Five Questions That Christians Can't Answer

[Friendly Misanthrope]

If I were to get to heaven and find that there are people I love who are in hell I would devote eternity to pleading with God to provide a way out. I cry even as I think about this.

 

sad,

td

 

Now you see one of the main beefs many of us have with Xianity and one of the main reasons many (including myself) left the flock. What of the people whom missionaries never reach? Are they then judged by some other standard, or are they by default going to hell? Even when I was told by my parents I would go to heaven, I was very upset about all the people I thought would go to hell. How can you enjoy paradise when people you know and love are suffering for eternity? My solution (after many years of struggling and doubt) was to realize that YHWH, and thus hell, was a myth, like Zeus or Thor. Hell has no power over me anymore.

[mwc]

How can you be so sure, especially given John 9:1-2? And either JTB was Elijah according to the prophecy, or Jesus was not the messiah.

 

euphgeek, I have also asked all the questions you are asking. I have often wished that something like reincarnation were true and the finality of Hell appears dogmatic to the mind. The only answer I have ever received from God is "trust me on this one" and so I do. I can accept that or reject it. I have dearly loved ones who I am not sure are in heaven. If I were to get to heaven and find that there are people I love who are in hell I would devote eternity to pleading with God to provide a way out. I cry even as I think about this.

Well, good news, since JTB wasn't Elijah (he says so right in your very own book...and he should know unless he was somehow "possessed" and didn't even know it ) and jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah (he blew all the prophecies needed for that position)! That's gotta take a load off your mind.

 

I do appreciate that you are one of the very few people that have actually said that you would say something to your god on the behalf of those that get tossed in the roaster though. Have you read the Apocalypse of Peter? If not, you should since you share the very ideology that book has in the end (Shhh! It's a secret though). It was the contender for the last spot in the bible but they went with that idiotic tale by John of Patmos instead. Fear over compassion. People are still arguing over a "futuristic" vision that took place 2000 years ago. How very sad.

 

mwc

[tdsurf]

Some things are currently and possibly always unprovable, such as string theory. It is imposible to "see" the smallest component of the universe as to "see" something you must bounce something smaller off of it. By revelation do you mean god comes out of the clouds and tells you things?

 

Saw a show on string theory the other night. I'm purely a spectator about such things and could easily be corrected but isn't that attempting to explain the origin of the big bang? Very interesting stuff to me. The conclusion as I remember it is there are 3 remaining questions that nag at scientists.

 

What is being banged?

What was it banged with?

What caused the banging?

 

cheers,

td

[euphgeek]

How can you be so sure, especially given John 9:1-2? And either JTB was Elijah according to the prophecy, or Jesus was not the messiah.

 

euphgeek, I have also asked all the questions you are asking. I have often wished that something like reincarnation were true and the finality of Hell appears dogmatic to the mind. The only answer I have ever received from God is "trust me on this one" and so I do. I can accept that or reject it. I have dearly loved ones who I am not sure are in heaven. If I were to get to heaven and find that there are people I love who are in hell I would devote eternity to pleading with God to provide a way out. I cry even as I think about this.

 

sad,

td

When I was a child, my parents once told me that God would make heaven so that you would be happy there. One of the characters in C.S. Lewis's books once said, "You cannot want wrong things when you are dead." What that means to me is that if we as human beings would not want anyone to suffer eternally, then a loving God would want that enough to do something about it. In other words, he wouldn't have created hell in the first place, knowing that some people would be there for eternity, without providing a way out. Some day, people will look back at the barbaric idea of an eternal hell and wonder who could have ever believed in such an awful idea.

[Thackerie]

Well there goes this verse:

 

Revelation 21:4

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

 

According to biblegod you are not going to remember or care about your loved ones, because if you did, by your own admission you would spend eternity pleading with god for them to get out, which means you will probably be mentally tortured and unhappy. ...

 

I've heard it explained that way, too, that once you get to heaven all memories of absent loved ones are wiped away -- sort of like a lobotomy for the lord. I'm astounded that fundies think this is a good thing.

 

What no fundie has ever explained about this concept (at least not to my satisfaction) is the disconnect between the idea of us supposedly having free will on earth but not in heaven, where we apparently go around smiling like brain-dead stepford wives all the time. Also, if your memories and natural emotions are purged, wouldn't that imply that what lives on in heaven is not really you but, maybe, a mere look-alike?

