Here is the first thread, started by Domination3000. 430789 There rules are the same from the previous thread to keep certain discussion from happening in this thread.

The rules are found Here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10673888&postcount=1)

So fire away your questions and hopefully someone from this persuasion will answer.

To think that the Bible is infallible, I'd imagine that you'd have to see enough 'true things' in the Bible to be convinced that it was reasonable to think it infallible, and then to have faith that the rest is infallible. What're some of the thing in the Bible that you find 'obviously true' and 'interesting'? ("Obviously true", in that you'd think even skeptics should find it plausible). Where are your borders for things that are 'interesting' but at the same time don't have a reasonable amount of evidence? (i.e., you'd expect a skeptic to not find it plausible).

That might be a difficult question, if you don't get the vibe of it. Feel free to come back to it.

As well, why does the Bible 'end' with the Apostles and Paul? It seems that their writings (or their assumed writings) overwhelmingly trump all other additional writings or theology. Do you think that God gifts people with the ability to speak for God (as occurred in the Old Testament, with the prophets), and that these people should be listened to? Being 'led by the Spirit' is a continued theme, I'd think, which should be able to create new interpretations or cast new light on old text.

When you say the bible is infallible, what version of the bible are you talking about?

The best claim about the bible is the fact that we have Christianity around now. Christianity could never had prospered in the old times since in the early days of Christianity is said that they happened and should have meant that is should have withered away and died. I will provide a link about 15 reasons why Christianity should not be around. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified? - God dying, are you crazy? Rising from the dead, now that makes you clinically insane.
Factor #2 -- Neither Here Nor There: Or, A Man from Galilee?? - This one would be important to Jews of the time, since that was unimportant historically.
Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong "Resurrection" - This one would have been impossible for the Romans to believe in.
Factor #4 -- What's New? What's Not Good - Challenging traditions is not a good thing, which the claims of Christianity did to both Jewish and Pagan traditions.
Factor #5 -- Don't Demand Behaviour - Out of all the religions, we are most definitely on that makes demands on a person's behaviour, to change it.
Factor #6 -- Tolerance is a Virtue - Well Christianity by it's very definition is not very tolerant, since there is only one way to heaven, not "all roads lead to Rome" pathway.
Factor #7 -- Stepping Into History - There are many verifiable historical claims made in the NT especially that would easily have been spotted and pointed out as false, making impossible to spread.
Factor #8 -- Do Martyrs Matter, and More? - Well becoming a Christian was an easy way to lose your friends and alienate them.
Factor #9 -- Human vs. Divine: Never the Twain Shall Meet! - It is impossible that God would become man.
Factor #10 -- No Class! - Everyone is equal under the eyes of God, but before that everyone was expected to belong to a certain group.
Factor #11 -- Don't Rely on Women! - Women were consider second class citizens and yet many of the most important people are Women, not a good thing for a religion to be taken seriously.
Factor #12 -- Don't Rely on Bumpkins, Either! - Fishermen were just simple people and thus would not have been taken seriously.
Factor #13 -- You Can't Keep a Secret! - Well in that society everyone knew everyone and would make sure nothing was not known, so they would check the claims to make it sure.
Factor #14 -- An Ignorant Deity?? - Jesus does not know every thing, so what is up with that?
Factor #15 -- A Prophet Without Honour - Jesus died a most humiliating death, not something anyone should really crow about.

So why would I answer a question about the infallibility of the Bible this way? Well these claims are based on what the Bible says about the origin of the religion. It shows the power of these facts, since after 2,000 years we still have people who follow them when right at the beginning it would have been stopped as false due to the claims it makes.

@perfection, any claims of infallibility would be about the original manuscripts and never about a translation, since there can never be an 100% accurate translation, due to the fact that each language has some nuances in the original language will be lost in translation. Even if the Bible was written in a language closely related to English, it still will some of the affect in translation.

what exactly are the original manuscripts?

Why does God allow Somalia to suffer?

what exactly are the original manuscripts?
The original parchment that the scriptures were first written onto. We know from the Dad Sea Scrolls that the Jews were very religious in their copying of the manuscripts to another one, once the old one had been worn out and needed replacement.
Why does God allow Somalia to suffer?

They are suffering due to the evil done to them by mankind. Many other countries have survived through such drought due to the affects of their government, so the fact that the common people are suffering is due to people causing the problem in Somalia in the first place.

So God is apathetic toward children starving to death?

Why didn't you answer El Machinae's questions and instead linked to that fallacy ridden website?

To think that the Bible is infallible, I'd imagine that you'd have to see enough 'true things' in the Bible to be convinced that it was reasonable to think it infallible, and then to have faith that the rest is infallible. What're some of the thing in the Bible that you find 'obviously true' and 'interesting'? ("Obviously true", in that you'd think even skeptics should find it plausible). Where are your borders for things that are 'interesting' but at the same time don't have a reasonable amount of evidence? (i.e., you'd expect a skeptic to not find it plausible).

That might be a difficult question, if you don't get the vibe of it. Feel free to come back to it.

As well, why does the Bible 'end' with the Apostles and Paul? It seems that their writings (or their assumed writings) overwhelmingly trump all other additional writings or theology. Do you think that God gifts people with the ability to speak for God (as occurred in the Old Testament, with the prophets), and that these people should be listened to? Being 'led by the Spirit' is a continued theme, I'd think, which should be able to create new interpretations or cast new light on old text.

God's Word is God's Word. There is unity and infinity in some circles. If God could not handle putting His Word into each and every language, then God would not be all powerful. The Bible is a "historical" account of God and His people. For the most part, the books are placed in chronological order. Now modern "skeptics" may disagree, but the early church fathers did have them grouped that way. The Gospels came first, since they told about Jesus. Revelation did come last since it seems John wrote it last. Today people are free to take God at His Word (the Bible) or not too.

When you say the bible is infallible, what version of the bible are you talking about?

The version that one can understand. God does not demand you learn another language or even have a college education to understand His Word. Now if some man tells you you have to read a certain version to hear from God, then that is man's opinion and not God's. If God is powerful enough to provide an infallible Bible, He is also powerful enough to provide you with a version you can understand and one that makes sense to you.

Picking and choosing versions is like satan picking and choosing how Eve should desire the forbidden fruit. If satan can convince a person that God is unable to provide a proper form of His Word to you, then satan has won and another person is turned from hearing and obeying God's Word. Now that goes against logic and man's reasoning, but relying on one's own reasoing got us in to trouble in the Garden and will continue to do so, if we cannot take God at His Word.

Concerning "the vibe" and what is true. When God calls a person, nothing may seem true. Going past one's own ability to perceive truth and trusting God is a step, and does not even need faith per se. The step is faith in action. People have been led to believe that unless the Bible can be proven true, it is not. If the Bible is truth, then it is true whether a man believes it to be or not. Man's "truth" is relative. The Bible (God's Truth) is not. Now the Bible can speak to you and become relative, but it is not the Bible that changes, but how God "speaks" it to you and is changing one's thoughts to become in line with His Truth.

Why does God allow Somalia to suffer?

There is no good answer that is reasonable to man. Why does God allow man to have free will? Why does God not force everyone to believe and worship Him? Why has God not set up His earthly kingdom and start a 1000 years of peace and prosperity for the Jews, that He promised to the prophets? All we can do as humans is submit to God's will and help those who are in need. I think there are humans though who love to see people suffer and are too selfish to help those who are suffering and then blame God for it?

Why didn't you answer El Machinae's questions and instead linked to that fallacy ridden website?

I concur. Please answer the questions and not sidestep them so obviously.

The original parchment that the scriptures were first written onto. We know from the Dad Sea Scrolls that the Jews were very religious in their copying of the manuscripts to another one, once the old one had been worn out and needed replacement.
Well, I'm not that familiar with the dead sea scrolls, but I do know they while they are early for surviving works, they don't date back into the several hundred BCEs, which makes the presumption that biblical copying was very good less supported then you imply.

However, that's not what I'm really getting at, what I'm more getting at is in the earliest versions of these in the years around their creation.

Do you believe that there is the very first original Genesis that was drafted by some author from no substantial precursor? Or do you take what I believe is the more correct view that the now standard Genesis was drafted from numerous proto-genesises (geneses???) If you believe the later then where does the end of the increasing validity of proto-geneses reach its zenith before the degradation of alteration (even if it's gradual and only results in minor imperfections) occurs?

Do you believe that there is the very first original Genesis that was drafted by some author from no substantial precursor? Or do you take what I believe is the more correct view that the now standard Genesis was drafted from numerous proto-genesises (geneses???) If you believe the later then where does the end of the increasing validity of proto-geneses reach its zenith before the degradation of alteration (even if it's gradual and only results in minor imperfections) occurs?
There is only one version of Genesis that is infallible and that is the version written by Moses. He may have used oral and written documents by his predecessors, but they were human writings only. God guided Moses in his writing to copy only what was factually true from the past as well as add in what the Holy Spirit guided him to write.

So God is apathetic toward children starving to death?

This is trying to mix fairness with truth. These two things cannot be mixed together at all. Is it fair for them? Perhaps not. But the Bible is the truth none-the-less. Was it fair that God had to send his son to bleed and die for us, to save us? No, that is not fair either.

But it is far better that we received mercy and grace, than fairness (from God) through Christ. Because the only thing (in fairness) we deserve is death, and nothing else. This world will not save you, and this broken world will never provide. The Bible is absolute truth, and proof is abound to those who have given their hearts to Christ, because they can testify to how Christ has changed their lives in ways that would be impossible for them to just 'wake up and decide to change themselves'. You cannot change your own heart easily, and trying to do so usually involves changing your situation instead.

Furthermore, there is belief that children will be saved, since although all are born sinners, they are not at the age of reasoning yet to make a choice between the truth of Gods word and everything else.

But it is far better that we received mercy and grace, than fairness (from God) through Christ. Because the only thing (in fairness) we deserve is death, and nothing else. When I'm having a bad day, the human-loving gospel of Christendom never fails to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

To think that the Bible is infallible, I'd imagine that you'd have to see enough 'true things' in the Bible to be convinced that it was reasonable to think it infallible, and then to have faith that the rest is infallible. What're some of the thing in the Bible that you find 'obviously true' and 'interesting'? ("Obviously true", in that you'd think even skeptics should find it plausible). Where are your borders for things that are 'interesting' but at the same time don't have a reasonable amount of evidence? (i.e., you'd expect a skeptic to not find it plausible)
In the interest of seeing El Machinae's question answered, here it is again.

Silly people. God doesn't care if we suffer because he offers us eternal bliss if we take the time to worship him.

This is a Question and Answer thread. Not a 'Troll an Evangelical' thread. If you don't like the answers provided, you're welcome to that opinion, but debating them is not the purpose of this thread.

There is only one version of Genesis that is infallible and that is the version written by Moses. He may have used oral and written documents by his predecessors, but they were human writings only. God guided Moses in his writing to copy only what was factually true from the past as well as add in what the Holy Spirit guided him to write.Why do you believe that Genesis was written by Moses?

Does your religion have any particular views on specific genres of music?

I am an atheist who has done nothing but good in this world. Do you think I will go to hell because I don't believe in God? Do I deserve to suffer simply because I don't believe?

I am an atheist who has done nothing but good in this world.
No, you didn't! We're all sinners and all fall short of the Glory of God! :mad:

:agree:

What he said.

No, you didn't! We're all sinners and all fall short of the Glory of God! :mad:

I wish more Christians actually took this to heart, rather than just saying it. You would think this sentiment would make the religion and its followers pretty humble here on Earth, but the only vibe I get from the "enthusiastic" Christians, is a "holier than thou" attitude.

Questions:

What evidence is there to conclude that the Bible was divinely inspired?

Is the Bible the only divinely inspired literature out there?

Was Dante divinely inspired in his description of Hell?

If there are extra-Biblical texts that are divinely inspired, why no effort to include them in the Bible?

Does it bother you when you see people non-capitalize the g-word? Or pronouns like "Him," "He," or "His" ?

Does your religion have any particular views on specific genres of music?

I would think that "satanic" would be off the list.

I wish more Christians actually took this to heart, rather than just saying it. You would think this sentiment would make the religion and its followers pretty humble here on Earth, but the only vibe I get from the "enthusiastic" Christians, is a "holier than thou" attitude.

Questions:

What evidence is there to conclude that the Bible was divinely inspired?

Is the Bible the only divinely inspired literature out there?

Was Dante divinely inspired in his description of Hell?

If there are extra-Biblical texts that are divinely inspired, why no effort to include them in the Bible?

Does it bother you when you see people non-capitalize the g-word? Or pronouns like "Him," "He," or "His" ?

What evidence? - None really, since it happened almost 2000 years ago.

Is.. only? - More than likely, yes. IMO the sooner an accepted text is accepted, the better. Having said that there may be, but we may never know.

Dante? - I have no opinion.

Inclusion? - Once a canon is declared "closed" to keep heresies out it seems to me that only God's intervention would allow additions. The Bible is still relative today as it ever has been. ie. Those who seem holier than thou are the "Pharisees" of modern religion.

IMO any new scripture would have to be GOD's will given by God Himself and not some man "creating" his own will for his own benefit.

no it does not bother me that proper caps are used or not even though it makes sense to me to do so hopefully it does not bother people that i do use them

IMO any new scripture would have to be GOD's will given by God Himself and not some man "creating" his own will for his own benefit.

How would you be able to tell? I'm thinking of the case of Joseph Smith. He claimed it was divinely inspired. But I'm guessing (since you're not a mormon) that you disagree. But if it really were God instructing JS on what to write down, how would you be able to distinguish the real inspiration from the fake?

What's the difference between Born Again and Evangelical? I live in the NorthEast of USA, and I've always kind of assumed they were the same thing. But reading the Rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10673888&postcount=1) for what constitutes an Evangelical I don't see anything in there about accepting Christ as your personal savior.

How would you be able to tell? I'm thinking of the case of Joseph Smith. He claimed it was divinely inspired. But I'm guessing (since you're not a mormon) that you disagree. But if it really were God instructing JS on what to write down, how would you be able to distinguish the real inspiration from the fake?

1) What peter grimes asked.

2) What are your opinions on the Left Behind novels about the Rapture, Tribulation, etc.? Do you think that's a good representation of what will happen?

3) Is 2000 years a long time to wait for the 2nd coming? From an outsiders view, it seems like sooner or later Christians would begin to wonder. . .

4) Do you think the End Times are near? Which prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically, and which ones have yet to happen?

5) What would you do if all the prophecies are fulfilled that lead up to the 2nd coming are fulfilled, and still nothing happens?

Why does the Bible not refer to the people and their practices in the new world. Seems perfectly relevant. Isn't it suspicious that a book that purports to speak to all men and is very interested in genealogy would only refer to the people that happen to be known in the region of its writing at the time even though we know there were many other people and cultures on earth at the time.

How would you be able to tell? I'm thinking of the case of Joseph Smith. He claimed it was divinely inspired. But I'm guessing (since you're not a mormon) that you disagree. But if it really were God instructing JS on what to write down, how would you be able to distinguish the real inspiration from the fake?

What's the difference between Born Again and Evangelical? I live in the NorthEast of USA, and I've always kind of assumed they were the same thing. But reading the Rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10673888&postcount=1) for what constitutes an Evangelical I don't see anything in there about accepting Christ as your personal savior.

Jesus trained 12 disciples. Probably at least that many witnesses would be needed.

1) What peter grimes asked.

2) What are your opinions on the Left Behind novels about the Rapture, Tribulation, etc.? Do you think that's a good representation of what will happen?

3) Is 2000 years a long time to wait for the 2nd coming? From an outsiders view, it seems like sooner or later Christians would begin to wonder. . .

4) Do you think the End Times are near? Which prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically, and which ones have yet to happen?

5) What would you do if all the prophecies are fulfilled that lead up to the 2nd coming are fulfilled, and still nothing happens?

2. They may be close, but no one really knows and anything written now about it is speculation IMO.

3. Yes, yes it is. IMO the majority of today's humans do wonder even Christians.

4. Christians have always been told to be prepared and that the end is soon. I was reading Ireneas, and he seemed to think that 6000 thousand years had to pass and that the 7th would be the actual millenium that God rested as the Sabbath of peace on earth.

5. That is hard to tell. I am not sure there is any precedent to go by. God has always kept His Word. The hardest part is how do we know if predictions are from God, or man's speculations? The Bible says that no one can know, but yet there will be signs. Knowing the signs IMO will only come to those who read God's Word. The closest thing that I have from the Bible is that the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel will not pass away until the Messiah returns. If the Temple get's rebuilt in Jerusalem, I am pretty sure that would have some significance also. Now the first example leaves me with the condition how would I know if the last person has passed and He had not returned. If I die before the Temple is rebuilt, it would be a mute point. Knowing and not knowing are strange bed fellows.

@ Mark 1031

The Scriptures deal with God and His chosen people and their His'tory as it relates to God.

Christians have always been told to be prepared and that the end is soon. I was reading Ireneas, and he seemed to think that 6000 thousand years had to pass and that the 7th would be the actual millenium that God rested as the Sabbath of peace on earth.

Interesting. I'll have to look into this, Iraneas fellow.

Speaking of which, what do you think about the numerology found in the Bible? Is God seriously just really into certain numbers, or is it coincidence? Or is this artistic license on the part of the authors?

Numerology just seems to be really close (or maybe it actually is) occult'ish in nature. Not something I would expect to be readily embraced by the Evangelical community.

Why does the Bible not refer to the people and their practices in the new world. Seems perfectly relevant. Isn't it suspicious that a book that purports to speak to all men and is very interested in genealogy would only refer to the people that happen to be known in the region of its writing at the time even though we know there were many other people and cultures on earth at the time.

It does speak about people and their practices nearing end times... This is just one piece that does.

2 Timothy 3
"1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone."

I wish more Christians actually took this to heart, rather than just saying it. You would think this sentiment would make the religion and its followers pretty humble here on Earth, but the only vibe I get from the "enthusiastic" Christians, is a "holier than thou" attitude.

So do I, but they are stuck in-between God and this world, for they have not given themselves fully to one or the other. And this is precisely what 2 Timothy 5 states. It must be understood, that there are alot of problems in many different demoninations of churches. Since many do not stick with strictly teaching the word of God, but go off making up their own practices, many might even think they are Christian, when they actually are not.

Furthermore, might be something as such:
2 Cor 11:13-15
Satan is an imitator who produces counterfeit Christians who infiltrate the church and create divisions. God's people need discernment in these difficult days.

How would you be able to tell? I'm thinking of the case of Joseph Smith. He claimed it was divinely inspired. But I'm guessing (since you're not a mormon) that you disagree. But if it really were God instructing JS on what to write down, how would you be able to distinguish the real inspiration from the fake?

The problem with this is that Mormon doctrine takes parts of the Bible, and believes in those parts, but doesn't believe in other parts of the Bible that may not fit with them. If you don't trust all of the word of God, you certainly can't open your heart to God to place your faith and trust in Him. It even dismisses the Bible; The Book of Mormon states this itself, saying there are errors from transcribers, etc.. they also state elsewhere that it may not be divinely inspired, etc. You can distinguish that it is not God instructing JS what to write, because of things like this:

Joseph Smith, pg 327: “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests committed many errors.”
Mormon Mark E. Peterson states in his book, As Translated Correctly - pg 4, “Many insertions were made, some of them ‘slanted’ for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated.”

