Question For The Christians

[bdp]

 

 

That is a false statement. I have provided plenty of evidence for the existence of God and the evidence of rebellion against him. You may not like it or accept it, but it doesn't mean that evidence does not exist or has not been presented.

 

 

 

Everything you ever presented has been shot down decisively.

[bdp]

 

 

What sends a person to hell?

 

 

'god' does - you know, the one that's so willing that none should perish and all that?

 

Actually, what sends a person to hell is belief in it. Since it doesn't exist it presents no danger of any kind - until you believe it's there and begin to worry and stress about it.

[Ouroboros]

A man was shot dead.

 

Was it the exsanguination (hypovolemia), the wound, the bullet, the gun, or the shooter that killed the man?

 

So what sends a person to Hell? The sin, the unbelief, rebellion, or God?

 

It depends on view, doesn't it?

 

Actually, it depends upon the type of cause to which you are referring. The lead and metal is the material cause, the bullet and the gun are the formal causes, the gun is the efficient cause as it fires the bullet, and the shooter's intent to kill is the final cause.

 

What sends a person to hell? The person is the efficient cause, their sin is the formal cause, rebellion is the final cause. God is sovereign against whom the rebellion is directed, but also the one who provides payment for that act of rebellion.

 

LNC

Thanks. At least we got a little bit more clarity if we start breaking out the different causes, and types thereof.

 

If the man then walks into a stray bullet, what kind of cause was the shooters cause, and what kind of cause was the man's when he walked in front of it? If it was accidental, is it then a cause still (without intent)?

 

And there are many other people's intentions that are part of the equation as well. How about the gun maker's cause, what kind is that?

 

But then what did actually kill the man? What about the exsanguination, what kind of cause was that? Or the heart stopped beating, he didn't die of that? He actually died of another man's trigger finger? Are we to say that he didn't die because he bled to death or that his heart stopped, but that someone used their finger?

 

What does Adam's and Eve's sin add to the picture? They were not part of causing this? Satan is not a part of the causation either? What about incomplete evidence that Jesus really existed, is that even part of the equation to figure out a person's responsibility to "choose" right?

 

From all that you're saying, it seems like God is just an innocent bystander who didn't do squat. It's not his fault. He didn't do anything. Everything lies on man for being such a sinner and he'll be punished because of it. But God is not part of any of the causes, not even his wrath, his creation of Hell, or his own actions of establishing these spiritual laws that we're supposed to believe exist.

[bdp]

 

Thanks. At least we got a little bit more clarity if we start breaking out the different causes, and types thereof.

 

If the man then walks into a stray bullet, what kind of cause was the shooters cause, and what kind of cause was the man's when he walked in front of it? If it was accidental, is it then a cause still (without intent)?

 

And there are many other people's intentions that are part of the equation as well. How about the gun maker's cause, what kind is that?

 

But then what did actually kill the man? What about the exsanguination, what kind of cause was that? Or the heart stopped beating, he didn't die of that? He actually died of another man's trigger finger? Are we to say that he didn't die because he bled to death or that his heart stopped, but that someone used their finger?

 

What does Adam's and Eve's sin add to the picture? They were not part of causing this? Satan is not a part of the causation either? What about incomplete evidence that Jesus really existed, is that even part of the equation to figure out a person's responsibility to "choose" right?

 

From all that you're saying, it seems like God is just an innocent bystander who didn't do squat. It's not his fault. He didn't do anything. Everything lies on man for being such a sinner and he'll be punished because of it. But God is not part of any of the causes, not even his wrath, his creation of Hell, or his own actions of establishing these spiritual laws that we're supposed to believe exist.

 

 

I think I need to just step out of the way.

[agnosticator]

If Ellen White said this, I'm sure that she had a different intention in mind. However, if you want to understand this concept biblically, read Romans chapter 2

 

I would suggest that you are not good at reading my sarcasm.

 

Guilt by association isn't a valid way to argue a case. I would suggest that you are not good at reading my motives or intentions either. It seems that many on this site enjoy philosophical discussion, apologetics (which simply means, to give an answer back - so it seems that everyone on this site is doing apologetics) and debate, what does your comment say about them?

 

From heren. (used with a sing. verb):

 

1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.

2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

 

I would also suggest you aren't good at reading my intentions. I was referring to the commonly used definition number ONE. I think you intentionally avoid a straightforward response. This is more of a game than a discussion on your part.

[LNC]

Bawahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

 

Oh, yeeees – LNC’s interpretation is the one and only truth because he knows how to properly interpret scripture.

 

Funny; the 34,000 separate christian groups, in the world, ALL with varying and vast interpretations of scripture, where christians are free to rationalize and interpret it (making it mean whatever they want it to mean), ALL claim their years of study and evidence from scripture makes their interpretation legitimate also. They make the claim that their methods of interpreting are proper and oddly enough they can support their particular interpretation with scripture, too – which even contradicts LNC’s beliefs.

