No offense, but that now sounds like an ultimately pointless religion. You achieve nothing by believing...

(November 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No offense, but that now sounds like an ultimately pointless religion. You achieve nothing by believing...

I don't see why you arrive at this conclusion Adrian??

(November 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm)CoxRox Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No offense, but that now sounds like an ultimately pointless religion. You achieve nothing by believing...

I don't see why you arrive at this conclusion Adrian??

Let's put it this way. The majority of people believe because they gain something, namely eternal life, support, hope, etc. Your disbelief in both Heaven and Hell doesn't grant you any of these, and so I fail to see the point in believing. What exactly do you gain from your religion that you couldn't gain from not believing?

(November 29, 2008 at 3:03 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Ok, so assuming what you say is true, nobody that has died has ever been resurrected? Are we now into the area of the rapture? Do these dead people get resurrected when JC returns? Or is that another misinterpretation of the Bible?

The Rapture is a theology that was concieved by an English gentleman whos name for the life of me I can never remember about 150 or so years ago. John Darby? Anyway, yes, that is another misinterpretation of the Bible.

Didn't I post my article on hell early after my coming here, in response to a post you wrote? That pretty much explains a great deal of what happens in death. I will look for it and edit a link if it is here.

Jesus has already returned, by the way, which I think I also mentioned somewhere here. Isaac Newton figured that out ages ago.

Edit: I went ahead and reposted the post on What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell

(November 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm)Daystar Wrote: Yeah. If you look at the old testament. Which you haven't. So you can't really say. Or would it be inconsitant for me to take that literally?

Indeed I haven't read the OT. I have only read bits of it and read extractions from websites and TGD. So indeed feel free if you can actually give examples of how the OT is not indeed highly immoral. Without just twisting it.

Quote:Look, we have been here before, EVF. I'm trying to help you with your argument. It is typical short sightedness of a Bible critic to complain about the literal / figurative issue. You can interpret anything literally or figuratively - however you want it. I could take your saying that a literal interpretation is the only consistent one as meaning that you think "God's word is all powerful and wonderful in its truth" if I wanted to but to do so wouldn't be correct and to repeat it would be slanderous.

In life, as in the Bible, there are things that are meant to be taken literally and others as figurative, like this for example ...

(November 29, 2008 at 10:54 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I can say that "there is no God" or I "Don't believe in God" but I wouldn't say "I KNOW there is No God" Or "I am CERTAIN there is no God". Unless I was half-joking. I CAN however, say that there is no God if I'm speaking de-facto scientifically. Its just annoying to repeatedly say that I believe that "there almost certainly is no God" but thats what I think really. When I say "There is no God" it would just be a shortening of that.
I would never say "I KNOW" or "I am CERTAIN" unless I wasn't speaking entirely literally and/or I was half-joking.

---

(November 29, 2008 at 12:37 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well thanks for clearing that up. I certainly think you are wise to not believe in the trinity and to think that Jesus was just a man.
What is your opinion of the "Holy Spirit" and its connection to God? And do you think it has a [spiritual] connection to Jesus? (Although as you have said you don't believe they are three parts of one God).

Quote:The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. It wasn't until the fourth century C.E. that the teaching of the holy spirit was a person and part of the "Godhead" became an official teaching.

Justin Martyr of the second century taught that the holy spirit was an 'influence or mode of operation of the Deity’ and Hippolytus taught likewise.

It should also be pointed out that in the some translations, such as the KJV at 1 John 5:7 there is a spurious addition to the orignal text which reads: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"

The Jerusalem Bible, which is a Catholic translation, has a footnote on this addition which reads: "not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself." The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716 - 718) actually traces in great detail the history of this spurious passage, saying it was first found in a treatise called Liver Apologeticus from the fourth century and points out it was also found in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures beginning in the sixth century.

More modern translations - both Catholic and Protestant don't include them in the main body of the text due to their spurious nature.

