2248 replies to this topic

[Extracheez]

Wrong . I am an agnostic at best. By the way the 'just accept it' bit is...Well not something I agree with, but something I can very much understand. If there is some ridiculously powerful god living on a completely different plane of existence who's mental processes are well beyond what we could ever hope to comprehend, its goals and reasonings would almost certainly be beyond us.




Nooooooooooooo thanks.

As for beliefs and the bible, here is my explanation I use when I'm feeling particularly theistic:

All religions are intrepretations of the same thing: That there exists some higher power, that there exists an afterlife and that there is some ultimate justice in life. Every now and again that higher power sends down a messenger to earth to tell us what to do. Whether that messenger is a nutjob, or a charlatan (at least in their own eyes), they are working towards God will whether they know it or not. The messenge sent down to earth is generally positive thing: Live a good life, be a good person and at the end you might even be rewarded for it.

Now unfortunately, as is the case for the bible, the message eventually falls into the wrong hands. Infact its historical fact that the bible has been translated, rewritten and generally manipulated thousands of times by thousands of people and organisations, each with their own agendas. The Romans did it, a bunch of Kings did it, popes, bishops and even normal individuals did it. So the sensible Christian realises that you literally HAVE to pick and choose your believes from this mess of a book, because no one actually thinks that the entire book is the direct word of god (unlike the Quran, but lets not go there). Ontop of THIS we also have to realise that a lot of the bible consists of metaphors and parables, which should NEVER be intrepreted directly. All this weakens the original message, but it still goes strong because deep down people know whats right or wrong, they just sometimes need a little confirmation and thats what the message does.

So there you go.

That's all well and good but you still haven't answered my origional question and your still debating FOR an establishment which you ADMIT is corrupted by the very people and dogmas it wants to stop corruption, despite the fact in this day and age we can easily establish that we DON'T need religious institutions or spirituality to understand and enact morality. If corrupt powers and dogmas that only add to the suffering of people haven't been working for the past few thousand years, then chances are they will NEVER work. Its about time we abandoned them and started thinking relatively and rationally.

When I talk about this, people think I'm talking about "single acts" portrayed by unguided and unsupported people. Not at all, I'm saying the GENERAL IDEAS put forward are damaging us. The bible alone is the sum of its parts, if there are parts in there that are corrupt, then it is only inevitable that the concept is corrupted.

We are in a lucky age where we have started a new book which guides how we live our lives, its relative, its be rational, its based on expert opinions in applicable fields, its constantly under question from a community of peers, it can be used to improve the lives of those who may suffer. I call this book science, its a fucking massive collaboration of more books than I will ever read in my life, but so help me god, if reading 0.0001% of them stops me from making dick calls like banning contraception(which spreads diseases and kills in third world countries) then I'll try. Remember the bible is a bunch of books written by people 2000 years ago, compressed 1700 years ago and worshiped till this day... I wont limit myself to 50 books written 2000 years ago, because its a stupid idea.

[fykusfire]

If "certain" sects of fundamentalists date the beginning of our universe as being billions of years ago then they're not following the bible or they've fucked their biblical chronology so bad that they cannot be classifed as christians. the bible is quite specific about its 'timeline' despite it not acutally listing dates. the book of exodus actually lists the decendants of adam and lists how old they were when they died. and we can use these data to estimate the centuries they refer to- for eg, Abraham goes to egypt. from there, using the bible and googling the egyptian civilisation i can easily estimate how long ago the genisis started. thats off the top of my head. its not hard. im sure chritian 'historians' obviously look into it further and have more 'accurate' ways to estimate the dates.

How do you figure that? There is great scholarly debate by theologians as to whether the six days God created the universe was actually six literal days in a human's perception, or whatever figure six days would be from God's perspective. For instance, if you were to take the measurement from the orbit of the largest celestial bodies in space rather than the orbit of the earth, six days from that perspective could literally be billions even trillions of human days. A lot of theologians also take "Adam" as an allegory for the origin of mankind. The name Adam literally means man. Only strict fundamentalists take the view that you are expousing against.

you realise chritianity in itself is a BLANKET TERM. its USED to generalise/describe all religion which believes in the christ.
i can name 3 christian school of thoughts which take the bible literally and preach about hell. Catholicism, protestants and orthodox. Catholicism takes up HALF of the 2 billion christian population, while protestants and orthodox together take up a quarter. that leaves a quarter of the christian population for your smaller, lesser known churches (and there are hundreds of the smaller sects, not including non-denonminational christians) trust me, the majority of christian churches believe in hell.

No, that is untrue as well. A lot of the aforementioned Christian sects are annihilationist. There are also those within all three of the major schools of Christian thought you pointed out that are Universalists. I pointed that out earlier in the thread as a matter of a fact. There are a lot of Biblical passages that support that view.

and yes, im using human logic to determine the reasoning behind god's actions because quite frankly, in the bible, god is as imperfect as us human beings, as exampled very briefly below.

That's the problem right there. You are using human logic to determine a reasoning that lies beyond human thinking.

i've... never read something so ridiculous... but what ever, if you believe that, ive nothing against it. but what astonishes me is that people would beleive those things on the bases of... nothing. I could've come up with somehting even more 'believable' than that if i sat down and did some study more into the bible and put my uni biochem/genetics shit here and there to make it 'scientific'.

