Some Notes About Me

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse,

 

My replies to your points are as follows.

 

1. Re: your quote from Space.com.

You've overlooked the qualification that was placed on what they say about the Big Bang. "At it's simplest..." is that qualification.  Space.com is not presenting an accurate understanding of the Big Bang.  They are offering a popular, grossly-oversimplified and somewhat misleading summary of that theory.  They skip over much detail, many important caveats and difficult-to-understand subtleties involved in both Einsteinian relativity and Quantum physics.  What they say cannot and should not be taken as definitive or accurate.  You would be making a cardinal error to rely on what they say for your understanding of the Big Bang.

 

2. Your claim about what you wrote is false.

You are either mistaken or lying.

You originally wrote... "What astronomers had observed seemed to prove this idea."

You did not write... "that it seemed to be the best explanation" ...as you claimed two days ago.

 

3. I don't understand how # 3 relates to # 2.

# 2 is your misunderstanding of science's remit. It never proves anything, but only offers the best possible explanation according to the current evidence.  #3 is your informal logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.  Unless you're saying that you were ignorant of science's remit and thought that it was in the business of proving things?  If so, this seriously undermines the credibility of everything related to science that your wrote at the beginning of this thread.

 

4.

Ok, if you aren't cherry-picking those aspects of science that allow you to square the Genesis account of creation with the Big Bang theory, let me ask you this.  How old do you think the universe is? 

 

5.

Yes, Darwin did think that the discovery of transitional forms was unlikely.  But he made that statement 130 years ago, before the discovery of the many fossils that are considered to be transitional forms.  Remember what science's remit is, Ironhorse?  It's the best possible explanation of what we observe according to the CURRENT evidence.  Not the evidence that was available to Darwin in the 1880's.  This is what I meant about you cherry-picking those parts of science that help support your Christian faith.  In this case, the supposed absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  Instead of looking at what the current evidence is, you've latched onto something Darwin said from 130 years ago. 

 

Now, since you're smart enough to notice that my link said that it's examples do not actually represent ancestors of any other living group or other transitional forms, this demonstrates that you can do research on the internet if it suits your purposes.  So, please research the current evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record and post your links in this thread.  This is a test of your honesty, Ironhorse.

 

The evidence is out there and you've shown that you have the resources to find it.

The question is, do you have the honesty and integrity to do so?

I look forward to your reply.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

From the FB page of a former student, now herself a teacher:

 

"Overheard in the classroom:
'Maybe it used its tusks to defend itself from creditors.'"

 

Natural selection! The Theory of Evolution makes so much more sense now!

[ironhorse]

 

So to me, it was where else to go?

Keep banging my head against the wall with countless arguments or thinking I should be able to get all the ducks in a row and KNOW everything about God? Seeking rock solid evidence before I accepted it as truth?

I was under no delusion that I could know everything.

So I maintained my Christian faith. I believe.

Since then I have tried to learn more and will continue to do the same.

For me, it’s a wonderful mysterious journey.

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

 

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3.Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4.Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5.Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

As I said before, I’m number 2 on the scale. I can’t prove by science that God exists. So, yes my belief is based not only what I see as evidence but the bottom line is that it is faith.

I don’t KNOW everything. Tell me who does?

 

Good reading on this topic from NPR:

 

Where Did Life Come From? The Mind? The Universe? Can We Even Know?

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/20/174729853/where-did-life-come-from-the-mind-the-universe-can-we-even-know

Hi Ironhorse. If I may ask: how do you make the jump from God to Jesus? God I understand. People seem to have an intrinsic need to believe in the supernatural or at least spiritual, and an anthropomorphic God fills this void quite well. But belief in Jesus requires a myriad more assumptions than belief in God, especially with respect to the gross adulteration of Jewish scriptures concerning messianic prophecy. Moreover, Jesus is not even a morally upright character. He brainwashed children to leave their families, lived off the generosity and naivete of wealthy widows, and most horrific: he introduced the evil concept of eternal conscious torment. Hitler would make a more morally upright god than Jesus, for his fires were not eternal. Of all gods you could pick, shouldn't Jesus be the last choice?

