(02-22-2018 09:23 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: I'll share my own story. I was a christian (southern baptist) for 25+ years. Very strong christian. I went to camps, church 2-3 times a week, bible studies, etc. I've read the bible cover to cover a few times (I used to read a chapter a night). God was the biggest part of my life. Then my faith shattered. It wasn't something I wanted to happen, I just couldn't sustain my belief anymore.
As a result of studying the bible in detail, I found things over time that were problematic. For example, internal contradictions between verses (which creates the issue of God's word, the bible, not being infallible) and philosophical issues like the logical Problem of Evil. For years, I struggled with doubt. Finally, in my last year of law school, I admitted to myself I didn't believe that it was true anymore. The training from law school, i.e. formal logic, reason, Socratic method, and rules of evidence, destroyed the foundation of my faith. I wanted to believe in it, but I couldn't logically believe it was truth.
For years afterward, I struggled with direction in my life. Being a christian had been the foundation of my life and my identity. Over time, I made peace with it. I consider myself an Agnostic. Though for practical purposes, I'm more like an Atheist in that I do not believe in a personal or loving god. Philosophical arguments support an indifferent creator or first mover god at best, something along the lines of Nature itself.
My worldview/philosophy now is a combination of Stoicism and Absurdism (a branch of nihilism that says while life may not have any objective meaning, you can create meaning for yourself, or the struggle to find meaning is enough to fill your heart).
I'll link some things that I've found interesting in my search for truth and my issues with the veracity of the bible. I hope that help other truth seekers out there.
Christians may say, what is the danger of believing in Christianity? (or any religion for that matter) If Christianity is false, then you've lived your life for something else, instead of yourself and all your actions and opinions were altered by some degree under that falsehood. That seems like a pretty big negative to me.
You say I may go to hell if I'm wrong, to that I would respond the way Marcus Aurelius would (he was a prominent stoic philosopher):
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I would view any god that would sentence people to an eternity to hell for earnest beliefs or ignorance of god to be cruel, unjust, or evil, and therefore unworthy of worship.
I would very much like to know where all these contradictions concerning salvation and the NT are that you say damaged your faith.
If you think they exist then get specific and point them out.
Its one thing to vaguely and unspecifically make these claims, its another to get specific and actually point them out.
If they are there, then we should be able to easily point them out specifically. I've heard a lot of atheists and agnostics make these claims, but they never can actually show any key contradictions that hold up under honestly fact checking and scrutiny.
I challenge you to step up to the plate and show them to us.
If you click on the wikipedia link for "internal consistency of the bible" and scroll down to "examples" they have several, but here are a few more links with hundreds of internal inconsistencies. How judas died was one I noticed myself when reading a chapter a night and also Jesus' three contradictory sayings of he who is not with me is against me; is neither for or against me; and alternatively, he who is not with me is not against me.
You can google search and find hundreds of examples of verses that contradict each other.
I do want to say, that I'm not hostile to Christianity, I recognize it's value to many people, as it played a wonderful part in my life. I especially appreciate the Protestant Reformation's contribution to freedom of speech and thought. I really dislike only one major religion due to its violence and intolerance and terrorism.
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2018 10:11 PM by Jugnaut.)
(02-22-2018 10:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: If you click on the wikipedia link for "internal consistency of the bible" and scroll down to "examples" they have several, but here are a few more links with hundreds of internal inconsistencies. How judas died was one I noticed myself when reading a chapter a night and also Jesus' three contradictory sayings of he who is not with me is against me; is neither for or against me; and alternatively, he who is not with me is not against me.
You can google search and find hundreds of examples of verses that contradict each other.
I do want to say, that I'm not hostile to Christianity, I recognize it's value to many people, as it played a wonderful part in my life. I especially appreciate the Protestant Reformation's contribution to freedom of speech and thought. I really dislike only one major religion due to its violence and intolerance and terrorism.
The Bible is divided up into different time periods were God expected different things from His people, such as the OT law and the current age of grace (there are more than just these 2). In the OT, Israel had to sacrifice animals and follow the law, now Christ is our sacrifice for sin and we are not under law but grace. Of course the doctrines of those different time periods will contradict one another, the church age did not even begin until after Christ ascended into heaven in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is what happens AFTER the Gospels and focuses on the birth of the Chruch. Of course you are going to have contradictions when you try to mash all those time periods together and apply all if it to YOU as a church age Christian.
This is why the Bible teaches us the importance of rightly dividing the bible. (2 Tim 2:15)
There are no contradictions concerning Judas or those who reject Christ, you didn't even remotely point any out. Even if there were (and there are none), the details of Judas' death has no bearing whatsoever on salvation or NT doctrine, which is what you were claiming damaged your faith.
