God and Sin

[Clizby WampusCat]

If you look at Heb 9 you’ll see that punishment is not mentioned. There’s not even mention of sacrifices for sin. The cleansing referred to came from various purification ceremonies. It neither says nor implies that he was punished for us, though it does say he died for us. It says he is the mediator of a new covenant. In vs 18 it reters to the covenant sacrifice of Ex 24:8, quoting it explicitly in vs 20. It says that Jesus bears our sins and takes then away. But blood is not understood as a sign of punishment. Rather, OT thinking is used, in which blood is seen as cleansing. The author notes the various contexts in which blood cleanses, and then says “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” [of sins is implied]. I’m using KJV here intentionally.

I never said anything about punishment. I showed that God requires a sacrifice to forgive sins.

 

[hedrick]

I have. But when my interpretation differs from others how do I know my interpretation is correct?

That's why we have lots of people doing this kind of work. Hebrews isn't a focus of mainline theology, so there isn't as much to work with, but for the Gospels and Paul there are many people who have looked at the books, and I normally accept their guidance. Of course I only look at scholars who share the critical approach that tries to avoid reading their own tradition into the text. That's pretty much disjoint from the interpreters that most CF participants would look at.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Surely you've been in these kinds of discussions enough to know that I don't think the Bible came directly from God. I think it's humans describing their experiences with him. As such it's not surprising that those experiences should be different, and the ways they are expressed.

I don't actually consider Hebrews to have the kind authority that Evangelicals would. It tells us how one group of early Christians understood Jesus. But it was controversial in the early Church because of its apparent statement that sins can only be forgiven once, and because it was doubtful that it was written by Paul. It was accepted the West in the 4th Cent, under the assumption that Paul wrote it. He surely did not.

Nevertheless, it is useful to understand how early Christians understood Jesus and his death, which is why I spent time looking at what it says.

Ok, this is just dismissing the scripture that you don't agree with. Which is fine, but it does not lead us to truth. Scientists eventually come to a consensus on what is most likely true. Why can't christian do the same?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's why we have lots of people doing this kind of work. Hebrews isn't a focus of mainline theology, so there isn't as much to work with, but for the Gospels and Paul there are many people who have looked at the books, and I normally accept their guidance. Of course I only look at scholars who share the critical approach that tries to avoid reading their own tradition into the text. That's pretty much disjoint from the interpreters that most CF participants would look at.

How do you know this approach brings you to the truth of what the bible is trying to communicate?

 

[hedrick]

I never said anything about punishment. I showed that God requires a sacrifice to forgive sins.

But it's not forgiveness that is the issue, but purgation, cleansing from sin. The author of Hebrews believes that sin constitutes a barrier between us and God (something that I think Jesus didn't say and probably believed only with significant reservations). The blood of the sacrifice cleanses us, and also establishes a new relationship (the new covenant). I don't believe the question of whether God could forgive a sinner ever arises. That's not the framework in which Heb 9 and 10 are written. In its terms we are able to be with God, not because he forgives us -- enabled by sacrifice or not -- but because our sins are purged. I think Heb 10:26 says that this isn't a Pauline accepting us even though we are still sinners, but an actual removal of sin.

This is very different from Paul, who has a sense that we're never fully purified. We continue be a mix of the new and old man. For Paul we are able to be with God because of justification, something that doesn't depend upon us being purified, though it does depend upon faith, and I think faith is more an orientation than just beliefs.

That's why for Hebrews there can be no forgiveness of sin once we are Christ's (10:26), whereas for Paul (and Jesus) there clearly is ongoing forgiveness. The exact scope of 10:26 is subject to discussion: is it all sin, an ongoing pattern of serious sin, or what? My reading is that Heb is pretty strict on this, and it's any continuing of sin after conversion. But commentaries don't agree, so it may be that it's only a certain pattern. Still, I think the difference in approach with Jesus' forgiving the same thing seven times a day is clear.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

But it's not forgiveness that is the issue, but purgation, cleansing from sin. The author of Hebrews believes that sin constitutes a barrier between us and God (something that I think Jesus didn't say and probably believed only with significant reservations). The blood of the sacrifice cleanses us, and also establishes a new relationship (the new covenant). I don't believe the question of whether God could forgive a sinner ever arises. That's not the framework in which Heb 9 and 10 are written. In its terms we are able to be with God, not because he forgives us -- enabled by sacrifice or not -- but because our sins are purged.

This is the issue. Why should I believe your interpretation? The words in Hebrews actually say the blood forgives sin. You seem to be changing what the words actually say.