Yes, but the point is how do you decide which interpretation to pick?
I don't mean the whole bible can or should be interpreted literally. I just mean that when you look at the absurdly bold claims the bible makes and the evil in the OT. The key claims and immorality in the bible...how can you twist them into metaphorical interpretations to make it good when there are so many metaphorical interpretations?
Its just cherry-picking. How can you decide how to interpret it? Yes you can do it to anything but thats the whole point.
A theist could read the TGD and twist it. They could interpret it that Dawkins was saying that their IS a God. And that atheism is a delusion. Or that it meant the exact reverse of what it means.
But I think it would be fair to say that that is certainly NOT what Dawkins is talking about in TGD! You can metaphorically interpret it in many ways. But when you don't cherry-pick it and mess about. When you interpret it scientifically and sanely. Instead of twisting it by mucking about with metaphors. When you don't look at it through faith-tinted god approving glasses It comes across as rational.
But with the bible when you interpret it scientifically, when you interpret it rationally. It comes across as a book that says a lot of things. But the key problem is that it says that the supernatural exists. That God exists. And there is no evidence of any of this, in it, or outside of it. The supernatural is highly complex and improbable.
Conclusion: There almost certainly is no God.

(November 29, 2008 at 11:50 am)Psalm 23 Wrote: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58

First of all, this doesn't say that God and Jesus are the same. Secondly lets take a closer look at the verse.

"before Abraham came into existence, I have been” Greek πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi)

Fourth / Fifth Century Syriac Edition - "before Abraham was, I have been" - A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

Fifth Century Curetonian Syriac Edition - "before ever Abraham came to be, I was" - The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century Syriac Peshitta Edition - "before Abraham existed, I was" - The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Fifth Century Georgian Edition - "before Abraham came to be, I was" - The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century Ethiopic Edition - "before Abraham was born, I was" - Novum Testamentum . . . Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

The action expressen in at that verse started before Abraham came into existence and is still in progress. εἰμί (eimi) is the first person singular present indicative, and so is properly translated by the perfect indicative. This same syntax can be found in Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; and 1 John 3:8.

A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, states: "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [ap arkhes met emou este], viii. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi]."

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, states: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the NT: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858 . . . "

In an attempt to identify Jesus with Jehovah some say ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi) is the same as the Hebrew expression ani hu, "I am he," because it is used by God, which is silly because the expression is also used by man. (1 Chronicles 21:17)

Others try to use Exodus 3:14 which reads: Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (Ego eimi ho on), which means "I am The Being," or "I am The Existing One" but they are not the same. There you have the Hebrew אהיה אׁשר אהיה (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh). Leeser "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE" Rotherham "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Greek Ego eimi ho on, "I am The Being," or, "I am The Existing One" Latin ego sum qui sum, "I am Who I am." Ehyeh comes from the Hebrew verb hayah, meaning "become; prove to be." Here Ehyeh is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning "I shall become"; or, "I shall prove to be." God is stating what he intends to become or prove to be toward others rather than a self existence.

(November 29, 2008 at 11:50 am)Psalm 23 Wrote: Jesus saith..."he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9

Meaning that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. After all John 1:17 - had already said: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

(November 29, 2008 at 11:50 am)Psalm 23 Wrote: "...And Thomas answered and said unto Jesus, My Lord and my God." John 20:28

Jesus was a god. So was Moses and Satan. Who was Jesus' God? God. Go back about 11 verses. John 20:17 -  Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.'

(November 29, 2008 at 11:50 am)Psalm 23 Wrote: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

Again this only points to Jesus pre-human existence, not to Jesus as Jehovah.

(November 29, 2008 at 11:50 am)Psalm 23 Wrote: Jesus saith... "I and my Father are ONE." John 10:30

Jesus said he and his disciples are one as well, are they all the same as God? John 17:11 - Also, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are.

(November 29, 2008 at 11:50 am)Psalm 23 Wrote: "...CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD..." II Corinthians 4:4

Again, was not Adam made in the image of God as well?

---

(November 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Indeed I haven't read the OT. I have only read bits of it and read extractions from websites and TGD. So indeed feel free if you can actually give examples of how the OT is not indeed highly immoral. Without just twisting it.

We were talking about literal interpretation being, in your opinion, the most consistant one. Now you are talking about how highly immoral it is without twisting it. I really don't understand the connection there. As I have told you I don't understand the atheists criticism of figurative as well as literal interpretations.

