On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[GrandizerII]

"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?

First of all, "dark matter" is really just a name for something that's clearly there but we just don't know what it is (hence the name).

But that aside, yes, a lot of the times, we do have to accept what the experts in scientific fields have to say on the matters that they happen to be experts on. But the potential to reason your way to the statements made by scientists is nevertheless there, so long as you have the required resources and knowledge to do so. The good news about Gods is you don't necessarily need any special education or tools to reason your way to them ... but the bad news is you most likely can't anyway.

[Abaddon_ire]

"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?

Okay I'm not going to go through the whole things, but let's deal with this matter of convoluting faith we have in say gravity, and faith in a god (of your choice)  

Firstly we really have no idea what Dark Matter is, but we do see it's effects on the universe. Dark Matter is a placeholder name given for something we see the effects of, but have yet to find out what it is maybe one day we will know, maybe we never will.. who knows ?
So yes If i were to ask a scientist to show me the science around it, they could.

The answer is evidence. We can observe the evidence so we know for a fact something is happening. "Dark Matter" is a label of convenience until we work it out.

This is a recurring feature with the religious, if we don't know this thing then we don't know anything therefore all science is suspect and open to question.

Somehow, they glom onto the fact that all science is open to question as a weakness and that is it's strength. Do the religious believe that their faith du jour is open to questioning? Examination? Testing?

Of course not.

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.

Again that's just half the story, if I wanted to see Pluto I could simply ask someone with the knowledge of astronomy to show me, so unless you yourself doubt the existence of Pluto, then yes my faith would be very well founded. and could be proven.  

Not to mention that I have observed it so his/her argument is rendered moot. Anyone can. Join your local astronomy club.

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.

How so ?  Complexity does not mean intelligent design, purpose might but you have not demonstrated a purpose of anything.

Ah. Emergence. One of the things that theists are totally flummoxed by. Jeremy English has demonstrated that life is almost inevitable on the basis of thermodynamics alone. This irritates the religious because thermodynamics is one of their GOTO arguments.

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.

Let's put the hysterics of kicking, screaming, love of sin, to one side for just a minute . Before you attribute anything to god, you first have to prove your god. To claim that anything is so complex that only a intelligent being could have created it is nonsense.

Ah, but sin, original sin even. According to the holey babble, adam and eve had not the foggiest that they were sinning. And bible god framed them. Christianity is absurd.

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."
----
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.
----
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.

Again this is not about humility, I simply do not know, how else could I  express that without you feeling as though I'm being condescending ?
The point is that you don't either, you cannot possibly have that knowledge.

That's how miles rocks. He claims to be all humble and contrite and promptly hurls hell and damnation on any who disagree with him. Bog standard fundie.

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.

So is it all true ?
and how do you know the assurance you have is simply not yourself ?

Pride.

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

I try not to be unreasonable, maybe my standards are high, but surely a supreme being, who wants me to know him would easily be able to meet any standards a mere human could concoct, in fact I'm sure a supreme being would welcome it.

He did after all go about crashing all over the place in the bible, smiting people here and there,  but hey that was written by men and they are liars.

Apparently, the supreme being can't be arsed unless you are a member of the enlightened elite whic Miles says does not exist but he is a member of it. Work that one out.

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.  
----
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.

The last screed from miles went over the cliff edge of nutty. I ain't following that.
Yes I agree no sane intelligent designer could have designed such a weak disease ridden body, that we have to look for our own cures, but the cures we have come from our own knowledge. If you have come across a cure for cancer I would have though you consider it your christian if you have come across a 90+ cure, to spread that good news of your 'magic' cures.
I'm sorry but you really are beginning to sound like you have a problem with reality

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.

*bold mine*

Oh boy sorry, he has hidden it from people.. on the internet ?  Such a cunning plan no mere man could conceive it.

I'm sorry i really am going to have to stop here, your claims have now moved well into the realms of disturbed.

