← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 17930 | Posts: 46 | Started: 2005-04-21
2005-04-21 08:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I, for one, cannot wish Hitler a happy birthday. Hitler denied the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For that reason, Hitler is in hell, and will be in hell for all eternity. There's no such thing as hell -- that's a pagan-derived myth that predates Jesus' birth by hundreds of years. Some Jews picked it up from the Romans centuries after most of their Scriptures were written, which is why you don't read about Hell in Genesis, Leviticus, etc. -- only "Sheol," which was the earthy underworld where the Israelites believed everyone went after death.
Moreover, I'd argue that you can't reject Jesus unless you believe in his divinity first. It's kind of like leprechauns -- we don't reject them, we just don't believe in them.
Finally -- and I say this respectfully and without any intent to be self-righteous -- Christians aren't supposed to judge what punishments others are worthy of.
Hitler was right to oppose the jews, but his methods were wrong. Hitler divided the white world rather than unite it. Hitler supported euthanasia. He was no respecter of life. I agree. Jews weren't the only ones to suffer under Hitler -- many Whites did too. Their "crime"? Being Slavs. And it wasn't only communist Slavs who suffered under Hitler, either -- some of my own relatives were persecuted by the Nazis, and they were innocent as doves.
I have no problem with euthanasia if a sick person wants to be put down, but my understanding is that Hitler euthanized even the unwilling. I have a problem with that.
Don't waste your time celebrating an evil man. Doing so only allows the jew to pillory you, and make you a mockery. Don't fall into that trap.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't go quite so far as to call Hitler evil, though a case can certainly be made. My opinion is that he meant well but was misguided.
I also agree that association with the trappings of Nazism is harmful to the pro-White cause. If someone wants to honor Hitler publicly, let him do so after we've won the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Whites.
2005-04-22 01:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]There's no such thing as hell -- that's a pagan-derived myth that predates Jesus' birth by hundreds of years. Some Jews picked it up from the Romans centuries after most of their Scriptures were written, which is why you don't read about Hell in Genesis, Leviticus, etc. -- only "Sheol," which was the earthy underworld where the Israelites believed everyone went after death.[/QUOTE] Angler, I'm afraid you're going to have a rude awakening. But when you find out, it will be too late.
Second, you really don't know Biblical history too well. Liberal scholars say that the Hebrews borrowed Hell from the Persians, not the Romans. But even that idea is easily discredited. I don't care to take the time to look up the references right now, but the concept of hell is very clearly presented in Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah. I think it may also be in Job.
2005-04-22 17:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, I'm afraid you're going to have a rude awakening. But when you find out, it will be too late. Nope. It doesn't exist. If it did, then God would be unjust, since human beings are finite creatures with limited awareness of God (if he even exists). Thus, humans are incapable of committing infinite crimes that merit infinite punishment.
Second, you really don't know Biblical history too well. Liberal scholars say that the Hebrews borrowed Hell from the Persians, not the Romans. Actually, I've heard that they were possibly influenced by both. But I stand corrected: you caught me in a moment of sloppiness. It's true that the Babylonian Captivity is generally considered to have been the initial exposure of the Hebrews to the concept of hell. But then you have pre-Christian Romans discussing how hell was invented to control the masses:
[url]http://www.zianet.com/godisgood/polybius.html[/url]
Also see here:
[url]http://what.tentmaker.org/AncientHell.htm[/url]
One thing is certain: hell in the Jewish and, later, Christian traditions is an evolved concept that God evidently did not see fit to tell Adam and Eve about or the Israelites at Sinai. You don't find that, er, suspicious? I do.
But even that idea is easily discredited. I don't care to take the time to look up the references right now, but the concept of hell is very clearly presented in Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah. I think it may also be in Job.[/QUOTE]It's definitely not in Job. It is in Isaiah, and I'm not sure about the Psalms or Proverbs. In any event, my understanding is that those books are much older than the Pentateuch, and that fits in perfectly with the scenario that the Hebrews simply stole the idea of hell and incorporated it into their writings.
Think about it: God doesn't threaten the early Hebrews with hell or offer them the reward of heaven; he merely tells them that, if they obey the rules, they will have a good life on earth. If they disobey, they'll die in misery. He also extends that to their children, which is unjust but certainly adds weight to both the carrot and the stick. At any rate, all of the dead still end up in sheol, which is translated as "hell" in some Bibles but is NOT the same thing.
Later on, when Ezekiel is written, God seems to change his mind about punishing children for the sins of their fathers. Realizing that this is wrong, God tells the prophet that everyone is responsible only for his own sins and warns them to never again use the proverb, "The parents have eaten green grapes; therefore, the children's teeth are on edge." (This contradicts the doctrine of Original Sin.) But God is still only threatening earthly punishments for sin.
In the latest books of the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah, as you point out) the concept of eternal torment finally appears. But why didn't God mention such a critical point before? And why did the concept of an afterlife of bliss or torment only appear after the Babylonian captivity? The obvious answer is that the Hebrews borrowed it. Later on, Jesus (or those who put words in his mouth) also used the concept. And it works extremely well; many people are afraid to leave the church because they fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. Who wants to take the risk of eternal torment? But some of us realize that this psychological game is entirely manmade, and we've freed our minds and made them our own again.
2005-04-22 18:54 | User Profile
Angler, you're making a big mistake trying to stand in judgment on God. By opposing Christ Jesus, you're no better than a jew. You can continue in your arrogance. But you will pay the eternal price.
2005-04-22 19:40 | User Profile
The teaching of OT is not man-centric but theo-centric. OT makes it abundantly clear that rebellion against YHWH is a very serious matter indeed, and that warning should have been enough.
But back then, as today, many people thought that once they were dead, their problems were all over.
[COLOR=DarkRed] Isaiah 28:14-15:
Wherefore hear the word of Jehovah, ye scoffers, that rule this people that is in Jerusalem: Because ye have said, [B]We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us[/B]; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:[/COLOR]
This is what the "covenant with death" is - these people thought that once they were dead, they had escaped YHWH's wrath.
But no, OT says that sinners cannot escape YHWH's presence and judgment even into Sheol:
[COLOR=Sienna]Deuteronomy 32:39:
""See now that I, even I, am he, And there is no god with me: [B]I kill, and I make alive[/B]; I wound, and I heal; [B]And there is none that can deliver out of my hand[/B]."
Amos 9:2-4:
[B]Though they dig into Sheol, thence shall my hand take them[/B]; and though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down. And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and it shall bite them. And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.
Psalms 139:7-12:
"Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? [B]Or whither shall I flee from thy presence[/B]? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: [B]If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there[/B]. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, And thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall overwhelm me, And the light about me shall be night; Even the darkness hideth not from thee, But the night shineth as the day: The darkness and the light are both alike [to thee].[/COLOR]
Petr
2005-04-22 19:43 | User Profile
[B][I] - "If it did, then God would be unjust, since human beings are finite creatures with limited awareness of God (if he even exists). Thus, humans are incapable of committing infinite crimes that merit infinite punishment."[/I][/B]
I find it morbidly funny how fallen human beings think they can defeat God with their feeble reasonings and superficial games of logic like this.
Petr
2005-04-22 19:43 | User Profile
Petr, I also just did a search for some of the OT passages on Hell, or at least which refer to otherworldy judgment. Some of these may overlap with yours.
**Numbers 16:30-35 (New King James Version)
**
<sup id="en-NKJV-4225">30</sup>But if the LORD creates a new thing, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the pit, then you will understand that these men have rejected the LORD."
<sup id="en-NKJV-4226">31</sup>Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split apart under them, <sup id="en-NKJV-4227">32</sup>and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods. <sup id="en-NKJV-4228">33</sup>So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly. <sup id="en-NKJV-4229">34</sup>Then all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, "Lest the earth swallow us up also!"
<sup id="en-NKJV-4230">35</sup>And a fire came out from the LORD and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering incense.
**Deuteronomy 32:22**
<sup id="en-NKJV-5781">22</sup>For a fire is kindled in My anger,
And shall burn to the lowest hell;
It shall consume the earth with her increase,
And set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
**Job 24:19**
<sup id="en-NKJV-13456">19</sup>As drought and heat consume the snow waters,
So the grave [sheol] consumes those who have sinned.
**Job 26:6 **
<sup id="en-NKJV-13474">6</sup>Sheol is naked before Him,
And Destruction has no covering.
**Psalm 9:17**
<sup id="en-NKJV-14039">17</sup>The wicked shall be turned into hell,
And all the nations that forget God.
