Let's Talk About Hell (6)

[Soulgazer]

Would you agree that it would be immoral for those that strongly believe that scripture teaches eternal punishment...not to teach it?

God bless.

No I would not. Anymore than I would say it was ok if you had a strong moral opinion that Jews should be exterminated, or the earth was only 6000 years old. It makes no difference to me what catholic scripture says, any more than what the q'uran or the veda says, for much the same reasons.

May the TRUE God Bless.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I don't think anyone here has denied the existence of an afterlife.

Then I take it that you gloss over Timothew and He-man's posts without reading them?

These are all historic and ancient Christian beliefs. The morality issue is not of God, but the adherent to the various belief systems. Some believed that those that believe God would torture a soul for eternity are morally lacking.

I don't see any moral lacking in believing that extreme sociopaths will be eternally separated from the rest of us. I remember you making a comment to the effect of, how could someone in heaven live in peace knowing that someone they love is eternally in the outer darkness. My answer is that once everyone's eyes are opened in the resurrection people will be able to see each other's hearts and there will be no fooling anyone. So anyone in heaven who thought they loved someone who is damned will see that that person is actually incapable of love, and so the person will no long feel a lack of peace at the other person's damnation.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Eternal life is a gift from God to those who are in Christ.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ.

All of this other stuff is a red herring.

Why do you think the Bible's usage of the words psychikos and pneumatikos is a red herring?

 

[Soulgazer]

Then I take it that you gloss over Timothew and He-man's posts without reading them?

No. I've known Tim for a long time. He believes in eternal life for the saved. He Man seldom speaks, just cuts and pastes.

I don't see any moral lacking in believing that extreme sociopaths will be eternally separated from the rest of us. I remember you making a comment to the effect of, how could someone in heaven live in peace knowing that someone they love is eternally in the outer darkness. My answer is that once everyone's eyes are opened in the resurrection people will be able to see each other's hearts and there will be no fooling anyone. So anyone in heaven who thought they loved someone who is damned will see that that person is actually incapable of love, and so the person will no long feel a lack of peace at the other person's damnation.

I'm not judging, just giving the historic information.

You do bring up an interesting point though. Could not the axe murderers eyes be opened to his own heart? Could not that which kept him from loving others on earth be removed? We are speaking about an all powerful God, with which nothing is impossible. What caused you to stop where you stopped?

I don't claim to know, and as far as I know, when the lights go out the room goes dark. I just like to believe that God is larger than I.

 

[Fascinated With God]

No. I've known Tim for a long time. He believes in eternal life for the saved.

He vociferously denies the existence of an afterlife and of any non-material nature to humanity. According to him the soul ceases to exist at death, and the spirit is not an innate part of humanity and not a source of consciousness. It is just a life-force that goes back to God at death.

You do bring up an interesting point though. Could not the axe murderers eyes be opened to his own heart?

That is completely different, you are talking about someone's heart and fundamental nature being changed, not just an increase in perceptive power. An increase in perceptive power does not constitute a fundamental and radical change in identity the way what you are suggesting does.

 

[Soulgazer]

That is completely different, you are talking about someone's heart and fundamental nature being changed, not just an increase in perceptive power. An increase in perceptive power does not constitute a fundamental and radical change in identity the way what you are suggesting does.

Surely that darkness which is within all souls can be expunged by a God for which nothing is impossible? Or do you believe that God has such limitations on His power??

I myself do not know. I have read the countless beliefs of our ancient Christian forebears, and this has been a question that plagued them also. I do not believe in eternal torture, though the endless torment of a repentant heart knowing the pain it has caused through the enlightenment of the soul does not seem far fetched.

 

[Clearly]

strangertoo said in post #978 ".... they ALL depend on the rather obvious and deliberate mistranslation of one word in Hebrew, 'olam' and one word in Greek 'aionios' both referring to an aeon, an age... a finite time... "

I just wanted to interject that though greek αιονοσ refers to a specific "age" or "period of time", it does NOT necessarily entail a beginning and end to ALL time, but often refers to a time period within eternity. For example, the time period from adam to the flood is an αινον, yet time continues AFTER that "eon". The final αινον in heaven is sometimes referred to and THAT period of time has no end as well (though the fact that it has a beginning allows us to refer to it as an αινο&#957.

I did not want to enter into the discussion between you and another poster, but rather to point out this important distinction. Also, I might point out that such translational differences are often NOT deliberate, but instead, some concepts don't translate well between languages and the translator is limited by a number of conditions when he creates a bible (or any other type of translation).

Clearly

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

Would you agree that it would be immoral for those that strongly believe that scripture teaches eternal punishment...not to teach it?

God bless.
​

[/I]


No I would not. Anymore than I would say it was ok if you had a strong moral opinion that Jews should be exterminated, or the earth was only 6000 years old.

