On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[MilesAbbott81]

That's the question though, how do you know that ?  So far as I can tell you are simply making declarations of what you believe to be true, you could just as easily be from any religion, creed, or school of thought.

This is a cop-out. It's the rough equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I?"

"How do you know that?" you constantly ask.

Do you believe in the existence of dark matter? If so, why? Because scientists say it exists? Aren't you just making a declaration, repeating something you don't really understand and have never observed, saying it's true because men have said it's so (when men are proven liars, no less)? Aren't you putting your faith in men concerning this thing, then?

How about Pluto? Have you ever bothered to observe it in a telescope yourself? The same concept applies. You're trusting declarations other people say are so. I am obviously not saying that neither of these things exist. That's not at all my point.

I say I can see the inherent design in the beauty of nature, how the indescribably complex patterns and processes that exist are surely evidence that it was all designed by a Being Whose intelligence so far exceeds our own that it's literally incomprehensible. These things are observable. It's evidence. It just isn't good enough for you for some reason. Could be a multitude of reasons why, I'm not claiming to know. But I do know that the idea of God threatens our flesh. We like to be in control, we don't like the idea that this reality is under His total and perfect control, and we love our sins, so we resist Him tooth and nail, despite reality screaming in our face.

Maybe you've not been blinded. Maybe you're just stubborn, like most agnostics and atheists. Whatever the case, you're in a very bad place when you can't see or refuse to acknowledge reality. And that goes for anyone in your shoes.

Again this is nothing more than a statement of men, how do you determine if it's any more than that?  I'm not trying to be condescending, just asking how you have come to the determination that your statement is true, what your source for that is, and why you believe it.

Well, you may not have been trying to be condescending, but it appears you're unable to control yourself. Calling God man-made is a statement of your belief that anyone who believes in God is being stupid because "there's no proof."

We have yet to determine a creator, how is it anything more than simply a statement of men if we have no means at all to test it.

Again, instead of addressing what I actually wrote, you say "I know you are but what am I?"

I have no idea if there were any laws preceding our universe, that's the point, neither do you.

That's not the point. The point is that you're throwing out assumptions that are essentially faith statements. True, you're not speaking definitively, but I could also point to the existence of flying pigs as a possibility too. It's just stupid. The concept of God is not stupid.

I'm just suggesting it as one of along list of possibilities, really i have no evidence whatsoever, I'm happy to say i don't know.

Similar to my last response: yeah, you are happy to say you don't know. Maybe because it makes you appear to have humility, or maybe it's because it makes you happy that your "ignorance" absolves you of not giving your Creator the respect and attention He deserves. When it's all about you, the flesh is quite happy indeed. You are not absolved.

We have yet to show that anything came from nothing, you have no idea if there was an anything or not before the universe any more than I do.  It's certainly counter intuitive to think something can come from nothing but we have yet to establish there was ever a nothing, if nothing is even a plausible concept. The pre universe may have been very different and not like our universe at all, who knows ?

Of course I know that the universe came from nothing. It says so in Genesis, and I know the words of that book are true because God has proven His existence to me more times than I can count.

That doesn't mean my faith is unnecessary. The reason we need faith isn't because it's difficult to believe in God or that He is Jesus Christ. The problem is that it's difficult to believe that He's on our side. Being an agnostic or an atheist isn't a problem of faith. You're basically in special-ed. God has made you an idiot, at least concerning His existence. Why do you think you're in the minority? Most people believe in God because it's common sense. The fact that you don't isn't because you're part of some intellectual elite so far ahead of the curve that you've figured out some kind of esoteric knowledge.

It still baffles me why religionist of all types insist that there was nothing, when they could not possibly have knowledge of that

I know you are, but what am I?

Actually no, i long since gave up that battle cry, all these years and I've never seen a religionist produce anything convincing.

Actually, all you've been doing is putting the burden of proof on me. Wow!

Can you name a few which you can show evidence are from a god, any type of god will do to make it easy for you.

Burden of proof on me right here. I know you are but what...you get the idea.

Well show me what convinced you, and why it convinced you then maybe we can understand.

Already accomplished, several times.