 

 

 

Hi Ironhorse. If I may ask: how do you make the jump from God to Jesus? God I understand. People seem to have an intrinsic need to believe in the supernatural or at least spiritual, and an anthropomorphic God fills this void quite well. But belief in Jesus requires a myriad more assumptions than belief in God, especially with respect to the gross adulteration of Jewish scriptures concerning messianic prophecy.

 

Can you give me an example from scripture of this gross adulteration of Jewish scriptures concerning messianic prophecy? One example or more if you like, would help in my response to this question.

 

 

Moreover, Jesus is not even a morally upright character. He brainwashed children to leave their families, lived off the generosity and naivete of wealthy widows...

 

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:34-37

 

 If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26

 

These sayings of Jesus reflect a common Jewish understanding of the day. Jewish understanding was that the messianic era would be preceded by a time of disharmony in family and social relationships. By these sayings, Jesus was announcing the messianic age and his own messiahship.

Jesus was quoting from the prophet Micah who spoke of the messianic age in these terms:

 

“Do not trust a neighbor; put no confidence in a friend. Even with her who lies in your embrace be careful of your words. For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies are the members of his own household.”

~ Micah 7:5-6

 

Here he reminds that loyalty to God takes precedence over loyalty to family when the two come in conflict. This principle is found in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in rabbinic writings.

 

 

…and most horrific: he introduced the evil concept of eternal conscious torment.

 

The immortality of the soul came from the Greeks, not the Jewish people. I will not go into detail here since the topic of hell would be better examined on its own thread.

 

Hitler would make a more morally upright god than Jesus, for his fires were not eternal.

 

I don’t know what was going through the mind of Hitler in April 1945. I hope he turned to God, repented and asked for forgiveness.

 

Of all gods you could pick, shouldn't Jesus be the last choice?

 

No, to me it was easy. His message is simple. If I only had John 3:16 as scripture, it would be enough.

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse wrote...

 

"The immortality of the soul came from the Greeks, not the Jewish people."

 

So Jesus was a Greek?

 

Luke 16 : 19 - 31.

 

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 

20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 

21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 

23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 

24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 

26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,

28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[ironhorse]

Ironhorse wrote...

 

"The immortality of the soul came from the Greeks, not the Jewish people."

 

So Jesus was a Greek?

 

Luke 16 : 19 - 31.

 

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 

20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 

21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 

23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 

24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 

26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,

28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

 

 

No, he was Jewish methinks.

 

I know the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is often used to teach eternal torment but I do not think it was meant to be taken literally.

 

This story is a parable. Jesus used parables often to get across his message. 

Christ used this story, which fit the common misconception about life after death in his day, to show the fate that awaited the Jewish nation because of the unbelief and faithlessness which led them to reject him as the Messiah.

 

The ending is telling. The religious leaders who were always trying to trip him up and were out to stop him, never got the story. 

 

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

[rjn]

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

[ironhorse]

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

[duderonomy]

"...where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched..."

[Jeff]

<b>Moreover, Jesus is not even a morally upright character. He brainwashed children to leave their families, lived off the generosity and naivete of wealthy widows...

</b>

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:34-37

 

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26

---------

So IH you in no way answered this critique. You merely pasted in the specifics of the verses originally referenced.

 

Youre a troll whether you mean to be or not. You no longer offer any value here with your posts.

[bornagainathiest]

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

Annihilationism suffers from one huge flaw, Ironhorse.

 

Since God foreknew who he was going to annihilate before he created anyone, why didn't he just create those he foreknew that he wouldn't annihilate?

 

After all, the free will of people who never existed can't be violated, right?

 

Think about it.

[Bhim]

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores. In the interest of good faith though, I'll address your question about gross adulteration of Jewish scripture.

 

Obviously I could quote almost any messianic prophecy or other reference to the Old Testament, and find deep flaws, but two examples I find particularly idiotic are the misuses of Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 82:6. Isaiah 7:14 is the well known "behold, the virgin shall conceive..." prophecy. As early as the second century, a debate between St. Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew is recorded in which Trypho correctly observes that the Hebrew refers to a young woman, not a virgin. The author of the gospel of Matthew obviously read only the Greek Septuagint, and didn't bother to know the Hebrew text. Since this debate is almost as old as Christianity, I doubt you and I will come to a consensus. But much like other evangelical obstacles such as evolution, climate change, etc., the "debate" is a result of Christian obstinacy rather than a sound argumentative basis. Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy meant for the encouragement of King Ahaz, and is fulfilled in his own lifetime. Christians must a.) invent the notion of dual fulfillment of prophecy, and b.) misunderstand the literal words that comprise the prophecy.