This is very different from Paul, who has a sense that we're never fully purified. We continue be a mix of the new and old man. For Paul we are able to be with God because of justification, something that doesn't depend upon us being purified, though it does depend upon faith, and I think faith is more an orientation than just beliefs.

That's why for Hebrews there can be no forgiveness of sin once we are Christ's (10:26), whereas for Paul (and Jesus) there clearly is ongoing forgiveness. The exact scope of 10:26 is subject to discussion: is it all sin, an ongoing pattern of serious sin, or what? My reading is that Heb is pretty strict on this, and it's any continuing of sin after conversion. But commentaries don't agree, so it may be that it's only a certain pattern. Still, I think the difference in approach with Jesus' forgiving the same thing seven times a day is clear.

It is not clear since Christians cannot agree on this. You gave me no reason to believe your interpretation over anthers. I don;t really care what it says, I care if it is true. How do you know any of what you believe is true?

 

[eleos1954]

No. I agree that the earth needs to exist and life needs to exist for evolution to happen but the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of the universe or the origins of life.

Very different. Scientists can back up what they believe to be true with evidence that I can evaluate, Christians cannot. Most Christians look to the bible as a basis for their beliefs and are all different. Some don't look to the bible as their standard. Scientists can do independent testing and come up with a consensus of what is most likely true. Christians cannot.

what is most likely true

most likely isn't fact - probable

The big bang theory makes predictions and has repeatable results.

Science says only about 4% of the universe is observable ... how much of 4% is testable and repeatable?

writings are believed to be true based on evidence the writings of god are believed to be true based on faith. Very big difference.

Each has "faith" in whatever information they have looked into. Each have a certain amount of knowledge/information about science in regard to how much they have researched it (looked into it) ... have you read and understood every scientific paper theory and physics etc. involved? no .... your faith/trust is based on others research and what you have studied out yourself and you accept as being true.

and yes ... christians do accept as truth ... the bible as being His inspired word and many of us study it continually.

Then why do Christians try to use it as such? I am fine with whatever you want to believe about the bible, but when you use it as a science book then I will evaluate the claims based on scientific principles. If the universe started by a creation act we should be able to detect that through science, so far we have not. However science has not ruled that out, just that we have no evidence for it.

I agree and have said the bible is not a science book .... and I am fine with whatever you believe about evolution as well.

truth
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

However science has not ruled that out, just that we have no evidence for it.

ok ... all the facts/evidence is not in, I agree.

This is ridiculous. I can believe the theory of evolution to be true based on the evidence provided. I spent 6 months studying the theory and I am convinced by the evidence that it happened. Because I have positive evidence that evolution is true I don't need to entertain every other unsupported hypothesis of life diversity.

ok .... are you interested and/or concerned about relationships within humanity? That is ... are the principles found in the bible good principles to live by .... and if in fact they were followed would greatly benefit humanity? Remove God & creation from the bible .... are there good/valuable principles?

I spent 6 months studying the theory and I am convinced by the evidence that it happened.

Did you also consider and look into & study the research, data, interpretation of data, testing methods etc. ... from scientists who support creation theory (during the 6 months)? If not ... why not?

ok ... back to the bible that we agree is not a science book and it's focus is on relationships ...

ok ... then .... why not give the same dedication (6 months) to the bible ... take out any references to God totally ... and consider the principles that are contained therein of how we (humanity) are to treat one another and see if you agree/disagree with them. Is that information valuable?

Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I don't still read what science has to say about the various complexities of life and what they put forth about it ... and I'm thankful they (scientists) do look into everything ... and actually increases my faith in creation ... the more complex details that are known ... the more improbable that everything was a series of billions of randomness going on over billions of years can be true.

can prove that pi*r^2 = area of a circle with calculus. Because of this I don't need to look at every other proposed formula for the area of a circle to see if it is true.

We aren't talking about something as simplistic such as a circle .... we are talking about how life began.

Science (speaking of evolution specifically) is largely tied to the material .... are human beings only material? No. Yes ... we have a material/physical brain ... however ...consciousness (why do we have it?) consciousness however, is radically unlike any other scientific problem. One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can't look inside someone's head and see their feelings and experiences.

Those are the types of things the bible addresses ... again relationships.

