Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 196 (66252)
11-13-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Prozacman
11-13-2003 11:04 AM


Re: a clarification
Prozacman writes:
where in the Book of Job does it say or even imply that the Jews of Job's time believed in an afterlife?
This is in my post just above but it is possible you over looked it. So I will paste it here for viewing. By the way, this is not the only statement from Job, or his friends for that matter, that verifies that the jews of that time believed in an existence after this one.
quote:
The original point was the knowledge of an afterlife before Babylonian exile. This is true because of, for one example, Job's statement in Job 19:25-26.
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."
And, again, I was not trying to detract from the main thrust of this discussion. I simply wanted to correct an error based on what the Bible actually says.
Russ
[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Prozacman, posted 11-13-2003 11:04 AM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Prozacman, posted 11-13-2003 1:43 PM apostolos has replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 196 (66278)
11-13-2003 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by apostolos
11-13-2003 11:27 AM


Re: a clarification
Thankyou for quoting your original point because I didnot get a chance to read it.(I'm hurried for time.) Yes your ref.:Job 19:25-26 does appear to prove that Job was at least contemplating an afterlife. After reading thru Job myself(up to chapter 15), I also came to that conclusion. The proof is in the magnificent poetry of Job 14, where Job is openly questioning his God about about rising from Sheol(the grave) into another life! See 14:14 for instance.
However, Job was not strictly a Jew, although he may be an ancestor of the Jews(my speculation). According to the intro. to Job and notes on pp.625-626 of my New Oxford Annotated Bible, Job was a foriegner from the land of "Uz", and the name of his god was "Eloah", not YHWH the Jewish god. But, maybe the two gods were combined at a later date when the Jews came into the land.What do you think? Eloah at the very least sounds like "Elohim" of Genesis 1. And since Job was thinking about an afterlife, it is interesting how much better he hopes it to be compared to the miserable condition he was in. He never seems to mention hell as a place of punishment. Perhaps he figured that life on earth was hell enough. What do you say?
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 11:27 AM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 2:47 PM Prozacman has replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 196 (66284)
11-13-2003 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Prozacman
11-13-2003 1:43 PM


next question
That is interesting, all of it. It will take me a little while to really think about it and come up with some answers because I want to do some digging.
While you wait, might I suggest Genesis 14 and the encounter w/Melchizedek [who was just a man(I have proved this in an offline work)] as an encounter with the God of all existence, thought it was through a non-jew.
Russ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Prozacman, posted 11-13-2003 1:43 PM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Prozacman, posted 11-14-2003 2:16 PM apostolos has replied

  
DavidPryor
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 196 (66287)
11-13-2003 3:04 PM


Hell is in some ways not so much a doctrine to be liked as it is a doctrine to be accepted. Nobody should like the suffering of others. God doesn't (Ezekiel 18:23, 18:32). On the other hand, an eternal Hell is necessary for the valuing of human life and human freedom. If humans are valuable in themselves, then a low quality of life is preferable to causing a person to cease to exist (annihilationism). If a person chooses to live apart from God, yet God is the source of what we perceive as making life enjoyable, then how can Hell be avoided? If God makes Heaven what it is, then how can a person reject God and accept Heaven at the same time?

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 4:01 PM DavidPryor has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 196 (66302)
11-13-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by grace2u
11-12-2003 12:48 AM


Hasn't corrected anything
quote:
3) In an atheistic world, universal absolutes do not make sense since they can not be measured in a coherent and logical manner. Nor is there any basis for suggesting that they do exist.
This is a false statement.
quote:
4) The world we live in is filled with universal absolutes such as the laws of morality and the laws of logic.
There are no univeral, absolute laws of morality. Nor are the laws of logic absolute - if you study formal logic you will find that there can be some variation in the laws of logic.
quote:
Since universal absolutes can be demonstrated to exist in the universe, and it is impossible for them to exist in an atheistic world, it is impossible for God to not exist.
You have only asseted these two premises; you have not yet demonstrated them.If you were to write a mathematical proof in this manner in a class that I taught, I would give you a zero.
quote:
1) God exists
2) If God exists, it is most likely that He wishes to be known and that He has left some evidence of His existence to His creation.
3) Of the many religions in the world today, one of them is the correct one, they are almost all mutually exclusive with one another.
4) Christianity provides more evidence than any other as to the validity of its claims.
a. fulfilled prophecies
b. Unsearchable riches and complexity of Gods word
c. .. n number of other arguments we've all heard before
Not a single one of the above statements is true, except possibly the first, but that still has not been demostrated.
quote:
On what basis can you judge injustice by apart from some universal standard?
All standards of justice are arbitrary.
quote:
The argument is that their worldview can not account for their beliefs.
I am an atheist. I have a system of morality. My worldview can account for this. I have now disproved this statement.
quote:
But how can this sense exist apart from some universal standard of right and wrong.
There is no universal standard of right and wrong.
I don't know how any philosopher would judge this, but as a mathematics instructor, if anyone were to write a mathematical proof this poorly they would get a zero for their efforts. Sorry to be harsh, but there isn't even any partial credit here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 12:48 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 12:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 196 (66304)
11-13-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 3:04 PM


