My questions

[OnceConvinced]

Have you looked into CARM.org

And each one of these would have been a fine question in their own right, but they have all be answred before.

If any one of these is of upmost importance to you, ask that single question, and I'll do my best to answer it.

But I am not about to answer "Mechine Gun" questions.

God Bless

Key

I've visited a lot of websites with explanations for many such issues in the past. In many cases they do have good answers, but there are also many answers that are weak, assumptions or obviously desperate attempts to make things fit with what a Christain beliefs. If they see a mistranslation or a contradiction they will force it to fit with their beliefs. Often things are ignored like the culture and scientific beliefs of the day. Some of their arguments are just weak. You see if just one contradiction turns out to be valid, or one scientific fact turns out to be incorrect, then suddenly you can no longer say that the bible is the infallible word of God. And that's the problem with a lot of these apologetics websites. Most of their arguments always come back to what is written in the bible and that it is the infallible word of God, that God guided the writers to what they should write and that books like the Gospels are eye witness accounts (which evidence suggests they are not). But generally only Christians believe these things

I will check out that website though.

 

[OnceConvinced]

Your nitpicking God (and we all have, at times), but your missing the big picture...
Death is the extreme reality of sin. In the Old Testament, before actually bringing His grace through Jesus, God showed the children of Israel what the realities were, as they could not obey His law even if they wanted to and tried. This realty still exists, but God's wrath is now deferred. All men die, but God provided life before the fall and after the fall - making us twice His when He did not have to. He has the full right to give and take away because He is the Creator. The big picture shows Him as faithful judge to the truth by allowing true love to exist, risking the extremities of evil, knowing that He would have to pay the price, and then loving His creation by sacrificing His own manifestation in the flesh of man as Jesus.
He says many times that He never took or takes pleasure in the death of the wicked. What seems to be the extremity of God comes only as a faithful witness to the truth about the extremity of man's sin and death - which He redeems us from.

I understand the big picture. I'm just not buying it like I used to. It's the huge injustices that I find hard to get over. The cruelty of it all. Demanding a man to be stoned for picking up sticks. Sending a bear to maul to death kids for calling a man "baldy". This is not a loving, merciful God. I used to gloss over all this stuff. But when you read through OT scripture with an open mind, you see all sorts of horrendous and ludicrious stuff that just can't be explained away. (heck even the simple story of the Stolen Blessing (Esau, Jacob and Isaac) is absoutely ludicrous when you read it carefully.) I never even gave all that stuff much thought before. I just blindly accepted what I was taught. In fact that stuff never gets discussed in cell groups and pastors never preach on it. It gets ignored. They preach about what they understand, they preach normally about the positive stuff relating to God, rarely the bad.

I used to justify God all the time, I used to stick up for him and try to explain away all that stuff. But I got fed up with doing it. God doesn't need me to defend him, he's quite capable of doing it himself if he really wants to.

 

[Calminian]

I'm talking about the nature of the child here, not suffering. My point is that God created us with the capacity to sin and then hates it when we do sin. Our child being born a sinner is not our fault.

But their birth is your fault. In fact all births are the fault of mankind. We know in advance from history that humans have free will. We can prevent all suffering and evil by not having them. Yet some then shake their fists and God when their procreations suffer and cause suffering.

God could have prevented evil by not created free creatures. You can prevent evil by not creating free creatures. We have the same option. Sorry, this dog isn't hunting.

No I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking soley about forgiveness. Unconditional forgiveness.

You're very confused on this. Give me an example where God forgives and yet still punishes.

There are examples in the NT where Jesus healed on the sabbath, which the Pharisees saw as him breaking the sabbath.

John 5:8 tells the story of Jesus telling a man to carry his mat, which the Pharisees saw as breaking the sabbath.

I can accept that Jesus was trying to correct the Pharisees, however today, Jews will still claim he was breaking the law and they ought to know their own laws.

Your objections are getting consistently weaker. Where in the O.T. does it say one cannot heal on the sabbath? Where does it say a doctor cannot treat someone on the sabbath, for that matter? Where does it say we cannot pick up our own property and take it home? Did the Pharisees criticize the men would carried the man to Jesus? It seems you are only siding with the Pharisees because you desperately want disbelieve Jesus. I can answer your questions, but can't take away the stubbornness. Only you can do that.

It was brought to my attention by others. I'm quite happy to accept that it may be a misinterpretation. But then I do not have faith in any of our modern translations. Too often people have to pick parts out of scripture and go back to the original Hebrew text to get the true meaning. That proves to me that we have dodgy translations.

It proves nothing but the fact that you not yet familiar with the subject of inspiration. Christians only believe the original manuscripts were inspired.

I came to my own conclusions about the translation issues. I got tired of people trying to change the meaning of scripture by going back to the Hebrew text and coming up with a different spin on things. Bible scholars and pastors do it all the time. I have no doubts that the Hebrew and Greek texts we have got our English interpretations from are in order, but what I am concerned about is how they have been incorrectly interpreted into English. The example we discussed above is a classic example of blatant misinterpretation on the part of Translaters.

The examples you've brought up are pathetic. They were merely matters of reading in context and thinking logically. They were issue of nomenclature not translation. Words are rarely exactly parallel in any language. So far you have no excuse to dismiss the Bible over mistranslations.

