RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 8, 2015 at 9:59 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.
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.
When the doctor infected me with the disease, before I was born, and made the cure but asks me to "voluntarily" pay for it... then yes I am justified in blaming the doctor for my death.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