Interesting examples offered.

That is twice the issue of anti-semitism has been raised...unwarranted. Why is that, I wonder?

And several statements equating to "Nothing is impossible for God" have also been accompanied by statements that denounce and condemn that the Lord can (and will) preserve His word in an orderly fashion or that the Lord can create the world in six literal day (to which I again state "six seconds would have been enough").

I wonder at that to, for the contradiction does not escape me.

Well, when I hear about the "Catholic scriptures" I immediately think of that canon which includes the Apocrypha, and while I would not say "I don't care what they say" I will say that I do not accept them in a universal way, lol.

Yet to compare these "holy scriptures" is going a bit too far, as they are as opposed to each other as oil is to water. The only way to get them to blend isd to shake them up. lol

No worries...He does.

God bless.

 

[Soulgazer]

Interesting examples offered.

That is twice the issue of anti-semitism has been raised...unwarranted. Why is that, I wonder?

And several statements equating to "Nothing is impossible for God" have also been accompanied by statements that denounce and condemn that the Lord can (and will) preserve His word in an orderly fashion or that the Lord can create the world in six literal day (to which I again state "six seconds would have been enough").

I wonder at that to, for the contradiction does not escape me.




Well, when I hear about the "Catholic scriptures" I immediately think of that canon which includes the Apocrypha, and while I would not say "I don't care what they say" I will say that I do not accept them in a universal way, lol.

Yet to compare these "holy scriptures" is going a bit too far, as they are as opposed to each other as oil is to water. The only way to get them to blend isd to shake them up. lol




No worries...He does.

God bless.

I have stated that God can and does preserve His word. However the idea that the "bible" is His word is just plain wrong, and is based in paganism.

The very first bible was an anthology of Christian writings put together by marcionites for the promotion of marcionism.

The very next bible was an anthology of Christian writings put together by catholics for the promotion of catholicism.

The western bible contains writings from both, but came to it's present form, more or less, in the sixteenth century at the council of Trent, supposedly an ecumenical council between protestants and their parent organization.

Until the council of Trent, there was no "extra-biblical" scripture...there was only scripture. The Bible as originally envisioned by it's compilers was to be the centerpiece of an anthology encompassing the wide variety of beliefs bound together in unity by catholicism, a school of belief started in the second century. Nor was there one version of the bible with more than personal preferences over another until the invention of the printing press.

Books such as the "Shepherd of Hermas", "The Apocalypse of Peter", and "The Apocalypse of John" swapped places repeatedly. We know from it's existence in the Ethiopean canon, that "Enoch" was once general canon.

Nor were it's doctrinal tenets any more stable. Older versions of Luke had different words coming from Heaven, and Eusebias, probably the father of the catholic bible quotes matthew numerous times, proving that the doctrine of the trinity was unknown to him.

Now, to get to the age of the earth--- while you may safely argue that the earth may not be exactly 4.54 billion years old, to say that it is but 6000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is incredulous, and frankly makes me wonder about your credulity. Ice core samples alone are some 250,000 seasons deep. My ancestors on this continent are self saying 12,000 years and acknowledged as ten thousand. Domestic dogs have been genetically traced backward to sometime between 75,000 and 150, 000 years.

I know that not everyone has a scientific background, but put yourself in my shoes....here you are making mistakes about the visible, and you hope to teach me about the invisible?

 

[P1LGR1M]

I have stated that God can and does preserve His word. However the idea that the "bible" is His word is just plain wrong, and is based in paganism.

I see you still seek to draw me into extrabiblical arenas which have men disputing about uncertain theories presented by men, rather than deal with the texts themselves.

You further reinforce your condemnation of scripture by seeking to present it as corrupt, and the work of men, rather than the word of God.

You further try to introduce an atmoshere in which your word takes precedence over the word of God.

And you further illustrate the basis for you belief which is faith in those you seek to condemn...men. And it has invaded every aspect of your faith, which you have said you have...bought.

And you wonder at my ignorance of Science? lol

The very first bible was an anthology of Christian writings put together by marcionites for the promotion of marcionism.

Says...who? Your professors? Historians? Perhaps your claims might be a little more credible if you presented men of sound doctrine that would affirm your beliefs. Men unmistakably belonging to the God of the Bible which you seek to undermine.

But it is always true, if one cannot make a case against scripture by scripture itself, they will appeal to the teachings of men, in which there are no boundaries, no absolutes, but only an ardent desire for men to prove what they believe is truth.

The very next bible was an anthology of Christian writings put together by catholics for the promotion of catholicism.

Wait. Lets stop right there and consider a more ancient source: the Hebrew scriptures.

It did not take long for man to wrest and corrupt that as well, creating their word to accompany that given by God.