[Vixentrox]

Not to mntion if there has supposedly been a war in heaven before causing the loss of 1/3 of the angels it could happen again. So much for heaven being perfectly happy. You dont have 1/3 of the angels rebelling if they were happy.

[Mythra]

Also, does every scientist believe there is no God?

 

Nope. Only about 93% of current scientists are atheist or agnostic.

 

What's interesting to note is that in the early 1900's, 40% of scientists said that they believed in some sort of deity and an afterlife.

 

So, the claim that religious faith and science are merging is nonsense.

 

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.

 

From this article at Atheists.org.

[dibby]

Hmm Tdsurf. So you love the people you think might be in hell and would plead with god forever to get them out?? You sound more loving than the god you worship. maybe the Phelps family are more honest about the nature of god of the bible.

[euphgeek]

Also, does every scientist believe there is no God?

 

Nope. Only about 93% of current scientists are atheist or agnostic.

You know, this is probably why most people have the mistaken perception that science is anti-religion. I think this hurts the perception of science in the public view, since most non-scientist people are religious. They just see scientists as a bunch of godless atheists who are determined to prove religion wrong. That's why ridiculous ideas such as "teach the controversy" make it to the polls.

[chefranden]

All "Christians" agree that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Can you tell me which denomination claims to be the only true one? I would venture that it is classified more as a cult by Christians and has not Biblical basis. The RCC is a good example of that and many people classify it as a cult.

 

Surely you are not this unaware of Church History. Why do you suppose that there are denominations in the first place, if not for the prospect that the old denomination from which the new one split was not getting it right? I can tell you that my old church would highly doubt your salvation with your charismania background, and if you were not immersed into the death and resurrection of Christ. Why do you suppose that various denominations have attempted to rub others out? Why do many sects refuse to take communion with other sects? Why are there ecumenical movements, if there is no worry about ones salvation between churches? What ever denomination you pick you likely picked it because for some reason you suppose it to be the most correct if not absolutely correct.

 

Not all Christians agree that Jesus is the "only" way to heaven. Even among the churches that do agree with that "principle" there is much disagreement over the way to Jesus and if you don't get to Jesus you don't get to heaven, right?

[Karl-777]

Here are five more questions to add to the list:

 

6) When has [any] believer anywhere done any of “Jesus”’ works as per “Jesus” prophecy they would do his works in John 14:12?

 

In John 14:12 ~ KJV we read: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

We are still looking for ONE demonstrated instance of ANY of these ever having been done by any Xtian anywhere in the last 1900 years, since the alleged events in the NT.

 

"Jesus" has complete command over Nature and totally stops severe weather in its tracks:

24 And behold there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 26 ...Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea and there was a great calm.

 

"Jesus" restores a deformed limb to normal:

6...and there was a man whose right hand was withered. 10 And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, "Stretch forth they hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

 

"Jesus" restores life to the decomposing body of a man who was dead for four days:

17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 And he that was dead came forth....

 

"Jesus" does food multiplication, feeding 5,000 after having started out with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes:

38 He said unto them, "How many loaves have ye?" And when they knew, they say "Five, and two fishes". 42 And they did all eat, and were filled. 44 And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

 

"Jesus" heals 10 people who had leprosy, all at the same time:

12 And as he entered into a certain village, there he met ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off. 14 ...and it came to pass that as they went, they were cleansed.

 

"Jesus" turns water into wine:

7 Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 10 ....but thou hast kept the good wine till now."

 

"Jesus" reattaches a severed body part without surgery:

50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 And Jesus answered and said, "Suffer ye thus far." And he touched his ear and healed him.

 

Was Terry Schiavo healed by Xtians after being in a vegetative state for 15 years?....NO

Were the victims of the tsunami disaster raised from the dead by Xtians?....NO

Did Xtians do food and fresh water multiplication in the Katrina disaster?....NO

 

Conclusion:

 

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Of course, we're talking about THE "lord", aren't we?

 

7) How could the alleged maker of all things make a Scientific blunder?

 

In John 1:3 ~ KJV we read: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

In Mark 13:24 ~ KJV, “Jesus” the alleged god-man says: ”But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,” The moon is not a light and it does not give any light of its own by itself, but rather it only reflects light that shines on it, given from the sun. This same un-Scientific fallacy is also stated in IS 13:10, EZ 32:7, MT 24:29.

 

8) How could a text containing self-contradictions and error be the alleged “word” of a “perfect” deity for whom “nothing shall be impossible”?

