How I got Out of Religion.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is it you see significant about Satan wandering the earth of God's belly?

EvF

[tackattack]

not of but on, anyways if God casts demons out to roam the eath and Jesus is God and casts demons to hell then it's an obvious conclusion that God translates roaming the earth forever as X and the human translator for God translates hell as X. Hell = roaming the earth, maybe?

[Samson]

Lol well no one's yet to define hell, and despite it's not my burden to prove I'l go ahead and define. Just beacuse I believe heaven exists does not neccesitate the existance of a hell. I believe if we are beholden to God we return to God's presence (heaven)when we die. I believe atheists are completely right that for them there is nothing when they die, that would be hell for me. Spending a lifetime, or several, apart from God's Love stuck in endless cycles of birth and death would be hell. Yes I feel predominantly that it's the absense of God that is hell. I mean Jesus cast out demon to hell, but God cast down satan to wander the earth on his belly... I see some signifigance there.

In black bold
Truly one of those questions that referenced in terms of, "How Literal Do You Take The Bible"...Because Hell is described in more than 5 - 6 passages throughout the NT. Matt 5:22, Matt 25:41, Matt 25:46, Mark 9:48, Luke 16:22-24, Rev 20:14.....Just to name a few....


In Red...
It is your burden when you declare something to be true for yourself and someone questions it...


Thank you for your answer back.....

---

[tackattack]

I was referenceing people in this thread defining hell, not the bible's I know hell is in the bible.

All of the matthew excerpts come paraphased from noted parables, so I definately take those as more emotive orstory visualization. They're only reference eternal fire, not the south park version of hell
Actually in luke 16 I love the line "30And he said, 'No,(AL) father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31He said to him, 'If they do not hear(AM) Moses and the Prophets,(AN) neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" this chapter is also started off as a parable, hell again described as unquenchable fire.
All of Revelations was a revelation to John, and while very poetic it's a prophecy not an account, very visual and emotive.

Actually no burden of proof existed because I was asked and responded no unless a clear definition was given, not that it matters. I don't ascribe to a burning lake if that's what was being asked. I think that was a very powerfull primitive visualization on minds without a strong grasp of reason and science. However I do believe that not everyone gets into heaven. You guys can have whatevers left

[Samson]

I was referenceing people in this thread defining hell, not the bible's I know hell is in the bible.

All of the matthew excerpts come paraphased from noted parables, so I definately take those as more emotive orstory visualization. They're only reference eternal fire, not the south park version of hell
Actually in luke 16 I love the line "30And he said, 'No,(AL) father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31He said to him, 'If they do not hear(AM) Moses and the Prophets,(AN) neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" this chapter is also started off as a parable, hell again described as unquenchable fire.
All of Revelations was a revelation to John, and while very poetic it's a prophecy not an account, very visual and emotive.

Actually no burden of proof existed because I was asked and responded no unless a clear definition was given, not that it matters. I don't ascribe to a burning lake if that's what was being asked. I think that was a very powerfull primitive visualization on minds without a strong grasp of reason and science. However I do believe that not everyone gets into heaven. You guys can have whatevers left

Reply back from the "Bold"
Just making sure, and "No" I did not get from your response, that you were referring to the forums, and not from another source. When speaking/writing about something from the "Bible", you truly have to be "Literal" with your questions and responses.....(Especially when you live in the Bible Belt of America..) ( Louisiana)...

Reply back from "Red"
Like I stated before..."Just to name a few"... (i.e.) Hell descriptions throughout the passages.. I know there are a few many more.....
However, when you mention "Parables", you are starting to sound like an apologetic making excuses for what the majority believes to be a real place of torture. Which of course, is mentioned in more than one place throughout the Bible...

And to be frankly honest with you, the Bible is one big "South Park Version in a whole" for people who actually know how to think for themselves....
I do see literature and poetry within the Bible, but I could say the same about a thousand other books from our past and present.

Just because I like/love the works of Spike Milligan, Walt Whitman, E.E. Cummings, & Robert Frost, does not mean that I "View" them to be as you do "Mark, Mathew, Luke and John.....

It's nice to know you don't read the Bible "Literally", but since I've never sat down with you face to face etc, I don't know how you view it as a whole. (i.e.) whether you "Believe" humanity gets it's morals from it, or a "God", or that we are 6000 years old, or that you actually believe "John's Revelation" (AKA) Extreme Acid trip...

Regardless of all the above questionings, you state you are a "Christian", which does classify/label you to some degree in comparison with the rest of the faith based beliefs out there. And in saying that, you would defiantly have to take many of the passages throughout the Bible Literally. And it's those VERY blunt verses that I disagree with in so many shapes, forms, and fashions...