 

Why is your idiosyncratic, myopic, interpretation, of scripture, the one and only correct, interpretation?

 

I’ll tell you what LNC, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, precisely, and unequivocally, everything he needs me, to know, himself -- this way, I can be certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian asshole, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate.

 

Your god is nothing but a human construct -- a figment of your imagination, a definition, based on your myopic, interpretation of the bible and flights of fancy.

 

--S.

 

 

So, are you implying that there is not proper interpretation or do you mean to imply that we simply can't get to the proper interpretation? In either case, please tell me why you hold this belief and whether it applies to all documents or just the Bible. If you believe this only applies to the Bible, then please state your reasons for believing this.

 

If I have interpreted the Bible correctly, then would it not be the right interpretation? If you believe that I have interpreted the Bible incorrectly, please show me where and give reasons for your answer. How do you know there are 34K Christian groups and that they all interpret the Bible differently? I have belonged to three churches in my adult life and they all hold to the same interpretation, so I think you are mistaken in your claim. However, even if every group interpreted the Bible differently, it doesn't mean that one has not gotten the interpretation right, and that being the case, it would mean that every other group got either one or more things wrong. But that is irrelevant to whether we can interpret the Bible as the authors intended it to be understood. However, I simply think you are mistaken in your claim that every Christian group interprets the Bible differently and I have shown that by my example.

 

Why do you call my interpretation idiotic and myopic? Do you know that I have interpreted it incorrectly? If so, you must give evidence that that is the case. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in empty name-calling to try to justify your view.

 

Why do you assume that God has not told you about himself through me and others on this site. If you choose to ignore and reject that message, you cannot blame God for that.

 

How do you know that all of your beliefs are not human constructs? If God doesn't exist, I think that is the best you could do; however, you would have no reason to believe that you have arrived at truth. If you are simply a material entity, then there is no "you," there are only bits and pieces of stuff floating through time and space, but there is no grounds for consciousness, intellect, and knowledge. Yet, here You are arguing your case, it seems that there is more to you than that which meets the eye.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Thanks for the reply. I am doing well, thank you. I seem to be coming out of my dark patch.

 

Good to see you.

 

Phanta

 

Hey, glad to hear it. I will be praying for you.

 

LNC

[LNC]

One of the biggest problems I see with the Christian religion, LNC, is Hell. Fear of hell influences people to do a fair amount of bootlicking. This is a people thing. That is not trust, it is fear. Fear of punishment and condemnation is a big motivator for so many people. It seems to me an inherently untrustworthy setup. Do you get what I'm saying? If there are consequences that someone else has established, people are influenced to act out of fear, rather than love. That's not pure or good, and is an awful lot like bootlicking.

 

Phanta

 

I would agree that given a false understanding of what God has done for us, some people believe that they have to engage in "boot-licking" to earn God's favor. However, that is simply because man wants to try to earn that which is a free gift. Man feels obligated to earn his own way and is often too proud to receive a free gift. However, God will not allow that in his economy. Paul makes it very clear in Ephesians that it is "not by works, that no one should boast." (2:9) As I have said in another post, even if man could earn his way to heaven, he would blow it in the end by boasting about his tremendous feat. Pride is pernicious in the human race and pride is what prevents man from entering a relationship with God. If a person thinks he is saved simply as a free pass from hell, I doubt that the person is truly saved. I was listening to a man by the name of Dallas Willard today (he is a philosophy professor at University of Southern California (USC)) and he said that unless we are radically changed by entering into a relationship with Jesus, then we probably are not truly in that relationship. It would be like getting married to escape the loneliness of being single. If that is the only reason that a person gets married, then the marriage will not last. We enter into the relationship with Jesus because we love him and want to be in that intimate relationship, not because we fear and want to escape hell. Now, with that said, I won't say that people are grateful for being freed from condemnation in hell; however, that cannot be a main motivation for being in relationship with Jesus. I hope that makes sense.

 

LNC

[LNC]

we have such a wealth of manuscripts to draw from that we can arrive at within 99% of what was contained in the originals.

 

Again, this means NOTHING. And, again, what we have doesn't even agree within itself.

 

I'm sorry, then you don't understand ancient textual criticism and interpretation. Even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman, who agrees with the statement I made, would say that this is one of the keys.

 

Could you give evidence of your last statement? I don't see that this is a true claim on your part., but if you would like to point out any apparent inconsistencies, I would be glad to address them.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I was referencing someone else referencing a specific verse - the one you keep pretending nobody's mentioned.

 

And what the hell is the bolded portion supposed to mean?

 

I have since addressed that oversight. The bolded part was for emphasis as many continue to ask the same question.

 

LNC

[LNC]

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already...

 

The OP asks a simple question: Would Anne Frank go to hell for being a Jew, according to the Bible.

