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:
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.
(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.