It wasn't my point that I believe in this or not. I am simply a person that doesn't rule out any possibilities that have not been proven. I provided that example because it is one I had heard previously. A lot of my Gnostic or New Age friends do believe that alien beings (who where mistaken for angels in religious texts even outside of Judaism and Christianity) were responsible for causing humans to become intelligent. Being narrow or closed minded about anything is just something I can't bring myself to do.

My argument concerning the flood was not that god was unjust in killing thousands (as is the normal stance atheists take) but that in doing so he showed signs of the human trait commonly referred to as the, "aw fuck it, wheres the reset button". My argument is that god doesnt seem so 'perfect' as christians make out as.

Well, considering the flood was intended to rid the earth of the giant Nephilim, and not humans at all, what you are saying doesn't make sense. It was clear in both the canonical Bible and the apocryphal book of Enoch that the Nephilim were heinous beings and were an abomination to his creation. If you don't understand why it was better to wipe a race of human murdering, human flesh eating, demon worshiping giants off the face of the earth, then there isn't much I can tell you. The rest of humanity in that part of the world was warned to get to higher ground though. That's our fault if we didn't listen.

my point was that his 'solution' was a shit solution, not that he didnt follow the jewish law of stoning the girl. the famous line, "let he who has not sinned throw the first stone" is a shit way to carry out authority/law because, as i said, i can get away with any crime by saying, "you cant prosecute me because you're a sinner too". now that i think of it, im sure jesus hasnt sinned, so why the hell didnt HE throw the first stone?

Because he himself would have been breaking a law if he had, and he knew it. According to Leviticus 20:10, both the woman and man would have to be stoned. You yourself pointed out the man in question was not present. Moreso, the witnesses have to be present along with the caveat that one of them has to throw the first stone. That is pointed out in Deuteronomy 17:6-7. Since both the man and woman adulterers were not present, the angry mob would not only have been committing a crime, but in killing only the woman would have been committing murder, which is punishable itself by death if the family of the woman declared it so. That is quite obviously why Christ said what he did. That would have been a messy situation to say the least.

The Bible is clear on certain things, the governing authorities of the time which were supposed to follow his laws were authorized (sins or not) to execute the penalties for certain crimes, and a crime such as this requires a lot of criteria to be met before a person could be executed for it. For a stoning due to adultery, two or three independent witnesses would be required. The Bible in these passages of John does not state that is the case. Also, the witnesses themselves can not have committed adultery previously. Again it is not provided as to whether or whether not they had. Christ as God may have known that these people had indeed committed this crime previously, and used a clever statement against them to keep them from committing an even worse crime than the one they were trying to convict.

If the woman as you said was raped (although this is not clearly stated either), rape itself was a crime with a distinct penalty in that part of the world. It isn't as if the Hebrews went around raping everyone they wanted without fear of reprocussion. If the Pharicees were made aware that the woman was raped, and had not actually committed adultery, then that would have been a MAJOR problem for the man only, and they never would have tried to trap a wise teacher such as Yeshua with such absurbdity. I hope you now see why your logic here is extremely faulty.

All groups of Christianity pick and choose what morals they want to abide by in the bible, because some choose to ignore the book their beliefs are based on, just brings me to the next point of why follow any of the beliefs at all, if some are wrong, the book is imperfect and should be cast aside completely.

This argument only holds up if you view the Bible as inerrant. That itself is a debate in Christianity and Judaism, and only some groups do. If you choose to view the Bible as a text written by man but inspired by God, then these issues do not arise. You are able to understand that anything that we create contains human error. That's not the fault of God then, but of human factors.

That's all well and good but you still haven't answered my origional question and your still debating FOR an establishment which you ADMIT is corrupted by the very people and dogmas it wants to stop corruption, despite the fact in this day and age we can easily establish that we DON'T need religious institutions or spirituality to understand and enact morality. If corrupt powers and dogmas that only add to the suffering of people haven't been working for the past few thousand years, then chances are they will NEVER work. Its about time we abandoned them and started thinking relatively and rationally.

When I talk about this, people think I'm talking about "single acts" portrayed by unguided and unsupported people. Not at all, I'm saying the GENERAL IDEAS put forward are damaging us. The bible alone is the sum of its parts, if there are parts in there that are corrupt, then it is only inevitable that the concept is corrupted.

We are in a lucky age where we have started a new book which guides how we live our lives, its relative, its be rational, its based on expert opinions in applicable fields, its constantly under question from a community of peers, it can be used to improve the lives of those who may suffer. I call this book science, its a fucking massive collaboration of more books than I will ever read in my life, but so help me god, if reading 0.0001% of them stops me from making dick calls like banning contraception(which spreads diseases and kills in third world countries) then I'll try. Remember the bible is a bunch of books written by people 2000 years ago, compressed 1700 years ago and worshiped till this day... I wont limit myself to 50 books written 2000 years ago, because its a stupid idea.

There are many religious people in differing religions that are also relative and rational thinkers. Religion has done nothing to hamper them either. For those who think as you believe we all do, that the Bible is inerrant, and is the sum of all of its parts, then there isn't much to tell you. The Bible wasn't written by one person, or even a group of people that intended to place it together into one extended narrative. It was a collection of many writings (at one point with hundreds of them) that people wrote while being inspired by God. It was the work of groups of men, governing bodies, and councils that placed them into one big book.