God's Word would not divinely inspire attacks against his own Word.

Interesting. I'll have to look into this, Iraneas fellow.

Speaking of which, what do you think about the numerology found in the Bible? Is God seriously just really into certain numbers, or is it coincidence? Or is this artistic license on the part of the authors?

Numerology just seems to be really close (or maybe it actually is) occult'ish in nature. Not something I would expect to be readily embraced by the Evangelical community.

It seems to me that Moses wrote a book that when translated to English is Numbers. I think that the Jews have put (in the past) some significance in certain numbers. I am not so sure that the church necessarily has too.

Actually the Hebrew title of the Book of Numbers is literally translated into English as "In the desert." The use of descriptive titles for books of the bible began with the Greek Septuagint. Jews simply use the first word of a book as its title.


There are certainly numbers in the bible that are of symbolic significance, and there is probably a fair mount of rounding. Sometimes a number is just a number though. Numerology can be and frequently is taking much too far.

There are certainly numbers in the bible that are of symbolic significance, and there is probably a fair mount of rounding. Sometimes a number is just a number though. Numerology can be and frequently is taking much too far.

What some examples of symbolic numbers? And is this enough to recognize that the Bible isn't 100% accurate as far as math goes?

Why not simply use the true numbers instead of rounding or making up numbers that bear symbolic reference to something else? The Devil/God is in the details, right?

Further Questions:

1) Where does randomness come from? Is there such a thing? Or is everything deterministic?

2) If God flipped a coin, what would He get?

3) Can God predict the coin flip's outcome?

4) Does God know if Schrodinger's cat is alive or not?

...

4) Does God know if Schrodinger's cat is alive or not?

It's been 70-some years, that cat is dead as disco.

You never know.

Anyway, do you have a problem with people like John Hagee preaching politics from the pulpit?

What some examples of symbolic numbers? And is this enough to recognize that the Bible isn't 100% accurate as far as math goes?


http://www.mostamazingprophecies.com/resources/keys-to-bible-numbers.aspx

This explains the meanings of some of the more common Biblical number references.



Further Questions:

1) Where does randomness come from? Is there such a thing? Or is everything deterministic?

2) If God flipped a coin, what would He get?

3) Can God predict the coin flip's outcome?


Our Lord created all things, of course he knows. ;) Time as we know it, doesn't apply to God as we might think it does. He doesn't need to predict a coin flip's outcome, he knew the outcome before the coin was even created. Just because the Lord knows these things, doesn't mean that you don't have free will, or that events are set in place, and you can't choose otherwise. You most certainly can, just that our all-knowing God knows what choices you will make.

Jesus accused people who pray standing in synagogues and streets of hypocrisy and instructed his followers to pray in seclusion and not let others know when they're fasting. Why is this teaching rejected by so many Christians?

Jesus accused people who pray standing in synagogues and streets of hypocrisy and instructed his followers to pray in seclusion and not let others know when they're fasting. Why is this teaching rejected by so many Christians?

The Pharisees were praying in public, blowing trumpets whenever they would give to the poor, etc so they would appear to be righteous to other people. Doing that kind of stuff for 'social status e.g.' it was said that will be all they receive; they store no treasures in heaven.

Any good deeds you do should be done to please the Lord, and not done to receive honor from other people (like the pharisees). That is why if you fast, you should maintain yourself and let no one know about it, you will receive reward from God the Father.

Now, if you give to the poor and someone sees (sometimes there may be no way to keep someone from seeing you), it is okay if your heart is set solely on helping the poor, and not doing it to receive 'honor and praise' from other people.

There is no way for certain that you can really know if people today (most of the time) are doing things to get praise from others or to please God, for you do not know their hearts and intentions most of the time (unless it is really obvious like blowing trumpets in the street while giving a poor guy a dollar). So if you e.g. saw someone giving food to a food pantry on Sunday morning, it depends on the reason they are doing it, whether or not they fit this description.

No way to generalize Christians in this manner; e.g. for if a particular 'Christian' does this (like the pharisees did) SOLELY for status and honor from other people, then they wouldn't be a Christian; they would be just like the pharisees.

I would think that "satanic" would be off the list.
Interesting. What does constitute satanic music for you? Actual references to satanism? Or are certain genres like metal satanic by default?

What about songs that only use imagery associated with Satan without actually professing those beliefs?

What about Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast", for example?

Interesting. What does constitute satanic music for you? Actual references to satanism? Or are certain genres like metal satanic by default?

What about songs that only use imagery associated with Satan without actually professing those beliefs?

What about Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast", for example?

Is singing a form of worship? What about the term "singing ones's praises"? Seems to me that creating music that even mentions satan would lead one in this path. If you loved a girl, would you write a song about her or her antagonist who is trying to discredit her?

It does speak about people and their practices nearing end times... This is just one piece that does.

2 Timothy 3
"1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone."

Sorry but a straightforward reading of those passages says nothing about the new world peoples. I am thinking more along the lines of “you will build great ships to reach new worlds and new peoples who have not been given the word. Do this and bring them the light of my word and laws so they may know the way to salvation” or something like that. A map would have been nice as well.;)

Sorry but a straightforward reading of those passages says nothing about the new world peoples. I am thinking more along the lines of “you will build great ships to reach new worlds and new peoples who have not been given the word. Do this and bring them the light of my word and laws so they may know the way to salvation” or something like that. A map would have been nice as well.;)

The only nation that had a "blessed" prophecy is Israel. Most were just prophecied against for their disobedience.

The only nation that had a "blessed" prophecy is Israel. Most were just prophecied against for their disobedience.

Well I am not an expert but isn’t that old testament stuff. Isn’t part of “evangelical” spreading the word to all people and isn’t that in the bible somewhere. Why not talk about the huge swath of people in the Americas, either negatively for their disobedience or as a people to be saved?

Well I am not an expert but isn’t that old testament stuff. Isn’t part of “evangelical” spreading the word to all people and isn’t that in the bible somewhere. Why not talk about the huge swath of people in the Americas, either negatively for their disobedience or as a people to be saved?

This is my take: Isaiah 24

England is the "last" mentioned "nation" as the "isles of the sea". It's kingdom and colonies reflect what is the uttermost parts of the earth. The US has just carried the English further as an extention of that "kingdom". Rebuilding the Nation of Israel in 1945 ended the Gentile "influence" and returned the prophecies back to the Jews.

Having a "major" "kingdom" endorsed Bible spreading through out the ends of the earth, to me, and the next 400 "silent" years are similiar to the 400 silent years between the "end" of the OT and the arrival of the NT. As the "English" established it's reach to almost every isle and the ends of the earth, to me that signified the extent of gentile obedience, and the "falling away" of that effort would signal the return to the Jews, and God working through them again.

Was not any new "territory" settled by the "Gentiles" claimed "For God and Country"? Now in "modern" times God is being stamped out and humanism has taken His place under the disguise of human rights. God no longer has a "right" to work any more. This barren waste land will be once more given to the Jews for their prosperity.

Biblical Hebrew actually did not have a distinct word for Island. When it speaks of Isles, it literally means shores or coasts, especially distant ones. Spain would be considered as much an "island" as Britain to the Israelites, as would America.

Of course, the word is not actually used in Isaiah 24, and I consider your interpretation to be rather far fetched.

Sorry but a straightforward reading of those passages says nothing about the new world peoples. I am thinking more along the lines of “you will build great ships to reach new worlds and new peoples who have not been given the word. Do this and bring them the light of my word and laws so they may know the way to salvation” or something like that. A map would have been nice as well.;)

Oh, you were talking about the age of discovery of the new world during the 17th century? I wouldn't see the need to specifically mention the age of discovery in the Bible, because the new testament fully explains in great detail spreading the Word of God and our salvation through Jesus Christ, which is relevant for all to do.

God didn't think to include a map and instructions on how to built caravels so his word could be spread faster?

How tall was the Tower of Babel, and why hasn't God smote any of our modern day sky scrapers?

How does Satan have the power to defy God?

Do you believe in the lost city of Atlantis?

If Jesus was god, why didn't he teach his disciples about things like harmful microbes? I seem to recall him saying that 'it isn't what goes into your mouth that can harm you, but what comes out of it' in response to criticism that his disciples didn't wash their hands before meals. Doesn't this reveal a flaw in his knowledge?

If Jesus was god, why didn't he teach his disciples about things like harmful microbes? I seem to recall him saying that 'it isn't what goes into your mouth that can harm you, but what comes out of it' in response to criticism that his disciples didn't wash their hands before meals. Doesn't this reveal a flaw in his knowledge?

Christ explained quite well the meaning of what you are talking about.

(Mark 7.14-23)

10Jesus called the crowd together and said, "Pay attention and try to understand what I mean. 11The food that you put into your mouth doesn't make you unclean and unfit to worship God. The bad words that come out of your mouth are what make you unclean."
12Then his disciples came over to him and asked, "Do you know that you insulted the Pharisees by what you said?"

13Jesus answered, "Every plant that my Father in heaven did not plant will be pulled up by the roots. 14Stay away from those Pharisees! They are like blind people leading other blind people, and all of them will fall into a ditch."

15Peter replied, "What did you mean when you talked about the things that make people unclean?"

16Jesus then said:

Don't any of you know what I am talking about by now? 17Don't you know that the food you put into your mouth goes into your stomach and then out of your body? 18But the words that come out of your mouth come from your heart. And they are what make you unfit to worship God. 19Out of your heart come evil thoughts, murder, unfaithfulness in marriage, vulgar deeds, stealing, telling lies, and insulting others. 20These are what make you unclean. Eating without washing your hands will not make you unfit to worship God.

How does Satan have the power to defy God?

Satan has no power over God. Satan has free will also. Demons believe in Jesus Christ (because they know Him and His power), and they tremble in fear, for they know what awaits them because of their sin. God doesn't want you to believe in him by using cheap tricks. Even when He did miracles in the past, some people still refused. It would be no different today, people would make themselves believe something else caused it. But if you open your heart to Christ, you will know the power, peace, joy, and love of Christ with certainty; for Christ will heal your heart, take your sin, and renew you.

When I asked Domination why do you think god is in three parts (holy trinity). He said god is like an egg, made out of three parts. But why would god be made out of three parts. Since god is all powerful logic implies that he should be one not made out of parts and isn't that kind off polytheism, if he's made out off three parts then each part is divine so three gods?

EDIT: Why would god make (or be) himself like an egg when he made the egg

Satan has no power over God. Satan has free will also. Demons believe in Jesus Christ (because they know Him and His power), and they tremble in fear, for they know what awaits them because of their sin. God doesn't want you to believe in him by using cheap tricks. Even when He did miracles in the past, some people still refused. It would be no different today, people would make themselves believe something else caused it. But if you open your heart to Christ, you will know the power, peace, joy, and love of Christ with certainty; for Christ will heal your heart, take your sin, and renew you.

Sounds like that came of a brochure or something. Pretty cliche :mischief:

But I was thinking more about how Satan is free to roam the Earth. I was under the impression that he had been damned to Hell or something?

It's like sending someone to prison for life, but then leaving the prison cell unlocked and not worrying about seeing the guy walking around on the street committing more crimes. What's up with that?

If I was sent to Hell, why couldn't I also be free to leave Hell whenever I wanted to and come to Earth or speak with God?

When I asked Domination why do you think god is in three parts (holy trinity). He said god is like an egg, made out of three parts. But why would god be made out of three parts. Since god is all powerful logic implies that he should be one not made out of parts and isn't that kind off polytheism, if he's made out off three parts then each part is divine so three gods?

EDIT: Why would god make (or be) himself like an egg when he made the egg

Right. And what's so bad about saying that "Jesus is a part of God" rather than "Jesus is God" ?

I can say my arm is part of me. But I can't say my arm is me.

Another question. If god made us in his form why aren't we perfect. If we are in his form that would make him human and we all know humans are imperfect.

18But the words that come out of your mouth come from your heart. And they are what make you unfit to worship God. 19Out of your heart come evil thoughts, murder, unfaithfulness in marriage, vulgar deeds, stealing, telling lies, and insulting others.

This is factually false. The heart only pumps blood. Whoever wrote this was likely basing it on the common (errant) wisdom of the day which held that the heart was the source of thoughts and emotions. The brain was believed to be for cooling, if I remember correctly.

So how does one reconcile factual errors that supposedly came directly out of the mouth of God?

This is factually false. The heart only pumps blood. Whoever wrote this was likely basing it on the common (errant) wisdom of the day which held that the heart was the source of thoughts and emotions. The brain was believed to be for cooling, if I remember correctly.

So how does one reconcile factual errors that supposedly came directly out of the mouth of God?

If you have ever said to your girlfriend or wife "I love you with all my heart", then you would be doing the same thing you are talking against doing. The heart is where your desires lie. We are not talking about the physical function of the heart. Intelligence is often touted as being more important than wisdom, but this is false; because wisdom allows one to make the best use of his knowledge. The opposite of wisdom is foolishness.

Sounds like that came of a brochure or something. Pretty cliche :mischief:

Not from a brochure, it's from the Bible. And no it is not cliche at all; actually it is quite the opposite... because cliche is 'all good people go to heaven'. This is not the case, because we are all sinners, so none of us are good, and none of us are good enough. Only the blood of Christ as a perfect sacrifice can save us.

No one can fully understand the trinity; but some ways to think about it may be 1) I'm tom2050, but my human body has different parts which have different functions 2) Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, and the savior of His body, the Church (whom follow Him). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 divine persons, but are the one true living God. It is a mystery none-the-less and complete human-understanding of this is certainly not possible.

Nothing in the bible says that Satan has yet been sent to hell. It is clear that he wanders to and fro on the face of the earth. It says that after Christ returns he will be bound in the abyss for a millennium, and then released for a short time to again deceive the nations before he is ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire that is the Second Death.



The word heart does not only refer to the physical organ. It means the core, the center, the deepest part thereof. Sources that claim that people used to think that the liver or kidneys were responsible for emotions are similarly flawed, as in their original non technical sense the word just meant innards. In the context it obviously meant the metaphorically most inward part of one's being, rather than a physical location within the torso.


While the Ancient Egyptians placed very little value on the brain, by Roman times there were enough documented cases of people with brain injuries that it was well known to be involved in thought and emotions.

Christ explained quite well the meaning of what you are talking about.

So why not teach them about where diseases actually come from while he was on the subject? He could have saved countless lives in the future.

So why not teach them about where diseases actually come from while he was on the subject? He could have saved countless lives in the future.

Because then Jesus would need to explain why little germs and diseases were made by God in the first place? :mischief:

I'm curious about Evangelical opinions on the power of laying on of hands. Have you ever seen it take place?

What are Evangelical opinions on hypnotism? Work of the devil or simple psychology?

Where is your soul before you are born? If it is eternal, it must exist before you were born.

Do brain dead people have a soul?

When does a person officially die? When their brain dies, or when their heart stops? Or both?

You still haven't addressed part of my question:

So how does one reconcile factual errors that supposedly came directly out of the mouth of God?

But since you opened the door by claiming that was a metaphor:
How do you determine the things that are only meant as metaphorical imagery from the things that are meant as factual statements? Is it simply along the lines of Bible is the Inerrant Word Of God, therefore if there's an error it must be a metaphor?

And wouldn't that mean that interpretation of the Word of God changes throughout history, as more info comes in on how the world actually is and how reality works? Doesn't that mean that over time the Word Of God has gone from mostly Factual Statements to mostly Metaphorical Imagery?

So why not teach them about where diseases actually come from while he was on the subject? He could have saved countless lives in the future.

That would save no lives at all... because you cannot escape death. Only through Christ can you be saved.

Because then Jesus would need to explain why little germs and diseases were made by God in the first place?

All things were created by God, including these things. And the Bible explains this in Genesis. We rebelled against God. We are under punishment.

All things were created by God, including these things. And the Bible explains this in Genesis. We rebelled against God. We are under punishment.

So why does God punish innocent animals and plants?

More questions (from above):

I'm curious about Evangelical opinions on the power of laying on of hands. Have you ever seen it take place?

What are Evangelical opinions on hypnotism? Work of the devil or simple psychology?

Where is your soul before you are born? If it is eternal, it must exist before you were born.

Do brain dead people have a soul?

When does a person officially die? When their brain dies, or when their heart stops? Or both?

Do you believe in more than 3 spatial dimensions?

That would save no lives at all... because you cannot escape death. Only through Christ can you be saved.

You know what I mean. Lots of people could have been saved from dying premature and often agonizing deaths. Since Jesus hates abortion so much, I have to wonder why he wouldn't save babies from being stillborn in this manner.

You still haven't addressed part of my question:



But since you opened the door by claiming that was a metaphor:
How do you determine the things that are only meant as metaphorical imagery from the things that are meant as factual statements? Is it simply along the lines of Bible is the Inerrant Word Of God, therefore if there's an error it must be a metaphor?

And wouldn't that mean that interpretation of the Word of God changes throughout history, as more info comes in on how the world actually is and how reality works? Doesn't that mean that over time the Word Of God has gone from mostly Factual Statements to mostly Metaphorical Imagery?

God created the world, and He created you. He knows you better than you know yourself. God is always good, and the message of the Word of God does not change. His Word does not change just as He does not change with time. Therefore, we know that He will always be good. Claiming that you do not know what it means by 'desires of the heart' does not make a truth invalid.

Desires come from the heart. This is nothing new, it's no secret, it's been around since the beginning of time, and it is acknowledged as being valid. People of all backgrounds have used it throughout history, and most people have probably said something about 'the heart' at one time or another.

"I love them with all my heart"
"you are so heartless and cold!"
"my heart has been broken"
"the heart wants what the heart wants"
"everyone is the age of their heart"
"the beauty of the heart is the lasting beauty"
"Let your heart guide you. It whispers, so listen closely"
"Each one sees what he carries in his heart"
"The human heart feels things the eyes cannot see, and knows what the mind cannot understand"

Some of these grabbed from various authors; but it seems that argument is being made solely for arguments sake.


You know what I mean. Lots of people could have been saved from dying premature and often agonizing deaths. Since Jesus hates abortion so much, I have to wonder why he wouldn't save babies from being stillborn in this manner.

You mean the Bible should be a science/medical book containing every single known piece of information about biology and how to defend against the bad ones? There is probably thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of information for that alone. If that was included, why wouldn't everything else be also (like how to build a plane)? That is not the purpose of the Bible.

It is well known, that we can go at any moment, so we shouldn't be lax about such things. Our eternities rely on it, for even the 'most good' human of this world has sinned. We should be glad that God decided against being only just with us, or we would all suffer the consequences of our actions and have no hope. It is with God's grace we are saved.

The Bible does not specifically mention abortion I don't believe. But it is clear that God knew us before we were born, God is life, he so loved the world he sent his only Son to die for us, sin does anger God but He is slow to anger and merciful. We all know everytime an abortion takes place, a life is lost on Earth (abortions took place back in Jesus' time also). It's debatable about what happens to those souls, because it doesn't specifically say in the Bible, but there is some things in reference to the age of reason that point to children being saved (others claim the opposite, but it's not known). I cannot answer the question as to why Jesus didn't do things in a different way. You can ask always ask Him, though. :)

I'm not making an argument for argument's sake at all!