 

OUT-AND-OUT BIBLICAL SELF-CONTRADICITON

 

GE 10:5, 20, 31 - Many languages were in use before the Tower of Babel.

GE 11:1 - Only one language was used before the Tower of Babel.

 

EX 33:20 ~ RSV “But," he said, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live." versus GE 32:30 ~ KJV And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

 

1CH 29:12, LK 1:37 - biblegod is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible to do with biblegod.

JG 1:19 - biblegod was "with Judah", but they could not defeat the enemy because they had iron chariots.

 

GE 50:13 - Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah purchased from Ephron the Hittite.

AC 7:15-16 - He was buried in a sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.

 

EX 20:4 - No likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth is to be made.

2 CH 3:10 Carved Cherubim are made for the temple. 2 CHRON 4:2-4 - The sea of cast bronze for the temple of the lord was supported by twelve cast oxen. 2 CHRON 5:13,14 - Biblegod was obviously pleased because the glory of the lord filled the temple, regardless of the fact that there were the Cherubim, and twelve cast oxen supporting the sea.

 

NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, 30-39, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 - biblegod orders or approves the massacres of entire societies, which included killing innocent women and or children. (ATROCITIES)(One might expect this from someone like Hitler, but NO GOD gave these commands to slaughter human beings)..of course, the above passages all conflict with GEN 9:6 which condemns the shedding of blood and EX 23:7 where biblegod prohibits the killing of innocent people.

 

2SA 24:1 - The Lord inspired David to take the census.

1CH 21:1 - "Satan" inspired David to take the census.

 

1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, 2TH 2:11 - biblegod himself caused a lying spirit or delusion.

PR 12:22 - biblegod does hate lying lips and takes delight in being honest and truthful

 

2CH 19:7, RO 2:11 - Absolutely no injustice or partiality exists whatsoever with the Lord.

RO 9:15-18 - biblegod has mercy on (or hardens the hearts of) whoever he wants to.

 

ACTS 10:34 - "God is no respecter of persons" 2CH 19:7 "..no partiality..."

IS 44:1 - biblegod's supposedly "chosen" people are the Israelites

 

RO 3:23 - "..all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and IS 64:6 "..all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (NKJ)---contrast these two with:

MT 9:13 - " ...I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (NKJ)

....implying that some are not sinners, but are indeed righteous...who are these?..how did they get righteous?...no "filthy rags", huh?

 

MT 1:16 - Jacob was the father of Joseph.

LK 3:23 - Heli was Joseph's father.

 

MT 1:17 - There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.

LK 3:23-38 - There were forty-three generations from David to Jesus.

 

Did "Jesus" go "immediately" into the desert after his baptism, as Mark says:

 

And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. (Mark 1.12,13)

 

or did he go to a wedding as John's gospel says?

 

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)

 

BIBLICAL HISTORICAL ERROR

 

This illustration is from the book of "Daniel". This book was originally said to have been written during the Hebrew Babylonian captivity (597-538 B.C.) but scholarship has dated it to around 165 B.C. [see .Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Meridian Books, NY, 1957, etc.] Of course, this would make the "prophecy" an after-the-fact writing. Daniel 5:2 states that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not the case. The actual succession of monarchs was:

Nebuchadnezzar, 606-561 B.C.

Evilmerodach (Avil-Marduk or Amel-Marduk), 561-559 B.C.

Neriglissar (Nergal-ashur-usur), 558-555 B.C.

Laborosoarchod (Labashi-Marduk), 555 B.C. (9 mo.)

Nabonidus (Nabu-nahid), 555-538 B.C. (Nabonidus was the last monarch of Babylon.)

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, as was stated in Daniel 5:2. DAN 5:30-31 says "That very night Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede took the kingdom". Cyrus the Persian conquered the country, not Darius the Mede.(therefore BOTH Isaiah 13:17 and Jeremiah 51:11 are WRONG.) DAN 6:1-2 states there were 120 satraps in the kingdom, but in Column 1, para. 6 of the Behistun Rock inscription, carved during the reign of Darius the Great (the Persian king, 522-486 B.C., who is the one who organized the Persian Empire into satrapies), only twenty-three were listed. And of course, there were 5 kingdoms (as per the "interpretation" of DAN 2:31-33) Chaldean, Median, Persian, Greek and Roman.

 

It is obvious that Daniel is far from being "inerrant". Of course, if this is the case, is there

ANYTHING in the book that is "inerrant"?........how can one tell what is "inerrant" in the bible, in light of this demonstrated errancy?

