This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#71DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/5/2013 10:55:23 AM
I dont think souls are 'assigned' to a body. Being born to different parents would make me a different person. And not just in the metaphorical sense of 'I would act differently.'


Life starts at conception, remember? Your 'soul' was created the moment your father's sperm fertilized your mother's egg sack. And I agree, being born to different parents WOULD make you a different person, thats the truth of determinism. However, according to Galatians Five, your good and bad is a direct result of a literal battle between the Holy Spirit and 'sinful forces' (I don't know if that's supposed to be demons or what, the fact that the Holy Spirit would lose says a lot about God's omnipotence, unless of course the Spirit 'lets' the sinful force lose, making God directly responsible for sin, but hey, again, that's a topic in itself), not your upbringing. Plus, this 'purpose' your parents have is completely diminished by the whole 'born again' concept. God knows who will get saved, so why not just make them in the first place? Clearly keeping birth and genealogies going is not a issue of how many people God has to work with (Noah's Arc, Eve being made from Adam, God keeping Abraham and his wife alive long enough to bare children at like 80 something (?) years old). Of course, all Jesus says to defend this big mystery is the typical unhelpful "I'm God, and you guys just don't understand my mysterious ways."


Nothing. But theres also nothing mandating God honor said requests.


Jesus literally says you can ask anything in his name and, given that it glorifies God, he WILL do it. He then says it again the very next verse just to stress that he WILL do it. If giving miracles to bring faith to people/to heal people/to give someone something to be thankful for doesn't glorify God... I don't know what its.



Or, more likely, God hasnt called any apostles or prophets since then. Seeing as those are the typical miracle workers of the Bible....


How convenient. Of course, what you just said isn't Biblical, as I just demonstrated. Apostle and prophet doesn't even mean that they are the only ones capable of doing miracles in Jesus's name. Correlation/Causation fallacy. refer to John fourteen if you have questions.

what about the fact that the immidate context makes it clear that Paul is talking about continuing his work while under house arrest?


He says God is providing for literally every situation he could possibly muster himself into. But hey, we gotta assume automatically that everything is God's will! When God doesn't let Paul heal a dying boy, we just gotta assume that's his will. that way, God's will in this world becomes unfalsifible! (As I said in that other topic, your God driven demons and Holy Spirit reality has virtually no difference from my deterministic reality. You just tack on random, unnecessary explanations to things that don't have any evidence.)

If knowing that the Biblical God is real would condemn us, why doesn't Satan just reveal himself so everyone gets screwed over? I wonder if I can do some work for God by telling Satan he can pay for my awesome consulting by releasing souls he has held captive. Win win 8D
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#72LastManStandingPosted 2/5/2013 11:18:35 AM
SCAMaz0n posted...
DarkContractor posted...

I like how you're only response to my whole bit about that priori was laughter. thats called an appeal to emotion. If God is incapable of being with sin, btw, then he's not omnipotent.

Makes you wonder how long Lucifer was in Heaven until God got wind of him getting together the angels of Heaven to rebel?
And since Heaven is God's creation and he knows everything it makes me believe he turned his blind eye to Lucifer's sin for a certain amount of time.


It was instantly. At the moment it happen, Michael and angels prevailed. Book of Revelation has that scene.
---
Divine Mercy - God Loves you as a sinner.
Christ Said: Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588) Day of Mercy was declared in 2000
#73fudrickPosted 2/5/2013 3:37:10 PM
LastManStanding posted...
It was instantly. At the moment it happen, Michael and angels prevailed. Book of Revelation has that scene.


God really f***ed up on that one, huh? Creating an angel who instantly rebelled against him. It's almost as if he planned for Satan to exist the whole time.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#74SilviiroPosted 2/5/2013 3:45:47 PM(edited)
Point being? rest up and re-read my post, please.

I have rested but I was unable to purge the formality from my brain. If you wish to conclude in a logical format that the God that wrote the Bible is a trickster God you need two true statements of "There exists a God that wrote the Bible" and "The God that wrote the Bible is not the God described in the Bible."

To jump into SirThink's argument,

However, according to Galatians Five, your good and bad is a direct result of a literal battle between the Holy Spirit and 'sinful forces' (I don't know if that's supposed to be demons or what, the fact that the Holy Spirit would lose says a lot about God's omnipotence, unless of course the Spirit 'lets' the sinful force lose, making God directly responsible for sin, but hey, again, that's a topic in itself), not your upbringing.

It reads to me like the classic "2 dogs analogy." (The one where the one that wins is the one you feed the most.) This also parallels the Two Ways. (Included in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas.)

God knows who will get saved, so why not just make them in the first place?

Perhaps he cannot.

Jesus literally says you can ask anything in his name and, given that it glorifies God, he WILL do it.

To his disciples, not to some random people 2000 years in the future.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#75DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 10:07:11 AM
Point being? rest up and re-read my post, please.

I have rested but I was unable to purge the formality from my brain. If you wish to conclude in a logical format that the God that wrote the Bible is a trickster God you need two true statements of "There exists a God that wrote the Bible" and "The God that wrote the Bible is not the God described in the Bible."