For get Marcionites, how about the false shepherds of Israel, my friend.

Copied meticulously be men who did fear God, we can consider what those scriptures taught. And in those scriptures we can see the God Who is found from Genesis to Revelation, unlike the false god caricaturized through hearts that have no understadnding of the spiritual things of God. For they heard the Gospel, yet were disobedient, and had no...faith.

Then we can look at the translation process that preceded those efforts in which the New Testament scriptures were a part of, and consider the opposition to the LXX, before and after it was made.

It is an age-old dispute, and within it we see the various groups who all clamor to make their position the legitimate one, whereas the People of God have always sought to glorify God Who revealed Himself to men.

And there is no contradiction in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, He is One and the Same.

The western bible contains writings from both, but came to it's present form, more or less, in the sixteenth century at the council of Trent, supposedly an ecumenical council between protestants and their parent organization.

Many men labored to make the scriptures available to the common man. Within those efforts you focus on the New Testament but that is more than just a bit misleading, because within those efforts both Old and New Testaments were included.

There are a number of things within that process which make for good discussion as well as debate, but the conclusion one should come to after delving into that process is that there is sufficient evidence to take on faith that God's word is preserved, as well as a sufficient lack of evidence to make the faithful abandon thier faith in the One True Living God or His word.

And as far as the Council of Trent is concerned, how is it that you give this as support for your belief? Incredible, really.

Until the council of Trent, there was no "extra-biblical" scripture...there was only scripture.

According to who?

Your professors? Your teachers?

Please.

God has for millennia brought those that are His to the knowledge of the truth, and kept them from the error of false prophets, who unfortunately in our time have greater access to a wider audience, and by that lead astray more than was possible for them before.

They creep in to households by the millions.

The Bible as originally envisioned by it's compilers was to be the centerpiece of an anthology encompassing the wide variety of beliefs bound together in unity by catholicism, a school of belief started in the second century. Nor was there one version of the bible with more than personal preferences over another until the invention of the printing press.

Want to run that by me again? The Catholic Church was not opposed to translations other than Jerome's?

Not to mention the fact that for a long time men were forced to be fed what they were to believe and not question it.

Thank goodness for the printing press, eh?

But again, we lack one vital aspect to this issue, which is the Old Testament. Are you suggesting that the Catholics (or the Jews, your choice, it seems, when it is convenient) changed the Hebrew scriptures to suit their theological views? That would be a difficult task indeed.

Books such as the "Shepherd of Hermas", "The Apocalypse of Peter", and "The Apocalypse of John" swapped places repeatedly. We know from it's existence in the Ethiopean canon, that "Enoch" was once general canon.

And the 1611 King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, does that mean that these books are to be embraced without question?

Does that even mean that those that produced the King James translation thought they should be included because they were inspired?

Why was it included then, but not now?

Nor were it's doctrinal tenets any more stable. Older versions of Luke had different words coming from Heaven, and Eusebias, probably the father of the catholic bible quotes matthew numerous times, proving that the doctrine of the trinity was unknown to him.

In other words, we need to search everything that is considered holy scripture irregardless of the doctrines they teach...and cherry-pick the ones that are really from God?

You say...

proving that the doctrine of the trinity was unknown to him.

...does not equate to "proving the doctrine of the Trinity was unknown to all."

Care to explain why it is God would not allow Moses to see His face (which I never received a response from you concerning that passage) yet God Himself along with two Angels is served lunch on the plains of Mamre (Genesis 18)?

We all see what we want to see, believe what we want to believe. As long as scripture conforms to our views...it is acceptable.

Is that it?

Now, to get to the age of the earth--- while you may safely argue that the earth may not be exactly 4.54 billion years old, to say that it is but 6000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is incredulous,

According to whose interpretation?

Your professors? Your teachers?

I would demand a refund if I were you...lol.

First, I have made it clear it is a personal belief. Secondly, whereas I can see historical evidence that fits a biblical timeline from creation until the time of the Lord's visitation, yours presents nothing but...voids.

Voids of evidence supporting man's existance millions of years ago. We could even just go back a hundred thousand years and wonder why there is no evidence that man had long ago existed. I mentioned an ancient "witness" when I mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is not, I believe, coincidence that there is mention of a flood surrounding this timeframe. I think it is a mythical account, with a purpose to glorify man rather than God, but what would we expect from those that are in rebellion?

We find no record of his activity. We find no record at all. Does it really take millions of years for man to learn to write down what is happening in his lifetime?

But wait...cave drawings. That's it. Man's first attempt at recording events.

Secondly, I do not despise nor consider those that believe that the earth is millions of years old to be idiots, simply mistaken, lol. There are a great number of men I highly respect who believe this, and though I think they do so because they also view the "evidence" as reasonable and cannot see any other reasonable conclusion.