Answer: If Anne Frank were a practicing religious Jew, as I suspect she is / was, then yes she goes into the crispy fry when she dies, according to the Bible. Religious Jews do not "believe on Jesus", therefore, they are condemned, according to the Bible - real simple. The question or answer has nothing to do with ethnicity.

 

The question is not pleasant for a believer to answer, especially one who enjoys leaving themselves a back door open through which to escape, because it spills an entire barrel of screaming monkeys to deal with. In this forum, that could be a large pain in the ass. As a result, we have been witness to a miserable and lengthy display of escape artistry for the last 6 pages of posting.

 

I have already addressed this multiple times, so I won't repeat myself, but simply refer you back to my previous posts. As the verse says, unbelievers were condemned "already" due to the sin each person has accumulated over the course of life. No, it is not pleasant to deal with this issue, but it is reality according to the Bible. God has made a simple way for people to have their sins paid for, and most will reject that kind offer and will reject God in the process. He won't force anyone to come to heaven. It is sad that anyone would choose to go to hell rather than trust in the God who can and will save them if the person simply trusts in him.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Up until now, I have seen a level of insight in your comments LNC, in relation to the assumptions that are made today about the 'meaning' of historic texts when viewed through a modernist mindset and infused with new beliefs that have taken hold at a much later date and therefore 'change' the potential meanings people can read into words.

 

However, this thinking here breaks my heart, the idea that there is any need to weigh up 'good' versus 'bad' and reward or inhumanely punish for an eternity accordingly is just alien to me. And the creation of 'sins' that harm no one except God's ego are perverse to me.

 

A God that sets a standard no one can meet, provides a solution that some people don't connect with and then banishes them as a result does not make good sense.

 

I would not banish my children or punish my children for adopting (rebelling against)a different lifestyle (creation) than mine. Once upon a time parents did this - some still do. Hopefully more and more we will evolve beyond such controlling behaviour.

 

There is a way of reading the Bible and other religious texts that teaches things about the human condition that don't require a literalist belief in hell, a personality God or the worthlessness of mankind.

 

Do you really believe that sin hurts no one but God's ego? Have you not read the newspaper today, or yesterday, or any day before that? In it you will read account after account of man's inhumanity to man. Just today I read about a man who took a boy into a stall at a McDonalds with intention to physically and psychologically molest him. Does that just hurt God's ego or does it hold the potential of destroying that boy's life as well? We just remembered the 9th anniversary of 9/11. Did that act only hurt God's ego or did it destroy the lives of nearly 3,000 people, along with many of their family members who were ripped apart by that act of human sinfulness?

 

Do you believe that the people who committed these acts deserve hell? If not, then what would you have for your system of justice and why would that be a just system? What if you set your system and someone came along and said that you were being too harsh? Soon your system of justice would die the death of a thousand cuts until there was nothing left. It is called the shortest man syndrome. You line up a group of men and then take away the shortest man. But then you have a line that still has a shortest man, so you take him away, and then...you see, you still have a shortest man until there are none left. You will always have someone saying that the system of justice is unfair until you have none left.

 

God has not required anything from us but trust. That is a standard that even a child can handle, so I don't think it is unjust in any way. In fact, Jesus used children to illustrate that that is how he wants people to come to him, with simple faith and trust. The fact that some choose not to trust in God is not because it is too difficult or too hard to understand, it is because people want to do what they want to do and no one is going to tell them any different, even if it means death and hell. Why do doctors who know better still smoke cigarettes? Why do reformed alcoholics return to the bottle (sometimes). Why do people take dangerous drugs? Why do people drive drunk? People do things that they know are dangerous and stupid because they want to and no one is going to stop them. Believe me, I grew up in such a family, I know the mentality.

 

You may not abandon your children, but if your children choose to abandon you, there is nothing you can do about it. I know that from experience as well as my brother abandoned our family to do what he wanted to do. He did it over and over again, until one day he was found unconscious from a mixture of drugs and alcohol. He never woke up from the induced coma and died two weeks later. It wasn't because his family abandoned him, it was because he abandoned the family. God holds out his hand to people to the moment that they die, but if they choose to reject him, then there is nothing he can do about that.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

wor·ship 

–verb (used with object)

6. to render religious reverence and homage to.

7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).

–verb (used without object)

8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.

9. to attend services of divine worship.

10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

 

LNC,

 

You , once again, play with your own unique connotations of words. Certainly, people raised in religious cultures with parents and roles models who value religion or the worship of a deity pass these values on to other people.

 

That is the meaning conveighed in items 6, 8 and 9 from dictionary.com under the listing for worship.

 

There is a less ultimate sense of the word. Like "worshipping" a hero such as a football player, a particularrly skilled and respected businessman or perhaps a love interest.