Of course I know how we get saved. I just explained to you that the I just took that little example from somebodie's sig on another site. You are being pedantic. The point in that little example was not "why the family members were sent to hell". The point is "that they were sent to hell and that the child now had to accept they were burning for ever in hell". You are deliberately trying to evade my point.

I actually answered this directly. It appears you are evading my response.

I am not trying to be a skeptic here. I know of many more better arguments,

I sure hope so. These are the worst I've come across in a long time.

but have ready plenty of debates about them. I chose arguments here that I have not heard good explanations for. (apart from the claims of mistranslations)

Then you haven't been listening.

How about the many mistranslations throughout the bible. Actually one mistranslation undermines the entire English bible we have. If there is one error then there are bound to be others. That is the real issue here.

The Bible never claims that all translations will be perfect. This is called a straw man. Can you quote the verse that says it is impossible to mistranslate scripture?

Please don't try to make light of my concerns. I am here to have these concerns allayed.

Sorry, not buying it. Any one sticking to arguments this bad is not looking to change.

One little wobbly brick and cause and entire building to fall. Just because you have come up with explanations that satisfy you does not mean they will satisfy others.

This is true. But when one stubbornly stands by the worst of the worst, it kind of becomes pointless. It's an issue of stubbornness, not skepticism. It takes serious blind faith to stand by these objections—more faith then I'll ever have.

 

[Key]

I've visited a lot of websites with explanations for many such issues in the past. In many cases they do have good answers, but there are also many answers that are weak, assumptions or obviously desperate attempts to make things fit with what a Christain beliefs.

I agree, there are some weak answers, however, I am not about to answer "Mechine Gun" questions, that have just been around long before I was born.

I would say, sadly, that for many people who claim to be "Free Thinkers" they seem to be at a loss for any good or new questions. It just seems to be the same rehashed questions, with a "That was not what I wanted to hear" mentality.

If they see a mistranslation or a contradiction they will force it to fit with their beliefs. Often things are ignored like the culture and scientific beliefs of the day.

Many Apologetics are very strong to explain the culture of the day and era, and use that to explain many perceived "Countradictions"

As for Translation Errors, well, that happens, not because they made mistakes, but because of the limitations of the language being translated from and to.

IE: Spanish has 3 words, That would all translate into "Love", but they are each a diffrent kind of Love, Now Imagine going from Aramic which has seven words for "love". Things will get lost in translation and that is where many problems arise.

Then there is the problem of the "Denifitition" and "Cultural Use" of words. for example, people using lust for arousal, which is incorrect. All these lead to perceived countradictions, that unitmaly do not exist.

You see if just one contradiction turns out to be valid, or one scientific fact turns out to be incorrect, then suddenly you can no longer say that the bible is the infallible word of God.

Lucky me, I do not abide by that issue, Mainly because God had to work within the confines of the knowldge of the people of that day and era. Think of how easly it would mind fry a sheep herder in an era of stone and bronze, to hear of Refined Gas, or Airplanes, or Even DNA. Such things altho might have been mentioned would have becme so lost in the translation of what God said to what the Human mind could have understood at that time, that such problems would not only be expected but nessary to show divine forsight.

And that's the problem with a lot of these apologetics websites. Most of their arguments always come back to what is written in the bible and that it is the infallible word of God, that God guided the writers to what they should write and that books like the Gospels are eye witness accounts (which evidence suggests they are not). But generally only Christians believe these things

I will check out that website though.

Well, That is it own issue, and CARM.org might give you answers you do not like, but then again, 2+2=4 has always annoyed me, why can't it be 5? And even if I do not like the answer, does not change that, that is the answer.

I hope I have given you an answer to your questions.

God Bless

Key

 

[OnceConvinced]

But their birth is your fault.

This is absolutely not true. God put the system in place that you have sex, you get babies. Sometimes unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes birth control fails. God aids in conception right? So he sometimes makes women pregnant even when they don't want it.

But that is irrelevent. As I'm trying to point out, it is about the nature of the child. This is my point. God creates us with a sinful nature. That is the flesh. God created that. So we are going to sin, there is no way around that. We are born sinners. So there for we are going to sin. If I buy a puppy dog that's only a few weeks old and I know it's going to pee on the carpet, I can't get angry when it does, because it hasn't been house trained yet. Or if I give birth to a child and that child throws up on me, I can't get angry at the child because it's only natural for it to do that. This is what I am trying to point out here.

You're very confused on this. Give me an example where God forgives and yet still punishes.

When did I say God forgives and then punishes? I didn't. It's not me that's confused. Maybe I haven't made my point clear. My point is that God's forgiveness is conditional. But yet he expects us to forgive unconditionally (edited - left out the un). I'm not talking about whether we deserve punishment or not, I'm just talking about conditions.

Your objections are getting consistently weaker. Where in the O.T. does it say one cannot heal on the sabbath?Where does it say a doctor cannot treat someone on the sabbath, for that matter?

I'm not saying it does. But the Pharasees saw it as work.

Where does it say we cannot pick up our own property and take it home?

Check out OT examples. I gave you a classic example of a man who picked up sticks and was stoned by order of God. God obviously thought he had broken the sabbath law.

Did the Pharisees criticize the men would carried the man to Jesus? It seems you are only siding with the Pharisees because you desperately want disbelieve Jesus. I can answer your questions, but can't take away the stubbornness. Only you can do that.