Third, and finally, what most Evolutionists seem to miss is that their faith in evolution blinds them to the fact that Evolution has evolved itself.

You boast of critical analysis, my friend, but do you not see the utterly ridiculous nature of evolution, which makes a conclusion...then goes out to prove it's conclusions?

Deny that...if you dare.

and frankly makes me wonder about your credulousness.

And that is the difference between me and certain others, my friend. I could care less if one finds me credulous or not.

You see, having a firm foundation which teaches that the word of God is implemented by God to bring men to repentance...I do not need to glorify my knowledge, nor myself, nor those that have played a part in the faith I now follow.

I can appeal to both the written word of God, and the LIVING WORD.

My faith is built on that which has been given to all men, that they might know Him, and in that come to the belief which is not condemned.

Ice core samples alone are some 250,000 seasons deep.

According to who?

Have you yourself gone out, retrieved core samples, examined them, and then rendered a conclusion?

Or is it necessary to take another man's word for it?

I will say this: while I do find discussions about scientific finding to be very fascinating and actually enjoy them very much, I also know that for both sides (and there are Scientists in opposition to that which is accepted and taught today) there is a reliance upon interpreting the evidence.

For example: what is your theory about the mammoth instantaneously frozen? Would it follow that presented in such Hollywood propaganda films such as "The Day After" (great movie, by the way, though it is propaganda geared at instilling fear in people so that they which teach it can prosper by their fear)?

Could you, without looking for someone else to provide a reasonable answer...offer one of your own? Have you not said the Lord speaks directly to you? What do think of this mammoth?

And do you believe that the results of the volcanic material (from Mt St. Helens)tested and found to be, what was it, tens of thousands of years old rather than weeks old were an unfortunnate error that had to be quickly swept under the rug?

Can you tell me if underwater creatures were osmoregulators or not? Can science tell us this?

Be very much obliged if you would, but, I would be even more happy to look at the hypocrisy of saying God can do whatever He chooses...except create the world in six days; except create the earth in such a way as to make those who deny His word see anything other than what they want to see; except preserve His word even though He states He will.

My ancestors on this continent are self saying 12,000 years and acknowledged as ten thousand.

They told you this? Remarkable.

Domestic dogs have been genetically traced backward to sometime between 75,000 and 150, 000 years.

According to who?

Who's interpretation of the evidence?

I know that not everyone has a scientific background, but put yourself in my shoes....here you are making mistakes about the visible, and you hope to teach me about the invisible?

What are my mistakes? lol

Because I personally believe the earth is nearing 6,000 years in existance?

You can continue trying to set up the discussion in your favor, because you believe science gives you the upper hand, yet, I wonder how your conscience handles the word of God itself when you are exposed to it.

I would not, for all the gold in Fort Know...wish to see myself in your shoes, my friend. What I will do, though, is happily continue in discussion with you. Sometimes it may seem uncaring, or perhaps even harsh, but as I have said, you are the reason I am here. That you find me credible is not an issue, for I will put my foot in my mouth at times like all do, and if one needs my credibility to be intact, then it is certain that they are not focused on the one thing that does stir the heart to belief, which is the word of God itself.

God bless.

 

[Soulgazer]

Now, if I were a superstitious man, I would simply assume that you have given yourself over to the father of lies, who, should he exist would undoubtedly be pleased with what he has accomplished with you.

Not being superstitious, I accept some moral concepts found in the mythology of the Old Testament.
I've already rejected that polemical version of the Babylonian Enuma Elis based on the weight of evidence as concerning the coming into existence the earth, as I also reject Aesop as having a higher version of entomology.

Now, I probably would have better results getting you to walk under a ladder than to get you to accept that critical, geological, archeological, anthropological and astronomical sciences don't meet on a regular basis to conspire on how to attack the reality that you have adopted.

I could tell you that those same ice flows I talked about previously do not contain sea ice, but you undoubtedly would quickly adopt the facts to fit the belief; this is not unreminiscent of the Cargo Cult religion of the isolated islanders, whom, when presented with a real airplane in an attempt to prove it wasn't a god, just knew they were being tricked.
I could tell you that yes, there are "great flood" stories from around the world, but no, they do not all come from the same time period. However I doubt it will make an impression.

Next, we could discuss any stories from ancient Egypt that could come close to the account given in "Exodus"; there is one about a nation of mercenaries, unhappy that their services were no longer needed when Ramses signed a treaty, sacked a town as they departed, and were pursued by the military until it lost them during a storm at the Red Sea. However there is no proof that this was "Moses" or that these people were even Israelite, so lets not.

I just seriously don't know how to talk to people who have rejected reality to substitute a false one, and then talk about the "truth".