 

Everyone knows when the word "worship" is used in that sense, it is not the same as "worship" in the religious sense. So, your point about people committing idolotry is rather silly and only works with smug believers who want to feel superior of their choices of deities to worship.

 

So, to nullify your notion, I tell you "No." Using the normally accepted and well documented sense of the word "worship", we don't all worship something, because I don't worship something. And many many people at this site do not either.

 

Sorry, but what I said is clearly conveyed in the definition that you listed. Look at number 7 for example, "to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing). " That is clearly within the realm of what I was saying and often, people do worship other people or things as they would a deity. If you don't believe it, tune into watch Oprah (only half kidding on that one). Sure, we flippantly toss the word around these days in regard to a sports figure or rap "artist" (I use this term loosely), but that doesn't diminish the fact that people devote most of their lives to earn enough money to buy that house, car, vacation home, etc. Their form of worship is at a different altar, but their devotion is no less (and probably far greater) than any religious cleric. You seem to want to keep the word within very tight strictures, but that is not in keeping with even the definition that you included in your post.

 

How many hours do you spend on this site every day or on a weekly basis? How do you know that it hasn't become a form of worship to you? Just asking...

 

LNC

[LNC]

You may be less compassionate than your god but your fellow human being generally is more. Every day human judges and juries weigh the sins of their fellow humans, not even allowing themselves to weigh in the good, and they absolutely never conclude no matter how bad a person is, that that person will spend an eternity in torment. That would be inhumane; though apparently not ungodly.

 

I'm not sure that you know me well enough to judge me like that. Anyway, we just had a trial of our former governor who was clearly guilty of corruption, yet, because of the vote of one juror, the jury was hung. If he is guilty and he is let off scot-free, then is that mercy or a denial of justice? I would say the latter. Guilty people should be found guilty and punished. If you were God, would you let the 9/11 terrorists off the hook of punishment in the after life? Let's say that before that act they lived their whole lives in selfless service to the poor, all the while harboring hatred for Americans, which led them to commit that attack. Would you then let them off the hook? I'm curious how you would ground your justice and how that would work itself out.

 

LNC

[Deva]

No, I actually realized it on my own. I was raised in a church that told me that I could do something about my sin by living a good life. I realized that that would not deal with the problem.

 

That is interesting. You realized you were a sinner on your own without anyone telling you or reading it anywhere? What is your definition of sin?

 

I don't remember saying that. I keep hearing that people on this site are familiar with the Bible, and if that is the case, then you would know that it is based upon regeneration by the Holy Spirit evidenced by our repentance and trust in Jesus.

 

Wait a minute, I thought you said it was a "free gift"? Free means free, absolutely no conditions attached. Repentance and trust are mental actions. You are working for it, so it is not free. You can't have it both ways. There is this initial trust or faith thing, then I guess you mean the Holy Spirit takes over. If you mean to say the Holy Spirit regenerates or compels you toward repentance, then the human will is not free.

 

It is relative in the sense of relation. What I mean is that I am big relative to my children; however, I am small relative to the size of the universe. In fact, all of us are small relative to the size of the universe. In fact, all material objects are small, relative to the size of the universe. So, in that sense, size is not necessarily relative. If there is a transcendent and perfect standard, then comparison to that standard is not relative in the sense of somethings might be better or worse than it. In regard to worship, it is relative when we think of earthly things, but not in relation to God, who is perfect and completely worthy of everyone's worship. In that sense, everything else is less worthy of worship than God and when a thing is worshiped in place of God, that is idolatry - the worship of a physical object as a god.

 

If there is such a thing as a transcendent and perfect standard, it only exists in the human mind, not coming in from somewhere outside. People who "worship idols" are not actually worshiping stone, gold or whatever. No one does that. It is the symbol behind the object. Surely you know that? I suggest you read some Joseph Campbell. The Bible is just another symbolic object, too. I can also find better, more perfect Gods to worship than BibleGod. The God of the Bible is capricious, jealous, uses favoritism towards certain people, etc... Yes, I have read the Bible, contrary to what you might think. Not in many years, because I choose to focus on more uplifting ideas.

 

That is a false statement. I have provided plenty of evidence for the existence of God and the evidence of rebellion against him. You may not like it or accept it, but it doesn't mean that evidence does not exist or has not been presented.

 

Let me rephrase then. I will say that your so-called "evidence" is unpersuasive and insufficient.

[bdp]

we have such a wealth of manuscripts to draw from that we can arrive at within 99% of what was contained in the originals.

 

Again, this means NOTHING. And, again, what we have doesn't even agree within itself.

 

I'm sorry, then you don't understand ancient textual criticism and interpretation. Even a skeptic like Bart Ehrman, who agrees with the statement I made, would say that this is one of the keys.

 

Could you give evidence of your last statement? I don't see that this is a true claim on your part., but if you would like to point out any apparent inconsistencies, I would be glad to address them.