 

There is much more than this at:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunkin...n_Arguments.htm

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/letter1.cfm

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...radictions.html

 

9) WHY DIDN’T EVERYONE HAVE BIBLES?

 

Luke 2:10 states that the “good tidings” were to “all people”. This is a lie.

 

If biblegod wanted everyone to be “saved” so badly, biblegod should certainly have had the sense to realize that the technology did not exist at the time to get these alleged “revelations” regarding the “only true” religion and the “only way to stay out of “hell””, out to the entire population of the Planet, who were separated by vast oceans and continents. It should have been no problem for said “omnipotent” deity to send those same alleged “angels” to “prophets” everywhere; i.e., all peoples should have had…..the same identical books, no matter what continent they were on. Since as per Christian dogmatic fabrications, no one can "be saved" by works, it would certainly have been better than letting all of those “heathen savages” “go to hell” while waiting centuries for the “missionaries” to get there. A text allegedly originating from a deity (who allegedly created everything) and whose writers were allegedly “divinely inspired” should also be perfect with regard to History, Archaeology, Scientific Truth, Justice, Philosophy and Logic (no self-contradictions or copying from other sources)

 

The notion that a just God would wait until a time late in human history to finally "reveal" himself and the "only true" religion, while "abrogating" what had allegedly been "revealed" earlier, and then "revealing" it to only a select few (especially since biblegod is allegedly "all knowing"), is absurd on its face.

 

10) How can this dogmatic absurdity be defended?

 

THE XTIAN TRINITY - A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

 

The Christian trinity is impossible by Nature and per its own book.

 

Genesis 1:27 ~ KJVSo God (Heb. Elohim) created man in his own image, in the image of God (Heb. Elohim) created he him; male and female created he them.

 

As per humankind in Nature, the son proceeds from the father and the mother. As per Genesis 1:27, humankind is made in the "image" of the divine. The Nicene Creed (penned by a "learned" group of "theologians" at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 CE) says otherwise about the Xtian trinity however, in whose "image" humankind is made as per Genesis....

 

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

 

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

 

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

 

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

 

As can be seen, the Nicene Creed position is that the father and the son somehow have the " lord and giver of life" HS proceed from them, which is inconsistent with "male and female" being created in the "image of God" statement in Genesis and with Nature, which means that either Nature is wrong or....Xtian dogma is wrong. In Nature, NOTHING proceeds from the father and the son, but rather, a feminine entity we all know and love called WOMAN is the giver of life, and she has the child proceeding from her by her mate.

 

I think we can agree that Nature is correct here, and not Xtian dogma.

 

And, in light of the evidences and analysis posted, I think we can also agree that exclusionist Xtian dogma as a whole is…..indefensible.

 

K

[InspectoGeneral]

Another question you could add-

 

Have you stopped beating your wife? They can never answer that one.

 

Looks like your questions are rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. You should take a class or something, then you could ask questions that reflect a cursory understanding of Christianity.

 

Flawed questions don't have questions.

 

So what do I get for pointing out that the questions can't be answered.

[InspectoGeneral]

Hi euphgeek,

 

I don't understand what you mean by a "straight answer". Is it your understanding that humans are meant to comprehend everything there is about the universe, eternity, heaven / hell from what only what is contained in the Bible? or that the Bible claims to give the full explanation of such unanswerable questions? Is there anybody who actually believes they know and understand everything there is to know? What constitutes a "straigh answer" that you are looking for?

Christians claim that the Bible is the answer to everything, yet they can't answer questions about their beliefs. By "straight answer" I mean one that is well thought out and makes sense to all involved.

Are you under the impression that there are "thousands of different denominations" and each believes they are they only true denomination and the others are false? What else do you mean by "it right"? Don't most denominations agree to disagree on peripheral topics that are not essential to salvation?

There are many denominations that feel that theirs is the only way to salvation. The entire Christian religion is based on their way being the only way to salvation. But many other religions also claim the same thing.

Can you explain why #4 appears to be two unrelated questions? I have never heard of Jesus insisting that he be worshipped, which is the concept of behind free choice. Are you referring to the "every knee shall bow"?

Christians insist that Jesus is a part of the Trinity that is God, and therefore must be worshiped.

Can you explain how those scriptures support reincarnation? I really want to understand your questions and it's important to understand clearly what you are asking.

Just read the verses. It's easy to see how they support reincarnation. Is your answer to deny that they support reincarnation like every other Christian does?

