Why Are You Christians So Insincere With Your Hell Beliefs?

[mymistake]

Yes he did, he sent Jesus "at some point in time", right? He could have send Jesus to Paradise the moment they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

God had to let sin ripen and let it become exceedingly sinful, for some reason just telling humans something does not work, they/we had to learn the hard way. God wants to create an aversion to sin in His children.

 

Sounds like God could use some pedagogic training. I guess we humans are way superior to him. We are not so cruel in learning our children the message of love.

 

Of course humans today are superior to God. For starters we are real. What we have learned builds and improves over time. God is stuck in the past the way humans imagined God to be back in the Early Iron Age. There are numerous examples. God is stuck endorsing slavery even though humans have come to understand slavery is evil. God is notorious for supposedly ordering genocide but we have learned that genocide is evil. The list goes on and on . . . oppressing women, abusing children.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Prestissimo!

 

Having any luck changing Thumbelina's mind about anything, yet? Anything at all?

 

Silly question really. (Slaps own wrist.) Of course you haven't. Nor will you.

 

You'll soon find that dialog with Thumbelina about anything is a HUFWOT - a Hopeless, Useless & Futile Waste of Time.

 

I may well ask you this question again, in a few weeks or so, because nothing will have changed - you won't have got anywhere and she'll just be the same old relentless, unyielding, adamant Thumbelina.

 

Please note that I've got nothing against you, nor am I having a dig at you. No. It's just that it pains me to see a sensible, reasonable and rational person like yourself wasting their time with an incurable fanatic like her. You could be spending your time more productively and enjoyably elsewhere, but I suppose you've got to find this out for yourself. (Sighs.)

 

Sorry to sound so negative, but when all efforts are doomed to fail it, what else is there to say?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Prestissimo]

Yes he did, he sent Jesus "at some point in time", right? He could have send Jesus to Paradise the moment they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

God had to let sin ripen and let it become exceedingly sinful, for some reason just telling humans something does not work, they/we had to learn the hard way. God wants to create an aversion to sin in His children.

 

Sounds like God could use some pedagogic training. I guess we humans are way superior to him. We are not so cruel in learning our children the message of love.

 

Sin was a strange phenomenon. If it can be explained, it can be excused, there was no reason for the mystery of iniquity.

This is a poor analogy but ...

It's like a parent telling their 5 year old to not go outside without you or another trusted adult because there's a pedophile that's been hurting children in the area.

The child is somewhat precocious but still innocent so she decides that she wants to be independent and makes up lies and ends up outside and eventually in the hands of the pedophile. The child now has knowledge of something they should not have had knowledge of.

 

I say again, Eve wasn't a child.

And you're saying the pedophile is God?

[bornagainathiest]

derailing from main "discussion" to address a view specific points @thumbelina

 

I don't know who or what BAA is

Your alter ego?

 

Oh, was that supposed to hurt my feelings? You are calling me BAA?..Born Again Atheist...I am not BAA and that is NOT my alter ego...

I am very much a SEPARATE and very much NOT another person or entity but myself... but I suppose that it is MY REALITY that I HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN in ways though I still do not "embrace" A THEISM...I probably am more of a BORN AGAIN PANTHEIST or AGNOSTIC.

 

Do YOU have an "alter ego""...YOU sound just like my EXabuser "christian" husband, who has used the "bible logic" to disrespect and attempt to control another person...and as I think about him, I don't care what you think either. Your "ways" are neither charming or provoking but PROOF OF YOUR IGNORANCE AND DENIAL.

 

I am sorry for your hurts.

Sorry, that fake sincerity doesn't move me...I clearly see the discrepancies between YOUR CLAIM AND FAITH and your behavior.

 

I am SORRY FOR YOU Thumbelina. IF you ever have the COURAGE to TRY to see yourself as you truly are, then you will have endured the hardest test that all "EX-chrisitians" have already faced...you haven't gotten to where WE are. We HAVE BEEN to where you are and we faced our true selves and ADMITTED that the RELIGION was really a MASK OF YOUR INSECURE and deeply DAMAGED CORE SELF. I feel pity on you.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

BAA here, NewSong.

 

I'm sorry that you had to suffer at Thumbelina's hands like this.

 

She seems to specialize in hurting and antagonizing newcomers to this forum. Not so long ago she raided some personal and intimate details from another new member's Extimonial and used this private information against the poor gal - all in a so-called "loving and compassionate" attempt to evangelize her.

 

Please read my post to Prestissimo to gain an idea of what Thumbelina's like.

 

My advice to you would be to avoid her at all costs and don't let her **** with your mind in any way.