 

LNC

 

YES I DO UNDERSTAND TEXTUAL CRITICISM - we aren't all idiots here, and you aren't the smartest, or only educated, bastard in the room. Criticism means nothing when you're dealing with uncorroborated fairytales - what if every orignal manuscript says that a guy became magically undead/ WE ALL KNOW THIS DID NOT AND COULD NOT HAPPEN, and by the way the texts have NO WITNESSES TO THIS ALLEGED EVENT. And we've been over and over textual inconsistencies, but all we ever get from you on such matters in the equivalent of 'Nuh-uh.' You're the black knight in Python's Holy Grail - go tend to your 'flesh wounds.'

[bdp]

 

 

Do you really believe that sin hurts no one but God's ego? Have you not read the newspaper today, or yesterday, or any day before that?

 

That isn't 'sin' as the bible defines it.

[oddbird1963]

wor·ship 

–verb (used with object)

6. to render religious reverence and homage to.

7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).

–verb (used without object)

8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.

9. to attend services of divine worship.

10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

 

LNC,

 

You , once again, play with your own unique connotations of words. Certainly, people raised in religious cultures with parents and roles models who value religion or the worship of a deity pass these values on to other people.

 

That is the meaning conveighed in items 6, 8 and 9 from dictionary.com under the listing for worship.

 

There is a less ultimate sense of the word. Like "worshipping" a hero such as a football player, a particularrly skilled and respected businessman or perhaps a love interest.

 

Everyone knows when the word "worship" is used in that sense, it is not the same as "worship" in the religious sense. So, your point about people committing idolotry is rather silly and only works with smug believers who want to feel superior of their choices of deities to worship.

 

So, to nullify your notion, I tell you "No." Using the normally accepted and well documented sense of the word "worship", we don't all worship something, because I don't worship something. And many many people at this site do not either.

 

Sorry, but what I said is clearly conveyed in the definition that you listed. Look at number 7 for example, "to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing). " That is clearly within the realm of what I was saying and often, people do worship other people or things as they would a deity. If you don't believe it, tune into watch Oprah (only half kidding on that one). Sure, we flippantly toss the word around these days in regard to a sports figure or rap "artist" (I use this term loosely), but that doesn't diminish the fact that people devote most of their lives to earn enough money to buy that house, car, vacation home, etc. Their form of worship is at a different altar, but their devotion is no less (and probably far greater) than any religious cleric. You seem to want to keep the word within very tight strictures, but that is not in keeping with even the definition that you included in your post.

 

 

Once again, you miss out on the nuances of language. You only seem to use words as tools for your apologetic. And you only see the meaning of language through that narrow and twisted lens.

 

The people screaming at Oprah or other celeb hosts are "Fans." Yes, the root word is "fanatic," something we apply to religious enthusiasts as well. but the dynamic is totally different. You are creating special meanings of the word "worship" to fit your distorted, narrow worldview.

 

You seem to be equating having financial goals and the fortitude and discipline to reach those goals as "worship." That too is poppycock. The right word is 1) discipline 2) character 3) focus 4) drive. But "worship?" No. That's only your evagelicalism/fundamentalism twisting words to have social relevance.

 

How many hours do you spend on this site every day or on a weekly basis? How do you know that it hasn't become a form of worship to you? Just asking...

 

 

1. I don't spend nearly as many hours on this site as you do, given the voluminous nature of your content. So you must be guilty of idolatry by your own standards.

2. That is not worship. How do I know this? That is not worship means. And I don't twist words to mean what I want them to do. I find the right word to use.

 

When you and other christian preachers and teachers use words in this distorted fashion, you really lose what little credibility you may have had.

[oddbird1963]

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already...

As the verse says, unbelievers were condemned "already" due to the sin each person has accumulated over the course of life.

 

No. This is not what that verse says. Word for word, it contradicts your statement. You keep ignoring the part that blows your whole theology.

 

Let's break it down:

 

1. . . . the verse says . . You are claiming this following is what John 3:18 says.

2. unbelievers were condemned "already" due to ( another word for "due to" is "because")

3. You go on to say " the sin each person has accumulated" (which is an arguable assertion, by the way).

 

Now, let's look at the reality of what the character Jesus in John 3:18 says:

 

1' . . . John 3:18 says . . . look how you are about to be contradicted.

 

2'. "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because . . ." These two points match your statement pretty closely. Then you contradict the character you uphold as lord and savior :

 

3'. " . . . because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

 

You are directly contradicted. Jesus , in this passage, makes a statement that blows a hole in your entire theological construct. Instead of admitting this, you just gloss over the part that contradicts you.

 

 

In case you miss it:

 

YOU say: " unbelievers were condemned "already" due to the sin each person has accumulated over the course of life."

 

JESUS says unbelievers are condemned "already" due to not believing in him.

