Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 9, 2015 at 12:48 pm
(October 8, 2015 at 9:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... I don't have any problem supporting my position (and I think anyone who has studied theology would agree with me). However I'm not interested in explaining, just to have someone dismiss what I say and jumping to another topic, or simply claiming it's all a fairy tale anyway, or just saying that is only my interpretation. I'm not going to put in the effort to inform someone who doesn't really care or is willing to check out what I say, and go back to making the same ignorant argument next week.
I always love how willing you religious types are to dip into the well poison with the constant refrain of "I'm aware my arguments probably aren't convincing, but that's your fault!" Because it can't just be that you're wrong, or that someone could disagree with you for legitimate reasons, can it? It has to be something intellectually untenable, that they just don't want to know the truth, because it's not possible that anyone could think you were wrong for real reasons, right?
Quote:There are verses in scripture, which say or allude to those who do not believe facing the consequences of the second death. And this is correct. However; it is incorrect to say that they are sent to hell, for simply not believing. (I would also point out here, that it is not just an intellectual acknowledgement of belief). Scripture states a number of times, that the judgement and the reason why hell is deserved, is because of sin. Jesus lowered himself and became man, and gave up His life; because of this very problem. He came to save us from the penalty of sin. Saying that people are going to hell; because they don't believe in Jesus is similar to saying that a person died, because they refused treatment for illness. This may be accurate, but if the person then goes on to blame the doctor, because they didn't give them a choice to their liking, or to imply that it was the refusal that killed them, is just silly.
This is a distinction without a difference; a person can live exactly the same life that I do, plus Jesus, and go to heaven, but if I live that life without Jesus, I'm going to hell. Therefore, the operative difference that's going to land me in hell is my non-belief, not my sins, because somebody with the same sins can get to heaven if only they'll believe the one proposition that I do not. It's pure sophistry to try and redirect toward the sins, when clearly the sins are not a problem should other criteria be fulfilled. It's roughly equivalent to having two people driving their cars, one of whom got into an accident and the other did not, and you're sitting here saying that the cause of the accident was driving a car, while completely ignoring that the guy who got in an accident was drunkenly driving backwards through traffic.
Your doctor analogy, by the way, fails on two counts; the first is, as has already been pointed out to you, that the doctor infected me with sin in the first place by creating the sin concept, creating humans with a sin nature, and then holding us to a standard without our consent. The second is more fundamental: sin is not a disease. Sin is not some inevitable naturally occurring thing that sends people to hell without any input from god, no, god sends people to hell. He doesn't need to, it's within his power not to, he could just as easily send us to heaven, or just let us die and stay dead, but he sends us to hell out of a conscious choice of his own.
A more accurate version of the doctor analogy would be that a doctor bursts into my life without my consent, regardless of whether I want it and presents me with a list of demands. If I don't fulfill the demands then he's going to inject me with a fatal disease. Is the doctor then completely blameless, as you wish to characterize god as, in my poisoning and subsequent death? Or is it, in fact, his fault entirely for accosting me so when he absolutely didn't need to?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 9, 2015 at 6:29 pm
(October 9, 2015 at 9:02 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: This is intended as a continuation of the discussion between me and Godschild.
It turned out to be a huge post...GIANT argument! Made hide tags... sorry for spam, if you got caught by initial giant post. It got away from me!
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Wrong, there is a reason for eternal punishment. The first and simplest answer I would give is balance in justice, meaning that because there is an eternal reward there has to be an eternal punishment.
Second because God is eternal and a persons unforgiven sin is against Him, there has to be an eternal punishment, why, because the sin goes on and on forever it's never forgiven because a person even in hell will not seek it.
You speak of the way you believe salvation is earned and then you speak of Jesus teachings, they are two totally different things. You can't elevate your soul to worthiness, it's impossible in the teachings of Jesus, only Jesus Christ can elevate you into salvation and it comes by grace, grace unmerited love.
Third it's not your universe and/or creation it's God's and He has the authority through who He is to set the rules so to speak. If you are to deny Christ till your death I can understand why you would want to be left in the grave, however that's not your call nor choice, at death you give up all choice.
Yeah... I get what you think. I really did used to think like you. And then I woke up. I have not failed to grasp the concept of what you call a "free gift", except it is not free. It's ludicrous to me that you cannot understand that if there is a threat accompanying a "free gift", then it's not free. You're just playing word-games by calling it "justice" and "a gift".