I'm asking you by what criteria you determine which lines of The Inerrant Word Of God are meant to be read as facts, and which are meant to be read only as metaphors. I mistakenly interpreted the lines quoted (mark 7 18-19) literally, not metaphorically. I suppose it's an easy mistake to make, since line 17 references digestion directly...

If you're certain it's to be read as a metaphor, how are you coming to this conclusion?

Why did God create such a humongous universe, if he was only going to populate a tiny speck-of-a-speck-of-a-speck of said universe?

That is not the purpose of the Bible.

OK, another question to add to my running list:

1. How do you reconcile factual errors in found in The Inerrant Word Of God?

2. How do you determine which passages of the Inerrant Word Of God are meant to be taken literally and factual, and which are to be read as metaphorical?

3. What is the purpose of the Bible?

A lot of you have some good questions. Just letting you all know I'm here and will answer ASAP:)

If scripture is supposed to be "god-breathed," then why is Psalm 23 and its derivatives based on such a poorly thought-out metaphor? If god is your shepherd, then your only purpose is to be slaughtered.

Ok, so let me set the scene.

You are just waking up from a great night of sleep and have just sat down to your favorite breakfast. When all of a sudden, your dad barges in the room. "Son, son, listen," your dad shouts, "God visited me last night and said I must make a sacrifice of you to show that I love Him!"

As he says this, you notice that he is holding a knife and a length of rope. "I must sacrifice you as the Lord commands! Come on son, we have to make an altar in the backyard for me to kill you on. Grab a hammer!"

How do you react?

Well, I immediately would tell him that he must have converted to Judaism during the night, because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice upon the cross, and there is no need to sacrifice anymore.

Well, I immediately would tell him that he must have converted to Judaism during the night, because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice upon the cross, and there is no need to sacrifice anymore.

So you would question your dad's sanity before questioning the Bible?

If god has been around forever, what took him so long to create the Earth? He essentially spent an eternity doing nothing. Why? What did he do?

Also note guys school starts tomorrow, so I'll have less time. I'll get to these when I can. Thanks for being patient:)

So you would question your dad's sanity before questioning the Bible?

Yes. Absolutely.

If god has been around forever, what took him so long to create the Earth? He essentially spent an eternity doing nothing. Why? What did he do?

No one will have any clue until heaven.

No one will have any clue until heaven.

Why? How do you know?

It's a matter of trust. Which many people don't have, because people can't trust anyone but themselves these days.

It's a matter of trust. Which many people don't have, because people can't trust anyone but themselves these days.

How do you know that?

It's a matter of trust. Which many people don't have, because people can't trust anyone but themselves these days.

It might be something or nothing, but in your mind, what's the difference between 'faith' and 'trust' ? (or are they the same thing?)

Well, with God, I believe faith and trust are a little bit the same, but faith means a lot more to me.

Having faith in God and His Son is more important than just trusting him.

Furthermore, why is faith/trust a virtue?

It is almost universally agreed that God created time. Most conceive of God as being completely outside of time, while a minority think that the chose to limit himself and enter time. Either way, it does not make sense to speak of God spending any duration of time doing or not doing anything before he created time. The concept of "before" is meaningless in this context.

It is almost universally agreed that God created time. Most conceive of God as being completely outside of time, while a minority think that the chose to limit himself and enter time. Either way, it does not make sense to speak of God spending any duration of time doing or not doing anything before he created time. The concept of "before" is meaningless in this context.

So you're saying that before the universe was created, god was in a state of suspended animation? So god is technically only six-thousand-some years old?

It is almost universally agreed that God created time. Most conceive of God as being completely outside of time, while a minority think that the chose to limit himself and enter time. Either way, it does not make sense to speak of God spending any duration of time doing or not doing anything before he created time. The concept of "before" is meaningless in this context.

"Before" is also meaningless in the context of Big Bang Theory (according to Stephen Hawking). Like asking "what's north of the North Pole?"

Anyways, how does a being outside of time and the universe interact with us? Can you give us a better explanation of the cosmological landscape that God has created?

Was Jesus inside of time or not? It seems like a pretty clear cut case on whether God is "in time" or not if we assume Jesus is God.

Did God not spend 30 some odd years pottering about in the Middle East? And then ressurect after a few days post-mortem?

Furthermore, why is faith/trust a virtue?

I had to think about this one.

I believe that faith/trust is a virtue (in the Christian view) because of what it is. The faith and trust in God for salvation, must be the paramount part of your life. Feel free to back me up, someone.

Did God not spend 30 some odd years pottering about in the Middle East? And then ressurect after a few days post-mortem?

Jesus, while he was on this Earth, was constrained by time and so inside it. But it has not always been this way, and I don't suspect it is this way now either (Though its not something I claim to understand.)

For the record, I am aware of your greater question about the Trinity and it will be answered when I have a free hour to go through everything. Its just that this one took a minute to correct, so I felt I ought to do it.

Faith, hope, and love are called the three theological virtues because their is no vice in their excess so long as their object is God. Faith or trust in falsehood is no virtue.

Why won't you answer my question?

I didn't answer most of them, as I said I'm waiting on them until I have time.

Why did God create such a humongous universe, if he was only going to populate a tiny speck-of-a-speck-of-a-speck of said universe?

It's a testament to His power and to His glory. He counts the number of stars and calls them by name. When we discover a few hundred more galaxies, each containing millions+ of stars, all are in awe at the vastness of the universe. Whether someone believes in the one true living God or not, He is still the creator and controller of all things, this is absolute and true; and is made known to all who will open their hearts to and follow Jesus Christ.

But let it be known, God the Father has not unlimited patience. A loving God whom is rejected by a person time and time and time and time again; that person may eventually run out of chances, and their eyes will be closed.

The Lord is not slow to act, but He is patient, so that you may come to repentance, and not perish in your sin. And it is a just punishment for sin. We are all entitled to nothing more than death for our sin; but the grace of God has saved us if we will only give ourselves to Him.

I testify to anyone seeing this; that however bad some are, I was probably just as bad (and if I am not, it does not matter; you can still be forgiven). And I was healed and saved just as the Bible explains. And my life was forever changed; and not my situation, but my heart. All of my hate, guilt, disgust, hopelessness, etc, etc, etc was taken and I was made new. Even if everything is going great for you, all are born sinners. 'Good people go to heaven' might be fair, but it's not the truth, because none of us are good.

I testify to anyone seeing this; that however bad you may think you are, I was probably just as bad or worse. And I was healed and saved just as the Bible explains. And my life was forever changed; and not my situation, but my heart. All of my hate, guilt, disgust, hopelessness, etc, etc, etc was taken and I was made new.
Doesn't your portrayal of the conversion violate one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Doesn't your portrayal of the conversion violate one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

No, the 7-deadly sins never occur in any list in the Bible and no reference to that name is made. It is often things like this (including additional doctrine churches have added on top of the Bible that cause confusion). Same as purgatory is never mentioned by word or description. All sins can be forgiven with this exception:

The unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible (Mark 3 and Matthew 12) was in reference to when the pharisees saying the Holy Spirit of God was the unclean spirit of Satan, even after seeing the good miracles done towards suffering people out of love and kindness.

You cannot accidently commit this sin; but IIRC it is permanantly rejecting Christ to such an extreme, that it is impossible for that person to ever come back to repentance. If you even have a passing thought of possibly accepting Christ, than you haven't committed the unpardonable sin that the Bible speaks about.

How can an omnipotent god be jealous? Doesn't jealousy come from insecurity?

Would you kill someone if God, through whatever means you communicate with it, told you to do it?

It's a testament to His power and to His glory. He counts the number of stars and calls them by name. When we discover a few hundred more galaxies, each containing millions+ of stars, all are in awe at the vastness of the universe. Whether someone believes in the one true living God or not, He is still the creator and controller of all things, this is absolute and true; and is made known to all who will open their hearts to and follow Jesus Christ.

But let it be known, God the Father has not unlimited patience. A loving God whom is rejected by a person time and time and time and time again; that person may eventually run out of chances, and their eyes will be closed.

The Lord is not slow to act, but He is patient, so that you may come to repentance, and not perish in your sin. And it is a just punishment for sin. We are all entitled to nothing more than death for our sin; but the grace of God has saved us if we will only give ourselves to Him.

I testify to anyone seeing this; that however bad some are, I was probably just as bad (and if I am not, it does not matter; you can still be forgiven). And I was healed and saved just as the Bible explains. And my life was forever changed; and not my situation, but my heart. All of my hate, guilt, disgust, hopelessness, etc, etc, etc was taken and I was made new. Even if everything is going great for you, all are born sinners. 'Good people go to heaven' might be fair, but it's not the truth, because none of us are good.

Cool, now can you answer my question?

How can an omnipotent god be jealous? Doesn't jealousy come from insecurity?

Not jealous in our sense. I took it to mean that he wants to be the only one that people believe in, but only to stop them going wrong by trying to follow two religions at once - the theme that you cannot serve two masters props up again in the Bible.

Cool, now can you answer my question?

I did in the first sentence. :)

Whether someone believes in the one true living God or not, He is still the creator and controller of all things, this is absolute and true; and is made known to all who will open their hearts to and follow Jesus Christ.
You used the words 'absolute' in relation to 'true'. Still, the evidence provided for this truth is always, always subjective. As you made clear: "and is made known to all who will open their hearts to and follow Jesus Christ". A textbook example of the subjectivity of your proof. Since you have to have faith first before the "truth" will be revealed. Also, there is no falsifiability, and no objective way to test this truth.

So finally my question. How can truth be Absolute and Subjective at the same time?

So finally my question. How can truth be Absolute and Subjective at the same time?

It's either true or it's not, but whether you think it is or think it isn't, you'll find enough evidence to 'prove' your point of view.

Jealous can also mean Zealous. (They are really the same word, except that the Z became a J when it was borrowed though French instead of straight from Latin.) It is a relatively recent development that the word came to be associated with selfishness, envy, ad insecurity. It still had a mostly positive connotation until a few centuries ago.

God is J/Zealous in that he is vigilant in guarding us, and wants to protect us from self destructive choices.

1. How do you reconcile factual errors in found in The Inerrant Word Of God?

2. How do you determine which passages of the Inerrant Word Of God are meant to be taken literally and factual, and which are to be read as metaphorical?

3. What is the purpose of the Bible?

I'm reposting my list of questions so that you don't have to hunt pack through the newer posts to find them :)

I have work I could (Should) be doing but I really don't think I'm going to have an hour straight I want to spend on this for awhile, so I'm taking it in sections, doing the first 2 pages now.

Does your religion have any particular views on specific genres of music?

Well, Christian opinion, even among Evangelicals, is muddy. I personally don't think a certain "Style" of music (Heavy Metal, rap, rock, exc.) could be sinful in itself, but the lyrics used to accompany these songs could be. So, while a lot of music is a bad influence, I won't say any music is sinful on the beat alone.

Also, speaking for me personally, I don't have a problem with all secular music by default, but in general it is pretty crappy, and I'd rather listen to Christian music usually anyways.

To think that the Bible is infallible, I'd imagine that you'd have to see enough 'true things' in the Bible to be convinced that it was reasonable to think it infallible, and then to have faith that the rest is infallible. What're some of the thing in the Bible that you find 'obviously true' and 'interesting'? ("Obviously true", in that you'd think even skeptics should find it plausible). Where are your borders for things that are 'interesting' but at the same time don't have a reasonable amount of evidence? (i.e., you'd expect a skeptic to not find it plausible).

Not exactly. Its more that I believe in the prophecies and message of Jesus and have taken it from there. Well, that and personal experience. Not sure if I'd still believe if not for personal experience.

That might be a difficult question, if you don't get the vibe of it. Feel free to come back to it.

As well, why does the Bible 'end' with the Apostles and Paul? It seems that their writings (or their assumed writings) overwhelmingly trump all other additional writings or theology. Do you think that God gifts people with the ability to speak for God (as occurred in the Old Testament, with the prophets), and that these people should be listened to? Being 'led by the Spirit' is a continued theme, I'd think, which should be able to create new interpretations or cast new light on old text.

People can be lead by the Spirit, but what they say must be measured against God's word.

New applications of Old Text can certainly be discovered, but that doesn't make the old applications any less valid.

I am an atheist who has done nothing but good in this world. Do you think I will go to hell because I don't believe in God? Do I deserve to suffer simply because I don't believe?

:lol:

Its NOT because you don't believe. Its because you have SINNED and have nothing to cover your sin, thus you must face it yourself.

It is very arrogant to claim one has never done anything wrong (Done nothing but good) and most atheists don't even try to claim that.

Consider your conscience. Have you ever told a lie? Stolen something, even something small? Have you ever hated someone? If you answered yes to any of these, you are a sinner. If not, you probably broke the first one in your response, and you have still lied:)

I'm not perfect, far from it. That's why I need Christ, to cover my sins so I can meet God in Heaven one day once I die.

And for the record, I can say this, while I cannot judge where you are going to end up (Even the most militant atheist can repent on his deathbed and be forgiven, heck Hitler would have been forgiven if he had repented) I can tell you this, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins. Accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the substitute for you. Recognize that you were the one who deserved to hang on that cross, and that Christ, the perfect, sinless Son of God, took your place.

If you do not do this, and you persist in your refusal even unto death, you will indeed be damned. That's not my words. Its what the Bible says.



I wish more Christians actually took this to heart, rather than just saying it. You would think this sentiment would make the religion and its followers pretty humble here on Earth, but the only vibe I get from the "enthusiastic" Christians, is a "holier than thou" attitude.

That is unfortunate. That said, the fact that Christians aren't doing their job, even if true, doesn't say anything practical about its teachings.



What evidence is there to conclude that the Bible was divinely inspired?



Prophecies of Jesus Christ.

Is the Bible the only divinely inspired literature out there?

Well, that depends what you mean by "Divinely Inspired." Theoretically, God could inspire someone to write truth, but it wouldn't be inerrant, it would be subject to error like everything else. For instance, God could move someone to write something, but it wouldn't be authoritative in itself, it would have to be checked against the Bible and/or logical reasoning.

Is there any other INFALLIBLE writing other than the Bible? No there isn't.

Was Dante divinely inspired in his description of Hell?

Dante? :lol: That was written in the worst period of Church history (At the time when the Catholic Church had really gone off the deep end and there were very few true Christians). And even the Catholics don't take Dante seriously.

If there are extra-Biblical texts that are divinely inspired, why no effort to include them in the Bible?

Because there aren't any that belong in the Bible.

Does it bother you when you see people non-capitalize the g-word? Or pronouns like "Him," "He," or "His" ?[/QUOTE]


The word God, if it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to be insulting or to lower Jesus' place (I know Jehovah's Witnesses call Jesus "A god" and this annoys me) it doesn't "Bother me" though I might correct it in a certain context.

Pronouns? Heck, I even make this mistake sometimes.

2) What are your opinions on the Left Behind novels about the Rapture, Tribulation, etc.? Do you think that's a good representation of what will happen?

Good story, but I don't really believe very much of it, even in an "In general" context.

3) Is 2000 years a long time to wait for the 2nd coming? From an outsiders view, it seems like sooner or later Christians would begin to wonder. . .

2,000 years is certainly "Soon" to an Eternal, Timeless God.

4) Do you think the End Times are near? Which prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically, and which ones have yet to happen?

If by "Near" you mean what Jesus meant, of course! If you mean what we would consider "Near" than I can't possibly know.

I'm not qualified to answer the second question, sorry. The only prophecies I have any knowledge of is the one about Cyrus and a couple of the Messianic Prophecies.

5) What would you do if all the prophecies are fulfilled that lead up to the 2nd coming are fulfilled, and still nothing happens?

We'd just have to wait. There is never a promise of a specific amount of time between the events of the prophecies. Theoretically, there could be thousands of years between the last prophecy and the end.

What some examples of symbolic numbers? And is this enough to recognize that the Bible isn't 100% accurate as far as math goes?

Math is NOT my specialty and I'm not really sure what examples you are referring too. Unfortunately, the below paragraph can't really be answered either until I know what instances you are referring too.

If you are referring to the Biblical use of Pi, it was rounded to three. I know some people have said "The Bible isn't a science textbook or a History textbook." Well, its DEFINITELY not a MATH textbook.





1) Where does randomness come from? Is there such a thing? Or is everything deterministic?

It probably exists, but God is in control of it if he wants to be. If I roll a die, my 1-6 number is irrelevant to greater life and might be random, but if my life depended on me rolling a 5, I'd roll a 5 unless God had decided it was my time to die.

2) If God flipped a coin, what would He get?

Whatever he wanted to get. He's God!

3) Can God predict the coin flip's outcome?

Ummm... Yes.

4) Does God know if Schrodinger's cat is alive or not?

God knows EVERYTHING.

Interesting. What does constitute satanic music for you? Actual references to satanism? Or are certain genres like metal satanic by default?

What about songs that only use imagery associated with Satan without actually professing those beliefs?

What about Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast", for example?


I'd say something that clearly is meant to be Satanic. "Number of the Beast" (Though I'm not familliar with it) sounds like that sort of thing. Very general things (Like metal) don't really have anything intristically to do with Satan. In fact, there could be Christian metal that glorifies God.

Does your religion have any particular views on specific genres of music?

Not really, but I believe that the lyrics of the music more than the actual genre determine its quality in terms of good/bad.

Not really, but I believe that the lyrics of the music more than the actual genre determine its quality in terms of good/bad.

What about movies? Do you get hung up about anti-religious sentiment in characters or plots? The Golden Compass, for example, is said to be rather anti-church. On second thought, that might not affect you as a protestant (probably more for Catholics).

How about movies or books filled with pagan religion rather than Christian religion? Does it keep you from enjoying fantasy books and movies (Lord of the Rings, Clash of the Titans, etc)?

What about movies? Do you get hung up about anti-religious sentiment in characters or plots? The Golden Compass, for example, is said to be rather anti-church. On second thought, that might not affect you as a protestant (probably more for Catholics).

How about movies or books filled with pagan religion rather than Christian religion? Does it keep you from enjoying fantasy books and movies (Lord of the Rings, Clash of the Titans, etc)?

It depends. A book like The Da Vinci Code may be good writing, but it's theology is majorly wacked. at least according to Dad, I never read it.

Usually, if I read a book or watch a movie like that, I have learned to read or watch with a discerning eye. This means that I don't just go along with what's presented, but I am able to catch stuff that is designed to persuade me to the writer or the director's viewpoint.

We love LoTR, and Chronicles of Narnia. I am currently writing a fantasy book myself, and once again, I say that we will watch stuff like that, but we're careful what we watch, and what we watch, we carefully watch it.

What about movies? Do you get hung up about anti-religious sentiment in characters or plots? The Golden Compass, for example, is said to be rather anti-church. On second thought, that might not affect you as a protestant (probably more for Catholics).

How about movies or books filled with pagan religion rather than Christian religion? Does it keep you from enjoying fantasy books and movies (Lord of the Rings, Clash of the Titans, etc)?