 

 

This is the nature of the bible: many contradictory theologies.

 

This is the nature of christian theology: many contradictory doctrines created from a book that contradicts itself.

 

This is the nature of your theology: full of holes that you simply ignore. "Don't pay attention to that 800 pound gorilla."

[centauri]

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already...

As the verse says, unbelievers were condemned "already" due to the sin each person has accumulated over the course of life.

 

No. This is not what that verse says. Word for word, it contradicts your statement. You keep ignoring the part that blows your whole theology.

 

Let's break it down:

 

1. . . . the verse says . . You are claiming this following is what John 3:18 says.

2. unbelievers were condemned "already" due to ( another word for "due to" is "because")

3. You go on to say " the sin each person has accumulated" (which is an arguable assertion, by the way).

 

Now, let's look at the reality of what the character Jesus in John 3:18 says:

 

1' . . . John 3:18 says . . . look how you are about to be contradicted.

 

2'. "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because . . ." These two points match your statement pretty closely. Then you contradict the character you uphold as lord and savior :

 

3'. " . . . because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

 

You are directly contradicted. Jesus , in this passage, makes a statement that blows a hole in your entire theological construct. Instead of admitting this, you just gloss over the part that contradicts you.

 

 

In case you miss it:

 

YOU say: " unbelievers were condemned "already" due to the sin each person has accumulated over the course of life."

 

JESUS says unbelievers are condemned "already" due to not believing in him.

 

 

This is the nature of the bible: many contradictory theologies.

 

This is the nature of christian theology: many contradictory doctrines created from a book that contradicts itself.

 

This is the nature of your theology: full of holes that you simply ignore. "Don't pay attention to that 800 pound gorilla."

He also ignores this:

 

John 16:8-9

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

 

 

He's repeatedly contradicted both Jesus and other Christians that maintain unbelief is a primary sin for condemnation.

Then he dishonestly claimed the doctrine that unbelief is sin was really an infidel meme.

It's yet another case of a believer creating their own reality and attempting to sell it as sound theology.

[Sconnor]

And again I say this:

 

Regardless, god’s convoluted plan for salvation – which you took years of study to supposedly comprehend – relegates the majority of his earthly children to an eternity of suffering in hell.

 

This would include people like Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, American Indians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, primitive cultures, and so on.

 

It would also include the six million Jews of the holocaust – which was their virtual hell on earth.

 

ALL because they didn’t have your understanding of salvation.

 

The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation

 

God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, (himself) to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, fallible, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus,(Or LNC’s convoluted; interpretive “trusting” explanation of salvation) so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the fallible humans, who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing.

 

--S.

 

Why do you consider the plan of salvation to be "convoluted"? It is actually quite simple to understand. Even my children understood it at an early age. The gospel is simply this: God exists and created people in his image, to have relationship with him. Man rejected and rebelled against God. Man's rebellion has led to a screwed up world where we fight ourselves, we fight others and...

 

Listen – why do you have to be such a condescending prick?

 

It’s crystal clear what your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture is. We understand what you have extrapolated from scripture.

 

The point is -- there are 34,000 separate chriatian groups in the world that hold differing views on how one is supposedly saved or not. Some believe you must have faith; some believe you must do good works; some believe you must do good works and have faith; some believe ALL are saved, some believe some are destined, Some believe you can be a murderer and rapist of children and still be saved if you believe in Christ; some believe children of a certain age are not saved while some believe all children are saved, some believe you have to be a part of a certain denomination in order to be saved and on and on and on.

 

Additionally, here are some more simple to understand ways (sarcasm) of being saved

 

167 Way to Get Yourself Saved

 

How's this NOT convoluted?

 

To make matters worse – christian denominations use endless combinations with the above to form their own idiosyncratic interpretation on how one is supposedly saved and they ALL claim their simple interpretation is valid because it comes from scripture and they have studied it for years too.

 

In an effort to protect your belief you will undoubtedly contend your interpretation is infallible; that your interpretation is the one true correct interpretation and that these other denominations are mistaken but these other christian denominations will contend the same thing about you.

 

So where does that leave us?

The bible is a mishmash of information – so much convoluted information that people make up endless combinations of how one is supposedly saved.

 

This is a fact. Why didn’t your ALL–knowing god take this into consideration when he supposedly put his message of salvation in the bible?

 

1. If god, so loved his earthly children, then why would he relay his, all so important messages and the Good News, in a book, using difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways?

 

2. If it was so important for god to save his earthly children, from the eternal flames of hell, then why did he put his message into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses (land barriers, culture barriers, language barriers, water barriers, etc)?

 

3. If it was so important for god to save his earthly children, from the eternal flames of hell, then why did he put his message into a book that wasn't readily available to everybody, until perhaps the17th or18th century?