ETA: Not you Poss in case that was not clear.

[Belacqua]

It's called "hyperbole".

Odd that this needs pointing out.

Thank you for explaining. Since you seem not to like the Bible much, I didn't realize you'd be using similar tropes.

But I'm a big fan of statements that are obviously false on the surface and require intellectual interpretation to grasp the meaning.

[Astreja]

I'd like to make one specific comment on an apologist behaviour that I find particularly shameful and rude:

Frequently, someone who is trying to convince us of the truth of a belief will use something similar to the dreary old stunt Miles pulled: "It's obvious! The evidence is right there."

No. It. Isn't!

Believers, you have no idea of our background, thoughts or experiences. Unless we tell you outright, you don't even know what we had for lunch or what kind of car we drive. Don't come marching in here and tell us that the things that convince you are more than enough to convince us. It appears that we have vastly different standards for evidence, and we aren't going to lower our standards on your say-so.

Do you even know what it feels like to disbelieve as we do? It really doesn't seem so to me.

[fredd bear]

The Torah is the mythology of a tribe of illiterate bronze age goat herders

The book you link us to indicates that this is wrong. The Torah was written centuries after the Bronze Age.

True enough, but it was based on oral mythology, which was much older..

A Jewish answer:

Dear Rabbi,
I believe that the "Five Books of Moses" comprise the Torah. How and when do we believe we received the Torah? Was it given to us directly from G
Dear Michael,
G-d gave the Torah to Moses and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai 3,316 years ago. This was seven weeks after the Exodus from Egypt, on the 6th day of the month Sivan, in the year 2448 of the Jewish calendar. On that day, G-d revealed Himself to the entire Jewish people (which included some 600,000 adult men, in addition to women, children and the aged) and declared to them the Ten Commandments. Afterwards, Moses ascended Mount Sinai where, for forty days, G-d taught him the entire Written and Oral Torah. Later, on Yom Kippur, Moses descended with the second tablets of the Ten Commandments and began to teach the people what he heard from G-d on Mount Sinai.

https://ohr.edu/1438

[Belacqua]

The book you link us to indicates that this is wrong. The Torah was written centuries after the Bronze Age.

True enough, but it was based on oral mythology, which was much older..

A Jewish answer:

Dear Rabbi,
I believe that the "Five Books of Moses" comprise the Torah. How and when do we believe we received the Torah? Was it given to us directly from G
Dear Michael,
G-d gave the Torah to Moses and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai 3,316 years ago. This was seven weeks after the Exodus from Egypt, on the 6th day of the month Sivan, in the year 2448 of the Jewish calendar. On that day, G-d revealed Himself to the entire Jewish people (which included some 600,000 adult men, in addition to women, children and the aged) and declared to them the Ten Commandments. Afterwards, Moses ascended Mount Sinai where, for forty days, G-d taught him the entire Written and Oral Torah. Later, on Yom Kippur, Moses descended with the second tablets of the Ten Commandments and began to teach the people what he heard from G-d on Mount Sinai.

https://ohr.edu/1438

If you go by the literalists, I'm sure the dates will be old. Maybe in the Bronze Age. But if we go by historical scholarship that will be different, of course. 

According to the Wikipedia summary of the book that was linked to, there are various references in the Torah that indicate it was written later. Arameans, camels, etc. 

So either the book is wrong, or the Torah was written long after the Bronze Age. 

But we may be writing for rhetorical effect here, not trying to make accurate sentences.

[fredd bear]

True enough, but it was based on oral mythology, which was much older..

