Five Questions That Christians Can't Answer

[Kuroikaze]

Don't need to scratch that itch, I find is unlikely there is a god of any kind....and absurdly unlikely that the god of the bible is real...though if there is a god he/she is welcome to prove me wrong anytime.

 

Since he/she hasn't I'm assuming he/she doesn't exist or isn't interested in having me believe in them.

 

My perspective may be limited, but its the only one we have, I'm not going to spend my life second guessing all my decisions just because I can't be 100% sure.

 

No ones bubble is being burst. Your answer isn't providing proof otherwise. The word APPEAR is very weak. Its based entirely on perspective, which is just as factually weak as my religious views and just as factually weak as your non-religious views.

 

you admit that the religious position is weak, I can't say that I agree that the non-religious view is as weak, while it may be nearly impossible to know anything with 100% certainty, I would argue that all the available evidence at hand supports the non-theistic view much better than the theistic view. Though of course thats up for debate.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much debate to be had on animals displaying moral behavior, there is a ridiculous amount of evidence showing this to be true. All you have to do is open a science text book.

 

Appear is not a weak term it is simply an honest one, the evidence supports it, no other explanation we have thought of fits, but science doesn't work with certainties...it's simply the nature of inductive logic

 

 

By the way, you may feel we "rigged the game" or something, but its not our fault your answers are not convincing or even logical. That is your problem, you deal with it.

[Ouroboros]

I never said they did need the Bible. In fact I told you that the moral code came before it.

It's hard to understand your post what is your opinion and what is not, but if that is your opinion then you're wrong. Moral code did not come from the Bible.

 

So this isn't about the questions asked....which I answered, this is about being a pin-cushion for others to begin asking a number of questions. PROVE THERE IS NO GOD. NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Your beliefs are nothing more than your limited perception as mortals, the same as mine. James Randi (a great man) has spent years debunking frauds and fakers who claim to have supernatural gifts and abilities. Yet, he clearly makes known that he is completely unable to prove that such supernatural abilities do not exist. He has repeatedly said that he cannot prove it.

We can't prove that God exists or not exists, but we can't prove there is a rusty toaster flying around Mars either or not.

 

The initial thread was about asking questions and I gave answers. Not one of those questions had to do with proving God existed. Thats the nagging itch that you are going to have to get scratched for yourself. I answered the questions. Then I am told I am being delusional. It instantly went off topic right then and there and became as rigged as a three card Monty game. And now the dare to answer even more questions. I'll pass. I did what the post called for.

Sure, that's all good. You made your statement and made your point. But yet, morality does not come from the Bible.

[Jun]

The initial thread was about asking questions and I gave answers.

 

Ok, then perhaps you won't mind explaining your first "answer?" You said -

A God who never created an eternal hell to begin with..it is a mistranslation of text and is used out of context.

 

There are various sections in the bible that suggest hell exists. For example, there is Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Jesus refers to hell as Gehenna, from the Aramaic based on the name Hinnom, the valley just south of Jerusalem where garbage was regularly burned (see Matthew 18:8-9). The image of hell as similar to Gehenna - "a place where the fire does not go out and the worm never dies" - suggests a very real place of everlasting fire. (see also Matthew 13:42, 50).

Can you provide evidence that the Christians have mistranslated the bible - in which parts? Which would be the correct translation then, and what is your evidence for this? Can you show where it is quoted out of context and provide evidence for the correct context in which it is to be?

 

........this is about being a pin-cushion for others to begin asking a number of questions.

 

Er, this is an open forum for EX-CHRISTIANS, you posted a series of "answers' and you don't expect anyone to question how you came about them or what your stance is?

 

[Vigile]

No ones bubble is being burst. Your answer isn't providing proof otherwise. The word APPEAR is very weak. Its based entirely on perspective, which is just as factually weak as my religious views and just as factually weak as your non-religious views.

 

Let me get this straight. You claim that humans have morals that seperate them from the rest of the animal kingdom. From this, and correct me if I'm wrong, you learn something about who god is. When this view is challenged you ask for scientific proof for the challenge.

 

Well, you are the one that made the extraordinary claim that human morality sets us apart. The ball is in your court. It is your burdon of proof, not ours.

 

Peer reviewed journal articles that back up your claims should be a good start.

[Vixentrox]

That would assume he knows what "peer reviewed" means.

[Guest Joshuan1]

That would assume he knows what "peer reviewed" means.

 

 

Thanks. That one response sums up why it is a profound waste of time here and not worth commenting any longer. See yah!!

[Lycorth]

Er, this is an open forum for EX-CHRISTIANS, you posted a series of "answers' and you don't expect anyone to question how you came about them or what your stance is?

 

 

Heh - and then runs away like a little bitch when he can't take the heat. Typical of his kind

[Vigile]

That would assume he knows what "peer reviewed" means.

 

 

Thanks. That one response sums up why it is a profound waste of time here and not worth commenting any longer. See yah!!

 

Translation: "Uh oh, they won’t let me dazzle them with bullshit. They actually want hard facts to back up my claims. Better find an excuse to bail, no matter how trite or pitiful."