The other thing is prophesy .... events in history that have happened in the bible ... events that were predicted hundreds of years before they happened and with significant details ... and did in fact happen ... and no I won't go specifically into those .... because it requires significant study ... not only with the bible itself ... but then researching documented secular history etc. (easily more than 6 months of study)

ok ... so you choose to participate in a christian forum (and you are certainly welcome here) and stated you were wondering about life after death ie is it true? ... what does the theory of evolution say about that? What does science say about life after death? What are the scientific studies regarding that? What are the scientific facts about that?
According to scientific facts ... is it possible?

I don't find much of anything addressing this scientifically ... I thought perhaps through your study you might have come across articles addressing it ??? If so, provide some links please.

All atheists I've talked to and asked ... just reply .... nope ... death .... that's it ... nothing beyond.

Yes, eternal life ... we do believe it ..... faith in Jesus.

There is great depth in the bible and we are convinced by it ... and one doesn't know that until they have spent a lot of time in it studying it in depth just like anything else and everything else that goes along with it, history, archeology, cultures, fossil records etc. There is a lot more to it than just faith ... a lot! ... 4 years of study (and on-going) and I am convinced ... throughly convinced.

I spent 6 months studying the theory and I am convinced by the evidence that it happened.

so be it. ;o) agree to disagree

 

[hedrick]

This is the issue. Why should I believe your interpretation? The words in Hebrews actually say the blood forgives sin. You seem to be changing what the words actually say.

It is not clear since Christians cannot agree on this. You gave me no reason to believe your interpretation over anthers. I don;t really care what it says, I care if it is true. How do you know any of what you believe is true?

I'm rewriting this.

What Hebrews 9 says is that in the OT blood brings purification, not forgiveness. They're different.

Christ's death brings forgiveness indirectly. It establishes the new covenant. 10:18 tells us that in the new covenant sins are forgiven, although 10:26 seems to set some limits to that.

In a certain abstract sense Hebrews agrees with Paul on Christians. Both say that Christ's death moves us into new life, assuming that the new covenant in Hebrews is in some general sense equivalent to the new life in Rom 6.

On non-Christians. Paul says in Rom 3:25 that before Christ God passed over sins. In Rom 2 he describes non-Christians who are accepted by having the right attitude, and he says that Abraham was justified by faith.

Heb 9 would lead to the impression that only the blood of OT sacrifices could have saved people before Christ. However if you look throughout the book there seem to be references to the faith of Moses and others. So one shouldn't focus solely on Heb 9, but possibly read it as only being about purging sin but not necessarily the whole picture of salvation.

Indeed Heb 11:2 said it was by faith that their ancestors received approval, and is followed by a long set of examples. That and other statements might lead you to question whether blood was actually necessary for salvation. Heb 9 describes the OT sacrificial system, but was it necessary for God to accept people? 9:22, taken alone, sounds like it, but taken in the broader context of the book, it's not so clear. After all, 10:1 tells us that that OT system was only a shadow of things to come, and 11 and following show OT figures accepted by faith.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

.

Could you edit post 107 so I can better respond to it? Thanks.

 

[hedrick]

Ok, this is just dismissing the scripture that you don't agree with. Which is fine, but it does not lead us to truth. Scientists eventually come to a consensus on what is most likely true. Why can't christian do the same?

I generally evaluate the various Scriptural authors using Jesus' teachings first, and Paul second.

Scientists do a great job with things that can be reproduced in the lab. Biologists and astronomers have done an amazing job of using evidence to reconstruct the past. But once you go from there to psychology, social sciences, history and even archaeology you find that it's hard to come up with such clear tests.

I think Biblical studies and theology in groups that accept the Enlightenment agree about as well as psychologists, social scientists, etc.

 

[Andrewn]

The author notes the various contexts in which blood cleanses, and then says “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” [of sins is implied]. I’m using KJV here intentionally. The term translated remission is a broad one that originally means taking away, but came to mean also forgiveness. It’s used both ways in the NT. NRSV translates forgiveness. I believe they’re wrong. The whole context is about blood cleansing. The author here is saying without blood there is no taking away of sins via cleansing.

This is very different from Paul, who has a sense that we're never fully purified. We continue be a mix of the new and old man. For Paul we are able to be with God because of justification, something that doesn't depend upon us being purified, though it does depend upon faith, and I think faith is more an orientation than just beliefs.

I argued before that 9:22 shouldn't be translated as forgiveness, but as removal. But in light of 10:18 I might change my mind. What 10 argues, starting say at 10:11, is that the new covenant changes things. Note that the new covenant is established by Christ's death as a covenant sacrifice. Under the new covenant God no longer remembers sins, and thus they are forgiven. There's no longer a need for sacrifice. It's possible that 9:22 is a reference to this.