No, I just can't see why Jesus wasn't breaking the sabbath law. It seems you are only siding with Jesus because you deseprately want to disbelieve that Jesus broke a commandment.

It proves nothing but the fact that you not yet familiar with the subject of inspiration. Christians only believe the original manuscripts were inspired.

I am perfectly familiar with the concepts of inspiration. Some christians believe the original text was only inspired, others believe that God pretty much guided the writers what to write. The fact remains is we still have dodgy translations of the original texts so how can we put so much faith in out modern translations?

The examples you've brought up are pathetic. They were merely matters of reading in context and thinking logically. They were issue of nomenclature not translation. Words are rarely exactly parallel in any language. So far you have no excuse to dismiss the Bible over mistranslations.

How can you say that. We have an example of an obvious mistranslation - the iron chariots scripture. Either the version you have is mistranslated or the version I have is. One is completely and utterly wrong. Also where have I taken any scriptures out of context? So far in previous posts you have not stated "you have taken this out of context". The examples of the Cockatrice and Satyr is also a major mistranslation issue. A Cockatrice is half snake, half rooster, A Satyr is half man half goat. If they were indeed just snakes and goats, then once again, a major error was made in translations.

You say they are a matter of reading logically. Well you need to apply that throughout scripture. You can't just do it when it suits you.

I actually answered this directly. It appears you are evading my response.

Well mainly you focussed on the irrelevent reason why the person was sent to hell, trying to evade the issue yourself by focussing on the incorrect analogy. The fact is, it is cruelty on behalf of God. I didn't evade your other response. I accepted it. I accept that God can wipe away all memories of terrible things. But the point in that example is that God is warped if he thinks it's ok to throw people into hell and try to convince a small child it was justified.

I sure hope so. These are the worst I've come across in a long time.

And some of your answers are the worst I've come across in a long time.

Then you haven't been listening.

Sorry, you may think you have given convincing arguments, but I don't. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm not listening.

The Bible never claims that all translations will be perfect. This is called a straw man. Can you quote the verse that says it is impossible to mistranslate scripture?

Irrelevent. The fact that we don't have accurate translations means we can't trust the ones we have. We can't say we have the infallible word of God in front of us.

Sorry, not buying it. Any one sticking to arguments this bad is not looking to change.

I'll stick to my arguments if I don't have convincing responses. At one stage I would have believed everything you said, so that is a testament that I will change my arguments if I see it is necessary. Besides you are doing exactly the same thing.

This is true. But when one stubbornly stands by the worst of the worst, it kind of becomes pointless. It's an issue of stubbornness, not skepticism. It takes serious blind faith to stand by these objections—more faith then I'll ever have.

Perhaps you need to address this to yourself? I learn't all about blind faith and stubborness as a Christian, but learnt to open my eyes and not just believe everything I am read or told.

 

[OnceConvinced]

II would say, sadly, that for many people who claim to be "Free Thinkers" they seem to be at a loss for any good or new questions. It just seems to be the same rehashed questions, with a "That was not what I wanted to hear" mentality.

Unfortunately for me these were never questions I was ever asked. Nor were they questions that were studied in the 30 years I was a christian. They are new to me.

The fact that they are still being asked means that there are no convincing answers yet.

I agree that the Hebrew language is a bugger to translate. Almost impossible to get right. But I'm still amazed at how bible scholars can continually pull out words and change their meaning by talking about the true meaning of the word. Pity God didn't chose a people with an easier language to translate.

Lucky me, I do not abide by that issue, Mainly because God had to work within the confines of the knowldge of the people of that day and era. Think of how easly it would mind fry a sheep herder in an era of stone and bronze, to hear of Refined Gas, or Airplanes, or Even DNA. Such things altho might have been mentioned would have becme so lost in the translation of what God said to what the Human mind could have understood at that time, that such problems would not only be expected but nessary to show divine forsight

I kind of agree, but I also think that God being God would be able to explain things a lot better. And then there are still obvious scientific errors like the world sitting on pillars and a firmanent around the earth blocking out the water in the sky, which God opens and shuts to allow rain in.

Well, That is it own issue, and CARM.org might give you answers you do not like, but then again, 2+2=4 has always annoyed me, why can't it be 5? And even if I do not like the answer, does not change that, that is the answer.

I like the way you think, but maybe the question was actually 2+3?

I hope I have given you an answer to your questions.

Thanks Key, you came up with some good stuff there.

 

[Key]

I agree that the Hebrew language is a bugger to translate. Almost impossible to get right. But I'm still amazed at how bible scholars can continually pull out words and change their meaning by talking about the true meaning of the word. Pity God didn't chose a people with an easier language to translate.

Is that the fasult of the Hebrew Language, or the English Language? The problem is not with the origin language, but with Both of the Languages. Some languages like English seem to be incomplete compaired to Hebrew, lacking major word types. Is it the Hebrew Lnaguage at fault because English only has One word for Love, and 3 words for "Round Object"?

Thanks Key, you came up with some good stuff there.

Thank you

God Bless

Key

 

[OnceConvinced]

Is that the fasult of the Hebrew Language, or the English Language? The problem is not with the origin language, but with Both of the Languages. Some languages like English seem to be incomplete compaired to Hebrew, lacking major word types. Is it the Hebrew Lnaguage at fault because English only has One word for Love, and 3 words for "Round Object"?