quote:
On the other hand, an eternal Hell is necessary for the valuing of human life and human freedom.
This is false. I am an atheist. Yet a place a high value on human life and freedom.
quote:
If humans are valuable in themselves, then a low quality of life is preferable to causing a person to cease to exist (annihilationism).
This does not follow.
quote:
If a person chooses to live apart from God, yet God is the source of what we perceive as making life enjoyable, then how can Hell be avoided?
What is being argued against is not living apart from God, which may be hell to some, but eternal torment and torture by burning.
quote:
If God makes Heaven what it is, then how can a person reject God and accept Heaven at the same time?
Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 3:04 PM DavidPryor has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 37 of 196 (66356)
11-13-2003 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by apostolos
11-13-2003 7:54 AM


Re: a clarification
quote:
First, I do not know anything about Blue Letter Bible. They could be some fly-by-night, hack organization, or they could be completely valid in terms of scholarship.
The Blue Letter Bible gets more hits on the internet than "New Living Translation", which is what I was brought up with by my Catholic mother. It's no fly-by-night group (as if fly-by-night groups do entire bible translations).
Here's a search of how different bibles translate Rahab:
New International Version (NIV): God does not restrain his anger; even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet.
New American Standard Bible (NASB): God will not turn back His anger; Beneath Him crouch the helpers of (1) Rahab.
The Message (MSG): God doesn't hold back on his anger; even dragon-bred monsters cringe before him.
Amplified Bible (AMP): God will not withdraw His anger; the [proud] helpers of Rahab [arrogant monster of the sea] bow under Him.
New Living Translation (NLT): And God does not restrain his anger. The mightiest forces against him[1] are crushed beneath his feet. (Footnotes: 9:13 Hebrew The helpers of Rahab, the name of a mythical sea monster that represents chaos in ancient literature.)
King James Version (KJV): If God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers do stoop under him.
English Standard Version (ESV): God will not turn back his anger; beneath him bowed the helpers of Rahab.
Contemporary English Version (CEV): 13When God showed his anger, the servants of the sea monster [1] fell at his feet. (Footnotes:9.13 the sea monster: The Hebrew text has "Rahab," which was some kind of sea monster with supernatural powers (see the notes at 3.8 and 26.12)).
New King James Version (NKJV): God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud[1] lie prostrate beneath Him. (Footnotes: 9:13 Hebrew rahab)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21): "If God will not withdraw His anger, the proud helpers do stoop under Him.
American Standard Version (ASV):God will not withdraw his anger; The helpers of Rahab do stoop under him.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT): God doth not turn back His anger, Under Him bowed have proud helpers.
Darby Translation (DARBY): God withdraweth not his anger; the proud helpers stoop under him:
New International Version - UK (NIV-UK): God does not restrain his anger; even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet.
I count 5 of 14 translating it as proud; of these, 3 are different versions of the King James bible.
quote:
I would like to present a quote, however, from "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" which has a copyright of 1890 and has been widely used in theological circles since then, because of its proven accuracy. (FYI: the numbers refer to the system used to link the uses of words through out the Bible to their definition in the textbook. The word looked up was "proud", found to be in the forementioned two passages of Job.)
Ah, you use a book from 1890, and I use books that have taken into account everything since then as well. Since when has "the older it is, the more accurate it is" been at all an accurate axiom?
Let's see all of the definitions that I can find:
Rahab, - Smith's Bible Dictionary Online (Smith's Bible Dictionary)
Rahab - Easton's Bible Dictionary - (Easton's Bible Dictionary)
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB72.htm (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, KJV version)
Who is RAHAB? - WebBible Encyclopedia - ChristianAnswers.Net (Web Bible Encyclopedia)
(I could go on).
If you look through them, you'll see that the ones that trace where they get the word "proud" for it from, they get it from... Isaiah! Who is using it as a reference to Egypt. There is absolutely no other evidence to suggest that this word ever once meant "proud". Isaiah uses it in reference to Egypt, to basically call Egypt a "toothless monster" because of its pride (Rahab was a sea monster of legend). There's always the possibility that Job just coincidentally is talking about God striking down the sea monster (from the region at the time there are archaological references to a story of God fighting a sea monster called Rahab). But proud? Proud is "ge' " or "ge' eh". Pride is "ge'ah", "ga'avah", or other similar forms.
quote:
I say this because of the proven accuracy of the work it comes from.
The KJV? Proven accuracy? The KJV is a mess. They flat outright made up stuff in parts (such as the "coat of many colors" - how anyone can translate pac/pas (which means "of the hand or foot", and is used in that manner throughout the entire bible) as "many colors" is beyond my comprehension.). Of course, you probably cyclicly define the KJV to be correct, and use its supposed correctness for your definitions.
quote:
Also, the translation "proud" has a more harmonious connection to the immediate context.
Except for the fact that the sentence is past tense.
quote:
This is because both passages are statements against the position of stating you have knowledge and not recognizing Him from whom all knowledge comes. This would be a proud man, one who lifts himself up in the face of God impudently. This idea is also harmonious with the larger context of the debate that goes on between Job and his friends over the course of the book.
Ah, so "By his power he stilled the sea, by his wisdom he smote Rahab" isn't a reference either to Egypt or a sea monster (which, I assume coincidentally, was named Rahab)?
quote:
Thus far you haven't proven the KJV translation to be errant logically, grammatically, historically, or in any other way. So your considering it "silly" seems to be a rush to judgement instead of an accurate conclusion. As far as it not fitting in with your passages of scripture, that is not valid to the argument.
Want a couple of translation errors? From a page *defending* the KJV, we get:
quote:
Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."
Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."
Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.
Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.
Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.
Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."
Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.
Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.
Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!
John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.
John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.
John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).
Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.
I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."
I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"
II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.
I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."
I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."
Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.
Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."
Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."
I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.
Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.
Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.
Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
There's a lot more (this was just one category of errors), but I'll stop here.
quote:
The reason I say this is because the usage of a word (or words) in multiple passages of scripture does not unify those passages uness the definition can be seen to be synonymous, and that definition must include contextual considerations. I could add more about this (because the original hebrew, and even the english translation, is in a format called 'ancient hebrew poetry', and thus affects contextual consideration) but that is not the main issue.
But the word proud is being taken from Isaiah.
quote:
The original point was the knowledge of an afterlife before Babylonian exile. This is true because of, for one example, Job's statement in Job 19:25-26.
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."
Yes, Job talks of an afterlife: the word he uses is Sheol. I gave you a link that discusses Sheol. Sheol is not a "lake of fire" or a place in the clouds; it is similar to the Greek concept of hades.
quote:
Many factors indicate this book predates the Babylonian exile.
If there are many factors, surely you can name at least one.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 7:54 AM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 7:58 PM Rei has replied
 Message 56 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-16-2003 10:28 PM Rei has not replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 196 (66392)
11-13-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rei
11-13-2003 6:30 PM


before I reply
Rei,
I want to point out clearly that you are changing the argument from a discussion of "Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?" to "Is the Bible a valid source of truth, and if so which Bible?"
While they may seem the same, they are not. One is about a doctrine stated in the pages of scripture, already assuming, on previously established criteria, that the Bible is a source of absolute truth.
The other is a discussion as to whether anything that is said at all from a scriptural point of view can be considered truth. Now I want to say that this is the argument you are changing it to because the questions your response demands are questions concerning the texts that the Bible comes from. Certainly you know that there are many forms of the Bible out there, and certainly you can understand that it is very easy for a corrupted version of the Bible to exist. So, again, the questions you are raising are concerning the text of the Bible, not what the Bible says. And there is a very significant difference. If you are going to be reasonable you simply must acknowledge that to be true.
My point in saying all of this is that I would be interested in responding, but I will restate my first goal: to clarify a point without taking the discussion from the main line of argumentation. This new post of yours would threaten to do just that (please understand I do not say that in accusation of wrongdoing). So before we continue, I just want to be sure what we are talking about.
Are we talking about why God created Hell, or are we talking about what is the reliable source of absolute truth for man in the English language?
Russ
just a note for information - I looked again at your last post and counted 8 separate issues raised which relate to textual purity and only two which relate directly to the issue originally raised by Prozacman.
[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 6:30 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Rei, posted 11-14-2003 1:09 PM apostolos has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 196 (66487)
11-14-2003 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Chiroptera
11-13-2003 3:55 PM