 

Once again, sorry for the abuse, but until she does something worthy of getting banned, we are obliged to let her speak freely here. That's the price we pay in a democracy for the right of free speech.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thumbelina]

Yes he did, he sent Jesus "at some point in time", right? He could have send Jesus to Paradise the moment they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

God had to let sin ripen and let it become exceedingly sinful, for some reason just telling humans something does not work, they/we had to learn the hard way. God wants to create an aversion to sin in His children.

 

Sounds like God could use some pedagogic training. I guess we humans are way superior to him. We are not so cruel in learning our children the message of love.

 

Sin was a strange phenomenon. If it can be explained, it can be excused, there was no reason for the mystery of iniquity.

This is a poor analogy but ...

It's like a parent telling their 5 year old to not go outside without you or another trusted adult because there's a pedophile that's been hurting children in the area.

The child is somewhat precocious but still innocent so she decides that she wants to be independent and makes up lies and ends up outside and eventually in the hands of the pedophile. The child now has knowledge of something they should not have had knowledge of.

 

I say again, Eve wasn't a child.

And you're saying the pedophile is God?

 

No, Satan.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed, most likely God would have just destroyed the devils and sin would have been a thing of the past.

[Prestissimo]

Hey Prestissimo!

Having any luck changing Thumbelina's mind about anything, yet? Anything at all?

Silly question really. (Slaps own wrist.) Of course you haven't. Nor will you.

You'll soon find that dialog with Thumbelina about anything is a HUFWOT - a Hopeless, Useless & Futile Waste of Time.

 

I'm not expecting to change a Christian's mind in a few posts. But I know that every bit helps. If it's not for thumbelina it might be for a closet-christian who reads this for joining this forum later.

Anyway, I enjoy it, don't worry

[mymistake]

Hey Prestissimo!

 

Having any luck changing Thumbelina's mind about anything, yet? Anything at all?

 

Silly question really. (Slaps own wrist.) Of course you haven't. Nor will you.

 

You'll soon find that dialog with Thumbelina about anything is a HUFWOT - a Hopeless, Useless & Futile Waste of Time.

 

I may well ask you this question again, in a few weeks or so, because nothing will have changed - you won't have got anywhere and she'll just be the same old relentless, unyielding, adamant Thumbelina.

 

Please note that I've got nothing against you, nor am I having a dig at you. No. It's just that it pains me to see a sensible, reasonable and rational person like yourself wasting their time with an incurable fanatic like her. You could be spending your time more productively and enjoyably elsewhere, but I suppose you've got to find this out for yourself. (Sighs.)

 

Sorry to sound so negative, but when all efforts are doomed to fail it, what else is there to say?

 

It's not all bad. Having these kinds of conversations in writing with the Thumbys, End3s, BelieveInGods and JayLs allows us to generalize to all Christians. Christians are all trained in these mental acrobatics. Christians have reality turned upside down and backwards. They can no longer tell the difference between misinformation and their theology. There are hundreds of pages in the Lion's Den of Christians evading, avoiding, lying, misdirecting, mischaracterizing, making unfounded assertions and various other shenanigans. We can track the circular thinking, the lack of evidence - all of it.

 

It reminds us of where we came from, why we better not go back, and why we shouldn't bother having one of these conversations off line where the Christian can just ignore whatever they said two minutes ago.

[Prestissimo]

Yes he did, he sent Jesus "at some point in time", right? He could have send Jesus to Paradise the moment they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

God had to let sin ripen and let it become exceedingly sinful, for some reason just telling humans something does not work, they/we had to learn the hard way. God wants to create an aversion to sin in His children.

 

Sounds like God could use some pedagogic training. I guess we humans are way superior to him. We are not so cruel in learning our children the message of love.

 

Sin was a strange phenomenon. If it can be explained, it can be excused, there was no reason for the mystery of iniquity.

This is a poor analogy but ...

It's like a parent telling their 5 year old to not go outside without you or another trusted adult because there's a pedophile that's been hurting children in the area.

The child is somewhat precocious but still innocent so she decides that she wants to be independent and makes up lies and ends up outside and eventually in the hands of the pedophile. The child now has knowledge of something they should not have had knowledge of.

 

I say again, Eve wasn't a child.

And you're saying the pedophile is God?

 

No, Satan.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed, most likely God would have just destroyed the devils and sin would have been a thing of the past.

 

Wait.. Adam & Eve you say? You are not aware they have never existed? Every serious theologist has agreed the evidence to evolution! This is no longer a theory, they are as certain as that the earth is round. In England every known Bishop has signed a treaty that evolution should be taught in schools as the truth.

I'm not going to discuss about it, that's futile, you can read plenty yourself on the subject.

The "greatest show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins is the easiest read to the subject.

 

You must have come to agree if you read Genesis that the story makes no sense.. Kain kills Abel, flees and finds other people.. just based on the bible you can tell the story can't have taken place in that order..

 

dont worry, there is still a way out since believers still think GOD was in charge, but that he used evolution as a tool. Yet.. any True Christian™ believes in Evolution. The rest is just uninformed..