**Psalm 63:9
**
<sup id="en-NKJV-14849">9</sup>But those who seek my life, to destroy it,
Shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
**Proverbs 9:18
**
<sup id="en-NKJV-16657">18</sup>But he does not know that the dead are there,
That her guests are in the depths of hell.
**Proverbs 15:11
**
<sup id="en-NKJV-16819">11</sup>Hell and Destruction are before the LORD;
So how much more the hearts of the sons of men.
**Proverbs 24:20**
<sup id="en-NKJV-17100">20</sup>For there will be no prospect for the evil man;
The lamp of the wicked will be put out.
(The context implies something far worse than physical death.)
**Isaiah 5:14**
<sup id="en-NKJV-17751">14</sup>Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself
And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp,
And he who is jubilant, shall descend into it.
**Isaiah 14:9**
<sup id="en-NKJV-17935">9</sup>"Hell from beneath is excited about you,
To meet you at your coming;
It stirs up the dead for you,
All the chief ones of the earth;
It has raised up from their thrones
All the kings of the nations.
**Ezekiel 31:16-17**
<sup id="en-NKJV-21244">16</sup>I made the nations shake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to hell together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth. <sup id="en-NKJV-21245">17</sup>They also went down to hell with it, with those slain by the sword; and those who were its strong arm dwelt in its shadows among the nations.
**Ezekiel 32:20-21**
<sup id="en-NKJV-21266">20</sup>"They shall fall in the midst of those slain by the sword;
She is delivered to the sword,
Drawing her and all her multitudes.
<sup id="en-NKJV-21267">21</sup>The strong among the mighty
Shall speak to him out of the midst of hell
With those who help him:
"They have gone down,
They lie with the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.'
**Daniel 12:2**
<sup id="en-NKJV-22081">2</sup>And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
2005-04-22 20:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, you're making a big mistake trying to stand in judgment on God. By opposing Christ Jesus, you're no better than a jew. You can continue in your arrogance. But you will pay the eternal price.[/QUOTE]What a poor substitute for informed discussion.
How, pray tell, do you know I'm standing in judgment of God? I say I'm standing in judgment of fellow mortals who merely claimed to speak for God. You choose to take those people at their word; I don't. And I have evidence to back up my position.
Furthermore, you're the one who's being arrogant and self-righteous by taking it upon yourself to judge the eternal fate of me or anyone else -- even Hitler.
2005-04-22 20:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "If it did, then God would be unjust, since human beings are finite creatures with limited awareness of God (if he even exists). Thus, humans are incapable of committing infinite crimes that merit infinite punishment."[/I][/B]
I find it morbidly funny how fallen human beings think they can defeat God with their feeble reasonings and superficial games of logic like this. [/QUOTE]Laugh it up, then, but I guarantee that I find your superstitious nonsense about people being "fallen" even more funny. And there's nothing "feeble" about my reasoning -- if there were, you'd be able to refute it through intelligent debate, which of course you cannot.
Furthermore, I'm not trying to "defeat God"; I'm defeating men and their ridiculous, asinine, cartoonish portrayals of an anthropomorphic God that no one even knows to exist.
Your problem is that you are incapable of reasoning outside the strictures of your religious beliefs. You take your religious dogmas as axiomatic and use them as the basis for all your arguments when those "axioms" aren't even supported by the flimsiest of evidence. Your religious beliefs are just like those of the Hindus, the Jews, the Zoroastrians, the Muslims. All of it is "absolute Truth," yet all of it is mythology. And all of the evidence of history and science proves it.
I'm not rejecting God; if God comes to me and speaks to me directly (or sends an angel) and tells me what to do, then I'll humbly obey. Until that happens, I'll think for myself, questioning everything. As for all the crap about "God said this" or "God said that," I'll leave such beliefs to simpler, more trusting minds than mine.
2005-04-22 20:32 | User Profile
One more thing, Petr and Robert:
Even assuming that all those versus you posted are something other than the mere rantings of ancient Jews, Sheol IS NOT the same thing as hell! Look it up. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in English, and translators of OT books often inappropriately used the word "hell" to replace sheol.
The early Hebrews had no concept of hell. That's either because God forgot to tell them about it, or because the Hebrews hadn't yet stolen the man-made concept from the Persians. Take your pick.
2005-04-22 20:50 | User Profile
[B][I] - "That's either because God forgot to tell them about it, or because the Hebrews hadn't yet stolen the man-made concept from the Persians."[/I][/B]
That's not what the latest secular scholarship says:
[COLOR=Sienna][B]"Looking back even further, B argues that rather than early Jews inheriting resurrection from Zoroastrianism, later Zoroastrians adopt the notion from Christianity. In a similar vein he argues for the likelihood that a number of pagan cults in late antiquity develop their interest in resurrection from the Christians as well."[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-07-04.html[/url]
[I][B] - "And there's nothing "feeble" about my reasoning -- if there were, you'd be able to refute it through intelligent debate, which of course you cannot."[/B][/I]
You enlightenment dudes have such a childish faith in human reason - even consistent skeptical philosophers avoid such over-confidence.
You are trying to force divine, transcendent matters, things beyond your or mine comprehension, into tidy little human categories that you can manage with your logic. "[I]Trust in LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding[/I]." (Proverbs 3:5)"
Petr
2005-04-22 20:58 | User Profile
I posted this piece on Phora Forum last autumn:
[I][SIZE=4] Little-known connection between Girolamo Savonarola and philosophical scepticism[/SIZE][/I]
"[I]I have read a rather interesting historical-philosophical anecdote from ââ¬ÅThe Pimlico History of Western Philosophyââ¬Â, Columbia University Press, (1998) edited by Richard H. Popkin.[/I]
[COLOR=Blue]Page 316:
ââ¬ÅOne of the judges of Savonarolaââ¬â¢s trial was the general of the Dominican order. In 1494, this same official had borrowed a Vatican manuscript of Sextus Empiricus, the main source of our knowledge of ancient scepticism but a text very little known before the later sixteenth century. Did the church already have reason in 1494 to worry that scepticism was a source of Savonarolaââ¬â¢s excesses? G[B]iovanni Pico della Mirandolaââ¬â¢s nephew, Gianfrancesco, wrote an admiring biography of Savonarola in which he maintained that the great preacher had directed the friars of San Marco to prepare a Latin translation of Sextus because ââ¬Å[I]he despised the ignorance of the many who claimed that they have knowledge[/I].ââ¬Â[/B]
ââ¬ÅSeveral Greek manuscripts of Sextus were available in San Marco and elsewhere in Florence, so such an undertaking was possible. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola owned two of these texts. In 1520, Gianfrancesco published his ââ¬Å[I]Weighing of Empty Pagan Learning Against True Christian Teaching[/I],ââ¬Â ([I]Examen vanitatis doctrinae gentium et veritatis christianae disciplinae[/I]) long parts of which were are in essence translations from Sextus.
[B]The motive of Gianfrancescoââ¬â¢s scepticism is clear in the title of the book: He used the techniques of this ancient antiphilosophy for apologetic rather than philosophical purposes, to undercut any claims for secular knowledge[/B]. True wisdom comes only scripture, so all philosophies are empty dogmas. The brunt of Gianfrancescoââ¬â¢s assault on philosophy fell on Aristotle, however, because Aristotelian philosophy was the dominant kind, especially in schools of theology that Gianfrancesco wished to cleanse of all rationalism and naturalism.ââ¬Â [I][/COLOR]
"This rather reminds me of how intellectuals of counter-enlightenment, starting with pious Christian Johann Georg Hamann, liked to employ Humean scepticism (which I think is just re-modified thought of Empiricus) against the pretensions of enlightenment rationalism and positivism.
[B]I believe that healthy scepticism is always preferable neighbor to Christianity compared to puffed-up dogmas of rationalism.
In scepticism, the human reason admits its own limitations and the necessity for the principle of faith for men to know ANYTHING, while rationalism, in its hubris, crowns itself as the ruler of the universe[/B].[/I]
Petr
2005-04-22 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "That's either because God forgot to tell them about it, or because the Hebrews hadn't yet stolen the man-made concept from the Persians."[/I][/B]
That's not what the latest secular scholarship says:
[COLOR=Sienna][B]"Looking back even further, B argues that rather than early Jews inheriting resurrection from Zoroastrianism, later Zoroastrians adopt the notion from Christianity. In a similar vein he argues for the likelihood that a number of pagan cults in late antiquity develop their interest in resurrection from the Christians as well."[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-07-04.html[/url] It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Christianity was the origin of notions of the afterlife. The concepts of heaven and hell long predate Christianity.