He he he. True. English is right up there as a bugger of a language. It still doesn't help when it comes to trusting the English translations we have though. And this is a huge issue for me. It has been for quite some time now, even when I called myself a committed born again fundamentalist Christian. It became harder and harder to be able to quote scripture in debates, knowing that there was a possibility that it had been mistranslated and that you migth not be quoting God, but some guy who only thought he knew what the Hebrew text was saying.

 

[Calminian]

This is absolutely not true. God put the system in place that you have sex, you get babies. Sometimes unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes birth control fails. God aids in conception right? So he sometimes makes women pregnant even when they don't want it.

But most of the time people do it by choice. And it's not God's fault people rely on faulty birth control. If you think it is okay to willingly procreate children with freewill your accusations against God are hypocritical.

But that is irrelevant. As I'm trying to point out, it is about the nature of the child. This is my point. God creates us with a sinful nature.

The only people God directly created, Adam and Even, did not have sinful natures. It's their procreations that have sinful natures. Not only will this dog not hunt, it won't even fetch the paper. It's us who bring sinful creatures into the world. All you're doing is condemning yourself with this argument.

When did I say God forgives and then punishes? I didn't. It's not me that's confused. Maybe I haven't made my point clear. My point is that God's forgiveness is conditional. But yet he expects us to forgive conditionally. I'm not talking about whether we deserve punishment or not, I'm just talking about conditions.

And I am disagree with this. Can you make this case from the New Testament (or Old for that matter)?? Were did you get this idea that we are never to punish law breakers?

Can you define forgiveness? Maybe that's were the confusion lies.

Luke 17:3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 “And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Is this the verse you had in mind? Does the above sound unconditional to you?

I'm not saying it does. But the Pharisees saw it as work.

I'm failing to see why I should care.

Check out OT examples. I gave you a classic example of a man who picked up sticks and was stoned by order of God. God obviously thought he had broken the sabbath law.

Okay........ so............ can you tell me where Jesus was reported to have picked up sticks on the Sabbath?

No, I just can't see why Jesus wasn't breaking the sabbath law. It seems you are only siding with Jesus because you desperately want to disbelieve that Jesus broke a commandment.

So even though you can't give me a single example of a broken law from the Old or New Testaments, I should just assume He did?

I am perfectly familiar with the concepts of inspiration. Some christians believe the original text was only inspired, others believe that God pretty much guided the writers what to write.

There's no difference in the distinction you just made. Trust me, you don't understand this stuff as well as you think.

The fact remains is we still have dodgy translations of the original texts so how can we put so much faith in out modern translations?

Being that there is so many that corroborate one another, it would take more faith on my part to believe they are all engaged in a vast conspiracy. Again, I don't have that much faith.

How can you say that. We have an example of an obvious mistranslation - the iron chariots scripture.

Oh man you still don't understand this? This is not a mistranslation. Both translations are correct. No matter which translation you read, the he or they refers to Judah. The context completely rules out the possibility of it being God. Pronouns work differently in different languages. Some may use a singular gender specific pronoun to describe a group such as Judah. Even in english, sometimes we refer to nations as her or she. Sometimes we refer to nations as it. Sometimes we refer to them as they. I'm more familiar with this issue in the greek than in the Hebrew, but it's the same issue. Pronouns in different languages often don't perfectly correspond and have to be adjusted when translated. Some languages have gender based nouns and therefore use gender based pronouns that don't make sense in english. But in this case, there's no problem understanding it even in english.

Sorry, this dog wont even get out of bed!

The examples of the Cockatrice and Satyr is also a major mistranslation issue. A Cockatrice is half snake, half rooster, A Satyr is half man half goat. If they were indeed just snakes and goats, then once again, a major error was made in translations.

Yes and I believe there is a reference to unicorns as well in the KJV. But who cares? All that matters is what the original writers were trying to convey. So some medieval writers got some names wrong. They weren't perfect. But all in all they did a tremendous job. Sheesh man, lighten up.

Well mainly you focussed on the irrelevant reason why the person was sent to hell, trying to evade the issue yourself by focussing on the incorrect analogy.

I didn't just focus on the analogy. I directly answered your question.

The fact is, it is cruelty on behalf of God. I didn't evade your other response. I accepted it. I accept that God can wipe away all memories of terrible things. But the point in that example is that God is warped if he thinks it's ok to throw people into hell and try to convince a small child it was justified.

That's your opinion. You haven't said anything to demonstrate why it's valid.

Sorry, you may think you have given convincing arguments, but I don't. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm not listening.

I don't think you are listening. You should have abandoned at least half your arguments by now.

irrelevant. The fact that we don't have accurate translations means we can't trust the ones we have. We can't say we have the infallible word of God in front of us.

Again you are confused. Infallibility is only in regard to inspiration, not translation or transmission. No one claims that all translations and manuscript copies are infallible. But fortunately, the manuscript evidence is so replete, only the most hardened blind skeptic could possible deny the Bible is the best preserved ancient document in the world.

I'll stick to my arguments if I don't have convincing responses. At one stage I would have believed everything you said, so that is a testament that I will change my arguments if I see it is necessary.

I won't hold my breath.