Yes we get that you discard science because it does not agree with you, the thing is though it's very reliable i use it every day in fact writing to you I'm using scientific principles which work great. The Higgs-Boson was something that was predicted, it no longer exists in our universe but science suspected that it must have existed in the first few seconds of the big bang, they ran a test and were proved correct.

If you claim that these scientist have a very tenuous grasp on the subject matter, can you show me some 'true godly science' that is provable ?
Preferably from good accredited institutions.

I never said that I discard science. I simply look at the problems inherent in the theories it provides, even the results. Who can say radiometric dating is worth anything at all, when it is consistently ridiculously wrong? Who can cite the Big Bang as plausible when entropy is taken into account, or of course our favorite "something from nothing" conundrum? Evolution is so absurd it's almost as dumb as something from nothing, so astronomically unlikely that it would be unbelievable that people believe such things absent the hand of God at work.

And I wasn't saying that the scientists have a tenuous grasp on the subject matter. I'm saying you have a tenuous grasp on it, and others here like you, who parrot what they hear and think sounds really smart. I'm not even saying that the scientists aren't experts; they may be unparalleled geniuses concerning their fields, but their genius is like an ant's to a human's when compared to God.

My problem isn't with their expertise, it's that they think they've figured enough things out to make declarations like Krauss does when he says something from nothing is actually plausible when he really has absolutely zero grounds for making such a statement. To declare that the existence of God is unlikely while simultaneous making such a preposterous statement is proof right there that men of his ilk aren't people to be trusted on important matters such as these.

They lie about gods too, including yours, which brings me back to the bible, also written by men, why do you quote it as truth ?

Yes, they lie, but the Spirit of God doesn't, and when the Spirit is with you, you know that the words in the Bible are true. There are plenty of other reasons, but that's the only one that matters.

I would like to know the truth yes of course, I don't find anything but mythology in religions though, and yes till you can show me there is a god why put your trust in myth ?

 

No, you'd like to know the truth on your terms. Your standards of proof are unreasonable.

Oh the products of science are responsible for many deaths of that there is no doubt at all, but science itself is not evil or good, it is simply a trusty methodology to come to a conclusion, that's a bit like saying maths is and responsible for death because someone was able to calculate a trajectory for an artillery piece, and just like religionist the good or bad is done by people.  The difference with religion is you get people claiming the authority of a deity as a reason to go kill people. science does not do that.

Science has become a god in its own right, and probably billions have died on its altar. People claim science as an authority all the time. You do it below, claiming that the genetic modification of food has been done successfully. That's not true. We have no idea what the effects of genetic modification of food are, although they seem to at the very least point quite directly to causing cancer. Then the pesticides, again a product of science, are used to grow that genetically modified food, polluting the soil, the water, and the food product itself, which also causes cancer and plenty of other nasty health issues according to heaps of research. It's a monstrosity, and you call it successful? See, science does kill people. It's killing you right now, because you've put your trust in its soundness, literally eating its products to sustain your life. It's not sustaining your life, it's ending it.  

What would you consider a good understanding, and why ?

I would consider understanding how to cure diseases a good understanding, because what good is biological knowledge otherwise, beyond the ability to perform surgery and the like? Can we cure AIDS? No, we can't cure viruses yet, despite vast resources thrown into it. Cancer remains a mystery to doctors, who insist that chemotherapy and radiation are decent treatments.

Want to know how to cure cancer? Well you could probably start by looking at certain practices in Germany that have 90+% efficacy rates. But that's really unnecessary. Water fasting cures cancer, dandelion root powder cures it, heat treatments cure it. Changes in diet are also very effective, particularly in preventing remission. Radiation and chemotherapy are just ways that corrupt men earn money, that's all, and yet people put their trust in them and appeal to their supposed authority in arguments. It's all foolishness.

You're welcome to do this research on your own; it's not my job to do it for you.

which does happen, people even have regression. but like you say you have to catch it early enough. science has helped greatly in this, unfortunately your god (or any other deity) has failed to give us a good way of doing this, so any benefit is down to the science that finds it not wishful thinking. I think you are making my point here not yours.