[mymistake]

If Adam and Eve had obeyed, most likely God would have just destroyed the devils and sin would have been a thing of the past.

 

Wait.. Adam & Eve you say? You are not aware they have never existed? Every serious theologist has agreed the evidence to evolution!

 

Setting aside that Adam and Eve never existed and are myth Thumby's explanation is still pathetic and desperate.

 

So this all knowing, all powerful God of love and justice had his plains foiled because two people made a bad choice? If only Adam and Eve had made better choices then everything would have stayed good - the way God wanted them to remain? Did the all knowing God not expect this to happen? Could the all powerful God not have prevented this from happening? Oh but God doesn't want to violate free will!!!

 

Well then why did God force billions of people to supposedly be the descendants of Adam and Eve to inherit this sin against the will of said descendants?

 

So God is powerful except when God isn't and God is knowing except when God isn't and God respects free will execpt when God doesn't

 

Oh and yes we know Adam and Eve never existed in the first place. It's all nonsense. We have dug up cities from 10,000 years ago and found domesticated dogs from nearly 30,000 years ago and ancestors of man from much farther back. We are not created from dust.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thumb said: I do not want to believe in Hinduism so I choose not to believe it.

 

Cits said: Are you serious? You mean that Hinduism is completely viable and is just as likely as Christianity to be true, but you simply choose one over the other like a menu option? If so, then your faith in Christianity is weaker than mine was!

 

Thumb: That is not what I meant and you KNOW it. I told you in previous posts that where I grew up there was Hinduism and I realized that idolatry, which Hinduism entails, was not a viable option for me. God had already reached me without any idols.

 

So now you're saying that it was NOT a choice? Make up your mind, Thumby!

 

Of course I know that you didn't mean that; I was just addressing what you acctually said. You don't seem to have a clue what the word "choice" really means. If you were convinced that Hinduism was idolatry and Christinity was truth, then you did not choose not to believe Hinduism, you were convinced it wasn't true.

 

I know you wanted to either demonize God or demonize prayer with your loaded questions.

 

Here you go again with your FALSE ACCUSATIONS! My intent was NEVER to demonize God or prayer. I was simply using LOGIC and REASON to evaluate religious claims.

 

Thumb: Yeah I know that you are "too big" for God and His Word but His sheep will not get weary with those analogies

 

And yet MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS! I would never consider myself "too big for God and His Word." However, I do have enough understanding to know that the Bible is not the Word of God, and the God of the Bible (Yahweh/Jehovah) is make-believe.

 

I had planned to go back and address some of the stuff I hadn't gotten to, but frankly I'm sick of your FALSE ACCUSATIONS and your twisted, circular reasoning. You have NO critical thinking ability at all.

 

Have a nice life... Enjoy your delusion..................

[Antlerman]

We are not created from dust.

Yes we are. All the elements of our bodies come from stardust.

 

BTW, when I imagine how God and reality appear in Thumbelina's mind, I imagine it looks exactly like this: http://www.bricktestament.com/genesis/the_garden_of_eden/01_gn02_04-05.html Just click the right arrows for an excursion through her mental reality. .

[bdp]

Atheists are NOT spiritual

 

Bullshit. Some are, some aren't - just like Xtians.

[bdp]

Yes he did, he sent Jesus "at some point in time", right? He could have send Jesus to Paradise the moment they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

And also could have shut down this whole failed experiment the moment 'jesus' came back from death and the grave - 'resurrected' to use Xtianese. By letting time and history proceed from that point 'god' was guaranteeing billions more souls would wind up in hell.

[★ Citsonga ★]

For those who have followed the exchange I had with Thumbelina here, you know that I have mentioned a handful of times that it was studying the Bible (with the intent to grow in my faith) that led to me the realization that it's not true. Thumby said that she thought I took things out of context, and she has said that nonbelievers can't truly understand the Bible or "rightly divide the word" (which, of course, I used to agree with when I was a Christian).

 

She levied those claims and mischaracterized me without ever once asking me to explain any of what led to my conclusions on the Bible. However, if any of you are interested, I want to share something that is a result of some of my studies. What follows below is an excerpt (it's lengthy, but only a small portion) from a letter I wrote a while back detailing a lot of the reasons why I no longer believe the Bible. I have chosen this section because it focuses on the very issue of "context," thus showing that I made every effort to keep things in context, and it was the Bible itself in the New Testament taking things from the Old Testament completely out of context that threw up a huge red flag for me.

 

Here is that excerpt:

 

FABRICATED PROPHETIC FULFILLMENTS

 

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, and therefore he must be the Messiah. If Jesus had indeed fulfilled numerous prophecies specifically directed at him, then that would definitely be something to strongly consider. Many Christians assume, as I did for many years, that such is the case, and that there is no question that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Savior. But did he really fulfill numerous prophecies? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

 

The Virgin Birth

 

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Ghost and the angel visiting Joseph (Matt 1:18-21), we read, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt 1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. But is this really a fulfilled prophecy?