Though I do enjoy your company, and you make me laugh, so please don't feel insulted. It really isn't personal.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Now, if I were a superstitious man, I would simply assume that you have given yourself over to the father of lies, who, should he exist would undoubtedly be pleased with what he has accomplished with you.

lol...and if I were a superstitious man, I might be susceptible to opinions that cannot be verifeid by a reasonable source and refuse to give direct answers to direct questions and...continually change the subject or deign one beneath a dignified response.

I guess we are both very lucky men, aren't we? Oops...doesn't that fall intot he category of superstition?

lol

Not being superstitious, I accept some moral concepts found in the mythology of the Old Testament.

That seems to be a pattern.

I've already rejected that polemical version of the Babylonian Enuma Elis based on the weight of evidence as concerning the coming into existence the earth, as I also reject Aesop as having a higher version of entomology.

I don't seem to remember mentioning this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I will agree that I also reject them, but not for the same reasons, though. The correlation I was trying to point out was that, as I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, is the description of Nimrod found in Genesis, shortly after the flood, and the debate surrounding the passage in Genesis, as to whether we might not see a true historical account of a figure that is also seen in extrabiblical literature.

And the primary point was that what we do have alludes to a closer correlation to what we have as actual historical and archaeological evidence shows. In other words, we have historical documentation that has survived the years and it is in more agreement with what is found in scripture than those theories proposed by those that are in opposition to God and His word.

Now, I probably would have better results getting you to walk under a ladder than to get you to accept that critical, geological, archeological, anthropological and astronomical sciences don't meet on a regular basis to conspire on how to attack the reality that you have adopted.

Walk under the ladders all the time...lol.

As far as a conspiracy theory concerning scientists, I think the public record will show who it is that runs under such thinkiing on relevant matters.

But that you would overlook that there need not be a united effort where conspiracy would be obvious and recognize that birds of a feather speak the same language in order to achieve a mutual agenda betrays a rather less than critical analysis of the facts.

Another example of this would be those that have a similar agenda that work together to achieve a desired result but are contrary otherwise would be the liberal agenda, where we see "tolerance" as a rally cry that supports both religious rights and special rights though they are contrary in practice and belief.

Such as homosexuals seeking to keep in office a clearly radical islamist sympathetic administration. The irony being that radical Islam will put to death these unwitting cohorts.

I could tell you that those same ice flows I talked about previously do not contain sea ice,

And I would counter with "scripture is clear that the deeps of the earth supplied much of the water."

This is wqhy I ask specifically your thoughts on osmoregulation.

but you undoubtedly would quickly adopt the facts to fit the belief;

How'd I do? lol

this is not unreminiscent of the Cargo Cult religion of the isolated islanders, whom, when presented with a real airplane in an attempt to prove it wasn't a god, just knew they were being tricked.

And as far as I am aware of...they still exist to this day.

How this applies to my faith or...my sense of humor, lol, I will have to await your remarkable knowledge to find out.

I could tell you that yes, there are "great flood" stories from around the world,

Curious, no?

but no, they do not all come from the same time period. However I doubt it will make an impression.

Probably not...you know how hard it is to get through to the superstitious, lol.

Next, we could discuss any stories from ancient Egypt that could come close to the account given in "Exodus"; there is one about a nation of mercenaries, unhappy that their services were no longer needed when Ramses signed a treaty, sacked a town as they departed, and were pursued by the military until it lost them during a storm at the Red Sea. However there is no proof that this was "Moses" or that these people were even Israelite, so lets not.

Now that is a new one. I would like to see a link for this, as it will greatly help in my discussions with atheists. So far I have only been aware of the lack of evidence to support the evidence, which would be more in keeping with those who would stifle just such an embarrasing event.

Thanks in advance.

I just seriously don't know how to talk to people who have rejected reality to substitute a false one, and then talk about the "truth".

Well, my friend, it had to happen: I knew we would find common ground somewhere along the way.

lol

Though I do enjoy your company, and you make me laugh, so please don't feel insulted. It really isn't personal.

No insult taken, Soulgazer. It is not often that I get to enjoy dialogue like this unless I go on an atheist forum, which makes me nervous because I usually have to worry about viruses and other such non-spiritual attacks. And the latter is enough for me.

Look forward to talking more with you in the future.

God bless.

 

[Timothew]

He vociferously denies the existence of an afterlife and of any non-material nature to humanity. According to him the soul ceases to exist at death, and the spirit is not an innate part of humanity and not a source of consciousness. It is just a life-force that goes back to God at death.

Excuse me. I did not "vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife".

Show the post where I ever denied the afterlife. After we die, on Judgment Day we are resurrected to eternal life. That's the afterlife. Now I guess you are going to try to say "that's not a proper afterlife". I just say what the bible says. That's all. You don't have to make up things and say that "Tim believes that!" Just look at the bible, and that's what I believe.