See above...it was the Lord who pointed me to this kind of research. Just because He hasn't given it to everyone doesn't mean He has withheld it from everyone.

So you are saying they do more harm overall than good, do you have any evidence for that ?

Other than the fact that radiation and chemotherapy are barbaric treatments? Yes, there is plenty of evidence out there pointing to both of these treatments as causing cancer (or simply being ineffective), which makes them infinitely worse than treatments that don't cause cancer.

Certainly they think it's possible it isn't a constant, that's the beauty of science as new evidence emerges treatments, cures get much better people live longer and are healthier, no thanks to holy texts though.

here' a good article https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-...stant.html

I'm not talking about the possibility of it not being constant. I'm talking about the speed literally changing in the official sense multiple times during the 20th century. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where I heard that, but I recall it being a reliable source. It's something that has been covered up somewhat. Even so, some scientists will insist that it IS a constant, while others disagree. Hardly reliable.
 

Well astronomy isn't a mystery, the universe may well be, but again science ah given us more information about the universe than anything in scripture

The book of Job says the Lord hung the Earth on nothing, and that book might be 4000 years old, long before astronomy had ever figured that out. The Bible says all we need to know about astronomy, really.

And I'd say if astronomers can't agree on the speed of light, then they shouldn't have any sort of consensus as to the age of the universe. Their assumptions are just that. Assumptions.

They are reliable  in everyday life  and trustworthy yes.

I think I've written enough in this post to at least give you pause about that.

I never tell beings I have no reason to believe exist to go to hell, i assume though that if such a being existed he would know what would convince me.

You may not say the words, but you say it alright.

Which you believe why ?

Because it makes sense.  

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:21)

Well do you have another that's more evident ?

More evident? Yes and no. But I know that evil exists to punish and chasten us when we behave wickedly. That's why bad things happen. As the Scriptures say:

"Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight." (Proverbs 26:2)

Isn't that just a variation on I'm right you are wrong, but without any reason to declare it so ?

No, it's not that at all. I'm saying you can't see that you're wrong because God hasn't given you to see it. Just because you can't see that you're wrong doesn't mean others can't. And just because others might agree with you doesn't mean you're right, it simply means that God hasn't given them to see it, either.

Actually, now that I think about it, it does sort of come down to I'm right and you're wrong, because that's about all I can say to someone in your position. You won't see reason because reason has been hidden from you. But perhaps others reading this will be given to see your foolishness.

Again all religionists say the same, along with conspiracy theorists and cults, how are we to tell the difference ?

While I can understand why you say this, it doesn't mean that it's a valid excuse. Yes, plenty of people come along screaming that they have the Truth, and that you have to take it on faith. But they'll almost certainly behave and speak foolishly when push comes to shove, and easily identifiable as fraudulent (unless God has given you over to the fraud).

But you can't make a fool of me, because you can't make a fool out of God. You will only make yourself the fool, as you have done.

Great, now we are getting somewhere I'm so glad you agree, so you will be happy to answer the question I've been asking the last few posts .. how do you determine that what you believe to be true, is actually true ?  If you say 'partly faith' then lets be clear that faith can get you to literally any idea, crackpot or otherwise, hell it may even be true, but you would need something significantly better than faith at determining that truth.

The Truth will become manifest in the great and terrible Day of the Lord. When and how that happens is up to God. Either you will live in that day, or you will die. Maybe you'll never be given the chance to hear the Truth, at least in the way you need to hear it in order to be saved. He doesn't give everyone that privilege, at least not in this life.

I'm not even sure what that means, I don't want to be deluded just out of a phycological need to have something exists.. do you ?  

Obviously, from my perspective I'm not speaking of delusion, but Truth. Until you recognize that you need God and want Him, then you must continue to suffer and destroy yourself until you do. That's just how it works.

Of course, but i wouldn't run from the truth of something i would still like to know if it was true or not, even if i later lied to save my own skin.

Well, we'll see about that, but it appears to me that you're already running away, otherwise you'd be more open to what I have to say. Seems to me you're interested only in proving yourself justified in your agnosticism.

Your equating God with superman is the kind of condescension that typifies the arrogant people on forums such as these. No wonder you've been blinded.