 

Matthew was quoting Isaiah saying, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But is this really the open-and-shut case that it may appear on the surface to be? Let's take a look at the context.

 

During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Ahaz and the people of Judah were afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:3-9), and even gives a specific time-frame by saying, "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken" (Isaiah 7:8). Thus, Judah's enemy Ephraim is to be broken in no more than 65 years from the time of this prophecy.

 

Isaiah says that "the Lord" told Ahaz, "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God" (Isaiah 7:10-11). After that, Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Now, who is this "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ! King Ahaz would be long dead before Jesus would arrive on the scene, at which time it would be much later than the 65 year limit specified in the previous verses! Clearly, there is a problem here.

 

Let's go on. What is the "sign"? The description that follows says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Now, one thing that needs pointed out about the word "virgin" is that Jewish scholars say that the Hebrew term "almah" in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman" or "girl of marriageable age," with no necessary "virgin" connotation. The Hebrew term "bethuwlah" is the word that means "virgin," but it is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14. As such, they insist that the text should read the way the NRSV translates it: "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

 

When the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, "almah" was rendered as "parthenos," a Greek term usually meaning "virgin." Many scholars believe that this is a mistranslation. In turn, the author of Matthew clearly used the Greek translation as his source, and therefore used "parthenos" when quoting Isaiah in Matthew 1:23. Thus, Matthew did use a word usually meaning "virgin," but it appears to be based on a faulty Greek translation of Isaiah. In turn, it appears that most modern Christian translators base their translation of Isaiah on the Greek translation and the quotation in Matthew.

 

On the other hand, many Christian commentators agree that the Hebrew term "almah" means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation, and therefore it is accurate to translate it as such. However, could this insistence that it be translated "virgin" be fueled by the Christian's theological necessity for it to mean "virgin"? After all, they clearly have a motivation to justify the use of this prophecy in Matthew. Beyond that, I have already demonstrated that the contextual limits on the passage indicate that it could not be about Jesus hundreds of years later, so the meaning of "almah" is not the only problem here anyway.

 

What then can we make of this debate about "almah"? Let's continue to examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

 

Isaiah continues with, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good" (Isaiah 7:16). Here we see another problem with the Christian claim that the prophesied child is Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), so how could there be a time when he wouldn't know to refuse evil and choose good?

 

Continuing on, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8-9a). It is interesting that Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (Isaiah 7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (Isaiah 7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

 

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Perhaps his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the account in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Syria and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (Isaiah 7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even a poetic oracle from "the Lord" (Isaiah 8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (Isaiah 8:8; compare to 7:14).

 

Some try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus (assuming that "almah" means "virgin"). However, such an argument requires that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be something that it clearly isn't.

 

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal way, because Isaiah says that he "went unto the prophetess; and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3). From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (Isaiah 7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term "almah" does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does connote "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

 

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming, nor does the context of the prophecy allow it to be about Jesus!

 

So, what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. The author of Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on and fabricated a prophetic fulfillment.

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace

 

Matthew says that when some "wise men" go to Jerusalem seeking the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:1-2), King Herod calls the "chief priests and scribes," demanding that they tell him "where Christ should be born" (Matt 2:3-4). They reply, "In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt 2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scribes and priests had indicated was prophesied (Matt 2:7-11; ref 2:1). So, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) is supposed to "deliver (Israel) from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders" (Micah 5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, but Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, but Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" (Micah 5:6) of Israel anyway?

 

Again, some allege that this is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, then how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

 

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew. As such, it looks like Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to fabricate a fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Out of Egypt

 

Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matt 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (Matt 2:15). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matt 2:15). Here we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy, but is it really?

 

Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

 

Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "They sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

 

So again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

The Slaughtered Children

 

Matthew continues his story by telling that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof" (Matt 2:16). Then we read, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt 2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "not" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), it goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border" (Jer 31:16-17). It goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again (from) their captivity" (Jer 31:23).

 

At the time that this was written, the Israelites had supposedly been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children... were not" (Jer 31:15), he was referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly indicated that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

 

So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to fabricate fulfilled prophecy.

 

The Chosen Servant

 

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read an account in which "great multitudes followed" Jesus "and he healed them all," telling them that "they should not make him known" (Matt 12:15-16). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt 12:17-21). So, here is another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

 

This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant: and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jesurun" means "the upright one" and is used as a symbolic name of Israel; also spelled "Jeshurun" and used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

 

He continues, "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me" (Isaiah 44:21). In addition, we read, "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob" (Isaiah 48:20), and, "Thou art my servant, O Israel" (Isaiah 49:3).