 

As for Psalm 82:6, this is not used as a prophecy by Jesus, but is an equally good illustration of Christian illogical reasoning, from the lips of your god no less! The context, as you recall, is that the Jews object to Jesus' reference to himself as the son of God, and his use of Psalm 82:6 is at best an argument by legal loophole. His argument is that if the phrase "I said, you are gods" is written in the Psalms, then Jesus' claim to be the son of God, which is a less powerful claim to divinity, is not blasphemy. The author here clearly doesn't understand that "gods" in the Old Testament can be a references to judges. And even ignoring this, the author implicitly denies that Jesus is actually claiming to be God.

 

I find these two examples typical of the New Testament's utter lack of Jewishness, which is a problem since it takes up the mantle of Israel's prophetic voice. I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around.

[ironhorse]

 

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores. In the interest of good faith though, I'll address your question about gross adulteration of Jewish scripture.

 

Obviously I could quote almost any messianic prophecy or other reference to the Old Testament, and find deep flaws, but two examples I find particularly idiotic are the misuses of Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 82:6. Isaiah 7:14 is the well known "behold, the virgin shall conceive..." prophecy. As early as the second century, a debate between St. Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew is recorded in which Trypho correctly observes that the Hebrew refers to a young woman, not a virgin. The author of the gospel of Matthew obviously read only the Greek Septuagint, and didn't bother to know the Hebrew text. Since this debate is almost as old as Christianity, I doubt you and I will come to a consensus. But much like other evangelical obstacles such as evolution, climate change, etc., the "debate" is a result of Christian obstinacy rather than a sound argumentative basis. Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy meant for the encouragement of King Ahaz, and is fulfilled in his own lifetime. Christians must a.) invent the notion of dual fulfillment of prophecy, and b.) misunderstand the literal words that comprise the prophecy.

 

As for Psalm 82:6, this is not used as a prophecy by Jesus, but is an equally good illustration of Christian illogical reasoning, from the lips of your god no less! The context, as you recall, is that the Jews object to Jesus' reference to himself as the son of God, and his use of Psalm 82:6 is at best an argument by legal loophole. His argument is that if the phrase "I said, you are gods" is written in the Psalms, then Jesus' claim to be the son of God, which is a less powerful claim to divinity, is not blasphemy. The author here clearly doesn't understand that "gods" in the Old Testament can be a references to judges. And even ignoring this, the author implicitly denies that Jesus is actually claiming to be God.

 

I find these two examples typical of the New Testament's utter lack of Jewishness, which is a problem since it takes up the mantle of Israel's prophetic voice. I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around.

 

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores.

 

 

I am orthodox. I sincerely believe that the scriptures do teach the ultimate annihilation of people who choose to reject Christ. I am not alone in viewing this as correct.

 

John Stott was an English Christian leader and Anglican cleric who was noted as a leader of the worldwide Evangelical movement.  This was his response concerning evangelicals who disagreed with him on what the scriptures taught concerning hell. He believed it taught annihilation.

“I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture [eternal punishment in hell], and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the worldwide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me . . . I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment”

 

Note: I had to stop here and go do some Saturday chores. Back ASAP 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores. In the interest of good faith though, I'll address your question about gross adulteration of Jewish scripture.

 

Obviously I could quote almost any messianic prophecy or other reference to the Old Testament, and find deep flaws, but two examples I find particularly idiotic are the misuses of Isaiah 7:14 and Psalm 82:6. Isaiah 7:14 is the well known "behold, the virgin shall conceive..." prophecy. As early as the second century, a debate between St. Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew is recorded in which Trypho correctly observes that the Hebrew refers to a young woman, not a virgin. The author of the gospel of Matthew obviously read only the Greek Septuagint, and didn't bother to know the Hebrew text. Since this debate is almost as old as Christianity, I doubt you and I will come to a consensus. But much like other evangelical obstacles such as evolution, climate change, etc., the "debate" is a result of Christian obstinacy rather than a sound argumentative basis. Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy meant for the encouragement of King Ahaz, and is fulfilled in his own lifetime. Christians must a.) invent the notion of dual fulfillment of prophecy, and b.) misunderstand the literal words that comprise the prophecy.