 

I think you give yourself too much credit if you think you could understand the answer. Have you considered that the problem is YOU? As a teacher, sometimes you realize that some student aren't ever going to get it. And that seems to be you. Isn't it funny how when the answers aren't what you want to hear, the person isn't giving it to you straight or doesn't see what is obvious to you? Looks like you aren't looking for answers at all. And if you aren't looking for answers, it is certain you will never find them.

 

And you are in the right place. No one here has any answers, just questions. In fact, the more questions you have the better.

[pug]

Another question you could add-

 

Have you stopped beating your wife? They can never answer that one.

 

Looks like your questions are rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. You should take a class or something, then you could ask questions that reflect a cursory understanding of Christianity.

 

Flawed questions don't have questions.

 

So what do I get for pointing out that the questions can't be answered.

 

WHAT you will get is that you are tap dancing around the questions. I think all the questions can be answered with 2 words: Ask God. But then that will be a typical unsatisfactory answer.

[InspectoGeneral]

Another question you could add-

 

Have you stopped beating your wife? They can never answer that one.

 

Looks like your questions are rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. You should take a class or something, then you could ask questions that reflect a cursory understanding of Christianity.

 

Flawed questions don't have questions.

 

So what do I get for pointing out that the questions can't be answered.

 

WHAT you will get is that you are tap dancing around the questions. I think all the questions can be answered with 2 words: Ask God. But then that will be a typical unsatisfactory answer.

 

I don't make a habit of answering flawed questions rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. I pointed out that they were flawed. If he doesn't understand basic Christianity, then he should take a class or something.

 

Tell me, what color is five? What is brown divided by blue?

 

The questions reflect too much ignorance to dispel.

[pug]

Tell me, what color is five? What is brown divided by blue?

 

The questions reflect too much ignorance to dispel.

 

Five can be any colour you wish. Brown divided by blue is darker brown. I think you should answer his honest questions as best as you possibly can - with escape clauses if needed. IF every body has to phrase a question up to your high standards how will any non-believer ever be a Christian. What is the colour of arrogance? What is mercy divided by grace?

[Skankboy]

I don't make a habit of answering flawed questions rooted in a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. I pointed out that they were flawed. If he doesn't understand basic Christianity, then he should take a class or something.

Yes, you pointed out they were flawed, but failed to show why. Perhaps if you did, this might actually go somewhere...

 

[StewartP]

Another question you could add-

 

Have you stopped beating your wife? They can never answer that one.

 

Well? Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Of course, you've got it wrong again. The question is perfectly answerable. How about "I have never beaten my wife"

 

What you really meant to say was that the wife beating question cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" without coming off badly. But you failed to clarify that. You've lifted some cliche, misunderstood it and misquoted it, misposted it and thought you were being clever.

 

So. how about stopping pretending to be smart and have a go at the questions in the original post. A straight answer doesn't have to be a one liner, you can pad it out some, you can even try and tell us why you think the questions show a flawed understanding of christianity.

 

While you're at it, we're still waitning for your examples of fulfilled biblical prophesies in the other thread . . .

[Lycorth]

While you're at it, we're still waitning for your examples of fulfilled biblical prophesies in the other thread . . .

 

You'll be waiting forever for that one. The Babble isn't known for its accuracy anymore than for its consistency or its truthfulness

[InspectoGeneral]

Another question you could add-

 

Have you stopped beating your wife? They can never answer that one.

 

Well? Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Of course, you've got it wrong again. The question is perfectly answerable. How about "I have never beaten my wife"

 

What you really meant to say was that the wife beating question cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" without coming off badly. But you failed to clarify that. You've lifted some cliche, misunderstood it and misquoted it, misposted it and thought you were being clever.

 

So. how about stopping pretending to be smart and have a go at the questions in the original post. A straight answer doesn't have to be a one liner, you can pad it out some, you can even try and tell us why you think the questions show a flawed understanding of christianity.

 

While you're at it, we're still waitning for your examples of fulfilled biblical prophesies in the other thread . . .

 

Sure you are. In order to have fulfilled prophecies, you would have to admit that the prophecies were written prior to the event, which you aren't willing to accept.

 

So again, when you are just going to dismiss the prophecy, as you always will, as being written after the fact, the whole idea of prophecies becomes hollow.

 

And his questions were based on false premises, a misunderstanding of Christianity. Don't blame me for his questions, I didn't write them. Nor do I have the space to explain their fallacies. You'll have to find someone else to give you a non-answer to his non-questions.