Lord of the Rings has Christian themes in it:p

Personally, I think mythology is fine, since few people really believe in it. But something like the Da Vinci Code which defames Christ I think is wrong.

It depends. A book like The Da Vinci Code may be good writing, but it's theology is majorly wacked. at least according to Dad, I never read it.

Always ask WHY in these cases;) I haven't read it either, but I do know that Jesus marries Mary Madgeline (I don't know how to spell her name:p) and that he didn't die on the cross. This is enough for me to call it blasphemy.

It depends. A book like The Da Vinci Code may be good writing, but it's theology is majorly wacked. at least according to Dad, I never read it.

Usually, if I read a book or watch a movie like that, I have learned to read or watch with a discerning eye. This means that I don't just go along with what's presented, but I am able to catch stuff that is designed to persuade me to the writer or the director's viewpoint.

We love LoTR, and Chronicles of Narnia. I am currently writing a fantasy book myself, and once again, I say that we will watch stuff like that, but we're careful what we watch, and what we watch, we carefully watch it.

So in your fantasy book, how are you handling religion? Are the characters followers of known religions, or are you making up a fictional pantheon of gods and goddesses?

Is it a sin to create fictional universes? Is it tantamount to playing a creator god of some kind? It's in your mind, but Jesus did talk about how lust and adultery can be committed within the mind.

And in a fantasy world, fictional pantheons of deities are a staple. Is it a sin to create such images in your mind and put to paper? And is it a sin for one to also create characters that worship those non-Christian gods? It's seems so, in an intangible way.

Is it a sin to create fictional universes? Is it tantamount to playing a creator god of some kind? It's in your mind, but Jesus did talk about how lust and adultery can be committed within the mind.

No it isn't, its just fiction.

There's nothing sinful about writing, in fact, it helps the imagination.

Wanting to play God is more you saying you know better than God in real life. Not writing fiction.

And in a fantasy world, fictional pantheons of deities are a staple. Is it a sin to create such images in your mind and put to paper? And is it a sin for one to also create characters that worship those non-Christian gods? It's seems so, in an intangible way.

Actually, there are some fantasy books (Usually ones with Christian writers) that don't contain such, but even if they did, its not sinful in a fiction book. Its only sinful if the message of the book goes against God and who he is.

I'd consider some things "Too close to home" and other things to be just fantasy. The Da Vinci Code falls more under "Too close to home." Its taking truth and really twisting it. While mythology is just that, myth.

So in your fantasy book, how are you handling religion? Are the characters followers of known religions, or are you making up a fictional pantheon of gods and goddesses?

:lol: I haven't actually figured out religion yet. I'm not going to create one, I know that. But if I did, I would probably make it Christian themed, but something along the lines of Narnia. "You know me by this name, but in your world, I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name." Along the lines of that.

Is it a sin to create fictional universes? Is it tantamount to playing a creator god of some kind? It's in your mind, but Jesus did talk about how lust and adultery can be committed within the mind.
I don't think so, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who thinks that way.

And in a fantasy world, fictional pantheons of deities are a staple. Is it a sin to create such images in your mind and put to paper? And is it a sin for one to also create characters that worship those non-Christian gods? It's seems so, in an intangible way.

Well.....it's hard to say. I understand your point here, and I think it is a very fine line. I think in a fictional sense, there is no problem with doing so, if only because they are not real, and you are not worshiping them. If I was creating them for the purpose of worshiping them, that would be a sin. To create a character who worships those gods, I think would also not be a sin, because you could point out the difference in their life, and a Christian character's life.

Now I have a class to go to, so I expect some good questions when I return!

Now I have a class to go to, so I expect some good questions when I return!

:rolleyes: Oh, I'm sorry, were my questions not good enough? :p

What evidence is there to conclude that the Bible was divinely inspired?
Prophecies of Jesus Christ.
What non-circular evidence do you have for this?

Dante? :lol: That was written in the worst period of Church history (At the time when the Catholic Church had really gone off the deep end and there were very few true Christians). And even the Catholics don't take Dante seriously.
Now you're into No True Scotsman territory again. How are you even slightly qualified to rule on the nature of Christian belief and its adherents in the 13th Century?

If you're looking for questions, perhaps you'd have some time to respond to mine (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10860058&postcount=103)?

1. How do you reconcile factual errors in found in The Inerrant Word Of God?

2. How do you determine which passages of the Inerrant Word Of God are meant to be taken literally and factual, and which are to be read as metaphorical?

3. What is the purpose of the Bible?

There's always El Machinae's question which has either been ignored or sidestepped.

To think that the Bible is infallible, I'd imagine that you'd have to see enough 'true things' in the Bible to be convinced that it was reasonable to think it infallible, and then to have faith that the rest is infallible. What're some of the thing in the Bible that you find 'obviously true' and 'interesting'? ("Obviously true", in that you'd think even skeptics should find it plausible). Where are your borders for things that are 'interesting' but at the same time don't have a reasonable amount of evidence? (i.e., you'd expect a skeptic to not find it plausible)

:lol:

Its NOT because you don't believe. Its because you have SINNED and have nothing to cover your sin, thus you must face it yourself.
I hope you realize that it's impolite to laugh at somebody who posts a genuine question in an "ask a ..." thread.

I hope you realize that it's impolite to laugh at somebody who posts a genuine question in an "ask a ..." thread.

I realize it can be taken that way.

However, the reason wasn't for the fact that he says he is an atheist and that he questions why he should go to Hell for his nonbelief. Its a common and repetetive question, but that wasn't why I laughed.

I laughed since he claimed he did "Nothing but good in this world." There isn't a person who can claim this, anywhere, anytime. I'm sorry, you just can't. And my post below the laugh explains why.

I realize it can be taken that way.

However, the reason wasn't for the fact that he says he is an atheist and that he questions why he should go to Hell for his nonbelief. Its a common and repetetive question, but that wasn't why I laughed.

I laughed since he claimed he did "Nothing but good in this world." There isn't a person who can claim this, anywhere, anytime. I'm sorry, you just can't. And my post below the laugh explains why.

So is non-belief a sin?

Not in itself, but everyone sins, believer or not.

Its like asking if not taking a cure for cancer is going to give you cancer. No, its not, but you've already got the cancer, the cure gets rid of it.

I realize it can be taken that way.

However, the reason wasn't for the fact that he says he is an atheist and that he questions why he should go to Hell for his nonbelief. Its a common and repetetive question, but that wasn't why I laughed.

I laughed since he claimed he did "Nothing but good in this world." There isn't a person who can claim this, anywhere, anytime. I'm sorry, you just can't. And my post below the laugh explains why.
Not the point. His post was a hypothetical anyway, and even then, it's an "ask a ..." thread so people are likely to come here with misconceptions. You can't laugh at everyone who displays one here.

Not the point. His post was a hypothetical anyway, and even then, it's an "ask a ..." thread so people are likely to come here with misconceptions. You can't laugh at everyone who displays one here.

That is a fair point. I expect misconceptions. But when someone claims they've done "Nothing but good" that's simply arrogant.

If it was a hypothetical that puts a better light on it. Its still a ridiculous hypothetical, but its not arrogant, so I wouldn't have laughed in this case.

That is a fair point. I expect misconceptions. But when someone claims they've done "Nothing but good" that's simply arrogant.

If it was a hypothetical that puts a better light on it. Its still a ridiculous hypothetical, but its not arrogant, so I wouldn't have laughed in this case.
I think it's a good hypothetical still, because it tackles an issue that's a common misunderstanding.

Why do most good Christians hate socialism (not just Christians, Muslims and most religions), it doesn't always have to be the opium of the masses, a lot of socialist nations had freedom of religion, it just wasn't state.

I think most nominally Marxist countries tried to wipe out religion; the long-term persecution of the church in Russia, for example, and China has extremely limited freedom of religion.

Would you kill someone if God, through whatever means you communicate with it, told you to do it?
Really interested in the answer to this. I'd imagine this would be quite the moral conundrum. Keeping in mind that someone to mean anyone. So please no answers in the line of: "If he's a mass murderer I would". Just assume you don't know anything about this person.

Really interested in the answer to this. I'd imagine this would be quite the moral conundrum. Keeping in mind that someone to mean anyone. So please no answers in the line of: "If he's a mass murderer I would". Just assume you don't know anything about this person.

Yes, I would. That said, I'd have to really know he told me to do it, and if he did, I'd ASSUME there was some reason he wanted me to do it. If I wasn't really certain it was him, I'd be the Devil's Advocate and assume it was a demon.

@Nedim- Your question is a very complex one, so I'll get back to it once I catch up;)

Yes, I would. That said, I'd have to really know he told me to do it, and if he did, I'd ASSUME there was some reason he wanted me to do it. If I wasn't really certain it was him, I'd be the Devil's Advocate and assume it was a demon.

@Nedim- Your question is a very complex one, so I'll get back to it once I catch up;)

You make it sound like it would be hard to tell the difference between the voice of God and a demon :confused: But I guess if a demon isn't good at deception . . . what is it good at? But how would you know if it was a demon or not? Is there a litmus test of some kind?

If you ended up listening to the voice that told you to kill, would you try to get out of criminal charges? Would you try to defend yourself to a jury by saying, "God told me to" ?

On a related note, why don't people get more understanding when they say "the devil made me do it" ? If you believe in demonic possession, why should they be punished for something that was done against their will?

If you ended up listening to the voice that told you to kill, would you try to get out of criminal charges? Would you try to defend yourself to a jury by saying, "God told me to" ?

No, I'd trust God to free me. If anything, I'd ask for the death penalty, since that's what a legal murder deserves.

Of course, its not like God is ever going to ask me that.

On a related note, why don't people get more understanding when they say "the devil made me do it" ? If you believe in demonic possession, why should they be punished for something that was done against their will?

Well, because people who say the Devil made them are usually making excuses rather than really being demon possessed. Even then, getting possessed in the first place doesn't just happen, you have to open yourself up to it.

No, I'd trust God to free me. If anything, I'd ask for the death penalty, since that's what a legal murder deserves.


That does actually make some sense. I take it you assume that if it were the hypothetical evil demon, God would take pity and sort you out at some point?

edit: never mind then.

How tall was the Tower of Babel, and why hasn't God smote any of our modern day sky scrapers?

Not sure how tall it was, but it wasn't because of its height that God did it, it was because the people were refusing to scatter, and instead building a tower to Heaven. They thought they could reach God through their own efforts. God was proving this was impossible.

How does Satan have the power to defy God?

Satan only has as much power as God permits him to have. God can defeat Satan anytime he chooses.

Do you believe in the lost city of Atlantis?

Not really, but the myth probably came from something flood-related.,

If Jesus was god, why didn't he teach his disciples about things like harmful microbes? I seem to recall him saying that 'it isn't what goes into your mouth that can harm you, but what comes out of it' in response to criticism that his disciples didn't wash their hands before meals. Doesn't this reveal a flaw in his knowledge?

Jesus didn't come to make sure people died at 60 rather than 40:p He came to save our very souls.

Besides, that wasn't his point. The Pharisees were claiming that eating "Unclean" foods would make one spiritually unclean (A sinner.) Christ was rejecting this idea.

When I asked Domination why do you think god is in three parts (holy trinity). He said god is like an egg, made out of three parts. But why would god be made out of three parts. Since god is all powerful logic implies that he should be one not made out of parts and isn't that kind off polytheism, if he's made out off three parts then each part is divine so three gods?

EDIT: Why would god make (or be) himself like an egg when he made the egg

If I said God was like an egg, it was supposed to be an illustration of how the Trinity works, and not supposed to be very accurate. Basically, God is God in three persons. There's not really any way to "Explain" this, it is simply taught in the Bible.

When does a person officially die? When their brain dies, or when their heart stops? Or both?

Not sure.

Do you believe in more than 3 spatial dimensions?

Again, no idea. This isn't something that I can perceive of having religious connotations anyways.

Why did God create such a humongous universe, if he was only going to populate a tiny speck-of-a-speck-of-a-speck of said universe?



1. How do you reconcile factual errors in found in The Inerrant Word Of God?

What errors?

2. How do you determine which passages of the Inerrant Word Of God are meant to be taken literally and factual, and which are to be read as metaphorical?

Context. For instance, in one case John said he "Saw a beast rising out of the sea" but that's obviously a metaphor. Jesus rising from the dead, well, Paul clarifies that this isn't a metaphor. It just depends on context. But I think anything you need for Salvation is pretty clear. The rest we pursue after we are already Christians.

3. What is the purpose of the Bible?

To show us the predicament we are in (Sin) and how to be saved from it (Belief in
Ok, so let me set the scene.

[QUOTE]You are just waking up from a great night of sleep and have just sat down to your favorite breakfast. When all of a sudden, your dad barges in the room. "Son, son, listen," your dad shouts, "God visited me last night and said I must make a sacrifice of you to show that I love Him!"

As he says this, you notice that he is holding a knife and a length of rope. "I must sacrifice you as the Lord commands! Come on son, we have to make an altar in the backyard for me to kill you on. Grab a hammer!"

This couldn't happen, as Verarde so aptly explained. Plus, human sacrifice was specifically banned in the Mosaic Law. Abraham wasn't aware of the Mosaic Law, which wasn't strictly broken since God spared him at the last second.

Well, I immediately would tell him that he must have converted to Judaism during the night, because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice upon the cross, and there is no need to sacrifice anymore.

:goodjob:

So you would question your dad's sanity before questioning the Bible?

Yes. I've questioned his sanity many times;)

Doesn't your portrayal of the conversion violate one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Which one?



The unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible (Mark 3 and Matthew 12) was in reference to when the pharisees saying the Holy Spirit of God was the unclean spirit of Satan, even after seeing the good miracles done towards suffering people out of love and kindness.

You cannot accidently commit this sin; but IIRC it is permanantly rejecting Christ to such an extreme, that it is impossible for that person to ever come back to repentance. If you even have a passing thought of possibly accepting Christ, than you haven't committed the unpardonable sin that the Bible speaks about.

My opinion is the only way you can commit this sin is if you have maximum knowledge of Christ and yet reject him. The Pharisees saw God in the Flesh doing miracles, so they had this knowledge. Its not possible for us to do this today, unless, as Downtown so well put it in another thread "God showed up at your front door and you told him to buzz off."

Why do most good Christians hate socialism (not just Christians, Muslims and most religions), it doesn't always have to be the opium of the masses, a lot of socialist nations had freedom of religion, it just wasn't state.

That all depends what you mean by socialism. Strictly speaking, Christianity SUPPORTS communes, if they are voluntary and not forced. Most socialist countries force people to give their wealth, which is what most Christians (That I know, its probably different in a more liberal Europe) oppose it.

That does actually make some sense. I take it you assume that if it were the hypothetical evil demon, God would take pity and sort you out at some point?

Not necessarily. I take it as God is going to take care of me. If I die, I'll be meeting him on the other side.

That said, I don't see either God or a demon telling me to kill someone. As I am a Christian, I find it unlikely that a demon could do anything to me unless I was EXTREMELY neglectful of my faith, and even then it couldn't possess me as the Holy Spirit is already inside me.

Yes, that's being assumed. At least I think so.
Not necessarily, as per above;)

Satan only has as much power as God permits him to have. God can defeat Satan any time he chooses.
Yet God keeps Satan around to tempt his beloved children into sin?

Not really, but the myth probably came from something flood-related.
I think that Plato's comments on Atlantis are supposed to date Atlantis to approximately 9,600 BC. If you're looking for a grand, overarching, diluvian theory, the sinking of an entire continent beneath the waves might well trigger a massive flood in the Mediterranean.

If I said God was like an egg, it was supposed to be an illustration of how the Trinity works, and not supposed to be very accurate. Basically, God is God in three persons. There's not really any way to "Explain" this, it is simply taught in the Bible.
So where is the Holy Trinity explicitly spelled out in the Bible?

That all depends what you mean by socialism. Strictly speaking, Christianity SUPPORTS communes, if they are voluntary and not forced. Most socialist countries force people to give their wealth, which is what most Christians (That I know, its probably different in a more liberal Europe) oppose it.
Isn't it more likely that either people are greedy or Americans are still scared of anything remotely socialist/Communist?

Satan only has as much power as God permits him to have. God can defeat Satan anytime he chooses.

Why doesn't he then?

Even then, getting possessed in the first place doesn't just happen, you have to open yourself up to it.

Can I get a link to some scripture here, please?

Why doesn't he then?

Even Satan has to have free will.

Even Satan has to have free will.

Why exactly?

Even Satan has to have free will.

Couldn't an all-powerful god create a universe with free will and no evil?

Couldn't an all-powerful god create a universe with free will and no evil?

In that vein, if God knows everything, why would he create the serpent knowing full-well the serpent would trick humans into sinning?

Even Satan has to have free will.

That doesn't answer the question. Why doesn't God *poof* Satan out of existence?

1. How do you reconcile factual errors in found in The Inerrant Word Of God?

What errors?


Well, I suppose I could hunt around on the internet and find something specific. But I kind of think that the general opening paragraphs are a good place to start. It's pretty well established that there's no way the the Universe evolved along the lines spelled out in Genesis. We can also talk about the different versions of how Humans came to be (I think I heard somewhere that the bible actually contains 2 conflicting stories...)

Oh wait - I did find something specific. And it seems to be almost as important as the creation of the Universe (at least, I think it would be for anyone who thinks that Jesus was God On Earth):

Look to the start of Jesus' life - you know, that familiar story about how his mom and her husband had to report back to a certain precinct for a census. There is very good historical evidence that the new testament birth story version of that census is factually in error. The Romans were excellent administrators - there are multiple converging lines of reasoning that lead to trusting the historical record over the biblical one here. There was no census like the one that Luke described, and Matthew's tale placed the birth of the Son Of God nearly a decade earlier. Both cannot be correct. There must be at least one factual error here.

How to reconcile? By what criteria do you decide which tale to accept and which to reject?


Context. For instance, in one case John said he "Saw a beast rising out of the sea" but that's obviously a metaphor. Jesus rising from the dead, well, Paul clarifies that this isn't a metaphor. It just depends on context.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why John's story is 'obviously a metaphor' but Paul's isn't. I also don't know (without you providing a link or a quote) why you think Paul has made it clear that the whole resurrection isn't to be taken at face value: a metaphor (a beautiful one, to be sure!).

You still haven't answered the question I posed: What criteria do you use in deciding which stories are to be read as fact, and which are to be taken as metaphor.

3. Purpose of the Bible: To show us the predicament we are in (Sin) and how to be saved from it (Belief in...?
I think the last of your response got snipped in a copy.paste tragedy. But there's enough there for me to at least respond that I don't see why your answer is satisfactory. I mean, do you really think that all those people spent all that time to establish a corpus of oral history, fables, and life-lessons that could be boiled down to 'your great^40 grandmother literally ate an apple, therefore if I tell you to kill someone you should do it or you'll be sorry forever and ever (unless I'm a demon and then I'll save you anyways) repent and accept none of the other gods that millions of other people swear by'.

Couldn't an all-powerful god create a universe with free will and no evil?

I don't believe you would have free will if you are unable to choose. God wants you to love and praise Him by your own choice, not by forcing you to.

