80
   

If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:36 am
The absolute and total disregard for "reason" that permeates these threads assails the very foundation of humanity as a "thinking animal." and Yes MA I realize christians do not recognise mankind as an animal and are superior to "nature" but that again, simply proves the illogic of "faith-based" analysis.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:37 am
The absolute and total disregard for "reason" that permeates these threads assails the very foundation of humanity as a "thinking animal." and Yes MA I realize christians do not recognise mankind as an animal and are superior to "nature" but that again, simply proves the illogic of "faith-based" analysis.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:47 am
dyslexia,

I don't recall every saying that "Christians do not recognize mankind as an animal and are of superior to "nature." True Christians do not feel they are superior to anyone.

All I was trying to point out was that it all comes down to man. What man wrote, what man reasons to be, what man believes. It is simply impossible to give scientific proof that God exists. The only tangible evidence I can offer that God does is exist is life itself. But those that believe the scientific theories, do not believe that it was God that created man (I think that's what they believe anyway). It all comes down to Christians look to God for answers and non-believers look to man.

And, faith-based analysis may be illogical to you and others, just as the scientific-based analysis is illogical to some of us.

No one will be able to give scientific evidence that God exists. If that is what those that don't believe are waiting for, the only tangible evidence you will get is at the end of times, and even then, so many will still refuse to accept it. And yes, that's faith-based too.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 08:09 am
dyslexia,

Let me ask you a hypothetical question here. Suppose, just suppose there was scientific evidence that proved the existence of the God of the Bible. Would you then believe it? I am not trying to be a smart-butt here. I am truly interested in your answer. I guess I am not sure if it's the fact there is no proof that causes you not to believe or exactly what it is. If you don't mind, could you answer that question?

Momma Angel
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:13 am
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
Price paid to God. Jesus was the high priest of his own perfect sin-atoning sacrifice.

Satan brought about sin with the first lie.

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.

My line of reasoning is that the concept of a sacrifice for past present and future sins is more than a bit over the top and makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.


Sin being an offense against God can only be atoned by God. If you believe in the trinity, then God would be sacrificing himself to himself. If you do not believe in the trinity, then God is sacrificing his son to himself. Neither concept is one I would consider endearing.

First of all, you've posted an excellent refutation of the trinity doctrine. So you are smarter than the majority of christians in that respect.
Good thinking.

Now let's get to the idea of the sacrifice. You may think of it allegorically, if you must. The point is pretty much the same:

Adam was a perfect man. He sinned and lost his perfection. Therefore, he could not pass on perfection to his offspring. The punishment for Adam's sin was that a perfect human should pay the price of death.

Jesus voluntarily agreed to live a perfect human life and suffer death as a substitution for Adam. His so doing opened the way for all people to avail themselves of the benefits of that sacrifice.

All this good stuff got Satan pretty torqued. If you remember, it was he who suggested that mankind would be better off if they ate the fruit and started deciding right and wrong for themselves. So he designed some nasty tests designed to show that no one, not even God's firstborn would serve God when the chips were down.

Jesus accepted these as well.

BTW, when you said sin could only be atoned by God, I think it makes more sense to say that sin can only be forgiven by God.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:32 am
Momma Angel wrote:
And, faith-based analysis may be illogical to you and others, just as the scientific-based analysis is illogical to some of us.
I wanted to include other parts of your posts, Ma, but here is where you lose yourself. Go read Hebrews 11:1. What does it tell you?

I find neither science nor faith to be illogical.

It is credulity which is illogical.

Here is a perfect example of credulity used by UNOHOO:

Bible believers say that God is a God of love.
The bible, especially the OT, shows God ordering the killing of many thousands, perhaps millions.
(So far what is being said is true, right?)
Therefore, the bible contradicts itself and cannot be used to prove the existence of God.

Can you point out the straw man here?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:41 am
Neo,

Once again, my mentor, you show me something I did not know. It tells you exactly what faith is! And all this time I have been trying to explain it and it's right there in black and white! Thank you so much!

When I made that statement, I did not mean it to sound like I believed faith or science were illogical. I know faith is logical and I know science is logical. But to some, this is not the case.

Ok, now, I have seen that "straw man" phrase before. I am not quite sure what this means. Can you explain it to me and then I can see if I can point him out?

You teach me so well! Thank you! Thank you! I will never forget this verse!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 10:11 am
Straw man refers to the practice of attacking a proposition by attacking misrepresentations of that position.

Example: UNOHOO concludes that because Adam and Eve failed the test in the Garden of Eden, they must have been set up to fail. Therefore, all of the misery we have in the world must be God's fault.