 

While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant"! In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

 

But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? In the very same chapter of Isaiah that Matthew quoted we read, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

 

Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. The servant that Isaiah claimed that God would make "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6) is the nation of Israel, as is seen throughout Isaiah.

 

So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to fabricate a claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding

 

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matt 13:10). In Jesus' reply he said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt 13:13). Then Jesus claims, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt 13:14-15). Here we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eye, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

 

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "Lord, how long?" (Isaiah 6:11), to which he was answered, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth" (Isaiah 6:11-13). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

 

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time! Again, we see that Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that Jesus was speaking in Matthew's text, and therefore the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Beyond that, the concept of trying to keep people from converting is quite the opposite of what evangelical Christianity claims! Indeed, it essentially contradicts the teaching that God wants "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Uttering Parables

 

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matt 13:34), we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt 13:35). Once again, let's take a closer look at this claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he himself is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (Psalm 78:5-72).

 

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

 

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It should also be pointed out that even if this had been a prophecy, the fact is that any mere mortal human could self-fulfill a prophecy about telling stories simply by telling stories, and thus there would be no miracle involved at all. But, of course, it wasn't really even a prophecy.

 

Shared Bread

 

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a "sop" (piece of bread) that he "dipped" (John 13:26). One of Jesus' statements during this scene was, "But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). Again, let's take a closer look.

 

Jesus was quoting a psalm that said, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). Throughout this psalm, David is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. David is most certainly talking about himself and one of his own friends!

 

Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this passage as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

 

So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason

 

John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:25). So here we have another claim of fulfillment.

 

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one we read, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee" (Psalm 69:5). Was Jesus guilty of foolishness and sin?

 

The other psalm using the phrase John quoted says, "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and once again the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation" (Psalm 35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear against them?

 

It goes on to say, "Rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions" (Psalm 35:17). For clarity of meaning, here is a different translation: "Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (NIV). There is no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death, there is pleading for his life. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

 

So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

 

No Bones Broken

 

John's gospel tells us that the solders broke the legs of those being crucified, but that since Jesus was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:31-33). John claims, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:36). Yet again, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation is from a psalm of David. Once again, though, the context does not support the claim that it was a prophecy of Jesus. We read, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:19-20). Did God deliver Jesus from the trouble of the cross or expect him to endure it? David is making a generalized statement about "the righteous" (see also verse 17) and implies that in life they will be protected, but Jesus was allegedly already dead, so what would be the point of protecting his bones then? Also, there is no hint whatsoever in David's words that he was envisioning a sacrifice of Jesus hundreds of years later in which no legs were broken.

 

So, again, we have a statement taken out of context and misused to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus.

 

The One They Have Pierced

 

John says that when the soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones, they pierced him with a spear instead (John 19:33-34). John then claims that this was in fulfillment (John 19:36) of what "another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced'" (John 19:37). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (Zech 12:1), and is therefore a text cited by many Christians to claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

 

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zech 12:1ff). He specifically states, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech 12:9). Did the Jesus of the gospels do that when the people looked upon his piercing? Of course not!

 

Once again, we see that John has taken a passage out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in Jesus.

 

Called a Nazarene

 

Another interesting one is the claim that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

The prophecy in question is found in... uh, it's found at... well, um, nowhere! The statement, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23) does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is there any statement even resembling it! This "prophecy" is pulled out of thin air!

 

Of course, Christians have a couple ways of trying to get around this problem. One suggestion is that this is a loose reference to the Nazarite vow, in which "either man or woman shall separate themselves" and make "a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:2). However, this in not a prediction at all, nor is it referring to where someone is from (i.e., Nazareth). "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" are simply two different things. In addition, the Nazarite text says, "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink" (Numbers 6:3), but Jesus is said to have drunk wine (Luke 7:33-34). Thus, the Nazarite vow suggestion is simply taking the text completely out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

Another suggestion is that the prophecy is found in the words, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). The argument is that the Hebrew term for "branch" is "netser," which is similar to the Aramaic word for "Nazarene." But this argument also has problems. First, the words are not actually the same, just similar, and Isaiah does not say, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). Second, it is not talking about location at all, but is using the imagery of a rod and a branch growing out of a stem and roots. Third, the text says that this branch "shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" (Isaiah 11:4), which Jesus of Nazareth did not do. Fourth, the New Testament authors used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which uses the Greek word "anthos" instead of the Hebrew word "netser" for the "branch" (Isaiah 11:1). So, once again we have a text being taken out of context in order try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

As such, we are left with a New Testament claim of a fulfillment of a prophecy that doesn't exist in the Old Testament! It is yet another fabricated prophetic fulfillment.

 

Conclusion from the Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments

 

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament by New Testament authors fabricating prophetic fulfillments, and there are more.