I don’t see a difference between the soteriology in Hebrews and in Paul’s undisputed letters. The noun commonly translated “remission” or “forgiveness” in Heb 9:22 and Heb 10:18 is the Greek “aphesis.” Its basic meaning is to “release from bondage or imprisonment” and is consistently understood as such in the LXX. In the KJV NT it is also translated one time as “liberty.” Taking this into consideration, the meaning of these 2 verses in Hebrews becomes clear: that without the shedding of blood there is no release from our bondage to sin. Thus, it has nothing or very little to do with forgiveness of sins already committed. God can forgive those. But it has to do with giving us liberty to walk in righteousness. A new heart as per Jer 31:31-33, which is able to accept the law of the Spirit. I think this is consistent with teaching of Jesus and Paul.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t see a difference between the soteriology in Hebrews and in Paul’s undisputed letters. The noun commonly translated “remission” or “forgiveness” in Heb 9:22 and Heb 10:18 is the Greek “aphesis.” Its basic meaning is to “release from bondage or imprisonment” and is consistently understood as such in the LXX. In the KJV NT it is also translated one time as “liberty.” Taking this into consideration, the meaning of these 2 verses in Hebrews becomes clear: that without the shedding of blood there is no release from our bondage to sin. Thus, it has nothing or very little to do with forgiveness of sins already committed. God can forgive those. But it has to do with giving us liberty to walk in righteousness. A new heart as per Jer 31:31-33, which is able to accept the law of the Spirit. I think this is consistent with teaching of Jesus and Paul.

Yes, I rewrote the posting you quoted. Your response is pretty much what I said originally.

Hebrews description of Christ's death seems consistent with Paul. The changes made in us by the new covenant correspond to Rom 6. But I'm left unclear about Heb 9. It's a pretty good description of the OT sacrificial system. But is it necessary for forgiveness of sins? 9:22 seems to suggest that for those outside the new covenant it might be. But chapters 11 and following say that the OT figures were accepted on account of their faith. There's no obvious connection between that and Heb 9. That leave me a bit unclear just what the author thought the role of 9 is. Is it just a shadow of the new covenant, as suggested by 10:1, and never the actual basis of God accepting people?

9:22 is pretty clearly a description of the situation under the old covenant, which the author seems to see as not actually removing sin. It's quite possible that those in the OT with faith are actually part of the new covenant, and that Christ's death is not limited by time in its effect.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, I rewrote the posting you quoted. Your response is pretty much what I said originally.

Hebrews description of Christ's death seems consistent with Paul. The changes made in us by the new covenant correspond to Rom 6. But I'm left unclear about Heb 9. It's a pretty good description of the OT sacrificial system. But is it necessary for forgiveness of sins? 9:22 seems to suggest that for those outside the new covenant it might be. But chapters 11 and following say that the OT figures were accepted on account of their faith. There's no obvious connection between that and Heb 9. That leave me a bit unclear just what the author thought the role of 9 is. Is it just a shadow of the new covenant, as suggested by 10:1, and never the actual basis of God accepting people?

3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.

There’s a lot of controversy around Hebrews 9. The above verse no one has been able to answer and that’s why is the golden incense bowl in the Holiest when the earthly tabernacle it was in the priests area. verse 5 says But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. and it’s not familiar to me where that is taken up again. It would suggest that prayers are at the throne of grace and not within the grasp of the ordinary priest. Probably why all the controversy surrounding it.

22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The shedding of blood is a cleansing of the conscience.

 

[Andrewn]

It's quite possible that those in the OT with faith are actually part of the new covenant, and that Christ's death is not limited by time in its effect.

Yes, this is how I understand it, also. I think this is a very orthodox belief.

But I'm left unclear about Heb 9. It's a pretty good description of the OT sacrificial system. But is it necessary for forgiveness of sins? 9:22 seems to suggest that for those outside the new covenant it might be. But chapters 11 and following say that the OT figures were accepted on account of their faith. There's no obvious connection between that and Heb 9. That leave me a bit unclear just what the author thought the role of 9 is. Is it just a shadow of the new covenant, as suggested by 10:1, and never the actual basis of God accepting people? 9:22 is pretty clearly a description of the situation under the old covenant, which the author seems to see as not actually removing sin.

Your observation about Heb 11 & 12 is right in place. I also notice that many OT passages mention that God did not desire sacrifices. In Jesus' time, the Essenes rejected Temple sacrifices. So, why OT sacrifices? Why does Hebrews even mention them?