I agree though, science is terrific. Thank God for it. The only thing in my view it lacks is fuel for the soul and spirit of mankind. Maybe you don't have a need for such things. That's is fine if you don't. Obviously there is nothing wrong with it. But a lot of people do have a thirst for spirtuality. Science as wonderful as it is can not fulfill it. It simply isn't its purpose, and really I don't believe it should be. I do agree with one thing you said big time though Extracheez, a lot of people need a heaping dose of rational thinking. Fundamentalism, whether in atheism or in any religion is damaging to us in society as a whole.

Edited by fykusfire, 10 September 2009 - 11:51 AM.

[Hrugnir]

First of all, I can't be arsed to read the past 30 pages or so that have been written in this thread since last I was active, so I'm just throwing myself in here...

Second, hello, especially to fykusfire

Third: I think Pawnator pretty clearly stated what the actual point of Pericope Adulterae is, namely that Jesus was the only one who could throw the first stone, but chooses to forgive, partly because that was his mission on Earth, but also perhaps he saw her heart was repentant. The meaning of the law is to convict of sin, not ultimately to deal with it.

Fourth, I'd like to see your sources, fykusfire. Most of us already know that the Roman Catholic Church has a pretty clear stance on this, although since the Second Vatican Council, they seem to try to depopulate their Hell as much as they can, theologically.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches have, as far as I know, a different view on Hell, but this view is neither annihilationism nor universal reconciliation. It is eternal conscious torment, but not from the abscence of God but from the prescence of God, who is described several times in the Bible as a consuming fire. (Deut 4:24, Heb 12:29).
It's only really the liberal protestant denominations, the JWs and a few other denominations who have corporately embraced either annihilationism or universal reconciliation. So please give figures and sources if you want to state the contrary.

But regardless, we all know that a majority believing in something doesn't make it more true. My personal view of Hades/Gehenna ranges from annihilationism to finite punishment to eternal torment in a non-firey way (See C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce"). But I personally prefer to emphasize what we saved INTO rather than what we are saved FROM.

Also, while I actually hate the creationist/evolutionist debate, I can't resist to problematize the argument fykus is using by agreeing with Myth - where in the list of ages in Genesis/Chronicles do you stop counting people's ages symbolically? Should we continue counting the ages of people symbolically? There seems to be a gradual decline in ages - Noah lived 950 years, Abraham 175 years, Moses 120, and the text seems to indicate a gradual lifespan decrease during the generations between them. This is actually the real difficulty with reading the Creation symbolically, although I don't think it is impossible - personally I do, although I don't have a good answer to the age problem at the moment.

As for Universalism, which to me pretty much means just "everyone goes to heaven, teehee", there are very FEW passages supporting that view, but there are quite many supporting annihilationism, and a few suggesting Universal Reconciliation, although that is really more wishful thinking and philosophical argumentation than it is biblical. I'm saying that as someone who tried to have that view for more than a year.

Fifth, my view on the Bible is infallability, not inerrancy. As such, human error can sneak itself in there, but the spiritual implications of the stories are correct. As such, I believe Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected and brought eternal life for all those who believe in Him. But for one thing, the conflicting stories of the resurrection, witnesses by people who weren't even considered credible witnesses in those days (women), make the whole story seem more credible to me. If it was fabricated, they'd probably put Caesar himself there, and wouldn't even have 4 different conflicting accounts, some of which were written with full knowledge of the others' contents!

As for the whole "Our Bible is a corrupted mess of editors" argument, I doubt any serious scholar would agree with that. Yes, I believe some might claim quite a few books were pseudepigraphical, but I've very seldom seen anyone give good arguments that Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus, the 4th century Bibles of which the main body of modern New Testament translations are based, were heavily edited from their original form. The textual finds dating as far back as 125 AD, also very seldom bear account to any major redactions. Yes, there are differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions, but 99% of them are spelling differences in the Greek, and only about 20 verses are added in the former tradition, and removing those changes no theology at all. As I said, none of this is a problem with the infallability view, which is the most common in the Church universally.

As for the Old Testament, we know from the Septuaginta and the Dead Sea Scrolls that it was more or less the same in 100 BC as the Masoretic Text that we base current translations primarily from, so those evil popes don't really make a difference here either. The only major fabrication that I know of that has snuck itself into the Textus Receptus is the Comma Johanneum, which is half a verse, which just tried to emphasize the Trinity doctrine in defence against the Arians. And while that verse is not really needed to establish some form of Trinity doctrine in the Bible, it is removed in almost all translations of the Bible since the late 19th century...

[fykusfire]

First of all, I can't be arsed to read the past 30 pages or so that have been written in this thread since last I was active, so I'm just throwing myself in here...

Second, hello, especially to fykusfire

Third: I think Pawnator pretty clearly stated what the actual point of Pericope Adulterae is, namely that Jesus was the only one who could throw the first stone, but chooses to forgive, partly because that was his mission on Earth, but also perhaps he saw her heart was repentant. The meaning of the law is to convict of sin, not ultimately to deal with it.

Actually the reason was detailed clearly in my post. It deals specifically with Jewish law.