Perhaps you need to address this to yourself? I learn't all about blind faith and stubbornness as a Christian

Which shows me you really didn't understand christianity. Blind faith is not a biblical concept. It's no wonder you didn't last.

but learnt to open my eyes and not just believe everything I am read or told.

Unless of course it's from a skeptic.

 

[OnceConvinced]

But most of the time people do it by choice. And it's not God's fault people rely on faulty birth control. If you think it is okay to willingly procreate children with freewill your accusations against God are hypocritical.

Going round in circles here. No point in continuing this one.

And I am disagree with this. Can you make this case from the New Testament (or Old for that matter)?? Were did you get this idea that we are never to punish law breakers?

I never had the idea that law breakers were not to be punished. Wow, you love to misquote me don't you?

Can you define forgiveness? Maybe that's were the confusion lies.

Luke 17:3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 “And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Is this the verse you had in mind? Does the above sound unconditional to you?

The bible also says not to judge. The bible also says that We should forgive just as God forgave us. Maybe not exactly telling us it has to be unconditional, but strongly suggesting it.

I'm failing to see why I should care.

Of course you wouldn't care, you're not a Jew.

Okay........ so............ can you tell me where Jesus was reported to have picked up sticks on the Sabbath?

So even though you can't give me a single example of a broken law from the Old or New Testaments, I should just assume He did?

Pedantic aren't we? Not sticks, but he did heal and he did command a man to pick up his mat, thus encouraging a man to break the law. ARe you the sort of person that would try to say that labouring is real work and an office job isn't?

Look I don't see healing or picking up a mat as a big deal, but I don't see picking up sticks for a fire is any big deal either.

Edit: Actually as I was looking for some references to go with my examples, (I stumbled across a site that gave a great explanation of Jesus defying the pharasees over the Sabbath issue. The explanation pointed out that the laws he broke were not the original OT law, but just the Pharasees own laws. An interesting explanation, which may let Jesus off the hook here. It's food for thought anyway.

There's no difference in the distinction you just made. Trust me, you don't understand this stuff as well as you think.

There's a huge difference. I'm a writer so I ought to know. Inspiration comes from an idea, a vision maybe, or a revelation. You write based on those things. The other example is dictation. Two totally different things, how can you deny that?

Being that there is so many that corroborate one another, it would take more faith on my part to believe they are all engaged in a vast conspiracy. Again, I don't have that much faith.

No conspiracy. Just common error. Happens a lot in the world. Look at all those people in the old days who thought the world was flat. By the way have you done a study on all these different bible versions to confirm what you're saying?

Oh man you still don't understand this? This is not a mistranslation. Both translations are correct. No matter which translation you read, the he or they refers to Judah. The context completely rules out the possibility of it being God. Pronouns work differently in different languages. Some may use a singular gender specific pronoun to describe a group such as Judah. Even in english, sometimes we refer to nations as her or she. Sometimes we refer to nations as it. Sometimes we refer to them as they. I'm more familiar with this issue in the greek than in the Hebrew, but it's the same issue. Pronouns in different languages often don't perfectly correspond and have to be adjusted when translated. Some languages have gender based nouns and therefore use gender based pronouns that don't make sense in english. But in this case, there's no problem understanding it even in english.

Sorry, this dog wont even get out of bed.

OK, I'm assuming you have learnt Hebrew and examined the original text for yourself?

Anyway, those texts could be taken either way. If you want do stand steadfast in the fact that God is omipotent, you will take them both as talking about Judah and not God. You won't even consider it could be the other explanation.

So some medieval writers got some names wrong. They weren't perfect. But all in all they did a tremendous job. Sheesh man, lighten up.

Maybe they got them right, how can you be so sure?

I don't think you are listening. You should have abandoned at least half your arguments by now.

I will abandon my arguments if you give a half convincing answer. I'm not even expecting a convincing one. Just a half convincing one. Like the arguments I have already abandoned very early on. (But please don't include the one at the top of this post)

Which shows me you really didn't understand christianity. Blind faith is not a biblical concept. It's no wonder you didn't last.

Do you actually read my posts? Where did I claim blind faith was a biblical concept. I know it's not. But most Christians do tend to adopt it very early on, they have to otherwise it's impossible to believe everything. It was because I rejected blind faith that I was able to start looking critically at the bible and Christianity.

Unless of course it's from a skeptic.

No, just reading the bible with an open mind will have the same effect.

Calminian please keep this friendly. Some of your replies are starting to get a little insulting. When that starts to happen I know that the person is running out of adequate responses.

 

[red77]

But most of the time people do it by choice. And it's not God's fault people rely on faulty birth control. If you think it is okay to willingly procreate children with freewill your accusations against God are hypocritical.



The only people God directly created, Adam and Even, did not have sinful natures. It's their procreations that have sinful natures. Not only will this dog not hunt, it won't even fetch the paper. It's us who bring sinful creatures into the world. All you're doing is condemning yourself with this argument.



And I am disagree with this. Can you make this case from the New Testament (or Old for that matter)?? Were did you get this idea that we are never to punish law breakers?

Can you define forgiveness? Maybe that's were the confusion lies.

Luke 17:3 “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 “And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

Is this the verse you had in mind? Does the above sound unconditional to you?



I'm failing to see why I should care.



Okay........ so............ can you tell me where Jesus was reported to have picked up sticks on the Sabbath?