In that vein, if God knows everything, why would he create the serpent knowing full-well the serpent would trick humans into sinning?

The serpent is believed to have been Satan, who at one time was a cherub; but wished to be God, and sinned against God, and was thrown out from heaven.

That doesn't answer the question. Why doesn't God *poof* Satan out of existence?

In your scenario, you yourself and the rest of humanity would be *poofed* out of existence and thrown to the lake of fire for our sins. That is just, but God's grace and mercy can save us through the sacrifice of King Jesus so that we can be washed clean of our transgressions.

Why doesn't he then?

Same as above. God is patient for us to repent our sins and be saved.

You make it sound like it would be hard to tell the difference between the voice of God and a demon :confused: But I guess if a demon isn't good at deception . . . what is it good at? But how would you know if it was a demon or not? Is there a litmus test of some kind?

Devils and demons are very good at deception. Know this, Satan (Lucifer) was the highest, most wise, most powerful being. The world has been deceived that Hell and Satan don't even exist to some majority. Probably the greatest deception. Others include false doctrine, lust, pride, arrogance, vanity, lying, false prophets doing miracles dreams or visions, bitterness, attacks faith, etc..

You know by the doctrine of truth, the Word of God. If it goes against God's Word, it is not from the Lord. Without God's Word, we are open to everything Satan can throw at us.

Well, I suppose I could hunt around on the internet and find something specific. But I kind of think that the general opening paragraphs are a good place to start. It's pretty well established that there's no way the the Universe evolved along the lines spelled out in Genesis. We can also talk about the different versions of how Humans came to be (I think I heard somewhere that the bible actually contains 2 conflicting stories...)

Oh wait - I did find something specific. And it seems to be almost as important as the creation of the Universe (at least, I think it would be for anyone who thinks that Jesus was God On Earth):

Look to the start of Jesus' life - you know, that familiar story about how his mom and her husband had to report back to a certain precinct for a census. There is very good historical evidence that the new testament birth story version of that census is factually in error. The Romans were excellent administrators - there are multiple converging lines of reasoning that lead to trusting the historical record over the biblical one here. There was no census like the one that Luke described, and Matthew's tale placed the birth of the Son Of God nearly a decade earlier. Both cannot be correct. There must be at least one factual error here.

How to reconcile? By what criteria do you decide which tale to accept and which to reject?

Remember, an unknown does not make something false. Alas, there are solutions to this problem. Therefore, if solutions are present, although it may be unknown which, or there may be other unknowns, it doesn't make it an error.

I don't believe you would have free will if you are unable to choose. God wants you to love and praise Him by your own choice, not by forcing you to.

But wouldn't an all-powerful god be able to eliminate evil and preserve free will?

How do you justify being so overt in your religion in the public sphere given Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees?

But wouldn't an all-powerful god be able to eliminate evil and preserve free will?

Heres long answer to my understanding, since I will be gone for some days.

If God didn't allow Adam and Eve to choose, wouldn't they just be nothing more than robots, or puppets, or computers. Free will is obviously more complicated than we think, because of allowing choice. God wants us to love Him and give Him thanks and praise, and of course He didn't want us to know evil. Satan already rebelled when he sinned and many other angels with him.

Could He have done so? I'm sure it is probably possible, but we would be more like people that are forced to love God due to no choice, than wanting to love God. And we aren't the only ones that suffer; remember, every time we do something bad, we hurt God. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit of the trinity are persons. We should be grieved for our hurtful actions and continued rebellion against Him.

When you get married, do you want your husband/wife to choose to love you back? Of course you do. Would you feel right by forcing your husband/wife to love you with no other choice?

Would you die to save your child's life? We are children to God, and Christ our King died to save His children (us). Although our love is wretched, God's love is perfect and forever. We can always trust and count on Him; but we must give our hearts and lives to our Holy Lord and live for Him. We cannot do it ourselves, but through Christ we can!

There is no other hope the world offers, for we all know that death could be only a minute away. And there is 0% chance of escaping death, something we all have in common; and we should all seriously think about and consider the consequences of death, for it is always near! Death is our only entitlement. We all know deceit runs rampant in society, so make sure you know the truth; because your eternity relies on it!

What is the purpose of our short life, and why live it if there is nothing at the end of our road? What good is toiling for tons of stuff when you take nothing with you once gone. Why live with such uncertainty trusting in a world that is broken and shattered, and will ultimately disappoint us?

The serpent is believed to have been Satan, who at one time was a cherub; but wished to be God, and sinned against God, and was thrown out from heaven.

That doesn't really answer my question, though. Why didn't God bar Satan from the garden, since God must've known Satan was evil and he must've known what Satan would do. I think having the conscious ability to prevent evil but then choosing not to is actually a form of evil in itself, is it not?

How do you justify being so overt in your religion in the public sphere given Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees?

not an evangelical protestant by any sense of the word but I think I am able to answer this since it is a matter relating to every religious person (and the answer presumably will be the same). Firstly a question

Is this not the same Jesus who commanded his followers to go forth and spread the word?

Secondly, Jesus didn't criticise the pharisees for being pious publicly, he criticised them because they forgot the spirit of that law and they took a purely legalistic point of view without reference to the personal experience of God that is the underlying spring that gives life to the law. This then is manifested in that they imposed a burden on the people, and yet for them (with presumably some exceptions) personally the real spring of personal holiness flowed only weakly.

If there is something an evangelical protestant wants to say to add to this then go ahead.

Remember, an unknown does not make something false. Alas, there are solutions to this problem. Therefore, if solutions are present, although it may be unknown which, or there may be other unknowns, it doesn't make it an error.

What??
I don't see how this answers my question. If I understand you correctly you're saying that if one of the gospels reports that Jesus said 2 + 2 = 4 while a different gospel claims Jesus said 2 + 2 = 5 you'll claim that both are correct?

Either something is true or it isn't. Likewise, with history, either something happened or it didn't. Either the census happened or it didn't. We have evidence independent from the Inerrant Word Of God that it happened in a year that contradicts the gospel's claim. They cannot both be correct.

But the way you reconcile this is by saying 'there must be an unknown that will make the bible passage match with reality'?...

What??
I don't see how this answers my question. If I understand you correctly you're saying that if one of the gospels reports that Jesus said 2 + 2 = 4 while a different gospel claims Jesus said 2 + 2 = 5 you'll claim that both are correct?

Either something is true or it isn't. Likewise, with history, either something happened or it didn't. Either the census happened or it didn't. We have evidence independent from the Inerrant Word Of God that it happened in a year that contradicts the gospel's claim. They cannot both be correct.

But the way you reconcile this is by saying 'there must be an unknown that will make the bible passage match with reality'?...

Being the way the calender is there is a spread of 10 years from 5 BC to 5 AD when His birth could have happened. First of all the Bible gives references to certain happenings. Yes God could have NOT personalized each Gospel and just put one factual account that was historically correct, but even "historical" accounts do not even agree with each other, and the further from the time they happened even more so.

People keeping asking how a God outside our reality can even "appear" to humans and when He inspires "authors" to write about Himself, He gets criticized for doing such a poor job that even modern man can shoot holes in it. If modern man can live one second without God, then I would like to see him try. Instead of picking and choosing what one wants to hear, one should just be silent and listen. God will not call everyone, and those He does call has a choice to make. Now God is not willing that any should die, but it is statistically impossible that evey one is going to follow God. Out of the many humans in the Bible, there are only a hand full of people who trusted God enough to do what He asked them to do. We are sheep and we tend to go our own miserable ways, even if it means we will destroy ourselves. If men who think they can live without God cannot even bring peace and end human suffering, how do you expect men to do so who do not even obey God? We have the choice to put other's needs before our own, but how many people do that?

There are those here who still think faith is a step. I do not hold that opinion. God calls and we do. There is no faith needed in God deciding to call a person. God either calls or does not call. If God calls, then one can accept or refuse. A personal relationship with God is not a religion nor is it even a Faith. It is being obedient to God. God gave the Bible to those who have obeyed the "call" of God. To those who have not been called it is foolishness and full of contradictions. Faith is only accorded to those who hear the call and do it, and usually only God knows if that person has faith or not. Many who obey God would never say 100 per cent they have faith. Personal doubt and feelings can creep in, but God does promise that those who take Him at His Word (the Bible or some life experience) and they obey God will live in eternity with God. That is the New Testament (Covenant) sent to the Gentiles until God begins working with the Jews directly again.

Religion is man made and like the Pharisees it is an open lifestyle that makes people feel good, but God is no where near it. God is a personal God and connects with humans on a personal level, not a "follow some man's wisdom" level.

PS I have been spending too much time playing V, selfish human that I am. Work has been picking up which my boss is happy about also = less time online.

not an evangelical protestant by any sense of the word but I think I am able to answer this since it is a matter relating to every religious person (and the answer presumably will be the same). Firstly a question

Is this not the same Jesus who commanded his followers to go forth and spread the word?

Secondly, Jesus didn't criticise the pharisees for being pious publicly, he criticised them because they forgot the spirit of that law and they took a purely legalistic point of view without reference to the personal experience of God that is the underlying spring that gives life to the law. This then is manifested in that they imposed a burden on the people, and yet for them (with presumably some exceptions) personally the real spring of personal holiness flowed only weakly.

If there is something an evangelical protestant wants to say to add to this then go ahead.

That's part of the answer. The other part of it is that the Pharisees were public for the purpose of showing themselves off, not showing off Christ. Praying the same prayers over and over again to gain attention, giving to the needy only to be seen as good people, and so on. They were very ritualistic.

Of course, Catholicism is in part very ritualistic as well, and I really don't get why they choose to take such an approach when it is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. But, alas, I'm not Catholic and so cannot say.

That's part of the answer. The other part of it is that the Pharisees were public for the purpose of showing themselves off, not showing off Christ. Praying the same prayers over and over again to gain attention, giving to the needy only to be seen as good people, and so on. They were very ritualistic.

Of course, Catholicism is in part very ritualistic as well, and I really don't get why they choose to take such an approach when it is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. But, alas, I'm not Catholic and so cannot say.

ergo they preached about a purely dogmatic faith, but forgot the necessity of the personal call of holiness, which for them flowed only weakly as I previously said...

-

Christ never condemned ritual, he condemned the purely intellectual dogmatic mentality that was epitomised by the pharisees. Indeed this reminds me of something the pope said along the lines of (paraphrasing) "a purely dogmatic faith without personal holiness is dead, and a personal faith without the law is but blind."

One must have both the law, which the pharisees had AND personal faith and holiness with it. This accord between the personal call to God and the law, of faith and reason is what comes together as a full and mature faith in its true understanding. If you have the law but lack faith your faith is dead, if you have the faith but deny the law then it is blind.

Of course, Catholicism is in part very ritualistic as well, and I really don't get why they choose to take such an approach when it is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. But, alas, I'm not Catholic and so cannot say.

This summer a friend of mine became really interested in Catholicism, and he asked me to read books and watch videos with him to serve as a kind of neutral party for him to have objective conversations with, since his Protestant and Catholic friends would have been biased in encouraging him either way. We watched a lot of conversion stories from Christians of various stripes (including the very low-brow protestants like Pentecostals), and I noticed a key point in every story we watched was that these guys had gone back to the writings of the original church and noticed a lot of emphasis on the liturgical form and the Eucharist. I understand Orthodox Judaism has a strong liturgical strength, and that's probably why the early church and those which have maintained that tradition employ it. As far as ritual -- well, there were many mystery cults in those days, and Christianity's communion would be just been one example. If you want to know why Catholics are ritualistic, ask why there were so many mystery cults back then. I've been going to an Episcopal church recently to spend time with friends, and I must say I rather like all the ritual. It emphasizes the fact that church is sacred, serious business -- certainly not a feeling I've ever gotten observing protestant services.

I asked earlier about writing fictional stories containing non-Christian religions and intagibly playing "God" by creating an alternate universe in your mind.

I was more or less satisfied with the answer I got, so I'll let that one go.

But what about "god games" ? The video game I am thinking of, in particular, is Black and White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_%26_White_(video_game)).

In a perfect world, people wouldn't need gods. But perfect worlds can't exist and sooner or later someone, in trouble, desperate, will pray to the heavens. This is what happens in the beginning of Black & White.

Your new tribe bow before you in awe, and from this moment your prayer power starts to grow. As you carry out godly acts, the belief in you rises and more and more people are convinced that worshipping you in the way forward. But you can be good or evil. You may choose to rule the world as you wish.

I asked earlier about writing fictional stories containing non-Christian religions and intagibly playing "God" by creating an alternate universe in your mind.

I was more or less satisfied with the answer I got, so I'll let that one go.

But what about "god games" ? The video game I am thinking of, in particular, is Black and White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_%26_White_(video_game)).

As long as its totally fictional, and not any sort of brainwashing tool (Trying to influence people to New Age or something) I don't see a real problem with it.

not an evangelical protestant by any sense of the word but I think I am able to answer this since it is a matter relating to every religious person (and the answer presumably will be the same). Firstly a question

Is this not the same Jesus who commanded his followers to go forth and spread the word?

Secondly, Jesus didn't criticise the pharisees for being pious publicly, he criticised them because they forgot the spirit of that law and they took a purely legalistic point of view without reference to the personal experience of God that is the underlying spring that gives life to the law. This then is manifested in that they imposed a burden on the people, and yet for them (with presumably some exceptions) personally the real spring of personal holiness flowed only weakly.

If there is something an evangelical protestant wants to say to add to this then go ahead.

That's part of the answer. The other part of it is that the Pharisees were public for the purpose of showing themselves off, not showing off Christ. Praying the same prayers over and over again to gain attention, giving to the needy only to be seen as good people, and so on. They were very ritualistic.

Of course, Catholicism is in part very ritualistic as well, and I really don't get why they choose to take such an approach when it is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. But, alas, I'm not Catholic and so cannot say.

What pharisees? Jesus was criticizing people who pray in the synagogues and streets. So how did Christians get the idea Jesus wants them to pray in churches and streets "sincerely"? Here is what Jesus said:

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’

14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Now where in all that did Jesus tell people to pray in public? He left specific instructions to pray privately instead of doing as the hypocrites who pray in public. And if "deeds" are not the basis of Christian salvation why did Jesus tell people they gotta forgive trespassers or God wont forgive them? How can a truly Christian nation have jails? If Christians can jail people they forgive, does that mean God can forgive and punish everyone regardless of any religion?

What pharisees? Jesus was criticizing people who pray in the synagogues and streets. So how did Christians get the idea Jesus wants them to pray in churches and streets "sincerely"? Here is what Jesus said:

The second half is not my problem (I would be giving specifically Catholic teaching on the issue) and I will leave it to a dutiful evangelical to examine that.

As to the first half however that can be taken as a generic. As to that question, it appears to me that you are taking a single passage from the bible and making conclusions based on a single passage. Always an erroneous way to look at the bible which must be taken as a coherent whole.

So for example in focussing on your single passage you conveniently miss Luke 11:39-44 which has some very illuminating words from Christ. (I will use the favoured translation of the evangelical in the quotation for character purposes :p )

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them

Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered

And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

he seems rather critical here of the pharisees, and indeed by hypocrites who stand on streetcorners the implication is that he is talking about said pharisees and other such folk. As to the praying ostentatiously on streetcorners thing, that is not commanded by christianity in any form that I am aware of making that point of yours rather odd, and as to praying in church, well there is nothing wrong with that unless you want to go obstentatiously waving your arms around and emitting noise to make a show?

What is condemned is public and ostentatious acts of false piety, without any real internal faith and love of God behind that manifestation, which in the example of the pharisees is thus devoid of this interior state, and is at best enacted out of a dead dogmatism devoid of real faith (as I said previously) and at worst is enacted purely for some temporal gain on the part of the "pharisee", say reputation and high standing in society.

As long as its totally fictional, and not any sort of brainwashing tool (Trying to influence people to New Age or something) I don't see a real problem with it.Ironic statement and use of the word "brainwashing" given the importance put on proselytising by many Christians. If I'd dared to call Christian proselytising "brainwashing" many would have a hissy fit. What would the difference be between trying to influence people towards New Age and trying to influence people towards Christianity?

Are you, as an Evangelical Christian opposed to both?

I find the Lord's Prayer up there interesting, because it seems to suggest that we pray to be forgiven as we've forgiven others. Now, my interpretation of Christianity is that attaining 'total forgiveness' is much more difficult than many evangelicals seem to think, and that passage is one of the ones that suggests this to me.

So, to ask an evangelical (from another thread)



People who kill others have lost the right to live, simple as that. They chose to do the irreversable action to someone else, it should be done to them.



Is murdering someone really 'irreversible'? And (oh yea of little faith), why do you make arguments as if it was actually irreversible? If your moral argument is built upon sand, it cannot stand the rain. And, it seems to me, that murder as easy to reverse as it would be to cure a leper, cast out a demon, or get a mountain to cast itself into the sea. No?

edit: A second question (as a hypothetical): how would your faith handle evidence of intelligence extra-terrestrial aliens?

Ironic statement and use of the word "brainwashing" given the importance put on proselytising by many Christians. If I'd dared to call Christian proselytising "brainwashing" many would have a hissy fit. What would the difference be between trying to influence people towards New Age and trying to influence people towards Christianity?

Are you, as an Evangelical Christian opposed to both?

It seems that brainwashing leaves out the ability to chose. To some, Christianity is not the "option" they want to choose. Any one can choose their own way, but unless it is through Jesus, then that way is wrong, but there is still a choice. Now if only one choice is right, then it does negate the other choices, and thus negates the ability to choose. God's will is that every one accepts Jesus as the way, but God does not force one (brainwash) one into only one choice. If one lives the happiest life here and refuses to follow God, then it is here they get rewarded for any good deeds they do. If people choose to give up their will (ability to choose) to God's will, then even in misery, there is the knowledge that their reward is eternal and not in the here and now.

Evangelicals state they are commanded to "make disciples". To me, the command is to proclaim the Good News, and it is God's responsibility to "make" a disciple. Now both groups believe it is ok to teach new "followers" on the more intricate details of how to live a "proper" life. No one should take the command though to mean that unless you do as I do, you cannot follow God. Only God gives one the power to follow God in their own unique way.

Personally, I have made mistakes that I would never want others to go through, so if I said do as I do, I would be leading people down a miserable path. It is my duty and calling though, to tell others that Jesus is the way and choosing that way is the best way. Jesus should not be taken so literally that one must die for one's own salvation, for unless one can live a perfect (without blame) life, can one die for one's self. Only Jesus could die for others in that way. We are to take up our cross though and denounce the sin that we do and do not let sin have control in our life. It is the sin that should die, not us.

I find the Lord's Prayer up there interesting, because it seems to suggest that we pray to be forgiven as we've forgiven others. Now, my interpretation of Christianity is that attaining 'total forgiveness' is much more difficult than many evangelicals seem to think, and that passage is one of the ones that suggests this to me.

So, to ask an evangelical (from another thread)

Is murdering someone really 'irreversible'? And (oh yea of little faith), why do you make arguments as if it was actually irreversible? If your moral argument is built upon sand, it cannot stand the rain. And, it seems to me, that murder as easy to reverse as it would be to cure a leper, cast out a demon, or get a mountain to cast itself into the sea. No?

edit: A second question (as a hypothetical): how would your faith handle evidence of intelligence extra-terrestrial aliens?