Fourth, I'd like to see your sources, fykusfire. Most of us already know that the Roman Catholic Church has a pretty clear stance on this, although since the Second Vatican Council, they seem to try to depopulate their Hell as much as they can, theologically.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches have, as far as I know, a different view on Hell, but this view is neither annihilationism nor universal reconciliation. It is eternal conscious torment, but not from the abscence of God but from the prescence of God, who is described several times in the Bible as a consuming fire. (Deut 4:24, Heb 12:29).
It's only really the liberal protestant denominations, the JWs and a few other denominations who have corporately embraced either annihilationism or universal reconciliation. So please give figures and sources if you want to state the contrary.

But regardless, we all know that a majority believing in something doesn't make it more true. My personal view of Hades/Gehenna ranges from annihilationism to finite punishment to eternal torment in a non-firey way (See C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce"). But I personally prefer to emphasize what we saved INTO rather than what we are saved FROM.

Damnit Hruggles, making me all work n' stuffz. Alright, I'll go back over this. You yourself stated that some Protestant sects have some churches or figureheads that support annihilationism. Some of these sects include Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Seventh-day Adventist. John Wesley, John Wenham, John Stott, and Greg Boyd are some advocates of it. Christian Universalism has adherents in Catholicism, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Moravian, Baptist, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, and Messianic Hebrew sects. Three of the most famous that come to mind are Abraham Lincoln, Billy Graham, and after his stint dabbling in annihilationism funny enough, the very same John Wesley. The most famous Catholic Universalist was Titus of Bostra (I grew up a Catholic and personally knew many others who were). Many of the earliest church fathers of which's church later became the Roman Catholic one, were also Universalists. I was not referring to Eastern Orthodox above however, for the record.

Also, while I actually hate the creationist/evolutionist debate, I can't resist to problematize the argument fykus is using by agreeing with Myth - where in the list of ages in Genesis/Chronicles do you stop counting people's ages symbolically? Should we continue counting the ages of people symbolically? There seems to be a gradual decline in ages - Noah lived 950 years, Abraham 175 years, Moses 120, and the text seems to indicate a gradual lifespan decrease during the generations between them. This is actually the real difficulty with reading the Creation symbolically, although I don't think it is impossible - personally I do, although I don't have a good answer to the age problem at the moment.

According to Arthur Earle, who wrote "The Bible Dates Itself," some of this is explained by the ages referring to counts in a base 7 numbering system. That would mean the ages are much less than what is actually stated in a base 10 system such as what we use in modern times. Really though, I wasn't arguing that so much as the time before humans arrived and recorded the things around them in detail. Those "days" of creation could have been billions of years in God's perspective.

As for Universalism, which to me pretty much means just "everyone goes to heaven, teehee", there are very FEW passages supporting that view, but there are quite many supporting annihilationism, and a few suggesting Universal Reconciliation, although that is really more wishful thinking and philosophical argumation than it is Biblical.

What about these:

Jesus' prophecy that he will "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32)

Jesus' teaching that God is "Our Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9)

Jesus' teaching that all things will be renewed. (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus' teaching that the unforgiving servant will be turned "over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." (Matthew 18:34)
Jesus' statement that human beings are "gods" (John 10:34, quoting Psalm 82:6)

Paul's teaching that human beings are God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28)

Paul's teaching that there is "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6)
Paul's teaching that "from [God] and through him and to him are all things" (Romans 11:36)

Paul's prophecy that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Paul's teaching that "just as the result of one trespass [by Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [by Christ] was justification that brings life for all men. ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19)
Paul's statement that God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
Paul's teaching that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19)

Paul's prophecy that "every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11)

Peter's teaching that Jesus "died for sins once for all" and "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago" (1 Peter 3:18-20), so that they may "live according to God in regard to the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6)

John's teaching that "[Jesus Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)
Old Testament teaching that men and women are created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27)
Old Testament teaching that "[God's] anger lasts only a moment" (Psalm 30:5)

Old Testament teaching that "[God] is good; his love endures forever" (Psalm 106:1, 107:1)

Fifth, my view on the Bible is infallability, not inerrancy. As such, human error can sneak itself in there, but the spiritual implications of the stories are correct. As such, I believe Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected and brought eternal life for all those who believe in Him. But for one thing, the conflicting stories of the resurrection, witnesses by people who weren't even considered credible witnesses in those days (women), make the whole story seem more credible to me. If it was fabricated, they'd probably put Caesar himself there, and wouldn't even have 4 different conflicting accounts, some of which were written with full knowledge of the others' contents!

As for the whole "Our Bible is a corrupted mess of editors" argument, I doubt any serious scholar would agree with that. Yes, I believe some might claim quite a few books were pseudepigraphical, but I've very seldom seen anyone give good arguments that Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus, the 4th century Bibles of which the main body of modern New Testament translations are based, were heavily edited from their original form. The textual finds dating as far back as 125 AD, also very seldom bear account to any major redactions. Yes, there are differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian textual traditions, but 99% of them are spelling differences in the Greek, and only about 20 verses are added in the former tradition, and removing those changes no theology at all. As I said, none of this is a problem with the infallability view, which is the most common in the Church universally.