[pug]

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?

You only have 2 choices. Let's see, b is a better description.

 

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?

Punishment? I think it's worst than that. You will be condemned forever. NO need to correct yourself. No more chances. You had all your chances but you blew it. Straight enough?

 

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?

i'll try to tell you that if i make it?

 

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?

Here's one long answer:

http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/heb02.html

 

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?

 

Biblical texts seem to imply belief in reincarnation.

 

The most "convincing" texts of this kind are the following:

 

1) Matthew 11,14 and 17,12-13, concerning the identity of John the Baptist;

2) John 9,2, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?";

3) John 3,3, "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again";

4) James 3,6, "the wheel of nature";

5) Galatians 6,7, "A man reaps what he sows";

6) Matthew 26,52, "all who draw the sword will die by the sword";

7) Revelation 13,10, "If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed."

 

The complete text:

http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation3.html

 

More here:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=na...in+christianity

[narcissist]

If the questions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of christianity, then would not answering these questions help address such misunderstandings? Isn't that the whole point of asking questions in the first place?

 

Can the clay out-smart the potter? Surely no question, no matter how 'flawed', is too difficult for God, the Source of all knowledge?

 

And surely a God who wants his creation to know him would be only to willing to share such knowlege, especially to those capable of only asking 'flawed' questions?

 

To dismiss such questions as flawed without attampting an answer them says more about the dismisser than the original questions or questioner.

[InspectoGeneral]

If the questions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of christianity, then would not answering these questions help address such misunderstandings? Isn't that the whole point of asking questions in the first place?

 

Can the clay out-smart the potter? Surely no question, no matter how 'flawed', is too difficult for God, the Source of all knowledge?

 

And surely a God who wants his creation to know him would be only to willing to share such knowlege, especially to those capable of only asking 'flawed' questions?

 

To dismiss such questions as flawed without attampting an answer them says more about the dismisser than the original questions or questioner.

 

If 3 plus 3 is 15, then why is 2 plus 2 equal to 11?

 

You don't understand the problem with a flawed question? Wow. Flawed questions are unanswerable because they are FLAWED. I could explain why they are flawed, or I could have you bludgeon yourself with a dull object. Both seem to be equally as useful.

[Lycorth]

If 3 plus 3 is 15, then why is 2 plus 2 equal to 11?

 

You don't understand the problem with a flawed question? Wow. Flawed questions are unanswerable because they are FLAWED. I could explain why they are flawed, or I could have you bludgeon yourself with a dull object. Both seem to be equally as useful.

 

A textbook retarded response from a textbook retarded fundygelical

[Trancelation]

If the questions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of christianity, then would not answering these questions help address such misunderstandings? Isn't that the whole point of asking questions in the first place?

 

Can the clay out-smart the potter? Surely no question, no matter how 'flawed', is too difficult for God, the Source of all knowledge?

 

And surely a God who wants his creation to know him would be only to willing to share such knowlege, especially to those capable of only asking 'flawed' questions?

 

To dismiss such questions as flawed without attampting an answer them says more about the dismisser than the original questions or questioner.

 

If 3 plus 3 is 15, then why is 2 plus 2 equal to 11?

 

You don't understand the problem with a flawed question? Wow. Flawed questions are unanswerable because they are FLAWED. I could explain why they are flawed, or I could have you bludgeon yourself with a dull object. Both seem to be equally as useful.

You might as well have said that there no questions were actually asked, as I'm sure you dismiss the existence of contradictions in the Bible in the exact same way. It's much easier to deny them than to justify them by claiming they are flawed questions.

 

By the way, in the real world, when someone makes a claim, they are expected to back it up with evidence. This is one such part of the real world, as revival tents and altars are nowhere to be found here. If you're looking for a place that embraces on-the-spot fiction, I suggest you seek out the nearest roadside Christian attractation.

 

Until then, I'd LOVE to hear how the questions are flawed, and EXACTLY where the supposed misunderstanding of Christianity is. Of course, I understand the narcisstic knee-jerk reactions taking place here: someone is criticizing the flawed belief system that you have propped up to save your drowning ego, and thusly, no matter how well-thought out the question, you cannot answer it, because doing so forces you to stare at your reflection.

 

And nothing is worse than that, right?

 

There are many questions Christians cannot supply answers to. Such a fact runs counter to the claim that Christianity has all of the answers, and that meditation on the image of a naked Jesus will somehow make anything better.