Don't give me this fake crap about pointing to a website and other garbage.
Your claim is you yourself deeply studied the bible and found these things that damaged your faith, not that you found some websites you agree with.
If that is true you should be able to easily point out specific key contradictions in salvation and NT doctrines.
You are either speaking the truth or speaking hyperbole you can't back up with specific evidence in the text.
I'm calling your bluff.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2018 12:11 AM by ericsrevenge76.)
(02-22-2018 09:44 PM)Old Dominion Wrote: Very interesting book for those of you inclined to see thought as an evolutionary process " The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright.
Does Robert Wright give refunds on life?
The question should be: Can Robert Wright save anyone?
(02-22-2018 10:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: If you click on the wikipedia link for "internal consistency of the bible" and scroll down to "examples" they have several, but here are a few more links with hundreds of internal inconsistencies. How judas died was one I noticed myself when reading a chapter a night and also Jesus' three contradictory sayings of he who is not with me is against me; is neither for or against me; and alternatively, he who is not with me is not against me.
You can google search and find hundreds of examples of verses that contradict each other.
I do want to say, that I'm not hostile to Christianity, I recognize it's value to many people, as it played a wonderful part in my life. I especially appreciate the Protestant Reformation's contribution to freedom of speech and thought. I really dislike only one major religion due to its violence and intolerance and terrorism.
The Bible is divided up into different time periods were God expected different things from His people, such as the OT law and the current age of grace (there are more than just these 2). In the OT, Israel had to sacrifice animals and follow the law, now Christ is our sacrifice for sin and we are not under law but grace. Of course the doctrines of those different time periods will contradict one another, the church age did not even begin until after Christ ascended into heaven in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is what happens AFTER the Gospels and focuses on the birth of the Chruch. Of course you are going to have contradictions when you try to mash all those time periods together and apply all if it to YOU as a church age Christian.
There are no contradictions concerning Judas or those who reject Christ, you didn't even remotely point any out. Even if there were (and there are none), the details of Judas' death has no bearing whatsoever on salvation or NT doctrine, which is what you were claiming damaged your faith.
Don't give me this fake crap about pointing to a website and other garbage.
Your claim is you yourself deeply studied the bible and found these things that damaged your faith, not that you found some websites you agree with.
If that is true you should be able to easily point out specific key contradictions in salvation and NT doctrines.
You are either speaking the truth or speaking hyperbole you can't back up with specific evidence in the text.
I'm calling your bluff.
I saw your original post. Kinda deceitful IMHO because you changed it enough to CYA. The first paragraph was added as an edit from 1:40 minutes from your original post. I know you edited the rest of it too, but not nearly as much as the insertion.
Wish I would have preserved the original but...I didn't. This type of shenanigans - plus your overall piss-poor tone is why many posters have such little respect for you. Face it dude, in this thread everyone can see how much of a Christian Troll you are. Even if you try to go back and sanitize your posts...enough of them were quoted so that people can see how unwilling you were to engage in serious discussion without browbeating and "shouting" others down.
(02-23-2018 12:10 AM)miko33 Wrote: I saw your original post. Kinda deceitful IMHO because you changed it enough to CYA. The first paragraph was added as an edit from 1:40 minutes from your original post. I know you edited the rest of it too, but not nearly as much as the insertion.
Wish I would have preserved the original but...I didn't. This type of shenanigans - plus your overall piss-poor tone is why many posters have such little respect for you. Face it dude, in this thread everyone can see how much of a Christian Troll you are. Even if you try to go back and sanitize your posts...enough of them were quoted so that people can see how unwilling you were to engage in serious discussion without browbeating and "shouting" others down.
You are the one being massively deceitful and dishonest. All I did was add the top paragraph to the post to further clarify the point. Nothing was removed.
If you have something of value to add the thread then go ahead. Just obsessively personally attacking me in every religious thread isn't really going to befit you much at all and its not something I am interested in engaging in.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2018 12:42 AM by ericsrevenge76.)
(02-21-2018 06:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote: This is correct. Accepting that a higher power/being exists does not identify a specific religion or sect.
That is another topic for discussion. However, the laws of logic can be used to determine which, if any, might more accurately align with this higher power.
Often times people will reference the six blindfolded men touching an elephant to demonstrate that various religions have part of the truth but no religion has all of the truth.
But this assumes that the observer does know the actual truth. In essence, the observer has an objective viewpoint while each of the six men have their own subjective perspective.