[Ouroboros]

I was very confused what Joshuan1 really meant. And the best way to get to an understanding is to debate different view points. That's unfortunate the he left, because I think he could learn a bit or two by being here. But that's his/her choice...

[Jun]

Hey, this one's gone too? Veil and now Joshuan1. And both after having just joined!

[NotBlinded]

He may have tasted better if you put a little butter on him first.

 

Sometimes you all are ruthless!

 

A lot of times it's hard to explain something without it being taken in the literal sense.

[Grandpa Harley]

The initial thread was about asking questions and I gave answers.

 

Ok, then perhaps you won't mind explaining your first "answer?" You said -

A God who never created an eternal hell to begin with..it is a mistranslation of text and is used out of context.

 

There are various sections in the bible that suggest hell exists. For example, there is Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Jesus refers to hell as Gehenna, from the Aramaic based on the name Hinnom, the valley just south of Jerusalem where garbage was regularly burned (see Matthew 18:8-9). The image of hell as similar to Gehenna - "a place where the fire does not go out and the worm never dies" - suggests a very real place of everlasting fire. (see also Matthew 13:42, 50).

Can you provide evidence that the Christians have mistranslated the bible - in which parts? Which would be the correct translation then, and what is your evidence for this? Can you show where it is quoted out of context and provide evidence for the correct context in which it is to be?

 

........this is about being a pin-cushion for others to begin asking a number of questions.

 

Er, this is an open forum for EX-CHRISTIANS, you posted a series of "answers' and you don't expect anyone to question how you came about them or what your stance is?

 

 

 

Jun, you know how keen I am on apologetics (I hate it more than unrinary tract infections for the record) In terms of Aramaic, the reference to the Gehenna/Hinnom are just what they seem to be... references to a rubbish dump. Jesus seems to be using the similie like a New Yorker saying, 'You may as well throw yourself in Fresh Kills' The concept of Hell as an after life option (rather like the concept of after life itself) is a Classical (Greco-Roman) one. Not only was Jesus not saying that, the thought couldn't enter his head in his native tongue, since it couldn't support the idea of 'life eternal', tormented or otherwise.

[wishful]

This might be a good topic to pin. Every Christian I have ever posed these questions to has never been able to give me a straight answer:

 

1) Which one better describes an all-loving God: a.) One that gives human beings one chance only to get it right and if you don't condemns you to an eternal hell, or b.) One that allows you multiple chances to get it right so that you can spend eternity in the best place possible?

 

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

 

3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

 

4) Where in the Bible does Jesus say that people must worship him or pray to him? Doesn't he identify himself as the "Son of Man" who was sent by the Father?

 

5) Jesus himself and his disciples seem to believe in reincarnation, as evidenced in Matthew 11:10-15, Matthew 17:10-13 and John 9:1-2. Why is the word of Paul in Hebrews 9:27 taken over Jesus in Christian doctrine?

 

1. b

 

2. It is most likely there is no hell, as popularly defined today.

 

3. Going strickly by the odds, and foregoing any qualitative analysis, the answer is, you are right concerning the odds.

 

4. Jesus was sent to point people to the Father, not himself.

 

5. That represents a complete misunderstanding of Elijah.

 

I think you have finally gotten your answers. To be quite honest, those were easy. lol Do you see how you can answer someone, and be right to the point? I hope I have demonstrated that for you. I ask the same courtesy of you please. thanks in advance

[Jun]

Jesus was sent to point people to the Father, not himself.

 

Could not the "Father" do it himself? He's "God" after all right?

 

And why have him born of a human, chased by a jealous king (which allowed many innocent babies to be murdered), grow up as a human, and then murdered by mere mortals to "point" to the "Father?"

 

Why not just land on the Earth like Krishna or Ninigi no Mikoto and start spreading his word?

 

And isn't "Jesus" just "God" anyhow, like all the Indian gods are emanations of The One?

[Kuroikaze]

1. b

 

 

2. It is most likely there is no hell, as popularly defined today.

 

I have to ask what you think the "popular" definition of hell is, and what you think the proper definition is?

 

3. Going strickly by the odds, and foregoing any qualitative analysis, the answer is, you are right concerning the odds.

 

Can't speak for everyone, but it seems to me doing a qualitative analysis of the theistic religions is by definition impossible. For starters, virtually every one of them claim you can't understand said religion until after you already believe. The quality always seems good for those inside the religion...but for those out side the religion...not so much.

 

 

4. Jesus was sent to point people to the Father, not himself.

 

this assumes many things without proof.

 

5. That represents a complete misunderstanding of Elijah.

 

just because it isn't your understanding doesn't automatically mean its wrong. You don't offer an alternative explanation, so how is one to judge which explanation seems more reasonable?

 

I think you have finally gotten your answers. To be quite honest, those were easy. lol Do you see how you can answer someone, and be right to the point? I hope I have demonstrated that for you. I ask the same courtesy of you please. thanks in advance

 

it seems more like you offered half answers to me

[Grandpa Harley]

Jesus was sent to point people to the Father, not himself.