Re: Hasn't corrected anything
My apologies for the slow reply. As I think you know I have been actively defending a position similar to this on another thread --Problems with atheistic evolution.
In an atheistic world, universal absolutes do not make sense since they can not be measured in a coherent and logical manner. Nor is there any basis for suggesting that they do exist.
This is a false statement.
Which statement is false? you will have to clarify what you disagree with on this. Do you contend then that there are universal absolutes within your atheistic worldview? If so which ones? Or that there is in fact a basis for suggesting that they do exist? Please provide evidence to back up this assertion. I have demonstrated repeatedly my claims that these concepts do not make sense within atheism -in particular on the thread we are both debating on concerning fallacies within atheistic evolution.
There are no univeral, absolute laws of morality. Nor are the laws of logic absolute - if you study formal logic you will find that there can be some variation in the laws of logic.
I am confused, you said my claims were false above, yet now you claim that the laws of morality and the laws of logic are not absolute. Again, what is absolute then in your mind? I contend that within the laws of logic proper, there is no variation. I would agree that an illogical system could postulate a set of logic and even claim them to be law-like that could have some variation, however this system would be illogical. If this were not true this debate is meaningless. In fact, the universe itself and in particular mathematics would be meaningless since nothing would make sense. The laws of logic which both mathmaticians borrow from and that scientists dependup would be conventional and as such there would be no basis for their usage. It would be meaningless to use them since in doing so you would be using an imperfect tool. I am not contending that the laws of logic as defined by men are absolute, but that there exists within the reality of our world, a set of laws of logic, seen and used by man that reflect the nature and character of God. Mans nature is to abide by these laws of logic and in doing this man has compiled systems of logic in an attempt to quantify the laws of logic. The same can be said for morality but it is even simpler to demonstrate. Atheists will go through great lenghts to deny these universal absolutes in an attempt to make their worldview intelligable. In doing this , they deny simple truths and loose their ability to speak rationaly or to even sustain a rational debate. If you do not agree that the laws of logic are universal, invariant abstract entities then we can not debate. I simply stipulate that within my convention, God exists therefore He exists. You, being a rational man would not accept this tautology would you? Yet without invariant universal laws of logic, you are forced to. Again, atheism can not sustain a rational debate. Therefore I once again maintain that atheism is an unitelligable worldview that can not account for the realities of the world in which we live.
You have only asseted these two premises; you have not yet demonstrated them.If you were to write a mathematical proof in this manner in a class that I taught, I would give you a zero.
I have demonstrated evidence for these premises repeatedly on our other thread and some on this (inconsistencies within atheistic evolution). It would be silly to ask for a mathematical proof concerning any of this. You are a mathematics teacher and should know better. How could I even begin to give a mathematical proof that would provide any relevance to what we are talking about. Do you mean a deductive or inductive proof using propositional logic?? I contend at a minimum I have provided a loosely compiled set of logical inductive proofs for my claims. At the top level, they are deductive in nature.
The argument is that their worldview can not account for their beliefs.
I am an atheist. I have a system of morality. My worldview can account for this. I have now disproved this statement.
Demonstrate to me using inductive or deductive reasoning, how the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic or morality as two of the many I claim to exist. Anyone can make a claim, please show proof. I have at least begun to provide evidence to back up my claims you have not. Namely,
1) what is the basis for your system of morality
There is no universal standard of right and wrong.
This claim is counter intuitive. You can make this claim, but in doing so you defy the realities of this world. This violates the simplest concepts that govern reality. How can you say there is no universal standard of right and wrong while our intuitive nature says there is. Again, you have to twist the reality of the world to fit into your worldview. This is irrational at best. You choose to abide by the laws of logic when its convenient but altogether deny the laws of morality to fit into your worldview. This is not science. This is not a logical approach to dealing with reality.
but as a mathematics instructor, if anyone were to write a mathematical proof this poorly they would get a zero for their efforts
Again, you should know better. I am sure even your (unbiased)atheist comrades would agree with me on this one.
I am not attempting to insult your intelligence in this discussion. In fact the contrary. I am simply suggesting that if one examines these concepts with more thought than what is typically exerted, one would see that the philisophical and logical implications of atheism, in context with the observed realities of this world make for an unintelligable system of thought. Not that atheists are unintelligable, but that their philosophy of the world is filled with logical fallacies (or unnatural apriori assumptions at best) which are far more complex to deal with than any alleged problem with the concept of hell. Suppressing the truth....
Even still, thanks for the feedback...
Christe eleison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2003 3:55 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 11-14-2003 4:42 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2003 7:27 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Intellect
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 196 (66490)
11-14-2003 1:06 PM