Anyway, as I said this is a different topic.
how can one definitely say, "that is correct" w/o factual data to back it up.....
the definition of faith is so simple......and the one that is the most misunderstood.....
it's why there's a 'GOD'.....it doesn't matter what that GOD is....but it's GOD to somebody in some way, form , or fashion......
if it doesn't involve violence or defense of property and self, why should one give two fks,.,....go find the like minded sheeples and be done with it.....
oh, my bad
#algorism
#pandora
#666
Unfortunately most tend to focus on the differences and not the similarities
And there really are quite a number of similarities.
But the difference just might matter.
In the world of auditing there are differences which are material and differences which are not.
In the discussion of religion baptism by submersion vs baptism by sprinkling is not a material difference.
However, Christ died on the cross and rose again vs Christ did not die on the cross is a material difference.
did he really rise again....did lazarus.....
Ask the 500 who were thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum rather than deny seeing him in the flesh post-Crucifixion...
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2018 01:54 AM by geosnooker2000.)
(02-22-2018 09:44 PM)Old Dominion Wrote: Very interesting book for those of you inclined to see thought as an evolutionary process " The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright.
Does Robert Wright give refunds on life?
The question should be: Can Robert Wright save anyone?
I'll let the reader answer that one.
Nope. I asked the question I had in mind. Following non inspired human philosophy leads to death. Can this human reimburse you for a life spent following his teachings? The fact that he can’t provide salvation is a given fact from the start.
(02-23-2018 07:02 AM)smudge12 Wrote: I'm just curious, but as someone completely indifferent to religion, why should I believe in the Christian God instead of any of the many Gods available? I hear the argument that believing is a hedge against going to Hell, but what if you believe in the wrong God(s)?
Why Jesus over Shiva? Or Ahura over Allah? Or Yahweh over Buddha? etc. I mean Islam is going to jump ahead of Christianity this decade, so does that mean Islam is God's chosen religion? Should I hedge my bets with them?
ps. I know all the Abrahamic religions share the same God.
All religions are based on 100% blind faith but one.....Biblical Christianity.
The bible foretells 2000+ years of history centuries before any of it ever happens. The entire book is written with the intention of PROVING itself to the reader, particular people in the latter days like us.
No other religion in the world even remotely attempts to prove itself to its followers with tangible, real evidence. This is a central theme and issue in the bible, particularly the OT
I know lost people often don't want to hear that, and refuse to even examine it.
(02-21-2018 06:54 PM)stinkfist Wrote: how can one definitely say, "that is correct" w/o factual data to back it up.....
the definition of faith is so simple......and the one that is the most misunderstood.....
it's why there's a 'GOD'.....it doesn't matter what that GOD is....but it's GOD to somebody in some way, form , or fashion......
if it doesn't involve violence or defense of property and self, why should one give two fks,.,....go find the like minded sheeples and be done with it.....
oh, my bad
#algorism
#pandora
#666
Unfortunately most tend to focus on the differences and not the similarities
And there really are quite a number of similarities.
But the difference just might matter.
In the world of auditing there are differences which are material and differences which are not.
In the discussion of religion baptism by submersion vs baptism by sprinkling is not a material difference.
However, Christ died on the cross and rose again vs Christ did not die on the cross is a material difference.
did he really rise again....did lazarus.....
Ask the 500 who were thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum rather than deny seeing him in the flesh post-Crucifixion...
which has nothing to do my questioning the statement as fact.....
were people willing to die for their faith.....that answer is yes......that still exists to this day....especially in the world of jihadists....
I don't try to change minds.....that's not my job.....
however, I do find it important to point out the difference between faith vs. fact......
I respect any individual's faith pattern as long as it's non-invasive or based in violence....
having the ability to choose is extremely important to me.....it's why I have zero problem being an atheist...
if you don't understand that concept, I can't offer any more in verbiage....
(02-22-2018 10:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: If you click on the wikipedia link for "internal consistency of the bible" and scroll down to "examples" they have several, but here are a few more links with hundreds of internal inconsistencies. How judas died was one I noticed myself when reading a chapter a night and also Jesus' three contradictory sayings of he who is not with me is against me; is neither for or against me; and alternatively, he who is not with me is not against me.
You can google search and find hundreds of examples of verses that contradict each other.
I do want to say, that I'm not hostile to Christianity, I recognize it's value to many people, as it played a wonderful part in my life. I especially appreciate the Protestant Reformation's contribution to freedom of speech and thought. I really dislike only one major religion due to its violence and intolerance and terrorism.