It is neither of those things. It is "obey me in life, or suffer in an afterlife". More accurately, it's "I am a priest and this is how I think our society should be. Um, because... Joe My Hired Thug says so. Not persuasive enough? Um.. okay, because... GOD says so!" In other words, the threats and rewards are placed after we die so they can't be falsified, but the conditions are placed in this life, so they can have coercive social effect. It's a sick con-game.
You know what happens at death? God is no longer hidden, according to your story. There's finally real proof. So what this concept is really saying is, "We have the One True Religion™, and all the others are false! Accept the OTR and reject the others, OR ELSE! If you don't accept our faith without proof--after all, we have none to offer you--then it will be too late when you finally get proof!" Again, you can justify that with word-games all day, but in the end it's the biggest trolly of horse hockey pucks in the history of mankind. And it's blatantly obvious to anyone who pays attention and looks with honesty. You see it plain as day when you look at Imams in Saudi Arabia, convincing their masses to be Muslim OR ELSE... but you won't look with true honesty at your own equivalence.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes, I agree we are born into a sin nature, however one doesn't have to be a slave to it, you can choose not to commit as I said, murder, I haven't and most people haven't. Many of the worst sins (as man sees them) most people never commit. But as you said we have a sin nature and we will all fall to it at some time and there is a punishment for it as long as it remains unforgiven and that does not have to be, Christ gave us a ticket on the train to freedom from our sin, all we have to do is accept who He is what He did for us. I love to eat and will over eat and have till I've gained to much weight, I've chosen to now eat less going against what I want to do so I can lose weight to become healthier. Sin's no different, we have the nature but we do not have to choose to act upon it, but we do and the reason is in the third chapter of Genesis if you care to search for it. By the way there's no red herring.
Awwwwww.... that's adorable! You think there was a real garden, with a magical tree that had a real fruit which, when eaten, one's "eyes were opened", after a talking serpent (coulditbe coulditbe coulditbe....Saaaaa-tan?) convinced a frail-minded woman to do it, and she convinced her vag-whipped or mentally vacuous (perhaps because he hadn't yet "opened his eyes" by eating Knowledge Fruit?) husband to do the same?
You're trying to have the best of both worlds, rhetorically, by claiming we are born with sin-stain already on us from Adam/Eve, requiring salvation... but then claiming, no, it's a constant act we must avoid doing at all times.
No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for why we must "just accept the gift" of blood-sacrifice on our behalf. The closest I've seen is C.S. Lewis' fictional concept of "The Deep Magic", in the death of Aslan.
You keep saying "all I have to do is accept", except that's a bald-faced lie, isn't it? There's a host of other "accessories" that accompany this "free gift" of salvation, mainly to do with obeying the rules written down by priests in the name of God, called sins by believers and bullshit by everyone else.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Sure that would be a monster, but God as you are insinuating doesn't do that, God has given us a free ticket so to speak to not make the payment, His Son and our Savior has done that if we only accept who He is and what He did. So no one has an excuse for needing to be good enough (make the payment), because Christ himself will do it for us if we choose Him. Your above analogy is the OT kind, there is now no work for salvation.
Yeah, you should stop using the word free. Seriously, man. You can say it thirty more times, and it will still be a lie.
FREE means that it has no strings or conditions attached. FREE means I can take or leave it. FREE means that it is given without precondition or repercussion.
EXTORTION is when you tell me I have a debt I otherwise don't know about, that a really powerful guy says I owe him, because he says so, and if I don't follow a set of preconditions necessary, that powerful guy is going to torture me for not accepting the preconditions for "payment of the debt I owe him". That's a dogdamned Mafia shakedown!
Even if I grant your premise that it was somehow magically necessary for an innocent god-man to be murdered in my place for something a distant ancestor of mine did, permanently corrupting the human species, it is only a free gift if it works regardless of whether I submit to the authority of the deity who otherwise will murder me. Christ's blood could have paid for all, period. Instead, we get a bizarre Mafia con-game.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: In my example and the way I've always seen God and know Him, He is, in truth both because of who He is. God didn't create the rules because God wasn't created, the law is set from who God is. As for some of the OT Jewish laws they were set for Israel as they were living at that time and other nations were living, in other words God works through humanity, some of those laws were set just for the nation of Israel because God was going to bring the Messiah to us through them.