You cannot reverse the consequence of an act. You can stop doing acts. I feel like I am harping on this "faith" issue. God knows when and how each and every one of us is going to die. There is nothing that takes God by surprise. Faith is giving oneself over to the Will of God, that He is allowed to do supernatural things through you. So when one "acts" in sin, he is defintely not purposely doing God's will, but even if that act leads to someone loosing their life it is not that God has willed that, but that God willed it to happen that way for a purpose. It is that purpose that we may never know. God knew that it was that persons time to die and no one can cheat God out of knowing that that person was going to die. God does not will people to die, but God can choose to will people to live if it is not their time to die. God does know the end from the beginning.

We have invented alternate endings to prove to ourselves that God also knows alternate outcomes, but God has never proclaimed that is a reality. We need to think that way to ration away the fact that God is not a human, but He is just and can condemn people to die. God did say that He did create people for just purposes even if they seem to us to be evil. God has allowed even in a civilized world the ability to choose to end life and it is even legal to do so. Humans rationalize it as the ability to control one's own body. Why is it ok to say that is ok, but it is not ok for God, who is not even human to allow people to die, when it is their time to die. Humans do not even give their offspring a chance to live, yet I have never seen a person ask why has God allowed this to be legal. It is usually people that are suffering, that God is questioned about. It goes back to the ability to choose. Humans have the ability to let people suffer or to help them. Mostly people make selfish choices, and it is those choice that lead to other humans suffering not that it was God's choice to do so.

Some people say that an eternity with God would be boring and then turn around and ask why God does not allow humans to live perfect lives. Seems to me that is where the disconnect in logic is, not that we cannot utilize faith to the point that God takes away the suffering of every human alive to day. Every one has been totally forgiven, but people choose to not live out that forgiveness, because they tend to choose what they feel is the right path and not let God choose their path for them. If there are ET's that God chooses to bring into the mix, we really do not have a choice now do we? They could be our benefactors or our condemners. God gave the command a life for a life not for people to kill, but to stop one person from going about and killing people without consequence to their actions. God did give the command on occasion for the eradication of a group of people that had no hope of ever following Him. So yes it is possible that God could use any thing imaginable or maybe beyond our imagination to "change" our way of thinking if that is God's purpose for us.

We refuse to accept that we did not invent God, but that God did invent us and for His pleasure not ours. So in our wicked imagination we can say that God is not fair and unjust, but that is just our imagination since we will never in this human state fully realize God.

It seems that brainwashing leaves out the ability to chose. To some, Christianity is not the "option" they want to choose. Any one can choose their own way, but unless it is through Jesus, then that way is wrong, but there is still a choice. Now if only one choice is right, then it does negate the other choices, and thus negates the ability to choose. God's will is that every one accepts Jesus as the way, but God does not force one (brainwash) one into only one choice. If one lives the happiest life here and refuses to follow God, then it is here they get rewarded for any good deeds they do. If people choose to give up their will (ability to choose) to God's will, then even in misery, there is the knowledge that their reward is eternal and not in the here and now.

Evangelicals state they are commanded to "make disciples". To me, the command is to proclaim the Good News, and it is God's responsibility to "make" a disciple. Now both groups believe it is ok to teach new "followers" on the more intricate details of how to live a "proper" life. No one should take the command though to mean that unless you do as I do, you cannot follow God. Only God gives one the power to follow God in their own unique way.

Personally, I have made mistakes that I would never want others to go through, so if I said do as I do, I would be leading people down a miserable path. It is my duty and calling though, to tell others that Jesus is the way and choosing that way is the best way. Jesus should not be taken so literally that one must die for one's own salvation, for unless one can live a perfect (without blame) life, can one die for one's self. Only Jesus could die for others in that way. We are to take up our cross though and denounce the sin that we do and do not let sin have control in our life. It is the sin that should die, not us.That's all jolly good, but that kind of makes it hypocritical to start complaining when people who subscribe to New Age Spiritualism do the same.

There is nothing that takes God by surprise

He seemed awfully surprised by the Serpent, Adam and Eve...

The second half is not my problem (I would be giving specifically Catholic teaching on the issue) and I will leave it to a dutiful evangelical to examine that.

As to the first half however that can be taken as a generic. As to that question, it appears to me that you are taking a single passage from the bible and making conclusions based on a single passage. Always an erroneous way to look at the bible which must be taken as a coherent whole.

So for example in focussing on your single passage you conveniently miss Luke 11:39-44 which has some very illuminating words from Christ. (I will use the favoured translation of the evangelical in the quotation for character purposes :p )

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them

Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered

And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

he seems rather critical here of the pharisees, and indeed by hypocrites who stand on streetcorners the implication is that he is talking about said pharisees and other such folk. As to the praying ostentatiously on streetcorners thing, that is not commanded by christianity in any form that I am aware of making that point of yours rather odd, and as to praying in church, well there is nothing wrong with that unless you want to go obstentatiously waving your arms around and emitting noise to make a show?

What is condemned is public and ostentatious acts of false piety, without any real internal faith and love of God behind that manifestation, which in the example of the pharisees is thus devoid of this interior state, and is at best enacted out of a dead dogmatism devoid of real faith (as I said previously) and at worst is enacted purely for some temporal gain on the part of the "pharisee", say reputation and high standing in society.

No convenience, I'm just reading what the Bible claims Jesus said... And I read thru all that and I still dont see where he told people to pray in public, regardless of their motives. Everything you've said is in direct conflict with his specific instruction to pray in seclusion. How do you explain that? Its right there in the Bible:

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

it cant be any more clear...

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

Indeed it is clear what is condemned is praying ostentatiously in public, to be seen by others . that is for some temporal purpose without any real internal piety. This is exactly as I said previously. On another thing the quote I said was to show that the pharisees were indeed mentioned in regards to that general problem in context despite your earlier assertion and that your quote in context is a reference to the pharisees and their ilk.

Now as to going into your room and praying, that is commanded and indeed in my earlier post if you care to read it properly I said praying ostentatiously on the streetcorner is not commanded and is not to be engaged in. However as to the commandment to pray privately it is not commanded in exclusion to going to Church or indeed praying elsewhere! He doesn't say, "pray in your room and don't meet any other christian or pray as a community or pray in any non-private location". Ergo it is a positive commandment, not a negative one, (that is it is a commandment that you are to do this, not a commandment that you are not to do this, that or another thing.)

Indeed If going to Church is condemned then why indeed did Christ teach in the synagogue at Nazareth? Why did the earliest christians with the aposles, as written in the epistles, meet together for worship? It is because what is condemned is worshipping ostentatiously to be seen, and because the commandment to pray privately and earnestly to God is not to the exclusion of worship as a community.

Your interpretation simply is erroneous and reading into scripture a personal bias. Incidentally that is the problem with sola-scriptura (amongst other things), but thats another thing all-together.

Indeed it is clear what is condemned is praying ostentatiously in public, to be seen by others . that is for some temporal purpose without any real internal piety. This is exactly as I said previously. On another thing the quote I said was to show that the pharisees were indeed mentioned in regards to that general problem in context despite your earlier assertion and that your quote in context is a reference to the pharisees and their ilk.

And their ilk? Whats that mean? Jesus identified who he was talking about, hypocrites who pray in public so they may be seen. It doesn't matter one bit if they're pharisees and their ilk or not - I identified them as Jesus did in the verse.

Now as to going into your room and praying, that is commanded and indeed in my earlier post if you care to read it properly I said praying ostentatiously on the streetcorner is not commanded and is not to be engaged in.

But you think praying on the street is fine if you're "sincere", right? So my question again, why do so many Christians ignore his instructions regarding prayer? When he pointed to the hypocrites praying in public, he didn't tell his followers to pray in public sincerely, he told them to find seclusion.

However as to the commandment to pray privately it is not commanded in exclusion to going to Church or indeed praying elsewhere! He doesn't say, "pray in your room and don't meet any other christian or pray as a community or pray in any non-private location". Ergo it is a positive commandment, not a negative one, (that is it is a commandment that you are to do this, not a commandment that you are not to do this, that or another thing.)

I dont see the difference between praying in a synagogue or a church, but if a room is not available the rest of his instruction doesn't magically transform into "pray on the street next to the hypocrites so everyone can see your sincerity". If seclusion is unavailable, then I'd buy into that argument. But that aint the case with people standing around on streets praying.

Indeed If going to Church is condemned then why indeed did Christ teach in the synagogue at Nazareth?

Teaching aint praying, and Jesus didn't condemn going to church.

Why did the earliest christians with the aposles, as written in the epistles, meet together for worship? It is because what is condemned is worshipping ostentatiously to be seen, and because the commandment to pray privately and earnestly to God is not to the exclusion of worship as a community.

Well, if they got together to pray on a street, then yes, they'd be violating Jesus' instruction.

Your interpretation simply is erroneous and reading into scripture a personal bias. Incidentally that is the problem with sola-scriptura (amongst other things), but thats another thing all-together.

I'm just quoting Jesus and you're telling me Jesus is fine with praying in churches and on streets because a room might not be available. Kinda missing the point, pray in seclusion, fast in secret, etc.

And their ilk? Whats that mean? Jesus identified who he was talking about, hypocrites who pray in public so they may be seen. It doesn't matter one bit if they're pharisees and their ilk or not - I identified them as Jesus did in the verse.

ilk = fellow hypocrites.


But you think praying on the street is fine if you're "sincere", right? So my question again, why do so many Christians ignore his instructions regarding prayer? When he pointed to the hypocrites praying in public, he didn't tell his followers to pray in public sincerely, he told them to find seclusion.

What a wonderful manner you have of putting words into my mouth that I never said. For the record praying on the street is fine so long as it is quiet and non-ostentatious. Jesus condemned praying ostentatiously, making a side-show of praying and thus making hypocrisy out of the act of prayer which is supposed to be internal.


I dont see the difference between praying in a synagogue or a church, but if a room is not available the rest of his instruction doesn't magically transform into "pray on the street next to the hypocrites so everyone can see your sincerity". If seclusion is unavailable, then I'd buy into that argument. But that aint the case with people standing around on streets praying.

Again, I never said you should go waving your arms and speaking in tongues on a streetcorner. I am saying that doing that is wrong, because it is ostentatious and making a show, I even said explicitly in my post that "what is condemned is worshipping (and praying since they are not mutually synonymous) ostentatiously to be seen" You need to read my posts properly and stop putting words in my mouth.

Teaching aint praying, and Jesus didn't condemn going to church.

good then, you are not condemning all christian activity outside the privacy of ones closet as some do.

Well, if they got together to pray on a street, then yes, they'd be violating Jesus' instruction.

They would if they were praying ostentatiously making a show so that everyone could see them. If they were on a street corner praying in their mind so that they are not drawing attention to themselves there is no problem with that, despite the fact its on a streetcorner because they are not making a show.

I'm just quoting Jesus and you're telling me Jesus is fine with praying in churches and on streets because a room might not be available. Kinda missing the point, pray in seclusion, fast in secret, etc.

Your quoting Jesus yes, and then putting your spin on the quote. The whole thread of this discussion seems to me to be you putting words into my mouth. So for example I never said "go forth and pray on a street-corner". What I am saying is that it is not sinful to go and pray quietly in any place at all, you can do it anywhere. What is sinful, as is shown in the passages brought up is praying publicly ostentatiously and making a show of what is supposed to be an internal state of mind. Prayer is meant to be interior, which is why he says go into your room to pray, this room is not only a literal room, but also the room of the soul and the mind, closed off from the distractions of the world and focused solely on a dialogue with God.

Why do so many Evangelicals shave their beards? Why don't they consider beard-shaving to be an offence to God?

Why do so many Evangelicals shave their beards? Why don't they consider beard-shaving to be an offence to God?

It would only be an offense, if you did it after God personally told you not to do it. The Nazarite vow is for those who vow it, not every one. Facial hair is a personal preference, not a commandment.

On a side note. My 2 year old daughter who grew up knowing nothing else, cried after I shaved off my beard. Now, at age 10, she says, "a beard does not look good on you", whenever I start one.

I don't think he was talking about the Nazarite vow, but Leviticus 19:26: "You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall thou mar the corners of your beard."

(Ezekiel 44:20 also prohibits shaving, as well as letting the hair grow long. This commandment to keep the hair neatly trimmed was specifically given to Levitical priests though.)


That commandment was probably given so that the Israelites would distance themselves from the practices of certain idolators, whose priests would cut their hair and beard in strange tonsures and who would shave to demonstrate to the world when they were in mourning. It is related to the commandment against tattoos and other self mutilation to honor the dead.


The groups and customs from which they were to distance themselves no longer exist. Furthermore, this was a commandment given specifically to the nation of Israel, and never expected of gentiles. It does not follow directly from any of the seven Noahide Laws, or even from the Ten Commandments. It is not related to the four commandments that the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem decided that gentiles needed to keep.

Bumping the thread to answer a couple of questions and open the thread again for new ones.

. If you want to know why Catholics are ritualistic, ask why there were so many mystery cults back then. I've been going to an Episcopal church recently to spend time with friends, and I must say I rather like all the ritual. It emphasizes the fact that church is sacred, serious business -- certainly not a feeling I've ever gotten observing protestant services.

Ritual for its own sake is just ritual (Habit) and doesn't glorify God in itself, nor is a ritualistic church service ever commanded.


Is murdering someone really 'irreversible'? And (oh yea of little faith), why do you make arguments as if it was actually irreversible? If your moral argument is built upon sand, it cannot stand the rain. And, it seems to me, that murder as easy to reverse as it would be to cure a leper, cast out a demon, or get a mountain to cast itself into the sea. No?

Obviously, God could reverse a murder, but man cannot. Also, the Bible's justice system demands Capital Punishment. Even if the murdered person were dramatically and miraculously resurrected, the murderer would still deserve death as just punishment for his crime.

edit: A second question (as a hypothetical): how would your faith handle evidence of intelligence extra-terrestrial aliens?

I doubt they exist, but if they did, I'd assume either they had never sinned, or they had souls as we do and Christ had died for them as well. But... I don't know. It is tricky. I definitely don't think they exist because of all the logical problems their existance would create.

Cool. I have a general Christian question, hope that's alright.

How did evil originate?

It evolved.

BTW, what would be your definition of evil in this context?

There are quite a few different uses for the word evil.

How about evil as any deviation from an ideally good world.

It evolved.

BTW, what would be your definition of evil in this context?

There are quite a few different uses for the word evil.Ok, I'll rephrase. How do you define evil and how did it originate?

And "it evolved"?

Evil was not created. Since no one knows if Lucifer's pride or Adam's disobedience came first, it is hard to say who got the ball rolling.

Evil to me is "unjust" behaviour. God was just in separating the light (Himself) from the darkness (not God). Those who add to God, say that the darkness is the second most powerful thing in the universe (evil). God cannot be good and at the same time be evil. I would not say that evil is the absence of God though. God is everywhere and thus there is not an absent place without God. That would mean that there is no evil. Yes, evil is not a thing. I would say that evil "stems" "evolves" from the rejection of God and justice. Athiest would just see evil as the rejection of justice, and in this they can form their own morality.

Personally evil to me is the lack and trust and respect in a God who does cary out justice, even if humanity cannot understand the reasons for doing so. Thus evil is not God nor lack of God, but it is in our perception of Who God Is.

If humans can justify carrying out evil without a conscience, then they have removed God from the equation and evil has "triumphed", at least in their world.

Why don't you guys use incense? You see its use mentioned throughout the Bible, but I've never seen or heard of it in a non-Anglican Protestant service.

How does Lucifer's "fall" factor into human evil anyway?

Evil was not created.
So, Evil was not created. Scratch one option. Back to my question: How did evil originate?

I don't know how evil originated. I can tell you how sin originated though, which is practically the same.

Sin came into existence when Eve and Adam disobeyed God's command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of life, due to temptation from the serpent, or Satan.

The very same serpent that God put there to tempt Adam and Eve, knowing full well what would happen.

Why don't you guys use incense? You see its use mentioned throughout the Bible, but I've never seen or heard of it in a non-Anglican Protestant service.

The church is free to follow however they see fit. There are no "blanket" rules to follow other than tell the Good News and Baptize. It was designed to fit into any culture and not change men from the outside, but after God changes the heart a place to re-charge from daily activities and draw strength from like minded people. The culture in some places may change, but it does not have to. There are cultures that carry on the Jewish and eastern way of burning incense, but it is not a commandment to do so.

The very same serpent that God put there to tempt Adam and Eve, knowing full well what would happen.

It is not that simple and not even that complicated. Evil is not a result of sin. Evil is sin. Evil is the lack of justice. Evil is the lack of obedience. Evil is the lack of God. Sin did not originate anywhere.

Let's say a person tells a little lie. Even just to hide the truth, to keep from hurting someones feelings, that is the "start" of an evil process. That is the point where an evil originates. It is the point where truth becomes a lie. If that process is not reversed, it will produce more evil until it gets so far out of hand that wars brake out. That is the "origin" of evil.

There comes a point where "evil" acts are no longer tolerated by God and He wipes out whole civilizations. Lucifer thought (evil) that he could do a better job than God, and he was cast out of heaven. The serpent thought (evil) that humans would be better off disobeying. Adam thought (evil) that Eve was more desirable than God and disobeyed. Peter thought (evil) that Jesus should not die, and Jesus called him satan. Satan may be the instigator of evil and plants thoughts that turn us from the Light. God is the light and in Him is no evil. Anything that tries to turn man's hearts away from God is the seed of evil and if left unchecked will destroy a persons life.

Now human justice can be carried out without God, because every soul has an eternal light (God) that guides men away from the darkness. On the very first day, God seperated the light from the darkness. This is God showing us that humans can live in the darkness but in the morning God visits and there are 12 hours of light. Humans can prosper without God's constant presence and still maintain a healthy lifestyle. To a certain extent men have self-control and the ability to govern oneself. That was how it was originally designed. God had one simple request and Adam disobyed and separation from God was permanent. So it is easier now for satan to implant a thought that can lead us to "evil" acts.

Evil is not some force that is competing against God. Satan is competing against God and uses thoughts to do so. Humans are selfish and their own thoughts can betray them as well. It is when humans and satan continue to follow a certain path that leads away from the light that darkness comes and that result is what we see as evil. Just as the night passes and day once again appears, is the fact that evil will not triumph but God always has the last say in things, and justice has to be done, for no darkness can enter into the light of God's presence. The darkness of night is not evil, it is God showing us that we are created in His image and that darkness has no power over us. This fact was established even before the sun, moon, and stars were created. When God created the sun and set the rotation of the earth He also kept the day and nighttime separate and equal. He allowed men free will and allowed men His presence as equals.

Humans will never be able to explain how God created perfection and it turned on Him. Adam may have had that knowledge. Moses may have had that knowledge. Moses penned the words that stated he would disobey God and die outside of the promised land. Moses also knew that he would live to be 120. Only Moses knew where his grave would be and that it would be hidden from maknind, for Moses was the only human who ever saw the face of God and lived. He had this promise that He would see God and live forever. That even the darkness of disobedience would not hold back his eternal soul.