The Bible is divided up into different time periods were God expected different things from His people, such as the OT law and the current age of grace (there are more than just these 2). In the OT, Israel had to sacrifice animals and follow the law, now Christ is our sacrifice for sin and we are not under law but grace. Of course the doctrines of those different time periods will contradict one another, the church age did not even begin until after Christ ascended into heaven in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is what happens AFTER the Gospels and focuses on the birth of the Chruch. Of course you are going to have contradictions when you try to mash all those time periods together and apply all if it to YOU as a church age Christian.
This is why the Bible teaches us the importance of rightly dividing the bible. (2 Tim 2:15)
There are no contradictions concerning Judas or those who reject Christ, you didn't even remotely point any out. Even if there were (and there are none), the details of Judas' death has no bearing whatsoever on salvation or NT doctrine, which is what you were claiming damaged your faith.
Don't give me this fake crap about pointing to a website and other garbage.
Your claim is you yourself deeply studied the bible and found these things that damaged your faith, not that you found some websites you agree with.
If that is true you should be able to easily point out specific key contradictions in salvation and NT doctrines.
You are either speaking the truth or speaking hyperbole you can't back up with specific evidence in the text.
I'm calling your bluff.
It's not a bluff or fake. I posted links with hundreds of verses and the biblical cites if you are inclined to look at the actual verses yourself. Here's an example of the one I was talking about with Judas' death:
61. How did Judas die?
After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)
62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?
Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)
Factual contradictions between verses were a problem for me because I believed in the Bible as the Word of God and therefore infallible. Once you say "well, it's not 100% accurate" or there are mistakes, that undermines everything in the bible as far as trustworthiness. For example, if God is all powerful and all knowing and the Bible is his book, why would he allow it to have misinformation or errors? How does one pick and choice what is correct and incorrect?
I never claimed you couldn't attempt to reconcile doctrines between books, only that there were internal factual contradictions that caused me to doubt the truthfulness of the bible. Many other things ultimately contributed to my faith shattering, e.g. the Problem of Evil, among others.
(02-23-2018 07:54 AM)Jugnaut Wrote: It's not a bluff or fake. I posted links with hundreds of verses and the biblical cites if you are inclined to look at the actual verses yourself. Here's an example of the one I was talking about with Judas' death:
61. How did Judas die?
After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)
62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?
Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)
Factual contradictions between verses were a problem for me because I believed in the Bible as the Word of God and therefore infallible. Once you say "well, it's not 100% accurate" or there are mistakes, that undermines everything in the bible as far as trustworthiness. For example, if God is all powerful and all knowing and the Bible is his book, why would he allow it to have misinformation or errors? How does one pick and choice what is correct and incorrect?
I never claimed you couldn't attempt to reconcile doctrines between books, only that there were internal factual contradictions that caused me to doubt the truthfulness of the bible. Many other things ultimately contributed to my faith shattering, e.g. the Problem of Evil, among others.
No one said there is not a single numerical mistake or mistranslation in the entire Bible, it is a copy and translation of much older Greek and Hebrew texts. But that is miles away from saying the bible is not the Word of God. In fact, there are several well known numerical errors that are easily corrected using the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts.
What exactly do you see as a contradiction here anyway? He hung himself and was left hanging in the hot sun until his body fell and broke open all over the field. He bought himself this fate when he betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. It was literally known as the field of blood.
If you have 2 witnesses describing an event, you will get unique details and perspective from both people, but they are describing the same event.
The example you are using is a perfect illustration of how small and meaningless of a point you have to search for to find an issue. This literally has ZERO impact or effect on anything in NT teachings or doctrines on any level. Its a virtually meaningless detail.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2018 11:04 AM by ericsrevenge76.)
On one hand we have the evidence of the bible predicting the entire church age centuries before it ever came to pass, the birth, life, crucifixtion, death, resurrection and ministry of Christ, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and scattering of the Jews into all nations for nearly 2000 years, the body of Christ being made up of mostly GENTILES instead of Jews (He is the Jewish Messiah), the miraculous 1948 return of the Jews to the holy land and formation of the state of Israel after nearly 2000 years, STILL rejecting Jesus as their Messiah while the church embraces Him as their Savior........ALL these things just as prophecied in multiple OT books, all that plus a ton of other things I didn't even mention.
On the other hand, we have a couple of wrong numbers (in the English translation) in a massive ocean of numbers and countings and genealogies concerning ancient royal houses from 3000 years ago. Plus a few vague meaningless details about a body falling onto the ground or people carrying a staff with them. Most of which are easily corrected by examining the older texts in Greek and Hebrew.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2018 09:19 AM by ericsrevenge76.)