 

As for Psalm 82:6, this is not used as a prophecy by Jesus, but is an equally good illustration of Christian illogical reasoning, from the lips of your god no less! The context, as you recall, is that the Jews object to Jesus' reference to himself as the son of God, and his use of Psalm 82:6 is at best an argument by legal loophole. His argument is that if the phrase "I said, you are gods" is written in the Psalms, then Jesus' claim to be the son of God, which is a less powerful claim to divinity, is not blasphemy. The author here clearly doesn't understand that "gods" in the Old Testament can be a references to judges. And even ignoring this, the author implicitly denies that Jesus is actually claiming to be God.

 

I find these two examples typical of the New Testament's utter lack of Jewishness, which is a problem since it takes up the mantle of Israel's prophetic voice. I'd like to debate these examples, but I'd prefer to do so with someone who subscribes to orthodox evangelical Christianity. Again, I have no interest in getting in the mud with Christian heretics, because there are two many of you running around.

 

 

 

So...you're not an orthodox evangelical? That makes discourse with you much less fascinating. I come to the Lion's Den to discuss the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the form of Christianity practiced by most of my American neighbors. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole with random Christian heresies, of which there are scores.

 

 

I am orthodox. I sincerely believe that the scriptures do teach the ultimate annihilation of people who choose to reject Christ. I am not alone in viewing this as correct.

 

John Stott was an English Christian leader and Anglican cleric who was noted as a leader of the worldwide Evangelical movement.  This was his response concerning evangelicals who disagreed with him on what the scriptures taught concerning hell. He believed it taught annihilation.

“I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture [eternal punishment in hell], and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the worldwide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me . . . I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment”

 

Note: I had to stop here and go do some Saturday chores. Back ASAP 

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

Please address the flaw in annihilationism that I drew your attention to several hours ago.

 

If you can respond to a query about your driving license within the space of twenty minutes, then responding to me in a few hours shouldn't be a problem.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I am orthodox.

 

[snip]

 

John Stott was an English Christian leader and Anglican cleric who was noted as a leader of the worldwide Evangelical movement.  This was his response concerning evangelicals who disagreed with him on what the scriptures taught concerning hell. He believed it taught annihilation.

“I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture [eternal punishment in hell], and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the worldwide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me . . . I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment”

Ironhorse is either invincibly stupid or an inveterate troll.

 

IH claims to be "orthodox." IH invokes as authoritative a piece of writing about which its author pleads indulgence, admitting that his view is not in line with longstanding tradition nor with the views of the worldwide evangelical constituency.

 

If "orthodox" does not entail traditional or universally accepted within the self-identified in-group, then the term is emptied of meaning.

 

Ironhorse's claim to be "orthodox" is entirely vacuous.

 

If IH realizes this, IH is a liar. If IH does not realize this, IH is for all practical purposes uneducated, and perhaps, uneducable.

 

In either case, so much for claims to have appraised skeptically the dogmas of Christianity.

[ironhorse]

 

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

Annihilationism suffers from one huge flaw, Ironhorse.

 

Since God foreknew who he was going to annihilate before he created anyone, why didn't he just create those he foreknew that he wouldn't annihilate?

 

After all, the free will of people who never existed can't be violated, right?

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

Annihilationism suffers from one huge flaw, Ironhorse.

 

Since God foreknew who he was going to annihilate before he created anyone, why didn't he just create those he foreknew that he wouldn't annihilate?

 

First, it is not God's will that any perish. It is our choice. Should God drag people against their will into his kingdom?

 

Second, what does God do? Do a “trial run” of history and see who among the freewill people will accept his love and who reject it. Then do a rewind to eliminate the ones who rejected his love?

 

Third, I believe the scripture teach that God exists in eternity. God is outside of any time zone and yet present in all time. It is like he created time to keep everything from happening all at once.

 

After all, the free will of people who never existed can't be violated, right?

 

The freewill of those not allowed to live, because of their choice, would be violated.

 

Think about it.

 

I have and will continue. It is an interesting subject. I have an old book written by a Messianic Jew about time and space.

 

Its been awhile since I read it. A friend has it right now. When he returns it, I'll look at it again and  see if it might help to add some more thoughts on this.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Second, what does God do? Do a “trial run” of history and see who among the freewill people will accept his love and who reject it. Then do a rewind to eliminate the ones who rejected his love?

