What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Hawkins]

Because they see the ridiculousness of your conception of science, which seems to come directly from Ken Ham et al?

Because you don't have the capability to understand logic by swallowing whatever the scientists said by faith.

If that's your attitude then so be it. Let me know when you are ready to discuss things logically without applying the fallacy that "it's more true because scientists said so".

That said, it remains your own baseless faith that the scientists will disagree with me. Try to ask a top notch scientists to come and let us establish a dialogue!

 

[bhsmte]

Because you don't have the capability to understand logic by swallowing whatever the scientists said by faith.

If that's your attitude then so be it. Let me know when you are ready to discuss things logically without applying the fallacy that "it's more true because scientists said so".

That said, it remains your own baseless faith that the scientists will disagree with me. Try to ask a top notch scientists to come and let us establish a dialogue!

Tell us about your logic.

 

[Hawkins]

Tell us about your logic.

The logic I post in this thread is that

- the ToE is not based off the traditional scientific approach because we can't establish a lab to complete the sequence of observing the evolution process from a single cell organism to its very end, say a mammal.

Is this statement logical and true or not!?

If you can't identity its truth, ask a top notch scientist to see if he agrees with me or not!

 

[bhsmte]

The logic I post in this thread is that

- the ToE is not based off the traditional scientific approach because we can't establish a lab to complete the sequence of observing the evolution process from a single cell organism to its very end, say a mammal.

Is this statement logical and true or not!?

If you can't identity its truth, ask a top notch scientist to see if he agrees with me or not!

Would this then mean, all the scientists that robustly agree with the TOE are stupid, or are involved in a world wide conspiracy?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because you don't have the capability to understand logic by swallowing whatever the scientists said by faith.

If that's your attitude then so be it. Let me know when you are ready to discuss things logically without applying the fallacy that "it's more true because scientists said so".

That said, it remains your own baseless faith that the scientists will disagree with me. Try to ask a top notch scientists to come and let us establish a dialogue!

My supervisor is a top notch scientist. She isn't going to waste time "establishing a dialogue" with someone who won't listen.

 

[TheBear]

newsflash: the present contains evidence of past events

View attachment 175472

Someone walked here.

You weren't there. So, you don't know.

Back to the OP topic - Our lives here, the whole of all humanity, is but a fraction of a blip, less than the blink of an eye, compared to 4.5 billion years, let alone compared to "eternity" and "everlasting". A punishment of never ending torture and anguish, is quite excessive and way over the top. It's worse than sentencing someone to be executed ..... for littering.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

- the ToE is not based off the traditional scientific approach

The theory of evolution uses the scientific method the same way germ theory, theory of relativity, atomic theory, etc uses.
It's based on observations and experimentation.

- because we can't establish a lab to complete the sequence of observing the evolution process from a single cell organism to its very end, say a mammal.

You want to observe 3+ billion years of evolution in a lab setting? This is just an absurd request. We can look at evidence from several different fields. The fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA (Which is the slam dunk) and observations in the lab and in nature.

Here is my favorite slam dunk of evidence for common ancestry. Endogenous retroviruses. 99% of endogenous retroviral insertions in the human genome insert in the same exact spot in the chimpanzee genome. Since ERV insertions are very rare and are only passed down to their offspring, this observational fact is only explained by common ancestry. Evolution also predicts that species more closely related to each other will share more ERV insertions than species they are more distantly related to. This is exactly what we see. Game. Set. Match.

 

[Hoghead1]

The logic I post in this thread is that

- the ToE is not based off the traditional scientific approach because we can't establish a lab to complete the sequence of observing the evolution process from a single cell organism to its very end, say a mammal.

Is this statement logical and true or not!?

If you can't identity its truth, ask a top notch scientist to see if he agrees with me or not!

No, it makes no sense. The evolutionary process takes eons of time. Unless you lived to be millions and millions of years old, you could not observe it in the lab. However, with bacteria, yes, I can had and been engendered and observed in the lab.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You speak as if God is still requiring blood sacrifices today.

No. I speak as if this being required any blood sacrifice ever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because you don't have the capability to understand logic by swallowing whatever the scientists said by faith.

What faith?

If that's your attitude then so be it. Let me know when you are ready to discuss things logically without applying the fallacy that "it's more true because scientists said so".

How about: it's more true because it is independently supportable, verifiable and / or demonstrable?

It doesn't matter who "says" what.

A claim isn't automatically false because it is in the bible, nore is it automatically true because a scientist says it.

Claims fall and stand on their own merrit, no matter where or from when the claim originates.

That said, it remains your own baseless faith that the scientists will disagree with me.

No. High school level science does that.

Try to ask a top notch scientists to come and let us establish a dialogue!

I think "top notch scientists" have better ways to spend their time, then to come explain simple science on a religious forum.

Buy a book.

 

[DogmaHunter]

- the ToE is not based off the traditional scientific approach because we can't establish a lab to complete the sequence of observing the evolution process from a single cell organism to its very end, say a mammal.

Indeed, we can't do that. The thing is off course, we don't need to.

Just like we don't need to completely recreate a murder, to solve the murder.

Just like we don't need to completely recreate a volcano eruption, to know that such an event took place somewhere.

Just like we don't need to recreate an asteroid impact, to know it occured in new mexico some 65 million years ago.

Is this statement logical and true or not!?

Not.

If you can't identity its truth, ask a top notch scientist to see if he agrees with me or not!

Any biologist will agree that we can't recreate 3.6 billion years worth of evolution in a lab.
All those biologists will also agree that we don't need to and that it is not required, to know that evolution occured.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exodus 13
13:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
13:3 And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.
//Before this the word sacrifice was rarely written or offering either.

Exodus 29:32 And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that [is] in the basket, [by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Exodus 29:33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy.

//It was not as if God just wanted blood and more blood of
animals...but the animals were also eaten in some cases as
holy.

No amount of text, bible verses, excuses or apologetics will change the fact that this being apparantly couldn't find another way to "forgive" people (for what, exactly??) then through the sacrificial killing of a human being.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[DogmaHunter]

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He came and dwelt among the
people. No other person of flesh -born from Adam was without sin. Immanuel

Which is irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is not irrelevant. He loves us so much that He came here and died for us.

Which is exactly the part that is completely absurd.
An all knowing, all powerful entity really can't come up with a better way to "forgive" people (for things beyond their control), then to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself for "crimes" that in the end, he himself bears responsability for.

He creates this systems with rules of his choosing and then creates a species in such a way that it is impossible for them to live upto those rules and then condemns them for it. Then has himself killed to serve as a loophole for a system he created, in order to "solve" the problem of everybody being doomed by default, because of the way he choose to set it all up.

It. Is. Absurd.

We have a sin nature, whereas He is divine.
No regular man could give us with his life - eternal life.
He is holy. We are to be holy also. Walk in the light as He is
in the light. In Him is no darkness at all. He was worshipped
and had gifts brought to Him, because He is our Creator and
became our Saviour. We are to love and obey Him. praise Him,
worship Him, and receive the forgiveness He has laid down His
life for to give us. He is a jealous God. He deserves us to get
on our knees and give Him the glory for all the great things He
has done and will do!

Preaching is not going to make a relevant point.