(02-22-2018 10:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: If you click on the wikipedia link for "internal consistency of the bible" and scroll down to "examples" they have several, but here are a few more links with hundreds of internal inconsistencies. How judas died was one I noticed myself when reading a chapter a night and also Jesus' three contradictory sayings of he who is not with me is against me; is neither for or against me; and alternatively, he who is not with me is not against me.
You can google search and find hundreds of examples of verses that contradict each other.
I do want to say, that I'm not hostile to Christianity, I recognize it's value to many people, as it played a wonderful part in my life. I especially appreciate the Protestant Reformation's contribution to freedom of speech and thought. I really dislike only one major religion due to its violence and intolerance and terrorism.
The Bible is divided up into different time periods were God expected different things from His people, such as the OT law and the current age of grace (there are more than just these 2). In the OT, Israel had to sacrifice animals and follow the law, now Christ is our sacrifice for sin and we are not under law but grace. Of course the doctrines of those different time periods will contradict one another, the church age did not even begin until after Christ ascended into heaven in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is what happens AFTER the Gospels and focuses on the birth of the Chruch. Of course you are going to have contradictions when you try to mash all those time periods together and apply all if it to YOU as a church age Christian.
This is why the Bible teaches us the importance of rightly dividing the bible. (2 Tim 2:15)
There are no contradictions concerning Judas or those who reject Christ, you didn't even remotely point any out. Even if there were (and there are none), the details of Judas' death has no bearing whatsoever on salvation or NT doctrine, which is what you were claiming damaged your faith.
Don't give me this fake crap about pointing to a website and other garbage.
Your claim is you yourself deeply studied the bible and found these things that damaged your faith, not that you found some websites you agree with.
If that is true you should be able to easily point out specific key contradictions in salvation and NT doctrines.
You are either speaking the truth or speaking hyperbole you can't back up with specific evidence in the text.
I'm calling your bluff.
It's not a bluff or fake. I posted links with hundreds of verses and the biblical cites if you are inclined to look at the actual verses yourself. Here's an example of the one I was talking about with Judas' death:
61. How did Judas die?
After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)
62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?
Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)
Factual contradictions between verses were a problem for me because I believed in the Bible as the Word of God and therefore infallible. Once you say "well, it's not 100% accurate" or there are mistakes, that undermines everything in the bible as far as trustworthiness. For example, if God is all powerful and all knowing and the Bible is his book, why would he allow it to have misinformation or errors? How does one pick and choice what is correct and incorrect?
I never claimed you couldn't attempt to reconcile doctrines between books, only that there were internal factual contradictions that caused me to doubt the truthfulness of the bible. Many other things ultimately contributed to my faith shattering, e.g. the Problem of Evil, among others.
For me the problem lies in where we focus our attention. Arguing back and forth about how literal or factual the bible is takes us away from it's true purpose. I readily admit I get caught up in the nonsense as well.
To me the message is very simple and the absolute accuracy is not that important. Don't get caught up in the weeds like some do.
Any time you are debating or thinking about God, you are in fact praying. To me Jesus message was as simple as it gets. Love your neighbor and treat the least of us with love, generosity and kindness. The God of my understanding is a God of love. If we were made in his image and likeness, that means I am supposed to honor him by trying to love others and be generous in my possessions and judgments of others.
ALL THE REST IS SIMPLY CONVERSATION.
(02-21-2018 06:35 PM)miko33 Wrote: There is no reason to carry the analogy further because not every painful event is on the same level regarding frequency and severity. A baby being beaten to death is not equivalent to a high school kid being rejected by their first crush.
I read your example again and I think I more clearly see the point you're making.
The parents will abuse the child to the point of death.
Why not spare the child that pain by preventing the child from being born.
If this is a correct interpretation then I'm puzzled. Why prevent the child from being born when the parents are the one's performing the painful (evil) action.
Let me rephrase my point then.
Every person will at some point be the cause of an evil action regardless of scale or scope.
If each person who would at some point engage in an evil action was prevented from being born <<< poof >>> there went the entire human race.
My example can go a couple of ways tbh. The interpretation you laid out is a good critique on the futility of suffering due to the fallen nature of the world due to original sin. If our omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omnipresent creator knew that this child's life would be meaningless in this world, then why subject the child to unnecessary suffering. Even if we assume that a week of torture to the infant would be a tiny price to pay for eternal bliss - then God could just as easily create just the soul of the child and give him/her a free pass to heaven without the need for suffering.