So even though you can't give me a single example of a broken law from the Old or New Testaments, I should just assume He did?



There's no difference in the distinction you just made. Trust me, you don't understand this stuff as well as you think.



Being that there is so many that corroborate one another, it would take more faith on my part to believe they are all engaged in a vast conspiracy. Again, I don't have that much faith.



Oh man you still don't understand this? This is not a mistranslation. Both translations are correct. No matter which translation you read, the he or they refers to Judah. The context completely rules out the possibility of it being God. Pronouns work differently in different languages. Some may use a singular gender specific pronoun to describe a group such as Judah. Even in english, sometimes we refer to nations as her or she. Sometimes we refer to nations as it. Sometimes we refer to them as they. I'm more familiar with this issue in the greek than in the Hebrew, but it's the same issue. Pronouns in different languages often don't perfectly correspond and have to be adjusted when translated. Some languages have gender based nouns and therefore use gender based pronouns that don't make sense in english. But in this case, there's no problem understanding it even in english.

Sorry, this dog wont even get out of bed!



Yes and I believe there is a reference to unicorns as well in the KJV. But who cares? All that matters is what the original writers were trying to convey. So some medieval writers got some names wrong. They weren't perfect. But all in all they did a tremendous job. Sheesh man, lighten up.



I didn't just focus on the analogy. I directly answered your question.



That's your opinion. You haven't said anything to demonstrate why it's valid.



I don't think you are listening. You should have abandoned at least half your arguments by now.



Again you are confused. Infallibility is only in regard to inspiration, not translation or transmission. No one claims that all translations and manuscript copies are infallible. But fortunately, the manuscript evidence is so replete, only the most hardened blind skeptic could possible deny the Bible is the best preserved ancient document in the world.



I won't hold my breath.



Which shows me you really didn't understand christianity. Blind faith is not a biblical concept. It's no wonder you didn't last.



Unless of course it's from a skeptic.

Calminian, with all due respect is there any need for the condescending style of post? If someones here to ask questions patronising them achieves nothing..........just because someone hasn't blindly accepted your answers and given up their own position is no reason to insult them by saying 'its no wonder they didnt last'........... How's that going to help anyone who's searching for answers...........?

 

[Calminian]

Going round in circles here. No point in continuing this one.

You haven't really responded to any of my arguments on this.

The bible also says not to judge.

Where?

The bible also says that We should forgive just as God forgave us. Maybe not exactly telling us it has to be unconditional, but strongly suggesting it.

Where does it strongly suggest this?

Of course you wouldn't care, you're not a Jew.

What does my ethnicity have to do with anything?

Pedantic aren't we? Not sticks, but he did heal and he did command a man to pick up his mat, thus encouraging a man to break the law. ARe you the sort of person that would try to say that labouring is real work and an office job isn't?

How is picking up a mat likened to an office job? And you still haven't explained why picking up a mat is breaking the mosaic law.

Edit: Actually as I was looking for some references to go with my examples, (I stumbled across a site that gave a great explanation of Jesus defying the pharisees over the Sabbath issue. The explanation pointed out that the laws he broke were not the original OT law, but just the pharisees own laws. An interesting explanation, which may let Jesus off the hook here. It's food for thought anyway.

Funny, that was the first argument I made. In post 8 I said,

And yes much of Jesus’ ministry was correcting the false understandings of the O.T. by the pharisees.

To which you responded,

I can accept that Jesus was trying to correct the Pharasees, however today, Jews will still claim he was breaking the law and they ought to know their own laws.

You actually acknowledged my argument. I guess you just didn't want to hear if from me. At any rate, I'm glad we've finally put that one to rest.

There's a huge difference. I'm a writer so I ought to know. Inspiration comes from an idea, a vision maybe, or a revelation. You write based on those things. The other example is dictation. Two totally different things, how can you deny that?

You used the word, guided, not dictated. Inspiration is the idea that God moved men deterministically to convey His thoughts. It's not about dictation.

No conspiracy. Just common error. Happens a lot in the world. Look at all those people in the old days who thought the world was flat. By the way have you done a study on all these different bible versions to confirm what you're saying?

Actually this is a myth. There have never been any significant number of flat earthers, christian or non-christian, in history. Here a good article exposing The Myth of the Flat Earth.

Anyway, those texts could be taken either way. If you want do stand steadfast in the fact that God is omnipotent, you will take them both as talking about Judah and not God. You won't even consider it could be the other explanation.

What other explanation could there possibly be? Tell me the logic behind believing the pronoun referred to God?

I will abandon my arguments if you give a half convincing answer. I'm not even expecting a convincing one. Just a half convincing one. Like the arguments I have already abandoned very early on. (But please don't include the one at the top of this post)

I have a feeling it's going to be hard for you to concede anything to me, especially considering the sabbath breaking issue.

Do you actually read my posts? Where did I claim blind faith was a biblical concept.

You said you learned about stubbornness and blind faith as a christian. Seemed like a natural inference.

I know it's not. But most Christians do tend to adopt it very early on, they have to otherwise it's impossible to believe everything.

As I said, it would take much more blind faith for me to embrace the ideas you are conveying.

It was because I rejected blind faith that I was able to start looking critically at the bible and Christianity.

Pot to the frying pan?

Calminian please keep this friendly. Some of your replies are starting to get a little insulting. When that starts to happen I know that the person is running out of adequate responses.