If by "eliminate" you mean predestine to hell, then according to William Lane Craig, the answer to your above question is, Yes. The trial run is, as it were, mental for God, entailed by God's omniscience.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

So I assume you're an annihilationist then, IH?

 

 

Yes, I do think this is what the scriptures teach when taken in context and as a whole.

 

This page explains in detail what I believe:

http://www.wholereason.com/2012/10/what-the-conditionalist-view-of-hell-is-not.html

 

 

Annihilationism suffers from one huge flaw, Ironhorse.

 

Since God foreknew who he was going to annihilate before he created anyone, why didn't he just create those he foreknew that he wouldn't annihilate?

 

After all, the free will of people who never existed can't be violated, right?

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

Annihilationism suffers from one huge flaw, Ironhorse.

 

Since God foreknew who he was going to annihilate before he created anyone, why didn't he just create those he foreknew that he wouldn't annihilate?

 

First, it is not God's will that any perish. It is our choice. Should God drag people against their will into his kingdom?

 

That is not part of my argument.

 

Second, what does God do? Do a “trial run” of history and see who among the freewill people will accept his love and who reject it. Then do a rewind to eliminate the ones who rejected his love?

 

He foreknows everything.  So no trial run is necessary.

 

Third, I believe the scripture teach that God exists in eternity. God is outside of any time zone and yet present in all time. It is like he created time to keep everything from happening all at once.

 

Irrelevant.

 

After all, the free will of people who never existed can't be violated, right?

 

The freewill of those not allowed to live, because of their choice, would be violated.

 

Potentially, but not actually violated.  Your point is refuted.

 

Think about it.

 

I have and will continue. It is an interesting subject. I have an old book written by a Messianic Jew about time and space.

 

Its been awhile since I read it. A friend has it right now. When he returns it, I'll look at it again and  see if it might help to add some more thoughts on this.

 

 

So why doesn't God simply create only those people he foreknows will love him, Ironhorse?

 

Those that don't, never exist and their free will is not actually violated because they remain as un-actualized thoughts in the eternal mind of God.

[ironhorse]

Ironhorse, do you really identify with this?  "2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there."

 

That's just wishful thinking, isn't it?  

 

Yes I do but, to me the scale is so close on 1 and 2 there is not much difference.

 

The scale:

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

 

I only went with number 2 because if I stated I was number 1 here.... "I KNOW he exists."

I would be bombed out of The Lion's Den with constant demands to prove or show evidence of God. I just wasn't up to fighting that battle that day. Also, like most people I have experienced sad and tragic events that causes a grief and anger that can have you either angry at God or doubting whether God is even there. 

 

But for the most part...

I do not question the existence of God. I believe in God. 

I'm settled in my mind and at peace. I no longer question whether God is real or a fairy tale.

[sdelsolray]

Yes I do but, to me the scale is so close on 1 and 2 there is not much difference.

 

The scale:

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

 

I only went with number 2 because if I stated I was number 1 here.... "I KNOW he exists."

I would be bombed out of The Lion's Den with constant demands to prove or show evidence of God. I just wasn't up to fighting that battle that day. Also, like most people I have experienced sad and tragic events that causes a grief and anger that can have you either angry at God or doubting whether God is even there. 

 

But for the most part...

I do not question the existence of God. I believe in God. 

I'm settled in my mind and at peace. I no longer question whether God is real or a fairy tale.

 

 

 

You sure do talk about yourself a lot.

[duderonomy]

 

Ironhorse, do you really identify with this?  "2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there."

 

That's just wishful thinking, isn't it?  

 

Yes I do but, to me the scale is so close on 1 and 2 there is not much difference.

 

The scale:

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

 

I only went with number 2 because if I stated I was number 1 here.... "I KNOW he exists."

I would be bombed out of The Lion's Den with constant demands to prove or show evidence of God. I just wasn't up to fighting that battle that day. Also, like most people I have experienced sad and tragic events that causes a grief and anger that can have you either angry at God or doubting whether God is even there. 

 

But for the most part...

I do not question the existence of God. I believe in God. 

I'm settled in my mind and at peace. I no longer question whether God is real or a fairy tale.

 

 

Fair enough, and thanks for your answer.  