Point being?

It reads to me like the classic "2 dogs analogy." (The one where the one that wins is the one you feed the most.) This also parallels the Two Ways. (Included in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas.)


there is zero in what Paul said to signify that that may be the meaning (in fact one of the main point of many of Paul's epistles is to abolish any guilt someone may feel from having sin). See this is what I see Christianity as, basically unwarranted, unevidenced explanations used to back up anything. But you never have any evidence for these explanations. Everything God related seems to never be empirically detectable outside of anecdotes.

Perhaps he cannot.


So why call him God? Clearly not omnipotent.

To his disciples, not to some random people 2000 years in the future.


Mark 16:17-18. (I can get a looser idea of being able to do this with any of the Gospel's endings, but Mark is the concrete one)
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#76SilviiroPosted 2/6/2013 11:10:43 AM(edited)
Point being?

Well you seemed to be close to having a valid formal logical deduction so I was trying to develop it into one.

there is zero in what Paul said to signify that that may be the meaning

It seems to be almost exactly the two dogs analogy. Paraphrased line by line:

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh." A positive command to feed the good dog.

"For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do." A warning that the dogs will control you.

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." The good dog makes you above the law.

"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." The things that feed the bad dog.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." What you get out of the good dog.

"And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." True Christians starve the bad dog.

(in fact one of the main point of many of Paul's epistles is to abolish any guilt someone may feel from having sin)

The Paul who called himself the least of the Apostles was trying to abolish guilt?

See this is what I see Christianity as, basically unwarranted, unevidenced explanations used to back up anything. But you never have any evidence for these explanations. Everything God related seems to never be empirically detectable outside of anecdotes.

I need evidence to read something and interpret what it says? I've already referenced two ideas that were going around the area at that time that seem to parallel my interpretation of it. That would be enough for a scholarly essay on Jewish philosophy. Add in a Socrates reference and it could even be a pop philosophy piece.

So why call him God? Clearly not omnipotent.

"Whether it be infinite or not, is not of any consequence to you. It is perfectly indifferent to a subject whether his sovereign possesses five hundred leagues of territory or five thousand; he is in either case neither more nor less a subject." -- Voltaire

Mark 16:17-18. (I can get a looser idea of being able to do this with any of the Gospel's endings, but Mark is the concrete one)

A section that is questionable as to whether it belongs and still says "And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs"
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#77OrangeWizardPosted 2/6/2013 1:29:16 PM
TC: Trying to call "Burden of Proof" doesn't work when you're already assuming the things that you want proven.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#78fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 1:56:49 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
TC: Trying to call "Burden of Proof" doesn't work when you're already assuming the things that you want proven.


Oh god, here we go
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#79DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 4:33:32 PM

The Paul who called himself the least of the Apostles was trying to abolish guilt?


Yes he was. If you're going to assume he was wrong for doing so, well I'll expand on this point in my point about Mark.

I need evidence to read something and interpret what it says? I've already referenced two ideas that were going around the area at that time that seem to parallel my interpretation of it. That would be enough for a scholarly essay on Jewish philosophy. Add in a Socrates reference and it could even be a pop philosophy piece.


I have no problem admitting this, but your explanations have zero evidence. By unwarranted, there is no need to explain good and evil; Determinism and life's neutrality completely suffice for this, both of which are observable. Christianity adds sin and spirit to the mix when it has nothing to explain here. But because that invites its own questions, we make up more evidenced theories to back that up.

"Whether it be infinite or not, is not of any consequence to you. It is perfectly indifferent to a subject whether his sovereign possesses five hundred leagues of territory or five thousand; he is in either case neither more nor less a subject." -- Voltaire


Ah, ontological argument. the most perfect thing in the universe is God. tis a shame, because if this is your defense, then we can conclude that a trickster God wrote the Bible, since the Bible claims omnipotence. Is there any evidence that I'm subject or that God has commanded me?

A section that is questionable as to whether it belongs and still says "And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs"


I'd love to hear your questioning. I'm taking a stab in the dark here (and this is what I feel you're doing with Paul), "the Bible is infallible." "this part of the Bible thats fallible? not really a part of the Bible."

anyways, you conveniently skipped the part about "anyone who believes will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. they will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. they will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#80DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 4:34:32 PM
Well you seemed to be close to having a valid formal logical deduction so I was trying to develop it into one.


well, thanks then.


It seems to be almost exactly the two dogs analogy. Paraphrased line by line:

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh." A positive command to feed the good dog.


It doesn't say feed the Spirit. It says walk by it. Gratify is unanimous with succumb to here.

"For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do." A warning that the dogs will control you.


Doesn't say anything about dogs controlling you.

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." The good dog makes you above the law.


Only if we assume that Spirit=dog.

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." The things that feed the bad dog.


It literally says that these are the results of the flesh. Nothing fed to the flesh.

""But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." What you get out of the good dog.""

Still nothing about feeding a good dog.

""And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." True Christians starve the bad dog."

I'm wondering how you got starved out of crucified.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.