 

[Soulgazer]

lol...and if I were a superstitious man, I might be susceptible to opinions that cannot be verifeid by a reasonable source and refuse to give direct answers to direct questions and...continually change the subject or deign one beneath a dignified response.

LOL, well, if you do not consider a collective scientific inquiry into the physical universe more reasonable than accepting a bronze age myth I really can't accept that you are qualified to define that which is reasonable and that which is not.

I guess we are both very lucky men, aren't we? Oops...doesn't that fall intot he category of superstition?

To benefit from random chance is a religion to some...I lean more towards intelligent design.

lol




That seems to be a pattern.

Indeed. Patterns have not changed in many centuries. Despots rule by fear. Military, financial or religious, the effect is the same. That Moses, Joshua or David ruled by fear and established a dynasty hidden behind theocracy should not really surprise any student. I believe based on my knowledge of ancient text that this is the reality behind John 10:8. I can see the truth behind John 8:32 also, that freedom from an oppressive religious theocracy was just a truth away.

I don't seem to remember mentioning this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You are quite right, the flood is from the Sumerian, the creation account from Babylonia, both heavily polemicised of course. In the older Babylonian, Marduk created the heavens and the earth, and then created Man so that the gods would have someone to worship them. Same story, just insert your favorite deity.

I will agree that I also reject them, but not for the same reasons, though. The correlation I was trying to point out was that, as I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, is the description of Nimrod found in Genesis, shortly after the flood, and the debate surrounding the passage in Genesis, as to whether we might not see a true historical account of a figure that is also seen in extrabiblical literature.

There are numerous extra biblical accounts of a flood figure. There is one, that has some archeological basis behind it, where the Moses like character hid his family and livestock in a mountain cave to escape the unrushing waves of a world flood. This took place around the time of the explosion of Thebes, which would have caused a massive tsunami that reached miles inland. The cave in the mountain, the magical ark settling on a mountain, there is enough similarity to have a reasonable suspicion that the stories are related.

And the primary point was that what we do have alludes to a closer correlation to what we have as actual historical and archaeological evidence shows. In other words, we have historical documentation that has survived the years and it is in more agreement with what is found in scripture than those theories proposed by those that are in opposition to God and His word.

You would have to be specific. If you mean the earth being 6000 years old, you are living in a fantasy. If you mean actual basis for some of the legend, then yes there is. You are familiar with the story of God leading the Israelites via a pillar of fire at night and a column of smoke during the day? This is exactly what the military braziers of the day did. It was a vented globe full of pitch soaked fuel on a long pole carried at the head of an army. The vents were closed in the day so that it smoked, and opened at night for a visible flame. this way the trailing portion of an army would not lose the head of the army.

Walk under the ladders all the time...lol.

As far as a conspiracy theory concerning scientists, I think the public record will show who it is that runs under such thinkiing on relevant matters.

But that you would overlook that there need not be a united effort where conspiracy would be obvious and recognize that birds of a feather speak the same language in order to achieve a mutual agenda betrays a rather less than critical analysis of the facts.

You don't understand how science works. Theories must be submitted for peer review. This is a rather lengthy space of time where scholars do their level best to punch holes in them. This is how scientist earn their money--- If something is submitted and can be overturned by facts, it is. If it makes the cut, it can still be challenged as more facts come in. There is no room for conspiracy, religious, or political. Biases influence data streams, producing false results which are easy meat. This goes all the way down to grad student level. When something comes in it is worried over by a pack of hungry students like a dogs over a bone. If there was one shred of scientific evidence that could not be overturned concerning the age of the earth being any less than 4.54 billion years of age, it would soon be in the light. No one is hiding the age of the earth, free energy, alien spaceships or any other of the popular urban legends. Science just does not work like that.
Remember the James Ossuary? Even as the public was wondering if they would have to update their bibles, scientists were all over it. It was Dr. Robert Eisenman who caught the forgery, though it is still being argued over whom the forger is.

Another example of this would be those that have a similar agenda that work together to achieve a desired result but are contrary otherwise would be the liberal agenda, where we see "tolerance" as a rally cry that supports both religious rights and special rights though they are contrary in practice and belief.

Such as homosexuals seeking to keep in office a clearly radical islamist sympathetic administration. The irony being that radical Islam will put to death these unwitting cohorts.

That is an assumption on the part of the right based in fear. All I can say, is that if homosexuality threatens you so much, stop having homosexual children.

And I would counter with "scripture is clear that the deeps of the earth supplied much of the water."

This is wqhy I ask specifically your thoughts on osmoregulation.