So, Evil was not created. Scratch one option. Back to my question: How did evil originate?

Satan's disobedience. When he went against God's rule he rebelled against God and as a result of his disobedience he knew he was in trouble so he lied to Adam about the consequences of the actions of Adam.

So, an omnimpotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God wasn't aware of the fact his first and most glorious creation, the Morning Star, would fall and "stirred up with envy and revenge/deceived the mother of manking"?

I don't know how evil originated.Thank you. I gratefully accept "I don't know" over making stuff up on the spot any day of the week.
Satan's disobedience. When he went against God's rule he rebelled against God and as a result of his disobedience he knew he was in trouble so he lied to Adam about the consequences of the actions of Adam.
I take it Satan has free will just as any. And he had the option available to disobey God. Not sure if you also subscribe to: disobedience to God = evil. If God makes both obedience and disobedience to it an option, how has it not created evil? You have told me the first manifestation of evil. Not how it originated.

Question still stands.

Evil doesn't exist and was not created. What people call "evil" is just absence of Good, just like cold is absence of heat. Think Kelvin temperature scale.

I like this answer, at least.

I don't. If you take away Good, you do not introduce Evil, you reach a Neutral state. The temperature analogy doesn't work. You can't just say: it's like temperature, there.

Unless this is the agreed upon Christian sentiment, then it's unsatisfying tough luck for me

There's no thing as Neutral. At least, from a proper Evangelical point of view. You're either with God, or against Him. There is a way to Heaven and a way to Hell - no third way :mad:

Allow me to illustrate my point with an analogy. If I give to charity I do Good. If I don't I am apathetic, but not Evil. If I steal from charity I am Evil.

Another one. Animals don't have the awareness to create a moral system, but going by your definition they're Evil because of the absence of Good.

And I thought Atheists were misguided. It seems I was misguided on that notion as well, since it seems we're Evil. "Bwhuhahaha" and such.

When were heaven, hell and the angels created? They're not mentioned in the Genesis stories after all.

Allow me to illustrate my point with an analogy. If I give to charity I do Good. If I don't I am apathetic, but not Evil. If I steal from charity I am Evil.
A reasonable answer would be that "neutrality" is just an arbitrary zero Celsius/Fahrenheit point. +20 C is warm, 0 C is "neutral", -20 C is cold, but all off them describe the amount of energy in objects. - 20 C doesn't describe the amount of "non-energy" - but is quite cold.

Not really a reasonable answer, since you quoted an analogy (or rather an example to illustrate my point than an analogy) and are trying to use an analogy as counter. Do you, or don't you agree with what I said? (If I give to charity I do Good. If I don't I am apathetic, but not Evil. If I steal from charity I am Evil. )

You claimed: Evil is the absence of Good. But still have provided little argument to back up this assertion, except for the analogy. And analogies are a poor argument by themselves. I see lots of problems, ifs and butts with this binary thinking and the reasoning: "there is no third way". For one it implies that all Good is equal, and all Evil is equal. And there is no state which is neither Good nor Evil. From my point of view there are many gradations of Good and Evil. And there are many situations which are morally neutral.

Going to enjoy a film is Evil because you're not doing Good? Animals are Evil because they have no moral system?

"Not giving to charity" is evil, not neutral. A rock, tree, or snail is a neutral agent. There's no reason to allow the idea that 'not giving to charity' is neutral! Just because stealing is worse, I mean. Of course, it depends on why you're not giving to charity, but that's nitpicking

"Not giving to charity" is evil, not neutral. A rock, tree, or snail is a neutral agent. There's no reason to allow the idea that 'not giving to charity' is neutral! Just because stealing is worse, I mean. Of course, it depends on why you're not giving to charity, but that's nitpickingLots of Evil people in Africa. Mind you, no nitpicking now. ;)

Lets not focus on the examples. I hope you agree going to see a film is neither Good nor Evil. And that there are many more examples which would illustrate the point not every action or inaction is either Good or Evil. And so the case: Evil is the absence of Good isn't very helpful in defining Evil. I realise there can be instances where this is true, but as a definition it is lacking.

And I still wonder how Evil originated.

When were heaven, hell and the angels created? They're not mentioned in the Genesis stories after all.

I don't know. My best guess is that they were created before Genesis. Of course, there were no humans around to document it!

I don't know. My best guess is that they were created before Genesis. Of course, there were no humans around to document it!

So, on the -1st day?

So, on the -1st day?

:lol: Maybe! Who knows?

You have to remember that God has been around forever. That means no matter how far back you go, He still exists! Which is so mind-boggling, I can't comprehend it.
And if you're going to ask me what He was doing, I don't know that either.

I hope you agree going to see a film is neither Good nor Evil.
If you don't commit any Evil in the process (like sponsoring child porn or something), it's Good, since (according to liberastic non-evangelical reasoning, though) humans enjoying themselves is, per se, good. According to proper Evangelical reasoning, all that time you spent watching film could be used for Bible studies or proselytizing. Therefore, going to see a film is Evil (not good at all), unless it's a film that propagates and strengthens your inner Christianity.

I don't really support the "evil as an absence of good" theory, but it's stronger then you think.

:lol: Maybe! Who knows?

You have to remember that God has been around forever. That means no matter how far back you go, He still exists! Which is so mind-boggling, I can't comprehend it.
And if you're going to ask me what He was doing, I don't know that either.

So then there was no "beginning" because that would mean God could not have been around forever. God can only be as old as time itself.

But... I don't know. It is tricky. I definitely don't think they [extraterrestrial life] exist because of all the logical problems their existance would create.

What sort of logical problems would the confirmation of non-terrestrial life create? I don't understand how the existence of something could have an impact on logic.

Also, are you saying the the resulting logical problems preclude the existence of non-terrestrial living matter? It's a little unclear to me, the way it's worded.

And is this a common position in the Evangelical community?.. or is this just your personal stance?

Do you think there is any hidden meaning in the values of pi or e?

I don't really support the "evil as an absence of good" theory, but it's stronger then you think.I doubt it. But I am growing weary of discussing it. All I wanted to know is how Evil originated. Now I'm of the Why Bother persuasion.

These "Ask a ..." threads are great.

So then there was no "beginning" because that would mean God could not have been around forever. God can only be as old as time itself.
Yes, I think you're right. God is the "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End."
And because time itself has been around for, well, forever, God has been around for, well, forever.


And is this a common position in the Evangelical community?.. or is this just your personal stance?
I'll let Doms answer the rest of your questions/ Um, I think there is a distinct possibility, even a likelihood, of there being bacterial life, or plant life on other planets. But of a vast civilization, one the scale of humanity? No.

Do you think there is any hidden meaning in the values of pi or e?

No.

I doubt it. But I am growing weary of discussing it. All I wanted to know is how Evil originated. Now I'm of the Why Bother persuasion.

These "Ask a ..." threads are great.

:p at the Why Bother. Yes, these threads are great.

Yes, I think you're right. God is the "Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End."
And because time itself has been around for, well, forever, God has been around for, well, forever.

So how can an infinite God have a beginning or an end?

No.

Do you think God could have made the ratio of a circle's diameter and circumference, something other than pi? Like 4?

So how can an infinite God have a beginning or an end?


Perhaps I should make myself more clear. God does not have a beginning or an end.

He is the Beginning and the End. It's a metaphor. And also reality.


Do you think God could have made the ratio of a circle's diameter and circumference, something other than pi? Like 4?

Yeah, sure. 4 would have made it a lot simpler, right? But it was His will to make it pi.

Is that what the "I am the alpha and I am the omega" comes from (not exact words but paraphrased)

It's a metaphor. And also reality.

That's confusing :crazyeye: This might be hard, but any other examples that describe God metaphorically and literally simultaneously?

Is God allowed to be a contradiction?

Is this all just the failing of human language to describe something beyond us? It all sounds "deep" and artsy-fartsy (like listening to Zen dudes talk about stuff), but does it actually mean anything significant?

Is that what the "I am the alpha and I am the omega" comes from (not exact words but paraphrased)
I believe so.

That's confusing :crazyeye: This might be hard, but any other examples that describe God metaphorically and literally simultaneously?

Is God allowed to be a contradiction?

Is this all just the failing of human language to describe something beyond us? It all sounds "deep" and artsy-fartsy (like listening to Zen dudes talk about stuff), but does it actually mean anything significant?

Heh, it's confusing not only to you, but it should be confusing to all of us. I don't have time right now to find some other examples, but I think there may be some. I'm not 100% sure though.
I don't think I'm qualified to judge if God is "allowed" to be something.
Yeah, definitely the failing of human language. That's a good way to put it, and I know it sounds "deep" and "artsy-fartsy" as you say, but yes, it is significant. It shows how different God is from us and how amazing He is. It is supposed to show you, "Wow. Just...wow."

*nudges & whispers* Say it's like a circle. Infinite, with a beginning and an end. God is doughnut shaped, which explains it's popularity in America. See, it all fits :)

So how can an infinite God have a beginning or an end?



Do you think God could have made the ratio of a circle's diameter and circumference, something other than pi? Like 4?

If pi was four what would a square be?

@ Ziggy

How far from a bright light do you have to be to have darkness? Are there intermediate stages of "grey"? Evil is not an object. Evil is the distance from the light. When someone does something wrong to another person, they are not offending a third party. It is a matter between the doer and the receiver. When a person brakes a law are they an evil doer or a lawbraker? You cannot call someone evil for not picking up something you dropped on the ground and are unable to pick up your self, you would just be inconvenienced if they refuse. There is no law broken if they choose not to pick up the object. There is very little kindness shown for choosing to help you out. Evil is not doing something wrong or failing to do something right. Evil happens when the light is changed to darkness.

Is it evil when a woman chooses to end a conception. How could good men allow evil to happen. It is a choice and to me it is a "wrong" choice. Did God command that individual to not make that choice? I cannot answer that. Only the woman making the choice can do so. The Jews lived under a law given by God and it had consequences. When Christ died, He released the Jews from those consequences. The law is still there and if men choose to abide by it that is fine. Since Jesus paid the price for that law, there is no longer a penalty. Men may live a more peaceful life if they follow that law, but God no longer commands the Jews nor any other human to keep that law. It cannot be kept any ways. The rich young man kept all the law yet was unwilling to give up his lifestyle to follow Jesus. It was not the law that was holding him back, it was his lifestyle choice that held him back.

Why is it hard to accept that evil never originated? Where does darkness originate from? Is there an orb of energy that releases darkness that diminishes the light from a room? Usually there is a light source and the brighter that source the farther away is the darkness. Free will and sin and disobedience is a thought process and decision making done in the minds of humans. Making the wrong choices do not condemn you. Making good choices do not keep you from being condemned. Not making a choice does not do anything either. If God reveals the light to you, and you choose darkness, then you are condemned. If you have no light, then you are already condemned because you are in the darkness. Now that may be a harsh concept, but that is a just concept and your question about evil has been answered and your next question should be; "Why does God's justice condemn humans without nothing to say in the matter? No one has an excuse, unless they can not tell the light from the darkness.

If heaven and hell aren't recorded because they were created prior to man, why are the first five days of the Creation week documented?

Yeah, sure. 4 would have made it a lot simpler, right? But it was His will to make it pi.

Or it could just be, you know... An inherent property of circles. It's not like the value is a sliding scale; the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is pi; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a circle.

Is that what the "I am the alpha and I am the omega" comes from (not exact words but paraphrased)

God started the ball rolling and God will stop the ball from rolling. An infinite circle is just has hard to grasp as a flat earth? Hmm.

Time is a relative concept that only allows mankind to conceive of the absence of God. Why does evolution need time? Because time is a curse and men are subject to it and it is very easy to use it to refute God. Unfortunetly it is hard to tell when time starts and when time stops because it is relative. If we lived in another galaxy would we relate to time the same way? Would it not be determined by what proximation there is from the sun? If there were two suns? If there were no moons? Time is relative. What if we lived in a system that had no time? How would that work? would every thing be perfect?

If heaven and hell aren't recorded because they were created prior to man, why are the first five days of the Creation week documented?

Hell was a place to put satan in, and has nothing to do with man's creation. Now when satan was cast out of heaven, it could have been the void of earth before creation. That is speculation though. God did not say that Adam sinned on day 8. It never says when Adam sinned, but that he did. Going back to time. Can a perfect Adam live in a perfect world and have perfect offspring before time existed? Can this offspring have left the garden and settled elseware? Could these not be the sons of God destroyed in the Flood? Maybe Adam was not the Father, maybe God created multiple Adams. That still does not change the fact that Adam sinned and humanity as we know it is cursed.

Genesis and the other four books of Moses was God's history as recorded to the Jews and His relationship to them. Did He overlook all other cultures and choose one special one? It seems that way. Do I know why? If I did, I could solve the Palestinian nightmare.

How far from a bright light do you have to be to have darkness?What is the price of fiberplastic in Port Romance?
Are there intermediate stages of "grey"?Yes.
Evil is not an object.Colour me flabbergasted.
Evil is the distance from the light.No, Evil is a social construct. Illumination has nothing to do with it.
When someone does something wrong to another person, they are not offending a third party.That's not entirely true, since that's where empathy comes in. I bet you have heard of empathy.
It is a matter between the doer and the receiver.And anyone who has the ability to be empathic.
When a person brakes a law are they an evil doer or a lawbraker?When someone asks impossible questions, do they think they're being smart?
You cannot call someone evil for not picking up something you dropped on the ground and are unable to pick up your self, you would just be inconvenienced if they refuse.According to the Evil is absence of Good malarkey, not being Evil is the presence of Good, so not picking something up is Good.
There is no law broken if they choose not to pick up the object.Unless there are littering laws broken, a clever lawyer might sure for aiding a criminal.
There is very little kindness shown for choosing to help you out.The twenty-fifth of December!
Evil is not doing something wrong or failing to do something right. Evil happens when the light is changed to darkness.Every day is a good day!
Is it evil when a woman chooses to end a conception.It is when it's not hers.
How could good men allow evil to happen.There's a quote involving religion that seems to the point here.
It is a choice and to me it is a "wrong" choice.Evil is the wrong choice.
Did God command that individual to not make that choice?I cannot answer that.
I cannot answer that.Common ground!
Only the woman making the choice can do so.She was there.
The Jews lived under a law given by God and it had consequences.Wait. Jews?
When Christ died, He released the Jews from those consequences.Rice in bowl, water in pail!
[musical intermezzo]
Why is it hard to accept that evil never originated?Because one day it wasn't there (Creation -1) and somewhere along the line it appeared. I want to know the entrance.
Where does darkness originate from?The beginning of the Universe, whenever that may be, and alternatively if other theories are right it has always been there.
Is there an orb of energy that releases darkness that diminishes the light from a room?Don't be silly.
Usually there is a light source and the brighter that source the farther away is the darkness.That's a nice analogy. I have one as well. Good is Custard and Hunger is Evil. Draw whichever conclusion you want from that.
Free will and sin and disobedience is a thought process and decision making done in the minds of humans.And they require options to chose from.

If you have no light, then you are already condemned because you are in the darkness. Now that may be a harsh concept, but that is a just concept and your question about evil has been answeredNo. No it hasn't. It hasn't even come close. All you did was: Good is light, Evil is Darkness. That's not answering my question. That is you asking me to trust you in that comparison on faith. I can counter that easily by saying: no it isn't. And I will have provided as much insight in those 3 words as you did in that entire uninformative post which took you a lot of effort to make, which I do appreciate although I realise it doesn't sound like it from my replies I really do appreciate the effort which is why I am repaying you the favour here by also making an effort to make an extensive reply. But you might as well have said : Good = light, Evil = darkness ... hey presto!

But that doesn't mean you have explained anything ... at all.

and your next question should be; "Why does God's justice condemn humans without nothing to say in the matter?"Well, it wasn't. Sorry.
No one has an excuse, unless they can not tell the light from the darkness.Light, darkness. This always happens. Listen closely:

An analogy is great for illustrating a point, they can be very useful for this purpose. An analogy can not be used as the point or to substitute a point.

I do not accept that the properties of Light and Darkness can be used to substitute the social constructs of Good and Evil. Maybe I should put my money where my mouth is and answer the question myself as I see it. Not being very schooled in the matter, I might get this wrong, but enough clever people here to correct me.

Good and Evil originated when Humans started forming societies. The most basic principles, don't kill each other, kill people from other tribes instead. Don't steal from each other, steal from other tribes instead, don't help the other tribe, help your own tribe instead, evolved because it was bleeding obvious to the people who relied on each other to be successful. They didn't rely on other tribes so ef 'em. This is how Good and Evil originated. Or Evil and Good if you look at it from the perspective of the other tribe.

Allow me to illustrate my point with an analogy. If I give to charity I do Good. If I don't I am apathetic, but not Evil. If I steal from charity I am Evil.

Another one. Animals don't have the awareness to create a moral system, but going by your definition they're Evil because of the absence of Good.

And I thought Atheists were misguided. It seems I was misguided on that notion as well, since it seems we're Evil. "Bwhuhahaha" and such.

While "Not giving to charity" isn't really an action, the lack of compassion going into that might be sin in the first place.

That said, there are certainly "Morally neutral" actions, at least IMO.

@Peter grimes- Its just my opinion, but if Christ was God's only Son, and he died for all humanity, who died to save the aliens?

See the logical problem?

While "Not giving to charity" isn't really an action, the lack of compassion going into that might be sin in the first place.

That said, there are certainly "Morally neutral" actions, at least IMO.I feel like hugging you now.

@Peter grimes- Its just my opinion, but if Christ was God's only Son, and he died for all humanity, who died to save the aliens?

If God created aliens, then they're 'covered' by the whole Jesus business in the same way, since he died for all creation, not just us - that would be very selfish, after all.

@Peter grimes- Its just my opinion, but if Christ was God's only Son, and he died for all humanity, who died to save the aliens?

See the logical problem?
Who knows if aliens ever sinned, or were saved in another way? The bible never says anything on that matter, but that doesn't have to mean anything. It's only meant for humans, after all.

One could also solve that problem by accepting the bible as false, but that's beside the scope of this thread.

If God created aliens, then they're 'covered' by the whole Jesus business in the same way, since he died for all creation, not just us - that would be very selfish, after all.
Stupid aliens, had one of us die for their salvation! :mad:

Who knows if aliens ever sinned, or were saved in another way? The bible never says anything on that matter, but that doesn't have to mean anything. It's only meant for humans, after all.

Indeed, which is why I didn't say its absolutely false. The idea still doesn't sit well with me.

And yeah, in this thread from the perspective of answering it is assumed the Bible is true.

Or it could just be, you know... An inherent property of circles. It's not like the value is a sliding scale; the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is pi; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a circle.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Is pi, "the inherent property of circles," a value independent of God or determined by God? Is it something even God is limited by?

That's kind of what I was getting at. Is pi, "the inherent property of circles," a value independent of God or determined by God? Is it something even God is limited by?

Well, God can do anything that's possible. Therefore he can't create a square circle or a rock that He can't lift, because such things are impossible.

I think that's an interesting question in general, even without God entering the equation (pun not intended).

We could live in non-Euclidean space for example.

Yeah, my question wasn't whether you thought there was intelligent ET life. It was asking about the implications of if we discovered evidence for intelligent ET life.

