(May 9, 2013 at 2:42 pm)goodnews Wrote: Yes you are correct but, in a debate the person with the more acurate narrative will allways triumph. eg: If I am debateing the non existance of an eternal hell. and my oponent who is totally convinced of its existance, explains his theory and provides the verses he thinks fit in to it , because I know the translations to be inacurate, due to badly translated words, but this also means that these verses have to fit somewhere else in the narrative , so not only can I prove these faulty translated words with physical proof via etymology , but I can also show that these verses do not contradict the narrative but add to it eg: "my" interpretation useing these same better translated verses support that {God loves us all and so He sent His Son who will save us all from sin} / my oponents use of these poorly translated verses {God does not loves us all and so sent His Son to save a few from sin and the rest he will burn for ever and ever in hell} this is a contradiction of the narrative , and so who you going to believe ?

Neither. It appears to be so much of a convoluted mess that just about any interpretation can be justified, and your opponents will simply leverage the same arguments towards you, i.e. mistranslated text.

If you feel that strongly about it, however, start a thread and take it up with one of our other Christians to see how well you fair. That's always entertaining to me.

Your response was predicted, if the narrative was about something else you would have opted for the proof, but because it involves the scriptures you are afraid to choose in case you loose face ! I have bean posting these "christiandom" contradictions of scripture all over this forum, If they could be refuted, dont you think someone would have given it a go by now ??? Im out of here

Pardon me for being skeptical that out of two people the correct interpretation for a text that has thousands of interpretations would be present. It has nothing to do with saving face, and everything to do with that it's such an immense, vague text that the interpretation says more about the interpreter than the text.

And you assume that the lack of refutations is due to an inability to refute, when it's quite likely that they do not find your opinion valid enough to waste energy on.

(May 9, 2013 at 3:07 am)smax Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: When parents bring a child into the world are they being evil, they knowingly are exposing the child to all the dangers this world has to offer. Is this loving the child, or an evil act by allowing the child to have to experience all the world can throw at the child.
This is the reasoning you are using with God, so by your reasoning parents are evil by bring a child into this world.

Parents have a duty to protect their children. Being that god exposed his children to his worst enemy (Satan), a being with superior intellect and ruthless cunning, how was god effectively protecting his children?

With one simple commandment.

(May 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 3:07 am)smax Wrote: Parents have a duty to protect their children. Being that god exposed his children to his worst enemy (Satan), a being with superior intellect and ruthless cunning, how was god effectively protecting his children?

With one simple commandment.

You've restored my faith, dude. I gotta hand it to you guys, no matter what, no matter how much you have to twist it till it screams bloody blue murder - you will always let him off the hook.

Ok, try this one verse as agreed by all religious partys to be translated correctly , your choice is to choose one of two options / 1 Timothy 2:4 Who {God} will have All men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. / option (a) all means all .. option (b) all means not all .. bare in mind one of these options would have 95% of humanity burning in hell for eternaly , as believed by most Christians and one of the main reasons people like yourself become atheists . So there you go a blatant contradiction not of translation or interpretation as the verse is simple and self translating, but the contradiction is one of doctrin, in other words burning in hell is a mans invention and there are a few here on this forum who have chosen option (b) go figar

(May 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 3:07 am)smax Wrote: Parents have a duty to protect their children. Being that god exposed his children to his worst enemy (Satan), a being with superior intellect and ruthless cunning, how was god effectively protecting his children?

With one simple commandment.

Yes, because if there's one thing that we (fallible, incomplete creatures that we are) have learned about human nature, it's that saying "don't do this" will always lead to this not being done.

Especially when the people being ordered around have no possible conception that disobedience would be evil!

And hey, I'll ask you directly: why was the tree there to begin with? What purpose did it serve?

(May 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 3:07 am)smax Wrote: Parents have a duty to protect their children. Being that god exposed his children to his worst enemy (Satan), a being with superior intellect and ruthless cunning, how was god effectively protecting his children?

With one simple commandment.

Well, just like nearly all of god's other plans, it didn't work, so he sucks as a parent.

Perhaps he should have taken some basic parenting classes before becoming a parent. I mean, what parent says "NO", and thinks that will suffice?

And what parent literally leaves their children with the devil?

(May 9, 2013 at 4:51 pm)smax Wrote: And what parent literally leaves their children with the devil?

I cannot believe that question had never occurred to me before.