Osmoregulation is the process of osmosis. This is where a dry particle will absorb the moisture of an adjoining wet particle, seemingly to cause water to ignore gravity. It doesn't have much bearing on Glacier seasonal layers, which are currently studied by climatologist. At this point, they have gone back aprox 250,000 seasons with each season corresponding to a year, more or less. A layer is caused by the accumulation of ice and snow when it's cold, and bounded by a layer of melted ice when it's warm. Not much different than tree rings. The biggest danger here is that an accidental power loss could precipitate a plague by reintroducing an organism that we no longer have defenses against. Think "bird flu, 1918".

How'd I do? lol

Worthy of a south sea native! Now, if they will just provide the hut, the beach and the Hula girls!

And as far as I am aware of...they still exist to this day.

How this applies to my faith or...my sense of humor, lol, I will have to await your remarkable knowledge to find out.



Curious, no?



Probably not...you know how hard it is to get through to the superstitious, lol.



Now that is a new one. I would like to see a link for this, as it will greatly help in my discussions with atheists. So far I have only been aware of the lack of evidence to support the evidence, which would be more in keeping with those who would stifle just such an embarrasing event.

This came from the history channel, when they were studying ancient battles; I don't have a written source for it, but if you go through their program guide you should be able to pull up a you tube version

Thanks in advance.



Well, my friend, it had to happen: I knew we would find common ground somewhere along the way.

lol



No insult taken, Soulgazer. It is not often that I get to enjoy dialogue like this unless I go on an atheist forum, which makes me nervous because I usually have to worry about viruses and other such non-spiritual attacks. And the latter is enough for me.

Look forward to talking more with you in the future.

God bless.

Well, I am glad you are not offended or insulted. We just got to get you through the mythology to get to the good stuff.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Surely that darkness which is within all souls can be expunged by a God for which nothing is impossible? Or do you believe that God has such limitations on His power??

For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.
1 Thessalonians 5:5
​

Do I think it impossible for a demon to repent and become an angel again? I don't know, but even if it can happen I don't think it will happen much.

I myself do not know. I have read the countless beliefs of our ancient Christian forebears, and this has been a question that plagued them also. I do not believe in eternal torture, though the endless torment of a repentant heart knowing the pain it has caused through the enlightenment of the soul does not seem far fetched.

How could guilt constitute an endless torture in the resurrection, where even past murders will no longer be such a big deal? A past murder would have become an obviously temporary thing and much outweighted by eternal life.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Excuse me. I did not "vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife".

You vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife immediately after death.

Are you happy now?

Show the post where I ever denied the afterlife. After we die, on Judgment Day we are resurrected to eternal life. That's the afterlife. Now I guess you are going to try to say "that's not a proper afterlife".

This is an excellent synopsis of your whole argument. It is all based on nothing more than arguing over semantics, just like how you want to quibble over the definition of afterlife here. You don't have hardly any supporting arguments, virtually all of your arguments rest exclusively on altered definitions that assume your annihilationist conclusion. If someone has anything more sophisticated than a purely semantic argument against annihilationism, you just evade it.

I just say what the bible says. That's all. You don't have to make up things and say that "Tim believes that!"

Just look at the bible, and that's what I believe.

You believe in a special translation of the Bible where the common venacular definitions of words are altered to suit your desires.

 

[Soulgazer]

For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.
1 Thessalonians 5:5
​

Do I think it impossible for a demon to repent and become an angel again? I don't know, but even if it can happen I don't think it will happen much.

How could guilt constitute an endless torture in the resurrection, where even past murders will no longer be such a big deal? A past murder would have become an obviously temporary thing and much outweighted by eternal life.

Have you never felt true remorse toward a person who has forgiven you for a deep transgression? Even though you know you have been forgiven, you take great care not to harm that person further.

Even if the person you murdered is standing in front of you with words of love and forgiveness, I think it is still going to hurt, because you would have the full knowledge and experience of being them. Just me though.

I am not sure a daemon can repent---I think the only life it has is from the darker side of us; fear, hatred and anger is it's food and well, in this case I think it literally true that "you are what you eat". If you remove the darkness from it's being, there would be nothing left. Maybe some people are like that also?

 

[Timothew]

You vociferously deny the existence of an afterlife immediately after death.

Are you happy now?

This is an excellent synopsis of your whole argument. It is all based on nothing more than arguing over semantics, just like how you want to quibble over the definition of afterlife here. You don't have hardly any supporting arguments, virtually all of your arguments rest exclusively on altered definitions that assume your annihilationist conclusion. If someone has anything more sophisticated than a purely semantic argument against annihilationism, you just evade it.

You believe in a special translation of the Bible where the common venacular definitions of words are altered to suit your desires.