Hmmm. I think I'm all wrong for you OC. My style is a little aggressive at times. My intention is not to be unfriendly, but challenge you using humor and a little sarcasm (okay a lot). I also tend to turn people's arguments against them, which I did in the 'Why does God allow evil and suffering?' argument. This tends to be a bit confrontational. I actually thought I was behaving at least to an acceptable degree, but I can see you and some others disagree. Perhaps I've crossed some lines. I’ll try to tone it down, and maybe gradually fade away before more rebukes come.

 

[red77]

11) And the typical question - How can a merciful God give infinite punishment for finite crimes? (I’d like an answer from a Christian who believes that hell is eternal suffering.) And please don’t try to evade the question by saying something like “God doesn’t send anyone to hell, people choose to reject God, so send themselves to hell”. This is not a reason to send someone to hell, it’s just a consequence of one’s actions. I could commit a crime knowing that I will most likely go to go to jail for it, but it won’t be ME that finds myself guilty in court, determines the appropriate punishment and locks me up.

12) Picture this. A small infant sitting with Jesus in heaven. Jesus says….
"Little child, praise God you are here with Me in heaven! There are your mother and your brother burning in hell -- forever. Your mother sinned too much, and your brother left the faith. No, I can never forgive them and release them from their agony."
How is this a picture of a merciful God? He sounds very sick and twisted to me. How could this child possibly live a happy life in heaven knowing what is happening to his family? Perhaps God will wipe the kid’s brain clean so he will never know how evil his God was?

I'll try and give an answer to these two points you raise from my perspective, I know you said you wanted answers from people who believe in eternal torment which I dont - but i thought I'd give my two cents anyway as it was an issue while I was a pentecostal that caused me to stumble away...........

Basically the main arguments I've come across for hell are the ones you cite, aka 'God doesnt send people to hell, people choose it' etc, either that or God is 'just' and so therefore has to punish sin by seemingly tormenting the sinner forever........the point is hell doesnt last forever no matter what anyone's take on it actually is........hell is destroyed along with death in the lake of fire in Revelation, those who believe the lake of fire is a literal lake have to literalise something in a chapter which is drenched in symbolism......its especially symbolic when it refers to 'death being cast in', death obviously not being a tangible object that can be picked up and 'thrown'.........hence the plethora of diverging views on what hell/the lake of fire actually represent or are.........there'll be those who believe hell to be a fiery pit/others who believe it to be separation from God on a psychological level/others who believe it to be both physical and mental suffering, some even think the lake of fire is in the centre of the earth............it was the inconsistency of views from even those in my former church that made it pretty obvious that a lot of belief in this stuff is based on interpreation or a dogmatic belief system.........

Unfortunately its all too easy in my experience for folk to justify eternal suffering for other people and call it 'just'..............it is always from the perspective of not being one who is going to suffer themselves......this ties in with your analogy of the infant whose mother and brother suffer in hell, usually the common answer for this is that ones memories are wiped clean from all the emotional trauma of having a loved one suffer or that the bliss of heaven overrides all such feelings, some even say that the righteous would rejoice in the 'justice' of it even if it were their own family who were suffering...........but its total conjecture.........there's no scripture to support such assumptions........

After I looked into it all a bit further and delved a bit deeper - sometimes through debates here - I came to the conclusion that God wouldnt torture anyone for all eternity, without resorting to a doing a cut and paste job there is so much in the Bible message about God's fogiveness and mercy and his will to save all mankind, i certainly dont worry about him tormenting my loved ones and family like I once did.............

probably not the answer you were looking for really thinking about it but I hope some of it may have helped......

 

[Key]

Unfortunately for me these were never questions I was ever asked. Nor were they questions that were studied in the 30 years I was a christian. They are new to me.

The fact that they are still being asked means that there are no convincing answers yet.

This is incorrect, they are asked, because many Do not Study Apologetics, as such, even tho there are answers, they are not always readly available to the masses, as such, the 'Fath' of a follower can be "questioned' because of these perceived problems.

They exist, not because they are valid, or because they have not been answered, but because they are what remains that the common person has not been taught.

Many followers of Christ do not study apologetics, if they the masses did, then these questions would fianlly be laughed at, but the sad truth is there are a great many that do not even know what apologetics is, much less study it.

That is why these questions remain, because if you look, every one of them has been answered, and for even more of them, each "Faith" has offred their own answeres.

I have never found a lack of lack of answers to "Countradictions" and "Problems" of the bible. As such, because others before me, have answred this question, (a Great Many Others, Long Before me), This I am left with the poerverbal "Pass the Buck" as in, "Go Look at Carm, or Tectonics"

God Bless

Key

 

[Calminian]

If someones here to ask questions patronising them achieves nothing..........just because someone hasn't blindly accepted your answers and given up their own position is no reason to insult them by saying 'its no wonder they didnt last'........... How's that going to help anyone who's searching for answers...........?

You know I can understand getting on my case for being a little obnoxious, as I tend to do that at times (and deserve rebuking at times). But why would you criticize me for this? It doesn't surprise me that people with false understandings of christianity, fall away from it. This is a very honest observation. It's not always true, but seems to be true about 90% of the time. I tell them this in hopes they will go back and take a second look at a faith they never really understood.