As for the Old Testament, we know from the Septuaginta and the Dead Sea Scrolls that it was more or less the same in 100 BC as the Masoretic Text that we base current translations primarily from, so those evil popes don't really make a difference here either. The only major fabrication that I know of that has snuck itself into the Textus Receptus is the Comma Johanneum, which is half a verse, which just tried to emphasize the Trinity doctrine in defence against the Arians. And while that verse is not really needed to establish some form of Trinity doctrine in the Bible, it is removed in almost all translations of the Bible since the late 19th century...

I can agree with most of what you are saying here. However, it is odd that you are referring to all of these codices are either in Latin or Greek, none of which the Hebrews spoke. In order for these to be confirmed without doubt as accurate when they were obviously written by Hebrews would be to have original copies in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek or Latin. I know a couple of them were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts, but not many. On top of this, the original Hebrew Nazarenes and Ebionites only used a gospel named "The Gospel of the Hebrews," which really was in said languages, but of which no copy exists in the present. So there is a lot of margin for error, so I will agree again that the inspiration itself is valid, but the book we have now can neither be confirmed as infallible or inerrant.

Edited by fykusfire, 10 September 2009 - 01:38 PM.

[Extracheez]

This argument only holds up if you view the Bible as inerrant. That itself is a debate in Christianity and Judaism, and only some groups do. If you choose to view the Bible as a text written by man but inspired by God, then these issues do not arise. You are able to understand that anything that we create contains human error. That's not the fault of God then, but of human factors.There are many religious people in differing religions that are also relative and rational thinkers. Religion has done nothing to hamper them either. For those who think as you believe we all do, that the Bible is inerrant, and is the sum of all of its parts, then there isn't much to tell you. The Bible wasn't written by one person, or even a group of people that intended to place it together into one extended narrative. It was a collection of many writings (at one point with hundreds of them) that people wrote while being inspired by God. It was the work of groups of men, governing bodies, and councils that placed them into one big book.

Please explain to me how that makes my logic incorrect. I'm saying that the small corruptions in the bible only come together as a whole to make an inherently corrupt concept, your saying because it was written by man, that what I'm saying is false...

If a book contains corrupt statements, it will be used by the corrupt. This has nothing to do with the existence of a god, that's a whole different argument. Please take this and re-read what I said.

I agree though, science is terrific. Thank God for it. The only thing in my view it lacks is fuel for the soul and spirit of mankind. Maybe you don't have a need for such things. That's is fine if you don't. Obviously there is nothing wrong with it. But a lot of people do have a thirst for spirtuality. Science as wonderful as it is can not fulfill it. It simply isn't its purpose, and really I don't believe it should be. I do agree with one thing you said big time though Extracheez, a lot of people need a heaping dose of rational thinking. Fundamentalism, whether in atheism or in any religion is damaging to us in society as a whole.

This again, is where you are taking my argument and calling it false, yet you have completely missed what I'm saying, so much so that I have said "1+1=2" and your reply is "no, because I'm an owl".

Before I respond to your proposal, please tell me what is spirituality, the spirit of mankind and the soul is. Then explain to me WHY science cant fulfill these things.

[Hrugnir]

Actually the reason was detailed clearly in my post. It deals specifically with Jewish law.

Alright, I'll read it.

Damnit Hruggles, making me all work n' stuffz. Alright, I'll go back over this. You yourself stated that some Protestant sects have some churches or figureheads that support annihilationism. Some of these sects include Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Seventh-day Adventist. John Wesley, John Wenham, John Stott, and Greg Boyd are some advocates of it. Christian Universalism has adherents in Catholicism, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Moravian, Baptist, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, and Messianic Hebrew sects. Three of the most famous that come to mind are Abraham Lincoln, Billy Graham, and after his stint dabbling in annihilationism funny enough, the very same John Wesley. The most famous Catholic Universalist was Titus of Bostra (I grew up a Catholic and personally knew many others who were). Many of the earliest church fathers of which's church later became the Roman Catholic one, were also Universalists. I was not referring to Eastern Orthodox above however, for the record.

Thank you for this. By universalist, you just mean apocatastasis, right? No liberal "all paths lead to God and there is no point in evangelism" talk, I hope. I was a bit concerned when you quoted something earlier - denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

According to Arthur Earle, who wrote "The Bible Dates Itself," some of this is explained by the ages referring to counts in a base 7 numbering system. That would mean the ages are much less than what is actually stated in a base 10 system such as what we use in modern times. Really though, I wasn't arguing that so much as the time before humans arrived and recorded the things around them in detail. Those "days" of creation could have been billions of years in God's perspective.

Interesting. But we still do have a problem with the aging, as archeology seems to talk about human life being tens of thousands of years old.

