80
   

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

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 01:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There's several scientific hypothesis, including a comet strike in the Indian Ocean, but the preponderance of evidence is for the post Ice Age flooding of the Black Sea which then overflowed into the Mediterranean.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 10:18 pm
@Lightwizard,
I respect your opinion but long to see specific arguments
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2009 02:35 pm
@neologist,
The are no scientific facts that are in conflict with any of the geological studies explaining the origins of the myth of a "Great Flood." Consequently, there aren't any arguments, not even in the Bible as it forms borders for the "world" at that time which includes all the areas geologists have found evidence of massive flooding.

There is no evidence of "world wide" flooding during the time of humankind and that includes the huge percentage of the world which those who wrote the Bible had no knowledge of and apparently Yahweh had no intention of informing them.

0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Sat 5 Dec, 2009 10:26 pm
@neologist,
And you forget "the words of the lord are pure words" far from what we read in the so called "Holy Bible"...

Psalms 12:6 KJV
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Comment:
And why purify something that is already pure? Were biblical words purified with human reason or with God's own divinity? Do God's words need human dickering to make them pure?

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 5 Dec, 2009 10:32 pm
@RexRed,
Your definition of "pure" must not resemble anything in any dictionary.
RexRed
 
  0  
Sun 6 Dec, 2009 01:31 am
@cicerone imposter,
My definition of "pure" comes from a 2000 year old document, it is about time the dictionary caught up.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Sun 6 Dec, 2009 01:41 am
If the words of the LORD need to be made pure (purified) can we trust them in their first inception?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 6 Dec, 2009 11:03 am
@RexRed,
Only if all the errors and omissions were removed from the bible; that would be about 90% removal.
RexRed
 
  0  
Mon 7 Dec, 2009 05:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If all 90% of the errors and omissions were removed from the bible; would you call the 10% left in the bible God?
0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Mon 7 Dec, 2009 05:53 pm
Perhaps checkable fact ??
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:29 am
@cicerone imposter,
There are no significant errors or omissions in the Bible.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2009 11:07 am
@neologist,
You mean like the second day of creation when god made day and night? LOL
RexRed
 
  0  
Wed 9 Dec, 2009 11:25 am
@neologist,
I would have to use blindfolds to believe that.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2009 12:01 pm
Fact checking the Bible against science and recorded history, it gets very low points on credibility. Even the church is beginning to realize that. If they don't, they will slowly loose church attendance and contributions and by the law of attrition simply fade into recorded history.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2009 01:07 pm
@Lightwizard,
I wouldn't go that far, LW. There's something to religion, no matter how illogical, that the masses need in order for them to have some higher power that will listen to their prayers.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2009 02:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But the churches are doing exactly that and with a consideration even of demographics. They've been gradually pulling away from the literal interpretation of the Old Testament and even parts of the New Testament. I'm not sure if that many people put as much credence in prayer as they used to. Wasting on who will win the football game is going out of style. The local Methodist and Episcopalian churches which I am most familiar with are much more moderate in their views of heave and hell and focusing so strictly on the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian philosophy. As discussed before, the Catholic church is absorbing more science as being the truth.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Sat 12 Dec, 2009 08:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes it is the truth factor. A tiny bit of truth outweighs even the greatest amount of concordant idiocy. Pass the cool-aid. Socrates drank hemlock just the same.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Sat 12 Dec, 2009 08:42 pm
Know thine own undoing.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 22 Dec, 2009 06:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You mean like the second day of creation when god made day and night? LOL
Explain the inconsistency
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 22 Dec, 2009 06:44 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

I would have to use blindfolds to believe that.
I think you are quite well enough blindfolded, Rex

You believe only the parts that fit with your desire for license
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 05/21/2025 at 04:07:17