Did you look at this link? Probably not:
[url]http://what.tentmaker.org/AncientHell.htm[/url]
[I][B] - "And there's nothing "feeble" about my reasoning -- if there were, you'd be able to refute it through intelligent debate, which of course you cannot."[/B][/I]
You enlightenment dudes have such a childish faith in human reason - even consistent skeptical philosophers avoid such over-confidence. LOL! Yeah, it's really "childish" to trust in logic and empiricism, the twin pillars of ALL knowledge, without exception. Logic and empiricism put man on the moon. Let's see all the prayers and mysticism in the world lift a pebble even one inch above the ground. "If you have faith as great as a grain of mustard seed, you will be able to move mountains." Really? Let's see someone do it. There are people out there who have enough faith to die for what they believe; how much more faith than that would constitute a "mustard seed"? How much more would be needed to move mountains?
I agree that there are some things that are unknown and perhaps unknowable. But everything that IS known is known through logic and/or empirical observation.
You are trying to force divine, transcendent matters, things beyond your or mine comprehension, into tidy little human categories that you can manage with your logic. "[I]Trust in LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding[/I]." (Proverbs 3:5)" Let's see some evidence that these "divine, transcendent matters" exist (except as a shared delusion among religious people). All I see is a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo that bears all the marks of having been concocted by human beings. "Too deep for us to understand"? Sure.
As for quoting the Bible, you might as well be quoting the Koran at me, or maybe even a book of Mother Goose's nursery rhymes. Until you can show that those words were divinely-inspired, they are just empty rantings.
To paraphrase what someone once said: Once you understand why you don't believe in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Odinism, or Islam -- even though adherents of those religions are certain that their beliefs are correct, and many have even died for their faith -- then you will understand why I don't believe in your religion. You think your religion is "different" because yours "is the TRUE one." That's what ALL religious people think, including you. And you're all wrong.
2005-04-23 09:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]What a poor substitute for informed discussion.
How, pray tell, do you know I'm standing in judgment of God? I say I'm standing in judgment of fellow mortals who merely claimed to speak for God. You choose to take those people at their word; I don't. And I have evidence to back up my position.
Furthermore, you're the one who's being arrogant and self-righteous by taking it upon yourself to judge the eternal fate of me or anyone else -- even Hitler.[/QUOTE] I'm simply telling you the truth, Angler. You are in rebellion against God, and you will pay the price of eternal damnation if you don't repent.
And am I being arrogant and self-righteous? No, because I admit that I, too, am a sinner deserving of hell. The only reason I have eternal life is that I accepted it as a free gift from the Lord Jesus Christ. He paid for my sins on the Cross. He earned it for me. I did absolutely nothing to earn it.
You, too, can have eternal life. But you are going to have to admit your sinful condition before God, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Also, Angler, go back and read the versus I posted. The concept of judgment in the afterlife is clearly present in the OT. You're wasting your time playing word games with Sheol vs. hell or Gehenna. Yes, there are differences, if you care to discuss them without the game playing. I also see that you are quoting from tentmaker.org. Gary Amirault is one of the silliest and most argumentative individuals on the web. He is the master of presenting word games as serious arguments. I would advise you to consult serious Bible scholars rather than this individual.
2005-04-23 12:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]I'm simply telling you the truth, Angler. You are in rebellion against God, and you will pay the price of eternal damnation if you don't repent. No, you're simply repeating a bunch of religious dogma that it's probably never occurred to you to question.
I don't know why this is so hard for Christians to grasp, but I am NOT in rebellion against God; I do not know that God even exists or has ever attempted to communicate with me in any way, shape, or form. All I see are a bunch of books -- the Bible, Koran, etc. -- written by men who claim to have been "inspired." How do I know they're telling the truth? How do I know they weren't merely crazy?
People use religion to fool and control people today: e.g., Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton. Look at the huge crowds those people draw, even though anyone with a room-temp IQ can see that they're frauds. Now, what makes you think people didn't lie about religion and use it to manipulate other people thousands of years ago, just like people do today?
I'll repeat what I said earlier: If God sends an unambiguous message to me directly, then I will listen and humbly obey. Until then, I will be skeptical. That is hardly an attitude of rebellion against God; it's simply a refusal to be gullible and let the writings of ancient Jews control my life. If God exists, then He should have no problem understanding that. After all, why would God want someone to be careless about what they believe regarding Him? Should we all just take what other human beings say about God as fact, without investigating or thinking about it? And even if one ideology about God is very popular, does that mean it's necessarily true? Hardly!
And am I being arrogant and self-righteous? No, because I admit that I, too, am a sinner deserving of hell. The only reason I have eternal life is that I accepted it as a free gift from the Lord Jesus Christ. He paid for my sins on the Cross. He earned it for me. I did absolutely nothing to earn it. Okay, maybe you mean well and weren't trying to be insulting. But you must have a very low opinion of yourself if you think you deserve to burn in fire for eternity. I can't imagine what you must have done. I know that while I'm hardly perfect, there is no way I've done anything nearly bad enough to go to a place like hell for even one second. And even if I have, my conscience is honestly not aware of it, which means that I can't be guilty of it. You can't be morally responsible for something you've done unless you're aware you've done it and were aware of its gravity at the time you did it. That is axiomatic as far as I'm concerned.
Even the Bible says that human beings know right from wrong. Well, my conscience tells me in no uncertain terms that hell is wrong. Finite creatures like human beings cannot deserve infinite punishment -- especially not for having been born "flawed."
Christianity tells us that we're born with "Original Sin" -- something which, if true, happened through no fault of our own, and only because God wanted it that way. How is that just? If sin exists, then it's only because God wanted it to. An infinitely powerful and all-knowing Creator is infinitely responsible for everything.
You, too, can have eternal life. But you are going to have to admit your sinful condition before God, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I used to be a Christian. I've been down that road, and I don't buy it anymore. That's not my choice; I fought hard against doubt for many years. But the more I learned and the more I thought about what Christianity teaches, I was forced to conclude that it's a myth that got carried much, much too far (thanks to threats of hell, promises of heaven, and more than a few conversions by sword and fire). If my brain tells me that something is a myth, I can't lie to myself and pretend otherwise.
Also, Angler, go back and read the versus I posted. The concept of judgment in the afterlife is clearly present in the OT. You're wasting your time playing word games with Sheol vs. hell or Gehenna. Yes, there are differences, if you care to discuss them without the game playing. What "game playing"? The difference between hell and sheol is critical. The ancient Hebrews believed in a shadowy underworld where even good people went after death. That is simply a fact. You are reading into those verses something that is simply not there. I will go through them one by one in a post right after this.
I also see that you are quoting from tentmaker.org. Gary Amirault is one of the silliest and most argumentative individuals on the web. He is the master of presenting word games as serious arguments. I would advise you to consult serious Bible scholars rather than this individual.[/QUOTE]I did not quote Gary Amirault; I don't even know who he is. I merely used that site because it popped up on a search engine once, and I saved it because it had all those quotes from ancient historians like Polybius on it. Those quotes can be found elsewhere, you know. And they PROVE that the concept of infernal torment after death long predates Christianity and was used by rulers to keep the superstitious masses in line.
2005-04-23 12:52 | User Profile
Before I start going over those other verses, let me post a Bible quote of my own:
Psalms 6:5...For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
How is the above reconciled with the idea of an afterlife (in this case, heaven)?
[QUOTE=Robert]**Numbers 16:30-35 (New King James Version) ** 30But if the LORD creates a new thing, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the pit, then you will understand that these men have rejected the LORD." Nothing about infernal torment here. "The pit" simply referred to a place under the earth. I believe the Hebrew that was used here is indeed "sheol."
31Now it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split apart under them, 32and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods. 33So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly. 34Then all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, "Lest the earth swallow us up also!" See above comment.
35And a fire came out from the LORD and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering incense. This has nothing to do with an afterlife. It's an earthly punishment.
Deuteronomy 32:22
22For a fire is kindled in My anger, And shall burn to the lowest hell; It shall consume the earth with her increase, And set on fire the foundations of the mountains. This sounds like a poetic description of God's power. Also, "hell" here again refers to a place under the earth, near the "foundations of the mountains." By the way: is there more than one "hell"?