 

I remember being at that place where I was absolutely positive that the god of the Bible was real and he was 'there'.

 

What changed things for me was when I stopped reading books about the Bible and listening to preachers telling me what the Bible says, or what it "really means", and started reading the Bible itself. I bought a paperback large print Bible without footnotes, no commentaries, no cross-references. No maps, even. Just the text. It was quite an eye opener. 

Have you ever tried that? 

[duderonomy]

Oops...double post.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Ironhorse, do you really identify with this?  "2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there."

 

That's just wishful thinking, isn't it?  

 

Yes I do but, to me the scale is so close on 1 and 2 there is not much difference.

 

The scale:

1.Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2.De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

 

 

I only went with number 2 because if I stated I was number 1 here.... "I KNOW he exists."

I would be bombed out of The Lion's Den with constant demands to prove or show evidence of God. I just wasn't up to fighting that battle that day. Also, like most people I have experienced sad and tragic events that causes a grief and anger that can have you either angry at God or doubting whether God is even there. 

 

But for the most part...

I do not question the existence of God. I believe in God. 

I'm settled in my mind and at peace. I no longer question whether God is real or a fairy tale.

 

 

Fair enough, and thanks for your answer.  

 

I remember being at that place where I was absolutely positive that the god of the Bible was real and he was 'there'.

 

What changed things for me was when I stopped reading books about the Bible and listening to preachers telling me what the Bible says, or what it "really means", and started reading the Bible itself. I bought a paperback large print Bible without footnotes, no commentaries, no cross-references. No maps, even. Just the text. It was quite an eye opener. 

Have you ever tried that? 

 

 

Pertinent questions on the back of this are...

 

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

[ironhorse]

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

[bornagainathiest]

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

Ironhorse,

 

The essential message of Christianity that you are so focused on depends on the events in Eden for it's validity.

 

So, until you address the issue of God being the creator of all evil, the validity of that essential message is in doubt.

 

Yes, I know that you don't want to do that and you'll do everything you can to avoid facing up to what the scripture actually says.

 

But this is a hook you cannot un-impale yourself from by shifting to other threads, posting lyrics or other dodging tactics.

 

The RedNeckProf, Duderonomy, Ficino, myself and probably many others want you to address the issue.

 

Please do so here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72646-how-to-make-a-christian-absolutely-livid/page-2#.V0Imk_krJD8

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

Why did God make his word so difficult to understand that it requires preachers, footnotes, commentaries and similar to untangle it's meaning?

 

And why is it that a plain reading of it often leads to doubt?

 

 

Those are good questions BAA.

 

First I think it is important to acknowledge that the good news that Jesus spoke and taught is a simple message. That does not mean we can ever understand fully on how God became a human or the “how” of his resurrection but the message is simple. His teachings on how to act and treat other people are clear and simple. Not always easy to do but the teachings are easy to understand.

 

For the first ten years the disciples or others did not even write any of this down. They expected him to return soon. No time to write this down. They were driven to go out and tell others quickly.

 

Not long after, the story was put to words. These first manuscripts were sent around as letters to be read and shared.

This simple good news of Jesus is the central message of the scriptures as a whole.

 

This is essential message. It is easy.

 

A person does not have to know anything else about the scriptures to know Christ. Many people have lived their lives as believers without ever reading the scriptures. Very few people in the ancient world were literate and it was what not until the 19th century that literacy became the norm for most people. This is why the good news was to be told (preached) and why teachers were to explain the scriptures.

 

Other concepts and teachings in scriptures are easy to understand. The book of Proverbs is an example; Bits of wisdom that most people understand.

 

I agree that some passages and verse are difficult to understand. Some I don’t know if I will ever understand. It can get complicated. A plain reading will often lead to doubt on what that particular text is saying. This is one reason we often need a good pastor or teacher or reference to help in understanding. There are always things we do not know or need help on. There is a lot of mystery but to me that makes it just that much more fascinating to read and study.

 

The Bible not only reveals the Word of God, It also reveals the most vivid descriptions of human struggles and experiences ever written. It does not hide or sugar coat anything. It can read like a train wreck sometimes. This also makes it the most human of all books.

 

 

I don't have time right now to address this, but note the lack of knowledge and misinformation about early Christian history IH displays here, as well as the empty apologetic spin.