What about these:

Jesus' prophecy that he will "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32)

Jesus' teaching that God is "Our Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9)

Jesus' teaching that all things will be renewed. (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus' teaching that the unforgiving servant will be turned "over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." (Matthew 18:34)
Jesus' statement that human beings are "gods" (John 10:34, quoting Psalm 82:6)

Paul's teaching that human beings are God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28)

Paul's teaching that there is "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6)
Paul's teaching that "from [God] and through him and to him are all things" (Romans 11:36)

Paul's prophecy that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Paul's teaching that "just as the result of one trespass [by Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [by Christ] was justification that brings life for all men. ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19)
Paul's statement that God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
Paul's teaching that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19)

Paul's prophecy that "every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11)

Peter's teaching that Jesus "died for sins once for all" and "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago" (1 Peter 3:18-20), so that they may "live according to God in regard to the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6)

John's teaching that "[Jesus Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)
Old Testament teaching that men and women are created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27)
Old Testament teaching that "[God's] anger lasts only a moment" (Psalm 30:5)

Old Testament teaching that "[God] is good; his love endures forever" (Psalm 106:1, 107:1)

Yeah, I take that back, singled out, there seem to be many passages referring to the final salvation of all mankind. However, unless you take to the aionos/olam defense, there seem to be very many verses pointing to eternal punishment. If you want to use the aionos defense, which I already know of and to part understand, I must ask how you interpret things like Jesus saying there will be no forgiveness for those who sin against the Holy Spirit, in this world or the next (Matt 12:31-32), and also Matthew 25:46, where the same word (aionos) is used for the punishment and the life. Are both finite, or are both eternal? The same applies for Daniel 12:2: "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." John 3:36 and 5:24 also quite clearly point to the alternative to the eternal life being spiritual death.

Also, the finite meaning of aionos seems very strange when you use the word twice, like in Revelation 14:11 and 20:10, especially as this double aionos is used throughout the book to describe the Lord and his Anointed's reign (1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13, 7:12 etc). If I may argue against myself, however, the phrase is that their "smoke rises" in 14:11, which is also used for the destroyed city of Babylon in 15:7, so that might refer to the memory of their torment rather than their actual torment. Rev 20:10 seems more clear, however.

Anyways, as I said, I've been on this track myself, so I am not saying you must be wrong. Regardless, at least I think the two of us can agree that there are consequences to our sin in our lives after the first death, it's just a question of their nature.

I can agree with most of what you are saying here. However, it is odd that you are referring to all of these codices are either in Latin or Greek, none of which the Hebrews spoke. In order for these to be confirmed without doubt as accurate when they were obviously written by Hebrews would be to have original copies in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek or Latin. I know a couple of them were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts, but not many. On top of this, the original Hebrew Nazarenes and Ebionites only used a gospel named "The Gospel of the Hebrews," which really was in said languages, but of which no copy exists in the present. So there is a lot of margin for error, so I will agree again that the inspiration itself is valid, but the book we have now can neither be confirmed as infallible or inerrant.

None of the codices I referred to are in Latin. Second, Aramaic/Hebrew primacy for the TEXTS of any NT text other than Matthew and the obscure and mostly lost Gospel of the Hebrews, has never been attested. And yes, I know of the Peshitta. I can go with that theory with the Gospels of Matthew and maybe Mark, and perhaps with the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jacob and some other epistles aimed at Jews could have been in Hebrew/Aramaic, but you forget that many of the Epistles and some of the Gospels were written to either Gentile-dominated congregations or at least congregations with both Jews and Gentiles, and even the Jews in the diaspora there didn't always know their mother tongue - Hellenization was a widespread problem. So obviously the gospel was most effectively spread in the language everyone understood, despite the Apostles' native tongues being something else. Actually, I even take that back about the Epistle of the Hebrews, I've heard that it is the Epistle with the most well-written Greek in all the NT. And speaking of which, even with the Gospel of Matthew, if it was based on a written Hebrew source, it must have been entirely rephrased, because I remember reading that it shows no sign of translation, nor does any other book in the NT, as far as I know. However, I think everyone agrees that Jesus' sermons and ministry was mostly in Hebrew or Aramaic, so obviously the Hebrew connection is with us regardless.

Finally, can you explain what you mean with "the inspiration is valid, but what we have can not be confirmed as infallible"? Are you saying that we have no way of knowing if any given text or teaching in the Bible is really inspired or not?

[fykusfire]

Please explain to me how that makes my logic incorrect. I'm saying that the small corruptions in the bible only come together as a whole to make an inherently corrupt concept, your saying because it was written by man, that what I'm saying is false...

If a book contains corrupt statements, it will be used by the corrupt. This has nothing to do with the existence of a god, that's a whole different argument. Please take this and re-read what I said.

Ok, let's review your words again:

All groups of Christianity pick and choose what morals they want to abide by in the bible, because some choose to ignore the book their beliefs are based on, just brings me to the next point of why follow any of the beliefs at all, if some are wrong, the book is imperfect and should be cast aside completely.

A Christian or Jew only has to follow each and every passage and thusly each and every set of morals in his/her Bible if that book and all within is deemed inerrant. If it is not, and is viewed as an inspired but imperfect book written by humans to do its best to depict the nature of God, then it is perfectly alright to pick and choose what within it makes most sense to the individual. If you accept that the corruption is human in nature, and not the fault of God (or the lack thereof), then the belief in God (or lack thereof) is not corrupted.

This again, is where you are taking my argument and calling it false, yet you have completely missed what I'm saying, so much so that I have said "1+1=2" and your reply is "no, because I'm an owl".

Before I respond to your proposal, please tell me what is spirituality, the spirit of mankind and the soul is. Then explain to me WHY science cant fulfill these things.