Job 24:19
<sup id="en-NKJV-13456">19</sup>As drought and heat consume the snow waters,
So the grave [sheol] consumes those who have sinned.
Nothing about eternal punishment there. The writer here seemed to think that those who sinned would merely be swallowed up, sent into oblivion.
**Job 26:6 **
<sup id="en-NKJV-13474">6</sup>Sheol is naked before Him,
And Destruction has no covering.
Nothing about eternal fiery torment here. Sheol was thought to be very deep and mysterious, and this verse seems to be a way of expressing God's wisdom and omniscience -- i.e., "He even knows what happens in Sheol, in the most mysterious of places."
Psalm 9:17
<sup id="en-NKJV-14039">17</sup>The wicked shall be turned into hell,
And all the nations that forget God.
Meaning: The wicked shall be killed, wiped out, sent into Sheol.
**Psalm 63:9 ** 9But those who seek my life, to destroy it,
Shall go into the lower parts of the earth. Another reference to simple death.**Proverbs 9:18 ** 18But he does not know that the dead are there, That her guests are in the depths of hell. Again, "hell" is merely a translation of "Sheol" here. Feel free to look it up and correct me if I'm wrong.
**Proverbs 15:11 ** 11Hell and Destruction are before the LORD; So how much more the hearts of the sons of men. See comments about Job 26:6 above.
Proverbs 24:20
<sup id="en-NKJV-17100">20</sup>For there will be no prospect for the evil man;
The lamp of the wicked will be put out.
(The context implies something far worse than physical death.)
This verse seems to mean exactly what it says: it's a generic statement that "evil doesn't pay." There is no implication of infernal torment here.
Isaiah 5:14
<sup id="en-NKJV-17751">14</sup>Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself
And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp,
And he who is jubilant, shall descend into it.
Sheol is not hell in the sense of eternal fiery torment, as already noted.
Isaiah 14:9
<sup id="en-NKJV-17935">9</sup>"Hell from beneath is excited about you,
To meet you at your coming;
It stirs up the dead for you,
All the chief ones of the earth;
It has raised up from their thrones
All the kings of the nations.
"Hell" refers to the grave or death here.
Ezekiel 31:16-17
<sup id="en-NKJV-21244">16</sup>I made the nations shake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to hell together with those who descend into the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the earth. <sup id="en-NKJV-21245">17</sup>They also went down to hell with it, with those slain by the sword; and those who were its strong arm dwelt in its shadows among the nations.
"The depths of the earth." Exactly.
Ezekiel 32:20-21
<sup id="en-NKJV-21266">20</sup>"They shall fall in the midst of those slain by the sword;
She is delivered to the sword,
Drawing her and all her multitudes.
<sup id="en-NKJV-21267">21</sup>The strong among the mighty
Shall speak to him out of the midst of hell
With those who help him:
"They have gone down,
They lie with the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.'
Same thing.
Daniel 12:2
<sup id="en-NKJV-22081">2</sup>And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.[/QUOTE]This is the only verse you've posted that suggests something like the hell of Christianity (though burning in fire and merely suffering "shame" and "contempt" are very different situations). The date of origin of the book of Daniel, however, is late enough that Hebrew notions of an afterlife had already started to evolve:
Most interpreters find that references in the Book of Daniel reflect the persecutions of Israel by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175ââ¬â164 BC), and consequently date its composition to that period. This conclusion was already drawn by the 3rd century philosopher Porphyry of Tyros (c.f. also Book of Enoch). The text itself reflects a post-Alexandrian date, using Greek names for musical instruments instead of Hebrew names (giving us the earliest text reference for the word symphonia), and using the late form "Nebuchadnezzar" rather than the earlier form "Nebuchadrezzar" which is found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel[/url]
Above all, keep in mind that verse from the Psalms I posted:
Psalms 6:5...For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
One part of the Bible says one thing, another part says another. I'd expect more from a book inspired by God.
2005-04-23 13:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE] I'll repeat what I said earlier: If God sends an unambiguous message to me directly, then I will listen and humbly obey.[/QUOTE] No, you wouldn't. During the Great Tribulation, God will send message after message and judgment after judgment, but what will be the response?
**Revelation 16:8-11**
<sup id="en-NKJV-30960">8</sup>Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. <sup id="en-NKJV-30961">9</sup>And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory.
<sup id="en-NKJV-30962">10</sup>Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain. <sup id="en-NKJV-30963">11</sup>They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.
That's you, Angler. You would still refuse to repent because of your stubborn pride.
Now read what the Apostle Paul had to say:
**2 Thessalonians 2:8-12**
<sup id="en-KJV-29670">8</sup>And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: <sup id="en-KJV-29671">9</sup>Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
<sup id="en-KJV-29672">10</sup>And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
<sup id="en-KJV-29673">11</sup>And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
<sup id="en-KJV-29674">12</sup>That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Is that you Angler? I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
2005-04-23 13:40 | User Profile
That's absolutely ridiculous. If God Himself told me to do something, and I knew the message was from God, then I would humbly obey in a heartbeat. I'd be terrified not to! And if the Bible contradicts that, then it's just more proof that the Bible is wrong.
"Stubborn pride"? Why, yes, I'm proud of myself, but I'm not stubborn -- facts and logic are. I simply go where the evidence leads. There is no evidence to support the divine inspiration of the Bible, and moral and logical arguments undermine that hypothesis as well.
By the way, I'm wondering if you'll address that Psalm verse:
Psalms 6:5...For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Please answer: How can the above be reconciled with the concept of heaven? If the dead don't remember God, then how can there be a heaven?
2005-04-23 14:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]That's absolutely ridiculous. If God Himself told me to do something, and I knew the message was from God, then I would humbly obey in a heartbeat. I'd be terrified not to! And if the Bible contradicts that, then it's just more proof that the Bible is wrong.[/QUOTE] Oh boy. Step back! The fires of Hell are waxing hot.
If the Bible contradicts Angler, then that's just more proof the Bible is wrong.
The fires of Hell are getting hotter just for you, Angler.
2005-04-23 14:41 | User Profile
Psalms 6:5...For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
[QUOTE] Please answer: How can the above be reconciled with the concept of heaven? If the dead don't remember God, then how can there be a heaven? [/QUOTE] Easy. David, like the writer of Ecclesiastes, is speaking from his heart. The Bible is presenting us with David's struggle, with his cry to God. Jeremiah cries out to God, but God must rebuke him.
Yes, David had fears of the beyond, and doubts about eternal life. But ultimately, what is important is what Jesus said. And the Lord said that there is a heaven and a hell.
Angler, you are probably one of the worst Biblical interpreters I have ever encountered. Go back and read the OT verses I printed. They generally do not speak of Hell as graphically as the NT. But they do point to life and punishment beyond the grave. You need to understand the principle of progressive revelation.
Right now, all you want to do is argue, not learn. I hope that God will intervene to change your heart. I hope and pray that you are not among the non-elect. Because if so, there is no hope for you.
2005-04-23 15:02 | User Profile
I would like to compare Psalm 6 with Psalm 9. In Psalm 6:5, David is depressed and feeling hopeless.
The Nelson study Bible gives a more positive interpretation of Psalm 6:5:
"When a believer dies, his voice is lost from the singers of God's praise in temple worship. The reasoning is clear: If God still desires to hear David's voice in worship, He must keep David alive. David would be of no use to God dead; alive he could sing, shout, and testify to God's love and His mercy."
While this interpretation may be correct, I'm inclined to believe that David's depression was getting the best of him. But in Psalm 9, his mood is totally different. His faith is strong, and he does not doubt. In Psalm 9:17, he knows that God will turn the wicked into Hell.
2005-04-23 18:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]But everything that IS known is known through logic and/or empirical observation.[/QUOTE]
Wow.
You know this exactly how?
Sorry A, but that statement itself is irrational and flies in the face of pretty straight forward epistemological evidence. I would say absurd, but I don't want to seem insulting.
2005-04-24 12:43 | User Profile
Angler, you are right - for once! LOL! :wink: Seriously, there is no such thing as a burning hell where people are tortured forever and ever.
So man lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep (Job 14:12).
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ââ¬Â¦ (Dan. 12:2).
ââ¬Â¦ for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be (Job 7:21).
In the original Hebrew of the Old Scriptures the dead were said to go to sheol:
The Hebrew word ââ¬Åsheolââ¬Â occurs 65 times in the original texts. The translators of the King James Version rendered it ââ¬Åhellââ¬Â 31 times, ââ¬Ågraveââ¬Â 31 times, and ââ¬Åpitââ¬Â 3 times. Never once is ââ¬Ësheolââ¬Â depict as a place where the dead suffer conscious torment.
