

2. And how do you know that the original manuscripts weren't embellished?

3. How do you know that the original oral stories weren't embellished?

4. Can't you see how -- by your admission -- you have cast doubt as to the reliability of scripture?

5. If you believe everyone is saved and there is no eternal punishment -- what exactly is the purpose of christianity? You have rendered the principle doctrine of salvation (believed by the majority of christian denominations) obsolete.

6. I mean, what is the advantage of being a true christian if everyone is saved?

7. Furthermore if everyone is saved why do we need gods supposed all-important (ambiguous) messages in the bible?

8. Can you see how your overblown "love" rationalizations doesn't prove a thing -- they're nothing but subjective meanderings from a deluded christian who can not substantiate any of his extraordinary claims with objective evidence.

--S.

Anonymous said...

We need to be saved from sin and evil during THIS LIFE! There is no sin in the next life to be saved from! My DELUSION has healed me and told me the future. My DELUSION has answered many prayers and told me how to have a better life and a better marriage and how to raise my children in His book of MYTHOLOLGY. His book WORKS! His ways WORK! That is why we need Him TODAY - RIGHT NOW!

Look at the news each day! That is what we need salvation from! Terrorism, vandalism, murder, theft, rape, child trafficing and molestation, domestic abuse, drug abuse, CHURCH abuse!!!, etc etc etc.

I have tested God's book with my life and it has NEVER failed. Not one single time! I have joy, peace, happiness, health, a great marriage and a great daughter. Before I found my DELUSION my life was a mess and I thought of suicide many times. I have more peace now than ever before. So thank God for my DELUSION!

sconnor said...

dencol

My DELUSION has answered many prayers and told me how to have a better life and a better marriage and how to raise my children in His book of MYTHOLOLGY. His book WORKS! His ways WORK! That is why we need Him TODAY - RIGHT NOW!

Meethinks you doth protest too much.

1. What a tub of bullsh*t. That is the same book that is used to justify theological discourses warped beliefs. His relationship with jesus allows him to preach hellfire. That's why a relationship with Jesus is a subjective delusion.

2. That is the same book that people used to justify slavery, witch burnings, the crusades, the inquisition, and blowing up abortion clinics.

3. This is the same book that made it possible to discriminate against interracial marriages, for parents to beat their children with a rod, for parents to only pray, while withholding medical intervention, allowing their children to die, to refuse blood transfusions to children, for some denominations and sects to not allow woman a place of authority, for people to discriminate against gay people getting married, to teach ignorance, in the form of creationism, in the schoolroom and on and on and on.

4. Point is the bible is a hodgepodge of ideas; a virtual grab-bag, where anyone can pick and choose, making it mean whatever they want it to mean, so they can support any deluded agenda they want.

5. And spare me your lame rationalization that these people misinterpreted or skewed scripture. What; your god -- THE CREATOR OF THE INFINITE UNIVERSE -- didn't know his sh*ty book would be used to justify EVERYTHING under the sun?

Look at the news each day! That is what we need salvation from! Terrorism, vandalism, murder, theft, rape, child trafficing and molestation, domestic abuse, drug abuse, CHURCH abuse!!!, etc etc etc.

6. Yeah -- Jesus getting nailed to a cross and his subsequent 72 hour hiatus and his book of fairy tales, really helped with all the egregious unimaginable suffering in the world. (Massive sarcasm)

7. Exactly, how did the bible and Jesus save us from sin and evil and suffering from this life?

I have tested God's book with my life and it has NEVER failed. Not one single time! I have joy, peace, happiness, health, a great marriage and a great daughter.

8. And yet millions of christians -- throughout history -- have had joy ripped from them, and peace obliterated; their happiness replaced with sadness, and their health has deteriorated into great suffering, and 50% of all christians marriages end in divorce and christian children still succumb to molestation, abuse and terminal illness that causes them to suffer in unthinkable ways.

9. Perhaps these christian children weren't true believers like you?

10. And what about the rest of the non-bible believing world -- are they damned to suffer horribly in this lifetime because they do not believe in a personal christian god and they don't use god's holy handbook?

11. How exactly does the rest of the non-biblical world know how to have a better life, how do they know how to have a better marriage, how do they know how to raise their children properly, without the supposed help of the bible?

12. Pretending you have a "relationship with Jesus" and using your book of fiction as a handbook for life does not make you immune to anything.

Again your inability to address my numbered comments specifically, in my previous posts, speaks volumes.

You put your tiny head in the sand like an ostrich and simply ignore the difficult and germane points I have made, so as to protect your feeble beliefs.

Still waiting................................

--S.

Anonymous said...

sconner,

You said: "50% of all christians marriages end in divorce and christian children still succumb to molestation."

Before we move on in this discussion, could you please give me your detailed definition of a "Christian".