 

How can the claim that Jesus is proven by fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused and distorted? It sounds more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, since they were misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character. After all, if they had a true story worth believing, then why would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics?

 

Christians assert that it was a miracle for Jesus to fulfill so many prophecies about him and that nobody could fulfill them all by chance, but that is nonsense. One could easily hand-pick statements from a vast work like the Old Testament, take them out of context and apply them to any number of individuals that the original authors never had in mind. It would be even easier if the character, or at least his story, is made up to begin with. In other words, all of these alleged prophetic fulfillments prove nothing about Jesus!

 

Christians often vilify Jews for rejecting their "Messiah." Indeed, I used to wonder how the Jews couldn't see that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but now that I have studied it closer I can understand why. The simple fact is that the Jews who take their religion seriously can clearly see how Christians have butchered the Hebrew Scriptures! They are not convinced that Jesus fulfilled prophecy because it is a simple fact that he didn't, as has been demonstrated.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I want to post one more excerpt from the letter mentioned in my previous post. This one is on the topic of Hell, so it seems befitting, given the fact that this thread started with a question that pertained to Hell. The remainder of this post is that final excerpt from my letter that I want to share here:

 

The Lake of Fire

 

The Bible says that "the beast" and "false prophet" will be "cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Rev 19:20), and that "the devil" will also be "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone" and that they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev 20:10). After that we read that "death and hell" and "whosoever was not found written in the book of life" will be "cast into the lake of fire," which it also calls "the second death" (Rev 20:14-15). Though it doesn't specify here, one would assume that this implies that everyone thrown into this lake of fire would also be tortured forever, just like it says will happen to the beast, false prophet and devil. Granted, Revelation is highly symbolic, so one could argue that this is not meant literally, especially given the reference to a "second death." For the sake of this writing, though, I will treat it literally, as traditional Christians tend to do.

 

As a side note, many confuse "hell" with the eternal "lake of fire." However, as can be seen from the statement that "hell" will be "cast into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14), they are technically not the same thing in the Bible. "Hell" here is the Greek term "Hades," which was used for the grave, the nether world, the realm of the dead. But, since most people think of "Hell" as the lake of fire, from here on out that will be what I am referring to when I use the capitalized word "Hell" in quotes. So, let's move on and take a closer look at the concept of eternal torture and what the Bible has to say about "Hell."

 

To hear Christians talk, "Hell" is one of the most important topics in Christianity. Indeed, what we supposedly need saving from is "Hell." Yet, if "Hell" is such a hot topic (pun intended), and burning eternally is the final punishment for the wicked, then why is the concept of the lake of fire completely absent from the Old Testament? Sure, the word "hell" is found in the KJV Old Testament, but it is the Hebrew word "Sheol," which means the grave, the underworld, the abode of the dead, a pit. Though there are several places where the Old Testament refers to "fire" symbolically, there is no place in it that says anything about eternal torture in fire (when preachers use Old Testament verses to prove "Hell," a quick look at the context always reveals that they mean something else).

 

In the Old Testament, the punishment for wickedness is said to be death (Eze 3:18-19; 18:20,24; 33:8-14; Psalm 37:20; Prov 2:22). Beyond that, Isaiah says, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise" (Isa 26:14). Daniel contradicts that by saying, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2), but though it doesn't fit with most of what we see in the Old Testament, even this verse doesn't say anything about torture.

 

There is a significant Old Testament verse to mention, though. Jeremiah says, "Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter" (Jer 19:6). In this verse, "The valley of the son of Hinnom" in Hebrew is "gay ben Hinnom," or "gay Hinnom" ("The valley of Hinnom") for short, and is the basis of a later Greek word "Gehenna" that referred to a valley south of Jerusalem where they reportedly burned trash, dead animals and at times the corpses of executed criminals. This "Gehenna" is translated "hell" in the New Testament.

 

So, for clarification, there are two Greek words translated "hell" in the New Testament. "Hades," as mentioned previously, refers to the grave or the netherworld. "Gehenna," on the other hand, was the city dump where refuse was burned. Now let's look at a few uses of "Gehenna."

 

When we read, "Whosever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt 5:22), that "hell fire" is referring to the burning dump south of Jerusalem. So is the statement, "It is profitable for thee that one of thy members (body parts) should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matt 5:29-30). When we read, "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell" (Luke 12:5), that is again using the burning city dump for imagery.

 

In addition we read, "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:43-44). This is an often cited passage about "Hell," but let's dig deeper. Not only is this using the imagery of "Gehenna" discussed above, but it is based on an Old Testament quote that says, "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched" (Isaiah 66:24). What is being talked about here is clearly not eternal torture, but simply mounting corpses. The worm not dying out is meant in reference to constantly having rotting corpses to eat on. Whatever "fire" may be referring to here, it is clearly not depicting the "Hell" that Christianity teaches.