The comparable Greek word in the New Scriptures is hades. When the Judean translators of the Septuagint Bible (280 B. C.) came to the word sheol, they always rendered it with the Greek hades. When the writers of the New Scriptures quoted a passage frm the Hebrew, they rendered sheol as hades. An example:
For thou wilt not leave my soul in sheol (Ps. 16:10).
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades (Acts 2:27).
2005-04-24 13:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Oh boy. Step back! The fires of Hell are waxing hot.
If the Bible contradicts Angler, then that's just more proof the Bible is wrong.[/QUOTE]If the Bible contradicts me about something I know about myself, then yes, it is wrong.
Let's take a step back. You quoted the Bible to show me that I was wrong when I said that if God spoke to me directly and told me to do something, then I would do it without question. My response was, and still is, that I know for a fact what I would do in that situation, so if the Bible says otherwise, then it can't be right. Of course, maybe it's just your interpretation of the Bible that's wrong. Either way, I stand by what I said and don't budge an inch.
The fires of Hell are getting hotter just for you, Angler. I'll be sure to pack my Nomex suit before I go there.
2005-04-24 14:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Psalms 6:5...For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Easy. David, like the writer of Ecclesiastes, is speaking from his heart. The Bible is presenting us with David's struggle, with his cry to God. Jeremiah cries out to God, but God must rebuke him.
So are you saying that what David is saying here about the afterlife is not accurate?
Yes, David had fears of the beyond, and doubts about eternal life. But ultimately, what is important is what Jesus said. And the Lord said that there is a heaven and a hell. Let's see some evidence that Jesus was divine. Mere assertions don't count for squat.
Angler, you are probably one of the worst Biblical interpreters I have ever encountered. Thanks! I'm sure you're qualified to make that statement. Especially since you seemed to think that "hell" in the OT referred to something other than sheol.
Sadly, you're not any worse a critical thinker than most other Christians I've encountered. It's not that Christians are all stupid; it's just that they're brainwashed. They're terrified of entertaining the idea that Christianity could be false for a nanosecond. Hence, if it is false, they'll never know.
Go back and read the OT verses I printed. They generally do not speak of Hell as graphically as the NT. But they do point to life and punishment beyond the grave. You need to understand the principle of progressive revelation. I did read them, and I've already commented on them. They certainly can be used to support some notion of an afterlife, but nothing like heaven or hell. Basically, they fit right in with the known view of the early Hebrews: that all of the dead went into a shadowy underworld, where they perhaps maintained some sort of consciousness but didn't live in paradise or torment.
The "principle of progressive revelation" is a tactic theologians use to retrofit more recent doctrine and tradition to older writings. Since religious beliefs evolve and change over time, "progressive revelation" is a clever tactic to correct for that. It helps tie the books of the Bible together and eliminate some of the many contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. But if God wanted to send a message to humanity and wanted people to hear and understand it, then I'm sure He would do it in a much more compelling manner than to inspire a compendium of writings requiring deep study and theological acrobatics for proper interpretation. Heck, even Christians can't agree on many of the most important tenets of Christianity. Of course that's attributed to "the Evil One," but no one wants to think it's his sect or denomination that's been deceived.
Right now, all you want to do is argue, not learn. Before I agree to learn anything from you, you'll just have to convince me that you have something to teach me. I don't accept any doctrines -- particularly something as potentially life-changing as religion -- without being satisfied that they are based in reality.
I hope that God will intervene to change your heart. I hope and pray that you are not among the non-elect. Because if so, there is no hope for you.[/QUOTE]Ah, the concept of "the non-elect." Just another Biblical doctrine that makes God out to be a monster. As if a perfect, loving, infinitely holy God couldn't have simply created all of his creatures in heaven with Him from the beginning, just as it will supposedly be after the last judgment. No, this infinitely holy God decided he'd rather allow sin to exist instead so that He could damn some of his creatures to eternal pain. "God is Love," indeed.
Tell me: What will stop people from sinning in heaven? And whatever that impediment to sin is, why didn't God use it from the very beginning? Anticipated answer: "We don't understand God's ways," etc., etc. But remember: God's not on trial here, religious dogma is.
2005-04-24 14:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][quote=Angler]But everything that IS known is known through logic and/or empirical observation.
Wow.
You know this exactly how?
Sorry A, but that statement itself is irrational and flies in the face of pretty straight forward epistemological evidence. I would say absurd, but I don't want to seem insulting.[/QUOTE]I know that because that is how the human brain works. For example, when you see an object, photons enter your eye after having been scattered off, or emitted by, an object. Then they strike your retina and signal transduction occurs, with propagation through the optic nerve to the visual cortex. That's an example of how sensory data is obtained. And logical (and mathematical) axioms can be used to reason from sensory data to extract other knowledge.
I repeat: There is no way a human being can know anything (for a fact, or with a high degree of certainty) unless he either (1) observes it with his senses, or (2) correctly infers it, either consciously or perhaps subconsciously, from known premises through logical reasoning.
Please note that I'm not claiming that the senses and the mind can't deceive us -- that happens all the time. But if someone really does know something in fact, then he must have gotten that knowledge from his senses or through reasoning from something else that is known.
Because the above seems straightforward enough, I suspect you misunderstood me, Tex. Maybe you thought I said everything can be known through logic and observation. Of course neither I nor anyone else can make such a claim.
If you did not misunderstand me and can think of another way that human beings can acquire knowledge besides using their senses or their reason, please tell me -- I'm intrigued.
2005-04-24 16:13 | User Profile
[B][I] - "I know that because that is how the human brain works. "[/I][/B]
More circular question-begging. How do know that you really know how the human brain works?
Petr
2005-04-24 16:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "I know that because that is how the human brain works. "[/I][/B]
More circular question-begging. How do know that you really know how the human brain works?[/QUOTE]Try taking a drug that knocks you completely unconscious (e.g., if you ever have surgery with general anesthesia). Then try to learn something while you're in that unconscious state. See how successful you are.
Alternatively, put on a blindfold, put earplugs in your ears, and sit in a room alone. Do not think about anything, but just sit there and space out. How much do knowledge do you think you'll gain in that state?
All sensory activity has its basis in the nervous system, and all mental activity occurs in the brain. This can be seen in real-time via medical imaging techniques such as PET scans. It can also be inferred from those who have diseased or damaged nervous systems. People with withered optic nerves cannot see properly; the same is true of someone with a damaged visual cortex, but not someone with a broken arm. Those with Alzheimer's often can't recognize loved ones. Someone with a gunshot wound to the head might forget everything he knows, including his own name. Someone with extensive damage to (if memory serves) the left temporal lobe will lose the ability to understand language. People with damage to one specific region of the frontal cortex (again, going by memory here) can even lose the ability to love.
I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you, Petr. Do yourself a favor and get some education in science.
2005-04-24 17:22 | User Profile
[B][I] - "I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you, Petr. Do yourself a favor and get some education in science."[/I][/B]
You should get some education in basic [I]philosophical [/I]arguments of skeptics. How can you tell that the entire world outside your own mind is not just an illusion?
Ultimately science is based on an act of [I]faith[/I], faith that we can get reliable information about nature and that it is based on fixed laws.
Petr
2005-04-24 17:33 | User Profile
Hell has just got to exist, I mean Neo-Cons have to go SOMEWHERE when they die! :)
2005-04-24 18:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]There's no such thing as hell -- that's a pagan-derived myth that predates Jesus' birth by hundreds of years.
Hell in the OT may be nothing more than the grave (or the underworld you mention). Tartarus (the place in greek mythology) is mentioned once in the NT, without much information on what it is. Jesus didn't mention a literal Hell, but mentioned, maybe as parable, a place called Gehenna where people burned animal carcasses. I'll have to spend a little time to study the issue.
Moreover, I'd argue that you can't reject Jesus unless you believe in his divinity first. It's kind of like leprechauns -- we don't reject them, we just don't believe in them.
Rejection can be in the form of refusing to believe.
Finally -- and I say this respectfully and without any intent to be self-righteous -- Christians aren't supposed to judge what punishments others are worthy of.
Maybe not what mpuniushments others are worthy of, but Christians certainly should recognize that certain people are evil.
I agree. Jews weren't the only ones to suffer under Hitler -- many Whites did too.