By extension, God must not be a God of love, must not be deserving of our worship, etc., blah and blah.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 10:39 am
Ah ha! Now that makes more sense to me!

I guess that's kind of what I have been trying to get across to Frank when I tell him I don't understnd how he can use the bible to prove the bible is wrong (when he doesn't even believe what is says is true in the first place).

It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 10:41 am
Ah ha! Now that makes more sense to me!

I guess that's kind of what I have been trying to get across to Frank when I tell him I don't understnd how he can use the bible to prove the bible is wrong (when he doesn't even believe what is says is true in the first place).

It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 10:41 am
Ah ha! Now that makes more sense to me!

I guess that's kind of what I have been trying to get across to Frank when I tell him I don't understnd how he can use the bible to prove the bible is wrong (when he doesn't even believe what is says is true in the first place).

It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 11:04 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Ah ha! Now that makes more sense to me!

I guess that's kind of what I have been trying to get across to Frank when I tell him I don't understnd how he can use the bible to prove the bible is wrong (when he doesn't even believe what is says is true in the first place).

It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?
Yeah; but you only have to say it once. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 11:05 am
Point well taken, well taken! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 12:04 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Just a question.
People say that the bible is written by men and not God so it cannot be true.



Well, I've never said that.

I say that a careful reading of the Bible leads to a best guess that it was written by men...and that the words supposedly coming from a god are actually just the words of those men put into the mouth of a fiction god they invented.


Quote:
They dismiss much, if not all, what is written in the scriptures.


I've never said that either. I say that the Bible appears to me to be a rather self-serving history of the early Hebrew people...interspersed with an almost comical mythology.


Quote:
These same people will read an encyclopedia (also written by men) and believe every word that they read.


Anybody who does that is an idiot. But I suspect that this comment, Intrepid, is one of those straw men you build so that you have something to argue against that is stupid.



Quote:
Both are historical accounts.

Please explain the difference.


I did.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 12:05 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Ah ha! Now that makes more sense to me!

I guess that's kind of what I have been trying to get across to Frank when I tell him I don't understnd how he can use the bible to prove the bible is wrong (when he doesn't even believe what is says is true in the first place).

It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?


I am tired of explaining this to you MA. It is obvious you do not have the necessary intellect to grasp my point....a point which is completely logical and reasonable.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 01:22 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?


Your refusal to accept Frank's challenge makes it abundantly clear where the misrepresentation lies.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 02:20 pm
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
It's not the Bible that is wrong, it is the misrepresentation! Did I get that right?


Your refusal to accept Frank's challenge makes it abundantly clear where the misrepresentation lies.


:wink:

If there were any passages where their god was on the scene and not threatening, punishing, killing or ordering killing...they'd flood us with them.

The notion of a kind, loving, compassionate god in the Bible is the most absurd bit of fiction ever foisted on unsuspecting sheep. And...they are stuck with it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 02:40 pm
You have already misrepresented the meaning of those passages you wold love to cite, Frank.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 03:00 pm
neologist wrote:
You have already misrepresented the meaning of those passages you wold love to cite, Frank.


Oh no I haven't. But since you cannot come up with any passages that show a kind, loving, compassionate god on the scene...I guess you are also stuck with pretending that you've found misrepresentations in the meaning of what I've cited.

Your postings are a joke, Neo. You are in way over your head here.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 1 Aug, 2005 03:42 pm
Frank,

I see you are back at the mean side of you again. Rail on, Frank, rail on. Call us idiots, call us jokes, call us whatever you want. It is not going to change our minds or our hearts. As a matter of fact, it only strengthens us when we come up against those that believe, guess, estimate, etc., the way you do.

Frank, you do not accept the one passage that I gave you because you look at it as an act of barbarism. I know my God is loving and forgiving. Perhaps you are just afraid of Him, Frank. And, please, you need not respond to this. I don't think you are capable of understanding a love so pure as God's love, Frank. I believe that is because you do not really know what love is. You would support the decision to have your child aborted two seconds before it is born, and that is not love. You call it a fetus, a growth, and yet it would be your child? Tico asked you a question and you totally ignored it. I have noticed throughout these threads that you do not answer everything (and don't ask me to point out where, I just did.) You pick and choose what you feel you can twist the most.

I will never accept your challenge Frank. Faith is not about proof. Faith is (Hebrews 11:1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

You have no faith. You have made this abundantly clear by your posts. And Frank, I could care less if you think I lack the necessary intellect to grasp your point. I thank the good Lord I do not grasp your point! I thank the good Lord that I don't feel the necessity to belittle others.


And you have never said that the bible is written by men and not God so it cannot be true? Well, funny thing about that, that's what my intellect has grasped from your previous postings. Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 03:47:16