 

Again, if "Hell" was such an important topic, then why would God avoid making mention of it throughout the entire Old Testament? Why repeatedly warn of death as punishment if eternal torture was really the punishment? With the complete absence of "Hell" in the Old Testament, and the idea growing out of the imagery of a burning city dump south of Jerusalem called the Valley of Hinnom in the New Testament, isn't it quite clear that "Hell" is merely a doctrine that evolved over time?

 

Beyond that, what about the ethics of "Hell"? How can justice be served by inflicting infinite torture as punishment for finite infractions? How is being burned forever a befitting discipline for mere mortals? What loving father would ever do such a thing? Would any good judge ever issue such an unfair sentence?

 

Jesus supposedly said that "whosever believeth" in God's "only begotten Son" will "have everlasting life," and that "he that believeth not is condemned" (John 3:16,18). In Christian theology, that condemnation is "Hell." However, what about all the people who die having never heard about Jesus? What about people raised in different cultures far removed from Christianity, those who are indoctrinated with other views (through no fault of their own) to the point that that they cannot believe Christianity when presented with it? What about the many, many people throughout the ages who simply never had the opportunity to believe in Jesus?

 

Some Christians try to weasel out of that dilemma by suggesting that God is just and will deal fairly with those other people. They may even cite the judgment based on deeds that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25:31-46. While that may seem to be a noble thought, it is flat-out contradicted by the very quote from Jesus listed above, that "he that believeth not is condemned" (John 3:18). If one doesn't believe, then he's condemned, with no recourse. Besides, there are other logical problems with this argument. Since it indicates that belief in Jesus really isn't necessary for salvation, then what's the point in evangelizing and sending out missionaries? That's commanded in the Bible, of course, but it would be rather pointless if it was true that God would judge everyone justly anyway and that believing in Jesus really isn't necessary for salvation!

 

In addition, what about other people, such as myself, who know the story of Jesus quite well but study Christianity and honestly conclude that it is without merit? With regard to us, as well as the aforementioned people who never heard of Jesus or who were already indoctrinated with another religious view, how could a loving God condemn such people to eternal agony when God himself has refused to show himself? If the all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God of evangelical Christianity existed and wanted to have a relationship with every person, then there would be no question that he is real and Christianity is true because he would make it clear! Yet the majority of people in the world have not been convinced of such. Where is this Christian God who is supposedly reaching out to everyone?

 

Another common Christian response is to bring up the quote, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Thus, it is argued, nobody has an excuse for not knowing, because "the creation" around us is proof. But is it really? If this verse was true and the natural world we see clearly depicted the Christian God, then everyone who looks at nature would automatically be convinced of the Christian God! Yet, throughout the world there are varying cultures with different religious views, and many of those people look at the exact same nature and see evidence of their gods! And other people look at nature and see no evidence of any god at all! How could this be if "creation" was so clear regarding the Christian God? Obviously, this argument from "creation" is simply false.

 

Think about this. You were raised in a Christian culture that convinced you that Christianity is true, but in the same way people raised in a Muslim culture are convinced that Islam is true, and people raised in a Hindu culture are convinced that Hinduism is true, and so on and so forth. The fact is that people's religious beliefs are primarily dependent upon demographics instead of logic, reason and indisputable evidence.

 

You cannot believe Islam to be true because you were programmed to believe Christianity. But the opposite is also true: Those who are programmed to believe Islam simply cannot believe Christianity. Put yourself in their shoes. What if you had been raised and indoctrinated with Islam, and therefore you could not believe Christianity? That would be no fault of your own, it would simply be the result of being raised in that culture. Would it then be fair to torture you in "Hell" forever and ever and ever, with no mercy and no relief, simply because you did not believe something that you had no ability to believe? Do you not see the absurdity and injustice in that? Do you really believe that a righteous, loving God would do that to his creation?

 

You've heard about "cruel and unusual punishment." Indeed, when someone commits a crime, we expect them to be punished, but we expect the punishment to be in accordance with the crime. However, how could any criminal deserve being tortured forever and ever and ever? We are mere mortals with a very limited life-span, so how could anything one does be worthy of unending agony? Such torture would be "cruel and unusual punishment"! And, again, the idea of issuing such punishment for a lack of belief by those who can't believe is even more problematic.

 

Clearly, any God who would torture people like that would have to be sadistic and unjust, because only a sadistic monster could be so cruel! To call any such God "good" is ridiculous, and is an insult to all that is good.

 

Given that the unjust nature of the doctrine of "Hell" is incompatible with the idea of a loving and just God, and given the way the Christian doctrine of "Hell" evolved out of the imagery of burning city dump outside Jerusalem, it becomes quite clear that "Hell" is not something revealed by God, but merely a morbid myth that developed over time and became useful for scaring people throughout the ages.