 

4. If god's word is so important, how come only 30% of the world’s population is christian, while the other 70% of the world’s population is another, non-biblical, religion or the non-religious? And out of the 30% of bible-believing, Christians, there are thousands of separate sects and denominations that have varying and vast ideas about the bible and how one is supposedly saved?

 

5. If your all-loving, god is using the bible to get his, all important, message across and truly wanted to save us, you would think, an all-knowing, all-powerful god, could do a better job at delivering the crucial laws, commandments and messages to everyone, equally and clearly, but most certainly this is not the case -- why is that?

 

6. Isn't it true that god's plan only saves christians?

 

7. More so, isn't it true that god's plan only saves the christians that think like you do?

 

According to your belief are:

Mormons saved?

Are Catholics saved?

Are Jehovah witnesses saved?

Are the hate preaching Westboro Baptist saved?

Are christian polygamist saved?

Are Universalists saved?

Are new thought Christians saved?

 

 

8. Why is your supposed, all-loving god, so insecure and petty, that you will not be saved, thereby being tortured, in the flamers of hell for an eternity, simply, because you didn't believe in him?

 

I don't judge who goes to hell and who does not, that is God's job. However, if these people didn't trust in Jesus as payment for their sins, then they would be condemned to hell.

 

And here in lies the massive problem with god’s supposed plan of salvation. At know fault of their own they can not even consider this offer because they hold entirely different beliefs – most indoctrinated at an early age.

 

God offers the same offer to everyone, he cannot force anyone to trust in him for his kind offer. Would you want him to do that? However, you keep putting a straw man up - it is not because they didn't understand the gospel that they are condemned.

 

That is not my position.

 

My position:

 

Considering you are so imbedded in your particular chriatian beliefs -- being you were raised in a predominately christian society and presumably raised christan (cristianitiy instilled in you at an early age) it would be near impossible for you to even consider becoming a muslim and proclaim the only way to paradise is belief in the all mighty Allah. This is exactly how other religious beliefs regard your belief. They won’t even consider your supposed plan as being valid, just like you do NOT consider Isalm’s method of salvation to be valid.

 

…AND I don’t need your rhetoric as why your beliefs are more valid – that is not the point.

 

Didn’t god consider these other religions (who at no fault of their own, except belonging to another belief system) who would not even entertain your supposed plan of salvation?

 

And as unbelievers we do not reject jesus’ supposed offer because we have concluded that this offer has NO reference in reality. We find NO objective evidence for this jesus charcter nor the claims that the act of a sacrifice and telepathically accepting jesus will actually save.

We have NOT been convinced that Jesus, was the true, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, oral stories, eventually, written over time -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

 

We can NOT accept or reject an offer from an entity we don’t believe in.

 

On the other hand we can reject a delusional interpretive proposal from a zealous christian who makes claims he can NOT corroborate or substantiate. We don’t reject Jesus we reject your unsubstantiated claims.

 

So, as I have said before, time and time again – god being god knows exactly where I am, he can find me and tell me concisely and unequivocally everything he wants me to know so I don’t have to rely on some fallible christian asshole who makes interpretive claims he can NOT substantiate.

 

--S.

[Sconnor]

Bawahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

 

Oh, yeeees – LNC’s interpretation is the one and only truth because he knows how to properly interpret scripture.

 

Funny; the 34,000 separate christian groups, in the world, ALL with varying and vast interpretations of scripture, where christians are free to rationalize and interpret it (making it mean whatever they want it to mean), ALL claim their years of study and evidence from scripture makes their interpretation legitimate also. They make the claim that their methods of interpreting are proper and oddly enough they can support their particular interpretation with scripture, too – which even contradicts LNC’s beliefs.

 

Why is your idiosyncratic, myopic, interpretation, of scripture, the one and only correct, interpretation?

 

I’ll tell you what LNC, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, precisely, and unequivocally, everything he needs me, to know, himself -- this way, I can be certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian asshole, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate.

 

Your god is nothing but a human construct -- a figment of your imagination, a definition, based on your myopic, interpretation of the bible and flights of fancy.

 

--S.

 

 

So, are you implying that there is not proper interpretation or do you mean to imply that we simply can't get to the proper interpretation?

 

None of the above.

 

My position is supposedly god put his all important messages in a book that can be (and are) interpreted in so many different ways. Who is right is irrelevant.

 

Why didn’t your god know that his messages would be misinterpreted and perverted at the detriment of one’s supposed eternal salvation?

 

If I have interpreted the Bible correctly, then would it not be the right interpretation? If you believe that I have interpreted the Bible incorrectly, please show me where and give reasons for your answer.

 

I don’t care if you think your interpretation is correct – that is irrelevant.

 

You have NO objective evidence that ANY of your claims have a reference in reality.

 

And the fact remains other christians (and other religions) hold differing beliefs on how one is saved – why didn’t god know the majority of his earthly children would get it wrong?