Anonymous said...

Hi sconner,

I just read your profile and saw that you had a 10 yr old son that died. I just wanted you to know that I am very, very sorry that that happened. I cannot even imagine the pain and the heartache of such a devestating loss. I am so very sorry that you lost your son. Reading your profile broke my heart.

sconnor said...

Before we move on in this discussion, could you please give me your detailed definition of a "Christian".

You first.

I have asked several times for you to address my numbered comments one by one but you have simply ignored them.

Here they are numbered for your convenience.

1. It's not enough to make a broad sweeping generalization without substantiating it -- please provide scriptural evidence that ALL the verses I supplied were really supposed to be for christ's future reign.

2. And how do you know that the original manuscripts weren't embellished? Furthermore the remaining manuscripts are not the originals -- how do you know these manuscripts were not changed, fabricated and embellished?

3. How do you know that the original oral stories weren't embellished?

4. Can't you see how -- by your admission -- you have cast doubt as to the reliability of scripture?

5. If you believe everyone is saved and there is no eternal punishment -- what exactly is the purpose of christianity? You have rendered the principle doctrine of salvation (believed by the majority of christian denominations) obsolete.

6. I mean, what is the advantage of being a true christian if everyone is saved?

7. Furthermore if everyone is saved why do we need gods supposed all-important (ambiguous) messages in the bible?

8. Can you see how your overblown "love" rationalizations doesn't prove a thing -- they're nothing but subjective meanderings from a deluded christian who can not substantiate any of his extraordinary claims with objective evidence.

Additionally, you completely ignored ALL my points from my last post and only addressed the one single point you wanted to address.

If you want a discourse -- start participating. Either put up or shut up.

If you want me to continue you must address ALL my numbered comments. (including the ones above as well as the ones in my last post)

Waiting, and waiting, and waiting........................

--S.

Anonymous said...

sconner,

Please look at all of the parables concerning the Kingdom of God. The lord's prayer is "Thy Kingdom COME - Thy will be done ON EARTH - as it is in Heaven. Giving you a comprehensive discourse on the coming Kingdom would be a 4 semester seminary course.

So the answer to you is NO - I will not! You go research the coming Kingdom for yourself and put your verses in context with the teachings and parables of the coming Kingdom. I will not hold the hand of someone who is simply bitter (and rightfully so)And does not really want to take the time to invest in learning the matter for themselves.


If that is not good enough for you, then this discourse is over as you requested. I will not babysit you and spoon feed you dispensational theology. If you want it, then go get it for yourself.

sconnor said...

dencol

It's no skin off my back that you can not defend your deluded beliefs.

And for the last three years I have been obsessively investigating "the matter" for myself. I have read the bible for myself and have conducted a few studies. I have immersed myself in the writings of Spong, Laughlin and Ehrman. I have taken continuing education classes in comparative religions. I've interviewed Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Fundementalists, and people who have had Near Death Experiences. I'm quite familar with the idea of the coming kingdom. Jesus never preached going to heaven he was preaching the coming of god's kingdom.

I addressed this to you, several posts above.

It's painfully obvious you can not address the points I made and now you scramble like a chicken with its head cut off, vomiting up bullshit diverging tactics and lame excuses why you will not address my comments.

You've been on this thread for days outlining -- in depth -- your position and now you give excuses; pussy out, and bail? I call bullshit.

Hell; the time you took ignoring and diverging you could have already addressed my points.

Then you pull out another bullshit diverging tactic and claim I'm bitter.

I can assure you I am perfectly capable of making reasoned arguments without my grief getting in the way. My comments are still salient and germane.

All you have are excuses, excuses, excuses.

It's entirely evident you can't put up so the only recourse for you is to shut up and retreat to your comfy cozy bunker of bibles where you can continue to wallow in your delusions.

--S.

danielg said...

Dencol,

I think john was right to ban you the first time. While you may KNOW a lot, your profanity, patronizing and superior attitude, and lack of patience and respect are odious and putrescent.

If you think such actions are in the same vein as the contempt that Elijah, Jesus, and Paul showed for unbiblical and pagan thinkers, you are mistaken.

I have, in my younger days, made the same mistakes that you are now making, and almost as flagrantly.

But it's counterproductive to winning people to Christ. Even shaking the dust off of your feet and moving on to those who will hear doesn't look as petty and childish as your trolling is doing.

Your Universalist doctrine is already a shame to Christ and Christianity, but your behavior even moreso.

For the sake of us believers and unbelievers, please go away for a few years and grow up, nobody cares what you know when we see how little you care.

Anonymous said...

To sconner and danielg,

Bite me.

In Christ's love,

DenCol

Anonymous said...

DenCol, by warned. You are not welcome here. I'm shutting down the comments in this post too.