(September 6, 2011 at 6:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You aren't going to get far throwing FACTS at those people, Thom.

They hate facts the way a vampire hates dawn.

"Oh crap, facts! We need to come up with an excuse and fast!"

Tell them all your facts, they always manage to find something in their book which "proves" it, and then scientist prove that it is not true. We can't tell them facts, too many of them take everything in the book literally. Way too many.

(September 6, 2011 at 6:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You aren't going to get far throwing FACTS at those people, Thom.

They hate facts the way a vampire hates dawn.

Oh, but they have facts! To them, anything written in the Bible is a fact! Never mind the evidence! If the evidence conflicts with the Bible, well, obviously the evidence is wrong!

(September 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm)Thor Wrote:

(September 3, 2011 at 4:53 am)aleialoura Wrote: Why is it okay to assume that God made women as sort of an afterthought? even though God supposedly has a divine plan, why did he add Eve last? He's God, so didn't he KNOW that Adam would be lonely?

If Eve was created as an afterthought, I must ask if Adam had a penis prior to the creation of Eve. If he did, for what purpose? With no females around it would have been unnecessary. If he didn't, did this deity give Adam a penis at the time he created Eve? Because that makes even less sense.

Adam: "Hey! What's this thing dangling between my legs?"

God: "Uh.... you'll figure it out."

Sounds like you have some bright kids, btw.

Now the story of the talking snake makes much more sense, it wasn't Satan at all
hock:

(September 4, 2011 at 2:05 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Salty you seem scary to me because you appear not to think for yourself, but absorb and regurgitate the unsophisticated (being charitable for a moment) and ignorant theist perspectives. There are many other more sophisticated arguments for theism. Personally I find none of them at all convincing, and the god portrayed not only at odds with their source documents but also so far from human experience as to be meaningless and contradictory, but then I'm an atheist and the theists would differ in their interpretation. If you wish to justify your theism then there are better places to start than, "why are there still monkeys if evolution is true"; it's just embarrassing and even if true (which it is ABSOLUTELY NOT) would not prove a god nor prove the xtian one.

Sorry it took so long, Captain. I see what you mean, that's a good argument you have. I would think that someone saying, "God can't be all-loving if he sends people to Hell" also as someone who is not capable of thinking for themselves. This elementary response shows no investigation in Biblical teaching, but I don't hold that against anyone.

We both have a subject in which we have the ability to think and to defend, mine is theological and yours is scientific. I basically made a fool of myself by crossing into this area (atheism/science), but I'm completely okay with that, because people make foolish mistakes everyday. What I'm looking for is someone who is willing to teach me and willing to listen. In the meantime I will continue to be "scary" until I can find someone that doesn't dismiss what is important to me, and even when I come up with dumb things, they correct me because they want me to understand, not because I'm just wrong.

What good does it do to correct someone by saying, "you're wrong?" Instead it's best to show where you get the evidence for being "right" and then you can correct someone. In the end, whether the person listens or not is based on their trust in you and in what you use to substatiate your evidence, correct?

A lack of investigation? In the New Testament you have three words that are translated into "hell":

Gehenna, a hellenized version of the Hebrew Hinnom which is actually a name and a place in the Levant (King Ahaz burnt his children in a fire here, and made "profane offerings". The implications of this words use is that a person is being offered up to another god, or in fact to no gods.

Hades, this obviously being the greek god of the underworld (and the name of his domian). As far as the NT goes it is most likely that this word is used simply to mean a grave.

Tartaros, This one means torture. This was a portion of the greek underworld where those who offended the gods would be found. This one absolutely means torture, same as it did for the greeks.

In the Old Testament you only have one, Sheol. Sheol appears to have been the Hebrew's version of the Sumerian and Babylonian Irkalla. A place for the dead, all of them. Good, bad, and indifferent. Think dust and ash everywhere, a generally unpleasant place. This was the prevalent view of the afterlife in the entire Near Eastern world. The number of times that the the word Hades is used for Sheol in the OT indicates to us that at the time of translation, the two words were taken to mean the same thing, or very nearly the same thing. Simply the presumption that life somehow continued after death. Early Christians would have most likely regarded hell along the lines of greco-roman thought; a dreary place, shadowy and generally unpleasant. Stories of torture are found in specific cases, for specific acts (those who did not show compassion and selflessness, and specifically the enemies of the lord). Early christians didn't actually write much about hell and may not have taken what was written as literally as many do today. The concept of the afterlife was simply not very well developed in the Jewish tradition, or the tradition of the Early christians. The only place that we find Hades used in an explicitly "torturous" manner is in Revelations. The problem is that this particular narrative is unlike the other narratives of the NT. We would expect to find a different usage of the word Hades here than we would elsewhere. There are some other interesting concepts of hell, such as the tiered system described in Luke 16:23 ,(which appears to be the first mention of a sort of paradisical afterlife for the virtuous) or the various mentions in the Apocrypha. The concept of hell we currently see so well represented is likely a product of the expansion of the church into Western Europe. Much has been written on the "Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate" which are considered apocrypha but nonetheless had a profound effect on what would become the modern concept of hell. The hell which believers imagine today most likely began to be formed no earlier than the 5th century in medieval Europe.

