What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell

[Edwardo Piet]

You said you weren't talking about religious sinning. But you have now said that you DO believe in the sins of the bible. Well thats what I mean by religious sinning. And I will say that I think a lot of the sins of the bible aren't immoral or wrong at all. They are bullshit.
Whats immoral or wrong about being an atheist for example? Or rather NOT being a theist? Not believing in the supernatural?
God actually thinks that not believing in him is bad? Why should he care? Has he got that low self esteem? That despite the fact he created the universe he needs people to believe in him or he goes nuts? Some God.
Although of course I don't believe he exists whatsoever. So I don't hate him. I can't hate him because I don't believe he exists. I only would hate him IF I actually DID believe he exists.

Now you've mentioned Adam!
Ruddy hell! So you're either not here to teach "about" the bible you actually are willing to talk about your beliefs. Or you've accidentally made a bit of a cock-up (this means mistake in Britain in case you don't know).

I have no idea what you are talking about. It makes no sense to me at all, even though I am somewhat familiar with British vernacular. Though, now you have mentioned it I don't understand what it means to say "Bob's your uncle." Actually I do happen to have an uncle whos name, is, in fact, Bob, but I don't see how it would apply.

Ok translated: Now you've mentioned Adam!
Jesus! So you're either not here to teach "about" the bible you actually are willing to talk about your beliefs. Or you've accidentally made a bit of a mistake.
I put "Jesus!" in case you don't know what "bloody hell!" would mean. Or even "blimey!".

[Daystar]

You said you weren't talking about religious sinning. But you have now said that you DO believe in the sins of the bible. Well thats what I mean by religious sinning. And I will say that I think a lot of the sins of the bible aren't immoral or wrong at all. They are bullshit.

Try and understand why I am frustrated by my position here in discussing this with you. Imagine I said to you: "Evolution is bullshit, we are not monkeys who's tails came off and we fell out of trees and picked up a digital watch and a New York Post! Thats just bullshit!"

Whats immoral or wrong about being an atheist for example? Or rather NOT being a theist? Not believing in the supernatural?
God actually thinks that not believing in him is bad? Why should he care? Has he got that low self esteem? That despite the fact he created the universe he needs people to believe in him or he goes nuts? Some God.

You usually start off with a point of some kind and then quickly break into an almost meaningless rant, do you know that? I could be wrong, but I thought that I had explained to you that the reason why God wants us to pay attention to him is that he created us and we need his guidence and protection. Adam's sin and all that? Did I mention it?

Deja vu. What does Adam have to do with anything, pram? (See, I know my BBC )

I am here to teach about the Bible, I just don't understand why 99% of what we end up talking about is science. What is the point in that?

EDIT by EvidenceVsFaith: I accidentally edited instead of quoted. Then I had to do my best to repair your post. Sincerest apologies. By all means re-edit to correct anything else that needs correcting. It would make my response better too. In the mean time I better go to bed its late!

[lukec]

I just don't understand why 99% of what we end up talking about is science

Personally, I think it's because atheists do not think that biblical evidence is actual evidence. So, when you mention something from the bible, it's inevitable that an atheist will respond with "What scientific evidence is there for that?"

[Daystar]

I just don't understand why 99% of what we end up talking about is science

Personally, I think it's because atheists do not think that biblical evidence is actual evidence. So, when you mention something from the bible, it's inevitable that an atheist will respond with "What scientific evidence is there for that?"

I hope this don't get me a sermon on Scientific theory and peer review etc. but from my perspective it comes down to someone informing me that using the Bible as a basis for my beliefs is circular reasoning but belief in evolution is true because science says it is true.

That has always been my observation when it comes to science only as far as evolution is concerned.

I have read the posts that you, CoxRox, EvF, and Adrian have posted today and tomorrow I am going to try and work out some way of having a more ballanced and open minded approach to see where you are coming from and get my own point across.

I have to admit, I don't have much of an interest in science but that isn't because I feel threatened by it as far as my beliefs go. I feel more threatened by religion than science.

Well I will save the discussion for a new thread and I would like to get input from everyone brave enough to consider.

[lukec]

Yeah... if you cannot (will not) accept the difference between believing the bible and believing something because there is evidence that you can look at and perform experiments to test, then there is no way to have a reasonable discussion that gets anywhere.

[CoxRox]

Ok Daystar, I'm looking forward to your reply. Can I just say regarding science: I believe in things like gravity, sub atomic particles, etc, etc, and it is science that helps us to discover these 'truths', or as we would say: 'workings of God'. It is worrying if something in the Bible seems to be at odds with 'science' as up to now science has got a pretty good track record. So I don't think we can leave science out of it completely. It won't answer all our questions and doubts, but for something like the age of the earth, the young earth creationists really are banging their heads against a brick wall. By the way, do you believe the earth is billions of years old?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah... if you cannot (will not) accept the difference between believing the bible and believing something because there is evidence that you can look at and perform experiments to test, then there is no way to have a reasonable discussion that gets anywhere.

Good point.

[Daystar]

Yeah... if you cannot (will not) accept the difference between believing the bible and believing something because there is evidence that you can look at and perform experiments to test, then there is no way to have a reasonable discussion that gets anywhere.

Have ther not been many great scientists who believe in the Bible? Isaac Newton for example? Are there not Xian scientist now who believe in the Bible and know a great deal more about science than you do?

---

By the way, do you believe the earth is billions of years old?

I don't actually have a problem with the majority of science. Actually I only have a problem with evolution (which disagrees with the Bible) being touted as fact when it isn't. I have no reason to believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, except for that science says that it is that old. I have no problem with that. It doesn't conflict with my understanding of the Genesis account so there is no reason for me to doubt that the earth is 4.5 million years old. I don't know how they have come to this conclusion but I suspect it might have something to do with light traveling from space and an estimation of rocks on earth.

It is important for me to point out that it doesn't really matter to me how old the earth is.

[Edwardo Piet]

Great scientists of the past are more likely to be religious back then. And with both great scientists of the past that are religious and ones that are today. The point is that they don't consider "God" to be a scientific question. They believe in NOMA (Non-overlapping magisteria). But thats bullshit because everything else in the universe can be tested. the reason why its very hard if not impossible to test the supernatural in practice is because there's nothing to test. Its intangible. You might as well try and test if unicorns or goblins exist. Or the FSM. There is no evidence OF any of these things TO test in the first place. So the point is that since there are so many conceivable gods and they are all absurd....one has to understand the burden of proof is on the believer by default. Understand infinite regress (who created god? And then that God? and then that god? on and on forever). And one has to understand that any God capable of designing such a complex and improbable universe would obviously have to be far far far more complex and improbable himself.
And like I said considering there are so many Gods how could you possibly pick one when they're all just as improbable?
And then like I said. There is no evidence of God and the burden of proof is on the believer by default. There is no evidence of anything there TO disprove. He has to be proved. And no one can give any evidence. And everything in the universe that we know of and have understood is able to be explained naturally. There is no evidence of anything supernatural. And there are tons of evidence of the NATURAL of course. As far as we know everything is natural and works under natural laws. There is no evidence of the supernatural. The burden of proof is on the believer.
And finally, the supernatural is incompatible with the natural in reality. Because if the supernatural exists it would have to disobey the natural laws of the universe. By definition it would.
It doesn't really matter to you how old to you the earth is? How sad.

[LukeMC]

Actually I only have a problem with evolution (which disagrees with the Bible) being touted as fact when it isn't.

It is.
Have you ever actually sat a biology lesson? Have you even learned such a simple concept as meiosis?
This alone is proof that things evolve.