Hitler caused millions of Germans to be killed. He caused many tens of millions of whites to be killed. And, he left a legacy that is killing Europe and empoweriong zionists.
I also agree that association with the trappings of Nazism is harmful to the pro-White cause. If someone wants to honor Hitler publicly, let him do so after we've won the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Whites.[/QUOTE]
Good idea, but that'll be a long wait.
2005-04-24 18:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you, Petr. Do yourself a favor and get some education in science."[/I][/B]
You should get some education in basic [I]philosophical [/I]arguments of skeptics. There really isn't much to skepticism, actually. All you have to do to be a skeptic is doubt extraordinary claims that aren't supported by solid evidence.
How can you tell that the entire world outside your own mind is not just an illusion? Good question! You tell me. And when you're done with that, kindly explain how you know the Bible is true.
Ultimately science is based on an act of [I]faith[/I], faith that we can get reliable information about nature and that it is based on fixed laws.[/QUOTE]Please don't set forth the ludricrous notion that science and religion are somehow on the same epistemological footing. To do so will force me to dismiss you as literally insane.
Science is based on observations and reasoning. It is validated through the making of successful predictions and retrodictions. Yes, it relies on certain assumptions, but those assumptions have been tested countless times and have NEVER failed. They could fail one day, and if they do, then they do. Meanwhile, seekers of knowledge will rely on science because nothing else has shown itself to be better. Science is the best human beings can do in that regard.
Religious faith has NEVER shown itself to be a reliable predictor of future events. It has NEVER shown itself to be a consistently reliable method of acquiring knowledge. At bottom, it is mere assertion without solid evidence.
Of course, there are ways religion can be tested. For example, according to the Bible, Jesus said that anytime two or more of his followers gather together to pray for something in his name, it will be granted to them by God. Try that sometime. Be sure to pray for something tangible that you're sure you wouldn't get without praying. See if it works. I suggest praying for a new computer to appear on your desk. We already know that science can deliver computers. Can God?
2005-04-24 18:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Hell in the OT may be nothing more than the grave (or the underworld you mention). Tartarus (the place in greek mythology) is mentioned once in the NT, without much information on what it is. Jesus didn't mention a literal Hell, but mentioned, maybe as parable, a place called Gehenna where people burned animal carcasses. I'll have to spend a little time to study the issue. You sound open-minded about it. That's good. I personally would be much more likely to believe in Christianity if it didn't teach the doctrine of eternal punishment. Sometimes I wonder if the words about damnation weren't put into Jesus' mouth. Anyone can lie about what Jesus said. I can do it right now: Jesus said, "The moon is made of green cheese." I don't see why one of the compilers of the Bible or even a later redactor couldn't have done the same.
Rejection can be in the form of refusing to believe. I hold that one cannot literally refuse to believe something. If you're consciously attempting to not believe something, then that means you actually believe it -- otherwise there'd be no need to make the effort not to! See what I mean?
In any event, I can only know my own mind, and I know that my own unbelief is NOT forced. It is something I simply cannot help. I am literally incapable of believing or not believing something through sheer force of will. For me, belief is simply a mental reaction to the available evidence as my mind interprets it. When I say I don't believe in Christianity or am skeptical of it, I am only being honest. I can't prove that to others, but I know it myself. Thus, if God turns out to exist and He punishes me for not believing, then He will be punishing me for being honest. That's something I really can't conceive of a wise and just God doing. It sounds much more like a caricature of God that power-hungry humans would use to manipulate people through fear.
Maybe not what mpuniushments others are worthy of, but Christians certainly should recognize that certain people are evil. No argument there. I've always understood the "judge not" command to refer not to the judgment of actions as good or evil, but what punishments are deserved. As a Christian, I always felt it was a sin to speculate on the eternal fate of another person. Now I just feel it's hypocritical for Christians to do so, since Jesus clearly said not to do it.
Hitler caused millions of Germans to be killed. He caused many tens of millions of whites to be killed. And, he left a legacy that is killing Europe and empoweriong zionists. Agreed.
Good idea, but that'll be a long wait.[/QUOTE]Agreed, unfortunately.
2005-04-24 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Let's see some evidence that Jesus was divine.
An empty grave is there to prove my saviour lives. End of story.
Mere assertions don't count for squat.
That goes both ways.
Sadly, you're not any worse a critical thinker than most other Christians I've encountered. It's not that Christians are all stupid; it's just that they're brainwashed.
Positivistic, materialist atheist are brainwashed AND stupid. No one can live like that, nor have they in the entire history of mankind. It's absurd.
They're terrified of entertaining the idea that Christianity could be false for a nanosecond. Hence, if it is false, they'll never know.
I realize you believe you are a god Angler, but I'm here to tell you that you haven't the foggiest notion of why anyone else on this board is or is not a Christian. In fact, knowing the Christian men here as I do, I would be willing to bet that terrified worrying about eternal hell-fire is rather low on the 'reasons to believe' scale. I think that's projection on your part.
Since religious beliefs evolve and change over time, "progressive revelation" is a clever tactic to correct for that. It helps tie the books of the Bible together and eliminate some of the many contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. But if God wanted to send a message to humanity and wanted people to hear and understand it, then I'm sure He would do it in a much more compelling manner than to inspire a compendium of writings requiring deep study and theological acrobatics for proper interpretation. Heck, even Christians can't agree on many of the most important tenets of Christianity.
It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be ignorant, cocksure and obnoxious about it. You simply don't know what you're talking about, Angler. What makes it frustrating is that no matter how much evidence is put in front of your face, you will still refuse to either acknowledge it or remain stiff-necked and thick-headed. And yet you would have us to believe in the vaunted integrity and purity of the scientific method and how new evidence always seamlessly replaces old in that 'Great Scientific March to High Truth', unimpeded by any kind of human irrationality or folly. Give us all a freaking break, man.
And to once again address your point above, Christianity has rather remarkably retained the basic elements of the true faith since its beginnings two thousand years ago i.e. the virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, etc.
I don't accept any doctrines -- particularly something as potentially life-changing as religion -- without being satisfied that they are based in reality.
You're the one that's not here in reality. You're the weirdo. Every tribe, nation and culture from the beginning of recorded history six thousand years ago has believed in some sort of deity. Yet you would presume to dismiss the totality of the human race from the beginning of time as not being 'in reality' and just you yourself as being 'in the know.' I can't help but chuckle in amazement at that kind of arrogance.
Ah, the concept of "the non-elect." Just another Biblical doctrine that makes God out to be a monster. As if a perfect, loving, infinitely holy God couldn't have simply created all of his creatures in heaven with Him from the beginning, just as it will supposedly be after the last judgment. No, this infinitely holy God decided he'd rather allow sin to exist instead so that He could damn some of his creatures to eternal pain. "God is Love," indeed.
Again, the audacity to sit in judgment of God himself. Someone who can't even explain how they came to be, think "logically" or keep their own body free of disease and death.
If anything you are helping me to understand the kind of delusional mentality that would dare judge the creator of the universe. It's rather disturbing actually.
2005-04-24 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]An empty grave is there to prove my saviour lives. End of story. Really? You saw that empty grave?
Positivistic, materialist atheist are brainwashed AND stupid. No one can live like that, nor have they in the entire history of mankind. It's absurd. You think the earth is 6000 years old, and you want to talk to me about absurdity?
BTW, I'm not an atheist -- I'm agnostic. And if I'm stupid, explain why I hit the ceiling (150+) on a professionally-administered IQ test. Explain how I managed to learn quantum mechanics and solid state physics at the graduate level. Explain why you can't answer my arguments without getting frustrated and becoming uncivil, like your sidekick Petr.
I realize you believe you are a god Angler... I don't believe any such thing.
...but I'm here to tell you that you haven't the foggiest notion of why anyone else on this board is or is not a Christian. Oh, but I do. Most of them -- though not all -- were probably raised that way. People in the US tend to be Christian for the same reason people in Iran tend to be Muslim.
In fact, knowing the Christian men here as I do, I would be willing to bet that terrified worrying about eternal hell-fire is rather low on the 'reasons to believe' scale. I think that's projection on your part. If I were terrified about hell-fire, then I would be a believer, wouldn't I? Or do you think I'm terrified about something I don't believe in? That makes sense.
Fear of hell-fire is not what causes people to become Christians, but it certainly causes many people to stay Christian.
It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be ignorant, cocksure and obnoxious about it. Says the person who laughs at those who think the earth is older than 6000 years.