Well that was very nice of the Israelites to realize that they were The Chosen People, through whom their Messiah would come to free Israel, and thereby free all mankind.
While it's refreshing to see you explain God's limitations regarding the laws of the universe (sin is more powerful than God? He just can't help what the rules of sin are? Wow.), it should be child's play for you to extrapolate from that why I find this being you worship more than a little bit ludicrous, and obviously a human creation that falls far short of any worthiness for praise/worship/submission.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: I choose worship God, the one you call a monster and you know I do, so yes you must be calling me irrational and dishonorable.
If you truly recognize that the things God commanded in the Old Testament (and I agree that Jesus accepted the OT as valid law, still), like genocide and slavery, and yet continue to think that it is not just humans using a God-concept to justify their own prejudices and greed by giving it divine cover, but actually are the properties of your deity, then yes, I suppose I am calling you irrational and dishonorable. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you simply had not truly considered the implications of a being that behaves the way the petty, petulant, vengeful, murderous psychopath in the OT does.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Because I have chosen to worship Him now I'm a sociopath and psychopath, this has no more reason than I stated before. I have studied the Bible sincerely and deeply often one passage at a time, I have asked Him to explain things that seemed wrong to me, that is until He revealed why and for what purpose.
You want to see Him in the light you portray Him because you want to live the self (hint for Genesis chapter three) instead of living for Him and like I've said it's your choice, IMO and because I know who God really is you're making a mistake, but it is your choice not mine, I've made mine for myself.
Let me say this man's decency and un-innate morality has changed over the last fifty years alone that it doen't resemble what man believed fifty years ago and this will continue until man becomes depraved as a society.
Not what it says. Read again. Humans have innate morality, except for psychopaths and sociopaths.
As for "fifty years ago", mankind's morality has improved remarkably, in that period of time. We've granted rights to racial minorities, women, prisoners, and other groups that were simply ignored or openly trampled, before. The fact that you see these advances as "depraved" is a big part of the reason I consider myself more moral than the system you promote, than the God you worship.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: You have no farther to look than this forum, Dawkins is setup on a pedestal here so high if someone was to fall off that pedestal it would kill them. seriously go look at what has been said here about him if you truly want the answer to your question, if not the ignore, that's the usual way most atheist act around here. I agree what they do with him is wwweeeiiirrrddd! I'm the one who understand how atheism works, it's those here who claim to be atheist that parrot Dawkins and other atheist and never bring their own ideas nor feelings to the table. I've said this so many times over the last five years I've given up on anyone actually realizing what their doing.
You don't look very well, or very clearly, then. I don't think I've ever seen Dawkins mentioned in anything like a worshipful or inerrantist context. Most of us think he has some great ideas, some terrible ideas, and a lot of ideas that are worth thinking about. But in the idea, the thinking process and decision to accept or reject the ideas of others, even "The Holy Prophet Dawkins, Peace Be Upon Him", are our own. (That prophet reference was sarcasm, in case it's not obvious in print-form.)
I mean, seriously, I've been an open atheist for 17 years, and an active science-studying (including reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene very early-on) agnostic for 22 years. Are you really trying to sit there and tell me that you know better than I do how people in this community view Dawkins?
To be honest, I found much of what The God Delusion argued to be poor counter-apologetics, and thought that Dawkins should stick to science, though much of what was in there was indeed thought-provoking. When/if I do encounter an atheist who is simply parroting the arguments, especially erroneous ones, of any known writer, I'll encourage them to consider their errors and formulate better arguments on their own, even if I never wind up agreeing with their conclusions. What I can't understand is why it's so important for Christians to imagine Dawkins as some kind of atheist messiah, when we see him in no such light-- though many of us do admire him, as we admired Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov and Robert Ingersoll, and so on.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: You have never personally responded to me in detail why you believe God to be a monster.
God commands the murder of nonbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:7-19, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Exodus 22:19), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), slutty daughters (Leviticus 21:9 and Deuteronomy 22:20-21), heretics (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Zechariah 13:3), blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10-16), apostates (Ezekiel 9:1-7), and everyone in the National Football League (Exodus 31:12-15). He specifically endorses inheritable, permanent-property racial-based slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) and extreme violence to support slavery (Exodus 21:20-21), as well as sexual slavery of rape victims once they become damaged goods (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). During their genocidal rampage against their fellow Semites in the region, God approves of or even commands the murder of males, and sexual slavery of females, in entire cities and nations across the region (Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Judges 5:28-31, Zechariah 14:1-2, et cetera) ...