 

Why do you call my interpretation idiotic and myopic? Do you know that I have interpreted it incorrectly? If so, you must give evidence that that is the case. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in empty name-calling to try to justify your view.

 

Idiotic? Where did I say that?

 

Again your interpretation being right or wrong is irrelevant. Why didn’t god know his message would be misinterpreted, perverted or (in the case of unbelievers) not be considered as anything but myth and superstition?

 

Why do you assume that God has not told you about himself through me and others on this site.

 

Why do you assume god has not brought me into the picture to reign you in? This type of fallacious argument can go both ways.

 

The point is there is NO objective evidence that god is working through either of us – nut job

 

If you choose to ignore and reject that message, you cannot blame God for that.

 

Again I can NOT reject an invisible entity that has NO objective evidence for its existence or it's supposed messages but I can reject a fruit loop christian who makes claims he can not put in the context of reality or substantiate. There is a difference, whether you can see it or not.

 

I’m done. If you could reason with whack-job christians; christianity wouldn’t exist.

 

 

--S.

[Mister Pappy]

God could, in fact, ignore completely the sin of Adam ...

 

LNC,

 

Let us pretend together that your God, as you describe and believe in him, exists at all. He could "ignore completely" any and all sin, especially seeing that he facilitated the existence of said sins and more particularly, is the one who supposedly authored such a bizarre and strangely post modern human-sounding (the need for retribution and the like) system to begin with. Yes, your loving and all-powerful deity could have decided to forget the whole fucking mess that he himself started, but that doesn't seem to satisfy him. No, the whole thing must end in screams and eternal torture or whatever horrific extravagance fits your personal interpretation of hell. The entire theory falls apart when examined closely and is simply bullshit.

 

The truly sad part of the whole thing is how much of your energy and your life has been wasted on futile attempts to make nonsensical ideas digestible for yourself and your children. You have blown your entire existence, thus far, doing nothing more than repetitiously brainwashing yourself, and you continue to do so. I can think of no worse way to die than to draw my last few breaths while realizing that nothing I had done, in all my years on planet Earth, mattered at all.

 

At least I came to my senses at about 17 years of age. It has been a wonderful life of fulfillment and joy since then. You should grow up and face the music, my friend. Enjoy the dance, it don't last forever.

 

Pappy

[Sconnor]

[LNC]

Right – I guess god stopped inspiring his word.

 

I wonder why -- the creator of the infinite universe -- allowed his word to be manipulated? And I wonder why he would use a book that couldn’t possibly get to the masses due to land barriers, language barriers, technological barriers, if it was so important to receive god’s message of salvation?

 

I'm not sure how you conclude that God stopped inspiring his word. I have never argued that. What God left us was inspired. God created free creatures, not robots; he doesn't control his people.

 

Apparently, God has done pretty well getting his word to the masses as the Bible is translated into the language of every literate people group (many of whom were not literate until Christians came to their land to teach them to read and write).

 

And while I’m thinking of it – I wonder why god’s word is soooooo convoluted that it would take years of study and using the correct method to interpret it (as we ALL know LNC’s method is infallible) if it was so important to save his earthly children from condemnation?

 

The problem for most skeptics is that it is too clear and easy to understand. That is why so many reject it; they don't like what it has to say. If you have read it, you should know that too.

 

For me, knowing that men just added shit to the bible to push agendas from their specific time and culture is a powerful indication the whole bible was a human construct – I have to wonder how much of scripture was added later, considering we do NOT have ANY of the ORIGINAL manuscripts.

 

Knowing that there are thousands of errors in the copying and added texts that do NOT correspond to remaining manuscripts which indicates how the whole bible was constructed and coupled with the fact that these were oral stories told over decades or hundreds of years, where men could elaborate and/or fabricate – puts the whole bible into question.

 

Oh and major inconsistencies, contradictions, breaches of reason, superstitious mumbo-jumbo, magic, talking snakes and donkeys and so on is a painful reminder to the believer, the bible is a fallible human construct that did NOT have a divine hand in it, at all.

 

--S.

Your logic doesn't follow. The fact that some people changed parts of the Bible does not in any way indicate that the Bible as a whole was a human construct. I'm not sure how you come to such a conclusion. We know what has been added because we have such solid manuscript evidence. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman agree to that much.

 

The books of the Bible were all completed within 70 years of the actual events, not hundreds of years as you indicate. The thousands of errors that you claim occur over thousands of manuscripts and simply by comparing manuscripts we can determine and filter out the vast majority of those errors. As to the ones for which we are uncertain, they have no material bearing on the meaning of the passages in which they are contained. Needless to say, it does not put the whole Bible into question as you say and no scholar of any merit would claim such.

 

I might suggest that you actually do a bit more study of the actual text and what scholars have to say rather than repeat infidel website assertions and memes.

 

LNC