You can also look at my example as an analogy of a regular person who didn't buy into Christianity and may be a church goer in a cultural sense only. He/she never committed any significant evil against others and was generally honest in life - but is destined to eternal damnation in a lake of fire if they don't love and worship Jesus. Considering that we are supposed to be children of God, where is the unconditional love for the child no matter what stage of existence this soul is in? As a parent, I could NEVER envision wanting to punish any of my children with physical pain that would last for eternity. Just imagine - trillions of years of eternal torture for a being you consider a son or a daughter. There would be nothing I could imagine that anyone could do on earth that would be worth eternal damnation. Even a guy like Hitler I could only envision a finite time in hell. Let's say he cut short the lives of 6 million people by roughly 40 years per person on average. Six million X 40 years should land Hitler 240 million years of continuous non-stop torture. Continuous non-stop torture should more than pay for the misery plus lost years for each of his victims. Let's be really strict and bump it up to 1 billion years because Hitler was such a major dick. That's an ass load of time experiencing continuous, nonstop torture. But...at least with an ending. I see zero justification for eternal punishment.
A couple of things...
Quote: If our omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omnipresent creator knew that this child's life would be meaningless in this world, then why subject the child to unnecessary suffering.
Who decided the child's life was meaningless? God values every life.
As far as eternal punishment goes, if a person decides he doesn't want God in this life then what makes you think he'd want God in the afterlife?
Also, you give an example of a person who didn't commit any substantial evil. Which I guess is another way of saying that person did indeed commit evil.
In the example, the child's purpose in life was to be the object upon which sick individuals could torture. That child's life had no other purpose in this hypothetical. That does not make the world a better place. You also ignored my statement that if God cherished all human life and also does not want to see unnecessary suffering in the world then he could have created the soul and then let it go straight to heaven. If that notion sounds contrived then better yet - after the child is conceived he could have called the child home while it was still in the womb via a miscarriage.
Outside of people who literally believe in and worship Satan, I know of no people IRL who both acknowledge the existence of the God of the bible AND refuse to have God in his life. However, there could be a number of atheists who would not want to associate with God even if His existence was proven due to these people believing God is not a moral entity based on OT actions. Even in a case like that, eternal punishment is an unnecessarily cruel action. God could easily extinguish the soul and erase the person out of existence. If such a person does not want to be with God even though he/she believes in God's existence - that person would still still rationally choose to associate with God based on the alternative of Eternal Suffering and Damnation. Why the need for such an over the top alternative for those who may not want to be with God?
So...evil is evil regardless of the severity? Because that most assuredly reinforces the idea that Hell is a grossly disproportionate response to someone who's biggest sins were to masturbate, talk bad about some people behind their backs on occasion, have sex outside of marriage and not worship God and Jesus. And really if you look at this far from comprehensive list of sins - there is one and only one sin that will give you an eternity of torture. If you really think about it, all of the evil in this world is meaningless. In the end, God is ultimately fine with it based on the death and resurrection of Christ.
Ok, gotcha.
I don't think I can agree with your hypothetical that a child's life was purposed ONLY to be the subjective of abuse.
I look at real-life situations like Nick Vujicic. This guy was born with no arms and no legs. Imagine what his childhood must have been like. He struggled internally having to come to terms with not being like everyone else. He struggled by being ridiculed, mocked, gawked at, and who knows what else.
From a bystander's perspective no one would want to go through what he went through. And we sure wouldn't want our children going through it.
But his life did have a purpose. He's a positive impact on countless numbers of people.
It's easy to look at a doom-and-gloom scenario and form a world-view around it. But it's not necessarily the right way to develop your world-view.
I've learned not to question God's thought process. I think He knows a bit more about the situation than I do.
(02-21-2018 06:35 PM)miko33 Wrote: There is no reason to carry the analogy further because not every painful event is on the same level regarding frequency and severity. A baby being beaten to death is not equivalent to a high school kid being rejected by their first crush.
I read your example again and I think I more clearly see the point you're making.
The parents will abuse the child to the point of death.
Why not spare the child that pain by preventing the child from being born.
If this is a correct interpretation then I'm puzzled. Why prevent the child from being born when the parents are the one's performing the painful (evil) action.
Let me rephrase my point then.
Every person will at some point be the cause of an evil action regardless of scale or scope.
If each person who would at some point engage in an evil action was prevented from being born <<< poof >>> there went the entire human race.
My example can go a couple of ways tbh. The interpretation you laid out is a good critique on the futility of suffering due to the fallen nature of the world due to original sin. If our omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omnipresent creator knew that this child's life would be meaningless in this world, then why subject the child to unnecessary suffering. Even if we assume that a week of torture to the infant would be a tiny price to pay for eternal bliss - then God could just as easily create just the soul of the child and give him/her a free pass to heaven without the need for suffering.