I almost listed more genocide, but realized it would take up most of my morning to even start to list the places where The LORD commands the people of Israel (directly, mostly, but sometimes via the God-appointed priests/kings/judges) to slaughter their neighbors for various kinds of "wickedness", which mainly seems to constitute being on the piece of land the Israelites thought was theirs. There's no need to go on listing all the other reasons, like the misogyny, homophobia, anti-free-speech, and other positions are absolutely against every concept of basic human decency and morality that I consider sacred. You cannot just excuse them as "well that's just the culture of the time", because you are the one trying to assert the position that God makes commandments which are necessary for people and nations to follow, lest the be "sinful", meaning God can command them not to do things that are plainly obvious as immoral, today, like slavery.
An example of such a passage might be: "O people of Israel, as you were slaves whom I freed from the land of Egypt, thou shalt posess no slaves among thy people, nor compel involuntary service of any kind, nor tolerate the presence of slavery anywhere in the land which I have given for you, for its practice is an abomination in my sight. Thus saith the LORD." - Surgeononomy 10:15.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: It's quite obvious by observation alone White Supremacist ideologies are not desirable nor will they make someone happy, unless they have a real hate for others. So their claims hold no water for rational people.
God on the other hand promises to deliver us from any hatred we might harbor in our hearts for anyone person. Jesus said, if one has a problem with another, to go to them and clear up things before coming to the alter to honor Him. You can't honor Jesus with hate in your heart and He wants us to clear it up with His help so that He is honored even before we come to the alter. Why you say should I (you) honor Jesus, because He gave His all to give you freedom from the sin that condemns you to an eternal hell.
That's hilarious. You just wrote all White Supremacists off as irrational because you don't agree with their ideologies. And yet, I know from personal experience in dealing with them for almost a decade, they all have a long and detailed list of their reasons for believing as they do, no less consistent and no less complex than your own philosophies. Indeed, one of their favorite expressions is that they don't hate, they just think the races should be separate and that they are fighting for the purity of the white race. They consider themselves just as rational as you do. Of course, I think both groups are just as nuts as you think the other one is.
It's also funny because you talk about being "freed from hate" (as the Supremacists do), and yet all I hear from either group is a torrent of hatred. When I became an atheist, one of the most freeing elements was that I discovered I had no reason to hate and judge any person of a good-hearted nature... no more hating "sinners" or wondering who did and didn't qualify for various classifications, none of that. You people talk about love, but I accept people as they are, as long as they are not seeking to harm their fellow human beings (against the will of the others), and that is real love for your fellow man.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: My moral nature that's from God is nothing like the White Supremacists, their's is hate mine is love, they developed their's contrary to God, God planted his in me and then explained to me what they are and how to use them.
I find White Supremacists repugnant because of their less than moral morals. I find my moral morals that come from God's love to be very satisfying and bring great joy to me. I know what repugnant means, what I'm not sure of is how much it's blinded you to God's truth. God finds your sin very repugnant, but not to the degree of hatred you show towards Him. God's willing to forgive you of what He sees repugnant in you if you'll ony accept who Jesus is and what He did for us.
You clearly have never met actual White Supremacists in person. I happen to agree with your analysis of their position, but what you don't realize is I can't really tell an effective difference in their reasoning/beliefs and yours, except that they consider race-mixing to be a sin (they agree with most everything else that you call "sin", and many if not most of them are Christians, too).
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: You and all godless people call it enlightenment, those who know the truths of God call it darkness and blindness and many of the Founding Fathers did not agree with it. She was a slave, if you love someone you do not keep them in slavery.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny and far from the truth, I'm a natural leader. As for who obeys whom, it's simple, I understand to some degree what the spiritual battle means and want everyone to be on the winning side.
Don't you get it? You just confirmed exactly what I was saying!
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: You have a moral compass that's changing with time and situations, mine doesn't because they come from an unchanging God who is omniscient and proved to me absolutely right. I do not have to worry about what's right for tomorrow because it's the same as today, this my friend is justice.
I like how you think this is an insult to me. Improving our morality is a good thing, not something I should be ashamed of!
I find your "unchanging Justice" to be the least just concept humans have ever concocted. By every measurable standard, our morality has improved since the times of Moses and David and Jesus. And to the degree our society has improved, pretty much everyone but you would agree that we're better off now than we were when it was okay to own slaves, or when it was okay to suppress and segregate black people, when you could beat your wife for disobeying you, when rape victims could be "put on trial" for their sexual habits when they tried to bring their rapist to justice, and a list that could fill a book! (And has.) The idea that we hit upon a concept of righteousness in the year _____ and should never deviate from it is the stuff of theocracy... lunacy.
(October 9, 2015 at 2:22 am)Godschild Wrote: In the future what will people call the way you see things because you didn't know what they discovered, idiot, false scientist, stupid jerks, unrealistic idiots, what? If they have your mentality and dislike for those of the past I'm sure those will be the names used all because you didn't know, this is your justice? Then have it, it will fair no better with the future than the way you're treating the people of the past. You are trying to equate the physical with the spiritual and that ain't going to ever work, God is interested in your spiritual life and destination to bad you're not.
You want be tortured and you're not being extorted, you are ranting from a self interest that leaves out your great potential to be of use to others, but I do not expect you to understand what I just stated because you lack the spiritual knowledge needed to do so.
I'm not trying to upset you with the things I've said, wish I could believe that of you towards me but I'm finding that hard because you know how to use the atheist buttons in a more refined way, that changes nothing, it's still atheist tactics to unsettle Christians, you being skillful doesn't blind me to these things. I believe all in all we have some good conversation and my concern for your eternal life is meant as nothing short of good.
GC
Probably. I have little doubt that there are things we will discover in the future that will make some of our ideas today seem quaint. But I don't think we're entirely wrong, either. That's the whole point of trying to constantly figure out the truth, or to recognize where we have fallen short in our conception of justice, equality, and decency, and repair those ideas. People of the future will not fault those who tried to make the world better, and who nevertheless failed to get it all right... they will fault people like you, who stuck to their guns even in the face of the suffering a wrongheaded idea causes.
I don't "equate the physical and the spiritual". Quite the opposite. The physical is real. The spiritual is crap you make up, or rather swallow up, since others come up with most of those concepts for you to believe.
I don't lack the "spiritual knowledge" (I also used to use that term on nonbelievers... except we preferred the term "lacks the spiritual discernment"), I simply don't agree with you. I have learned quite a few things since the days when I thought as you do.
Annnnnnnnd we're back to the "self-interest" argument. What part of all my protestations on behalf of others who are not like me (my primary complaint against religion usually being that it suppresses groups who are not like them!), and trying to extend a concept of human value that doesn't require conformity, strikes you as "self-interest"? I know the psychological defense-mechanism that causes you to misstate why I do and think the things I do, since it protects you from having to wonder if I might actually be right. As long as you can call me angry, or self-interested, or just another religion, etc, then you don't have to face the consequences of potentially concluding that I may have in fact been totally reasonable and thus might have a valid position.
Since your religion teaches that your faith-tradition is the only possible reasonable position, it causes cognitive dissonance in your brain, and you must stretch for ways to protect yourself from it. It's okay. I forgive you.
I've read through your counter arguments and need some time to answer you and that want be possible this weekend, I'll get to it Monday, have a great weekend.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 10, 2015 at 12:24 pm
(October 9, 2015 at 12:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(October 8, 2015 at 9:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... I don't have any problem supporting my position (and I think anyone who has studied theology would agree with me). However I'm not interested in explaining, just to have someone dismiss what I say and jumping to another topic, or simply claiming it's all a fairy tale anyway, or just saying that is only my interpretation. I'm not going to put in the effort to inform someone who doesn't really care or is willing to check out what I say, and go back to making the same ignorant argument next week.
I always love how willing you religious types are to dip into the well poison with the constant refrain of "I'm aware my arguments probably aren't convincing, but that's your fault!" Because it can't just be that you're wrong, or that someone could disagree with you for legitimate reasons, can it? It has to be something intellectually untenable, that they just don't want to know the truth, because it's not possible that anyone could think you were wrong for real reasons, right?
I don't believe that I said what you are implying here at all, and don't really know where you got this. I just don't want to put effort into something that the other is not wanting to discuss or put any thought into.