 

Could not the "Father" do it himself? He's "God" after all right?

 

And why have him born of a human, chased by a jealous king (which allowed many innocent babies to be murdered), grow up as a human, and then murdered by mere mortals to "point" to the "Father?"

 

Why not just land on the Earth like Krishna or Ninigi no Mikoto and start spreading his word?

 

And isn't "Jesus" just "God" anyhow, like all the Indian gods are emanations of The One?

Krishna was a virgin birth, had to hide as a cattle herder from a jealous king... you get the picture. He didn't just 'turn up', although he never claimed to be anything less than a god in human form...

[Jun]

Jesus was sent to point people to the Father, not himself.

 

Could not the "Father" do it himself? He's "God" after all right?

 

And why have him born of a human, chased by a jealous king (which allowed many innocent babies to be murdered), grow up as a human, and then murdered by mere mortals to "point" to the "Father?"

 

Why not just land on the Earth like Krishna or Ninigi no Mikoto and start spreading his word?

 

And isn't "Jesus" just "God" anyhow, like all the Indian gods are emanations of The One?

Krishna was a virgin birth, had to hide as a cattle herder from a jealous king... you get the picture. He didn't just 'turn up', although he never claimed to be anything less than a god in human form...

 

Yeah, I knew that but couldn't come up with another comparison quickly.

[wishful]

snip

 

With all due respect, you asked for an answer, not a complete thesis on each of the questions. You are free to accept them or not.

 

Every Christian I have ever posed these questions to has never been able to give me a straight answer:

 

I gave you straght and concise answers to your questions. I understand you want to debate my answers. And I respect that, but you should acknowledge that I have answered you questions. And where the basis of those questions were posed in error, I pointed that out. That is a complete answer.

[Kuroikaze]

snip

 

With all due respect, you asked for an answer, not a complete thesis on each of the questions. You are free to accept them or not.

 

Answers that cannot be understood by the listener are not answers.

 

It seems misleading to claim that answering those questions were "easy" when you didn't really answer them.

 

Getting huffy because I called you on it doesn't change anything.

[wishful]

http://www.thercg.org/books/tbdse.html#gen1_1

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html

 

There are a number of different terms for "hell" in Hebrew and Greek. You have to be able to differentiate between them. The article I linked to will help you do just that, if you are interested in the correct interpretation.

[Grandpa Harley]

So the broad usage by the RCC and most other Christian cults is 'incorrect'? And you've not told them? for shame...

 

(TBH, most Ex-C's do know about the Hebrew meaning of the word, and the Greek word used too... some of us even know that in Aramaic the concept of an eternal after-life wasn't even communicable, let alone preached by a first century Jew. On average it's Christians who have no more idea about them than a brick does about archery)

[wishful]

snip

 

With all due respect, you asked for an answer, not a complete thesis on each of the questions. You are free to accept them or not.

 

Answers that cannot be understood by the listener are not answers.

 

It seems misleading to claim that answering those questions were "easy" when you didn't really answer them.

 

Getting huffy because I called you on it doesn't change anything.

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

 

5) Jesus himself and his disciples seem to believe in reincarnation, as evidenced in Matthew 11:10-15, Matthew 17:10-13 and John 9:1-2. Why is the word of Paul in Hebrews 9:27 taken over Jesus in Christian doctrine?

 

Begging_the_question

 

It is not incumbent on the answerer to disprove the question when the question itself remains unproven.

 

You have yet to provide one iota of backing for your questions, and yet you expect me to do just that.

 

Hypocrite.

[wishful]

Answers that cannot be understood by the listener are not answers.

 

It seems misleading to claim that answering those questions were "easy" when you didn't really answer them.

 

 

I just linked to an article about "hell". Has anyone read it? If you had, then you would see my answer is backed up thoroughly.

 

Giving someone a straight answer is not the same thing as convincing them that the answer is correct. lol

 

It's funny how when I agreed on question number three's premise, that all you could do is find one thing I said to argue about. Which, if you look at it, was me saying that I'd go by just the odds and nothing else.

 

You will not accept any answer, except one that says, ok, I renounce my Christian beliefs. Is that what you want to hear?

 

Suppose you asked "How did the universe come into being?"

 

And when I say, "God created it." That wouldn't be accepted as answer because, since you don't believe it, the answer I provided cannot be understood by you.

 

That is ridiculous. lol

[Grandpa Harley]

I couldn't (and don't) see what your links have to do with hell

 

http://www.thercg.org/books/ttah.html

 

Seems to have more to do with it...

[Grandpa Harley]

I confess, this made me laugh...

 

When God says He is going to purge (baptize) with fire, He is not talking about a process of purifying saints. He is speaking of destroying or burning up sinners with fire—the hell fire described in His word and in this booklet. The above scriptures show that He will “fan” the flames so that the fire is hot enough to completely burn up and destroy all the “chaff” that did not choose to become “wheat” qualified to enter His kingdom. Be thankful that a loving God will not permit miserably unhappy, disobedient and unrepentant rebels to cause further suffering to others, or to continue to suffer themselves, for all eternity.