Why did all pagans offers blood sacrifices to their gods, even native Americans who were isolated from the rest of the world?

I wore more speculating on answers and deleted what I wrote. Neither Evangelicals nor Atheists would have liked what I deleted .

Let me know if you decide to start another thread about sacrifices.

 

[hedrick]

For what it's worth, the Hermeneia commentary sees 9:15-22 as applying specifically to the covenant sacrifice and various purifications associated with it. They comment on 9:22

"According to this cultic rule it is not without blood that “remission” (ἄφεσις) occurs. Although this term may be used for various sorts of “release,” it is clear from the general context that remission of sins is involved. The absence of a reference to what is remitted may be a way of qualifying the rule, since otherwise it stands in some tension with the emphatic denials of expiatory efficacy in animals’ blood (10:4*). It is, in any case, clear from the preceding discussion that the effects of the old cult are seen to be limited and superficial." (Attridge and Koester)

The Logos commentary, however, sees 9:22 as valid for both old and new covenants.

Just how you take that consistent with 10:4, 10:8 and 11 is unclear. However in the introduction to the Hermeneia commentary, it notes that Hebrews tends to cite a number of different traditional statements that actually say different things. It's probably best to look just at the specific point the author is trying to make by the citations, because if you try to make all the details of all the statements fit together, you'll fail.

In this case he was using the OT cult as a type for Jesus' death, understood as a covenant sacrifice. Trying to turn 9:22 into a doctrinal statement on which to base a theology of the atonement is a mistake, particularly given 11 and 12.

 

[eleos1954]

Could you edit post 107 so I can better respond to it? Thanks.

ok ... cleaned it up ... sorry about that ;o)

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

most likely isn't fact - probable

Science makes no claims to absolute truth. But when something is so supported by evidence it becomes facts and theories in science.

Science says only about 4% of the universe is observable ... how much of 4% is testable and repeatable?

I don't understand the question. Theories are testable and repeatable.

Each has "faith" in whatever information they have looked into. Each have a certain amount of knowledge/information about science in regard to how much they have researched it (looked into it) ... have you read and understood every scientific paper theory and physics etc. involved? no .... your faith/trust is based on others research and what you have studied out yourself and you accept as being true.

I believe the consensus of science because it has the best track record of finding what is true. It works and has been demonstrated to do so. Whenever science has been wrong it was always more science that corrected the errors. Not one time has faith corrected science. That is not faith as Christians use the word.

and yes ... christians do accept as truth ... the bible as being His inspired word and many of us study it continually.

Not all Christians do. And many accept it as truth but then say some is allegorical some is literal. There is no consensus on what the Bible teaches.

ok .... are you interested and/or concerned about relationships within humanity? That is ... are the principles found in the bible good principles to live by .... and if in fact they were followed would greatly benefit humanity? Remove God & creation from the bible .... are there good/valuable principles?

There are good and bad ideas in the bible. However, we should use reason, logic and empathy to determine which are good values and not just accept them as good because they are in the book.

Did you also consider and look into & study the research, data, interpretation of data, testing methods etc. ... from scientists who support creation theory (during the 6 months)? If not ... why not?

I have studied creation theory. I was a creationist for my christian life. In the end the evidence does not support a young earth and there is evidence for the big bang model.

ok ... back to the bible that we agree is not a science book and it's focus is on relationships ...

ok ... then .... why not give the same dedication (6 months) to the bible ... take out any references to God totally ... and consider the principles that are contained therein of how we (humanity) are to treat one another and see if you agree/disagree with them. Is that information valuable?

I studied it for greater than 18 years, I was a christian for that amount of time. If we take god out of it, it becomes a terrible moral guide. How we treat humanity? At one time you believe Gods law told people to kill homosexuals and people that did not respect their parents. It also had laws to beat slaves and own other people as property. No, there are not all good principles for relationships within its covers.

Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I don't still read what science has to say about the various complexities of life and what they put forth about it ... and I'm thankful they (scientists) do look into everything ... and actually increases my faith in creation ... the more complex details that are known ... the more improbable that everything was a series of billions of randomness going on over billions of years can be true.

Then I don't think you understand the evidence for evolution.

We aren't talking about something as simplistic such as a circle .... we are talking about how life began.

I was not. Evolution describes how the diversity of life happened not how life began.

Science (speaking of evolution specifically) is largely tied to the material .... are human beings only material? No. Yes ... we have a material/physical brain ... however ...consciousness (why do we have it?) consciousness however, is radically unlike any other scientific problem. One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can't look inside someone's head and see their feelings and experiences.