If you tell me that, "You" know them to be your "Personal Faith based belief" and "Know" there is no way man can prove it right or wrong, that's one thing....

Anything else than that, and I would have to ask you how long has the Mental institute been allowing internet access to it's clients......

Thanks again for the replies......

[tackattack]

That wouldn't be the first time I was called an apologist. The fact is I'm not saying the bible is entirely an account of actual events in every word, nor am I saying it's completely void of truth. I personally don't derive my morals from the Bible, on a side note. Actually classifying myself as a Christian simply means I follow the nicene creed. True, it does derive some of it's assumption on the Bible, but it doesn't state we have to translate the Bible literally. In fact there is no mention of the Bible in it, probably specifically for that reason.

I personally feel the Bible is a collection of morales, stories and perception of people that were inspired by God and translated by man. At it's basist belief then I am an apologetic in that sense. However the connotation behind that states that I'm trying to apologize for years of people literally translating and non-believers lack of understanding it. I don't. The fact non-believers refuse the holy spirit which would allow them an accurate translation of the bible is not really my concern. I didn't come here to preach.

[Samson]

I don't have the time at this current moment, but I would like to respond back from your response...Thanks again for your replies......

P.S. Trust me when I say, it's not preaching that I've read come from your comments....Not yet that is....LOL..

[Samson]

That wouldn't be the first time I was called an apologist. The fact is I'm not saying the bible is entirely an account of actual events in every word, nor am I saying it's completely void of truth. I personally don't derive my morals from the Bible, on a side note. Actually classifying myself as a Christian simply means I follow the nicene creed. True, it does derive some of it's assumption on the Bible, but it doesn't state we have to translate the Bible literally. In fact there is no mention of the Bible in it, probably specifically for that reason.

I personally feel the Bible is a collection of morales, stories and perception of people that were inspired by God and translated by man. At it's basist belief then I am an apologetic in that sense. However the connotation behind that states that I'm trying to apologize for years of people literally translating and non-believers lack of understanding it. I don't. The fact non-believers refuse the holy spirit which would allow them an accurate translation of the bible is not really my concern. I didn't come here to preach.

IN BOLD:

The Nicene Creed was nothing more than another break-off of what was then and to come and what we have today. Still yet another doctrine society based council putting their assumptions/opinions out there for the world to see. Another "Jesus Jumble"..Some good, some bad... etc.



IN RED:

So do you believe the Qur'an was the same??



IN BLUE:


So if I believed in the Holy Spirit, God, etc. etc. etc. then I would have a "Correct" translation....Or a better one????...Please......

The fact that "Believers" have used that same cop-out still does not make it true or factual. Nor does it give any credence to assumptions made by it's followers...



Thank you for your reply Tack.....

[tackattack]

The nicene creed is still the current doctrine's of Christianity. You are assuming it's stated somewhere how we should translate the bible. It was put out there to help non-believers define what Christianity should be defined as. You asserted that I "would defiantly have to take many of the passages throughout the Bible Literally" which is obviously not true and is subjective, by the definition of Christianity.

People falsly compare the Bible and Qur'an all the time. Yes they're both books, but that missing the meaning of what they are. A better comparison to the Qur'an would be Jesus and the disciples to Mohamed. That would infer that the Qur'an would be more akin to a book written from a discible from the bible. I say this because the Qur'an and Jesus are both the eternal revelation of God. Mohammed and the disciples were the messengers of the ideology. Hadith, Tarikh, Sira and Tafsir compared to the Bible are the history and teachings of the messengers.

No if you believed in the holy spirit you wouldn't have a correct translation. You may think it a cop out because you're not trying to see my perspective. I have something you don't and that gives me a biased perspective. You have nothing that I don't have except perhaps a grudge, yet you can't escape your bias. You either believe in things outside of the tangible or you don't, that's all it boils down to.

[Edwardo Piet]

How can you feel or detect the presence of the intangible in anyway if it is not tangible?

Why do you think the holy spirit gives you a special or "biased" perspective?

Why believe in anything intangible without any evidence? Do you have some? How can you believe in the intangible without tangible evidence? Because you can't have intangible evidence for the existence of something intangible in the first place because that's circular. You'd need something intangible that is self-evident. But how is that even possible - how would you know it's intangible? Or how would you be at all sure at all? Why would you even think it? And if the intangible is really self-evident wouldn't it be evident to a whole lot more people or pretty much everyone?

How can a book be evidence of God? You say you have the Holy Spirit. But how do you know you do? How do you believe that? How do you conclude that you are not simply delusional? How does and can the Holy Spirit work? How can you tell what is the Holy Spirit and what is not?

EvF