You can also look at my example as an analogy of a regular person who didn't buy into Christianity and may be a church goer in a cultural sense only. He/she never committed any significant evil against others and was generally honest in life - but is destined to eternal damnation in a lake of fire if they don't love and worship Jesus. Considering that we are supposed to be children of God, where is the unconditional love for the child no matter what stage of existence this soul is in? As a parent, I could NEVER envision wanting to punish any of my children with physical pain that would last for eternity. Just imagine - trillions of years of eternal torture for a being you consider a son or a daughter. There would be nothing I could imagine that anyone could do on earth that would be worth eternal damnation. Even a guy like Hitler I could only envision a finite time in hell. Let's say he cut short the lives of 6 million people by roughly 40 years per person on average. Six million X 40 years should land Hitler 240 million years of continuous non-stop torture. Continuous non-stop torture should more than pay for the misery plus lost years for each of his victims. Let's be really strict and bump it up to 1 billion years because Hitler was such a major dick. That's an ass load of time experiencing continuous, nonstop torture. But...at least with an ending. I see zero justification for eternal punishment.
A couple of things...
Quote: If our omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omnipresent creator knew that this child's life would be meaningless in this world, then why subject the child to unnecessary suffering.
Who decided the child's life was meaningless? God values every life.
As far as eternal punishment goes, if a person decides he doesn't want God in this life then what makes you think he'd want God in the afterlife?
Also, you give an example of a person who didn't commit any substantial evil. Which I guess is another way of saying that person did indeed commit evil.
In the example, the child's purpose in life was to be the object upon which sick individuals could torture. That child's life had no other purpose in this hypothetical. That does not make the world a better place. You also ignored my statement that if God cherished all human life and also does not want to see unnecessary suffering in the world then he could have created the soul and then let it go straight to heaven. If that notion sounds contrived then better yet - after the child is conceived he could have called the child home while it was still in the womb via a miscarriage.
Outside of people who literally believe in and worship Satan, I know of no people IRL who both acknowledge the existence of the God of the bible AND refuse to have God in his life. However, there could be a number of atheists who would not want to associate with God even if His existence was proven due to these people believing God is not a moral entity based on OT actions. Even in a case like that, eternal punishment is an unnecessarily cruel action. God could easily extinguish the soul and erase the person out of existence. If such a person does not want to be with God even though he/she believes in God's existence - that person would still still rationally choose to associate with God based on the alternative of Eternal Suffering and Damnation. Why the need for such an over the top alternative for those who may not want to be with God?
So...evil is evil regardless of the severity? Because that most assuredly reinforces the idea that Hell is a grossly disproportionate response to someone who's biggest sins were to masturbate, talk bad about some people behind their backs on occasion, have sex outside of marriage and not worship God and Jesus. And really if you look at this far from comprehensive list of sins - there is one and only one sin that will give you an eternity of torture. If you really think about it, all of the evil in this world is meaningless. In the end, God is ultimately fine with it based on the death and resurrection of Christ.
I can't begin to describe the actual experiences imposed in Hell. Are they the same for everyone? Are they different? I don't know.
But the primary punishment I think is this:
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
When we die we will stand in judgement before the Creator of the universe.
For those who bowed their knee and confessed that Jesus is Lord before their death, the pronouncement is, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
For those who waited until after death to fall to their knees and confess while in judgement, they'll hear, "Depart from Me. I never knew you."
In my finite mind of limited understanding, my personal thought is that the real punishment in hell is finally realizing who's your creator and being separated from Him for all eternity.
(02-23-2018 12:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote: For those who waited until after death to fall to their knees and confess while in judgement, they'll hear, "Depart from Me. I never knew you."
Still doesn't seem like the nice loving guy ya'll want us to believe.
(02-23-2018 12:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote: I can't begin to describe the actual experiences imposed in Hell. Are they the same for everyone? Are they different? I don't know.
But the primary punishment I think is this:
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
When we die we will stand in judgement before the Creator of the universe.
For those who bowed their knee and confessed that Jesus is Lord before their death, the pronouncement is, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
For those who waited until after death to fall to their knees and confess while in judgement, they'll hear, "Depart from Me. I never knew you."
In my finite mind of limited understanding, my personal thought is that the real punishment in hell is finally realizing who's your creator and being separated from Him for all eternity.
Scripture seems to strongly indicate the level of punishment is based on an individual basis.
Christ did specifically warn those who hear the Gospel and reject it will face greater punishment than those of Sodom. He also spoke of those who know their Lords will but rejected it will be beaten with many stripes, but the servant that did not know his Lords will be beaten with few.