I have had Atheist argue with on one point by saying: "You can interpret that any way you want!" and then the next point by saying: "You can't interpret it like that, it has to be literal!" I think this comes from an overall misunderstanding of the Bible. The Atheist (or skeptic) wants to translate it how they see it, which is usually negative and as simple as possible to prove their point.

I don't see morality as entering into it because morality is subjective. Also the Bible is full of examples of immoral behaviour.

You will have to give me an example of twisting the scriptures to make them moral when they are not in order for me to understand fully what you mean.

(November 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yes, but the point is how do you decide which interpretation to pick?
I don't mean the whole bible can or should be interpreted literally. I just mean that when you look at the absurdly bold claims the bible makes and the evil in the OT. The key claims and immorality in the bible...how can you twist them into metaphorical interpretations to make it good when there are so many metaphorical interpretations?

Well, look at my post on What The Bible Really Teaches about Hell on the Religion board, that is a real good example of how to interpret it (The Bible) correctly and how it has been misinterpreted. When it is right it all adds up, when it is wrong it doesn't.

(November 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But with the bible when you interpret it scientifically, when you interpret it rationally. It comes across as a book that says a lot of things. But the key problem is that it says that the supernatural exists. That God exists. And there is no evidence of any of this, in it, or outside of it. The supernatural is highly complex and improbable.
Conclusion: There almost certainly is no God.

There is evidence again. You dismiss the Bible because it makes supernatural claims while at the same time saying that the supernatural is highly complex and improbable. How very scientific of you.

(November 29, 2008 at 11:07 pm)Daystar Wrote: We were talking about literal interpretation being, in your opinion, the most consistant one. Now you are talking about how highly immoral it is without twisting it. I really don't understand the connection there. As I have told you I don't understand the atheists criticism of figurative as well as literal interpretations.

They're not connected. Obviously. Of course the immorality of the OT is not connected to the truth or untruth of it. They are two separate issues and I don't understand how you address either of them the way you do.
I had already mentioned both the immorality and the untruth. I NEVER said these were connected. I just:
1. Don't understand how you can decide which metaphorical interpretation(s) of the "truth" of the bible to choose when there are so many.
2. I also don't understand how you can interpret the blatant horrific immorality in the OT as not being immoral. How you can twist that.
If indeed you do. Do you indeed see that the OT is full of horror?

Quote:I have had Atheist argue with on one point by saying: "You can interpret that any way you want!" and then the next point by saying: "You can't interpret it like that, it has to be literal!" I think this comes from an overall misunderstanding of the Bible. The Atheist (or skeptic) wants to translate it how they see it, which is usually negative and as simple as possible to prove their point.

Oh deary me. You don't seem to understand.
Obviously we CAN interpret it anyway we want. Literally we can interpret ANYTHING anyway we want. But what I am saying is if this is the case, and their are so many interpretations, how can you choose one particular non-literal interpretation over the other when there are so many?
My point is that its very inconsistent and made up. Its cherry-picking.
The only really consistent interpretation is a literal one.
Anyone CAN indeed interpret the bible or any book or anything in any way they want. But that doesn't mean they should. If they indeed want to be rational and logical and actually make any sense.

Quote:I don't see morality as entering into it because morality is subjective. Also the Bible is full of examples of immoral behaviour.

You will have to give me an example of twisting the scriptures to make them moral when they are not in order for me to understand fully what you mean.

I haven't seen you twist the scriptures to make it more moral. I'm simply saying that how could you interpret God as not completely sick evil and immoral when you read the OT? How can you interpret him as good? How can you justify GOD's behavior in the OT without twisting it?
If you don't, if you indeed think like me that Yahweh of the OT is evil sick and twisted - then do you indeed believe in God but you are willing to admit that you think he's an evil sick and twisted God with backward morality?
Or do you think God had some sort of 'moral makeover' by the NT. He suddenly got less evil.

Quote:Well, look at my post on What The Bible Really Teaches about Hell on the Religion board, that is a real good example of how to interpret it (The Bible) correctly and how it has been misinterpreted. When it is right it all adds up, when it is wrong it doesn't.