Those are the types of things the bible addresses ... again relationships.

Science can and has studies these things. Why don't you think they can?

The other thing is prophesy .... events in history that have happened in the bible ... events that were predicted hundreds of years before they happened and with significant details ... and did in fact happen ... and no I won't go specifically into those .... because it requires significant study ... not only with the bible itself ... but then researching documented secular history etc. (easily more than 6 months of study)

There is failed prophesy in the bible as well.

ok ... so you choose to participate in a christian forum (and you are certainly welcome here) and stated you were wondering about life after death ie is it true? ... what does the theory of evolution say about that? What does science say about life after death? What are the scientific studies regarding that? What are the scientific facts about that?
According to scientific facts ... is it possible?

I don't find much of anything addressing this scientifically ... I thought perhaps through your study you might have come across articles addressing it ??? If so, provide some links please.

All atheists I've talked to and asked ... just reply .... nope ... death .... that's it ... nothing beyond.

Well this atheist's opinion on the afterlife is that there is not enough evidence to believe there is one. That is not to say there is not one.

Yes, eternal life ... we do believe it ..... faith in Jesus.

There is great depth in the bible and we are convinced by it ... and one doesn't know that until they have spent a lot of time in it studying it in depth just like anything else and everything else that goes along with it, history, archeology, cultures, fossil records etc. There is a lot more to it than just faith ... a lot! ... 4 years of study (and on-going) and I am convinced ... throughly convinced.

Through studying the bible to be able to defend it better I lost my faith like many atheists. I studied the bible a lot as a christian and I was thoroughly convinced as well.

Why are you convinced?

 

[eleos1954]

Science makes no claims to absolute truth. But when something is so supported by evidence it becomes facts and theories in science.

I don't understand the question. Theories are testable and repeatable.

I believe the consensus of science because it has the best track record of finding what is true. It works and has been demonstrated to do so. Whenever science has been wrong it was always more science that corrected the errors. Not one time has faith corrected science. That is not faith as Christians use the word.

Not all Christians do. And many accept it as truth but then say some is allegorical some is literal. There is no consensus on what the Bible teaches.

There are good and bad ideas in the bible. However, we should use reason, logic and empathy to determine which are good values and not just accept them as good because they are in the book.

I have studied creation theory. I was a creationist for my christian life. In the end the evidence does not support a young earth and there is evidence for the big bang model.

I studied it for greater than 18 years, I was a christian for that amount of time. If we take god out of it, it becomes a terrible moral guide. How we treat humanity? At one time you believe Gods law told people to kill homosexuals and people that did not respect their parents. It also had laws to beat slaves and own other people as property. No, there are not all good principles for relationships within its covers.

Then I don't think you understand the evidence for evolution.

I was not. Evolution describes how the diversity of life happened not how life began.

Science can and has studies these things. Why don't you think they can?

There is failed prophesy in the bible as well.

Well this atheist's opinion on the afterlife is that there is not enough evidence to believe there is one. That is not to say there is not one.

Through studying the bible to be able to defend it better I lost my faith like many atheists. I studied the bible a lot as a christian and I was thoroughly convinced as well.

Why are you convinced?

I studied it for greater than 18 years, I was a christian for that amount of time.

ok ... well sorry to hear you have turned away from God.

hmmmm ... christian for 18 years and now turned atheist ... so if ... in fact ...that is true ... then you are well aware of what the bible says about eternal life and many other things and you've made your choice ... and have made it quite clear you are firm in that choice. All righty then ;o)

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Thanks for the conversation though ... have a happy life on earth.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

ok ... well sorry to hear you have turned away from God.

hmmmm ... christian for 18 years and now turned atheist ... so if ... in fact ...that is true ... then you are well aware of what the bible says about eternal life and many other things and you've made your choice ... and have made it quite clear you are firm in that choice. All righty then ;o)

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Thanks for the conversation though ... have a happy life on earth.

Typical.

This shows just another way God as described in the bible is immoral. God has the power to convince me he exists yet because of his pettiness he will let me go into eternal destruction. If he convinced me he exists then at least I would be able to make an informed decision as to whether I would follow him or not.

 

[ChetSinger]

Typical.

This shows just another way God as described in the bible is immoral. God has the power to convince me he exists yet because of his pettiness he will let me go into eternal destruction. If he convinced me he exists then at least I would be able to make an informed decision as to whether I would follow him or not.

Why are you here? Do you long to be restored to fellowship with God and his human family? I know that he wants you in it. I'm happy to pray for you.