So, the idea of a god sending people to eternal flame and punishment is not strictly speaking biblical (except in very special circumstances). From the standpoint of material reality, it doesn't really matter whether you subscribe to Sheol, or the W European concept of Hell, neither are meaningful, as there is nothing to suggest to us that life continues after death.

(September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A lack of investigation? In the New Testament you have three words that are translated into "hell":

Gehenna, a hellenized version of the Hebrew Hinnom which is actually a name and a place in the Levant (King Ahaz burnt his children in a fire here, and made "profane offerings". The implications of this words use is that a person is being offered up to another god, or in fact to no gods.

Hades, this obviously being the greek god of the underworld (and the name of his domian). As far as the NT goes it is most likely that this word is used simply to mean a grave.

Tartaros, This one means torture. This was a portion of the greek underworld where those who offended the gods would be found. This one absolutely means torture, same as it did for the greeks.

In the Old Testament you only have one, Sheol. Sheol appears to have been the Hebrew's version of the Sumerian and Babylonian Irkalla. A place for the dead, all of them. Good, bad, and indifferent. Think dust and ash everywhere, a generally unpleasant place. This was the prevalent view of the afterlife in the entire Near Eastern world. The number of times that the the word Hades is used for Sheol in the OT indicates to us that at the time of translation, the two words were taken to mean the same thing, or very nearly the same thing. Simply the presumption that life somehow continued after death. Early Christians would have most likely regarded hell along the lines of greco-roman thought; a dreary place, shadowy and generally unpleasant. Stories of torture are found in specific cases, for specific acts (those who did not show compassion and selflessness, and specifically the enemies of the lord). Early christians didn't actually write much about hell and may not have taken what was written as literally as many do today. The concept of the afterlife was simply not very well developed in the Jewish tradition, or the tradition of the Early christians. The only place that we find Hades used in an explicitly "torturous" manner is in Revelations. The problem is that this particular narrative is unlike the other narratives of the NT. We would expect to find a different usage of the word Hades here than we would elsewhere. There are some other interesting concepts of hell, such as the tiered system described in Luke 16:23 ,(which appears to be the first mention of a sort of paradisical afterlife for the virtuous) or the various mentions in the Apocrypha. The concept of hell we currently see so well represented is likely a product of the expansion of the church into Western Europe. Much has been written on the "Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate" which are considered apocrypha but nonetheless had a profound effect on what would become the modern concept of hell. The hell which believers imagine today most likely began to be formed no earlier than the 5th century in medieval Europe.

So, the idea of a god sending people to eternal flame and punishment is not strictly speaking biblical (except in very special circumstances). From the standpoint of material reality, it doesn't really matter whether you subscribe to Sheol, or the W European concept of Hell, neither are meaningful, as there is nothing to suggest to us that life continues after death.

Might I add in that in early christian belief the afterlife was not the ultimate destination for at least the righteous dead. Because at the last judgement they would be resurrected somewhat and live forever in the new heavens and earth. For the unrighteous dead if my reading of the last chapters of revelation are right, they are destroyed in the lake of fire. Which the unrighteous dead will probably be annihilated. Anyway trying to construct coherence doctrine from a mass of contradictory texts is like squeezing blood out of a stone.

Ask 2 jews for an opinion and you get 3 answers.

(September 6, 2011 at 6:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You aren't going to get far throwing FACTS at those people, Thom.

They hate facts the way a vampire hates dawn.

Homer Simpson: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

Quote:This elementary response shows no investigation in Biblical teaching, but I don't hold that against anyone

Yeah, I think you may be right. Anyone who has read the Torah soon realises that YHW is a nasty, jealous, petty,petulant vindictive, cruel, sadistic, genocidal cunt.

However,anyone aware of the infinite attributes of the Abrahamic god is merely being rational mniscience, Omnipotence. Omnipresence, as well as infinite mercy and compassion are mutually exclusive qualities. PLUS they abrogate free will and are antithetical to the problems of suffering and evil. Such a god could not inflict anguish on us.

By the way,there is no eternal hell in Judaism. That was invented by Saul when he removed the Jewishness from the purely Jewish teachings of Jesus and his tiny sect,inventing Christianity for the Gentiles..

PS your response is also an ad hominem attack. you have simply attacked the person and ignored the argument.

(September 8, 2011 at 9:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ask 2 jews for an opinion and you get 3 answers.

I will make a bet that everyone of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish.