On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Drich that post was....... interesting. Weird as fek. But interesting to read your mind's thoughts.

Heck. I've no idea where to start with that ball of crazy. None at all.

[Deesse23]

6,000 years is the limit, and that dates back to Adam and Eve. Anything beyond the 6,000 number is junk science based on assumptions and unreliable dating methods.

have you hear my theory on this yet?

in essence we need to re look at the time lines and book chapter and verse denotations. as these are not apart of the orginal scripture. for example chapter 1 should as a narritive start 1 one and end on day 7 in fact chapter 2:1-3 completes day seven which would mean chapter 2:4  should be chapter 2:1

We also note that God the Father Is the one incharge of creation of Chapter 1 (7 day creation) then on chapter two starts with yhwh or "the Word" (As in John 1:1 the word of God who was there and created the world) is resposible for all of chapter 2 which is a garden narritive whichis seperate and apart from the 7 day creation, we know this because what would be verse one says... this starts when the father was making the earth and sky (day 3 but before the rain day 4) so everything in chapter 2 happened before the end of day 4. including the creation of adam and eve which was again seperate than man created outside the garden by the father on day 6.

Still with me? this then means right after the garden was complete chapter 3 could not have happen as it was still day5 of the creation of the world. this also mean we do not have any time line between the end of chapter two and the beginning of chapter three. although we do know chapter three started 6000 years ago as this is when the geneologies all trace back to. meaning the fall happened 6000 ago... while creation could have been 10 billion years ago. and adam and eve could have been safly tucked away in the garden all that time..

We know they were immortal as per the tree of life they had free access to.
We know they did indeed die the day they ate the fruit ending their immortal existence with God and was cast out into the world. meaning that life died and they started a new one. (kinda how we work in reverse, we are created here die goto heaven/they where in heaven/presence of God died and came here.) 
this also explains all of the other paradoxes atheist bring up about the orgins.. who did the children of adam marry, where did the city of nod come from why is man created on day 6 and again on day 4 why was the garden world decribed as a cirle of earth and a dome sky?

Impressive how much you know from reading a single book that is so full of falsehoods. Yet when presented with mutually agreeing scientific theories, tested over and over, you simply dismiss them.

[possibletarian]

Credible proof of God's existence has changed the world. Not that these changes have all been good; quite the opposite, in fact.

What credible proof of god's existence, this is an assertion you often make but fail to provide credible proof ?

You're simply in the minority, because God has withheld common sense from you, at least concerning this matter.

Well how about some proof of the withholder, before we take this remotely seriously.

Truly, you're powerless to reason your way to His existence - we can't receive a single thing, whether that be a piece of valid knowledge, a physical blessing, or spiritual revelation except by His grace.

And yet, we only have your assertion for this, how do you know what you believe is true, I think it's a perfectly reasonable request. How can we tell the difference between you reasoning your way to faith position, and the truth of it? How do we test your reasoning is good?

Of course, you and others here don't accept the proof as proof, [b]because it would destroy your worldview.

Our world view is one of waiting for proof for your claims. We will accept proof in fact I would go as far to say that any 'godly inspired' proof would not be so fallible to counter argument, that a deity's wisdom would clearly be superior to our own and undeniable. instead what we hear is the claims and assertions of mythology, clumsily presented that sound exactly like the claims of men who have created a deity.

Also, atheists claim there is no God all the time, if not explicitly then implicitly. Equating God with unicorns and comic book characters, which possibletarian has done several times, is a very clear example of this. So perhaps the burden of proof IS actually on you. I think that's a totally fair assessment.

Well we are actually saying these characters do not exist, that they were inventions, can you show your god is anything more than an invention ? By your own admission it really is an incredible story, albiet just one of many claims of many religions which you reject, Why should the burden of proof be actually on the unbeliever when all they are doing is asking for proof, after all we are not trying to make you bear the burden of proof for disbelief of every other theistic religion on the planet, heck we are not even asking you to bear the burden of proof when you reject those christians whose theology you reject, who also claim to have the whole truth and revelation from the very same god you do. Fact is christianity is so messed up right now even christians don't know what to believe.
How are we to tell the difference between you being confused and them ?

So why do you think we should take your interpretation of anything as truth ?

What you call the wisdom of god is simply an assertion.

[Cod]

For making a joke about willy shaking, which side of me will he toast first? Is that a nasty nasty threat you just made, or are you a bit confused?

I suggest you become familiar with my beliefs before making assumptions, and those are all available in or through this thread.

And no, it wasn't a threat. I'll play no part in your fate. I'm simply acknowledging the inevitable result of your behavior, which the prophets and Jesus Christ repeatedly made clear. From the Lord's own mouth:

At that time, some of those present told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. To this He replied, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:1-5)

So you don't believe in the eternal Barbeque then? That's one of the problems with you lot, you can't agree on anything. Not even on my punishment for telling Jesus willy jokes.

[fredd bear]

"So you don't believe in the eternal Barbeque then? That's one of the problems with you lot, you can't agree on anything. Not even on my punishment for telling Jesus willy jokes."

Really? I have always thought Jesus would have had a fairly earthy sense of humour, given his background and the people with whom he associated.
I like to think he would have a told some pretty funny fart jokes.

Besides, the notion an eternal hell is a Christian invention. It does not exist in Judaism, on which Christianity is based. It seems to have slowly evolved, starting with some vague Roman notion of the afterlife.

The atheist who simply says " I do not believe" is stating a position, not making a claim. This means the atheist has no burden of proof. The person who says" I believe in god(s) or "there is a god" is making a claim.This attracts the burden of proof. I am not optimistic about such proof being provided. This may be because no one in recorded history has ever provided such proof as far as I know. Be delighted to be proved wrong

[Mister Agenda]

To be fair, 'I believe in god(s)' is a claim about one's personal state, it's reasonable to take their word that they believe unless their other words or actions indicate that they don't really believe. Even though we have posters who claims that atheists secretly really do believe, I'm not inclined to be so skeptical about people's truthfulness in their self-reporting in such matters.

[fredd bear]

To be fair, 'I believe in god(s)' is a claim about one's personal state, it's reasonable to take their word that they believe unless their other words or actions indicate that they don't really believe. Even though we have posters who claims that atheists secretly really do believe, I'm not inclined to be so skeptical about people's truthfulness in their self-reporting in such matters.

Burden of proof is about a claim made by a person. It is his responsibility to prove the truth of the claim EG The existence  of god. It has nothing to do with his sincerity/honesty.

My comment about the burden of proof is about a basic concept used in rational argument.  I consider it important to avoid a  trick often used in discussion.IE  "Well, YOU  prove I'm wrong! "   It is up to the person making a claim to provide proof. This has nothing to do with truth or honesty. 


Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[2]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)

[MilesAbbott81]

6,000 years is the limit, and that dates back to Adam and Eve. Anything beyond the 6,000 number is junk science based on assumptions and unreliable dating methods.

What do you think of C14 dating and Dendrochonology?

Absolutely everything that purports to date the earth older than 6,000 years is totally wrong.

And here is the problem that you atheists in particular have. It doesn't matter how many creationist scientists with doctorates make their case against every single one of your claims, because you will discount them all on the basis of your biases. You assume that just because one is a creationist that he or she isn't a true scientist because you don't want to believe what they have to say. You disregard them on the basis of principle and not the basis of knowledge, because I doubt even 10% of you have a truly solid understanding of the science of astrophysics, geology, or biology. Most of you are almost certainly self-taught on these subjects, and just enough to sound like you know what you're talking about on internet forums and nothing more. 

You say idiotic things like "look at the consensus of all of these smart people." It's really a consensus of people with the same agenda, who are not only fully invested intellectually in their theories and thus ensnared by their pride (which won't allow them to admit they're wrong), but often they are also financially invested in their theories because they receive funding for research based upon them.

Men are corrupt to the core. Have a look at Climategate as just one example of scientists who were proven liars trying to protect their agenda. What makes you think others might not be doing the same thing?

But more than all of this, the real problem is hubris. The truth is that we know very little about geology (we're still theorizing about the earth's core), astronomy (we can hardly see objects in our own solar system), and biology (we can't cure viruses or cancer, at least through man-made solutions). We hardly understand dieting, which has constantly changing theories, yet we think to date the universe to the point where we can confidently declare that it's 13.8 BILLION years old, a number that has changed several times over the last century?

We've not even scratched the surface of the Lord's creation, yet we think to get away with not merely discarding Him, but patting ourselves on the back for doing so while in the last century alone we were so stupid that we allowed political ideas to be implemented that killed nearly two hundred million people (ideas that are still being pushed to this very day).

You people think that the human race is intelligent. We're not; we're a bunch of damned fools absent God's grace, the lot of us.

---

Taking all the 'dating' science to one side for a moment,  the fact that we have clearly had ELE impacts the aftermath of we can still see today in the layers of deposits, and the extinction of dinosaurs should give reason to re think to the 6,000 year old claim.

Only blind faith can lead people to be so stupid.

Yes, there was one extinction level event, called the Flood. That's what killed the dinosaurs, if they all even perished then. Species go extinct all the time, and they may have been hunted to death after the Flood. 

Why do you think they're literally finding dinosaur flesh still attached to bones? After millions and millions of years? Ha!

By the way, I had another look at your link about the originality of the "cult of YHWH." None of it did anything to bolster your argument. The fact remains that much older Torah manuscripts could have easily existed and been lost. Archeology doesn't uncover every single piece of historical evidence...it offers glimpses and provides ground for theories and nothing more.

[possibletarian]

I don't think anyone can prove a god does not exist, especially if we are talking about a god that takes no interest in the universe or us, sometimes you just cannot prove the negative. For instance if I claimed there are penguins running around my living room it would be easy to prove there were not., so you can prove the negative.

However if i then make a mythical creature running round my living room up that has attributes like invisible, non material (spiritual) who only communicates with those who first believe he exists and blinds everyone else to his presence and claimed that was part of the creatures nature then clearly you would struggle.

This is the problem with god, he's timeless, non material, etc. who if you don't believe exists blinds you to his presence anyway and that is part of his nature, then you cannot prove he does not exist, this however gets us no closer to whether he actually does exist or not.
All the attributes I've heard of for god are so phrased as to make him indistinguishable from a man created god just like Allah, Visha, or many other gods, in fact ALL the attributes of god are written by men (who claim divine inspiration) but fail to show that's so.

I must assume an all powerful being, who's desire was that everyone turn to him would know how to make his existence known in such a way that it would be obvious, and that all other claims of god are fake. And that his 'holy' book didn't have to be explained in such an excruciating painful twisted fashion, and perhaps all those who believed sang from the same sheet (as it were). As it is the claims of god and no god are indistinguishable.

[MilesAbbott81]

have you hear my theory on this yet?

Your theory is a stretch at best, if I'm to put myself in the shoes of someone unsure of the truth.

There is no need to try to apologize for the traditional creationist viewpoint. Attempting to do so will only make you look stupid and empower those who think they're right. Genesis says 7 days and it means 7 days.

Those opposing the creationist viewpoint have impossible hurdles to clear, not the least of which is the origin of matter, which they are no closer to explaining now than they were thousands of years ago. Add to that the laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of angular momentum, the mathematically insane theory of evolution, and so many other things, they don't have a leg to stand on. Stop playing their game.

---

I don't think anyone can prove a god does not exist, especially if we are talking about a god that takes no interest in the universe or us, sometimes you just cannot prove the negative. For instance if I claimed there are penguins running around my living room it would be easy to prove there were not., so you can prove the negative.

However if i then make a mythical creature running round my living room up that has attributes like invisible, non material (spiritual) who only communicates with those who first believe he exists and blinds everyone else to his presence and claimed that was part of the creatures nature then clearly you would struggle.

This is the problem with god, he's timeless, non material, etc. who if you don't believe exists blinds you to his presence anyway and that is part of his nature, then you cannot prove he does not exist, this however gets us no closer to whether he actually does exist or not.
All the attributes I've heard of for god are so phrased as to make him indistinguishable from a man created god just like Allah, Visha, or many other gods, in fact ALL the attributes of god are written by men (who claim divine inspiration) but claim to show that's so.

I must assume an all powerful being, who's desire was that everyone turn to him would know how to make his existence known in such a way that it would be obvious, and that all other claims of god are fake.  And that his 'holy' book didn't have to be explained in such an excruciating painful twisted fashion, and perhaps all those who believed sang from the same sheet (as it were). As it is the claims of god and no god are indistinguishable.

He doesn't blind for no reason. Sin is the problem, and that's why He calls us to repentance. That is the core message of the entire Bible: repentance from sin. But the only way you can possibly repent is if you are first broken. Until you're broken, you don't stand a chance. You can call it unfair, but none of us deserve mercy. Victims are sinners.