I have not missed what you are saying. I read your posts quite intently. At any rate, spirituality is defined as the following:

1. The state, quality, manner, or fact of being spiritual.
2. Concern with things of the spirit.

And according to Wikipedia:

being spiritual may aim toward:
simultaneously improving one's wisdom and willpower
achieving a closer connection to Deity/the universe
removing illusions or "false ideas" at the sensory, feeling and thinking aspects of a person.

The soul itself is a bit different. Some liken or confuse the soul with the spirit. The soul in a context of spirituality is the archetype of the person. A lesser, more personalized version of the eternal spirit. The soul in the more physical, scientific, or pseudoscientific (whichever you choose to view it as) approach is simply the way the brain is "wired" in a human that makes their thought process unique. This of course includes other factors as well such as the human's environment, how they were raised, etc. Whichever view you take, they are more or less saying the same thing.

Science is opposed to the concepts of spirituality, and this is why it is not equipped to fill the void in a spiritual person. To quote wikipedia again:

Science takes as its basis empirical, repeatable observations of the natural world, and thus generally regards ideas that rely on supernatural forces for an explanation as beyond the purview of science. Scientists regard ideas which present themselves as scientific, but which rely on a supernatural force for an explanation, as religious rather than scientific; and may label such ideas as pseudo-science. In this context scientists may oppose spirituality, at least in the scientific sphere.

Now, some scientists have believed it is ok to integrate the two concepts. See here:

New Age physicist-philosopher Fritjof Capra has articulated connections between what he sees as the spiritual consequences of quantum physics. Ken Wilber, in an attempt to unite science and spirituality, has proposed an "Integral Theory of Consciousness".[5]

Ervin László posits a field of information as the substance of the cosmos. Using the Sanskrit and Vedic term for "space", akasha, he calls this information-field the "Akashic field" or "A-field". He posits the "quantum vacuum" (see Vacuum state) as the fundamental energy- and information-carrying field that informs not just the current universe, but all universes past and present (collectively, the "Metaverse").

This view is just not generally accepted. So to restate, although some do believe science can fill that void, the majority do not. That is why I said what I said.

Thank you for this. By universalist, you just mean apocatastasis, right? No liberal "all paths lead to God and there is no point in evangelism" talk, I hope. I was a bit concerned when you quoted something earlier - denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Indeed, theosis and apocatastasis. This view is what separates Christian Universalism from Unitarian Universalism.

Interesting. But we still do have a problem with the aging, as archeology seems to talk about human life being tens of thousands of years old.

Not at all, we don't know how long Adam and their descendents lived, and if you take that part of the Bible as allegory, then those concepts do not cause issues.

Yeah, I take that back, singled out, there seem to be many passages referring to the final salvation of all mankind. However, unless you take to the aionos/olam defense, there seem to be very many verses pointing to eternal punishment. If you want to use the aionos defense, which I already know of and to part understand, I must ask how you interpret things like Jesus saying there will be no forgiveness for those who sin against the Holy Spirit, in this world or the next (Matt 12:31-32), and also Matthew 25:46, where the same word (aionos) is used for the punishment and the life. Are both finite, or are both eternal? The same applies for Daniel 12:2: "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." John 3:36 and 5:24 also quite clearly point to the alternative to the eternal life being spiritual death.

I do indeed take the Aionos/Aion/Olam defense. As a matter of a fact, you should read this blog post by my good friend and co-creator of Guild Wars, Josh Foreman, here: http://joshuaforeman...01_archive.html As far as how I interpret those things? Well, I really don't. I did a piece on the Ignatius conspiracy and therefore unless I was able to read the words of Christ in his native tongue, I take any passages written from a Greek text with a grain of salt.

Also, the finite meaning of aionos seems very strange when you use the word twice, like in Revelation 14:11 and 20:10, especially as this double aionos is used throughout the book to describe the Lord and his Anointed's reign (1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13, 7:12 etc). If I may argue against myself, however, the phrase is that their "smoke rises" in 14:11, which is also used for the destroyed city of Babylon in 15:7, so that might refer to the memory of their torment rather than their actual torment. Rev 20:10 seems more clear, however.

Again I believe you should read Josh Foreman's post on this. It goes over all of the things you mentioned much better than I am able.

Anyways, as I said, I've been on this track myself, so I am not saying you must be wrong. Regardless, at least I think the two of us can agree that there are consequences to our sin in our lives after the first death, it's just a question of their nature.

Yes, I do believe all of us will atone for our wrongs in life, but simply to purify ourselves from them. I think of the fires of torment as similar to the furnace a sword is placed in to purge the metals from all of their impurities so they can be of the strongest material possible.

Edited by fykusfire, 11 September 2009 - 09:58 AM.

[Hrugnir]

Okay, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Bible there - I do believe that all the canonical books of the New Testament are inspired, and I really do not think Jesus words have been tampered with beyond their form from the eye witness testimonies.

As for the Guild Wars dude, I've read something else by him earlier... I'll read it at some point later, but as I searched the post, I found no references to the specific Bible passages I quoted. The only reasonable way around them as far as I see it, is to say some evil Gentile tampered with them after the Pure And Holy Hebrew-Speaking Apostles lost control over the Church. While I do agree that some big problems occured when the Church took the directly opposite path from Paul's advice in Romans 11, I don't think they went as far as putting or removing words from Christ's mouth because of that.