Quote:There are verses in scripture, which say or allude to those who do not believe facing the consequences of the second death. And this is correct. However; it is incorrect to say that they are sent to hell, for simply not believing. (I would also point out here, that it is not just an intellectual acknowledgement of belief). Scripture states a number of times, that the judgement and the reason why hell is deserved, is because of sin. Jesus lowered himself and became man, and gave up His life; because of this very problem. He came to save us from the penalty of sin. Saying that people are going to hell; because they don't believe in Jesus is similar to saying that a person died, because they refused treatment for illness. This may be accurate, but if the person then goes on to blame the doctor, because they didn't give them a choice to their liking, or to imply that it was the refusal that killed them, is just silly.
(October 9, 2015 at 12:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This is a distinction without a difference; a person can live exactly the same life that I do, plus Jesus, and go to heaven, but if I live that life without Jesus, I'm going to hell. Therefore, the operative difference that's going to land me in hell is my non-belief, not my sins, because somebody with the same sins can get to heaven if only they'll believe the one proposition that I do not. It's pure sophistry to try and redirect toward the sins, when clearly the sins are not a problem should other criteria be fulfilled. It's roughly equivalent to having two people driving their cars, one of whom got into an accident and the other did not, and you're sitting here saying that the cause of the accident was driving a car, while completely ignoring that the guy who got in an accident was drunkenly driving backwards through traffic.
I think that the distinction is between the causal relationship and the preventive relationship. And I think it is incorrect to confuse the two. If two people have to abandon their airplane, and one refuses to put on a parachute, while this person chose an action, against which could have prevented death, it doesn't change the cause of death (the physics of a high velocity contact into a much larger mass) was not the immediate cause. Yes we might say that he died, because he foolishly did not take the parachute which could have prevented his demise. However it is more accurate to say, that his death was not prevented because of this.
(October 9, 2015 at 12:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Your doctor analogy, by the way, fails on two counts; the first is, as has already been pointed out to you, that the doctor infected me with sin in the first place by creating the sin concept, creating humans with a sin nature, and then holding us to a standard without our consent. The second is more fundamental: sin is not a disease. Sin is not some inevitable naturally occurring thing that sends people to hell without any input from god, no, god sends people to hell. He doesn't need to, it's within his power not to, he could just as easily send us to heaven, or just let us die and stay dead, but he sends us to hell out of a conscious choice of his own.
This is the second time your first premise has been brought up. I am skeptical that this is biblically based, and I think that it is more of a result of eisegesis than exegeses (reading into the text, rather than out of the text). I think that you need to support this conclusion.
As to your second premise... I have Eastern Orthodox friends who would describe sin and the inheritance of the sin nature in exactly this way (as a disease which needs a cure). They would claim that this goes back directly to the roots of Christianity. I don't disagree with them, but normally this comes up as they are trying to dismiss the penal nature of sin and the judgement also seen in scripture (although this is a theological discussion probably not appropriate here). And as related to the OP of this thread, I don't think that disagreement's such as this, in anyway show that a premise is false. No more than in science, and one of the many forms of evolutionary models show that evolution is false. It just shows that they all can't be correct, and that we need to show due diligence to find the truth.
Similarly in regards to your statement that hell is a conscience choice of God, this is also a discussion in philosophy of religion of debate. I don't think that the Bible say's this directly and many would argue that it is a part of God's just nature. I also feel that if the Scripture did teach annihalationism, that either you or others would be complaining about that, and saying that it is immoral.
RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 11, 2015 at 2:51 pm (This post was last modified: October 11, 2015 at 2:52 pm by Regina.)
Whenever people talk about "interpretation" where the Bible or the Quran is concerned, I give the side-eye.
I've said this before, but most of the time the Bible is very clear in what it is saying. It doesn't use poetic language for the most part, it is blunt clean language. There are only so many different (pretty much one) ways you can interpret "women must be silent in church" for example. It says exactly what the fuck it says, there's no "interpretation" about it.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane"- sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable."- Maryam Namazie
RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 11, 2015 at 3:31 pm (This post was last modified: October 11, 2015 at 3:31 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 11, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Evie Wrote: Sorry Roadrunner I don't read extremely messy posts that seriously fucking need clearing up.
The utter bullshit therein doesn't help, but the messy white shitty wall lacking hide tags and paragraphs also makes me want to cry.
To which post are you referring? I apologize, I am still learning some of the format of this BB and while I'm getting the hang of it, I do make mistakes. I went back a couple and they look fine on my iPad. Also did you not read it, or is it B.S. It seems difficult to claim both! Also if you can be more specific in your criticism, that would be helpful to discussion.