Yeah but I don't mean interpretations of anything in the bible. I mean the supernatural interpretations. How can you logically believe in the supernatural because of the bible? Because that does NOT add up.
I'm not talking about just ANY interpretations obviously. I'm not saying you can't use or understand metaphors at all in the bible. Obviously not because there are metaphors and correct interpretations of them in loads of books.
But with a very literal and absurd over the top unscientific and irrational claim like believing in God or even anything supernatural...how can you possibly think THAT adds up? How can you justify any of these supernatural nonsense.
If the bible didn't contain anything supernatural, miraculous or special it wouldn't be a 'holy' book. We wouldn't even be having this discussion so of course I'm just talking about the supernatural claims.
I am an atheist you know. And you're not. We're not talking only about the non-supernatural or natural parts of the bible are we? Our disagreement is mostly over the supernatural.

Quote:There is evidence again. You dismiss the Bible because it makes supernatural claims while at the same time saying that the supernatural is highly complex and improbable. How very scientific of you.

Indeed. Good thing too eh? I dismiss the supernatural because there both isn't any logical reason to believe in the supernatural or any "God" of any kind. AND because its highly absurd, complex and highly improbable.
There almost certainly is no God. Why believe in him? And how could you if you don't, and untill you do anyway? Belief is not a matter of policy.
And considering that my name on these forums is EvidenceVSFaith of course I'm going to talk about evidence again. Shouldn't I? Shouldn't anyone? You say it like its bad. Are you saying that there is indeed no evidence of God and any logical reason to believe in him but you do anyway?
Or do you think my name is EvF but I'm supporting faith? Of course I'm going to mention evidence.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Of course the immorality of the OT is not connected to the truth or untruth of it. They are two separate issues and I don't understand how you address either of them the way you do.

We were not discussing the level of truth in the Bible itself, but rather the level of truth of interpretation. You seemed to me to have been addressing the interpretation as being somewhat dishonest as if it was being interpreted to disguise the immorality of the Bible. That is the way I understood it.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I had already mentioned both the immorality and the untruth. I NEVER said these were connected. I just:
1. Don't understand how you can decide which metaphorical interpretation(s) of the "truth" of the bible to choose when there are so many.
2. I also don't understand how you can interpret the blatant horrific immorality in the OT as not being immoral. How you can twist that.
If indeed you do. Do you indeed see that the OT is full of horror?

It depends upon the context. There is really only two ways to interpret anything, right or wrong. When Jesus talks about haides and Gehenna as a fiery torment Xians think of them as the same because over time they adopted the pagan meaning of hell, but in fact haides and Gehenna are two different places. How do I know? By researching what the original meanings of these words are. How they were used metaphorically or literally.

As far as immorality, like I said, that is subjective. The ancient Israelites had a play of words for Satan, calling him the Lord of Shit (Dung) by turning Baalzebub into Beelzebub. To some Xians that is immoral, but the Israelites and early Christians didn't think it was. It was common for a young maiden such as Mary, being 14 or 15 years old to marry a man like Joseph who was probably about 32. Modern day Xians would think that is immoral.

The Bible is full of examples of immorality as an example of what is immoral and also examples of what today we might think of as immoral that they didn't think of as immoral back then.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Oh deary me. You don't seem to understand.
Obviously we CAN interpret it anyway we want. Literally we can interpret ANYTHING anyway we want. But what I am saying is if this is the case, and their are so many interpretations, how can you choose one particular non-literal interpretation over the other when there are so many?

I don't know if there are as many interpretations as you might think. How you know which one is right and which one is wrong is by first removing the pagan influence and then looking at the original language. It is really hard for some Xians as well as skeptics to accept that the 6 days of creation were not 6 literal days, but a study of the original Hebrew word yohm and the removal of the insistence that 'days' doesn't mean literal days - even when in fact the way the ancient Hebrew usage is not that different from our own, we still buy into that simple literal translation because that is what we have seen it as meaning.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: My point is that its very inconsistent and made up. Its cherry-picking.