Does Satan work for God? If God is all powerful, then Satan can not do anything without the approval of God correct? Look what happened to Job for instance. Satan tells God that the only reason Job is so thankful and such a firm believer is because God rewards him for everything. So God says, he will Allow Satan control over Job's life, except you can not kill Job. Satan kills his whole family, and when job asks why, God says not to question him.
What a great loving God that is...
Although he does get a new family in the end, what of the previous one? Loving God?

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by apostolos, posted 11-17-2003 10:30 AM Intellect has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 41 of 196 (66491)
11-14-2003 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by apostolos
11-13-2003 7:58 PM


Re: before I reply
A good point, that this is going off topic. However, to my defense, Apostlos's post was about the same percentage discussing Rahab vs. Sheol as mine; I responded in kind. Of course, as any mother would know, that's no good excuse.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by apostolos, posted 11-13-2003 7:58 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by apostolos, posted 11-17-2003 10:24 AM Rei has not replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 196 (66492)
11-14-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rei
11-13-2003 4:23 AM


Actually, I've really enjoyed this conversation. It's been a while since I've had a good philisophical debate. Normally on this site, I'm simply having to deal with explaining how you can't have 6 miles of rain fall in a global flood without a huge change in potential energy, or how evolutionists don't believe in Larmarkism or Hopeful Monsters, or explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the 1000th time... it's nice to have a different topic, one that is rarely covered.
I too appreciate the dialogue we are having. Take care...
Christe eleison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 4:23 AM Rei has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 43 of 196 (66493)
11-14-2003 1:59 PM


Back on the subject of Hell...
In an article about Justice Roy Moore's ouster from the Alabama Supreme Court:
Alabama Panel Ousts Judge Over Ten Commandments - The New York Times
----------
The verdict stunned the hushed courtroom over which he once presided. As soon as it was read, Mr. Moore's shoulders drooped. His wife winced. His supporters let out a gasp. In the marbled corridors outside, shouting matches broke out between friends of the ousted judge and a handful of atheists.
"Thanks for destroying our country," one man said to Larry Darby, president of the Atheist Law Center in Montgomery.
"Go to hell!" another man told Mr. Darby, bumping him.
"I can't," Mr. Darby said, straightening himself. "Hell doesn't exist."
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2003 2:09 PM Rei has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 196 (66497)
11-14-2003 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rei
11-14-2003 1:59 PM


"Thanks for destroying our country," one man said to Larry Darby, president of the Atheist Law Center in Montgomery.
"Go to hell!" another man told Mr. Darby, bumping him.
Wow. Way to go, Christians. Very mature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rei, posted 11-14-2003 1:59 PM Rei has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 45 of 196 (66498)
11-14-2003 2:13 PM


Hell on Earth
I know this is not exactly on topic, and I know there's nothing unique about this, but I knew this person, she was so young, and it hits close to home. We received this news this morning where I work (identifying info removed or changed):
We are sad to announce that yesterday morning, 11/13, Judy Duncan, our former cashier in ..., passed away from cancer. She was 24. Judy is survived by her parents and daughter.
The wake is on Sunday, Nov 16th from 2-4 and 7-9 at... The funeral is on Monday morning, 11/17.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Rei, posted 11-14-2003 2:32 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 60 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-17-2003 8:35 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024