I fully agree a large part of the punishment is being separated from your creator for eternity, and knowing its your own fault alone. There is some form of fire like a flame, but it seems to be more of a spiritual like slow burn of some kind.
It could be that God in His mercy may allow some people to just burn up into nothingness when cast into the LOF. The most wicked burn for all eternity with Satan and his angels.
(02-23-2018 12:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote: For those who waited until after death to fall to their knees and confess while in judgement, they'll hear, "Depart from Me. I never knew you."
Still doesn't seem like the nice loving guy ya'll want us to believe.
He's offering you eternal life and salvation as a FREE GIFT, just for genuinely believing in and putting your faith in Christ.
Sounds like an incredibly merciful Creator to me.
You want to reject His FREE GIFT of eternal life, but blame Him for the consequences of the free choice you made.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2018 12:54 PM by ericsrevenge76.)
You guys are a trip. Punishment? for what? hell a literal place where people go to burn?? Come on people. If you can't let yourself see these are metaphors I feel for you.
Jesus death and resurrection was a metaphor for all of us. We all have eternal life. There's no Pearly Gates, no angels with harps, no burning in hell. We don't live our lives just to obtain some cosmic award. There are no winners and losers.
Again, a very immature level of understanding, based on a child's view of life. Be good, get a cookie, be bad, go to bed without dessert. This is not a contest to try and make God pleased with us.
You are loved, completely and without conditions. Nothing you can do will ever change that. and the Creator did not and does not now require a blood sacrifice to buy our way into "heaven".
(02-22-2018 09:23 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: I'll share my own story. I was a christian (southern baptist) for 25+ years. Very strong christian. I went to camps, church 2-3 times a week, bible studies, etc. I've read the bible cover to cover a few times (I used to read a chapter a night). God was the biggest part of my life. Then my faith shattered. It wasn't something I wanted to happen, I just couldn't sustain my belief anymore.
As a result of studying the bible in detail, I found things over time that were problematic. For example, internal contradictions between verses (which creates the issue of God's word, the bible, not being infallible) and philosophical issues like the logical Problem of Evil. For years, I struggled with doubt. Finally, in my last year of law school, I admitted to myself I didn't believe that it was true anymore. The training from law school, i.e. formal logic, reason, Socratic method, and rules of evidence, destroyed the foundation of my faith. I wanted to believe in it, but I couldn't logically believe it was truth.
For years afterward, I struggled with direction in my life. Being a christian had been the foundation of my life and my identity. Over time, I made peace with it. I consider myself an Agnostic. Though for practical purposes, I'm more like an Atheist in that I do not believe in a personal or loving god. Philosophical arguments support an indifferent creator or first mover god at best, something along the lines of Nature itself.
My worldview/philosophy now is a combination of Stoicism and Absurdism (a branch of nihilism that says while life may not have any objective meaning, you can create meaning for yourself, or the struggle to find meaning is enough to fill your heart).
I'll link some things that I've found interesting in my search for truth and my issues with the veracity of the bible. I hope that help other truth seekers out there.
Christians may say, what is the danger of believing in Christianity? (or any religion for that matter) If Christianity is false, then you've lived your life for something else, instead of yourself and all your actions and opinions were altered by some degree under that falsehood. That seems like a pretty big negative to me.
You say I may go to hell if I'm wrong, to that I would respond the way Marcus Aurelius would (he was a prominent stoic philosopher):
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I would view any god that would sentence people to an eternity to hell for earnest beliefs or ignorance of god to be cruel, unjust, or evil, and therefore unworthy of worship.
I'm not able to continuously read this board in real-time day by day. Because of this there are posts (sometimes several pages of posts) that I read much later.
I say that to say I'm just now reading posts in this thread that I've missed.
I get what you're saying. I think everyone has, at some point, doubted their beliefs. And I mean that regardless of what our beliefs are. I'm sure atheists have doubted theirs, Jews have doubt theirs, Christians, etc.
And there's nothing wrong with doubt. Oftentimes it serves as the reason for personal growth.
I don't have time to address every point but the item that jumped out at me is The Problem of Evil.
I've been listening to various apologists regarding this subject. I've listened to debates and I've examined various arguments.
Quote:Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus, the logical argument from evil is as follows:
If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist.
I disagree with premise 1.
Quote:This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
I disagree with premises 3, 6 & 7.
The following video from a Q&A session is Dr. William Lane Craig discussing the problem with Epicurus' argument.
You might be familiar with Dr. Craig or not. His youtube channel is drcraigvideos.
He addresses so many topics and is a wealth of knowledge.
![[Image: elephant-4.jpg]](https://choiceconflictresolution.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/elephant-4.jpg)