I've endeavored to be as civil as possible in these debates, but it gets a little annoying when the best responses people can come up with are you're WRONG, you're gonna burn in hell, you're stupid, yadda yadda yadda.
You simply don't know what you're talking about, Angler. What makes it frustrating is that no matter how much evidence is put in front of your face, you will still refuse to either acknowledge it or remain stiff-necked and thick-headed. What evidence?! I have yet to see jack sh!t for evidence.
Face it -- you're just mad because you can't answer my arguments.
And yet you would have us to believe in the vaunted integrity and purity of the scientific method and how new evidence always seamlessly replaces old in that 'Great Scientific March to High Truth', unimpeded by any kind of human irrationality or folly. Give us all a freaking break, man. When did I say that science was perfect? It's just a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
And to once again address your point above, Christianity has rather remarkably retained the basic elements of the true faith since its beginnings two thousand years ago i.e. the virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, etc. Hinduism has survived a long time, too. Longer than Christianity.
You're the one that's not here in reality. You're the weirdo. Every tribe, nation and culture from the beginning of recorded history six thousand years ago has believed in some sort of deity. Exactly! And how many of them believed correctly? At most one religion can be correct. That means the vast majority of the human race MUST be wrong in their religious views. If being able to recognize this when so many other people can't makes me a "weirdo," then so be it! I don't seek to be like other people anyway.
Yet you would presume to dismiss the totality of the human race from the beginning of time as not being 'in reality' and just you yourself as being 'in the know.' I can't help but chuckle in amazement at that kind of arrogance. As pointed out above, the majority of the human race MUST be wrong about religion, since AT MOST one religion can be correct. And I never claimed to be unique. There are many people who know what I know about religion. Yes, we're a minority, but there's only so much room at the right end of the bell curve.
Again, the audacity to sit in judgment of God himself. Someone who can't even explain how they came to be, think "logically" or keep their own body free of disease and death. Sigh...AGAIN, I'm not judging God. I'm judging the image of God created by mortal men like myself. If that image doesn't sound to me like God, then why shouldn't I question it?
If anything you are helping me to understand the kind of delusional mentality that would dare judge the creator of the universe. It's rather disturbing actually.[/QUOTE]See above comment. I don't judge God; I judge mens' unfounded ideas about God. You should strive to understand the difference. I've made it abundantly clear that if God tells me something directly, then I will comply with whatever He says.
2005-04-24 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I've endeavored to be as civil as possible in these debates, but it gets a little annoying when the best responses people can come up with are you're WRONG, you're gonna burn in hell, you're stupid, yadda yadda yadda.
What evidence?! I have yet to see jack sh!t for evidence.
Face it -- you're just mad because you can't answer my arguments.
[/QUOTE] I haven't followed thisargument closely Angler, but I agree you've been civil, and have asked some tough questions, some tough [B]good [/B] questions any really tough and good questioner of the faith would ask, and that they indeed [B]have [/B] asked, for thousands of years.
I don't have time to exercise proper pastoral perview over this discussion, but all I can say is ther is one promise I think you can believe from Jesus for sure "Seek and Ye Shall Find".
God does not resent those who ask tough questions, only those that demand easy answers. May he help you on your journey.
2005-04-24 23:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I haven't followed thisargument closely Angler, but I agree you've been civil, and have asked some tough questions, some tough [B]good [/B] questions any really tough and good questioner of the faith would ask, and that they indeed [B]have [/B] asked, for thousands of years.
I don't have time to exercise proper pastoral perview over this discussion, but all I can say is ther is one promise I think you can believe from Jesus for sure "Seek and Ye Shall Find".
God does not resent those who ask tough questions, only those that demand easy answers. May he help you on your journey.[/QUOTE]Thank you, Okie. I appreciate that.
2005-04-24 23:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I've endeavored to be as civil as possible in these debates, but it gets a little annoying when the best responses people can come up with are you're WRONG, you're gonna burn in hell, you're stupid, yadda yadda yadda. [/QUOTE] But Angler, you are going to Hell. It's not a matter of being uncivil. It's a matter of telling you the truth.
Unless you repent and turn to the Lord, you will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Sentence will be pronounced, and you will be cast into Hell for all eternity. It will never end. Your torment, your agony, your distress will last forever.
Is that what you really want? Is your stubborn pride more important to you than your soul? You need to quit arguing and start praying.
I personally doubt there's much hope for you. It looks as if Satan has taken up permanent residence in your mind. But should you repent, I would rejoice.
2005-04-24 23:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]But Angler, you are going to Hell. It's not a matter of being uncivil. It's a matter of telling you the truth.
Unless you repent and turn to the Lord, you will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Sentence will be pronounced, and you will be cast into Hell for all eternity. It will never end. Your torment, your agony, your distress will last forever.
Is that what you really want? Is your stubborn pride more important to you than your soul? You need to quit arguing and start praying.
I personally doubt there's much hope for you. It looks as if Satan has taken up permanent residence in your mind. But should you repent, I would rejoice.[/QUOTE] No, Robert: You and I are both are going to hell because we both fail to believe in Allah's last and greatest Prophet, Mohammed, and the Holy Koran.
[/sarcasm]
See how easy it is to make unfounded statements?
By the way: You were not really uncivil. It was Petr (as usual) and, surprisingly, Tex who were uncivil. You seem to mean well, and I can respect that. Nevertheless, as I said before, your statements are baseless. Explain to me how you know the Bible is divinely inspired. If you can't do that, then you're just spinning your wheels with all this talk about hell.
2005-04-25 00:06 | User Profile
Angler, Angler, Angler. You mocked the doctrine of election. I for one don't claim to understand the doctrine of election, and I doubt those who think they've got it all figured out (the Calvinists and the Arminians). But I look at someone like you. You appear to be reasonably intelligent and well-educated. But you're so bullheaded that you're effectively stupid.
No amount of reasoning can seem to reach you. I can only believe that God has turned you over to Satan. You are now one of Satan's minions. But guess what, Angler, although you're Satan's servant, Satan has no love or affection for you. When you are cast into Hell, the demons will mock you and attack you.
This isn't funny, Angler. Your eternal soul is on the line.
2005-04-25 00:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Angler, Angler, Angler. You mocked the doctrine of election. I for one don't claim to understand the doctrine of election, and I doubt those who think they've got it all figured out (the Calvinists and the Arminians). But I look at someone like you. You appear to be reasonably intelligent and well-educated. But you're so bullheaded that you're effectively stupid. I didn't mock it; I just think it makes God out to be a monster. That is based on my honest opinion and my conscience. If I said otherwise, I'd be lying.
No amount of reasoning can seem to reach you. I haven't seen much reasoning yet -- only unsupported assertions.
I can only believe that God has turned you over to Satan. God did that because He loves me, right?
You are now one of Satan's minions. But guess what, Angler, although you're Satan's servant, Satan has no love or affection for you. I don't believe in Satan. That's another evolved mythological concept, but you probably don't want to hear the details.
When you are cast into Hell, the demons will mock you and attack you. I'll kick their asses. LOL
This isn't funny, Angler. Your eternal soul is on the line.[/QUOTE]What "soul"? My existence and identity are entirely within my brain. So are yours. With the right combination of drugs and manipulation, a person can be made to believe that he's an elephant. Damage the right part of the brain, and emotions such as love become impossible. These things are already known to science.
If you disagree, perhaps you can explain what happens to the soul when a person gets Alzheimer's disease. Does the soul also lose its memory of loved ones, just as the victim's brain does?
2005-04-25 00:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Really? You saw that empty grave?
So then it is your position that historical facts are only valid if we personally have eye-witnessed them?
You think the earth is 6000 years old, and you want to talk to me about absurdity?
Present conclusive proof that it isn't. You can't. I know you and your fellow anti-God science worshipers really, really want to, but yet you still can't. You can't even cure the common cold, yet you act and speak like you created life itself. Say what you will, but yes it is most certainly absurd.
BTW, I'm not an atheist -- I'm agnostic. And if I'm stupid, explain why I hit the ceiling (150+) on a professionally-administered IQ test. Explain how I managed to learn quantum mechanics and solid state physics at the graduate level. Explain why you can't answer my arguments without getting frustrated and becoming uncivil, like your sidekick Petr.
I'm not frustrated or being uncivil. I'm answering you and your genius IQ arguments in the same subtle mocking tone you utilize to try and disparage Christian believers. And yes, there have been many brilliant men who couldn't even manage to drive an automobile. Evidently, intelligence has little bearing on wisdom.