It may seem like cherry-picking to you but that is only because 1. You don't want to believe the Bible is anything but bullshit and 2. You are unfamiliar with the original language. You don't have to be a scholar in Hebrew and Greek you just have to explore the possibilities.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The only really consistent interpretation is a literal one.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is only consistent, that doesn't mean it is correct. If the Bible is figurative and literal just as we too express ourselves, then a literal interpretation may be a consistent but it would be wrong a great deal of the time as well. Its a cop out. You are dismissing the Bible out of ignorance and saying that it isn't worth your time to really bother with a correct interpretation.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Anyone CAN indeed interpret the bible or any book or anything in any way they want. But that doesn't mean they should. If they indeed want to be rational and logical and actually make any sense.[/qoute]

Exactly! Now you are getting it.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='4671' dateline='1228053519'] I haven't seen you twist the scriptures to make it more moral. I'm simply saying that how could you interpret God as not completely sick evil and immoral when you read the OT? How can you interpret him as good? How can you justify GOD's behavior in the OT without twisting it?

What reason do I have to do otherwise? And anyway who am I to judge morality? Least of all the morality of the Creator. Would I judge him as bad for making war on ancient people of Bible times in order to produce a nation from which the Messiah would come? Did the Israelites not always give the opportunity for those people to safely step aside? (Deuteronomy 20:10 - 15)

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If you don't, if you indeed think like me that Yahweh of the OT is evil sick and twisted - then do you indeed believe in God but you are willing to admit that you think he's an evil sick and twisted God with backward morality?

Of course not! Your trouble is you are judging Jehovah from hearsay, without knowing him.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Or do you think God had some sort of 'moral makeover' by the NT. He suddenly got less evil.

No, that is nonsense. They are the same. It was a different time so to the uninformed it may seem that way but that isn't accurate.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Yeah but I don't mean interpretations of anything in the bible. I mean the supernatural interpretations. How can you logically believe in the supernatural because of the bible? Because that does NOT add up.

I keep asking for you to give me examples and you never do. I can't do this if I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Like I have said here a few times, if science could explain some of the supernatural or spiritual aspects of the Bible then you could buy into them? C'mon, be realistic. Because some man of science says it is true it is true as opposed to some preacher man saying it? And don't tell me that you would have evidence to see and that would make a big difference because you wouldn't. You would take it on hearsay of science which you think, even though you wouldn't admit it, is infallible. The same as the religious do the preacher man. Figure out the science of it on your own. Do the impossible.

You see what you keep getting at? That you don't believe the Bible. That you don't want to believe it. You don't have to argue that with me. Doest thou protest too much?

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If the bible didn't contain anything supernatural, miraculous or special it wouldn't be a 'holy' book. We wouldn't even be having this discussion so of course I'm just talking about the supernatural claims.
I am an atheist you know. And you're not. We're not talking only about the non-supernatural or natural parts of the bible are we? Our disagreement is mostly over the supernatural.

I consider my mission to discuss and if possible teach anyone who wishes to learn about the Bible. That doesn't imply belief or conversion, just knowledge. A step in the right direction.

I am also here to learn about what others think who may not see things the way I do. If you want to dismiss the Bible because you can't wrap your mind around what you call 'the supernatural,' hey - that is your thing.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I dismiss the supernatural because there both isn't any logical reason to believe in the supernatural or any "God" of any kind. AND because its highly absurd, complex and highly improbable.
There almost certainly is no God. Why believe in him? And how could you if you don't, and until you do anyway? Belief is not a matter of policy.
And considering that my name on these forums is EvidenceVSFaith of course I'm going to talk about evidence again. Shouldn't I? Shouldn't anyone? You say it like its bad. Are you saying that there is indeed no evidence of God and any logical reason to believe in him but you do anyway?
Or do you think my name is EvF but I'm supporting faith? Of course I'm going to mention evidence.

I have been talking to people like you for 15 years. I used to be like you and I have NEVER seen one shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, against God or the Bible. Evidence is subjective and I would be surprised that if science ever did provide you with the evidence you ask for it would do anything to change your mind. It certainly isn't my responsibility to show it to you.

I do know that if I had been provided with scientific evidence I would question and distrust it before I would God's word because it has proven itself to me and I have more faith in God than I do men. Even men of science.

But truthfully . . . honestly . . . I don't think you actually know the difference between Evidence and Faith. I think that you confuse them and keep your own opinion with more of the latter and less of the former than you might think. I think that as you grow older that will either piss you off or wake you up.