A Jewish answer:

Dear Rabbi,
I believe that the "Five Books of Moses" comprise the Torah. How and when do we believe we received the Torah? Was it given to us directly from G
Dear Michael,
G-d gave the Torah to Moses and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai 3,316 years ago. This was seven weeks after the Exodus from Egypt, on the 6th day of the month Sivan, in the year 2448 of the Jewish calendar. On that day, G-d revealed Himself to the entire Jewish people (which included some 600,000 adult men, in addition to women, children and the aged) and declared to them the Ten Commandments. Afterwards, Moses ascended Mount Sinai where, for forty days, G-d taught him the entire Written and Oral Torah. Later, on Yom Kippur, Moses descended with the second tablets of the Ten Commandments and began to teach the people what he heard from G-d on Mount Sinai.

https://ohr.edu/1438

If you go by the literalists, I'm sure the dates will be old. Maybe in the Bronze Age. But if we go by historical scholarship that will be different, of course. 

According to the Wikipedia summary of the book that was linked to, there are various references in the Torah that indicate it was written later. Arameans, camels, etc. 

So either the book is wrong, or the Torah was written long after the Bronze Age. 

But we may be writing for rhetorical effect here, not trying to make accurate sentences.

Was I unclear?  YES, I agree that the Torah was written[down] around 700 bce. It was based on a much older oral tradition. Don't want to accept a religious Jewish view? Fair enough

To avoid further misunderstanding, or arguable error,  I'll remove 'bronze age'. In the meantime I'll see what else I can find. If I find something , I'll update. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise.  Interesting to discover how mentally  lazy some people can be, especially myself. I've been using that bronze age reference for a long time, and have not been called out on it before.  I've always thought the reference was correct. I'll do some more checking.


Addendum: I've done a bit of looking . All I can find is religious Jewish opinion, which is questionable as a source. At this point, I'm unable to state categorically, that the oral tradition of the Torah goes back to bronze age. Nor am I convinced this is not the case.  As a result, I will no longer refer to the tribes who became the Jews as 'bronze age'.   Yes, I admit, the rhetoric has a nice ring. However, I can no longer use it as it I can't prove I'm correct using the term.

[Belacqua]

Addendum: I've done a bit of looking . All I can find is religious Jewish opinion, which is questionable as a source. At this point, I'm unable to state categorically, that the oral tradition of the Torah goes back to bronze age. Nor am I convinced this is not the case.  As a result, I will no longer refer to the tribes who became the Jews as 'bronze age'.   Yes, I admit, the rhetoric has a nice ring. However, I can no longer use it as it I can't prove I'm correct using the term.

I suspect that some of the stories have deep roots. But since illiterate Goat Age bronze herders didn't write stuff down, that's hard to say.

I've heard the phrase a lot on sites like these, and I find it amusing that people pissed off by the historical inaccuracy of the Bible use a historically inaccurate insult. 

But, again, if we're all just waving hyperbole around, I guess anything goes. As I've said a billion times.

[fredd bear]

I guess. The difference being that the rational person will admit error, something I have never seem from an apologist.

True enough, it's very hard to date oral mythology of any kind.


A cynic might say that apologist set very low standards, which they then fail to meet. So, anything goes.

[Godscreated]

I saw the verses in your little picture which by the way explains nothing.

Hey, tell it to the flat earthers, just like Christians that see six day creation in the Bible as bullshit should tell you few things.

Like what, that they do not believe that God could create the universe in six days, yet He can save them from everlasting torment.

And indeed that is the nature of Bible: it is supposed to be divinely inspired text and yet it's easily misunderstood that some people think how six day creation is real while other see it as a metaphor and acknowledge evolution and they all have best intentions -- and yet God supposedly chose this way to communicate with people.

 It is divinely inspired no one man could put together a book like the Bible, let lone many mean over a few thousand years. Those who misunderstand the Bible especially the creation account are afraid of being ridiculed or whatever dishonest reason they may have. It's very simple one is either going to believe the entire book or they are going to claim their belief is better than God's truth. God did choose to bring His word to us through a book, it's completely truthful and it's not His fault they want to believe different, yet claim His salvation, salvation belongs to Him we only receive it through His grace.
 If you are not going to bring up verses one at a time about the supposed flat earth in the Bible then I see no further use in a discussion.

GC