 

[Calminian]

I'll try and give an answer to these two points you raise from my perspective, I know you said you wanted answers from people who believe in eternal torment which I dont - but i thought I'd give my two cents anyway as it was an issue while I was a pentecostal that caused me to stumble away...........

Basically the main arguments I've come across for hell are the ones you cite, aka 'God doesnt send people to hell, people choose it' etc, either that or God is 'just' and so therefore has to punish sin by seemingly tormenting the sinner forever........the point is hell doesnt last forever no matter what anyone's take on it actually is........hell is destroyed along with death in the lake of fire in Revelation, those who believe the lake of fire is a literal lake have to literalise something in a chapter which is drenched in symbolism......its especially symbolic when it refers to 'death being cast in', death obviously not being a tangible object that can be picked up and 'thrown'.........hence the plethora of diverging views on what hell/the lake of fire actually represent or are.........there'll be those who believe hell to be a fiery pit/others who believe it to be separation from God on a psychological level/others who believe it to be both physical and mental suffering, some even think the lake of fire is in the centre of the earth............it was the inconsistency of views from even those in my former church that made it pretty obvious that a lot of belief in this stuff is based on interpreation or a dogmatic belief system.........

Unfortunately its all too easy in my experience for folk to justify eternal suffering for other people and call it 'just'..............it is always from the perspective of not being one who is going to suffer themselves......this ties in with your analogy of the infant whose mother and brother suffer in hell, usually the common answer for this is that ones memories are wiped clean from all the emotional trauma of having a loved one suffer or that the bliss of heaven overrides all such feelings, some even say that the righteous would rejoice in the 'justice' of it even if it were their own family who were suffering...........but its total conjecture.........there's no scripture to support such assumptions........

After I looked into it all a bit further and delved a bit deeper - sometimes through debates here - I came to the conclusion that God wouldnt torture anyone for all eternity, without resorting to a doing a cut and paste job there is so much in the Bible message about God's fogiveness and mercy and his will to save all mankind, i certainly dont worry about him tormenting my loved ones and family like I once did.............

probably not the answer you were looking for really thinking about it but I hope some of it may have helped......

The question is not whether hell will endure forever, but whether punishment will. I really hate defending this doctrine, but it makes me very concerned when it's said to be unbiblical. In some ways I would love for annihilationism to be true. Eternal punishment is not a fun concept to think about. Nevertheless the biblical support is overwhelming. Thus I'll just say to anyone listening, please don't go there!

Matt. 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[red77]

The question is not whether hell will endure forever, but whether punishment will. I really hate defending this doctrine, but it makes me very concerned when it's said to be unbiblical. In some ways I would love for annihilationism to be true. Eternal punishment is not a fun concept to think about. Nevertheless the biblical support is overwhelming. Thus I'll just say to anyone listening, please don't go there!

Matt. 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

It isnt overwhelming at all, the passage you use to defend it is mistranslated from the original greek texts, hence some Bibles have instead of eternal age enduring or lasting of an age..............'aion' in the greek does not mean eternal..............there are so many verses that speak of God reconciling the world to himself and being the saviour of all men, yet people seem to want to insist that God will torment souls for eternity.......that is not a message of 'good news'...............

 

[red77]

You know I can understand getting on my case for being a little obnoxious, as I tend to do that at times (and deserve rebuking at times). But why would you criticize me for this? It doesn't surprise me that people with false understandings of christianity, fall away from it. This is a very honest observation. It's not always true, but seems to be true about 90% of the time. I tell them this in hopes they will go back and take a second look at a faith they never really understood.

The problem is its your perception that other people have false understandings of christianity, telling someone its no wonder that they didnt last as a christian because you dont think they had a proper understanding of what it was to begin with doesnt help anyone IMO, to behonest I doubt whether we'd agree on matters of doctrine but I wouldnt call into question your faith................I hope that makes sense

 

[Key]

...

God Bless

Key

 

[Calminian]

It isnt overwhelming at all, the passage you use to defend it is mistranslated from the original greek texts, hence some Bibles have instead of eternal age enduring or lasting of an age..............'aion' in the greek does not mean eternal..............

So there's a big vast conspiracy amongst all the Bible translations and all the greek lexicons? We need to throw out the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ASV, NLT and who knows how many others?

Sorry Red, this is simply wishful thinking. Aionios is pertaining to an unlimited duration of time — ‘eternal.’ I don't know who told you it has a finite meaning, but you've been mislead.

there are so many verses that speak of God reconciling the world to himself and being the saviour of all men, yet people seem to want to insist that God will torment souls for eternity.......that is not a message of 'good news'...............

Nor does the Bible teach universalism.

The problem is its your perception that other people have false understandings of christianity,

I can only call it like I see it.

telling someone its no wonder that they didnt last as a christian because you dont think they had a proper understanding of what it was to begin with doesnt help anyone IMO, to behonest I doubt whether we'd agree on matters of doctrine

This is becoming obvious.

but I wouldnt call into question your faith................I hope that makes sense

I'm very loath to question peoples faith, but there are times when it's appropriate. Telling people that eternal punishment doesn't exist and that all will be saved regardless, is akin to telling them they don't need to worry about accepting Christ. These are pretty serious distortions. I may need to improve the tone of my delivery (and will honestly work on that), but to let these kinds of distortions go by would be cruel. Hell is real and we need to be warning people.