Do you mean common words like perish, death, life, eternal, destroy, destruction, etc? I don't insist that "death" actually means "eternal life in hell". I believe that death means death. I'm looking at your post and I can see that it applies more to you than it does to me. I'm not arguing over semantics. In order for believe as you believe, I would have to believe that perish doesn't really mean perish, it means "be sent to hell", eternal life doesn't mean eternal life, it means "die and go to heaven", death doesn't mean death, it means "sent to hell", destroy doesn't mean destroy, it means "be tortured", and destruction doesn't mean destruction it means "kept eternally in pain, but never quite destroyed."

Then if I say, "I don't think perish means to remain alive forever" to say that I'm quibbling over semantics.

Why don't you just believe whatever you want to believe, and just leave me alone. Stop acting like this, please.

 

[P1LGR1M]

LOL, well, if you do not consider a collective scientific inquiry into the physical universe more reasonable than accepting a bronze age myth I really can't accept that you are qualified to define that which is reasonable and that which is not.

Just as the atheists I speak to whose faith is solely in the knowledge they believe to be superior, you assume that I am opposed to the scientific process.

I am actually a big fan of science and progress, for the most part, antibacterial soap being one of my favorite inventions, but...I do not for a minute think that science trumps the word of God. I can understand how one who rejects the concept of God not only interacting with men on a Personal basis, but actually giving them a written form by which to live by, would cling to something that satisfies their need for empirical evidence (which I see as the modern day seeking of a sign).

Faith does not require a sign, nor empirical evidence

To benefit from random chance is a religion to some...I lean more towards intelligent design.

Just not as scriptuire presents it, right? Do you believe that God created man from the dust of the ground? Or that He slowly pulled man out of the primordial ooze?

Indeed. Patterns have not changed in many centuries. Despots rule by fear. Military, financial or religious, the effect is the same. That Moses, Joshua or David ruled by fear and established a dynasty hidden behind theocracy should not really surprise any student.

I would suggest Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." If you ever get the chance to read for pleasure, that is. I don't get the opportunity very often anymore myself.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies removed several charts and graphs from their site after this book was published. Included among them were stats dealing with frequency and severity of storms in the 1900s, which shows that contrary to what is actually used to generate fear, that is, the global warming hoax, storms were worse then. They have changed the categorization of storms (about ten or fifteen years ago, I think) to make it appear that storms are worse today, when the truth is that what is called a hurricane today would have registered as a tropical storm before the change.

The premise of the book is, just as you say, that governments have always ruled by fear. Some examples would be fear of nuclear war, fear of terrorism, fear of financial disaster...all real issues but used nonetheless to...keep people in check.

Concerning the Kings mentioned, Daved was loved by his people, as far as I know. What I can sayis that just like running a business, those in leadership have to...rule. There should be a recognizable difference between a ruler like King David and one like Joseph Stalin. David did not murder his people, Joshua was under command to wipe out Cannanites, and the Kings of Israel, save for a few, were wicked according toscripture and were subsequently separated from God. King Saul is a good example of this.

I believe based on my knowledge of ancient text

That's ironinc: though I do not claim to be a great scholar that has paid much money for my knowledge...so do I!

Again we find common ground.

that this is the reality behind John 10:8.

John 10:8

King James Version (KJV)


8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.



That's funny, because it sounds more like this is a prooftext to soothe one's conscience about whether they need to obey the word of God or not. At least, that is the impression I get every time this verse is brought up.

Me, I see it a clear declaration of Christ's deity, and in the context that He is the Shepherd of the sheep. Especially when the scriptures condemn the false shepherds.

A few choice prooftexts:


Isaiah 56:11

King James Version (KJV)


11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.



Jeremiah 50:6

King James Version (KJV)


6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.



Ezekiel 34:2

King James Version (KJV)


2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?



Plenty more of those to be found here.


Continued...

 

[Fascinated With God]

Have you never felt true remorse toward a person who has forgiven you for a deep transgression?

Yes, but I was very young and they were minor issues.

Even if the person you murdered is standing in front of you with words of love and forgiveness, I think it is still going to hurt, because you would have the full knowledge and experience of being them. Just me though.

I didn't say they would not feel regret or a sense of debt. Howwever, I don't think guilt really rises to the level of tortured torment in a world where murders can't happen anymore and all of their past effects have been reversed.

I am not sure a daemon can repent---I think the only life it has is from the darker side of us; fear, hatred and anger is it's food and well, in this case I think it literally true that "you are what you eat". If you remove the darkness from it's being, there would be nothing left. Maybe some people are like that also?

In the Bhagavad Gita that the Hare Krishnas revere, there is an interesting verse that says that demonic humans despise God, both in the external universe and in themselves--in their own atman (soul).

(The word atman is actually well known in the West at one level: the first name of Mahatma Ghandi is a concatination of the words great [maha] and soul [atman] to create Mahatma.)