Yes, you were equating God with superman in the same way atheists commonly equate Him with the tooth fairy and unicorns. Again, if you're not being deliberately condescending you're unable to control your condescension. It's infected your spirit.

Yup done all that, what makes you think people don't ?

You're lying. If not deliberately to me, then you're lying to yourself. There are wrongs you've committed for which you've not properly atoned. There are things you could do about your past that you are ignoring or have become blissfully unaware of. Perhaps you think you've been sincere but have not been in reality. As the Scriptures say, you actually can't know your heart until God reveals it to you:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

And yet i see it every day without god.

No, you think you see it every day without God.

You have to remember that the concept of sin as it is commonly understood is almost an exclusively religious concept.

Not really. All sense of morality comes from God; He gave us all consciences. The Law merely expresses it in written form, along with a few specific things our consciences don't tell us, such as keeping the Sabbath. Many argue that we would have no moral conception at all without the Law, upon which practically all Western culture is founded (Judeo-Christian principles). Looking at certain places in history makes me wonder if that's true, actually. Consider the barbarity of the Aztecs. Monstrous, monstrous behavior.

Oh some do, thrive on it, reading an article about a bishop just today.  Truth is people do care, they care a lot. Maybe you just live in a rough neighbourhood.

Don't think that mentioning bishops has any bearing on me. The Catholic Church, and in fact all of nominal Christendom, is antiChrist.

I care very much about the wrongs i do people,  have you any evidence otherwise ?

Perhaps I'm wrong. Will you care enough when the Lord puts you to the test? Time will tell.

Again yes i do wrong, but so do you.

Doing wrong isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about practicing sin, refusing to repent. I do not practice sin, by the grace of God. I may do wrong, but not willfully, and when I do wrong the Lord makes me aware of it so that I may repent, which means not committing that wrong again. There is an enormous difference between that kind of life and the life of one who is unrepentant, not that I am boasting. I wouldn't stand a chance in my own power.  

Well you wouldn't need to repeat yourself if you had a convincing argument now would you ?  
I do understand you are a believer and that as part of that you have 'faith' or belief that certain things are simply true no matter whether you can show proof or not.

If I've written something incoherent, then please ask me to clarify the questions or bits you don't understand, i would hate you to give it just because of lack of understanding either on my part, or yours.

Lets start then perhaps with something really simple, why do you believe the bible to be a good measure of god's revelation to you  (if indeed you do) ? then we will go on from there.

Perhaps incoherent is the wrong word. Poorly worded so that what you're asking is somewhat difficult to discern, at least precisely. I don't believe I've missed anything of import, you'll let me know if I have I'm sure.

It's not that I believe the Bible to be a good measure of God's revelation to me, it's that I believe it to be the Word of God. I believe this because the Scriptures can't be broken. You can try, but you won't succeed if one is interpreting them by the Spirit of God and not in their own power (the carnal mind).

You can make the Scriptures say anything, that's true. But if you interpret Them according to your own power, you will open yourself up to contradiction. If by the Spirit of God, then They are impossible to break.

---

MilesAbbott, again, your faith is not a reliable means to knowledge. You can have your faith, but you can't use that to argue that you know anything and you can't, if you really did care to have an honest discussion with atheists, presuppose the truth of statements that we naturally do not agree with. If you want to talk about God existing, God hating sin, us being sinners, and so on, you have to reason your way to these statements when discoursing with atheists; you can't just simply assert them as true.

I've never said my faith is a reliable means to knowledge. Faith has very little to do with knowledge.

What I'm saying is that all the evidence you need is before your eyes. There is no way to look at our clearly designed world and say it is the result of anything but God. I'm not saying that it's merely wrong to not see, I'm saying it's impossible to not see. If you really can't see it, then God has done the impossible and hidden it from you, and that's because of sin:

"For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness." (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Your being an atheist has nothing to do with you having an opinion or belief of your own. Your atheism is the judgment of God upon you for your wickedness. That's the essence of my argument, really. You'll either read those arguments, which I've written down in greater detail elsewhere, and heed my words, or you'll continue to march headlong into destruction.