Oh, but I do. Most of them -- though not all -- were probably raised that way. People in the US tend to be Christian for the same reason people in Iran tend to be Muslim.
So what? You're using a conclusion as evidence for a prior assumption. There's a latin phrase for that kind of faulty logic, but I can't think of it right now. Nevertheless, it is most certain that God works through specific nations, cultures and families. This is made obvious right out of the box with God's original covenant with Abraham and his descendants.
If I were terrified about hell-fire, then I would be a believer, wouldn't I?
Not necessarily. I have come to never underestimate the human ability to resist God.
Or do you think I'm terrified about something I don't believe in? That makes sense.
More likely at bottom you haven't really fully convinced yourself of your espoused beliefs.
Fear of hell-fire is not what causes people to become Christians, but it certainly causes many people to stay Christian.
Pure conjecture, just like most of your argument.
I've endeavored to be as civil as possible in these debates, but it gets a little annoying when the best responses people can come up with are you're WRONG, you're gonna burn in hell, you're stupid, yadda yadda yadda.
Listen amigo. There's nothing myself or anyone else can do to keep you from willing yourself into living a lobotomized existence. It's a shame, but you have that right. You know good and well that the responses here to people like you have run the gamut from intellectually scientific to bible-thumping. If you people spent as much time finding fool-proof evidence of how we all got here and thinking rational as you do trying to shoot-down Christianity, you might really have something. As it stands now, you don't. Nothing positive, just a continuous tearing down of what is higher and better than yourselves, fueled by swollen egos and puffed-up self-pride.
What evidence?! I have yet to see jack sh!t for evidence.
If you reject the evidence of the truth of Holy Scripture, then you have to reject all knowledge of world history up until a century or two ago by default. At the end of the day, you have to do something with Jesus. History and honesty demands it.
Face it -- you're just mad because you can't answer my arguments.
Right. You can't even define love or beauty. Who's the fool here?
When did I say that science was perfect? It's just a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
If it's your god, sure. But again, what does science have to say about ultimate Truth? Beauty? Love? Nothing. A lobotomized existence. Science is a method only and can speak nothing of truth or values.
Hinduism has survived a long time, too. Longer than Christianity.
I'll grant you that hinduism has some meat to it, but it is fundamentally unlike Christianity and therefore false.
Yes, we're a minority, but there's only so much room at the right end of the bell curve.
I think you've gone past the right end and fallen off.
If that image doesn't sound to me like God, then why shouldn't I question it?
Go ahead and question, that's fine. All I ask is that you try and actually listen to the answer. You're not doing that.
I've made it abundantly clear that if God tells me something directly, then I will comply with whatever He says.[/QUOTE]
Oh, but He has through His revealed written Word and most recently here on this very board. You just refuse to hear.
Godspeed, Angler.
2005-04-25 01:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So then it is your position that historical facts are only valid if we personally have eye-witnessed them? Of course not. But how much historical evidence is there for the resurrection?
Present conclusive proof that it isn't. You can't. I know you and your fellow anti-God science worshipers really, really want to, but yet you still can't. You can't even cure the common cold, yet you act and speak like you created life itself. Say what you will, but yes it is most certainly absurd. Just because you're scientifically illiterate and are incapable of understanding the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.
I'll tell you what. I'll present conclusive evidence that the earth over one billion years old if you can first present conclusive evidence that the earth isn't flat. I'll bet I can find something wrong with anything you present.
No, we scientists can't cure the common cold yet (in large part thanks to viral evolution), but we can cure and prevent many other diseases and can save the lives of many people with cancer and other horrible conditions. Try praying until you're blue in the face -- you'll never cure anyone of so much as the hiccups.
I'm not frustrated or being uncivil. I'm answering you and your genius IQ arguments in the same subtle mocking tone you utilize to try and disparage Christian believers. You are being uncivil, and my intention is not to mock anyone. I think I've been more civil to others here than they've been to me. You'll note that I never insult people unless they insult me first.
And yes, there have been many brilliant men who couldn't even manage to drive an automobile. Were they quadraplegics?
Evidently, intelligence has little bearing on wisdom. They are closely related, actually. Unfortunately, your definition of a wise person seems to be "anyone who agrees with me" or "any Christian."
So what? You're using a conclusion as evidence for a prior assumption. There's a latin phrase for that kind of faulty logic, but I can't think of it right now. I wasn't trying to draw any hard conclusions there. But I think it's very reasonable to hypothesize that people who are born into a Christian culture are much more likely to become Christians than those who are born elsewhere.
Nevertheless, it is most certain that God works through specific nations, cultures and families. This is made obvious right out of the box with God's original covenant with Abraham and his descendants. ???
Not necessarily. I have come to never underestimate the human ability to resist God. I'm not resisting God, but men. I wish I didn't have to repeat that so much.
More likely at bottom you haven't really fully convinced yourself of your espoused beliefs. There are VERY few things that I'm fully convinced about. Still, I'm about as certain that hell doesn't exist as I am that, say, Islam isn't true.
- Fear of hell-fire is not what causes people to become Christians, but it certainly causes many people to stay Christian.*
Pure conjecture, just like most of your argument. No, it's based on personal experience and the experiences related by other deconverts.
Listen amigo. There's nothing myself or anyone else can do to keep you from willing yourself into living a lobotomized existence. It's a shame, but you have that right. You know good and well that the responses here to people like you have run the gamut from intellectually scientific to bible-thumping. I think they've been primarily the latter. I have yet to see anyone here come up with anything remotely scientific.
If you people spent as much time finding fool-proof evidence of how we all got here and thinking rational as you do trying to shoot-down Christianity, you might really have something. As it stands now, you don't. Nothing positive, just a continuous tearing down of what is higher and better than yourselves, fueled by swollen egos and puffed-up self-pride. Pride and ego play no role -- at least not on my side of things. And if Christianity is so rock-solid-true-blue as you say, then you should have no problem whatsoever with any question asked about it. The fact that you get really upset when your beliefs are challenged suggests that maybe you're afraid that they aren't as true as you like to say.
If you reject the evidence of the truth of Holy Scripture, then you have to reject all knowledge of world history up until a century or two ago by default. At the end of the day, you have to do something with Jesus. History and honesty demands it. The historical evidence is nowhere near as convincing as you make it out to be.
Right. You can't even define love or beauty. Who's the fool here? Love is a complex biochemical process in the brain. The recognition of beauty is the same. How do I know? Because some people lose the ability to feel these emotions when certain parts of the brain are damaged.
If it's your god, sure. But again, what does science have to say about ultimate Truth? Beauty? Love? Nothing. A lobotomized existence. Science is a method only and can speak nothing of truth or values. Science CAN explain beauty and love at this point, though perhaps not perfectly. In any case...so what? Once upon a time, science couldn't explain atomic spectra, either. Now it can.
I find it ironic that you use the word "lobotomized." That is perhaps the perfect term to describe those who believe what they've been indoctrinated to believe without bothering to investigate for themselves and think about both sides of an issue.
I'll grant you that hinduism has some meat to it, but it is fundamentally unlike Christianity and therefore false. How do you know Christianity isn't false because it's unlike Hinduism?
I think you've gone past the right end and fallen off. Thank you very much. They told me I was "off the charts" when I was a child.
Go ahead and question, that's fine. All I ask is that you try and actually listen to the answer. You're not doing that. I'm not getting any answers -- only angry, vehement denunciations and accusations of being proud, egotistical, blah blah blah.
Oh, but He has through His revealed written Word and most recently here on this very board. You just refuse to hear.[/QUOTE]God posted on this board? What's His handle?
Which revealed written word do you mean? The Koran? How do I know which one is His?
2005-04-25 01:14 | User Profile
Here's few more OT examples of belief that YHWH will have power to resurrect His followers from Sheol:
[COLOR=Red] [B]# Psalm 16:10 "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay."
[/COLOR]
Petr
2005-04-25 01:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]Hell has just got to exist, I mean Neo-Cons have to go SOMEWHERE when they die! :)[/QUOTE]
And stupid leftistââ¬Â¦
2005-04-25 04:05 | User Profile
Angler:
You may want to check out a couple books by Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel:
The Flood: [url]http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=276411246[/url]
The Wonders of Creation: [url]http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=417643590[/url]
Dr. Rehwinkel, if I remember correctly, had some educational background in geology and archeology. He admits being uncomfortable (initially) with the Biblical account of creation.
Dr. Rehwinkel: [url]http://www.lccarchives.ca/stony/stony16.htm[/url]