[Myth]

Riddle me this:

God made us. He, for some reason, loves us. we live happy somewhere without fear or death. We disobey him, he gets angry and forces men to work to death all our lives in the fields to survive and women to have pain during birth. doesnt this behaviour sound human? doesnt this sound like a dad getting angry because his kids disobeyed him and beating the shit out of his kids in a fit of alcohol fueled anger? personally id prefer getting beaten up than experiencing the pain of birth everytime i have intercourse (im going to presume god didnt give adam condoms) or working my arse off all my life on grounds which "will be under a curse". (Genesis 3:17-18, it says the ground will be full of thorns and thistles, and it'll generally be a bitch to us)
why would god be so pissed at us for disobeying him? did we break his heart by disobeying since he loves us so much? but hes perfect, why did he get fazed by his emotions? he almost sounds like... a human.

also, ive mentioned this before but couldnt source it because i couldnt be bothered rereading the old testament just to prove one point- the bible says in Genesis 3:16 the following:

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

well thats just great, god basically said women are men's bitches and that we will rule over them. take THAT feminists. no, not just feminists, ALL women kind in the world. never mind that the bible is outdated on these matters by a couple of millennia, THE HOLY BOOK SAYS SO.

[CORNELIOUS THE CONQUEROR]

that some pretty groundbreaking stuff there myst, nice post.

[zalzaron]

It's very complex really and it would take hours to explain.

But basically we ate the apple he was saving for lunch so we are fucked for all eternity.

[ismdism]

lol I'm not religious myself mostly because I started to read the Bible. My mom always asks me why I'm not religious so I always ask her if she believes in the Bible why does she think she should have right. This usually stops her and I don't hear much more.

My current question about religion is how can heaven work? I mean what changes between here and there where all evil disappears? Also would I be forced to live eternity by what the Bible says is right?

[xan21]

Religion is bullshit. The world would be a better place without it.

Edited by xan21, 21 October 2009 - 05:43 PM.

[ya_ba]

Why don't you believe? seriously. I came here to start an intelligent conversation but you just keep saying "i don' believe" BACK UP YOUR REASONING.

I could sit here all day and tell you that the sky is made of pudding and clouds are big floating balls of cotton candy but that doesn't mean you'd listen to me due to the fact that i'm not backing anything up.

I find it fascinating that us, atheists, have to prove to you, believers, why we don't believe in God, (any God, for that matter) while you can just back your reasoning up by saying 'because we have faith', well - we too have faith, only the opposite of yours.
Trust me, I'd rather believe in God...It'd make life so much more... Easy? I wouldn't have to blame myself for anything when it goes wrong, I could be SURE that everything would go well in the end, that I would find true love, well - just about anything, you know? But I don't. I don't believe in God because I simply don't.
It's a feeling, it's not something you can rationalize. Well, at least not me.
For me it's the brain AND the heart (soul, whatever you prefer calling it, I don't believe in a soul, but you can call it whatever you want ) that don't let me believe.
It's the logical thinking AND the feeling.
I just don't FEEL the belief, you know?
I hope this helps to get our, well - at least mine, point of view.

[Emotive]

snip

i agree with this, and to put it even simpler terms: we (non-believers) don't have to 'back up' a single damn thing. why? because we're not the ones making ridiculous claims about a man in the sky.

you want ME to believe YOUR claims, then i'm gonna need YOU to back it up buddy.

Edited by Emotive, 14 November 2009 - 08:03 AM.

[some dude]

its been a while since i last ventured into the debate section, so bear with me here

i hate it when i'm talking to somebody about something, and they bring up some total bullshit religious argument in response to a completely logical statement
i have a half black half white friend who i've had some interesting debates with, concerning his ethnicity
he seems to think that he is 100% black, and whenever i bring up his white heritage, he comes out with some bullshit like "islam tells us that it doesnt matter what your ethnicity is" (he's a sunni muslim)
he also hates white people, which is irony at its finest
i cant seriously believe he can go around calling people "white devils" and not feel like a total fucking hypocrite.

[ya_ba]

i agree with this, and to put it even simpler terms: we (non-believers) don't have to 'back up' a single damn thing. why? because we're not the ones making ridiculous claims about a man in the sky.

you want ME to believe YOUR claims, then i'm gonna need YOU to back it up buddy.

Damn straight sister!

its been a while since i last ventured into the debate section, so bear with me here

i hate it when i'm talking to somebody about something, and they bring up some total bullshit religious argument in response to a completely logical statement
i have a half black half white friend who i've had some interesting debates with, concerning his ethnicity
he seems to think that he is 100% black, and whenever i bring up his white heritage, he comes out with some bullshit like "islam tells us that it doesnt matter what your ethnicity is" (he's a sunni muslim)
he also hates white people, which is irony at its finest
i cant seriously believe he can go around calling people "white devils" and not feel like a total fucking hypocrite.

There's a bear with you?! (Sorry, I had to...)

[Ganonheart]

I am a follower of the Sith religion, i follow the code, the teachings and controls set in place.

If anyone try and discriminates against my religion and beliefs, i will sue you.

[Emotive]

Damn straight sister!

did you just call me a woman?

ouch.

[ya_ba]

did you just call me a woman?

ouch.

I was just... Nvm.....