[NEWsong]

Atheists are NOT spiritual

 

Bullshit. Some are, some aren't - just like Xtians.

 

YEA...bpd...there are PLENTY of "nonspiritual christians" and NOT being a christian, I believe I am MORE SPIRITUAL and have more REALITY of who I am than ever before...

[Antlerman]

Atheists are NOT spiritual

 

Bullshit. Some are, some aren't - just like Xtians.

 

YEA...bpd...there are PLENTY of "nonspiritual christians" and NOT being a christian, I believe I am MORE SPIRITUAL and have more REALITY of who I am than ever before...

To not live in denial of the world is fact far more spiritual than to hide your face from it.

 

[centauri]

I am not going into one of those circular discussions again but briefly, those commands were when Israel were under a Theocracy. God wanted to preseve the holy line so Jesus can be born and provide a way to save the world.

Jesus has no paternal blood connection to the line of David.

Salvation was already provided for the world in Isa 56:1-8 and it has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

 

There were no paternity tests back then. A person may not know who their father is but they sure will know who the mother is. Mary was in David's lineage.

You're making things up.

There is no genealogy of Mary given in the Bible, which renders your claim empty.

Remember, it is you that wants to let the actual text validate doctrine.

Either produce the genealogy of Mary or admit that your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking.

(And don't try claiming that the genealogy in Luke is really that of Mary.

It says nothing of the sort, nor does the genealogy in Luke pass through Solomon, which is a requirement based on God's promise to David.)

Furthermore, tribal affiliation is determined by the father not the mother.

Jesus had no biological father.

Even if Mary was descended from David through the magic of wishful thinking, it would do Jesus no good.

Mary could not pass on what she could never possess herself...and kingships are not passed by females.

[centauri]

It was/is my goal to find someone who is at least intellectually honest to actually look at the bible in the way it stipulates so one can avoid private interpretations.

Translation:

intellectually honest = must agree with you

 

By the way, all interpretations are subjective.

Darlin' (beloved), I did not talk to you since last year; I think? I was hoping you would quit your job as a propagandist

 

intellectually honest = must agree with the bible and its method of interpretation.

 

True interpretations are objective and meant to guide humans into a relationship with God.

Right, I'm a propagandist and you're Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

By the way, your statement itself is not objective.

You've just assumed your conclusion, which shows that you're not being objective.

Objective interpretations do not have to conform to a specific outcome.

You've automatically assumed that they must lead to your version of God.

Not only have you misused the term "objective", you've created another layer of subjective thinking

by assuming your particular version of God is true.

The glaring problem is that you haven't actually established anything.

All you've done is claim that you possess superior knowledge about scripture, "God". and what truth is.

It's nothing more than your subjective, personal opinion being dressed up as proper interpretation.

[mymistake]

intellectually honest = must agree with the bible and its method of interpretation.

 

True interpretations are objective and meant to guide humans into a relationship with God.

 

 

Thanks Thumby for convicting yourself. Nothing I could say about you could harm your reputation worse than your own words above.

[midniterider]

Thumbelina said: Cits, I have been very consistent since I have been here in saying that atheism IS WORSE than Satanism, it is the WORST belief ever; Satanism is actually a step up rofl.

 

So the gentle way back from Atheism is to first worship Satan. Hello, Atheists! I'd like you to take the first step, ok? :-)

[midniterider]

Thumbelina, I'm going to try to save space by condensing the discussion a little.

 

Better yet, recognize that she is hopelessly lost. That is all these online discussions with Christians are good for - to remind us to never try this off-line because as long as they believe Christians are beyond recovery. If they find a way out of Christianity then they can be reached. Until then the brainwashing prevents critical thinking.

 

They are afraid of thinking critically because it challenges their imaginary friend god. Why would the bible say "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" ? Not because God will do something nasty to you....it is because nothing special will happen at all! And when nothing happens, then your faith unravels and the pastor doesn't get any more of your money.

[Prestissimo]

@Citsonga

You did your research, impressive!

[Prestissimo]

Thumbelina said: Cits, I have been very consistent since I have been here in saying that atheism IS WORSE than Satanism, it is the WORST belief ever; Satanism is actually a step up rofl.

 

So the gentle way back from Atheism is to first worship Satan. Hello, Atheists! I'd like you to take the first step, ok? :-)

 

Looks like Thumbelina masters logic after all

[mymistake]

Thumbelina said: Cits, I have been very consistent since I have been here in saying that atheism IS WORSE than Satanism, it is the WORST belief ever; Satanism is actually a step up rofl.

 

So the gentle way back from Atheism is to first worship Satan. Hello, Atheists! I'd like you to take the first step, ok? :-)

 

Is that the one where we have a group orgy in a meadow under the full moon? Or perhaps am I thinking of paganism?