(November 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm)CoxRox Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No offense, but that now sounds like an ultimately pointless religion. You achieve nothing by believing...

I don't see why you arrive at this conclusion Adrian??

Let's put it this way. The majority of people believe because they gain something, namely eternal life, support, hope, etc. Your disbelief in both Heaven and Hell doesn't grant you any of these, and so I fail to see the point in believing. What exactly do you gain from your religion that you couldn't gain from not believing?

'Heaven' as well as meaning the sky (the heavens), is the 'abode' or place where God and other spirit beings (angels) 'live'. (I don't think it is a literal place which would suggest dimensions and therefore limits, but is probably to do with their metaphysical 'bodies',or they exist on a different level, perphaps in many dimensions??) Hell means the grave, or pit where you are placed when you die. The whole point of Jesus coming, the prophets prior to Him etc, etc, is to tell man about the hope of being brought back to life again, only this time, it will be forever - you won't die again, because you will have a body that is not prone to decay etc. So the 'carrot' or the 'prize' as the apostle Paul called it, is everlasting life with God. I have been looking into 'Universal Reconciliation', which is regarded by mainstream Christianity as 'apostate'. This makes much more sense to me: all men will be brought back to life and we will come to really know God etc. It makes no sense that 'God' would create man and have most of them annihalated (not sent to a fiery hell). (I would have trouble believing in any God who created a literal place where most of His children go to suffer for ever and ever. Jesus said: 'love your enemies'.) Anyway, I won't go too much into this as 'any version of Christianty' probably sounds like another 'fairy tale'. One last point, you'd think that 'believing' no one will be lost, would make you think 'great, I can do what I want because God will forgive me anyway', but actually I feel more respect and love towards Him, to think we are all precious to Him. You wouldn't have that attitude towards your earthly parents, because you know they will forgive you, so too with God- or it is for me anyway.

(November 30, 2008 at 4:58 pm)CoxRox Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm)CoxRox Wrote:

(November 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No offense, but that now sounds like an ultimately pointless religion. You achieve nothing by believing...

I don't see why you arrive at this conclusion Adrian??

Let's put it this way. The majority of people believe because they gain something, namely eternal life, support, hope, etc. Your disbelief in both Heaven and Hell doesn't grant you any of these, and so I fail to see the point in believing. What exactly do you gain from your religion that you couldn't gain from not believing?

'Heaven' as well as meaning the sky (the heavens), is the 'abode' or place where God and other spirit beings (angels) 'live'. (I don't think it is a literal place which would suggest dimensions and therefore limits, but is probably to do with their metaphysical 'bodies',or they exist on a different level, perphaps in many dimensions??) Hell means the grave, or pit where you are placed when you die. The whole point of Jesus coming, the prophets prior to Him etc, etc, is to tell man about the hope of being brought back to life again, only this time, it will be forever - you won't die again, because you will have a body that is not prone to decay etc. So the 'carrot' or the 'prize' as the apostle Paul called it, is everlasting life with God. I have been looking into 'Universal Reconciliation', which is regarded by mainstream Christianity as 'apostate'. This makes much more sense to me: all men will be brought back to life and we will come to really know God etc. It makes no sense that 'God' would create man and have most of them annihalated (not sent to a fiery hell). (I would have trouble believing in any God who created a literal place where most of His children go to suffer for ever and ever. Jesus said: 'love your enemies'.) Anyway, I won't go too much into this as 'any version of Christianty' probably sounds like another 'fairy tale'. One last point, you'd think that 'believing' no one will be lost, would make you think 'great, I can do what I want because God will forgive me anyway', but actually I feel more respect and love towards Him, to think we are all precious to Him. You wouldn't have that attitude towards your earthly parents, because you know they will forgive you, so too with God- or it is for me anyway.

CR, sorry but I don't buy what you're attempting to sell. So life as we know it is not really worth it? It's all a preparation for the hereafter? Sorry, no. Anyway, I don't want an eternal life...can I opt out please? The proposition of being an immortal " child " of god is too awful to contemplate. Plus, think of the company you'd have to kep. Eternal verbals with Daystar!!! Beam me up Scottie!