@ Ziggy,

Thanks for the reply, common ground. I never said that Good = Light. Now God may equal Good, and Good may equal light; thus God = Good and Good = light. IT DOES NOT.

God is light and God is just. Justice is not good for every party involved. It is only good for the offended and the empathic (depending on which party is being empathized).

You are right that Good is a human construct to make us feel better. Since there is no God, then there can never be a Good = light. I am pretty sure there are Hitler's who would see darkness = good and light = evil. Or both = Good, and there is no evil.

*assumes all answers given imply there is a God*

The Jews were the only civilized society given direct commands from God how to maintain their society. They failed miserably.

No one can live by God's standards unless God is doing the "living". It is true that men can create societies of "peace". It is also true of "war". * thinks of latest commercial about the publisher liking the "war" part and deciding not to publish the "peace" part of Leo Tolstoy's novel. *

So evil originates in a thought every time a person chooses a path that leads to something that other's would consider evil. No, satan does not place those thoughts, although some of the bigger one's in history may be acredited to him.

God declared that He was light and without Him there would be darkness. It was recorded that there was darkness when Jesus died on the Cross. God allowed Jesus to die as justice, and withdrew His Presence at that very moment.

Evil and darkness creep in where there is no light. Not where there is "no Goodness". Jesus fulfilled the greatest act of humankind when He died in their place. No other act of Goodness is as great and that act did not prevent justice and darkness. So yes, men can choose to be Good to each other, and they can choose to be evil. But only God can prevent or allow darkness or evil to get out of hand (justice).

1) Is it ok for adults to sleep with night lights?

2) What do you tell a child who is afraid of the boogeyman? Do you tell him/her there is no boogeyman under the bed, or do you say that the boogeyman is real?

1) Is it ok for adults to sleep with night lights?

2) What do you tell a child who is afraid of the boogeyman? Do you tell him/her there is no boogeyman under the bed, or do you say that the boogeyman is real?

:confused: what does that have to do with Christianity?

:confused: what does that have to do with Christianity?

It's a slightly obnoxious attempt at an allegory.

Only slightly?

One thing's for certain, I'm not getting through. What are the moral implications of a stroboscope?

A pox on the house of those who abuse analogies and disgrace this wonderful linguistic tool.

I think I've asked this before without getting an answer I particularly felt satisfied with.

If you have studied any other religion besides your own, did you ever find:

1) Something absent from your religion that you now incorporated in some way into your own philosophy?

2) Something that you may disagree with, but also found beautiful?

3) Something that changed your mind or (maybe less extreme) gave you a different point of view on a belief you hold?

4) Something that made you sad? (I'll leave this one vague(-er) I suppose)

I feel like hugging you now.

That is quite shocking.

If heaven and hell aren't recorded because they were created prior to man, why are the first five days of the Creation week documented?

Hmm, I don't know. My best guess would be that God thought this important enough to impart to whoever wrote Genesis.


On an unrelated note, does it help when I say "I don't know?" Because honestly, some of these questions I don't have answers for. I can only theorize.

1) Something absent from your religion that you now incorporated in some way into your own philosophy?

Nope.

2) Something that you may disagree with, but also found beautiful?
Possibly, I can't recall any specific things.

3) Something that changed your mind or (maybe less extreme) gave you a different point of view on a belief you hold?
Nope.

4) Something that made you sad? (I'll leave this one vague(-er) I suppose)
I have no clue how to answer this. No?

I think I've asked this before without getting an answer I particularly felt satisfied with.

If you have studied any other religion besides your own, did you ever find:

1) Something absent from your religion that you now incorporated in some way into your own philosophy?

2) Something that you may disagree with, but also found beautiful?

3) Something that changed your mind or (maybe less extreme) gave you a different point of view on a belief you hold?

4) Something that made you sad? (I'll leave this one vague(-er) I suppose)

If I had a religion, I may compare it to others. Actually there are quite a lot of avatars here in OT that have helped to shape my own world view quite nicely. Especially those who care to hold an inteligent conversation, or not.

@Ziggy

If one were to take Genesis 1 literally, at what point does the allegory stop and begin? It is not logical to have light before "physical" light. God is not physical light. God is not even "human's" definition of Good. Saying God is Good is an allegory to show what Good is. Good is a pronoun describing creation as perfect. Satan does not think that God is Good. Satan thinks that he is better than God.

The tree was called the knowledge of Good and Evil. If something is not known, can it exist? God was not Good in creating a perfect creation. God just created something and called it Good. Adam was perfect and did not even know that he was Good. Adam was perfect and knew nothing of Evil. Where did Evil exist? Satan was not Evil. Is Pride Evil?

Adam disobeyed God, and not in an allegorical way. Nothing was demanded of him "constricting" his way of life. If anything it curtailed his curiosity, at least it did Eve's. What Good would the knowledge of Evil provide? What Good would the knowledge of Good provide? Seems the only thing that could come of disobeying was gaining the knowledge of Evil. Now God knew what would produce Evil, or He would not have put the tree in the Garden. Yes "eating" produced the knowledge into the human psyche and the curse was now having to live with "Evil" (without God) without God's help. Disobeying God was not evil, nor the origination of Evil. It did allow human thought though to make more decisions that would produce Evil results. Evil is not a noun, but a descriptive term. It can be used as a noun, but if anything, the only time it was a noun was when it was a tree. God is in physical darkness, but the darkness (without God) would not be evil, it would just be where God is not. If any thing it would be the unknown (lack of knowledge).

"I don't know" seems to be the acceptable answer. If God reveals Himself and the darkness is dispersed, then it would follow that knowledge would be gained. Now we have heard of the grace of the unknown. If God has not revealed Himself, that is also grace. Where there is no knowledge of Good and Evil, there may be innocence. There does come a point in every inteligent self aware human that there is more than himself and thus knowledge is gained. God allows for blindness, but He makes no allowance for unjustice.

Make a succinct post without light and darkness, then we'll talk.

On an unrelated note, does it help when I say "I don't know?" Because honestly, some of these questions I don't have answers for. I can only theorize.
That's perfectly fine. I ask these questions because when people come from a position of absolute, unchanging, Truth with a capital T, you'd think they have all the answers.

That's perfectly fine. I ask these questions because when people come from a position of absolute, unchanging, Truth with a capital T, you'd think they have all the answers.

Ha, I would think so too. Unfortunately, it is completely impossible for anybody (excluding God, because He is omniscient) to know everything.

It's also a shame that the world's best history book (according to Classical Hero) doesn't bother to mention when or why Satan was created or when heaven, hell and the angels came into existence, especially when they're key parts of the Bible's theology apparently.

I'd certainly call it the world most amazing historical book. It's value in that regard is priceless.

It's also a shame that the world's best history book (according to Classical Hero) doesn't bother to mention when or why Satan was created or when heaven, hell and the angels came into existence, especially when they're key parts of the Bible's theology apparently.
Understood. They are talked about (Revelation is all about heaven and hell), but there is no origin point.
I'd certainly call it the world most amazing historical book. It's value in that regard is priceless.
Yes. A hundred times, yes.

It's also a shame that the world's best history book (according to Classical Hero) doesn't bother to mention when or why Satan was created or when heaven, hell and the angels came into existence, especially when they're key parts of the Bible's theology apparently.

Slight correction, Satan (And by extent, his demons) weren't created, Lucifer was created as the head of the angels, and the demons were also created as angels, but Lucifer chose to rebel, and some angels went through them.* While you might argue some humans die ignorant (Which is true to a certain degree) Satan and his ilk were fully aware what they were getting into, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to feel bad for them. He's going to burn, as he deserves.

*I know this section is in the Bible somewhere, but I don't remember the reference(s)

I think its mentioned in Revelation somewhere.

"The Heavens" were created on the second day. While this most obviously refers to space and the atmosphere, I see no reason it couldn't refer to the Heaven God is in as well.

I don't know when Hell was created, only who it was created for, "The Devil and his angels." When God created Hell, he never intended for man to go there. He intended for the Devil and his angels to go there. So, while I'm inferring and don't have an actual text to back me up, I'd assume Hell was created some time between Satan's rebellion and the Fall of Man.

Where does purgatory fit into modern Christianity? I always figured that purgatory existed as a sort of waiting room for people who had sinned a bit but not mortally enough for hell. However I recently finished reading the Divine Comedy and it described Dante and Virgil traversing the inferno, going through purgatory and finally reaching paradise suggesting that even in the afterlife you can save yourself. But I simply never hear purgatory being brought up as though it's a slightly redundant concept these days.

"The Heavens" were created on the second day. While this most obviously refers to space and the atmosphere, I see no reason it couldn't refer to the Heaven God is in as well. Doesn't he create the Heaven & the Earth in the beginning?

And the heaven he creates on the second day is described as something to split the waters from the something or other and creates the sky. It's even called sky I think.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.1:6 to 1:8. The waters are separated and one of the waters becomes the water while the other one of the waters becomes the sky.

Then all the water gathered and dry ground appeared.

Makes perfect sense. As Classical says, you don't get closer to accurate and elaborate historical reporting.

Make a succinct post without light and darkness, then we'll talk.

That may be impossible since God calls Himself light and those without knowledge will be cast into everlasting darkness.

That was not an answer to your non question, but I will do my best.

Seems to me an unquenchable fire is not a fire especially when it does not burn that which is on fire. To desribe the sun, you would not use the word fire. Since God is light outside the sun and does not burn natural things, and He only describes Himself as a Spirit, then any further reference to describing God will imply that we have no concept of His LIGHT as a description of His light and darkness. Knowledge is just God revealing Himself to us.

So from now on we will skip the first day of creation and focus on the other 5 days? Sorta like skipping the bing bang and how it formed and moving on to the actual evolving part? It is sorta funny how Sheldon is a "believer"?

Where does purgatory fit into modern Christianity? I always figured that purgatory existed as a sort of waiting room for people who had sinned a bit but not mortally enough for hell. However I recently finished reading the Divine Comedy and it described Dante and Virgil traversing the inferno, going through purgatory and finally reaching paradise suggesting that even in the afterlife you can save yourself. But I simply never hear purgatory being brought up as though it's a slightly redundant concept these days.

1. Purgatory is predominantely a Catholic thing, and it is a Catholic dogma, which all Catholics must believe. IIRC some Orthodox and Anglicans believe in it, but its very rare for a full-Protestant (Except NickyJ;)) to believe in it, and I don't think I've ever heard of an Evangelical who accepted it. So, you'd be better off asking about it in Ask a Catholic. As to how it fits, to me it doesn't.

2. Catholics don't consider the Divine Comedy authoritative (Purgatory is dogmatized elsewhere) so it can be wrong in Catholic theology.

3. According to orthodox Evangelical theology, death is the end and then you get judged. As the Bible says "It is appointed to man once to die, and then judgment." I am willing to entertain the possibility that those who never had a real chance to accept Christ (Infants who die, those with severe mental problems and so can't comprehend, and the unevangelized) might be able to make a more definite decision after death, but that's just speculation and not actually supported Biblically (Probably so that we wouldn't just refuse to follow the Great Commission and hope the ignorant could be saved after death:lol:). Even still, I definitely don't think anyone who had the gospel clearly shared with them could ever have a second chance after they die. And Jesus states in no uncertain terms those who "Do not believe" are condemned.

4. ANY sin is "Mortal" enough to send us to Hell. I know James mentions "Mortal" sin, or "Sin leading to death" but I think that's talking about blasphemy of the Spirit, which can't be forgiven. Any other sin can be forgiven, but still needs forgiveness, if you even tell a white lie you have offended God and deserve torment). If you ask what "Blasphemy of the Spirit" is, I really don't know, all I know is any man who asks forgiveness will be forgiven, so to blaspheme the Spirit, you'd need to be hard-hearted to the point where you would never really repent.

That may be impossible since God calls Himself light and those without knowledge will be cast into everlasting darkness.

That was not an answer to your non question, but I will do my best.

Seems to me an unquenchable fireFire.

Right. Fire.

Fire.

Right. Fire.

Fire and eternal darkness do seem like metaphors, but two counter-points.

1. Theoretically, God could make it work, and its not hard to imagine. Perhaps invisible fire that still burns? Its a stretch, but not a huge one.

2. It doesn't matter, since I believe its a metaphor anyway. The fire isn't literal, its a dramatic metaphor of the burning in the hearts of the condemned, caused by eternal separation from God. Eternal darkness, I feel, is the same, a dramatic metaphor of the emptiness of life without God.

Never mind, Thanks all for explaining that thing about the originating thing. Darkness and stuff. 'preciate it.

When properly translated, Genesis 1:1 is not a complete sentence. It does not speak of a completed action, but merely indicates the timing of the next verse. A more literal translation of Genesis 1:1-2 says "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, the Earth existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the abyss, and the spirit of God hovering over the surface of the waters..."


Hebrew makes no distinction between the words heaven and sky. Most languages don't. The term heaven in the supernatural sense is sort of metaphorical, denoting "higher things." The abode of God and the angels could still be counted among the heavens mentioned in Genesis 1 though.



The term Hell properly means "concealed." It is used to translated Sheol, meaning ""the pit" or "the grave, " and Hades, meaning "unseen." (While we tend to think of Hades as the mythological world of departed souls, the word also referred to the very physical subterranean regions where people dug mines to acquire mineral wealth.) They all refer primarily to the region of the Earth just below the surface, where dead bodies would generally be buried. (Those buried at sea are mentioned separately from those arising from Hades when Revelation describes the Resurrection.) As such, "hell" was literally created when the rest of the earth was. In the sense of being where the dead go when they die, what started once people started burying their dead. The book of Ecclesiastes seems to say that those who are dead and buried in "hell" do not have any sort of consciousness. Both the righteous and the wicked alike are described as going here while awaiting the bodily resurrection of the next age. More mainstream Evangelicals disagree with this though.


That which is prepared for Satan and his angels is not hell, but "the Lake of Fire, which is the second death." I don't see much reason to think that this has been created yet. The verse immediately before the Lake of Fire is first mentioned describes fire coming down from God out of heaven to devour those seduced by Satan. It seems reasonable to assume that those flames and the lake of fire are the same, and that it shall not be created until after the end of millennium of Christ's reign, when Satan shall be freed from the Abyss to again deceive the nations.


II Peter 2:4 contains a simple mention of "Tartaroo," a prison for fallen angles bound in chains of thick gloom while awaiting judgement. This is a misspelling of the Greek term for the mythological region below Hades, where the deposed titans and the most wicked of all mortals are tortured mercilessly. This is in a book that many modern scholars consider to be a second century forgery. It is often thought this verse is a reference to the Nephilim who in Jewish folklore sired sons by mortals, contaminating the human gene pool and providing an alternate (and thoroughly racist) explanation of the origin of evil that is not really compatible with what Christ taught.





The Divine Comedy is a work of fiction, and it borrows far more from Pagan Antiquity than it does from genuine Christian doctrines. Dante is believed to have intended it to be an allegory of the soul's journey to grow closer to Gad in this life rather than an accurate or authoritative description of the world to come. It never had church approval, and has been considered by some to be quite heterodox. It is of no real value in establishing Christian doctrines on the afterlife.

Purgatory literally means "pertaining to purification." In a broad sense, it could be said that this world serves as a purgatory for believers as it here that we repent and work to emulate Christ. However the term generally refers to a very much Catholic notion, which most protestants and especially Evangelicals reject entirely. (The Orthodox also reject it, although it can be argued that they really accept purgatory and reject hell.)

In Patristic times, it was generally believed that the spirits of the dead dwelt in Hades while awaiting the Bodily Resurrection of the last days, and the Last Judgement. They were generally considered conscious in some way, but not much emphasis was placed on what they experience. Views ranged from a shadowy almost-nothingness, to a strong foretaste of one's final fate. A few rare Saints and Martyrs were considered special enough to be granted the Beatific Vision early, and to dwell with God in Heaven. Note that this is still only a temporary heaven though, a place for the righteous to await the resurrection in divine bliss. Gradually (especially in the West) Hades came to be viewed more and as a hellish place of torment, and more emphasis was placed on the Particular Judgement to determine where the spirit will wait for Last Judgement than on Last Judgement. Purgatory was invented so that we wouldn't have to think that those not yet quite holy enough for heaven were suffering unending torment. It is very much like how the Orthodox still view hell/hades. The difference is that to Catholics, everyone in Purgatory will certainly make it to heaven eventually while those in hell will not, whereas to (most) Orthodox those in Hades will have a chance to be saved but some will still choose to reject God. The only (deutero-cannonical) verse quoted as supporting the doctrine of purgatory doesn't actually support purgatory at all, but merely says that it was considered pious to pray that God grant mercy to the dead at the time of Last Judgement and the Resurrection. It would make even more sense if there was only Last Judgement rather than Particular Judgement of the dead.


Most Evangelicals tend to oversimplify things, conflating the temporary abodes with eternal fates or at least not maintaining a particularly clear a distinction at all times. They seem to put too much weight on Particular Judgement, and accept only the options of heaven or hell immediately after death. There is however a quickly growing minority of evangelicals (more in Britain than the US) who adhere instead to the doctrine of Conditional Immortality and Soul Sleep (which generally, but not always, go together), which doesn't leave much room for purgatory either.

That which is prepared for Satan and his angels is not hell, but "the Lake of Fire, which is the second death." I don't see much reason to think that this has been created yet.

Technically true, Hell is technically what I and most Evangelicals normally call "Hades" and is the temporary abode of the dead. "The Lake of Fire" is the proper name of what most Evangelicals call Hell.

However, its not an overly important point, just a technical one.

@MC, That's quite interesting. Thanks!

-j8ZMMuu7MU

How much of that applies to you? Do you think not believing in god is the same as rejection?

First off, I don't hate atheists.

Second off, at 4:15, it just goes off into wacko land. A lot of that stuff is not what Christianity is about. It may seem like that from the outside, but trust me (I know, tough) it ain't.

Third:
It was a very interesting and thought-provoking video. I would like to address and then digress the unfortunate "Christians" who do behave the way those facebook commenters behaved. I would never behave that way. If I did, you might as well call me a hypocrite, because guess what?! Those people are!

They are not showing true Christian love! A true Christian would love the atheist, and try to bring them towards God.

A relationship with God is TRUSTING THAT GOD EXISTS, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE HIM.

If I brought someone to the Lord through my convincing arguments, what has that accomplished?! Nothing! They believe in God only (likely) because they now agree with the thought progression! That is not true faith! True faith is trusting that God exists!

Hebrews 11:1, one of the most profound verses in the Bible says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Trusting in something that you can't see sounds really stupid, right?
But you believe the wind exists. Why? You feel it. You see its effects. Yet you cannot "see" the wind. Just the same, only a very few chosen people have ever been able to see God. The likelihood of God coming to you and saying, "Hey, I exist. Believe." and you doing so, are quite slim. This is because God wants you to come to Him, to make a conscious decision to trust Him, that He exists. Because guess what? He does. And He loves you. And He wants you to love Him. And there is so much more, my friends. So very much more. It is much deeper than this.


My hope and prayer is that through this, we can help you see the light (I know you hate that Ziggy). "God is light, in Him there is no darkness at all."

I hope god brings some SPF 30. I burn easily.